# Why should God bless America?



## michaeledward (Sep 23, 2007)

The tune is familiar, the words are bastardized. 

Why should God bless America? 
Shes forgotten he exists
And has turned her back
On everything that made her what she is
Why should God stand beside her
Through the night with the light from his hand?
God have mercy on America
Forgive her sin and heal our land

The courts ruled prayer out of our schools
In June of 62
Told the children you are your own God now
So you can make the rules
O say can you see what that choice
Has cost us to this day
America, one nation under God, has gone astray 

Why should God bless America?
Shess forgotten he exists
And has turned her back on everything 
That made her what she is 
Why should God stand beside her
Through the night with the light from his hand?
God have mercy on America 
Forgive her sins and heal our land

In 73 the Courts said we
Could take the unborn lives
The choice is yours dont worry now 
Its not a wrong, its your right
But just because they made it law
Does not change Gods command
The most that we can hope for is 
Gods mercy on our land

Why should God bless America?
Shes forgotten he exists
And has turned her back on everything 
That made her what she is
Why should God stand beside her
Through the night with the light from his hand?
God have mercy on America
Forgive her sins and heal our land

(Reading from 2nd Chronicles 7:14) If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and forgive their sin and heal their land

God have mercy on America forgive her sins and heal our land
​I don't think a choir should ever sing in 'song' form (chorus, verse, chorus, verse, chorus), and some of the modified melodies are, I think, clever, but awkward.

[yt]X77R_prkCkg[/yt]

This song was sung preceeding a Republican Presidential Candidate Debate. On the dais next to the choir were several (but not all) Republican Presidential hopefuls. 

It is my understanding that none of the candidates made any mention of this song. 


I can't help but wonder why, it is the Liberals, that get attacked for being unAmerican. Seems to me, this song is as unAmerican as I have ever heard.


----------



## bydand (Sep 23, 2007)

Words fail me!  I agree 100% with you, that has to be the most un-American thing I have heard.  I'm repulsed they would allow that.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Sep 23, 2007)

Who hosted the debate?


----------



## Brother John (Sep 23, 2007)

it's rhetorical.


It seems to me to be challenging the religious American's as to where they stand morally and ethically. It sounds like it's more of a call to return to the Judeo/Christian ethics that a lot of American's hold dear.

I don't think it's un-American. 
I don't particularly LIKE it, nor do I agree with it....but I don't think it's un-American.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Phoenix44 (Sep 23, 2007)

I'm curious as to who sponsored this particular debate.  The song is an appeal to the Christian Right, one of the groups that the Republican Party considers its "base."  So I don't think it's American or anti-American. It is what it is:  election PR.


----------



## bydand (Sep 23, 2007)

Oh, I know it is rhetorical in nature, and that it is something that the religious "right" would do.  But it just goes against my grain to distort a song that means so much to so many.  I have watched people tear up when hearing it sung different places.  To use it to make a political statement is inexcusable in my eyes.  Even though I consider myself a Republican, it just PO's me to no end.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 23, 2007)

On Septeber 17th, 2007, the 'Values Voter Debate' was held in Broward Country Performing Arts Center in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

The position themselves as "America's Largest Voting Block". 



> Questions came from 40 of our nations leaders including: Paul Weyrich, founder and President of the Free Congress Foundation, Phyllis Schlafly, founder and President of Eagle Forum, Don Wildmon, founder and Chairman of the American Family Association, Judge Roy Moore, with the Foundation for Moral Law, Rick Scarborough, Vision America, and Mat Staver of Liberty Council.


 
In attendance, from the Republican Presidential candidates were: Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Alan Keyes, Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and John Cox. 

Mr.s Thompson, Guiliani, McCain and Romney declined to attend. 

http://www.valuesvoterdebate.com/

www.valuesvoters.org



> e are citizens of the United States of America and subjects of the sovereign Creator, acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence as the Supreme Ruler and Judge of the World. We hereby declare our belief in the self-evident truths established by the Declaration, to wit, that we are all created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that human governments are instituted to secure these rights, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. We strongly affirm our allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, as it was framed and amended in light of these truths, to provide for a republican form of government, which means a government of the people, by the people and for the people, in which they make laws and govern themselves through representatives they elect.


 
I am not, and refuse to subject myself to someone else's interpretation of a "sovereign Creator". I find it offensive. 



> or some decades now supposedly liberal and progressive forces within our society have waged an insidious campaign to corrupt and destroy the moral foundations of our liberty. Under the compassionate guise of government welfare and social programs they have eroded our fortitude and self-discipline, taxed away our independent resources, and in particular undermined the centrality of family as the locus of individual self-reliance. Under the guise of sexual freedom and self-determination they have corrupted our sense of responsibility for our own offspring in the womb and for our biological relationships in general. This ultimately affects all relationships that draw upon the capacity for self-sacrifice we ought naturally to learn and practice in the context of decent family life. Under the guise of scientific knowledge, and a fallacious separation of religion from public life, they have thrown off the yoke of reason, and denied our sovereign right to acknowledge, as a people, the existence and authority of the Creator. But the Creators being and will represent the principle of unity that makes possible both the diversity of individuals and the orderly community that, on the whole, they may become. Thus, though they masquerade as the champions of community and compassion, these self-styled liberals and progressives have discarded the principle of unity, the sense of a common good, indispensable to both.


 
An attack on fellow Americans .... with friends like these, who needs Al Qaeda? 

These quotes are taken from the Values Voters "Contract with Congress".


----------



## Gordon Nore (Sep 23, 2007)

Even seen as PR, the use of this song could backfire. Its message brings me to mind of 'Rev' Phelps' GodHatesAmerica.com from the WBC. The message itself seems more unGodly, perhaps, than unAmerican. It implies the Almighty would turn away from an entire people because some portion of that people opposes school prayer of favours abortion rights.


----------



## Kennedy_Shogen_Ryu (Sep 23, 2007)

I'm replying to this thread as a Canadian.

I won't comment on the politics of the U.S.A. as admittedly I don't know much at all about them except that Bush doesn't seem to be the greatest leader in the world.  But I've talked to several American MA's as well as several American military servicemen, and they have never been anything but respectful, professional and fine drinkers!  ​


----------



## Carol (Sep 23, 2007)

Yet another person/group with an agenda clamouring for attention.  Stop me if you've heard this one before. *yawn*




Kennedy_Shogen_Ryu said:


> I'm replying to this thread as a Canadian.
> 
> I won't comment on the politics of the U.S.A. as admittedly I don't know much at all about them except that Bush doesn't seem to be the greatest leader in the world.  But I've talked to several American MA's as well as several American military servicemen, and they have never been anything but respectful, professional and fine drinkers!  ​




High five my respected and honoured neighbor.  :highfive:


----------



## Kennedy_Shogen_Ryu (Sep 23, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> High five my respected and honoured neighbor.  :highfive:



I'll take the high five but I'd rather get a beer


----------



## Carol (Sep 23, 2007)

Kennedy_Shogen_Ryu said:


> I'll take the high five but I'd rather get a beer



Beer it is, then :cheers:  (as long as it was brewed up there and not down here )


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 23, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> Yet another person/group with an agenda clamouring for attention. Stop me if you've heard this one before. *yawn*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I second Carol thoughts.


----------



## Kennedy_Shogen_Ryu (Sep 23, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> Beer it is, then :cheers:  (as long as it was brewed up there and not down here )




Alexander Keith's it is then, I could also go for a good ol' Irish Ale hmmm hopefully this doesn't turn into a friendly drinking contest would hate to get into one of those whole Canadians can outdrink American arguments.....:drinkbeer


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 23, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> Yet another person/group with an agenda clamouring for attention. Stop me if you've heard this one before.


 
I can't help but wonder, if you are refering to the candidates, or to the hosts?


----------



## Mr. E (Sep 24, 2007)

For some reason, I am reminded of when Hillary Clinton sat through a speach by Suha Arafat as she gave an anti- semetic speach worthy of Goebels and said nothing during her following speech- and even hugging Suha afterwards.

I remember talking about it with people at the time. Some of us speculated that with the tension of public speaking, she may not have been paying close attention. There was also speculation that after being ambushed like that, diplomatically speaking there really is little you can do except distance yourself in the future from the ambushers. But I can't recall a statement from the Clintons on why she did what she did. If there was one, it might explain some of the reasons these political hopefulls didn't storm out either.

I just tried a google search, and was unable to find any comment on it from the Clintons. The closest I could find was this from USA Today.



> The first lady already has been dogged for not supporting a shift of the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and Jews cringed when she hugged Suha Arafat, the wife of PLO chairman Yasser Arafat, after a speech in which Suha Arafat accused Israel of spraying poisonous gas in Palestinian areas.



So I know I am not having memory problems.

If anyone can find a site where she gives her reasons for not doing anything as Suha made such a statement, it might give insights into this incident.

I can say that if any of these political idiots come back for a second round with this group, you have to assume that there are ok with the message being said.


----------



## tellner (Sep 24, 2007)

I've tried to think up replies to this. I've gone through "polite", "indignant", "derisive", "companionable", "more in sorrow than in anger" and a few others. None of 'em worked. So I'll give it to you straight from the heart.

It's a crock. It's anti-American. It's a repudiation of the bedrock principles this country was founded on. It spits in the face of freedom. It's about half a step from Fred Phelps. And the only difference between this particular screed and the ravings of Mullah Omar and the Taliban is that the mullahs have cooler hats and better beards while we have cuter girls and better beer. And from my admittedly quirky perspective it's unutterable blasphemy against G-d Almighty, Master of the Universe.

This country was not, no way, no how in no wise founded on Protestant Fundamentalism and Know Nothingism. It's something we've had to fight against from time to time. But despite the best efforts of the theocratic revisionists we still have never descended into those depths. The fundamental law upon which our legal system is based does not invoke the blessings of the Deity. It does not claim the protection or special favor of the Almighty or any other cosmic force. In fact, the only time the Constitution mentions religion it is in the negative - *"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States"* 

This country was founded on the principle of citizens coming together through their representatives to *"form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"*. There's nothing about forcing children to recite Protestant prayers in school or pregnancy terminations. G-d is not used as a rhetorical club to beat others with when the scalpel of logic and the light of facts can extract the truth of a matter. 

You are free to have whatever religious or spiritual beliefs you want or none at all. As Jefferson said "it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." 

"Liberty and Justice for all". Those words, penned by a socialist public school teacher pretty much sum up my ideal of government. Given that, free people can pretty much work out anything that needs to be done. But when you say "I'm right because my Big Guy in the Sky will kill you if you and everyone else who disagrees with me, now do what I tell you to" - which is what you're doing here - you are giving in to the basest, cruelest, most murderous and vile excesses of tyranny and oppression. Freedom is the freedom to be just like you. The penalty for failing to march in lockstep with your fantasies is death and eternal damnation. 

You're welcome to that rather depraved and self-idolatrous view of the world. I'll defend your right to it and to express it to anyone who wants to listen. But it's a lousy way to run a country. That's how the Taliban made a complete hash of what was left of Afghanistan. That's how we got the pogroms, the Klan, and the hideous religious wars of Europe which this nation's founders wanted to avoid. 

Your post is also remarkably selective in the sins which it decries. There is an awful lot of things which the Scriptures and the stuff the Christians tacked onto the end of them consider evil. Strangely enough, making European Protestantism a State religion isn't one of them. The things which you showcase as evidence of our depravity are precisely the wedge issues which one wing of one political party decided to use to get an electorally important segment of the population to give them votes and money. In other words, only the things which give wealth and power to people you like are important to G-d. You are treating the Almighty, Creator of all the Universes, the Ultimate Reality and Divine Unity like a thing to give you what you want. They don't divide people in a fashion which gives you the power to compel obedience from anyone who opposes your vision. 

So yes, I hope the Holy One, Blessed be He, forgives this nation its sins. But I'd put the sin of pride a tad higher on the list.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 24, 2007)

tellner said:


> I've tried to think up replies to this. I've gone through "polite", "indignant", "derisive", "companionable", "more in sorrow than in anger" and a few others. None of 'em worked. So I'll give it to you straight from the heart.
> 
> It's a crock. It's anti-American. It's a repudiation of the bedrock principles this country was founded on. It spits in the face of freedom. It's about half a step from Fred Phelps. And the only difference between this particular screed and the ravings of Mullah Omar and the Taliban is that the mullahs have cooler hats and better beards while we have cuter girls and better beer. And from my admittedly quirky perspective it's unutterable blasphemy against G-d Almighty, Master of the Universe.
> 
> ...


 
Tellner, sorry if I'm being really thick here but whose post are you referring to here?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 24, 2007)

Mr. E said:


> For some reason, I am reminded of when Hillary Clinton sat through a speach by Suha Arafat as she gave an anti- semetic speach worthy of Goebels and said nothing during her following speech- and even hugging Suha afterwards.


 
I didn't realize that Suha Arafat was an American citizen and voter. Or maybe you wish to discuss manners?


----------



## tellner (Sep 24, 2007)

Tez, I was referring to Michael's original post that started this thread.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 24, 2007)

I don't know quite what to say on this one.  

The part of me that becomes ever more convinced that there is no Divine being that made 'all' for his amusement can get quite irate when considering the panoply of horrendous things done at in the name of a thing that does not exist.

That very irritation makes me hold my tongue because I don't wish to aggrivate in turn those that do hold such beliefs dear to their hearts by making light of their convictions.

There does come a point tho' where you have to cry "Enough!". That point is right about now in the history of humanity.  

We're teetering on the brink of a destructive global war yet again and this time we are brought there by the 'religiously' inspired actions of those we have hitherto thought of as the 'Good Guys'.

The fact that the un-named 'they' formulated their plans in reaction to another group of religious fundamentalists does not make it right or sensible.  The uninvolved masses will still end up just as dead.

How is this Doomsday Waffle relevant to the OP?

If the Western nations persist in allowing extreme notions to pass unchallenged because they are 'religious' then that is simple grease for the slope.

Christian ideals as held by many boil down to "be excellent to each other" (a la Bill and ted).  Christian (and other faiths) fundamentalist ideals boil down to "Kill the unbeliever".

It's a choice as to the direction educated people will go but, I hope, not a hard one.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Sep 24, 2007)

My basic thoughts are as follows, America is not a theocracy. Meaning, America does not get it's ultimate authority from the Pope. Our president is not answerable to a religous authority. We have no law enforcing any religion (at the moment). Infact, we have a law saying (basicy) Congress cann't make the U.S. a theocracy.

Since we were never a theocrcay, we couldn't have "turned from God". Besides, America has not 'religous right' if we did, I would be dead. It's more like a 'religous centris leaning on the right slightly'.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 24, 2007)

tellner said:


> Tez, I was referring to Michael's original post that started this thread.


 
Tellner, you understand that the post to which you refer was song lyrics penned by someone other than me? Correct? You did watch the YouTube clip, right? 


Although I did reference the 'sin' of using a choir for 'song form'. (A truly horrible thing to do to a full choir).


For the record (as if anyone in this joint was completely aware) my opinions on these topics ... religion and public prayer has no place in the public sector, not even student led, in my opinion. And a woman and her doctor should be able to terminate a pregnancy at any point of their choosing. 

I think the paragraph of yours that Tez3 highlighted, threw around an awful lot of second person pronouns, which are quite out of place.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Sep 24, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> If the Western nations persist in allowing extreme notions to pass unchallenged because they are 'religious' then that is simple grease for the slope.



Sterling observation, IMHO. 

I don't want to derail this thread, but the Province of Ontario is currently in a debate about folding independent religious schools into public school boards. Arguments against this proposal have been awfully subdued for fear of offending the faithful. I'll start a discussion about that elsewhere. Back to your regular programming...


----------



## tellner (Sep 24, 2007)

Sukerkin and CuongNhuka, you've hit on another point I was avoiding. Fundamentalists see themselves and unbelievers to be killed. Of course, the logical extension of that is one fanatic standing in the middle of a terrible pile of dead bodies. Emo Phillips did it really well:



> I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge,
> about to jump off.  So I ran over and said "stop! don't do it!"
> 
> "Why shouldn't I?" he said.
> ...


Making it personal, I'm a Jew and a Sufi.
My wife is a Sufi and a convert to boot.
She's very pious and serious about her religion. 
I'm serious about it, but lazy; the only hope is the whole "Merciful and Compassionate" thing. 
Neither of us is a Fundamentalist Evangelical Protestant and never will be. Neither of us is a fan of the Ayatollahs or the Wahabites or ever will be.
We don't believe in forcing our religion on anyone or believe that we have a monopoly on The Truth.

The Christian Fundies, the Dominionists, Dispensationalists, Reconstructionists and neo-Calvinists have no place for us in their world. The best we can hope for is a loss of our civil rights and our status as full human beings and citizens.

The Muslim Fundies, the Wahabites and their fanatical Shiite counterparts have no place for us in their world. The best we can hope for is a loss of our civil rights and our status as full human beings and citizens.

Both sets of fanatics consider us to be depraved blaspheming heretics who are worthy only of death. We've heard the Truth as they see it and reject it. For the crime of thinking for ourselves the traditional penalty is death. A G-dly Nation by their standards would put us to death. So it behooves us to support a society built on reason and liberty rather than blind faith and obedience. We can live in a world ruled by the forebrain. We will be murdered in one ruled by the limbic system. 

In past ages we could flee. "Maybe that's why," as Tevye says in the last line of Fiddler on the Roof,"we always keep our hats on." Now there is nowhere to go. The world has shrunk to the point where there is nowhere we can go if one or another of the sets of murderous fanatics wins.


----------



## tellner (Sep 24, 2007)

Sorry Michael. I didn't quite understand what was going on there. It seemed like you were agreeing with the sentiments expressed. I humbly apologize for the mistake. But I firmly support the sentiments I expressed when they are redirected to their proper recipients.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 24, 2007)

Mr. E said:


> For some reason, I am reminded of when Hillary Clinton sat through a speach by Suha Arafat as she gave an anti- semetic speach worthy of Goebels and said nothing during her following speech- and even hugging Suha afterwards.
> 
> I remember talking about it with people at the time. Some of us speculated that with the tension of public speaking, she may not have been paying close attention. There was also speculation that after being ambushed like that, diplomatically speaking there really is little you can do except distance yourself in the future from the ambushers. But I can't recall a statement from the Clintons on why she did what she did. If there was one, it might explain some of the reasons these political hopefulls didn't storm out either.
> 
> ...


Are we sure her people weren't gassed?
Sean


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 24, 2007)

The God Delusion and The Virus of Faith

Both of these peices by Richard Dawkins need to be heard in this thread.  Dawkins, IMO, puts this nuttiness into is proper perspective and he calls out real culprits who make fundamentalist possible.

Religious Moderates.

Here is more from Sam Harris on that topic.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 24, 2007)

UpNorthKyosa, I agree with your sentiments, and most of Mr. Dawkins' thoughts about how religous moderates enable the extremists. However, for an athiest to attack religious moderates gets awfully close to a line I don't like to cross. Both my parents are practicing Catholics, and my father does not believe in macro-evolution.

In this instance, I am blantantly trying to get one of two things to happen.

A - Convert moderate Republicans to moderate Democrats
B - Inspire moderate Republicans to take back their political party

Judge Roy Moore was thrown off of the Alabama Bench. Why on Earth would a Republican Candidate want to give this man the dignity of addressing his questions. He has shown no remorse over his decision (and I think he continues to fight for his statue).

The people who sponsored this debate ARE running the Republican Party, and have been for seven years. These are the people who said the government should keep Terri Schiavo on the machines. These are the people who caused President Bush to withdraw Harriett Miers nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States (Has he ever withdrawn a different nomination,that had opposition? <shrug> I don't think so).

I know in our hectic lives, it is difficult to keep up with all that is going on. But, look to these organizations for the Republican Candidate for '08. They attack 70% of the country and because half of those aren't listening, they get people like Thompson in the race. Eight years ago, in South Carolina, the drove the white hot John McCain to obscurity.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 25, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> UpNorthKyosa, I agree with your sentiments, and most of Mr. Dawkins' thoughts about how religous moderates enable the extremists. However, for an athiest to attack religious moderates gets awfully close to a line I don't like to cross.


 
Still, it's something we should think about.  IMO, Dawkins and Harris are mostly correct, but I think they are painting with a slightly too broad brush.  There are religious moderates who do not tolerate this stuff and there are religious people who are mostly harmless.  Despite that, I think the point stands.

These are some interesting and different ideas, that I feel need more exposure.  Not trying to converty people, just throwing it out there to let other make their own decisions.


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 25, 2007)

Why should God bless America?  I don't know.  You make the request, and he can make up his own mind about whether to do it or not.  I think it would be stupid, if not impossible, to bestow a blessing or a curse on a group of people if you have to take into account the individual actions of everyone in the group.  Why not bless or curse on a case-by-case basis?  It's not like he doesn't have the time.


----------



## Ray (Sep 25, 2007)

I believe:
"There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated
And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." 
Doctrine & Covenants, 130:20-21


----------



## tellner (Sep 25, 2007)

The 19th century had Thomas "Darwin's Bulldog" Huxley. Today we have Dawkins. For the most part he's right. I don't personally like Dr. Dawkins all that much. He's abrasive, belittling, superior-acting and hasn't learned that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. You catch even more with horse manure, but that's another discussion  His scientific perspective had some limitations back when he was working. He lacked the breadth and depth of a Mayr or Gould. None of that signifies. He's got his facts right on this.

No matter how much it offends peoples' sensibilities the fact of evolution is well established. Period. 

The theory of evolution is well developed and isn't likely to change radically. Period.

Oh, there's a lot of interesting work at the margins. There's a lot of discussion, much of it quite spirited about particulars.  The fundamentals are as incontrovertible as "When you're standing on a piece of floating ice and looking straight up at Polaris you're in the Northern hemisphere." 

The only opponents at this point are people who are personally invested in the literal truth of Genesis or the Mahabharata. Their belief is based on emotional conviction rather than reason, so facts and logic will not change it. Their organizations from the ICR and the Creation Museum to the Louisiana Family Forum are at their root intellectually dishonest. I wish it weren't as simple as that, but it is.

Where the new "God Virus" types get it wrong is religion itself. Of course, that's where the Fundies make their biggest mistakes, too. To both of them religion is some variant on "There's a Big Guy in the Sky. He made everything with a Zap about ten thousand years ago. He loves you, but He will smite you if you don't give Him saccharine adoration and do everything He says. Believing this is religion."

Right away the whole thing has been framed in Fundie terms. 

If you step back a little and get some perspective it's possible to take a more mature view of the whole thing.

Religion is an impulse that is built into us like hunger, sexual desire or socializing. It can be expressed in many different ways like any of these. Potentially there's as much variety of religious expression and investigation as, oh, cookbooks or porn sites. The fundamental question is how will it be given its voice. Simplistic answers based on dogma force fed on pain of damnation is one way. "Polishing the mirror", working on your own crap to the point where you see thing more as they and less as reflections of your own prejudices is another. 

Particular religious dogmas come and go. The religious imperative will not without severe genetic engineering. The challenge is to express it in mature productive ways that serve the search for truth, fulfillment and happiness rather than ignorance, oppression and stunting of human potential.


----------

