Heteroromantic

[Brian Stoffregen]

You are right, Pastor Engebretson.
If you’re sticking to the quote, use it the way it was said.
Choral groups sometimes have discussion about singing Stephen Foster Songs. Or about in the “battle hymn of the republc’s “as he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.”
I alway say, sing it the way the composer wrote it, say it the way The poet wrote it. And if you can’t do that, don’t sing it or say it.

Should that also apply to the Pledge of Allegiance? We should recite it as Francis Bellamy wrote it in 1892:


"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

[peter_speckhard]

You are right, Pastor Engebretson.
If you’re sticking to the quote, use it the way it was said.
Choral groups sometimes have discussion about singing Stephen Foster Songs. Or about in the “battle hymn of the republc’s “as he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.”
I alway say, sing it the way the composer wrote it, say it the way The poet wrote it. And if you can’t do that, don’t sing it or say it.

Should that also apply to the Pledge of Allegiance? We should recite it as Francis Bellamy wrote it in 1892:


"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

No. The change was voted on. It is like an amendment to the Constitution, which becomes part of the Constitution. That’s totally different from identifying an original quote by author and then updating the language.

[Jim Butler]

Oh, come on! The ACLU did not change the justice’s words, because they clearly put the alternate words in brackets.

The ACLU has issued an apology for changing Justice Ginsburg's quote. “We won’t be altering people’s quotes,” Mr. Romero said in an interview on Monday evening. “It was a mistake among the digital team. Changing quotes is not something we ever did.”

So, Humble Correspondent, who is correct: those who say the ACLU changed the justice's words or those who said they didn't? The ACLU seems to be...not on your side. Perhaps you would like contact the ACLU and tell them that they did not really change the quote and find out why their "knickers are so twisted they could lash Odysseus to the mast." Let me know how that phone call goes.

“Spiked” goes goofy and nutty in phony outrage.

The NYT article also notes that "The tweet by the A.C.L.U. occasioned mockery and some anger on social media from feminists and others."

So, HC Austin, were the feminists upset by the ACLU's changing of the quote also guilty of "goofy and nutty in phony outrage"?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/27/us/aclu-apologizes-ginsburg-quote.html

[Charles Austin]

It is a storm in a soup bowl, Pastor Butler. But if it gives you a chance to mock me, I suppose it made your day.
I’m glad the ACLU repented and amended its life. Now will you give them a contribution? Join in supporting their important work?

[Jim Butler]

It is a storm in a soup bowl, Pastor Butler. But if it gives you a chance to mock me, I suppose it made your day.

Uhhh. you were the one who got all bent out of shape, arguing that altering a quote by putting words in brackets means they didn't really alter the quote and who accused people who found it offensive of being "goofy and nutty" and "getting their knickers in a twist." I just wondered if those same appellations applied to others.

I did not mock you. I simply pointed out the absurdity of your statements by applying them in other contexts. Perhaps you should refrain from saying silly things in the future.

I’m glad the ACLU repented and amended its life. Now will you give them a contribution? Join in supporting their important work?

What did they have to repent of? According to you, they did nothing wrong. So why be "glad" that they repented? That doesn't make any sense.

Now, I'm happy they saw their error and corrected it. But I've always argued that they erred in deliberately altering Justice Ginsburg's quote. I'm actually a bit surprised that they didn't just write off the complaints of feminists as the carping of a bunch of TERFs.

As for donations, I support my congregation, two missionaries, and the occasional released inmate who needs help with food or clothing. Tell you what. Why don't you take the cost of the steak dinner you still owe me and donate it in my name? $300 should cover it. That way money will be donated and we'll be square.

[peter_speckhard]

https://www.campusreform.org/article?id=18221

This argument linked here misses the point a little bit. How can the campus force anyone to use these made up pronouns when, to my knowledge, made up pronouns are always in the third person, which is the only case of gendered pronouns in English? In talking to a trans person, one would use second person pronouns to refer to that person anyway. It would only be when talking about a trans person to some other person that the bogus pronouns would come into play. And in that case, the policy wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on; nobody can demand that I refer to them the way they want to be referred to when I'm not with them.

The really telling thing is the text of the silly petition, which says that no "moral correct person" can possibly not use people's preferred pronouns, and that those who don't are the scum of the earth. Not only is grammar in general on the decline, but progressive Puritanical stridency is on the rise. But hundreds of people at this little school essentially think that a university campus must exclude those who don't accept trans ideology. 

In my FL article on pronouns I draw the line at being forced to tell people my preferred pronouns. I won't do that.

[peter_speckhard]

https://twitter.com/StateDept/status/1450854328189718530?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1450854328189718530%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Flegalinsurrection.com%2F2021%2F10%2Fstate-dept-celebrates-international-pronouns-day-as-china-and-russia-increase-their-strength%2F

The State Department tweeted out their celebration of International Pronouns Day today. Bunch of Anglophiles, they probably forgot that the international community already has hundreds and hundreds of pronouns in countless languages.

Personally, I can't wait for International Adjectives Day. Actually, the whole adjective season fills me with cheer.

[Mark Brown]

I went to a happy place,

I unpack, my adjectives....

https://www.bing.com/search?q=School+house+rock%2C+adjectives&form=ANNTH1&refig=81492494fd5b41c18de7d73344049e43&shtp=GetUrl&shid=d716cbd1-b3d3-44f9-8189-720eff2ff63e&shtk=R3JhbW1hciAtIFVucGFjayBZb3VyIEFkamVjdGl2ZXMgLSBTY2hvb2xob3VzZSBSb2Nr&shdk=WW91IGNhbiBkZXNjcmliZSBwZW9wbGUgYW5kIHBsYWNlcyBhbmQgdGhpbmdzLSBqdXN0IHVucGFjayB5b3VyIGFkamVjdGl2ZXMu&shhk=FRaF8tHvU%2FxBrBrJOFDZPFkkU8KvLpM1YSYWAUTdI1Q%3D&shth=OVP.lMUEfyZzP151j6uOMBpFzAHgFo

[peter_speckhard]

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/state-department-issues-first-gender-neutral-passport/

This article does not claim any particular national interesting being served by this change except that people live their lives more fully if their official documents acknowledge their preferred gender identity. But we have to ask-- why does a passport denote the holder's sex at all? If it is not an objective piece of biological information, it serves no purpose related to the purpose of a passport. Can I list my preferred height? If so, then it would make sense to stop listing the passport holder's height, because who cares? My preferred birthdate? Of course not. If it really were true that sex/gender is a construct and people should go by their preferences, then the obvious goal for the trans community would eliminating the designation on passports altogether. But adding a non-binary designation accomplishes other than to insist that everyone else officially acknowledge that "male and female He created them" is a false view of humanity according to the United States of America.