Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Tun Tavern, Birthplace of the USMC

The first U.S. Marines were raised at Tun Tavern in Philadelphia, PA

Every Year on November 10th Marines wherever they may be stationed across the world remember Tun Tavern and the birth of the Corps. On November 10, 1775 the United States Marine Corps was officially formed by a vote of the Continental Congress. Captain Samuel Nicholas was named the first Commandant of the Marine Corps. Robert Mullan was appointed to raise two companies of Marines. Mullan was also the proprietor of Tun Tavern which had a long reputation for having the best beer in Philadelphia. So it was that the very first Continental Marines were recruited in Tun Tavern, and it became the birthplace of the U.S. Marine Corps.

Marines have a long tradition of remembering their roots, and Nov. 10 is a date remembered every year wherever there are Marines. On that day all Marines remember Tun Tavern. Fittingly enough for Marines over the centuries since, many of whom have earned something of a reputation as strong drinkers, the name of the tavern originates from the name for a special kind of old English beer barrel called a tun. Nicholas and Mullen immediately began recruiting Marines, and legend has it that free beer was offered to new recruits as soon as they signed the contract. The Navy had just been created about a month earlier on October 13, 1775, and Marines were needed aboard the new ships. Congress voted that all Marine Officers should have the same rank structure and pay as equivalent ranks in the “land service” (Army).

Almost from the very start, every Marine was a rifleman, and marksmanship from the yardarms or crow’s nest was a famed early Marine skill. Shooting accurately from high in the rigging during boardings and close ship to ship fighting Marine sharp-shooting became legendary by the end of the time of the great sailing ships. Marine officers to this day wear a special cover (hat for you landlubbers) which distinguishes them from above to identify them to their sharpshooters in close on deck fighting.

During the Revolution Marines captured or made successful hit and run assaults on several British positions both in the Caribbean, and the British Isles including the only successful incursions on British soil in over 700 years. In 1776 Nicholas’s Marines captured Nassau in the Bahamas. They took Fort Montagu, captured the British Governor, and brought back numerous cannon and thousands of shells for the American cause. Nicholas was promoted to Major after this victory. Marines fought successfully on the Isle of Jersey, and Marines under John Paul Jones landed at Whitehaven where they burned shipping and captured Lord Selkirk’s family silver. They were attempting to capture Lord Selkirk himself to trade for American war prisoners, but he wasn’t home. From then, Marines have distinguished themselves in every American engagement of any size or duration, and it all started at Tun Tavern (sometimes spelled Tunn Tavern) in Philadelphia in 1775. If you live anywhere near a base that houses Marines, and you are up early in the morning, you might hear them singing as they are on their morning run, “Back in 1775. My Marine Corps came alive. . .”

Apr 11, 2007

by: John Crandall

Read more at Suite101: Tun Tavern, Birthplace of the USMC: The first U.S. Marines were raised at Tun Tavern in Philadelphia, PA
Suite101.com http://johncrandall.suite101.com/tun-tavern-birthplace-of-the-usmc-a18568#ixzz1eY8lXU36

Monday, November 21, 2011

Do scientists question the Theory of Evolution?

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSE n.d.). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science.
One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.
Often, claims that scientists reject evolution or support creationism are exaggerated or fraudulent. Many scientists doubt some aspects of evolution, especially recent hypotheses about it. All good scientists are skeptical about evolution (and everything else) and open to the possibility, however remote, that serious challenges to it may appear. Creationists frequently seize such expressions of healthy skepticism to imply that evolution is highly questionable. They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Why do we look up to athletes?

1. Chicago Cubs outfielder Andre Dawson on being a role model:

"I wan' all dem kids to do what I do, to look up to me. I wan' all the kids to copulate me."

2. New Orleans Saint RB George Rogers when asked about the upcoming season:

"I want to rush for 1,000 or 1,500 yards, whichever comes first.."

3. And, upon hearing Joe Jacobi of the 'Skin's say:

"I'd run over my own mother to win the Super Bowl,"

Matt Millen of the Raiders said: "To win, I'd run over Joe's Mom, too."

4. Torrin Polk, University of Houston receiver, on his coach, John Jenkins:

"He treat us like mens. He let us wear earrings.."

5. Football commentator and former player Joe Theismann:

"Nobody in football should be called a genius. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein."

6. Senior basketball player at the University of Pittsburgh :

"I'm going to graduate on time, no matter how long it takes..

(Now that is beautiful)

7. Bill Peterson, a Florida State football coach:

"You guys line up alphabetically by height.."

And, "You guys pair up in groups of three, and then line up in a circle."

8. Boxing promoter Dan Duva on Mike Tyson going to prison:

"Why would anyone expect him to come out smarter? He went to prison for three years, not Princeton.."

9. Stu Grimson, Chicago Blackhawks left wing, explaining why he keeps a color photo of himself above his locker:

"That's so when I forget how to spell my name, I can still find my clothes."

10. Lou Duva, veteran boxing trainer, on the Spartan training regimen of heavyweight Andrew Golota:

"He's a guy who gets up at six o'clock in the morning, regardless of what time it is."

11. Chuck Nevitt, North Carolina State basketball player, explaining to Coach Jim Valvano why he appeared nervous at practice:

"My sister's expecting a baby, and I don't know if I'm going to be an uncle or an aunt. (I wonder if his IQ ever hit room temperature in January)

12. Frank Layden, Utah Jazz president, on a former player:

"I asked him, 'Son, what is it with you? Is it ignorance or apathy?'

He said, 'Coach, I don't know and I don't care.'"

13. Shelby Metcalf, basketball coach at Texas A&M, recounting what he told a player who received four F's and one D:

"Son, looks to me like you're spending too much time on one subject."

14. In the words of NC State great Charles Shackelford:

"I can go to my left or right, I am amphibious."

15. Former Houston Oilers coach Bum Phillips when asked by Bob Costas why he takes his wife on all the road trips,

Phillips responded: "Because she's too ugly to kiss good-bye."

If only Jesus can save mankind, why did not Yahweh tell mankind?

God's greatest and highest demand in the Bible is the demand for submission to authority. A person may try to please God by his offering of sacrifices. He may try to work for the Lord and in the name of the Lord to honor Him; yet it is only in obedience and submission that there can be an absolute honoring of God and an exaltation of His name, His will and His purpose. But just as submission to authority is the greatest demand of God, it is the greatest problem and failure of God's creatures. Disobedience to authority is the reason for the rebellion of Satan; it is also the cause of the fall of man.

A. Obedience is the first law of heaven.

1. It was decreed in heaven that all blessings are predicated upon obedience (see D&C 130:20–21 ; Deuteronomy 11:8, 26–27 ).

2. We came to earth to prove our willingness to obey (see Abraham 3:24–25 ; D&C 98:14 ).

3. Obedience must be voluntary (see Abraham 3:25–26 ; Helaman 14:30–31 ).

4. Commandments are given to us because God loves us and wants us to become like Him (see Deuteronomy 6:24–25 ; D&C 25:15 ; 3 Nephi 12:48 ).

5. Our obedience to God’s commandments is an expression of our love for Him (see John 14:15, 21, 23 ; 1 John 5:3 ; D&C 42:29 ).

6. It is important to obey God even when we may not fully understand the commandment (see Moses 5:5–6 ; 1 Nephi 3:7 ).

7. The Lord chastens the Saints because He loves them (see Hebrews 12:6 ; D&C 95:1 ; Helaman 15:3 ; Revelation 3:19 ).

8. We should obey God rather than man (see Acts 5:29 ).

B. The Lord promises great blessings to those who obey His commandments.

1. The Lord promises both temporal and spiritual blessings to those who obey His commandments (see Mosiah 2:41 ; Leviticus 26:3–12 ; Deuteronomy 4:40 ; D&C 58:2 ; 64:34 ; 130:21 ).

2. Obedience in this life will give us an advantage in the world to come (see D&C 130:19 ).

3. The Lord will provide a way for us to obey all His commandments (see 1 Nephi 3:7 ; 17:3 ).

4. Obedience to divine law makes us free (see John 8:31–32 ).

C. Disobedience is a serious offense in the eyes of the Lord.

1. We offend God by disobeying His commandments (see D&C 59:21 ; Ephesians 5:6 ).

2. Disobedience to the commandments will bring serious temporal and spiritual consequences (see Leviticus 26:14–32 ; Jeremiah 11:3 ; D&C 1:14 ; 56:3 ; 2 Nephi 9:27 ).

Yet, even though God demands this submission to his authority, he decides to cede it to his son???

Excuse me? This god which has demanded complete obedience suddenly decides to let his son be in charge? Based on what?

John 14:6

New International Version (NIV)
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Jesus made that arbitrary statement himself.

But how do we know that this claim is true?
Anyone can make such bizarre and uncorroborated claims. In fact, many other god-men from other religions have made this claim.

For this to have been credible, it should have come from Yahweh direct.
Why didn't Yahweh EVER say to anyone that he had a son called Jesus and that anyone who wanted to go to heaven would have to accept Jesus as the ONLY possible saviour.

Why did Yahweh demand blind obedience to himself instead of saying to the whole of mankind : if you want to be saved you have to worship my son Jesus?? But Yahweh NEVER mentions that he even has a son. Why?

The odd thing here is that a statement of such momentous importance for the salvation of mankind, should have come directly by Yahweh himself.

If the Jesus claim is indeed true, Yahweh should have warned mankind that there is no point worshiping or sucking up to Yahweh, but they should direct their prayers to his son Jesus, because no one can have salvation except through the son.

It is not as if god the father was unaware that Jesus existed. According to the story, Jesus is part of the Trinity, is god, and has been around as long as god the father has been. Which is forever, since they are supposed to be without origin.

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Rick Warren helping to make sure gays in Africa are killed.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/the-human-condition/2009/11/29/pastor-rick-warren-responds-to-proposed-antigay-ugandan-legislation.html

Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church and author of the bestselling bookThe Purpose Driven Life, drew fire last year when he was invited to give the invocation at President Obama's inauguration. His support for Proposition 8 in California, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman only, and his anti-gay-marriage views concerned many in Obama's base.

Now Warren's on the defensive again, this time for his affiliation with Martin Ssempa, a Ugandan pastor who has endorsed proposed legislation in Uganda that makes certain homosexual acts punishable by life in prison or even, in some cases, death. Ssempa has made appearances at Saddleback and has been embraced warmly by Warren and his wife, Kay.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rachel-maddow-show-us-ties-ugandan-anti

\Rachel Maddow and Jeff Sharlet discuss the ties between C-Street, Pastor Rick Warren and an anti-gay bill in Uganda. Good for Rachel for bringing some attention to this truly horrific story, unlike her cohort at MSNBC David Gregory who forgot to mention Uganda during the softball interview he gave Rick Warren on Meet the Press.

Have we ever had a president who was not a Christian?

Here’s a “fact check.” Four American presidents have been Unitarian.

In the United States Unitarianism evolved out of the liberal wing of the Congregational movement (in New England most Unitarian churches used to be Congregational churches, with King’s Chapel in Boston being the primary exception). Today Unitarianism is predominantly a non-Christian denomination, with about a half and half split between ‘humanist’ and ‘theist’ Unitarians. But in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries Unitarians were generally Christian in self-conception, though they rejected the Trinity as outlined in the Nicene Creed. Thomas Jefferson was never an avowed Unitarian, but his personal correspondence indicates that his views toward religion were in line with more radical Unitarians during his presidency, though he did become more of a liberal Episcopal Christian in his later years. It has to be remembered that Jefferson invited Thomas Paine back to the United States in 1802. Keep in mind that Paine was the Christopher Hitchens of his day when it came to religious opinions (Christian churches would not take his body for burial upon his death because of his reputation).

Jefferson’s religious heterodoxy can be understood best by observing the substance of the Bible he produced by redacting much of the material.

The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth begins with an account of Jesus’s birth without references to angels, genealogy, or prophecy. Miracles, references to the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, and Jesus’ resurrection are also absent from The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth…It does, however, include references to Noah’s Ark, the Great Flood, the Tribulation, and the Second Coming, as well as Heaven, Hell, and the Devil.

Besides Unitarians, a lot of the founders and early Presidents (the Southerners) were formally Episcopalians, which didn’t necessarily mean more than that they were born into an Episcopalian family. The “born again” churches demand an adult personal commitment at some point for someone to become a real member, whereas Episcopals (and Catholics and Lutherans, and probably Orthodox, and maybe Van Buren’s Dutch Reformed) just default people in at birth. This whole infant v. adult baptism controversy really does have some substance to it; it’s not one of those controversies based on an obscure textual quibble.

Besides Episcopal, Unitarian, and Dutch Reformed (Van Buren), most of the early Presidents seem to have vacillated between Methodist, Presbyterian, and sometimes Baptist or Episcopal, or to have declared themselves to be nondenominational Christians. There might have been good political reasons for this vagueness. Many were not communicant members of any church, and Grant was unbaptized — Polk was baptized only on his deathbed.

To the extent that the first 20 Presidents or so were Christians at all, most of them seemed to be exactly the kind of lax conventional / liberal / nondenominational / non-born-again Christians whose Christianity contemporary fundamentalists and evangelicals tend to doubt. Later on Presidents tended to have more denominational identification and McKinley, Wilson, and others seemed to be devout and committed. But there were still plenty of very nominal Christians, like Eisenhower.