World The Realms or the USA, who was correct SCRIPTURALLY?

[MoreCoffee]

It's not a fact. I haven't seen a single American who worships the flag. It's just pointlessly inflammatory rhetoric that achieves nothing, aside from making you look like a troll.

why do people in the USA insist that the president hold his right hand over his heart when the flag is an important feature of ceremony?

 

[tango]

why do people in the USA insist that the president hold his right hand over his heart when the flag is an important feature of ceremony?

What does that have to do with worshiping the flag?

 

[psalms 91]

why do people in the USA insist that the president hold his right hand over his heart when the flag is an important feature of ceremony?

It is called respect and patriotism

 

[Josiah]

And please explain to me how the US has been blessed by God with being at war for most of its existence. That is hardly a blessing.

Simply not true.


If you total all the wars since 1776 - even include all the "Indian" wars and the civil war - they total 94.1 years (however, some overlap so the USA has not been at war for 94 years). The USA has existed for 241 years, so it has not been at war for "most of its existence." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States


It seems the countries still submissive to the British Queen have been at war more than the USA has. Just since 1700 (not going back to 1066), and JUST involving the UK (and not wars fought by its colonies), there has been 465 years of wars fought by the UK (many overlap, but there has been FEW years in which the UK has not been at war somewhere). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_involving_the_United_Kingdom


Friend, the situation is the opposite. The USA has been at war FAR less than those countries in submission to the British monarch.



- Josiah



.

 

[IACOBVS]

It's not a fact. I haven't seen a single American who worships the flag. It's just pointlessly inflammatory rhetoric that achieves nothing, aside from making you look like a troll.

If snapping to attention with one's hand over one's heart (sometimes even with tears in one's eyes) when the US flag goes by in a parade isn't a form of worship, or having the US flag up at the front of church isn't a form of worship, or if pledging one's allegiance to the US flag in a ritualistic formula isn't a form of worship, or when those US citizens who refuse to participate in such things are denigrated for their stance, then I don't know the definition of worship. It really is no different to situation in the ancient Roman Empire where Christians were martyred by the state because they wouldn't participate in the state cult of the day. In the eyes of the Roman state, Christians weren't religious dissidents; they were a very real threat to the state; they weren't patriotic enough. In modern US terminology, they wouldn't have been "American" enough.

 

[tango]

If snapping to attention with one's hand over one's heart (sometimes even with tears in one's eyes) when the US flag goes by in a parade isn't a form of worship, or having the US flag up at the front of church isn't a form of worship, or if pledging one's allegiance to the US flag in a ritualistic formula isn't a form of worship, or when those US citizens who refuse to participate in such things are denigrated for their stance, then I don't know the definition of worship. It really is no different to situation in the ancient Roman Empire where Christians were martyred by the state because they wouldn't participate in the state cult of the day. In the eyes of the Roman state, Christians weren't religious dissidents; they were a very real threat to the state; they weren't patriotic enough. In modern US terminology, they wouldn't have been "American" enough.

I haven't had a single comment made to me when I've been in a room full of people reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, when I merely stand with my arms behind my back (I'm not an American, so don't recite the pledge). This is in rural areas where people take that sort of thing very seriously, not a very metropolitan city area where people from all over the world are expected.

I can't say I've seen people snapping to attention when the US flag goes by in a parade either, and I've been to a few parades. People stand to attention when the national anthem is sung, which is no different to what I'd expect to see in any other country.

I'm really not sure how you get from some vague concept of people being deemed "not American enough" to people being slaughtered for their religious beliefs. I'm also not sure what the issue is with flags at church, I've been to a few churches in the US and only seen a flag at the front in one of them (and that was on July 4th, and from what I gather they don't usually have it there).

 

[IACOBVS]

Simply not true.


If you total all the wars since 1776 - even include all the "Indian" wars and the civil war - they total 94.1 years (however, some overlap so the USA has not been at war for 94 years). The USA has existed for 241 years, so it has not been at war for "most of its existence." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States


It seems the countries still submissive to the British Queen have been at war more than the USA has. Just since 1700 (not going back to 1066), and JUST involving the UK (and not wars fought by its colonies), there has been 465 years of wars fought by the UK (many overlap, but there has been FEW years in which the UK has not been at war somewhere). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_involving_the_United_Kingdom


Friend, the situation is the opposite. The USA has been at war FAR less than those countries in submission to the British monarch.



- Josiah



.

241 war minus 94 years not at war works out to 147 years at war according to my calculations. And, you do not seem to understand how the Commonwealth monarchies have their existence. Canada is not in submission to a British monarch, nor are any of the 15 Realms other than the UK itself, and even the UK isn't in submission to her; it's the wrong term to use. Each of the Realms freely chooses to accept Her Majesty as their Queen. The Queen is independently the Sovereign of each of the Realms. It would be something like if the US President were also the President of Nicaragua, but the two positions were separate.

Just to hurt your head a little more, let us say that Canada and Australia went to war with each other. Technically, the Queen of Canada would be at war with the Queen of Australia, even though those two separate Queens are embodied on one 91-year-old great-grandmother who happens to spend most of her time in the UK.

And the UK haven't existed for 465 years, so they couldn't have been at war for that long. The UK is actually younger than the US. It was created on 1 January 1801.

 

[IACOBVS]

And Josiah, your US war record is way off... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_at_war

 

[Josiah]

241 war minus 94 years not at war works out to 147 years at war according to my calculations.

Wrong. 241 years of existence minus 94 years at war (including Indian wars, several unofficial military actions and the civil war) makes for 147 years without war.


England (one of many countries under submission to the British Queen) has had 465 years of wars just since 1700 (I could not easily go back to 1066). And that doesn't count the wars fought in colonies also in submission to the British Queen.

Your dogmatic statement that the USA has been at war for most of its history is wrong. And your implication that the USA has been more at war than the countries still in submission to the British Queen is absurd.




.

 

[IACOBVS]

Wrong. 241 years of existence minus 94 years at war (including Indian wars, several unofficial military actions and the civil war) makes for 147 years without war.


England (one of many countries under submission to the British Queen) has had 465 years of wars just since 1700 (I could not easily go back to 1066). And that doesn't count the wars fought in colonies also in submission to the British Queen.

Your dogmatic statement that the USA has been at war for most of its history is wrong. And your implication that the USA has been more at war than the countries still in submission to the British Queen is absurd.




.

I find your protestations cute. I'm not going to argue with you about this anymore, though. I still like you.

 

[Pedrito]

Post #7:

The fact is, that Americans broke every major treaty with the Indians that was agreed upon.

Pedrito confesses that his knowledge of history has deficiencies.

Pedrito has laboured for many years under the delusion that the Johnny-come-lately White Tribe had broken every major treaty with the original Americans that was agreed upon.

And while it might be said that the Indians cannot be classed as Americans because the land they inhabited wasn’t called America yet, the same can be said for the White Tribe, although the term of its limited tenure had been comparatively short.

Once the White Tribe gained independence from the government of its origin, it set about dominating the long-term inhabitants, apparently even nullifying safeguards intended by that government of origin on behalf of those inhabitants.

Oh well. It looks like Pedrito will have to revisit the ‘Cowboys and Indians’ films of his childhood and get his facts right.

 

[MoreCoffee]

In Australia the "settlers" and "prisoners" who invaded the land of Australia also broke agreements and eventually overturned British laws intended to protect the original inhabitants of the land. Oddly enough the British tried to justify their invasion of the land by claiming that the original inhabitants did not have a concept of owning the land, had no settled communities, and did not "improve" the land by farming and city building. They called the land "Terra Nullius" meaning it was essentially unoccupied. That was their excuse for invasion of the land and subjugation of the original inhabitants.

Terra nullius is a Latin expression meaning "nobody's land", and is a principle sometimes used in international law to describe territory that may be acquired by a state's occupation of it.

 

[Pedrito]

Post #32:

In Australia the "settlers" and "prisoners" who invaded the land of Australia also broke agreements and eventually overturned British laws intended to protect the original inhabitants of the land. Oddly enough the British tried to justify their invasion of the land by claiming that the original inhabitants did not have a concept of owning the land, had no settled communities, and did not "improve" the land by farming and city building. They called the land "Terra Nullius" meaning it was essentially unoccupied. That was their excuse for invasion of the land and subjugation of the original inhabitants.

The idea (and definition) of the first settlers arriving in Australia being an “invasion” is actually quite recent. (There was no such thought in former years.)

Its promotion appears to be an extension of the “political correctness” bandwagon.

==============================================================================================

Would the early settlements established on the North American continent by people of British origin be called “invasions”?

Yet they were members of the same White Tribe that set up settlements in Australia.

The presence of armed soldiers in the “First Fleet” is immaterial. Their role was not to sweep across the Australian continent subjugating people. They were there to keep convicted criminals (“convicts” – other member of the same White Tribe) in check.

==============================================================================================

Fortunately, it would seem (based on Pedrito’s limited exposure to USA news) that the “invasion” aspect of political correctness has not gained a serious foothold in that country yet.