Ashton-Under, Manchester (
trekearth)
From Forbes.com
Forbes Soccer Valuations
'Manchester United once again captured the top spot among the world's most valuable soccer teams, but Spanish powerhouses Real Madrid and Barcelona are closing ground.'
1. Manchester United: Value $ 2.24 Billion US
If Manchester United keeps dropping out of the
UEFA Champions League too many seasons due to teams such as
FC Basel I would not bet against other teams gaining ground. Basel and Barcelona...that reminds me of
Fawlty Towers, kind of like Manchester
United's season this year, sad to state. Now it looks like the
EPL will likely be lost to Manchester City, although I cannot state I feel too bad about that fact.
However...
'Manchester United’s global fan base of some 330 million also helps makes it the most valuable team in any sport, worth $385 million more than both Major League Baseball’s New York Yankees and the Dallas Cowboys of the National Football League.'
2. Real Madrid: Value $1. 877 Billion US
Now for some of you North Americans out there that know little about soccer/football, Real Madrid has nothing to do with
ReaLemon, or Real Housewives and you may have heard of
Ronaldo the Portuguese forward that plays for Madrid. Yes his full name is not
Ronaldo McDonaldo. Just to be politely clear.
3. Barcelona: Value 1. 307 Billion US
They are the new 'Brazil' of the world. In the other words they are by consensus from experts the newer greatest and best team and are picked to win every major competition they are in. They did not manage to win the
UEFA Champions League in 2012 but did in 2011, 2009, 2006 and 1992. This year they are not going to win La
Liga either. This seems 'La Lame' for such a highly rated team. Still a lot better than the
Canucks though who have still never won the Stanley Cup...
4. Arsenal: Value 1. 292 Billion US
With my good friend Simon, I had away membership to Arsenal from 1999 to 2001. I managed to see games at Manchester United, Manchester City, Leeds, Aston Villa, and
Everton. I hope to see more matches again with Si eventually. Unfortunately in a sense, more often than not most seasons Arsenal is a step behind Manchester United. In recent years there have been Chelsea (even with a girl's name) and now Manchester City that have done very well and better than Arsenal at some levels. Hopefully Arsenal can produce another
EPL Champion and first time
UEFA Champions League Champion soon. I receive Manager
Arsene Wenger's newsletter and with all the reasons he lists for losing sometimes I wish he would just write that they are not good enough and that he/they will fix it. Still a world-class sports club and overall more successful than the
Canucks...
5.
Bayern Munich: $ 1. 235 Billion US
Three points for North Americans not familiar with European Soccer/Football. As far as I know,
Bayern Munich/
Bayern Munchen, has nothing to do with:
a) Bayer Aspirin.
b) The Adventures of Baron
Munchausen (1988).
c) The
Munchins from The Wizard of OZ (1939).
Bayern Munich are the hosts of this years
UEFA Champions League Final versus Chelsea, and are also the favourites to win the match.
Bayern has won the title four times. They did not win the
Bundesliga this season, however.
6. AC Milan: Value 989 Million US
Now my adoption paper states I am part Italian and I know this is a bit stereotypical but as this is a Milan corporation, cannot one imagine a top AC Milan executive reading on the Forbes' site that the club was only $21 million US away from being worth a billion. Therefore after completing the article he jumps out of his office chair walking out of his office slightly verbally annoyed at some employees for not selling enough 'kits', uniforms etc. It could be a funny scene.
Presently Milan is second in
Serie A and obviously from what has been written will not win the
UEFA Champions League this year. Ah, there is that $21 million perhaps?
7. Chelsea: Value $761 Million US
The club is worth quite a bit less than the previous listed teams and the logo features a tongue sticking out. But even so the logo is very cool and the team is, as noted, good enough to get into the
UEFA Champions League Final this year.
8. Liverpool: Value $619 Million US
Yes, again for my North American readers the Beatles are not necessarily the only really famous 'thing' from Liverpool'.
Everton is another well-known club in Liverpool as well.
9.
Juventus: Value $591 Million US
Juventus from Turin, yes the same place as the Shroud. So, yes Turin is famous for more than one thing as well.
Juventus is also known for their 'fair play'.
Wiki Italian Football Scandal
Certain Italian clubs were accused and punished for rigging games by selecting favourable referees.
Juventus was relegated for their part. AC Milan was also involved.
10.
Schalke 04: Value $587 Million US
'
Schalking' perhaps. They are not as well-known as the other clubs but have been involved in several major competitions over the last several years.
Manchester, Oxford Road (
trekearth)
Madrid,
Campo Del Moro (
trekearth)
Barcelona,
Bages (
trekearth)
London, Westminster (
trekearth)
May 22, 2012
Mr. Jeff Jenkins of
Thoughts and Theology
From
Facebook I stated:
'Jeff uses photos from all over his life span and so it is difficult to tell just how old he is.;) Sort of like a Marvel character, the story just changes...'
Well today Mr. Jenkins, a nearly lifelong martial artist demonstrates on
Facebook and now Blogger a new martial arts preparation technique for Christians to use on cultists at the door...
Or maybe it was against spiders.
Ashton-Under, Manchester (trekearth)
From Forbes.com
Forbes Soccer Valuations
'Manchester United once again captured the top spot among the world's most valuable soccer teams, but Spanish powerhouses Real Madrid and Barcelona are closing ground.'
1. Manchester United: Value $ 2.24 Billion US
If Manchester United keeps dropping out of the UEFA Champions League too many seasons due to teams such as FC Basel I would not bet against other teams gaining ground. Basel and Barcelona...that reminds me of Fawlty Towers, kind of like Manchester United's season this year, sad to state. Now it looks like the EPL will likely be lost to Manchester City, although I cannot state I feel too bad about that fact.
However...
'Manchester United’s global fan base of some 330 million also helps makes it the most valuable team in any sport, worth $385 million more than both Major League Baseball’s New York Yankees and the Dallas Cowboys of the National Football League.'
2. Real Madrid: Value $1. 877 Billion US
Now for some of you North Americans out there that know little about soccer/football, Real Madrid has nothing to do with ReaLemon, or Real Housewives and you may have heard of Ronaldo the Portuguese forward that plays for Madrid. Yes his full name is not Ronaldo McDonaldo. Just to be politely clear.
3. Barcelona: Value 1. 307 Billion US
They are the new 'Brazil' of the world. In the other words they are by consensus from experts the newer greatest and best team and are picked to win every major competition they are in. They did not manage to win the UEFA Champions League in 2012 but did in 2011, 2009, 2006 and 1992. This year they are not going to win La Liga either. This seems 'La Lame' for such a highly rated team. Still a lot better than the Canucks though who have still never won the Stanley Cup...
4. Arsenal: Value 1. 292 Billion US
With my good friend Simon, I had away membership to Arsenal from 1999 to 2001. I managed to see games at Manchester United, Manchester City, Leeds, Aston Villa, and Everton. I hope to see more matches again with Si eventually. Unfortunately in a sense, more often than not most seasons Arsenal is a step behind Manchester United. In recent years there have been Chelsea (even with a girl's name) and now Manchester City that have done very well and better than Arsenal at some levels. Hopefully Arsenal can produce another EPL Champion and first time UEFA Champions League Champion soon. I receive Manager Arsene Wenger's newsletter and with all the reasons he lists for losing sometimes I wish he would just write that they are not good enough and that he/they will fix it. Still a world-class sports club and overall more successful than the Canucks...
5. Bayern Munich: $ 1. 235 Billion US
Three points for North Americans not familiar with European Soccer/Football. As far as I know, Bayern Munich/Bayern Munchen, has nothing to do with:
a) Bayer Aspirin.
b) The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1988).
c) The Munchins from The Wizard of OZ (1939).
Bayern Munich are the hosts of this years UEFA Champions League Final versus Chelsea, and are also the favourites to win the match. Bayern has won the title four times. They did not win the Bundesliga this season, however.
6. AC Milan: Value 989 Million US
Now my adoption paper states I am part Italian and I know this is a bit stereotypical but as this is a Milan corporation, cannot one imagine a top AC Milan executive reading on the Forbes' site that the club was only $21 million US away from being worth a billion. Therefore after completing the article he jumps out of his office chair walking out of his office slightly verbally annoyed at some employees for not selling enough 'kits', uniforms etc. It could be a funny scene.
Presently Milan is second in Serie A and obviously from what has been written will not win the UEFA Champions League this year. Ah, there is that $21 million perhaps?
7. Chelsea: Value $761 Million US
The club is worth quite a bit less than the previous listed teams and the logo features a tongue sticking out. But even so the logo is very cool and the team is, as noted, good enough to get into the UEFA Champions League Final this year.
8. Liverpool: Value $619 Million US
Yes, again for my North American readers the Beatles are not necessarily the only really famous 'thing' from Liverpool'. Everton is another well-known club in Liverpool as well.
9. Juventus: Value $591 Million US
Juventus from Turin, yes the same place as the Shroud. So, yes Turin is famous for more than one thing as well. Juventus is also known for their 'fair play'.
Wiki Italian Football Scandal
Certain Italian clubs were accused and punished for rigging games by selecting favourable referees. Juventus was relegated for their part. AC Milan was also involved.
10. Schalke 04: Value $587 Million US
'Schalking' perhaps. They are not as well-known as the other clubs but have been involved in several major competitions over the last several years.
Manchester, Oxford Road (trekearth)
Madrid, Campo Del Moro (trekearth)
Barcelona, Bages (trekearth)
London, Westminster (trekearth)
May 22, 2012
Mr. Jeff Jenkins of
Thoughts and Theology
From Facebook I stated:
'Jeff uses photos from all over his life span and so it is difficult to tell just how old he is.;) Sort of like a Marvel character, the story just changes...'
Well today Mr. Jenkins, a nearly lifelong martial artist demonstrates on Facebook and now Blogger a new martial arts preparation technique for Christians to use on cultists at the door...
Or maybe it was against spiders.
Since I don't really care about football/soccer clubs, I'll post this comment, which is completely off-topic:
ReplyDeleteThis was posted by a Facebook Friend:
Should Christians Support President Obama?
This man was on Dr. Charles Stanley's program "In Touch" as a guest speaker.
Dr. David Barton is more of a historian than a Biblical speaker, but very famous for his knowledge of historical facts as well as Biblical truths.
Dr. David Barton - on Obama
Respect the Office? Yes.
Respect the Man in the Office? No, I am sorry to say.
I have noted that many elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans, called upon America to unite behind Obama.
Well, I want to make it clear to all who will listen that I AM NOT uniting behind Obama!
I will respect the Office which he holds, and I will acknowledge his abilities as an orator and wordsmith and pray for him, BUT that is it.
I have begun today to see what I can do to make sure that he is a one-term President!
Why am I doing this ?
It is because: - I do not share Obama's vision or value system for America ;
- I do not share his Abortion beliefs;
- I do not share his radical Marxist's concept of re-distributing wealth;
- I do not share his stated views on raising taxes on those who make$150,000+ (the ceiling has been changed three times since August);
- I do not share his view that America is Arrogant;
- I do not share his view that America is not a Christian Nation;
- I do not share his view that the military should be reduced by 25%;
- I do not share his view of amnesty and giving more to illegals than our American Citizens who need help;
- I do not share his views on homosexuality and his definition of marriage;
- I do not share his views that Radical Islam is our friend and Israel is our enemy who should give up any land;
- I do not share his spiritual beliefs (at least the ones he has made public);
- I do not share his beliefs on how to rework the health care system in America;
(cont.)
(cont.)
ReplyDelete-I do not share his Strategic Views of the Middle East and
- I certainly do not share his view to sit down with terrorist regimes such as Iran! .
Bottom line: my America is vastly different from Obama's, and I have a higher obligation to my Country and my GOD to do what is Right!
For eight (8) years, the Liberals in our Society, led by numerous entertainers who would have no platform and no real credibility but for their celebrity status, have attacked President Bush, his family, and his spiritual beliefs!
They have not moved toward the center in their beliefs and their philosophies, and they never came together nor compromised their personal beliefs for the betterment of our Country!
They have portrayed my America as a land where everything is tolerated except being intolerant!
They have been a vocal and irreverent minority for years!
They have mocked and attacked the very core values so important to the founding and growth of our Country!
They have made every effort to remove the name of GOD or Jesus Christ from our Society!
They have challenged capital punishment, the right to bear firearms, and the most basic principles of our criminal code!
They have attacked one of the most fundamental of all Freedoms, the right of free speech!
Unite behind Obama? Never!
I am sure many of you who read this think that I am going overboard, but I refuse to retreat one more inch in favor of those whom I believe are the embodiment of Evil!
PRESIDENT BUSH made many mistakes during his Presidency, and I am not sure how history will judge him. However I believe that he weighed his decisions in light of the long established Judeo-Christian principles of our Founding Fathers!!!
Majority rules in America, and I will honor the concept; however, I will fight with all of my power to be a voice in opposition to Obama and his "goals for America ..."
I am going to be a thorn in the side of those who, if left unchecked, will destroy our Country! Any more compromise is more defeat!
I pray that the results of this election will wake up many who have sat on the sidelines and allowed the Socialist-Marxist anti-GOD crowd to slowly change so much of what has been good in America!
GOD bless you and GOD bless our Country!
Thanks for your time, may you and yours be safe.
"In GOD We Must Trust".
Sir Jenkins of Ocala, Florida, thank you for sharing as requested. Once you sent me the email I thought this would be an interesting message to share as a blog comment even though as a Canadian/British citizen I am not American/Republican or Democrat. I actually as a moderate conservative reason that the tremendous societal problems in the Western world are primarily beyond fixing by changing political parties in office. There is a deeper fix needed. But even so, this is still interesting.
ReplyDelete‘Since I don't really care about football/soccer clubs, I'll post this comment, which is completely off-topic:’
Pity. But I will let you boot this ball around. No red card for you.
'- I do not share his Abortion beliefs;’
A point that always comes back to me and one that has been discussed at weekend meetings here in the office/loft sometimes while leaving blog comments is while the Republicans held the White House 1980-1992, 2000-2008, abortion on demand, at least, stayed in existence. I realize that the House and the Senate are also factors in how laws are made in the US and can have more Democrats than Republicans at a given time. Now I also realize that the abortion laws in the United States do likely tend to become more liberal under Democrats, but from what I have read and heard it is not as if only the one party has pro-choice aspects, it is just that the Democrats tend to be more liberal on the issue.
I should state I am against abortion on demand and as birth control.
‘- I do not share his radical Marxist's concept of re-distributing wealth;’
I have joked on my blogs that this is the Socialist Paradise of Canada is contrast to the Excited States of Americana and Rip-off Britain. I favour lower taxes, less debt and zero deficit budgets.
’- I do not share his view that America is not a Christian Nation;’
I think the United States is a secular country that is quite Christianized in many aspects especially in comparison to most Western nations.
‘I do not share his views on homosexuality and his definition of marriage;’
Of course we had same-sex marriage forced on us here in Canada.
'I do not share his beliefs on how to rework the health care system in America;’
I can support the concept of the government and citizen's group making sure health care needs are taken care of, but seems to me a private system reasonably regulated is going to keep more first-rate Doctors and Nurses within the system. Otherwise the healthcare system could become less than optimal with less money for better technology as well.
Roman Catholic leaders criticise Barack Obama over healthcare
ReplyDelete‘Roman Catholic leaders have furiously criticised President Barack Obama for approving new regulations that compel religious organisations to include morning-after pills and other contraceptives in employee health insurance coverage.
New rules, introduced under Mr Obama's overhaul of the US healthcare system, mean that religious charities, universities and other groups must now provide contraception in staff insurance packages.
Failure to do so would result in fines being levied by the federal government that larger Catholic organisations claim would cost them millions of dollars a year.
At least 153 US bishops have spoken out against the change. A letter from a leading bishop, accusing the president of waging a "severe assault on religious liberty", has been read to dozens of congregations.
"We Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees and suffer the penalties for doing so," wrote Alexander Sample, the Bishop of Marquette.
Mr Obama has been accused of backtracking on an assurance that he made in a 2009 speech at the University of Notre Dame, a leading Catholic university in Indiana.
Speaking specifically about his planned health reforms, he said: "Let's honour the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause".
A White House spokesman said the reforms, which do not apply to the Church itself, struck "an effective balance between religious beliefs and increased access to important preventative services".
The row threatens to damage Mr Obama's support in November's presidential election among Catholic voters, a group he won by 54 per cent to 45 per cent over his Republican rival John McCain in 2008.
Timothy Dolan, the Cardinal-designate of New York and president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, urged Catholics across America to bring political pressure to bear.
"Let your elected leaders know that you want religious liberty and rights of conscience restored and that you want the administration's contraceptive mandate rescinded," he said. '
I do reason religious organizations should be allowed an exemption. This is troubling when religious liberty is trampled on.
Is President Obama Correct: Is America No Longer a Christian Nation?
ReplyDeleteThe White House Attack on Religion Continues: Repealing Conscience Protection
ReplyDeleteOh, wait, that's right...your article is about football/soccer. Maybe I should post something relevant to that topic.
ReplyDeleteWell, let's start with this general site: ESPN SoccerNet
I'm glad Blogger doesn't kick people out for spamming, because I probably would have been booted by now!
From your first comment:
ReplyDelete'America’s Most Biblically-Hostile U. S. President
When one observes President Obama’s unwillingness to accommodate America’s four-century long religious conscience protection through his attempts to require Catholics to go against their own doctrines and beliefs, one is tempted to say that he is anti-Catholic. But that characterization would not be correct. Although he has recently singled out Catholics, he has equally targeted traditional Protestant beliefs over the past four years. So since he has attacked Catholics and Protestants, one is tempted to say that he is anti-Christian. But that, too, would be inaccurate. He has been equally disrespectful in his appalling treatment of religious Jews in general and Israel in particular. So perhaps the most accurate description of his antipathy toward Catholics, Protestants, religious Jews, and the Jewish nation would be to characterize him as anti-Biblical. And then when his hostility toward Biblical people of faith is contrasted with his preferential treatment of Muslims and Muslim nations, it further strengthens the accuracy of the anti-Biblical descriptor. In fact, there have been numerous clearly documented times when his pro-Islam positions have been the cause of his anti-Biblical actions.
Listed below in chronological order are (1) numerous records of his attacks on Biblical persons or organizations; (2) examples of the hostility toward Biblical faith that have become evident in the past three years in the Obama-led military; (3) a listing of his open attacks on Biblical values; and finally (4) a listing of numerous incidents of his preferential deference for Islam’s activities and positions, including letting his Islamic advisors guide and influence his hostility toward people of Biblical faith.
1. Acts of hostility toward people of Biblical faith:
April 2008 – Obama speaks disrespectfully of Christians, saying they “cling to guns or religion” and have an “antipathy to people who aren't like them.” 1
February 2009 – Obama announces plans to revoke conscience protection for health workers who refuse to participate in medical activities that go against their beliefs, and fully implements the plan in February 2011. 2'
Most funny soccer moment ever
ReplyDelete"Footballer in hospital after pool cue shoved up backside by teammate
ReplyDeleteA FOOTBALLER was badly hurt after a teammate shoved a pool cue up his backside at an end of season party.
A FOOTBALLER was badly hurt after a teammate shoved a pool cue up his backside at an end of season party.
The midfielder, 37, was still in hospital yesterday, five days after the incident.
A friend said: “It was a bit of horseplay that went seriously wrong.
“We’d all had a few drinks when one of the lads did a moonie. A player picked up a pool cue and it all went wrong from there.”
His Tenby AFC teammate, 29, was arrested in St Clears, Carmarthenshire, but was released without charge."
from:
Mirror News
‘Contemporary post-modern critics (including President Obama) who assert that America is not a Christian nation always refrain from offering any definition of what the term “Christian nation” means. So what is an accurate definition of that term as demonstrated by the American experience?
ReplyDeleteContrary to what critics imply, a Christian nation is not one in which all citizens are Christians, or the laws require everyone to adhere to Christian theology, or all leaders are Christians, or any other such superficial measurement. As Supreme Court Justice David Brewer (1837-1910) explained:
[I]n what sense can [America] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world. 8
‘So, if being a Christian nation is not based on any of the above criterion, then what makes America a Christian nation? According to Justice Brewer, America was “of all the nations in the world . . . most justly called a Christian nation” because Christianity “has so largely shaped and molded it.” 9’
I don’t think that makes it a Christian nation, or has it ever been. It has been Christianized. The article actually does not make a strong case for the USA being a Christian nation. A better argument would be that America was once more of an unofficial (so secular in a sense) religious, as in theistic nation, that has become more secularized. Christianity being the lead religion in that but other faiths were involved, Deism, Judaism, LDS, etc. From my religious history studies at Bible School and Seminary I know that the The United States was actually founded with the idea of no State Church like existed in European nations. I think this clearly defines it as a secular State, at least in the sense of no official religion, that initially was influenced more so by religious influences in the Constitution and laws and Christianity being the lead religion.
In a fallen world context, this would be a good government compromise, but now as in Western nations the secular is too powerful and religious and especially Christian influence is far too minimal.
Cheers.
From:
ReplyDelete'The White House Attack on Religion Continues: Repealing Conscience Protection'
‘Some of the first acts of the new presidential administration
make it clear that there has been a dramatic change in the way
that traditional religious faith is going to be handled at the White
House. For example, when the new White House website went
public immediately following the inauguration, it dropped the
previously prominent section on the faith-based office.
A second visible change was related to hiring protections for
faith-based activities and organizations. On February 5, President
Obama announced that he would no longer extend the same
unqualified level of hiring protections observed by the previous administration but
instead would extend those traditional religious protections to faith-based organizations
only on a “case-by-case” basis. 1
‘Significantly, hiring protections allow religious organizations to hire those employees
who hold the same religious convictions as the organization. As a result, groups such as
Catholic Relief Services can hire just Catholics; and the same is true with Protestant,
Jewish, and other religious groups. With hiring protections, religious groups cannot be
forced to hire those who disagree with their beliefs and values – for example, Evangelical
organizations cannot be required to hire homosexuals, pro-life groups don’t have to hire
pro-choice advocates, etc.
Hiring protections are inherent’
'I'm glad Blogger doesn't kick people out for spamming, because I probably would have been booted by now!'
ReplyDeleteYou have heard of turning lemons into lemonade, well I try and use the better funny SPAM comments for entertainment value on my blogs.
ESPN does a good job with soccer coverage. When TSN used to cover the UEFA Champions League (UCL) they used the ESPN broadcasts and the announcers in my opinion were usually first-rate. However, usually at least one of them was from the British Isles. Now that Rogers Sportsnet has taken over the Canadian coverage of the UCL we receive the UK feed and announcers of course.
'Most funny soccer moment ever'
ReplyDeleteThere should be more clips of football in the snow...
Notice they use an orange ball.
'"Footballer in hospital after pool cue shoved up backside by teammate'
ReplyDeleteSorry have to state it...
Sounds gay.
Cheers.
Unsurprising that Manchester United ranks number one, they seem to have a huge fanbase, spanning the who world it seems. Surpised to see Schalke on there though, but that may just be because I've not heard of it before.
ReplyDeleteWe agree. From what I remember of my 2011 and 2009 postings, I did not do one for 2010, Schalke 04 has been a club on the rise this year. Forbes has it up 56% in one year.
ReplyDeleteCheers, Sarah.
2011
2009
I don’t think that makes it a Christian nation, or has it ever been. It has been Christianized. The article actually does not make a strong case for the USA being a Christian nation. A better argument would be that America was once more of an unofficial (so secular in a sense) religious, as in theistic nation, that has become more secularized. Christianity being the lead religion in that but other faiths were involved, Deism, Judaism, LDS, etc. From my religious history studies at Bible School and Seminary I know that the The United States was actually founded with the idea of no State Church like existed in European nations. I think this clearly defines it as a secular State, at least in the sense of no official religion, that initially was influenced more so by religious influences in the Constitution and laws and Christianity being the lead religion.
ReplyDeleteMy cousin, who is a little older than me, remembers when he was young that they still used Bibles and Bible verses in public schools. When I was little, they had just taken prayer out of schools, but they still had a "moment of silent meditation" for a time.
John Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence; Judge; Diplomat; one of two signers of the Bill of Rights; Second President of the United States, stated:
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." (Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson [Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904], Vol. XIII, p. 292-294. In a letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.)
John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the United States; diplomat; Secretary of State; U.S. Senator; U.S. Representative, stated:
"In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity." (John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport at Their Request on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1837 [Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837], pp. 5-6.)
Congress, in 1854, declared:
"The great, vital, and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ." (Journal of the House of the Representatives of the United States of America [Washington, DC: Cornelius Wendell, 1855], 34th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 354, January 23, 1856; see also: Lorenzo D. Johnson, Chaplains of the General Government With Objections to their Employment Considered [New York: Sheldon, Blakeman & Co., 1856], p. 35, quoting from the House Journal, Wednesday, January 23, 1856, and B. F. Morris, The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States [Philadelphia: George W. Childs, 1864], p. 328.)
Congress, U. S. House Judiciary Committee, in 1854, stated:
"Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle... In this age, there can be no substitute for Christianity... That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants."
(Reports of Committees of the House of Representatives Made During the First Session of the Thirty-Third Congress [Washington: A. O. P. Nicholson, 1854], pp. 6-9.)
Following are a couple quotes from George Washington's 1796 Farewell Address:
ReplyDelete"The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles."
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness – these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, "where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?" And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Because English language Bibles could not be printed in America but had to be imported, when the Revolution began and the British began to blockade all materials coming to America, the ability to obtain such Bibles ended. Therefore, in 1777, America began experiencing a shortage of several important commodities, including Bibles. On July 7, a request was placed before Congress to print or import more, because “unless timely care be used to prevent it, we shall not have Bibles for our schools and families and for the public worship of God in our churches.” (Letters of Delegates to Congress, Paul H. Smith, editor [Washington: Library of Congress, 1981], Vol. 7, p. 311, n1.)
ReplyDeleteCongress concurred with that assessment and announced: “The Congress desire to have a Bible printed under their care and by their encouragement.” (Letters of Delegates to Congress, Paul H. Smith, editor [Washington: Library of Congress, 1981], Vol. VII, p. 311, “Committee on Publishing a Bible to Sundry Philadelphia Printers,” July 7, 1777.)
A special committee overseeing that project therefore recommended:
"[T]he use of the Bible is so universal and its importance so great,...your Committee recommend that Congress will order the Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different ports of the States of the Union." (Journals of the Continental Congress [Washington: Government Printing Office, 1907], Vol. VIII, p. 734, September 11, 1777.)
Congress agreed with the committee’s recommendation and ordered Bibles imported. (Journals of the Continental Congress [Washington: Government Printing Office, 1907], Vol. VIII, p. 735, September 11, 1777.)
In January of 1781, Robert Aitken (publisher of the Pennsylvania Magazine in Philadelphia) petitioned Congress for permission to print an English-language Bible on his presses in America rather than import the Bibles. In his memorial to Congress, Aitken said “your Memorialist begs leave to, inform your Honours That he both begun and made considerable progress in a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools” and went on to say “your Memorialist prays, that he may be commissioned or otherwise appointed & Authorized to print and vend Editions of, the Sacred Scriptures, in such manner and form as may best suit the wants and demands of the good people of these States.” (The Holy Bible as Printed by Robert Aitken and Approved & Recommended by the Congress of the United States of America in 1782 [New York: Arno Press, 1968], Introduction to this Aitken Bible reprint.)
(cont.)
(cont.)
ReplyDeleteCongress appointed a committee that was to “from time to time [attend] to his progress in the work; that they also [recommend] it to the two Chaplains of Congress to examine and give their opinion of the execution.” (Journals of the Continental Congress [Washington: Government Printing Office, 1907], Vol. XXIII, pp. 572-573, September 12, 1782.)
The committee, comprised of Founding Fathers James Duane, Thomas McKean, and John Witherspoon, 9 reported back to Congress in September of 1782 giving its full approval. They also included assurances from the two chaplains of Congress that “Having selected and examined a variety of passages throughout the work, we are of opinion that it is executed with great accuracy as to the sense, and with as few grammatical and typographical errors as could be expected in an undertaking of such magnitude.” (Journals of the Continental Congress [Washington: Government Printing Office, 1907], Vol. XXIII, p. 573, September 12, 1782.)
Congress gave Aitken a ringing endorsement in the form of a congressional resolution to “publish this Recommendation in the manner he shall think proper” to help sell and circulate the Bible. (Journals of the Continental Congress [Washington: Government Printing Office, 1907], Vol. XIII, p. 574, September 12, 1782; The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments (Philadelphia: Robert Aitken, 1782).
That Bible – approved by the Founding Fathers in Congress – was the first English-language Bible to be printed in America.
Of this Bible, and of Congress’ direct role in its creation and distribution, one early historian observed:
"Who, in view of this fact, will call in question the assertion that this is a Bible nation? Who will charge the government with indifference to religion when the first Congress of the states assumed all the rights and performed all the duties of a Bible Society long before such an institution had an existence in the world!" (W. P. Strickland, History of the American Society from its Organization to the Present Time [New York: Harper and Brothers, 1849], pp. 20-21.)
I think this is evidence of a Christianized nation without a State Church that would be in a particular sense, secular. Secular in the sense of not specifically affiliated with any particular ecclesiastical (Oxford Dictionary) page 1250, religious movement, as in State Church, so as noted in contrast to the European models connected to the Roman Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodox, but not to the point to deny religious influence upon the State.
ReplyDeleteChristianity having the main religious influence.
Thank you, Jeff.
Sadly this influence has become less over the decades.
Further thoughts:
ReplyDeleteA State Church set-up may be considered to produce a 'Christian nation' in a sense. But even in this scenario from let us state the middle ages or somewhat earlier/later, I doubt much (in agreement somewhat with the previous post on this blog on religion stats) that most of a nation's citizens would truly be Christians as in born again (John 3), elected (Ephesians 1, Romans 8), saved by grace through faith unto good works (Ephesians 2), atoned (having redemption and forgiveness and other) for sins in Christ (Colossians 1: 14) and having future resurrection in Christ (1 Corinthians 15).
In a sense the truest Christian nation will be the restored Kingdom of God described from Revelation 21-22.
Please check out, follow with Google/Blogger Friend Connect (when possible with second blog) and leave comments on the blogs of my good friend from Vancouver, Mr. Mathew Smed. He has become a huge spiritual supporter of Dr. Russell Norman Murray (blog) and satire and theology.
ReplyDeleteDolphins
Matthew Smed
I like your comedy that you included in your descriptions of world soccer clubs...thx
ReplyDelete-Miles of Smiles-
Thank you Dr. Murray for your comments on Christianity and the United States. It would be nice if Canada had a closer tithe to the Church.
ReplyDelete-Fellow Christian-
Forbes also did a list of the 15 wealthiest fictional characters.
ReplyDeleteI would have thought that Uncle Scrooge should be in the top 15, but apparently not..
'Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI like your comedy that you included in your descriptions of world soccer clubs...thx
-Miles of Smiles-'
Thank you.
I try to be original.
'Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteThank you Dr. Murray for your comments on Christianity and the United States. It would be nice if Canada had a closer tithe to the Church.
-Fellow Christian-'
Christian fellow I think you blew a tire...
Cheers.
Dear Chuckles,
ReplyDeleteI am terribly heartbroken that Harry Potter, Captain Stupid, I mean Stubing, Tattoo and Gilligan did not make the list. Life can be so unfair...
Hello. And Bye.
ReplyDeleteWhatever you are smoking, I want no part of it...
ReplyDeleteI think this is evidence of a Christianized nation without a State Church that would be in a particular sense, secular. Secular in the sense of not specifically affiliated with any particular ecclesiastical (Oxford Dictionary) page 1250, religious movement, as in State Church, so as noted in contrast to the European models connected to the Roman Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodox, but not to the point to deny religious influence upon the State.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that all the historical examples of state churches are negative ones. Queen Elizabeth established the Protestant religion in England. The mass was outlawed and Englishmen were compelled to attend the Anglican Church or pay a shilling. Catholics were forbidden to even hold Catholic literature. The government ordered the destruction of religious images in churches. In 1581, Parliament passed a law that conversion to Catholicism would be punished as high treason. Over 100 priests and 60 laymen were executed during the reign of Queen Elizabeth. The Puritans suffered intense religious inquiry to the point that it was compared to the Spanish Inquisition. Persecution resumed again under King Charles I. As an example, one woman who insisted on keeping Saturday as the Sabbath was imprisoned for 11 years.
In 16th century France, King Francis II renewed an edict which punished Protestants (Huguenots) with death, and strengthened it by ordering that all buildings where Protestants met were to be destroyed.
For hundreds of years, the Catholic Church reigned supreme in old Europe. The Inquisition in the 11th through the 15th centuries severely punished anyone as 'heretics' who strayed from the Church.
Now it's the Muslims who are prepared and willing to enforce Islam on the Christians. Their ultimate goal is a global state church. Shari'a law is basically a state church with extremely strict laws and consequences.
Even today, there is a state church in Germany, the Lutheran church, which receives government bias over the other churches. For example, the government collects tithing for the church as part of its taxes. Even if you belong to a different church, you still have to pay your dues to the Lutheran Church.
As far as the founding of the U.S., the U.S. constitutional liberties are a direct result of the American Founders' moral and religious convictions, which were based on a belief in God, Who created heaven and earth, as well as on the fixed and unchanging absolutes of God's Word. Tragically, the strong Christian roots of the American Founding Fathers, because of historical revisionism, is missing from most textbooks and reference books written during the last fifty years. The politically-correct have done a marvelous job of taking anything and everything about God and decency out of American schools and governments.
Now, regarding a state church and the U.S., the term 'separation of church and state,' so often (mis)used today, can nowhere be found in the Constitution. It was first mentioned in a letter by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a Baptist church group a year before his death. But even then, he never implied that the government should remain forever aloof from religious matters. The First Amendment is the only place where religion is mentioned in the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." This means that the U.S. government will not designate a single church as the official church of the United States of America. The great perversion of "separation of church and state" that's happening in America today by the progressives is the total opposite of what the American Founding Fathers had in mind for America. Basically, the American Founding Fathers were trying to prevent a state church; they were not trying to remove religion altogether. Neither were they trying to remove religion from the government, schools or public places.
Sorry, I think my last sentence from my previous comment may have been cut off. It should read:
ReplyDeleteBasically, the American Founding Fathers were trying to prevent a state church; they were not trying to remove religion altogether. Neither were they trying to remove religion from the government, schools or public places.
I agree, I do not support Church-State, the State Church because as I was taught at Mennonite Bible School and Baptist Seminary, Christianity becomes politicized and corrupted.
ReplyDeleteInstead I prefer a separation not so much that religious influence and expression is not allowed in constitution and laws, but that no formal religion is tied to the State.
So the Bible and Christianity and Judaism, could within a hypothetical Western country definitely influence codes of conduct and laws without enforcing set religion. A problem I see in the West is that too many in the public and too many lawmakers are now opposed to basic Judaeo-Christian Biblical values.
Thanks, Saint Jenkins of Ocala.
Well today Mr. Jenkins, a nearly lifelong martial artist demonstrates on Facebook and now Blogger a new martial arts preparation technique for Christians to use on cultists at the door...
ReplyDeleteLOL, yeah, it's called Cult Fu!
It's designed to decimate the most determined JWs, and repel the most persistent Mormons.
Well today Mr. Jenkins, a nearly lifelong martial artist demonstrates on Facebook and now Blogger a new martial arts preparation technique for Christians to use on cultists at the door...
ReplyDeleteLOL, yeah, it's called Cult Fu!
It's designed to decimate the most determined JWs and repel the most persistent Mormons.
Cult Fu...very good.
ReplyDeleteHow about...
Hai Cultarate
Hai Karate
How about...
ReplyDeleteHai Cultarate
Nice...
I remember those "Hai Karate" commecials...
I seriously love your site.. Great colors & theme. Did you create this site yourself? Please reply back as I’m attempting to create my own personal site and want to find out where you got this from or exactly what the theme is called. Thank you!
ReplyDeleteYes ... the design is clearly needed to be changed :) What would be brighter , nebudu
ReplyDeleteIt is a Blogger template by Bowman that I have customized learning some HTML code. The only other one like it with different colours is my other blog.
ReplyDeleteGood evening.