Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Conservatives flip out after Obama reads original Gettysburg Address without ‘under God’

Posted by on Nov. 19, 2013 at 3:32 PM
  • 231 Replies

Conservatives flip out after Obama reads original Gettysburg Address without ‘under God’


Tuesday, November 19, 2013 14:46 EST
Barack Obama reads the Gettysburg Address (YouTube)

Conservative websites on Tuesday expressed outraged after President Barack Obama read an original version of President Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, which did not include the words “under God.”

In celebration of the 150th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address, filmmaker Ken Burns asked dozens of public figures to read the speech.

According to Media Matters, Burns specifically asked the president to read from the “Nicolay Version,” which was written before the phrase “under God” was added:

“It is rather for us, the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that, from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here, gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve these dead shall not have died in vain; that the nation, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

The phrase, however, was changed slightly by the time the speech was delivered by Lincoln: “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.”

By Tuesday morning, the news had become one of the top stories on conservative websites like the Drudge Report, The Daily Caller, the National Review Online and WMAL. The Daily Caller did eventually correct their report to note that Burns had requested the “Nicolay Version” of the speech.

For weeks, conservatives have both been attacking the president for not attending a commemoration ceremony at Gettysburg and saying that he shouldn’t attend at all.

Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger told Fox News host Brian Kilmeade on Tuesday that Lincoln had set out to unify the country and Obama should not attend the commemoration because he was dividing the country.

“The thing that Lincoln said at the Gettysburg Address is that they were gathered there for what he called unfinished business, and the unfinished business was the Civil War, the liberation of the slaves,” Henninger explained. “And I remarked that the ascendancy of Barack Obama to the presidency in 2008 was in many ways completing the circle of Lincoln’s unfinished business. But at the same time that Gettysburg Address was about unifying the country, the Civil War he had fought to bring the country together.”

“It seemed to me if Obama came under those circumstances and spoke about unifying the country, it would not sit well with half the country, who so disagrees with him,” he added.

But Henninger also seemed unsatisfied with Obama’s decision not to speak because he said it was “unconceivable that the president would not have taken the opportunity to talk about a president he so admired on this special day.”

Watch this video from Fox News, broadcast Nov. 19, 2013.

http://mediamatters.org/embed/static/clips/2013/11/19/32951/fnc-ff-20131119-obamagettysburg1

by on Nov. 19, 2013 at 3:32 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
sweet-a-kins
by Emerald Member on Nov. 19, 2013 at 3:37 PM
2 moms liked this

 Because they are idiots

KimmyShaw
by Member on Nov. 19, 2013 at 3:41 PM
9 moms liked this

He was supposed to read a mans speech from 150 years ago to commemorate the history of the speech, that was rude and tacky for him to change it.  Of course people will be angry!

VooDooB
by weird cheese on Nov. 19, 2013 at 3:44 PM
2 moms liked this

From what I understand, Lincoln's original address didn't have the pharase "under God" in it. So if BO is repeating AL's original speech then he didn't change anything.

SuperChicken
by on Nov. 19, 2013 at 3:48 PM
4 moms liked this

Much ado about nothing.   

There is enough to complain about with Obama that is real, so that conservatives who have meltdowns over things like this just make conservatives in general look like idiots.  Idiots who can't bother to make sure what they are complaining about is really something to complain about.    It's always the squeaky wheel that gets noticed.

rfurlongg
by on Nov. 19, 2013 at 3:49 PM
3 moms liked this
If he had used "under God" the other side would have flipped. Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Luvnlogic
by Silver Member on Nov. 19, 2013 at 3:52 PM
2 moms liked this
Oh noes!!!! ;) It'd sure be nice if people checked into the whys before manufacturing outrage.
KimmyShaw
by Member on Nov. 19, 2013 at 3:53 PM

From the research I have done the speech he signed had it in it. There were a bunch of speeches floating around for some reason but the final one that had his signature on it did. 

 


Quoting VooDooB:

From what I understand, Lincoln's original address didn't have the pharase "under God" in it. So if BO is repeating AL's original speech then he didn't change anything.


 

-Celestial-
by Pepperlynn on Nov. 19, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Today marks the 150th anniversary of President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, and you’ll undoubtedly hear revisionist Christian historians talk about how even Lincoln’s address featured the words “Under God”:

President Lincoln delivering the Gettysburg Address (Library of Congress)

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives, that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate – we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.

It is for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here, have, thus far, so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Just one problem with that. It’s not the original version of the speech.

Lincoln actually wrote two drafts before delivering the speech — and three afterwards, for fundraising purposes.

Turns out the original two he drafted didn’t include the godly language:

The Freedom From Religion Foundation explains the significance:

Perhaps Lincoln may have ad libbed “under God” in giving his famous address. If so, Lincoln again failed to include those words in writing out a second copy, known as the Hay version, because Lincoln gave it to his secretary John Hay as soon as he returned from Gettysburg. The second version is as godless as the first. This suggests Lincoln certainly didn’t think uniting our nation with deity was important.

It’s entirely appropriate that a “government of the people, by the people, for the people” leave divisive religion out of government, thus ensuring this nation “shall not perish from the Earth.”

Considering the divinely-inspired motives of the Confederacy, it’s not hard to believe that Lincoln, regardless of his personal beliefs, knew God could be invoked by anyone, even those using the idea to justify atrocities, and that leaving God out of his address was a deliberate move.

littlelamb36
by Member on Nov. 26, 2013 at 9:21 PM
2 moms liked this

What does every one expect from our government, they are all lying cheating thieving wastes of space. People have been fighting since 1963 to take GOD out of America and it seems they get closer and closer every day. We have become a godless nation with godless leaders.

 

AlekD
by Gold Member on Nov. 26, 2013 at 9:22 PM
I'm not flipping out but it seems pretty ridiculous to me. Will we now edit out references to God from all historical texts?
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)



Featured