What’s this world coming to?  Historical documents in a library?  Oh, the horrors.

It’s bad enough they’re trying to rewrite history, do they really feel the need to purge it altogether?

Rather than calling it “rewriting history”, I much prefer the term “historical relativism”.

Oh lets call a spade a spade…

Historical Revisionism.

Feh! Why is it that most Xtians are so insecure in their faith that they feel the need to make everyone think the same as them lest they be tempted to stray?

Seriously, what scares this nutjob so much that history needs to be censored?

For at least one Christian lawyer…

More could be on the way. Last week one of the cable channels (CNN?) interviewed Jerry Falwell, who was announcing his plan to establish a Christian Law School or a law school for Christians. J.F. indicated that graduates of his school would have to pass the bar exam - just like atheists.

Even if J.F.’s school doesn’t receive ABA accreditation, it’s graduates would be able to practice provided they pass the state bar examination.

http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=18287

Hertz, who has lived in Frankfort for a year, said he found the outdated version, with no note indicating it was not the current version, to be offensive and “intellectually dishonest.”

If the document is not identified as historic, it is an odd omission (as if a list of Constitutional amendments didn’t include anything after 1954).  If it is, in fact, dated (which the story seems to imply it is not), then Hertz is a goofball.

The article *does* note that it’s an old, historic print, would should certainly let someone infer that it’s not meant to describe the Pledge as it stands.

Vern,

Falwell did start it already, they’ve just begun their first year of operation.  It’s the Liberty University Law School.  I blogged about it a few days ago.  You can find what I found out about it at the following url:

http://pig-vs-swine.blogspot.com/2004/09/let-there-be-lawyers.html

Someone should tell Mr. Hertz, “If he’s so excited about religion, why doesn’t he fly a plane into a masque, or the library?”
Extremism is a dangerous thing in he hands of simple people.

We all know that the words were inserted in 1954, so it certainly is a historical document.  But doesn’t anybody wonder why they refuse to post the updated version?  Whay are they so adimit about posting the pre-1954 version exclusively?  If the library kept a copy of the constitution published prior to any ammendments, and refused to accept the current version, wouldn’t you wonder what was going on?  Unless this library were completely unaware of the post-1954 pledge (unlikely and pothetic for a library), then the only other conclusion would be that the board is bias.  I don’t think the lawyer is upset about the fact that the old pledge exists.  He is upset that the library has rejected the new one, because of two words - “under God”.  If that doesn’t show prejudice, I don’t know what does.

Why is it that most Xtians are so insecure in their faith that they feel the need to make everyone think the same as them lest they be tempted to stray?

Well John,
If we were insecure, we would stay home and keep quite.  We are obviously very confident in our beliefs to be challenging the mainstream.  A good example of a religion that is insecure is the Jehovah’s Witnesses.  Their members are not permitted to even socialize with any non-JW’s.  Why?  Because the Jehovah’s Witnesses have changed and manipulated the real Bible that Christians use.  If a JW comes to my door and discovers that I am a Christian, they are trained to leave immediately.  That is insecure.  Christian’s are confident, because what we beleive is the truth.  We don’t want to MAKE anyone share in our belief.  That would defeat the purpose.  We share it because it’s good news.  We stand up for things like the pledge and protecting marraige (preventing same-sex marraige), because we are secure in our faith.
A closing question: Why are people so offended by Christians caring?  I have never been upset at anyone for sharing something they felt was important.  I would question their character if they did not.

We don’t want to MAKE anyone share in our belief.

In that case, Josh, no one should be MADE to say “under God” or MADE to conform to YOUR ideas of marriage.

“Religions are conclusions for which the facts of nature supply no major premises.”

-- Ambrose Bierce, Collected Works (1912)
(Quoted at the top of this webpage.)

Obviously does not believe that the Christian religion is true.

“SATAN, n. One of the Creator’s lamentable mistakes, repented in sashcloth and axes. Being instated as an archangel, Satan made himself multifariously objectionable and was finally expelled from Heaven. Halfway in his descent he paused, bent his head in thought a moment and at last went back. “There is one favor that I should like to ask,” said he.
“Name it.”
“Man, I understand, is about to be created. He will need laws.”
“What, wretch! you his appointed adversary, charged from the dawn of eternity with hatred of his soul—you ask for the right to make his laws?”
“Pardon; what I have to ask is that he be permitted to make them himself.”
It was so ordered.”

...Yet he believes that Satan exists. ( strictly a biblical character) .
P.S. The Bible does not say that the angels were created before man.  In fact it is much more likely that they were created after man.

-- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary

“Under the rules of evidence as they now exist in this country, no single assertion in the Bible has in its support any evidence admissible in a court of law. It cannot be proved that the battle of Blenheim ever was fought, that there was such as person as Julius Caesar, such an empire as Assyria. “

-- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary

Does this guy seriously think that Julius Caesar did not exist...or even Assyria?  I’m starting to question his credibility.

P.S. Contrary to Bierce’s remarks, the Bible is the one of the most well supported historical document of it’s time.  To reject it on the basis of evidence would be to reject nearly all of history.  Even things you read in the newspaper this morning.

Evidence

Wow, Josh, what a cogent and incisive retort to my comment.  We’ll have to add this to the over three hundred proofs of God’s existence:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

viz:

349. ARGUMENT BY AMBROSE BIERCE
(1) Ambrose Bierce did not believe the Christian religion to be true.
(2) But he believed that Satan exists.
(3) And he said silly things about Caesar and Assyria, too.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

We’ve been over the argument that the Bible is one of the most well supported historical documents bullshit argument before on this site. I’m not going to rehash it again here. Hit the archives, Josh. Your claim is bullshit.