Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Why do we sing this song if Thomas Jefferson meant for there to be a separation between church and state?

p.s. I'm all in favor of this song.

Probably because it was written by Irving Berlin in the early 1900s and has nothing at all to do with Thomas Jefferson or the foundation of the United States.

lol at Sym's response. Amen.

Even if one is "for" God, overwrought nationalism can be a scary thing in such a context. "God Bless America, to the exclusion of or at least indifference toward other countries" is the subtext here. Or if it isn't, that's at least how it plays out in a cultural setting all too often. Go to a place in the country where God and Country are critical points of pride in the populace, and I'll show you an increased likelihood of bigotry toward those of other religions or nationalities.

A more cogent question would be why is "In God We Trust" on our money?

The answer being that the Founding Fathers didn't get nearly so worked up about "cramming religion down our throats".

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Why do we sing this song if Thomas Jefferson meant for there to be a separation between church and state?

p.s. I'm all in favor of this song.



Well, its not the National Anthem. Its a patriotic song that some guy wrote in the 20th century. Also, the version of "God Bless America" that they sing at baseball games isn't the entire song--they only sing one verse. And its really not a religous song, its a patriotic song. Just like "America the Beautiful"; it contains the word "God" but its a patriotic song.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
A more cogent question would be why is "In God We Trust" on our money?

The answer being that the Founding Fathers didn't get nearly so worked up about "cramming religion down our throats".

Nope. "In God We Trust" didn't appear on US currency until the 1800s and didn't become the national motto until the 1900s.
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Probably because it was written by Irving Berlin in the early 1900s and has nothing at all to do with Thomas Jefferson or the foundation of the United States.

Granted. But it still appears to me to be an issue that pertains to the premise that God and state should be kept separate.

Again, I fully support the song but I am speaking on behalf of all those who do not wish for this song to a part of America's heritage and legacy.

So, again, why does this song continue to have a place in America? Shouldn't it be banned just like other things of a religious nature in this country?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Nope. "In God We Trust" didn't appear on US currency until the 1800s and didn't become the national motto until the 1900s.
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml
Damn. It's been too long since my last US history class. I'm slipping.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
So, again, why does this song continue to have a place in America? Shouldn't it be banned just like other things of a religious nature in this country?

Banning things of a religious nature is against the First Amendment. That would be un-American.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Well, its not the National Anthem. Its a patriotic song that some guy wrote in the 20th century. Also, the version of "God Bless America" that they sing at baseball games isn't the entire song--they only sing one verse. And its really not a religous song, its a patriotic song. Just like "America the Beautiful"; it contains the word "God" but its a patriotic song.

I respectfully beg to differ with you. The moment the word "God" is mentioned the song ceases to be strictly patriotic. The song did not need to mention God nor ask Him to bless America. In fact, if the author had not mentioned God then I would agree with you that the song is patriotic.

The author was Jewish by the way.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Granted. But it still appears to me to be an issue that pertains to the premise that God and state should be kept separate.

No it isn't. The song is not used in any official capacity by the US government.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Again, I fully support the song but I am speaking on behalf of all those who do not wish for this song to a part of America's heritage and legacy.

That can't be changed. Unless you somehow erased the song from history it will always be part of America's heritage and legacy simply because it was written in America.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
So, again, why does this song continue to have a place in America? Shouldn't it be banned just like other things of a religious nature in this country?

What religious things have been completely banned in the US?

Originally posted by Digi
lol at Sym's response. Amen.

Even if one is "for" God, overwrought nationalism can be a scary thing in such a context. "God Bless America, to the exclusion of or at least indifference toward other countries" is the subtext here. Or if it isn't, that's at least how it plays out in a cultural setting all too often. Go to a place in the country where God and Country are critical points of pride in the populace, and I'll show you an increased likelihood of bigotry toward those of other religions or nationalities.

I see nothing wrong with overwrought nationalism especially if a person is an atheist/evolutionist. It is a prerogative. So you believe that God should bless other countries? That is another discussion entirely, not that I disagree. I believe that a person can be both God-fearing and patriotic without being a bigot.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I see nothing wrong with overwrought nationalism especially if a person is an atheist/evolutionist. It is a prerogative.

Dude, you're stealing my bit.

And not doing it well either since overwrought nationalism is rarely connected with atheism.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The author was Jewish by the way.

What if he had been a Muslim?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No it isn't. The song is not used in any official capacity by the US government.



That can't be changed. Unless you somehow erased the song from history it will always be part of America's heritage and legacy simply because it was written in America.



What religious things have been completely banned in the US?

Whether the song is used in any offficial capacity or not is irrelevant. For instance, there are many people who attend sporting events who do not believe in God. Why should they be subject to standing or listening to a song like this? They paid their money to see a sports event not invoke God--Someone they do not believe in--to do anything for their country.

There are certain places in this country where a person can be punished for speaking the Name of Jesus (God). http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=89096

Originally posted by skekUng
What if he had been a Muslim?

My point was that he probably was devout to the God of the Jews i.e. the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Well, its not the National Anthem. Its a patriotic song that some guy wrote in the 20th century. Also, the version of "God Bless America" that they sing at baseball games isn't the entire song--they only sing one verse. And its really not a religous song, its a patriotic song. Just like "America the Beautiful"; it contains the word "God" but its a patriotic song.

Actually, the song sounds more like a prayer than a song.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
A more cogent question would be why is "In God We Trust" on our money?

The answer being that the Founding Fathers didn't get nearly so worked up about "cramming religion down our throats".

Well, I'm just glad they did their part to introduce God into our culture.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Nope. "In God We Trust" didn't appear on US currency until the 1800s and didn't become the national motto until the 1900s.
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

Cool link.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Whether the song is used in any offficial capacity or not is irrelevant.

Yes it is. The state is the government. Until the government is doing religious things separation of church and state does not come into play. It does not mean that no one can be religious, and no one argues it does.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
For instance, there are many people who attend sporting events who do not believe in God. Why should they be subject to standing or listening to a song like this? They paid their money to see a sports event not invoke God--Someone they do not believe in--to do anything for their country.

They are in a public place going to an event between two private enterprises in a build probably owned by another private group. While an atheist may not like it he has no standing to force everyone else to change what they're doing (unless Objectivists took over when I wasn't looking).

No if he were at a government event and the person running it asked everyone to stand up and sing God Bless America he would have a valid complaint.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There are certain places in this country where a person can be punished for speaking the Name of Jesus (God).http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=89096

He was arrested for breaking an established law that prohibited approaching women trying to enter the clinic. Carrying the sign was irrelevant to his conviction.

The separation of church and state does not have anything to do with private enterprises.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes it is. The state is the government. Until the government is doing religious things separation of church and state does not come into play. It does not mean that no one can be religious, and no one argues it does.



They are in a public place going to an event between two private enterprises in a build probably owned by another private group. While an atheist may not like it he has no standing to force everyone else to change what they're doing (unless Objectivists took over when I wasn't looking).

No if he were at a government event and the person running it asked everyone to stand up and sing God Bless America he would have a valid complaint.



He was arrested for breaking an established law that prohibited approaching women trying to enter the clinic. Carrying the sign was irrelevant to his conviction.


Question my friend: would an atheist have a valid complaint in this case?



"During a live television broadcast on the evening of the September 11 attacks, following addresses by then-House and Senate leaders Dennis Hastert and Tom Daschle, members of the United States Congress broke out into an apparently spontaneous verse of "God Bless America" on the steps of the Capitol building in Washington, D.C."

--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Bless_America#cite_note-7




The gentleman broke no law. Re-read the article. He did not come within eight feet of the women entering the clinic. In fact, there was a video tape that should have exonerated him.

More religious persecution: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2009/09/say_grace_go_to_jail.html

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

Question my friend: would an atheist have a valid complaint in this case?



"During a live television broadcast on the evening of the September 11 attacks, following addresses by then-House and Senate leaders Dennis Hastert and Tom Daschle, members of the United States Congress broke out into an apparently spontaneous verse of "God Bless America" on the steps of the Capitol building in Washington, D.C."

--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Bless_America#cite_note-7
I have no idea if that's legal or not, but if it pertains to government employees then it's a different legal issue entirely then playing it at a baseball game.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Probably because it was written by Irving Berlin in the early 1900s and has nothing at all to do with Thomas Jefferson or the foundation of the United States.



That should really end the thread, shouldn't it?



Originally posted by Digi
lol at Sym's response. Amen.

Even if one is "for" God, overwrought nationalism can be a scary thing in such a context. "God Bless America, to the exclusion of or at least indifference toward other countries" is the subtext here. Or if it isn't, that's at least how it plays out in a cultural setting all too often. Go to a place in the country where God and Country are critical points of pride in the populace, and I'll show you an increased likelihood of bigotry toward those of other religions or nationalities.

That's a very negative interpretation. So depressing.

You presume that by God blessing America, that takes away the blessings he would have given to another nation. I don't believe that. In fact, in my faith, the blessings are right there, waiting to be given, if we ask...we just have to have faith and be good.(For an atheist, it means doing "good" things and you bless yourself but religious folks like to say that God blessed them with it instead of their own actions blessing them.) Part of asking for God to Bless America would be asking for prosperity for other nations because we are "global" world, now. Asking America to prosper is asking for other nations to prosper by proxy AND asking for those nations to prosper because we also benefit from other nations propsering.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I have no idea if that's legal or not, but if it pertains to government employees then it's a different legal issue entirely then playing it at a baseball game.

It appears to fit Syms criteria for what would constitute a valid complaint.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Granted. But it still appears to me to be an issue that pertains to the premise that God and state should be kept separate.

Again, I fully support the song but I am speaking on behalf of all those who do not wish for this song to a part of America's heritage and legacy.

So, again, why does this song continue to have a place in America? Shouldn't it be banned just like other things of a religious nature in this country?

Separation of church and state is a rule about the state not passing laws discriminating for or against religions.

It does not cover popular songs, as there's no state involved. Fun fact though, Woodie Guthrie wrote his famous "This Land is Your Land" as a response to "God Bless America" which I suppose he viewed in a negative light.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

Question my friend: would an atheist have a valid complaint in this case?


"During a live television broadcast on the evening of the September 11 attacks, following addresses by then-House and Senate leaders Dennis Hastert and Tom Daschle, members of the United States Congress broke out into an apparently spontaneous verse of "God Bless America" on the steps of the Capitol building in Washington, D.C."

--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Bless_America#cite_note-7

I don't think so. They're all adults there (so no one is having a particular faith impressed upon them) and no one was asked or required to join in the song. They weren't even inside the building doing their jobs as representatives at the time.

I do think it's weird, but then I suspect it would have been weird no matter what they were singing.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The gentleman broke no law. Re-read the article. He did not come within eight feet of the women entering the clinic. In fact, there was a video tape that should have exonerated him.

The tape didn't cover the whole time he was there. It seems to me that the intimidation meant to be prevented by the law was clearly present.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
More religious persecution:http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2009/09/say_grace_go_to_jail.html

Leading grace in a public school is definitely inappropriate. He is an authority figure working with children so he should operate within his guidelines and not try to see how far he can push them. I don't know if it's something he should be jailed over.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
It appears to fit Syms criteria for what would constitute a valid complaint.
That is not how it appears to me at all (because Sym specifically explained why private ventures were no affected, and therefor was in fact saying the complete OPPOSITE of that), and regardless we are not talking about Sym's ideas, we are talking about actual law.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Leading grace in a public school is definitely inappropriate. He is an authority figure working with children so he should operate within his guidelines and not try to see how far he can push them. I don't know if it's something he should be jailed over.

Fined and/or fired seems appropriate.

I am fine with the no religion being in schools. That should really be between the children and the parents.

There are some cooky-freaky religious freaks out there: I'd much rather have the option as a parent, to get to chose which adults teach my children their religious beliefs. Sure, sounds limiting, but that's my job and right as a parent.




Really, though, I'm going to be open with my children about religion. I won't be like "YOU CAN'T GO TO THAT CHURCH! DEY IZ DUH DEVUHLZ!"

I like separation of church and state...it's good stuff.

I'm not sure I'm fine with students getting problems for bringing their religion to school, though I can see why it may make sense. But teachers should not favour any religion over another in their capacity.


And you got it easy, dadudemon, your faith gives your children a fair chance, if you were of one of those one chance in life or you are ****ed maybe you'd be more forceful in the upbringing of your children.

chris rock said it best in his movie: head of state: "God bless every one"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igg8NYlZZJ8

on the pastor thing. i dont think he should have bn arrested nor charged but it just shows how ppl can abuse the law to harass some one and the fault lies on the ppl for continuously broadening what constitutes harassment.

Originally posted by King Castle
on the pastor thing. i dont think he should have bn arrested nor charged butm it just shows how ppl can abuse the law to harass some one and the fault lies on the ppl for continuously broadening what constitutes harassment.

Even though he was blatantly trying to intimidate people and wanted to hide behind the strict letter of the law? You were just talking about how people like that suck.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm not sure I'm fine with students getting problems for bringing their religion to school, though I can see why it may make sense. But teachers should not favour any religion over another in their capacity.


And you got it easy, dadudemon, your faith gives your children a fair chance, if you were of one of those one chance in life or you are ****ed maybe you'd be more forceful in the upbringing of your children.

I'm all for the students doing whatever they want...as long as they do not have to use the state's money to do so. "Flag pole" gatherings for prayer, before school, work nicely. No money required for them to pray around a flag...God is footing the bill for the "air conditioning" lol!





lol

What religion does that? One mistake and the whole thing is messed up?


Also, yeah, there are several Christian religions out there that believe a finite number of people go to heaven and everyone else ****s off. That's a really sh*tty way to believe, imo. How depressing, no?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Even though he was blatantly trying to intimidate people and wanted to hide behind the strict letter of the law? You were just talking about how people like that suck. i dont know what you are referring to.

i oppose many laws and its application on ppl. i believe ppl can rule themselves and keep from hurting others. i dont see anything wrong with a person walking with a sign on a side walk let alone being arrested for it.

being on private property and trespassing is one thing, assaulting some one is another. but, simply walking about exercising your civil/constitutional rights and being arrested is wrong.

but, my problem is ppl abusing the law to harass another and winning b/c of arbitrary concepts that dont hurt anyone and has nothing to do with justice.

Depends.

From a Jehovah's Witness perspective, there is a finite number of people who go into heaven, but that is because they're going there to help Jesus rule the Earth, not to just... chill. It's the non 144 thousand who stay here after Armageddon ends and the world is turned into a paradise and everyone lives forever; and those guys get to just chill and enjoy the place. So, not a bad thing to believe I guess.

Too bad it's all fairy tails.

Originally posted by King Castle



igg8NYlZZJ8




Such a damn good movie. lol

I forgot how awesome that debate seen was.


Why IS AIDS meds more expensive than crack? (The cost of supply.)


Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Depends.

From a Jehovah's Witness perspective, there is a finite number of people who go into heaven, but that is because they're going there to help Jesus rule the Earth, not to just... chill. It's the non 144 thousand who stay here after Armageddon ends and the world is turned into a paradise and everyone lives forever; and those guys get to just chill and enjoy the place. So, not a bad thing to believe I guess.

Too bad it's all fairy tails.

AHA! So it's the Jay Dubs! Knew there was a religion that believed that. We also believe that the Earth will be changed into a paradise, but it will not be "heaven." All have the chance and ability to go to heaven, in my faith. That means living in God's presence (chillin'.)

Damn you Mormons and your radical beliefs!

Originally posted by inimalist
trust me on this, no we wouldn't

I think you missed his point. Everyone's moral compass would eventually result in the possessors of extreme moral compasses being snuffed out. 313


Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Damn you Mormons and your radical beliefs!




The more I learn about JWs, the more I realize how similar our religions are. How many religions out there believe the Earth will be changed into a heaven-like paradise during the millennium?

Originally posted by King Castle
i dont know what you are referring to.

Using lawyers to try and escape the justice.

Originally posted by King Castle
i believe ppl can rule themselves and keep from hurting others.

Too bad both rational analysis of people and millenia of evidence completely contradict you.

Originally posted by King Castle
i dont see anything wrong with a person walking with a sign on a side walk let alone being arrested for it.

Which is an argument that would only have merit if he was arrested for protesting. You need to read more than the title of the article.

Originally posted by King Castle
being on private property and trespassing is one thing, assaulting some one is another. but, simply walking about exercising your civil/constitutional rights and being arrested is wrong.

but, my problem is ppl abusing the law to harass another and winning b/c of arbitrary concepts that dont hurt anyone and has nothing to do with justice.

Sorry, there is no civil right to intimidate people in their most vulnerable moments or at all for that matter. Don't pretend that just because he put on a smile it's not intimidation.

The USA is just another block of land. God cares nothing of borders, or what country we "pledge allegiance" to. I pledge allegiance to two things. God, then me.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The more I learn about JWs, the more I realize how similar our religions are. How many religions out there believe the Earth will be changed into a heaven-like paradise during the millennium?
Communism?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Communism?

Nice. And that's actually a pretty good point and here's why...


Actually, Mormons believe in a form of pure communism called "the law of consecration." They even lived it for a while, in the early years. But humans were too selfish for it to work long term...even those goody goods called Mormons.


Pure communism is actually a form of "utopia" in that it is a pure/righteous way to live. I've preached about that in the GDF. Pure Communism is not evil, at all, and it's what Jesus preached.


Take THAT right-wingers!

The plan is written in gods hand and only bush can read it,
and it calls for battle in gods name and it calls for bush to lead it.
And the blueprint calls to drill for oil,
and exterminate the land; and if you can't hear gods calling
then you're probably from France.

Because the USA is holy, the USA is pious,
and hallelujah god is on their side,
hosanna in the highest.

Originally posted by King Castle
chris rock said it best in his movie: head of state: "God bless every one"

igg8NYlZZJ8

on the pastor thing. i dont think he should have bn arrested nor charged but it just shows how ppl can abuse the law to harass some one and the fault lies on the ppl for continuously broadening what constitutes harassment.

Man, that's some horrible, straight-to-dvd worthy acting. Chris Rock can be quite funny at times, but man he makes bad, bad movies.

I did like the God bless everyone bit, and he's not wrong about the crack, but the movie is just not funny.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Why do we sing this song if Thomas Jefferson meant for there to be a separation between church and state?

p.s. I'm all in favor of this song.



Well, we all know, that in this song, the word god really means money.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I respectfully beg to differ with you. The moment the word "God" is mentioned the song ceases to be strictly patriotic. The song did not need to mention God nor ask Him to bless America. In fact, if the author had not mentioned God then I would agree with you that the song is patriotic.

The author was Jewish by the way.

Around the world, many patriotic songs from most countries contain a line that mentions god. So what? El "Himno Nacional Mexicano" contains the word "Dios" (God); so does that automatically make the Mexican national anthem a prayer song? No. Its a song about a battle during the US-Mexican War, with a verse that contains "God". Nothing more, nothing less.

The Canadian national anthen contains the term "God keep our land, glorious and free"

Canada is often pointed to as the godless socialist nation that america uses as a hat

Originally posted by inimalist
Canada is often pointed to as the godless socialist nation that america uses as a hat

B _ _ G O

N I

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
So, again, why does this song continue to have a place in America? Shouldn't it be banned just like other things of a religious nature in this country?

The song isn't government policy. Why would it need to be banned? That's kind of ridiculous.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I see nothing wrong with overwrought nationalism especially if a person is an atheist/evolutionist. It is a prerogative. So you believe that God should bless other countries? That is another discussion entirely, not that I disagree. I believe that a person can be both God-fearing and patriotic without being a bigot.

It's certainly possible. I'm saying that many people fail at it.

And yes, if God's going to bless America, shouldn't he bless other countries? I find it odd that the question even needs asked.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's a very negative interpretation. So depressing.

You presume that by God blessing America, that takes away the blessings he would have given to another nation. I don't believe that. In fact, in my faith, the blessings are right there, waiting to be given, if we ask...we just have to have faith and be good.(For an atheist, it means doing "good" things and you bless yourself but religious folks like to say that God blessed them with it instead of their own actions blessing them.) Part of asking for God to Bless America would be asking for prosperity for other nations because we are "global" world, now. Asking America to prosper is asking for other nations to prosper by proxy AND asking for those nations to prosper because we also benefit from other nations propsering.

Missing the forest for the trees. I'm not saying the song says that, or that that's how it should be interpreted.. I'm saying that people think such things, and they use the societally-lauded ideas of God and Country to reinforce their views. I'm talking about sociological affect, not the language and meaning of the song itself.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nice. And that's actually a pretty good point and here's why...


Actually, Mormons believe in a form of pure communism called "the law of consecration." They even lived it for a while, in the early years. But humans were too selfish for it to work long term...even those goody goods called Mormons.


Pure communism is actually a form of "utopia" in that it is a pure/righteous way to live. I've preached about that in the GDF. Pure Communism is not evil, at all, and it's what Jesus preached.


Take THAT right-wingers!
I suppose I should say "Marxism" because Communism is more of a single concept than anything that could be called a "religion".

Originally posted by King Kandy
I suppose I should say "Marxism" because Communism is more of a single concept than anything that could be called a "religion".

I would argue that very last word you used except that you used quotation marks around it meaning that it is not to be taken at face value and has more meaning that the face value.


Here's why I would argue against it if you hadn't put quotes on it: religion can simply be a group of people that agree and praise on one particular video game with specific playing methods. That could be the same for politcal beliefs: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects such as a pure communistic group.

I guess that discussion is fundamental to the religion forum and an understanding of that is probably already had by most people that post here.


Originally posted by Digi
Missing the forest for the trees. I'm not saying the song says that, or that that's how it should be interpreted.. I'm saying that people think such things, and they use the societally-lauded ideas of God and Country to reinforce their views. I'm talking about sociological affect, not the language and meaning of the song itself.

No problem, it happens. But, I would agree that there are some right-wingers that would fit your description.

Unless you were referring to me missing the forest for the trees?If that's the case, I read through your post multiple times to make sure I wasn't doing just that: missing the forest for the trees. It was a commentary only on the thoughts you expressed in the portion I quoted. I'm sure you could ask the majority of those crazy right-wingers and they'd agree with my sentiments: if the world prospers, the US can prosper, if the US prospers some of the world prospers. It would be hard to find one that only wants the US to prosper when you ask them about "god bless america".

Also, on that last part, you may be talking over my head about the sociological affects. I have no idea if you meant effects or affects as one of my classes talked about psychology and affect something or another and then there was another section similar to it but it was "effect." I didn't undestand it and I could barely make heads or tails of it. Expand on what you meant there, for me, so I am not losing you.


Edit - Wait, I feel you on that last part. Yes, mine was a commentary on that very same meaning. Where you believe it to be borderline nationalism and exclusivism, I see it as relatively harmless patriotism with a dash of indirect "global" understanding (that last one means that the person indirectly understands that we are very much a "global economy" and you would be hard pressed to find someone that wasn't aware of that especially because of the financial crisis we experienced, globally).

Both of us are assessing ours are more correct and the only way to see which is correct is to conduct a scientific poll on the bible belt. lol

I think "Religulous" had a good section on the connotations of "god bless america" and the favoritism it evokes.

I am fine with it too.It was written a long time ago but it should still stay.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No problem, it happens. But, I would agree that there are some right-wingers that would fit your description.

Unless you were referring to me missing the forest for the trees?If that's the case, I read through your post multiple times to make sure I wasn't doing just that: missing the forest for the trees. It was a commentary only on the thoughts you expressed in the portion I quoted. I'm sure you could ask the majority of those crazy right-wingers and they'd agree with my sentiments: if the world prospers, the US can prosper, if the US prospers some of the world prospers. It would be hard to find one that only wants the US to prosper when you ask them about "god bless america".

Also, on that last part, you may be talking over my head about the sociological affects. I have no idea if you meant effects or affects as one of my classes talked about psychology and affect something or another and then there was another section similar to it but it was "effect." I didn't undestand it and I could barely make heads or tails of it. Expand on what you meant there, for me, so I am not losing you.


Edit - Wait, I feel you on that last part. Yes, mine was a commentary on that very same meaning. Where you believe it to be borderline nationalism and exclusivism, I see it as relatively harmless patriotism with a dash of indirect "global" understanding (that last one means that the person indirectly understands that we are very much a "global economy" and you would be hard pressed to find someone that wasn't aware of that especially because of the financial crisis we experienced, globally).

Both of us are assessing ours are more correct and the only way to see which is correct is to conduct a scientific poll on the bible belt. lol

lol. Anyway, seems like we understand one another. Though I do think you're being a bit unrealistically optimistic about what it means to people. If that's what it means to you, awesome. I doubt it does to many others. Most people who are going to take the song seriously (and not just be indifferent to it as most are) are doing so because it reinforces their occasionally-disturbing levels of xenophobia.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I think "Religulous" had a good section on the connotations of "god bless america" and the favoritism it evokes.

Didn't see the movie, but I should.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Man, that's some horrible, straight-to-dvd worthy acting. Chris Rock can be quite funny at times, but man he makes bad, bad movies.

I did like the God bless everyone bit, and he's not wrong about the crack, but the movie is just not funny. that scene was not the best but this one was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXLby6zDVG8

I saw the movie, it's not great.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Man, that's some horrible, straight-to-dvd worthy acting. Chris Rock can be quite funny at times, but man he makes bad, bad movies.

I did like the God bless everyone bit, and he's not wrong about the crack, but the movie is just not funny.

It is so very odd how our opinions differ so extremely on humor. I thought that scene was funny as hell and very witty/intelligent. Sure, the acting sucked, but it was awesome.

The only type of humor we agree on is very dark/sadistic type humor.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It is so very odd how our opinions differ so extremely on humor. I thought that scene was funny as hell and very witty/intelligent. Sure, the acting sucked, but it was awesome.

The only type of humor we agree on is very dark/sadistic type humor.

I don't disagree necessarily. I like the concept of the scene, the execution was just weak.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't disagree necessarily. I like the concept of the scene, the execution was just weak.

Ahhh. Okay. Fair enough.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Why do we sing this song if Thomas Jefferson meant for there to be a separation between church and state?

p.s. I'm all in favor of this song.



Why do we sing Stairway to Heaven? Did Thomas Jefferson mean for people to use drug to find god?

hash was fairly widespread in use during Jefferson's time.

Originally posted by inimalist
hash was fairly widespread in use during Jefferson's time.
I've heard that said often, but i've never actually seen historical sources for it. Do you know any?

Martin Booth - Cannibis

awesome book if you like the subject, traces the ~10000 year history of the plant in human culture

Yeah, I was more interested in what documents he used to prove it, not the book itself.

Is this where someone is supposed to point out that the US constitution is written on it?

Originally posted by skekUng
Is this where someone is supposed to point out that the US constitution is written on it?

That changes the meaning of "burn the constitution".

I think religious people should reconize the irony in being patriotic to a democracy yet swear loyality to a monarch

Originally posted by mindbomb
I think religious people should reconize the irony in being patriotic to a democracy yet swear loyality to a monarch

Eh?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Eh?

His name is mindbomb. He just dropped one on you, son.

Originally posted by mindbomb
I think religious people should reconize the irony in being patriotic to a democracy yet swear loyality to a monarch

I think you mean Christianity.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think you mean Christianity.



yes i do mean christianity thats usally the religion people mean in america but it could apply to all religions that view their god as a king

Originally posted by mindbomb
yes i do mean christianity thats usally the religion people mean in america but it could apply to all religions that view their god as a king

I'm Buddhist, and Buddha was just a human.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm Buddhist, and Buddha was just a human.


well than i geuss it does not apply to you as long as you are not loyal to a king their is no irony in being pro democracy

Originally posted by mindbomb
yes i do mean christianity thats usally the religion people mean in america but it could apply to all religions that view their god as a king

so, to you, someone's views on the organizational principles of humans must be the exact same as their views on the creator of the universe?

spirituality = politics?

Originally posted by inimalist
so, to you, someone's views on the organizational principles of humans must be the exact same as their views on the creator of the universe?

spirituality = politics?
no but i find it odd that people who are in favor of democracy worship someone who declared himself king

Originally posted by mindbomb
no but i find it odd that people who are in favor of democracy worship someone who declared himself king

why?

especially from a Christian perspective, there has always been a distinction between the affairs of man and the affairs of god (render unto ceasar)

you might have more traction if you presented this in terms of Islam, where such a politics/spirituality distinction does not exist, but they (re: a small fraction of Muslims who believe in Sharia) would interpret the hypocrysy in a different way. They would ask why we elect leaders when God has set out how to live for us (and in fact, some of the earliest Sufis can be seen as early anarchist philosophers under this world view: only God can rule, thus, the state is an affront to God).

From a moderate view of any religion, I can't see why this would be hypocritical though...

Originally posted by inimalist
why?

especially from a Christian perspective, there has always been a distinction between the affairs of man and the affairs of god (render unto ceasar)

you might have more traction if you presented this in terms of Islam, where such a politics/spirituality distinction does not exist, but they (re: a small fraction of Muslims who believe in Sharia) would interpret the hypocrysy in a different way. They would ask why we elect leaders when God has set out how to live for us (and in fact, some of the earliest Sufis can be seen as early anarchist philosophers under this world view: only God can rule, thus, the state is an affront to God).

From a moderate view of any religion, I can't see why this would be hypocritical though...

but their has not always been a distinction between church and state and if you think their should not be that distinction how do you reconcile a state democracy with a autocratic church

Originally posted by mindbomb
but their has not always been a distinction between church and state and if you think their should not be that distinction how do you reconcile a state democracy with a autocratic church

wut.

Originally posted by mindbomb
but their has not always been a distinction between church and state

yes, and? do you mean to ask: "prior to the late 1700s, why did democratic principles not dominate the church?", the answer would be that most of the world hadn't known democracy for 1700+ years.

Even then, however, there was this distinction in terms of Christianity. Kings and Rulers led at-Gods-whim, not as representatives of God, with the exception of a) anglicism, which claimed God chose rulers through fate or b) the Pope, who is a "special case" chosen representitive of God on earth. Technically, leaders in Christian Europe followed the pope because he was powerful, not because all of their choices needed to be ordained by the church.

Originally posted by mindbomb
and if you think their should not be that distinction how do you reconcile a state democracy with a autocratic church

most people reconcile that the state should follow the word of God

I can't, off the top of my head, think of people who think that religion should be the guiding principle in all human interaction (including the political sphere) who would then claim democracy is the best way for people to live (at least, a democracy that allows for people to break church law, for instance, some Dominionist sects do say they want democracy under God, but that "democracy" is of a totally different nature than the one laid out in the American constitution. Religion would clearly supersede democratic will).

My assumptions would be that it is like any justification that people give for constitutional democracies though

EDIT: what religious groups are you talking about? you mention "Christians", but the vast majority of Christians are moderates anyways, who don't believe in biblical literalism or church absolute authority anyways.

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, and? do you mean to ask: "prior to the late 1700s, why did democratic principles not dominate the church?", the answer would be that most of the world hadn't known democracy for 1700+ years.

Even then, however, there was this distinction in terms of Christianity. Kings and Rulers led at-Gods-whim, not as representatives of God, with the exception of a) anglicism, which claimed God chose rulers through fate or b) the Pope, who is a "special case" chosen representitive of God on earth. Technically, leaders in Christian Europe followed the pope because he was powerful, not because all of their choices needed to be ordained by the church.



most people reconcile that the state should follow the word of God

I can't, off the top of my head, think of people who think that religion should be the guiding principle in all human interaction (including the political sphere) who would then claim democracy is the best way for people to live (at least, a democracy that allows for people to break church law, for instance, some Dominionist sects do say they want democracy under God, but that "democracy" is of a totally different nature than the one laid out in the American constitution. Religion would clearly supersede democratic will).

My assumptions would be that it is like any justification that people give for constitutional democracies though

EDIT: what religious groups are you talking about? you mention "Christians", but the vast majority of Christians are moderates anyways, who don't believe in biblical literalism or church absolute authority anyways.




im talking about radical groups that claim to be patriots
i understand that most christains are moderates
take some of the tea party for instance (im not saying the whole tea party but rather some of the people that ran for office)

maybe a better way to express what im saying is that if you dont think that their should be a seperation of church and state than your not a true patriot

Originally posted by mindbomb
im talking about radical groups that claim to be patriots
i understand that most christains are moderates
take some of the tea party for instance (im not saying the whole tea party but rather some of the people that ran for office)

what about tea partiers? maybe I missed something in the election, were they talking about restricting democracy or the constitution if elected into office?

anyways, these people would be like the dominionists I talked about. Their rationalle is that the rules of God supercede those of man, and that people shouldn't be allowed the democratic right to sin (though I'd agree with you if you are saying this is inconsistent with thousands of years of Christian theology). It isn't hypocritial in the least, imho. inane, yes, though the world view does seem to be internally consistent.

The tea-partiers insistance on big military budgets, inherent racism and other issues are much more illustrative of their hypocritial nature than is their religious stance, imho at least

Originally posted by mindbomb
maybe a better way to express what im saying is that if you dont think that their should be a seperation of church and state than your not a true patriot

ok

that is a different point altogether though, isn't it?

Originally posted by inimalist
My assumptions would be that it is like any justification that people give for constitutional democracies though

constitutional monarchies... sorry, messed that up pretty solid

well if you say gods law supercedes mans law as justification your saying that the highist law is the law of a king
think about it this way what if king george the 3rd said you can have a democracy as long as you still obey me
would that really be a democracy

though, that would mean these people would have to believe the same thing about how man-rules-man as they do about how god-rules-man.

That inconsistency would take little to explain. God is perfect, God knows everything, God is the creator of the universe, etc. It is easy to come up with reasons why there might be a different standard for how God rules man and how man rules man.

For Christianity in particular, there are scriptural references to things like "render unto Ceasar", which can be interpreted as meaning that it is man's responsibility to rule man. Christian ideas of free will would be relevant here too, as it has been taken to mean man is free to sin, but faces eternal consequences, thus, man is responsilbe for actions on earth, God worries about the afterlife.

This means the state is allowed to exist however it wants to, democratic or fascist, and people will be judged on their personal actions ultimately. It is not God's job to control human government, but there is no reason a democracy couldn't exist under God.

you are right, I guess, that man's relationship to God is not democratic, I just think it is strange that you think somehow believing in democracy on earth means there would have to be one with heaven, lol, sorry rambling...

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Why do we sing this song if Thomas Jefferson meant for there to be a separation between church and state?

p.s. I'm all in favor of this song.



It's a stupid song! What dose that say about your god?

That an intity blessed America. Are we asking it too? Well, it's not doing a very good job.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
That an intity blessed America. Are we asking it too? Well, it's not doing a very good job.

What?

That an intity...

Did you mean to write: The idea that an entity blessed America...? is what?

Are we asking that entity too much?

Are we not doing a very good job, or is this entity not doing a very good job?

Why does it even matter if it says God or not. It makes zero difference to the USA.
It's only important to zealous atheists and zealous theists. Everyone else has bigger and more important things to worry and/or philosophise about.

Even though America banned the church for large usage, it does allow the place to use the song "God Bless America."

The people have in them good genes. Nobody really is born to kill others. This can be disputed as some people are really evil. The people follow good teachings and have no problem really with the song.

There are those that believe the song is stupid. God does not help them and they desire to abandon God.

Originally posted by SupermanAscends
Even though America banned the church for large usage, it does allow the place to use the song "God Bless America."

The people have in them good genes. Nobody really is born to kill others. This can be disputed as some people are really evil. The people follow good teachings and have no problem really with the song.

There are those that believe the song is stupid. God does not help them and they desire to abandon God.

... you have a God so petty as to not help people who don't like a song? I mean, really? Couldn't even a believer quite conceivably think the song's stupid because they realise that God would have no preference of one country over another? I assume belief in a God who isn't fixated on a country that only came into existence in the last 250 years is quite unacceptable in your eyes?

Hell, even if the Earth is only a few thousand years old, America's pretty new, and I don't quite see why God would want to give special consideration to it.

It's not about God's preference. If you believe in Abrahamic God, then obviously his preferred people are Jews. So what.

God bless America is more of a 'prayer' type slogan than anything else. Of course American people would want God to bless their country. There's nothing wrong with that.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It's not about God's preference. If you believe in Abrahamic God, then obviously his preferred people are Jews. So what.

God bless America is more of a 'prayer' type slogan than anything else. Of course American people would want God to bless their country. There's nothing wrong with that.

The hope is that America, with their "charitable leanings" will share what God blesses them with.


When someone, such as a grumpy atheist, says "oh, man, you're saying God Bless America but not other countries, by default. You're selfish and mean to all the other countries." it is obviously not on track or even in spirit with what it means. Additionally, when taken in consort with scripture, you must ask to receive some blessings. If we don't ask, God may not give some blessings to us (I am a bit more deist than that, but I still understand the belief).


Personally, I refrain from saying "God Bless America". When I pray about world events, I ask God to bless everyone in need according to their need, in His wisdom. Why? Because I would be a complete idiot to think me simply asking for some unfortunate group of people to be blessed. That could be a detriment to them (a militant group could come upon the people that have been "blessed" and take all of their "blessings" and leave them worse off"...just an example). What if a blessing seemed a curse, in disguise?


Bla bla bla. And so forth. When I can help, I do. I'm sure God is much happier with people who do the blessings on His behalf than those that beg for blessings for others but do jack diddly squat.

Originally posted by dadudemon
When someone, such as a grumpy atheist, says "oh, man, you're saying God Bless America but not other countries, by default. You're selfish and mean to all the other countries." it is obviously not on track or even in spirit with what it means.

Sure it is. The song its from is about American exceptionalism and the phrase as used by politicians still has the same connotations.

The phrase "God Bless America" is asking God to Bless America. It would be pretty strange for Americans to go around asking God to bless other countries, they can go get their own blessings. Obviously it isn't the same as asking God to avoid blessing other places if that's what you mean.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Sure it is.

God Bless America is asking God to Bless America. It would be pretty strange for Americans to go around asking God to bless other countries, they can go get their own blessings.

You have me on ignore, right? Just sayin'.

But you entire post was addressed already. Not sure why you even responded:

"The hope is that America, with their "charitable leanings" will share what God blesses them with."


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Obviously it isn't the same as asking God to avoid blessing other places if that's what you mean.

No, that's exactly what I was referring to when I was talking about the "grumpy atheist" type. That's exactly what they mean. I did use the word "selfish". Not sure how I can make it more clear. Ask me if you need more clarification and I will try my best to better explain.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You have me on ignore, right? Just sayin'.

But you entire post was addressed already. Not sure why you even responded:

"The hope is that America, with their "charitable leanings" will share what God blesses them with."

If you know you are on his ignore list, then why scold him?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you know you are on his ignore list, then why scold him?

I never scolded him (are you sure you meant the word "scold"?). He makes it a point to comment that he has me on ignore pretty much every conversation, these days. So I figured I would remind him before our conversation went down that path, again.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I never scolded him (are you sure you meant the word "scold"?). He makes it a point to comment that he has me on ignore pretty much every conversation, these days. So I figured I would remind him before our conversation went down that path, again.

I checked the definition to make sure, and I learned something.

Noun:
A woman who nags or grumbles constantly.

That fits better then I had intended.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I checked the definition to make sure, and I learned something.

Noun:
A woman who nags or grumbles constantly.

That fits better then I had intended.



You bastard.




Quick, hide that definition before the feminists see it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You have me on ignore, right? Just sayin'.

Yes. Would you like a screen shot?

Not everything you say is irritatingly stupid. Keeping you on ignore all the time makes it easier to not get dragged into your trolling when it starts.

Originally posted by dadudemon
He makes it a point to comment that he has me on ignore pretty much every conversation, these days.

Twice in a month?

Originally posted by dadudemon
"The hope is that America, with their "charitable leanings" will share what God blesses them with."

What's you basis for this though? You can't just declare it. It comes from a song about America being great with not mention of going out and sharing divine blessings.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, that's exactly what I was referring to

Sorry I find this phrasing very confusing and I'd rather start by clarifying whether we agree or not.

Are you saying that I just repeated your argument?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes. Would you like a screen shot?

Not everything you say is irritatingly stupid. Keeping you on ignore all the time makes it easier to not get dragged into your trolling when it starts.

Correction: you follow me to various threads, quote me, and troll me...and then tell me you have me on ignore when I hand your ass to you.

Let's not be irrationally deluded too much about reality, please.

Edi - Can you even remember a time where I initiated a conversation with you by quoting you in a topic, first? Take a look: you are the one consistently injecting your troll tactics by following me around, quoting me, and then replying with a troll post or logical fallacy.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Twice in a month?

More than once in a month is enough to make my point.

Deal with it.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What's you basis for this though?

Maybe because I have heard it multiple times, directly, from grumpy atheists.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You can't just declare it.

I did declare it because it happened, bro.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It comes from a song about America being great with not mention of going out and sharing divine blessings.

Yeah, cause the song totally did not get that saying or idea from anywhere else, right?




Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Sorry I find this phrasing very confusing and I'd rather start by clarifying whether we agree or not.

Are you saying that I just repeated your argument?

No, it means exactly what a direct reading of the words indicate. Not this "Are you saying that I just repeated your argument?"


You said this:


"Obviously it isn't the same as asking God to avoid blessing other places."

Which is part of my point contained here:

"The hope is that America, with their 'charitable leanings' will share what God blesses them with."



What would the opposite of the above quote mean?


This:

" the hope is that America, with no 'charitable leanings' will not share what God blesses them with."


I hope that makes the meaning as clear as possible. Definitely ask if you need even further clarification. I can do things like color-coding, screen shots, etc.





Double Edit - Chronicles 7:14, by the way. That's where it comes from. Not a 1918 song. The phrase "God bless America" existed long before the 1918 song.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Maybe because I have heard it multiple times, directly, from grumpy atheists.

Grumpy atheists have told you multiple times that they hope America will be charitable with the blessings it receives from god?

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, it means exactly what a direct reading of the words indicate.

There are multiple direct readings of the words. Since the rest of your post makes it clear that you're trying not to be understood in the first place. I'll be the adult here and leave this conversation.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Grumpy atheists have told you multiple times that they hope America will be charitable with the blessings it receives from god?

I know reading is difficult for you when you're trolling (because you pretend not to get a point), so I'll just requote for you:

'...a grumpy atheist, says 'oh, man, you're saying God Bless America but not other countries, by default. You're selfish and mean to all the other countries.'


Here's the connection that you failed to make:


The grumpy atheist says this:

"oh, man, you're saying God Bless America but not other countries, by default. You're selfish and mean to all the other countries"


The religious person actually meant this:

"The hope is that America, with their 'charitable leanings' will share what God blesses them with."

Contrast the two points and enjoy the point.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There are multiple direct readings of the words. Since the rest of your post makes it clear that you're trying not to be understood in the first place. I'll be the adult here and leave this conversation.

No there is not. Sure, if you want to pretend that there are other meanings, feel free. Common sense dictates quite a clear and understandable meaning. Case in point: I showed our conversation, in screenshot form (instant message), to two of my employees (they have no idea who each person is) up to that post you made about not knowing.

They meaning was quite clear to them. Oh, and they could not figure out which poster was me until I told them.

The problem is you pretending to not understand when meanings were quite clear. I can post anything and you'll quote it, respond to it, and troll it. No matter what: the only deciding factor is whether or not you feel like trolling me at the moment.

i remember as an early teen when my school first started exposing us to world events and the harsh realities of life in other parts of the world, i thought that it was quite evident that our god was the correct god and that if those other countries had any sense at all they would start praying to the right god.

/flashback

Originally posted by red g jacks
i remember as an early teen when my school first started exposing us to world events and the harsh realities of life in other parts of the world, i thought that it was quite evident that our god was the correct god and that if those other countries had any sense at all they would start praying to the right god.

/flashback


Were you born into a Christian evangelical family?

Originally posted by red g jacks
i remember as an early teen when my school first started exposing us to world events and the harsh realities of life in other parts of the world, i thought that it was quite evident that our god was the correct god and that if those other countries had any sense at all they would start praying to the right god.

/flashback

Do you still believe this, or has harsh reality opened your eyes?

Originally posted by red g jacks
i remember as an early teen when my school first started exposing us to world events and the harsh realities of life in other parts of the world, i thought that it was quite evident that our god was the correct god and that if those other countries had any sense at all they would start praying to the right god.

/flashback

Which God is the right one?

Yahweh - the temper tantrum throwing God?
Allah - The sadistic deity with a personality and mental disorder?
Ahura Mazda - The original 'one and only' God warrior thing constantly in a battle with evil things of the universe?
Any of thousands Hindu Gods?
Jah - The pot smoking God?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Which God is the right one?

Yahweh - the temper tantrum throwing God?
Allah - The sadistic deity with a personality and mental disorder?
Ahura Mazda - The original 'one and only' God warrior thing constantly in a battle with evil things of the universe?
Any of thousands Hindu Gods?
Jah - The pot smoking God?

*high five*

Originally posted by dadudemon
Were you born into a Christian evangelical family? nope, catholic. and i was never highly religious. i'm not sure why i thought that way, i think it was just a poor attempt at rationalization.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you still believe this, or has harsh reality opened your eyes? no, i got over that one pretty quickly. i was about 14 when i thought of that, by about 16 i think was an atheist.

Originally posted by red g jacks
... no, i got over that one pretty quickly. i was about 14 when i thought of that, by about 16 i think was an atheist.

To me, that is just one delusion for another.

maybe. i've tried to rediscover some sort of spirituality a couple times since then but it never seems to stick.

i'm not a strict 'there is no god' atheist anymore, but for the most part i think observable reality has enough in it to keep me occupied.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
To me, that is just one delusion for another.

I agree.

Originally posted by red g jacks
..for the most part i think observable reality has enough in it to keep me occupied.

I agree. I want a much much longer lifespan (300-10,000 years), but I agree.


Easy thread.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
*high five*


Yahweh (YHWH or Jehovah) is the true God.


http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587086.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=586713&pagenumber=7#post14512113

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510871 (click here if you can handle the Truth)

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510888

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587049.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510387#post14510387

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510685#post14510685

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510714

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510772

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Yahweh (YHWH or Jehovah) is the true God.

Why would a true God have a name?

The founding fathers of America worshipped God the Father.