Iconophili's Great Big Thread of Conspiracies!

[CGW]

1. Is it reasonable that one can see a name attached to the nation such as E' Pluribus Unum from history?

One sees the phrase "the land of E Pluribus Unum" used, made famous by its appreance in The Wizard of Oz. But this is simply the rhetorical figure of Metonymy: using a related thing (in this case, the motto) in place of the real item (the United States).

a. Are treaties Constitutional documents?

They are mentioned in the constitution of course, but they aren't part of it.

b. Is the Great Seal attached to treaties historically?

The great seal is not "attached". As you may have noticed if you ever had to use a notary, the American custom is to emboss the document itself with the seal. Treaties are, as a rule, so stamped.

c. Has E'Pluribus Unum been used to describe America in the past?

Yes, but it's in a perfectly obvious way. Many states, one country. I simply don't understand why you think this is so significant.

d. Is the mystery of Babylon, mother of harlots, unity and the imagination to do anything as described in Genesis 11:1-9?

I'm not a Hebrew nor a Greek scholar, so it's unclear to me that "Babel" and "Babylon" have anything to do with each other.

And I'm failing to pull this together into a coherent picture. Is the USA united? Well, in the trivial sense of being a union of the states, yes. In purpose and optimism? Well, I think you would find a lot of people willing to argue that the USA is fundamentally divided now, and becoming more so, and that optimism is in short supply. I see a lot of frustration that the sheer size and power of the USA does not translate into the ability to realize whatever common national will we have-- and that such a common will is distinctly lacking.

Immediately after 9/11, most everyone expected that attacks would unite the country in a single will to deal with the attackers and in general act against terrorism. Five years later, this unity is not realized.

2. Is it reasonable that one might have cause for concern about the secular nature, makeup and history of a nation? If not, why not?

Why worry? What can you do about it?

[AndyHolland]

1. Is it reasonable that one can see a name attached to the nation such as E' Pluribus Unum from history?

One sees the phrase "the land of E Pluribus Unum" used, made famous by its appreance in The Wizard of Oz. But this is simply the rhetorical figure of Metonymy: using a related thing (in this case, the motto) in place of the real item (the United States).

a. Are treaties Constitutional documents?

They are mentioned in the constitution of course, but they aren't part of it.

From Article VI
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

You argue they are separate, but I argue they are the same not only because of weight but also of nature.

Laws and treaties are Constitutional. Laws derive their basis from pursuing the Constitution, while treaties effectively enter into contracts in which the force of the Constitution is extended to others. Laws do not extend the Constitution. We are beginning to see this line of reasoning in the courts for example.

However, we could argue that forever. It really doesn't matter in terms of semantics if one accepts the literal text of equality. Constitution = Treaties in terms of legal weight.

b. Is the Great Seal attached to treaties historically?

The great seal is not "attached". As you may have noticed if you ever had to use a notary, the American custom is to emboss the document itself with the seal. Treaties are, as a rule, so stamped.

Semantics.

Red tape was attached wasn't it? Recall the Bishop's seals with their names attached to a document from whence the term red tape derives.

c. Has E'Pluribus Unum been used to describe America in the past?

Yes, but it's in a perfectly obvious way. Many states, one country. I simply don't understand why you think this is so significant.

See Genesis 11:1-9.

d. Is the mystery of Babylon, mother of harlots, unity and the imagination to do anything as described in Genesis 11:1-9?

I'm not a Hebrew nor a Greek scholar, so it's unclear to me that "Babel" and "Babylon" have anything to do with each other.

I am not trying to convince you of an argument, rather, raise a possibility for your own inquiry. I think it best to consider the possibility that those concepts and ideas that form the basis of this nation may be contrary to nature.

If one opens one's mind to that possibility, and studies the Bible from a point of view that sees the Bible as inerrant in symbolism (literally symbollically true, like E=mc² for example, though the equation can be false) along with the Church Fathers, patterns will emerge.

I see a patter of unfavorable convergence of human history, the history of this nation and the Bible. However, I believe the Bible far more than I believe my own conceptions, limitations, or other thoughts and ideas.

For example, I don't like the fact that in 1776 the flag of a snake was used with the term "don't tread on me." They knew perfectly well what snake that referred to - the one in the garden who rebelled, and they knew perfectly well who they were rebelling against!

As a Christian, I see these symbols very clearly and recognize this pattern as unfavorable to the eventual destiny of such an endeavor (call me a counter revolutionary).

2. Is it reasonable that one might have cause for concern about the secular nature, makeup and history of a nation? If not, why not?

Why worry? What can you do about it?

I am not worried - rather concerned. There is a marked difference. I have Faith in Jesus Christ as the Lord, so there is no need to worry.

andy holland
sinner

[Ebor]

Dear Ebor,

For sake of communication, consider some questions.

1. Is it reasonable that one can see a name attached to the nation such as E' Pluribus Unum from history?

To my view, no. You see some significance in a motto and say it is a name.

1. Is it reasonable that one might have cause for concern about the secular nature, makeup and history of a nation? If not, why not?

History is in the past, I do not know how being concerned about it would do anything. One may be concerned abou the nature and makeup of a nation, but it doesn't have to just secular. The religious nature and makeup can be a cause for concern or the demographic nature. It may be reasonable concern or unreasonable.

Ebor

[Ebor]

Are you Orthodox?

I didn't say I felt called, I said I felt I had a responsibility to point out some things.

I beg your pardon for misconstruing your words. The fervour of some of the postings led to a misunderstanding of your intent perhaps.

I do not know what my being EO or not has to do with anything, but you may recall that I am not. I am Anglican/Episcopalian. I have never claimed to be EO.

But I do have a need, a responsibility, to warn others that perhaps the Bible and history are converging in an unfavorable direction for Americans, and this is worth further study - on their part as well as my own.

From what you say, you see this converging. Other people may not. Other people may question your data or ideas that such a thing is actually happening.

Does this go to the heart of the ability to communicate? Do you see why I may be frustrated in engaging you? Certainly, my generalizations and assertions are disturbing to you, and I am beginning to see how I err greatly in not supporting statements. However, is it worth anyone's time when such support will be twisted?

I again apologize for misreading and misunderstanding your "responsibility" that you perceive that you have.

I do not know if your supports would be "twisted" or just disagreed with or countering information offered. But your, as you wrote, "generalizations and assertions" without support don't necessarily lead people to agree with things that you write, perhaps.

Ebor

[Ebor]

For example, I don't like the fact that in 1776 the flag of a snake was used with the term "don't tread on me." They knew perfectly well what snake that referred to - the one in the garden who rebelled, and they knew perfectly well who they were rebelling against!

As a Christian, I see these symbols very clearly and recognize this pattern as unfavorable to the eventual destiny of such an endeavor (call me a counter revolutionary).

They were rebelling against the British Crown and Government. Here is a point where other people may or do not see the same thing that you do.

Symbols and what they mean can be very different depending on the person or culture looking at them. What does a rising sun mean to you or to me or to a person in Japan? Different things due to different contexts and experience.

Here is an explaination of the flags with the snake (a Rattlesnake btw, a uniquely American serpent) and how it was directed against those who would have kept the Colonies under British control.

http://www.usflag.org/history/gadsden.html

Ebor

[CGW]

From Article VI
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

You argue they are separate, but I argue they are the same not only because of weight but also of nature.

But that simply isn't what the passage intended, nor what the rest of the constitution provides for, nor what judicial review has established. The point of this clause isn't to establish some sort of equality of the constitution, federal law, and treaties; it is to establish the superiority of any of the three to state constitutions and laws. Within the three principles of federal rule, the constitution stands above both laws and treaties as a superior authority, subject to its own distinct rules of revision. The constitution has one nature, and federal law has a distinct and subordinate nature, and treaties have their own distinct and subordinate nature. It is not true, therefore, that

Constitution = Treaties in terms of legal weight.

As to the sealing:

I've gone back to the archives website and looked at images of the documents. From amendment 16 onward, with one exception, amendments simply appear in the Federal Register. They are typically signed by the speaker of the house and president of the senate, and sometimes other signatures appear, but there is never any seal other than a GPO accession stamp. Indeed, they simply are bound with everything else; in one of the images you can see the volume into which the documents were bound. Earlier amendments are handwritten on plain paper or parchment, or on preprinted forms, but again there is no sign of any seals on them.

The one exception is the most recently passed amendment. In this case there is a seal. However, it is not the great seal, but rather the seal of the US archivist himself. This amendment has an unusual history: it sat around for over 200 years beofre it was presumably proposed again and ratified. I don't know if this accounts for the unusual form, or whether this is intended to be the precendent for future ratifications, but in any case the great seal isn't involved. The seal takes the form of a metallic sticker with a piece of ribbon under it, applied to the document and the whole thing embossed.

c. Has E'Pluribus Unum been used to describe America in the past?

Yes, but it's in a perfectly obvious way. Many states, one country. I simply don't understand why you think this is so significant.

See Genesis 11:1-9.

I looked at it, and my thought was, So what? You can apply this to any kind of unification or unity, including that of the church. I asked you for an alternative government before, and never got a reply.

If one opens one's mind to that possibility, and studies the Bible from a point of view that sees the Bible as inerrant in symbolism (literally symbollically true, like E=mc² for example, though the equation can be false) along with the Church Fathers, patterns will emerge.

No, no, no. That passive voice will not do. What will actually happen is that you, or me, or whoever looks, will see patterns. But since you and me and everyone else are fallible sinners, no promise of inerrancy extends to what we think we see. It is easy for "open one's mind" to collapse into "suspend all self-criticism", and therefore it is easy for you or I or anyone else to pass along falsehoods and illusions and misinterpretations.

Now it is also easy to step up to the Revelation and identify Babylon with the old Rome or the new Washington DC-- or for that matter, Constantinople or Moscow. Tiberius was Caesar, but so was Justinian and so was Nicholas II and so is George W. Bush. I say this not to any alarm, but merely to draw attention to the inevitability of the state as a locus of human evil and sin. America is not special, except that in its size and power its ability to wage evil is correspondingly big and powerful.

For example, I don't like the fact that in 1776 the flag of a snake was used with the term "don't tread on me." They knew perfectly well what snake that referred to - the one in the garden who rebelled, and they knew perfectly well who they were rebelling against!

You say that, but you don't know that it is true. They were in no way constrained to think as you do. For instance, the symbol of medicine is a snake wound around a stick; it's a classical reference. Does it mean that medicine is evil? Isn't the eye in the triangle a symbol of the omniscient triune LORD God? Not all meanings of a symbol apply at all times.

As for "concern" vs. "worry"-- well, why be concerned? Again, it's just the way things are.

(edited to fix quote nesting and to add last paragraph)

[AndyHolland]

But that simply isn't what the passage intended, nor what the rest of the constitution provides for, nor what judicial review has established. The constitution has one nature, and federal law has a distinct and subordinate nature, and treaties have their own distinct and subordinate nature. It is not true, therefore...

How do you presume what is intended? It seems like clear English to me but maybe I am too dumb to understand.

As to the sealing:

I've gone back to the archives website and looked at images of the documents....

You have that much time on your hands? Call the national archives and prove your right and you can crow about it.

c. Has E'Pluribus Unum been used to describe America in the past?

Yes, but it's in a perfectly obvious way. Many states, one country. I simply don't understand why you think this is so significant.

See Genesis 11:1-9.

I looked at it, and my thought was, So what? You can apply this to any kind of unification or unity, including that of the church. I asked you for an alternative before, and never got a reply.

Out of many one pertaining to a people united outside of God.

Consider also Novus Ordo Seclorum with E'Pluribus Unum. New World Order or New order of the ages. In other words, Babylon. Even Saddam Hussien knows that; recall his crazy speech before "the mother of all battles", around the time of elder Bush's NWO speech? The imagery was very interesting.

People went and formed a nation together united, apart from God. For lack of better term "nationalism" as represented by Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord (a bad guy too) - someone who steals souls. Read these things again and again with the Fathers. Also, if you have ever been with people who are dieing, they often report seeing "the hunter", so it has depth of meaning. The Babylon on the inside (sins) lead to a babylon on the outside.

"Why do the nations so furiously rage together, and why do the People imagine a vain thing, to break the bonds that bind us to the Lord and to His Christ?" Separation of Church and State is certainly not supported by Holy Scripture and is a post schism Western heresy - IMHO of course.

If one opens one's mind to that possibility, and studies the Bible from a point of view that sees the Bible as inerrant in symbolism (literally symbollically true, like E=mc² for example, though the equation can be false) along with the Church Fathers, patterns will emerge.

No, no, no. That passive voice will not do. What will actually happen is that you, or me, or whoever looks, will see patterns. But since you and me and everyone else are fallible sinners, no promise of inerrancy extends to what we think we see. It is easy for "open one's mind" to collapse into "suspend all self-criticism", and therefore it is easy for you or I or anyone else to pass along falsehoods and illusions and misinterpretations.

But I will say yes yes yes I agree with you to the extend - don't take my word for it!

No no no! The point is to see the world as the great delusion, and Christ as the Savior. Remember Abraham reminded the rich man burning in hell that his family had the Scripture to save them from his fate.

Read the Scripture with the Church Fathers and the Church so that many councelors provide safety. Don't believe the World, believe Christ who the world rejects.

Now it is also easy to step up to the Revelation and identify Babylon with the old Rome or the new Washington DC-- or for that matter, Constantinople or Moscow. Tiberius was Caesar, but so was Justinian and so was Nicholas II and so is George W. Bush. I say this not to any alarm, but merely to draw attention to the inevitability of the state as a locus of human evil and sin. America is not special, except that in its size and power its ability to wage evil is correspondingly big and powerful.

To a large extent I completely agree. However, Babylon is destroyed by her own sorcery, and there is a nation that invented atomic weapons calling it the "trinity" test, blowing up a city on the feast of the Transfiguration, and destroying the largest Church in Southeast Asia two days later along with part of a city.

For example, I don't like the fact that in 1776 the flag of a snake was used with the term "don't tread on me." They knew perfectly well what snake that referred to - the one in the garden who rebelled, and they knew perfectly well who they were rebelling against!

You say that, but you don't know that it is true. They were in no way constrained to think as you do. For instance, the symbol of medicine is a snake wound around a stick; it's a classical reference. Does it mean that medicine is evil? Isn't the eye in the triangle a symbol of the omniscient triune LORD God? Not all meanings of a symbol apply at all times.

[/quote]
Well, you are correct. I should not have presumed they were smart enough to know the meaning of the flag in a historic context with the Bible. OTOH, I think it highly likely given the extensive biblical education at the time. They were thumbing their nose at Divine Right after all.

As for medicine's snake, it is from a pagan god and the "god's of the pagans are demons" according to David.

The snake lifted up by Moses is a different symbol. However, the revolutionaries weren't exactly passive martyrs tar and feathering the opposition!

I think they understood the meaning of the snake with "don't tread on me" as they were engaged in a rebellion. The South raised that flag again in the civil war BTW.

The were in a revolution after all! Who is the chief rebel from antiquity and what is his symbol? He is the enlightener - the Lucifer, and they do call the age of reason and the enlighment!

Whether consciously or unconciously, sins on the inside eventually come out in all sorts of putrid forms. That is why it is what comes out of a man that defiles him.

andy holland
sinner