We removed the fourth verse of the song "America" from the recent music textbooks.

National Public Radio - Your Turn Discussion Group ^ | August 25, 2003 | Phil Stinson

[StACase]

Phil Stinson - 08:56pm Aug 24, 2003 EDT 458
Carpe Carpium

I'm a teacher and also a member of a national commitee of school textbook consultants. We removed the fourth verse of the song "America" from the recent music textbooks.

The first verse was fine.
"My country, 'tis of thee
Sweet land of liberty
of thee I sing..."

The fourth verse says
"Our Father's God, to Thee
Author of liberty, to Thee we sing.
Long may our land be bright,
with feedom's Holy light,
Protect us by Thy might, Our God, our King."

That verse was deemed unsuitable and requiring students to read and sing it a travesty and a clear violation of the separation of church and state. It's "outa" here, as it should be. It's not in the new textbooks. I'm happy and proud to have been a part of that national decision.

[vannrox]

.


"...The State governments possess inherent advantages, which will ever give them an influence and ascendancy over the National Government, and will for ever preclude the possibility of federal encroachments. That their liberties, indeed, can be subverted by the federal head, is repugnant to every rule of political calculation..."

Alexander Hamilton, speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, June 17, 1788


.

[hellinahandcart]

If they removed every mention of Allah from "1001 Arabian Nights", it would be a much shorter book with greatly-reduced literary and historical value. See?

What am I saying, that book probably isn't in school libraries anymore either. Too sexist. Poor Scheherezade babbling away at her mean patriarchal husband for three years with a sword over her head...

[goldstategop]

The Bible is a chauvinist, racist, sexist, nationalist, and fundamentalist book. It has got to go!!!

[Maelstrom]

See here.

Like I've told you all along, it's about the censorhip of religion.

And quite clearly as demonstrated by this bit as well as the events in Alabama, it's about anti-religious bigotry, not some imagined offence by the people placing things with biblical themes in public.

[hellinahandcart]

"Romeo and Juliet", we can't have that. Reinforces the notion that women are chattel.

And there's a Roman Catholic friar in there too, given far too much importance in the story. A clear violation of the separation between church and state explicitly called for in our constitution.

The play promotes heterosexuality, thus it excludes other equally-valid lifestyle options. It is not inclusive or multi-cultural.

Worst of all, there is no indication that Romeo and Juliet practiced safe sex on their wedding night. Young couples should always be shown having mature and serious dicussions about disease prevention before they have sex.

[Jeff Head]

But it wasn't written about "Allah" was it Henk.

The founders of this nation did not come here to butcher people and compel them to worship "Allah"...they came to worship God according to the dictates of their hearts and when they got together as a nation, they allowed all people to worship God as they saw fit...and also insure that the Government did not establish a "State" religion like the Church of England.

That's what this is about Henk...the way Allah is generally worshiped and advanced politically in MUslim nations would be the anti-thesis of that and based on the history of the song and the people who inspired its writing, your statement (I can't even call it an arguement) is completely misplaced, out of contect and meaningless to the discussion.

[OXENinFLA]

Good book.

[VOYAGER]

That verse was deemed unsuitable and requiring students to read and sing it a travesty and a clear violation of the separation of church and state. It's "outa" here, as it should be. It's not in the new textbooks. I'm happy and proud to have been a part of that national decision.

Like the queers and lesbians these intellectual homo elites prefer their "vice versa".

[sweetliberty]

God is deeply ingrained in the soul of America and was from the very beginning. There is evidence in all of our laws and early public buildings which testifies to the intent of the founders. The ACLU is an organization rooted in Communism and the democRAT party has aligned itself with these same godless ideals over the course of the last 50 or 60 years and are determined to bring the rest of us around to thier "enlightened" views, for our own good of course.

Here is a great article that highlights the absurdity of their position and its end result in light of history:

Ten Commandments on Display Has No Legal Standing

[hellinahandcart]

All those scenes in "The Good Earth" about appealing to the gentle goddess Kwan Yin...they've got to go, regardless of what it does to the characters' actions and motivations, and to the plot...it is RELIGION and a horrifying thing to inflict on malleable young minds. Even by only showing them printed text.

Oh, and the wife was a former slave, too. That might offend people. Thumbs down on "The Good Earth".

[agrace]

Well said.

[sweetliberty]

"The founders of this nation did not come here to butcher people and compel them to worship "Allah"

Bad example. While I agree with the premise of your argument, there are, in fact, many examples of early settlers in this country, both Protestant and Catholic, slaugtering the Indians for refusing to reject their native religions and be baptized. Not the best way to show them that God loves them. On the other side of the coin, though, such events furthur illustrate the point that the founders in no way intended for this to be anything other than a Christian nation.

[The Other Harry]

Things like this do make my lights come on. It's just as well for Phil that me and my shotgun aren't real close to him.

[Sloth]

"What happened in the unseen labyrinth to which the pneumatic tubes led, he did not know in detail, but he did know in general terms. As soon as all the corrections which happened to be necessary in any particular number of The Times had been assembled and collated, that number would be reprinted, the original copy destroyed, and the corrected copy placed on the files in its stead. This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound-tracks, cartoons, photographs -- to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance. Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct, nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary. In no case would it have been possible, once the deed was done, to prove that any falsification had taken place. The largest section of the Records Department, far larger than the one on which Winston worked, consisted simply of persons whose duty it was to track down and collect all copies of books, newspapers, and other documents which had been superseded and were due for destruction. A number of The Times which might, because of changes in political alignment, or mistaken prophecies uttered by Big Brother, have been rewritten a dozen times still stood on the files bearing its original date, and no other copy existed to contradict it. Books, also, were recalled and rewritten again and again, and were invariably reissued without any admission that any alteration had been made." -- George Orwell, 1984

[AnAmericanMother]

Or for that matter what the Romans used to do with somebody who fell out of favor - "damnatio memoriae" or "damnation in memories." The Roman Senate could decree that all records of a particular person would be wiped out and he would be treated as though he never existed. Any inscriptions and public records would have his name chiseled away, and any statues or friezes would be mutilated to remove his face. For a Roman, who valued his posterity and fame above all, this was the ultimate punishment, even worse than death.

In the later Empire it was done to unpopular emperors after their death - such as Caligula and Nero - and to rivals that were "bumped off" by impatient emperor wannabes, such as Geta, the older brother of Caracalla who was murdered by him.

Roundel showing damnatio memoriae of Geta.

[hellinahandcart]

Oh goodness, James Michener's "Hawaii". I did a book report on that one in high school. So much to object to it that book. If it wasn't Polynesians sacrifing to their gods (who were NAMED, oh my), it was missionaries trying to get them to quit marrying their sisters. And the central Chinese character actually bought his "wife" so he'd have someone to service him sexually on the long ship voyage.

Obviously I am part of the problem.

[Jeff Head]

The Indian wars in the eastern United States cut both ways and ran for almost 300 years. The butchery you speak of did happen...on both sides...but it was generally not about them converting to Christianity in the NE United States. That type of thing happened more with the French and Spanish further to the west and south and their attempts to "covert" the Indians. Those occurances do not bear on this discussion of the early settlers who later formed the orignal 13 colonies of the United States.

In addition, I added a caveat in my explanation that indicated that once they got together as a nation they provided for religious freedom. There were indeed some of the early settlements that were intolerant...but that modified over time to our religious freedom, which is what those peoples generally sought in coming here.

The general point was that Christianity as it came to be recognized in the United States, which was based on peoples escaping reilgious persecution, had and has no similarities to the manner in which Islam has gone about spreading itself generally through conquest and butchery.

[sweetliberty]

I understood your point, and as I said, I agree with it. I was just anticipating some who troll these threads looking for a point of vulnerability to attack.

[OldPossum]

I took your advice and logged onto NPR. I sent an e-mail, asking that it be provided to good ol' Phil, in which I challenged him to provide any reference within the U.S. Constitution that prohibits acknowledgement of religion. As I pointed out, the First Amendment does not do that; it prohibits establishment. World of difference.

I also told them that I was sending a copy of Mr. Stinson's remarks to my senators and congressman. And I will.

[Jeff Head]

Thanks...and now between the two of us those potential attacks should be laid to rest.