Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Marine Stuns a Tea Party With the Second Verse of the Star Spangled Banner
Youtube ^

Posted on 11/11/2010 8:25:24 PM PST by pelican001

So much for being a secular nation with Karl Marx's "separation of Chruch and State."


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

1 posted on 11/11/2010 8:25:26 PM PST by pelican001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: pelican001

“”Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thru the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream:
Tis the star-spangled banner: O, long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps’ pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

O, thus be it ever when freemen shall stand,
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!””


2 posted on 11/11/2010 8:30:04 PM PST by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pelican001

It is such a beautiful video and so good to see people who still hunger for liberty and those who have already served our country in the military, serve to remind us once again.


3 posted on 11/11/2010 8:32:10 PM PST by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pelican001

WOW! I think this out to be mandatory at any place where the Anthem is sung.

For all four stanzas:

http://www.usa-flag-site.org/song-lyrics/star-spangled-banner.shtml

and if you want a little history about them, each stanza is explained:

http://www.purewatergazette.net/asimov.htm


4 posted on 11/11/2010 8:35:13 PM PST by Ruth C
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pelican001

Wow! That was awesome!

Thank you!


5 posted on 11/11/2010 8:37:08 PM PST by ConfidentConservative (I think, therefore I am conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pelican001
I happen to love the Star Spangled Banner, and have sung it (at least, the first verse) outside my home where my large Ol' Glory waves for all to see. I love my Country with all my heart.

So don't get me wrong here, but I must correct something you wrote:

> So much for being a secular nation with Karl Marx's "separation of Chruch and State."

Please check your understanding of American History.

That phrase originated with the third U.S. President, Thomas Jefferson, in 1802, in a private letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The phrase does not appear in the Constitution (nor Declaration of Independence), and it is most certainly not attributable to Karl Marx. Jefferson's sentence containing the phrase is:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
He was speaking of the First Amendment's prohibition against Congress getting in the way of religious freedom. The "separation" was for the protection of religious freedom.

I respectfully suggest that you read up a bit on this topic; I think you'll find it interesting.

Best FRegards,
Dayglored

6 posted on 11/11/2010 8:47:32 PM PST by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dayglored
He was writing to Baptists, and it was the Baptist notion of a “wall of separation” that he intented. A wall or hedge to keep government out of the affairs of the Church, church being what the Baptists understood as much. The modern construction of separation of a separation is more like” a free church in a free state,” which wants the state to be free of all religious influence even though all society is permeated by it. Philosopher kings govern the state and religion is allowed simply a concession to the ignorance of the society it rules.
7 posted on 11/11/2010 9:11:43 PM PST by RobbyS (Pray with the suffering souls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: pelican001

That Marine has one hell of a set of pipes.


8 posted on 11/11/2010 9:19:08 PM PST by HighWheeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
> The modern construction of separation of a separation is more like” a free church in a free state,” which wants the state to be free of all religious influence even though all society is permeated by it.

Well, I have a problem with the "modern construction", insofar as it endeavors to actively deny the influence of religion on our Constitutional government. It is perfectly clear that the principles underlying the Constitution relied on notions from the Judeo-Christian scripture, as well as English common law and other European laws and traditions.

And yet the Founders were wise to ensure that their new Constitution did not allow the federal government to interfere in the matters of religion, or impose their particular religious preferences on the citizens of the new Nation. Recall that at the time of the Founding, a number of the colonies had official State Religions. It was crucial for the success of the new federal government that it stay out of the states' rights to self-determination with regard to religion.

A federal government that "makes no law regarding an establishment of religion" may (IMO) still recognize and acknowledge various religions. That is where the modern secular construction has gone astray, as I see it.

9 posted on 11/11/2010 9:28:56 PM PST by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dayglored

Where it has gone astray is that it has imported foreign ideas. John Dewey is forgotten but he had enormous influence on our society, because his ideas are propogated by the public schools. he began as a Hegelian, and then abandoned any notion of the “Absolute.” Yet for him the democratic state is kind of put in place of it, and “democracy” becomes a means to an end. He stands at the very end of the New England Puritan tradition, but heavily influenced by German idealism.


10 posted on 11/11/2010 9:40:28 PM PST by RobbyS (Pray with the suffering souls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dayglored; RobbyS
"regarding" => "respecting"

Brain fart.

11 posted on 11/11/2010 9:43:57 PM PST by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
I found, while researching to construct a suitable comment in reply to yours, that I don't know enough about Dewey, and must learn more. So I'm afraid that for now, I'll have to simply thank your for your thoughtful insight, and then go off and do some reading.

I appreciate the philosophical tip, and hope you have a good evening!

Best FRegards,
Dayglored

12 posted on 11/11/2010 10:01:57 PM PST by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

The last verse is my very favorite.


13 posted on 11/11/2010 10:43:44 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pelican001
The headline couldn't be more misleading. It infers the Tea Party was Stunned by some hitherto unknown verse of the National Anthem. Even the singer has it wrong. There are not two stanzas of the Star Spangled Banner, there are four. His awesome performance is of the FOURTH stanza, not the second. Last year I was asked to speak and lead a prayer at our church's Vet's Day service. I challenged the gathered to go home and find out what the fourth verse had to say about separation of church and state. I am grateful to hear this Marine sing it, because reading the text, I couldn't fit it in to the tune. That's the best part of this video!
14 posted on 11/11/2010 11:05:26 PM PST by j_tull (I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dayglored
The Baptists were bitching that the Congregationalists were trying to move in on “their” territory and were asking for government sanction to show the Congregationalists the door. This letter was Jefferson's refusal and rationale for the refusal of the Baptist's request. Despite what the left wants to believe, there is neither implication nor inference of a right of “freedom from religion to exist in to the tiniest extent in my universe”
15 posted on 11/11/2010 11:13:47 PM PST by j_tull (I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

thx for posting the entire text


16 posted on 11/11/2010 11:15:32 PM PST by j_tull (I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: j_tull
> Despite what the left wants to believe, there is neither implication nor inference of a right of “freedom from religion to exist in to the tiniest extent in my universe”

On their own property, a citizen can have pretty much any religion they please, or none if they please, as long as they obey the applicable law with regard to behavior. The federal government can't force them either way.

But neither can the left excise every last vestige of religion from publicly-funded life. That's just so contrary to the intent of the Founders, it boggles my mind.

17 posted on 11/11/2010 11:24:44 PM PST by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: pelican001

Thank You


18 posted on 11/12/2010 12:03:47 AM PST by funfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dayglored

We agree in this. And I hope we can agree as well that your
opine can easily be affirmed in the Commentaries of Joseph Story,son of one of the “indians” of the Boston Tea Party,
appointed to the US supreme Court ,by James Madison,Author of Commentaries on the US Constitution that even today are recognized by Constitutional scholars as reflecting “original intent”, memorialized in the permanent display of the US supreme court building as few American lawmakers were, forgotten by the American people —IT was the general if not
universal sentiment in America when the Amendment under consideration (the first) was adopted -that Christianity ought receive encouragement from the State.... an attempt to
level all religions or to make it a matter of State policy to hold all in utter indifference would have met with universal disapprobation if not universal indignation. With
appologies to the more eloquent Mr.Joseph Story.


19 posted on 11/12/2010 4:50:50 AM PST by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pelican001

________________VERY NICE_________________ !!!!!


20 posted on 11/12/2010 5:04:02 AM PST by dennisw (- - - -He who does not economize will have to agonize - - - - - Confucius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson