Are you willing to remove the name "God" in the American National Anthem?

I'm kind of confused because it looks like to me people are mixing the Pledge of Allegiance and Star-Spangled Banner.

I mean here is the anthem:

O say can you see by the dawn's early light,

What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming,

Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,

O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?

And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,

Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;

O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave,

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

So no God there.

I believe in a separation of church and state, and I have zero problem with references to God in things like the national anthem and the pledge of allegiance. It's when you start trying put religion into legislation that it becomes a problem.

I think OP confused the Pledge with the anthem.

For that, I'd be happy to see it go, even entirely (kids saying the pledge is kinda creepy and nationalism makes me cringe) but I don't care enough to complain. What is irritating, though, are those who think it was there originally...same with money. It was all added in the 1950s because of red scare.

@lostrib: @bforrester420: Ok I'll bite. The article that has been provided is a mess of misconceptions and unfounded assumptions. Frankly its utter nonsense, there's nothing scientific about it. It seems to be making two assumptions. First is that conservatism is inherently simple, uncritical and one-dimensional. That is simply not true. This certainly applies to mainstream conservatism, but there's nothing empirically suggestive that the ideology of conservatism in the academic or theoretical framework, that the ideology itself is simple, uncritical and one-dimensional. The sophisticated work of Robert Nozick comes to mind for instance. On the other hand, the article suggests that liberalism is intricate, critical and just a very sophisticated and complex ideology. What's the basis of this assumption? What inherent trait or characteristic that liberalism has and conservatism doesn't that makes the ideology of liberalism an exceptionally sophisticated and complex ideology? There's no evidence of this whatsoever. Just because liberalism concerns itself with fields like "gender studies" and "LGBT whatever" that doesn't automatically make it a sophisticated and complex ideology.

The second assumption the article makes is that mainstream liberals are smarter or more intellectual and critical than mainstream conservatives which is wrong, so wrong. That liberalism in general attracts people with higher cognitive abilities and IQ, roughly speaking. Let's for instance assume that liberalism is actually "smarter" as an ideology than conservatism. This does not automatically make the adherents of liberalism smarter by association. The average liberal is as smart, or as dumb as the average conservative. He or she does not go beyond "Everybody gets to have sex with anybody/anything, women rights and **** religion" attitudes, none of which requires any exceptional intellect or cognitive abilities. Its not like your average liberal is busy exposing him/herself to the work of liberal thinkers or the theories of liberalism. Look at it this way: the average person responds to his/her realization of intellectual inferiority, lacking the ability to introduce fresh value, diminished individuality and overall inability and impotence in two ways. He/she either accepts that realization and find comfort in the traditional and safe haven of mainstream conservatism or he/she tries to defy his/her mode of existence by associating himself with a seemingly more sophisticated and complex ideology that is being perceived as the ideology of the intellectual and superior of men, liberalism. So the average liberal and conservative are on the same cognitive and intellectual level.

I came to the conclusion that, on the topic of liberalism and conservatism, whoever professes to either ideologies is an idiot because none of the two has acquired the infallible wisdom or is the final stage of human civilization. And since most people profess to either, most people are equally idiots so no one in either sides of the isle gets to call the other an idiot.

@toast_burner:

It had nothing to do with the Soviet Union. If you had been taught the history of the founding of this country and how much faith our founders had in God you would understand. Our founders were men of faith with out them and their faith this country would never have been founded. It is not chance that these men happen to share the same place and the same time in history. No other country can say that or has a country been founded where the people have such a say in their governing.

Whoa, I didn't even know it had four verses. o_O

Correlation doesn't equate to "all or nothing". It only speaks in generalities. I know some very intelligent conservatives and some very dumb liberals; but I know a lot more dumb conservatives than dumb liberals.

It was added in 1954. Thats over 150 years after the founding fathers signed the deceleration of independence.

I think it's about time you Americans separate yourself from your religion, before the rest of us start considering you a state sponsored equivalent of Al Quaeda.

...yeah I don't really give enough of a shit to read all that

The more reason why the claim liberalism is more likely to attract people with higher IQ or better cognitive abilities is utter bullshit :)

Mainstream liberals most likely cannot go beyond the "Everybody gets to have sex with anybody/anything, women rights in the form of promiscuity and underdressing, and **** religion" none of which require any degree of intellect or higher faculties. So in essence, mainstream liberals are right on par with mainstream conservatives. Its just that they have different strokes.

yeah, still don't give a shit

And then what? The rest of the world is full of pansies, you would just talk us to death anyway.

What gives you the impression that lostrib is liberal?

I've been around and interacted with him enough to know that.

probably because I don't find anything wrong with homosexuals or their desire to get married

Are you a liberal or not?

Uh, not if we use your definition of mainstream liberalism

"Everybody gets to have sex with anybody/anything, women rights in the form of promiscuity and underdressing, and **** religion"

I guess by his definition, I'm liberal. I couldn't give a shit less about what two consenting adults (last I checked, a man and his dog aren't consenting adults) do in the privacy of their bedrooms. Religion limits us as a species.

If you're not victimizing someone or something else, mind your own fucking business. I really don't see how that's so difficult for some people.

So what are you, enlighten me.

What am i? Or do you mean what do I believe? And do you mean specifically on those topics in your "mainstream liberalism" definition

And why do you care?

Fiscal conservative, social liberal

My question is very simple: Are you a liberal or not? If yes, how are you a liberal?

You're missing the point here. My point is not about the validity of liberalism, its about the claim that liberalism attracts people with higher IQ or better cognitive abilities. For instance, what you just described requires zero intellect or exertion of one's higher faculties, which is exactly the point I've been making all along.

I guess I would be considered socially liberal or at least moderate

They should keep it there for old tradition sake. Just like "land of the free"

The point isn't that liberalism attracts more people with higher IQs or better critical thinking skills, it's that conservatism attracts more people who lack in those mental faculties. Do you really think your garden variety Southern, Religious-Right social conservative really understands supply-side economics?

There are literally dozens of studies that show a correlation between higher education leading to higher tolerance of others and a lessening of religious belief.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700012472/Do-college-educated-people-become-liberal-or-conservative.html?pg=all

I was an Information Systems and Finance major, hardly your bastions of liberal indoctrination, so you can't really claim my professors turned me liberal.

you will never make me quit singing it the right way.

"god god god of the jungle"

"strong as he can be."

aaaAAAAaaaaAAAAaaaa!"

watch out for that tree-ee-ee!"

WATCH OUT FOR THAT.... TREEEEEEE!"

Godstones, meet the Godstones, they're the modern stoneage family. From the town of Godrock, they're a page right out of history.

So if they remove the part about "In God is our trust", they would probably have to remove "when our cause is just" because then the rhyme is gone.

I thought we've been over this. That poem is the Battle Of Fort M'Henry, the Star Spangled Banner is the first verse of the poem put to music. The Star Spangled Banner, which is the National Anthem, does not make mention of God, the Battle Of Fort M'Henry does.

I think I saw that distinction after I posted, or at least after I began posting.

Deism is almost a philosophical necessity, so I have no issue with it being there, but as others have noted it is a largely inconsequential part of the anthem so it doesn't particularly matter.

While I don't know specifically from which country you reside, you do know that there is a country in Europe, The United Kingdom, that has a state sponsored and state endorsed religious institution, the Anglican Church of which the Queen is the head. The United States has no such politically endorsed religious institution.

@ferrari2001 Not to mention that most Europeans are religious and not atheists.

Nah it should stay for...wait, who cares?? This is of no concern compared to fixing the economy, etc.

I don't really care either way.

It will have no negative or positive effect on me because the amount of shits I give about America is very little. Always getting your jimmies rustled over bullshit that doesn't matter. Time to think rational and do what is right.

How Christian of you.

This country was born with an incentive to be free of religious constrictions, and I've always thought that the fact they even put that in there in the early 1900's was going directly against what this country was about.

So yes I believe it should be removed since it never should have been there in the first place. Same with the "In god we trust" on money as well.

Also, the Vatican is in Europe...that's kind of a big deal in Catholicism, or so I'm told

@bforrester420: Religions limits us as a species? Limits us from what?

Do you really have to ask that? Look at how religion as acted to limit knowledge though out human history. Galileo, Copernicus, race relations, the Holocaust, religious extremism...I could go on but you should get the point.

It's not really the religion itself, it's the peoples actions based on those religions that can be offending.
There are however gruesome, atrocious things described in holy scriptures of several religions.

I have "God" in my anthem and I don't really care. My anthem is pretty stupid all around. What do thy sons command? What rise are we seeing? What makes our country any more "true" than another Northern country? Can we stop standing on guard, and sit the **** down? Oh, Canada..

lol, being a hockey fan I'v heard Canada's national anthem many times, but I never really though about it like that. It really doesn't make any sense.

As for the topic, I don't really care if it's there. I'd rather it not be, but it doesn't affect me in any way shape or form.

@bforrester420: Ok. However without religion I feel that there would be a much larger lack of morals.

When it comes to the common citizenry though, the US population is generally a lot more religious than the UK population.

While the Uk is officially a Christian country. Not that many people are religious, if I recall correctly only about 6% attend church.

Society dictates morality, not religion.