Is the US Anthem/Motto Unjust?

[rocknanchor]

Should we replace the National Anthem/Motto carte blanche?

As the “National Football League will feature the singing of “Lift Every Voice and Sing,” the song originally known as the “Negro national anthem, now known as the “black national anthem" to reportedly be sung, , after the actual national anthem of the United States.” What are we to make of this divisive outlook?

NFL, the “woke sports league” - Brigitte Gabriel​

​

The song should be made “illegal.” – Benny Johnson​

​

Roger Goodell, NFL commissioner “seriously damaged America” – Dennis Prager​

​

“America has only ONE National Anthem and that Anthem is color blind” - Kari Lake​

There appears a subliminal fear going on and it wishes to push itself onto the American psyche right into our national motto: E Pluribus Unum, "From many, one". Already a relic described as “traditional”, to reinvent the motto to another is divisive. What other damaging effects is this fallout likely to have? Surely, a knee-jerk reaction from fear of mass repercussion, the attention has swept the sporting world. NFL, NBA, MLB, USTA have all agreed to either couple with or abandon altogether the Nation Anthem for the “black national anthem”. The Super Bowl will “honor” both.

Rarely sung, the third verse which enjoys the defeat of the “band who so vauntingly swore” America would lose its independence:

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.​

Brigitte rightly links the “woke” ideology due to its incessant quest to abolish the past. Why do certain members of the citizenry wish to abandon the truth of the past? What is the root of anything that wishes to impose such a darkened trait? Does this root provide refuge already established by some pre-existing response? Is there such a hardness people are prone to harbor? One does seem to indicate so,

“, , because of your hardness and unrepentant heart, you are treasuring up to yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgement of God, who “will give to each according to his works,” to those who indeed with endurance in good work are seeking glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those of self-interest and disobeying the truth but being persuaded about unrighteousness, wrath and anger; tribulation and distress upon every soul of man working evil” (Romans 2:5-9)​

Thanks for looking! Thoughts?

 

[PloverWing]

What are we to make of this divisive outlook?

I don't quite know what to make of the divisive outlook that's evident in the quotes from Gabriel, Johnson, Prager, and Lake. I don't see what they lose by the inclusion of more music at sporting events.

It looks to me like some of the sports organizations, having paid attention to the protests and the social injustices that motivated the protests, are attempting an act of reconciliation. Seems okay to me.

The song itself, "Lift Every Voice and Sing", is in my church's hymnal, and we sing it in church every so often. The lyrics are here (Lift Every Voice and Sing).

 

[AV1611VET]

There appears a subliminal fear going on and it wishes to push itself onto the American psyche right into our national motto: E Pluribus Unum,

That's not our motto.

Our motto is: IN GOD WE TRUST.

 

[Tuur]

If they don't want to play The Star Spangled Banner, they can always play Dixie.

 

[Tuur]

It looks to me like some of the sports organizations, having paid attention to the protests and the social injustices that motivated the protests, are attempting an act of reconciliation. Seems okay to me.

So...they want to placate those offended by the national anthem of a country that ended slavery.

 

[PloverWing]

So...they want to placate those offended by the national anthem of a country that ended slavery.

I'd say that they want to acknowledge those offended by the national anthem of a country that practiced slavery and other forms of institutionalized racism.

Our country has done wonderful things, and terrible things. It's healthy for us to acknowledge both.

 

[Tuur]

And yet the country of the anthem they find objectionable also ended segregation and committed itself to civil rights reform.

 

[rocknanchor]

That's not our motto.

Our motto is: IN GOD WE TRUST.

So true. Is that what is expected of Christians? Is it overwhelmingly incorrect to revert back to the former motto, or should Christians embrace the same rejection of the former motto? I went at length in support over the current motto seen here. I find it a particular faulty outlook to relegate an uncompromising entity of the Savior, Jesus Christ and that same holy ground as the "many paths" or "coexist" God ideology. Till the illogical embrace the sound definition, I will remain bound to the current with an asterisk.

 

[AV1611VET]

So true.

Yes, indeedy!

Is that what is expected of Christians?

Is what what is expected of Christians?

Is it overwhelmingly incorrect to revert back to the former motto,

Who would want to?

... or should Christians embrace the same rejection of the former motto?

I would think Christians would embrace the new motto.

I went at length in support over the current motto seen here.

Good.

I support the current motto as well.

I find it a particular faulty outlook to relegate an uncompromising entity of the Savior, Jesus Christ and that same holy ground as the "many paths" or "coexist" God ideology.

As do I.

Till the illogical embrace the sound definition, I will remain bound to the current with an asterisk.

Um ... okay?

 

[rocknanchor]

Till the illogical embrace the sound definition, I will remain bound to the current with an asterisk.

Um ... okay?

Thanks! Am I correct in assuming I shouldn't be questioning the harmless "In God We Trust"? I can understand why the bewilderment. Let just say, to let “God” remain up for grabs has wreaked havoc on a massive scale from such a 'small' matter. From its very origins, IGWT was vigorously adopted without the above definition rising into any formal understanding. In regard to today’s spiritual malaise, things have only compounded till the overly visible IGWT has lent the country into a fruitless effort to secure an unorthodox handling of the motto, spiritually speaking. My, what did we reap from such an overzealous adoption except to promote one’s own private interpretation of the Divine.

He's still the same, and shares His entity with no one.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks!

You're welcome?

Am I correct in assuming I shouldn't be questioning the harmless "In God We Trust"?

Why would you?

Do you question England's motto ("God And My Right")?

Do you question Walmart's slogan (Save Money, Live Better)?

I can understand why the bewilderment.

I'm still bewildered.

I'm not sure what point you're making.

Let just say, to let “God” remain up for grabs has wreaked havoc on a massive scale from such a 'small' matter.

Ain't that a gas!?

Put God in our motto, and it'll bring out the best of the best, and the worst of the worst, won't it?

God has a way of exposing the immoral, doesn't He?

From its very origins, IGWT was vigorously adopted ...

Neat.

Are you bragging, or complaining?

... without the above definition rising into any formal understanding.

Um ... does "God" in our motto have to be defined?

I mean, is this a trick question?

Does one have to be a Rhodes scholar to ascertain who God is?

In regard to today’s spiritual malaise, things have only compounded till the overly visible IGWT has lent the country into a fruitless effort to secure an unorthodox handling of the motto,

In other words, we've sunk so low in our morals now, we need to take "God" out of our equations?

A sinking ship certainly doesn't need an anchor, does it?

... spiritually speaking.

Of course.

My, what did we reap from such an overzealous adoption ...

'Overzealous adoption'?

Praise the LORD for this "overzealous adoption" then ... right?

I'm glad it was overzealous then, lest the immoral have had time to connect with the Antichrist Lovers Union and stymie its adoption.

... except to promote one’s own private interpretation of the Divine.

I have a feeling God is as public as public can get.

And what do you mean by 'interpretation'?

Again, are you insinuating that "God" in the motto IN GOD WE TRUST needs to be identified?

Psalm 46:10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.

He's still the same, and shares His entity with no one.

Neat.

Isaiah 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

 

[rocknanchor]

I'm still bewildered.

“Hallowed be Thy name”

And what do you mean by 'interpretation'?

Oh, but a key ingredient you left off, “private interpretation”. The Body’s varying level of understanding of His name is in the Lord’s care, let’s be clear on that. The world’s level of understanding of giving honor to His name is not in His care but void of spiritual care.

Psalm 46:10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.

Praise God one day, “, ,they will all know Me”. Till then, what does the Church have to show for it? What is the current impression the world holds for the Body of Christ? Take baptism. The work of our being baptized into His name is a mere ‘worthless exercise’, no honor towards His name whatsoever in that regard.

But they have no problem calling on that Name when things get difficult. People spend their lives doing this, but when it comes time to put responsibility behind it, I suggest, they hold not a universal, but strong ‘irrelevance’ for the Church due to our many sects. Oh yes, you’ve heard it, they love to play that “too many interpretations” card once a Christian attempts to display how lost, lost is or how glorious, His glory is, etc. You’ve seen that in discussion, I’m sure.

What then, still not convinced a public disclosure is called for? Thank God, you’ve already got one foot in the door, that being the choice of the matter is entirely ours. What’s left is riddance of the leavening that spoils the lump. Show me the very best the world can bestow as honor on His name (including that “all paths to God” dishonor of Christ) and the joyous throng would undoubtedly expect me to join in that evil ‘celebration’? Not me. It is our post-conversion works that brings honor to His name (Matthew 5:16).

All things are permitted, but not all things build people up. (1 Corinthians 10:23)​

While perplexing not to join in that liberty, does not reduce the identifying characteristic that separate Christianity from heathendom. One of power to receive and retain, one of the powerlessness of a carnal mind to achieve that honor.

“, ,how utterly incompatible is the Christian with the heathen character! – Meyer​

So back to your verse, “, , I will be exalted among the heathen”. The exaltation indeed is among and not by and from the heathen. When we say, sing and pray; ‘All glory and honor to Thy name’, is it not right to properly ascribe honor to Christ, who is God among the heathen?

This is what I believe defines my Honor to His name. Because I do not reduce that honor when I step away from His table (communion). As surely some will say I’m misapplying the context, as though it somehow permits us to give Him less honor when not communing?

Are we trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy? (1 Corinthians 10:22)​

That is the honor, I don’t have reservation placing on Him, among the heathen.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The National Athem Song is lousy anyway.

Make "America the Beautiful," the national anthem.

 

[AV1611VET]

“Hallowed be Thy name”


Oh, but a key ingredient you left off, “private interpretation”. The Body’s varying level of understanding of His name is in the Lord’s care, let’s be clear on that. The world’s level of understanding of giving honor to His name is not in His care but void of spiritual care.

Praise God one day, “, ,they will all know Me”. Till then, what does the Church have to show for it? What is the current impression the world holds for the Body of Christ? Take baptism. The work of our being baptized into His name is a mere ‘worthless exercise’, no honor towards His name whatsoever in that regard.

But they have no problem calling on that Name when things get difficult. People spend their lives doing this, but when it comes time to put responsibility behind it, I suggest, they hold not a universal, but strong ‘irrelevance’ for the Church due to our many sects. Oh yes, you’ve heard it, they love to play that “too many interpretations” card once a Christian attempts to display how lost, lost is or how glorious, His glory is, etc. You’ve seen that in discussion, I’m sure.

What then, still not convinced a public disclosure is called for? Thank God, you’ve already got one foot in the door, that being the choice of the matter is entirely ours. What’s left is riddance of the leavening that spoils the lump. Show me the very best the world can bestow as honor on His name (including that “all paths to God” dishonor of Christ) and the joyous throng would undoubtedly expect me to join in that evil ‘celebration’? Not me. It is our post-conversion works that brings honor to His name (Matthew 5:16).

All things are permitted, but not all things build people up. (1 Corinthians 10:23)​

While perplexing not to join in that liberty, does not reduce the identifying characteristic that separate Christianity from heathendom. One of power to receive and retain, one of the powerlessness of a carnal mind to achieve that honor.

“, ,how utterly incompatible is the Christian with the heathen character! – Meyer​

So back to your verse, “, , I will be exalted among the heathen”. The exaltation indeed is among and not by and from the heathen. When we say, sing and pray; ‘All glory and honor to Thy name’, is it not right to properly ascribe honor to Christ, who is God among the heathen?

This is what I believe defines my Honor to His name. Because I do not reduce that honor when I step away from His table (communion). As surely some will say I’m misapplying the context, as though it somehow permits us to give Him less honor when not communing?

Are we trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy? (1 Corinthians 10:22)​

That is the honor, I don’t have reservation placing on Him, among the heathen.

What?

 

[Danthemailman]

Should we replace the National Anthem/Motto carte blanche?

As the “National Football League will feature the singing of “Lift Every Voice and Sing,” the song originally known as the “Negro national anthem, now known as the “black national anthem" to reportedly be sung, , after the actual national anthem of the United States.” What are we to make of this divisive outlook?

NFL, the “woke sports league” - Brigitte Gabriel​

​

The song should be made “illegal.” – Benny Johnson​

​

Roger Goodell, NFL commissioner “seriously damaged America” – Dennis Prager​

​

“America has only ONE National Anthem and that Anthem is color blind” - Kari Lake​

There appears a subliminal fear going on and it wishes to push itself onto the American psyche right into our national motto: E Pluribus Unum, "From many, one". Already a relic described as “traditional”, to reinvent the motto to another is divisive. What other damaging effects is this fallout likely to have? Surely, a knee-jerk reaction from fear of mass repercussion, the attention has swept the sporting world. NFL, NBA, MLB, USTA have all agreed to either couple with or abandon altogether the Nation Anthem for the “black national anthem”. The Super Bowl will “honor” both.

Rarely sung, the third verse which enjoys the defeat of the “band who so vauntingly swore” America would lose its independence:

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.​

Brigitte rightly links the “woke” ideology due to its incessant quest to abolish the past. Why do certain members of the citizenry wish to abandon the truth of the past? What is the root of anything that wishes to impose such a darkened trait? Does this root provide refuge already established by some pre-existing response? Is there such a hardness people are prone to harbor? One does seem to indicate so,

“, , because of your hardness and unrepentant heart, you are treasuring up to yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgement of God, who “will give to each according to his works,” to those who indeed with endurance in good work are seeking glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those of self-interest and disobeying the truth but being persuaded about unrighteousness, wrath and anger; tribulation and distress upon every soul of man working evil” (Romans 2:5-9)​

Thanks for looking! Thoughts?

Super Bowl LVIII Black national anthem performance causes stir on social media

Some NFL fans tuning in to watch Super Bowl LVIII were upset with the Black national anthem being played before the game. It was a part of the NFL's pregame festivities.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Christopher0121]

If they do change the Anthem, I think we should select, America the Beautiful.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

And yet the country of the anthem they find objectionable also ended segregation and committed itself to civil rights reform.

I mean, kicking and screaming it did, but sure.

This reminds me of that scene from “While You Were Sleeping:”

“Remember the squirrels (I rescued)? First I knocked them out of their nest with a rock. Then I saved them.”

The nobility saving a segment of society from subjugation we inflicted on them, and saving them through gritted teeth I might add, is not as great as you may think it is. Kind of like shooting somebody in the face and asking them why they aren’t grateful for the fact that you (the royal you) took them to the hospital (eventually, and after much complaining).