I don't know if this is just because my country is mostly atheist, and therefore pretending to be religious is hard for me, or if it's the morality of lying in general, especially in something like religion. I would just like to understand other opinions too. — Lumiere

I am not a follower of any organized religion. I have no belief in a particular god. The phrase I usually think about in this context is "... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..." That's from the American Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote those words, was not a particularly religious person.

Those words are important to me. Seems to me if you don't believe in god, there is no justification for believing in rights either. Or you can acknowledge they are both human ways of seeing the world. Statements of human value. As close as we can get to something universal.

So, "God bless America" is not something I would normally say, but I have no problem with the sentiment. Why would you say "God bless Australia?" What would you say about Australia? Do you love it? Are you proud of it? Are you grateful for being born there?

It makes me cringe every time I hear it, but American politicians do have to appear to be religious, and it works. That's politics over there. In most other developed countries, it would have the opposite effect of making voters reach for the sick bucket. As communications director Alistair Campbell helpfully interjected when Tony Blair almost made the faux pas of speaking about his personal religious beliefs to a magazine "We don't do God".

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, it's worse than just lying (and to the extent it is that, it's hard to tell) it's exclusive of those who have no truck with the Christian God, and that's a large and growing minority of Americans.

And I'm wondering if you would be okay with saying this if you didn't believe it (if you are Christian, would you be able to say this in regards to another God if need be)? — Lumiere

It seems a bit silly to say something you don't believe. If an atheist feels uncomfortable saying similar sayings, no one is forcing him or her in the US legal system; they can have their own form of "blessing" and expression of good will. In the same manner, why should a Christian be obligated to support another God (or lack thereof) if he or she believes in only the one God as described in the Christian Scripture? I am not inclined to believe that a devote Muslim or Hindu would feel obligated to change there expression of good will to please a Christian.

If another finds fault with such an expression, which in most cases is intended to encourage, then perhaps the fault lies not within the speaker of such expression, but rather within the recipient. As the saying goes, don't look a gift horse in the mouth. :smile:

The point is that the President should represent everyone and therefore be neutral on gods. The majority of Americans are Christian, it's true, so it's a vote winner, but there is no state religion and a purposeful division between state and religion, so representatives of the state should not preference one religion over another.

The point is that the President should represent everyone and therefore be neutral on gods. — Baden

Why do you care what we do in the US? Is it still true that in the UK, the defendant in a defamation trial has to prove what they say is true? And speech can be restricted because language is alarming? And in Germany, people aren't allowed to talk freely about Nazism. US freedom of speech is almost unrestricted, unlike you barbarians in Europe and the rest of the world who don't believe their people are capable of figuring out the truth for themselves.

Eh, the OP is about America. I answered it. And, no, freedom of speech is not "almost unrestricted" there in my view. There are cases in America where people face long jail terms for stuff they posted on FB. Mentioned one in a recent discussion.

https://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/02/tech/social-media/facebook-threat-carter/index.html

So, where it matters, the US falls down and jails people for saying the wrong thing. That doesn't happen so much in Western Europe where common sense tends to prevail. Having said that, I'm not here to defend any particular country or continent. We're not at a ball game and it doesn't matter to me whether it's America or Europe doing the wrong thing. I've criticized my own country recently for its silly anti-blasphemy law, for example, (which is due to be canned very soon in any case).

So, country of origin is irrelevant. And I think on reflection you'll actually agree with me on that.

And I think on reflection you'll actually agree with me on that. — Baden

I don't agree actually. I'm responsible for my country and what it does domestically and in the world. The UK seems like a good place. I don't have any criticism of its politics. It doesn't threaten its neighbors or torture its residents. There are plenty of places that do. The other countries I care about most are those that do with US help. I care about what affects me and for which I am responsible.

The point is that the President should represent everyone and therefore be neutral on gods. The majority of Americans are Christian, it's true, so it's a vote winner, but there is no state religion and a purposeful division between state and religion, so representatives of the state should not preference one religion over another. — Baden

Then that violates the separation of church and state; a representative and the president are not obligated to be "neutral", as that in and of itself becomes a form of religion, it is merely that they cannot make laws forcing others to follow one particular denomination or religion. Upon fair election, the majority has chosen the representative and president based on his or her policy, hence the majority has permitted this person to demonstrate such policy to some extent.
And the question now posed is "Upon election, do authorities then lose the rights dictated in the supreme law of the US?" Should representatives be forced to completely restrain any reference to a belief they deem true, then this becomes tyranny and ought to be abolished. Likewise, it ends up hypocritical, as the belief that all beliefs must be represented should be abolished as this itself is a belief.

I'm not from the UK not that it matters. Anyhow, the point is if someone's views are intentionally biased towards their own country, then there's little chance of a meeting of minds with anyone outside that country. Their audience is themselves and those in their country who agree with them.

I'm responsible for my country and what it does domestically and in the world — T Clark

To a degree but so what? That doesn't mean you have to defend it when it's wrong does it? That would be the height of irresponsibility.

To a degree but so what? That doesn't mean you have to defend it when it's wrong does it? That would be the height of irresponsibility. — Baden

My point isn't to defend it, it's to point out I am responsible to take action to change things to the extent I can.

Then that violates the separation of church and state — Lone Wolf

Not saying "God bless America" violates the separation of church and state? How so?

It violates it because it removes the individual liberty of professing a particular belief. The laws and a human are not the same.

I never said anything that would suggest you shouldn't take action to change things to the extent you can. I merely said intentional bias towards one's own country is not a route to productive discussion with anyone outside that country. We're all full of unintentional biases, of course, but it seems sensible to try to mitigate them to the extent it's possible. And I would think that if we do have a duty towards our countries, it's exactly to call them out when we think they're wrong. As I said, it's not a ball game where we have to support the home team.

I didn't say there should be a law forcing them not to say that. I said they shouldn't say that. It's a moral not a legal point.

God bless America, Allahu Akbar, Odin guide our ships, may the force be with you, live long and prosper, Flying Spaghetti Monster honour this land with His Noodly Appendage, ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD!

The answer is of course no, on principle. But, in a cynical sense, if it must be said, then... :roll:

Thank you. I am now officially "Good Cop". :up:

No one is obligated to pretend to believe something they don't. Moral or legal points, it doesn't matter. The separation of church and state isn't a law, but the Freedom of Speech is.

Everything I get involved with lately seems to lead back to the group identity theme that came up the podcasts I mentioned recently.

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2018/02/26/yanss-121-progress-rebroadcast/

https://soundcloud.com/youarenotsosmart/112-change-my-view-rebroadcast



You don't have to disbelieve in your particular god or pretend not to believe in it to keep it to yourself as a matter of politeness and consideration for those who don't believe in it. If an American Muslim was elected President and constantly said "Allah, who is great, bless America", the collective red states would have a collective heart attack and start reaching for their guns, so your argument falls apart very quickly.

In some situations, yes. In others, why? The harder you try to please everyone, the less you'll please everyone. If a Muslim was elected president, by a fair election, then there is nothing anyone can do unless he attempts to overthrow currently accepted laws and the legal balances. If he merely stated that he hoped Allah blessed America, this is expressing good will, so it would be unjustified to have a fit over it.

Well, fine, you personally would be being consistent if you were OK with that. I am also being consistent by saying it's not for any religion to lay claim to the US, which is a secular state, so it seems like poor decorum and unnecessary to me for leaders to be exclusive in their use of language. Again, it's a matter of different attitudes to public decorum in the context of public officialdom. But I realize public officials are unlikely to be swayed by any argument that doesn't involve considerations of the ballot box.

The point is that the President should represent everyone and therefore be neutral on gods. — Baden

Newsflash, politicians are people too, Baden. Being elected to political office doesn't take away one's own right to represent themselves. So, whether it be my local rep or Donald J. Trump, if either choose to say, "God bless America," then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Political representatives are elected to represent, not to be their constituents' bitch. And differentiating between official policy and personal opinion really isn't that difficult. But unfortunately, modernity has spawned a wide swath of people with blubber for brains who are too busy cringing and getting triggered to think critically about non issues like this one.

Lol. Ok.

Such a philosophically astute response, Baden. Have you tried writing a book?

Such a philosophically astute response, Baden. Have you tried writing a book? — Buxtebuddha

What do you expect, you accused him of having blubber for brains?

You're wrong. There's not absolutely nothing wrong with that, as it gives a fictitious God, which is not recognised as such by many, undue prominence and recognition in political discourse, which is of importance because of its influence and affect upon a wide audience. It's both inappropriate and irresponsible. He's the president, not the pope.

What do you expect, you accused him of having blubber for brains? — T Clark

Just spitting on his badge. His inability to ignore an ad hom proves my latter point all the more. It's too bad our forum oligarchs weren't elected, otherwise my vote would be sailing other seas.

You're wrong. — Sapientia

*panics*

There's not absolutely nothing wrong with that, as it gives a fictitious God, which is not recognised as such by many, undue prominence and recognition in political discourse, which is of importance because of its influence and affect upon a wide audience. — Sapientia

Okay, phew, *breathes*. I thought you had me there for a second, *wipes sweat from brow.*

Such a philosophically astute response, Heister.

Such a philosophically astute response, Heister. — Sapientia

You'll have to give me more than, "you're wrong because people don't believe in God."

You'll have to give me more than, "you're wrong because people don't believe in God." — Buxtebuddha

You'll have to give me more than, "I can't be bothered to think about the full argument that was presented to me, so I'll just ineptly paraphrase a part of it and throw my hands in the air".

Here, go fetch, boy.

There's not absolutely nothing wrong with that — Sapientia

Baseless assertion.

as it gives a fictitious God — Sapientia

A believed-to-be fictitious God, sure. But is a religious politician unable to reference their belief in words that don't reflect official policy? If they can't do so, then you've stripped politicians and others who are elected governmental officials from exercising their full right to freedom of expression and religious thought.

which is not recognised as such by many, undue prominence and recognition in political discourse — Sapientia

As another in this thread has already remarked, a phrase like "God bless America" reflects an intention to will the good of the country. That is, if you think that a mannerism of good will is something to be loathed, then you certainly fit the West-hating leftist caricature, one who despises the privileges he now enjoys - privileges built out of a religiously-toned political discourse, *gasp.*

which is of importance because of its influence and affect upon a wide audience. — Sapientia

Important how? Is an appeal to God's blessing of a nation an appeal for theocratic domination? No, I don't think so. If anything, the kind of domineering hand you see reaching into the secular space by religious folks is the same hand you have raised under the veneer of political correctness.

It's both inappropriate and irresponsible. — Sapientia

And why is that? Truly, it is strange how insulted you are by what are, to you, illusory words referencing an illusory and fictitious God. Are you afraid of the dark, too, Sappy?

Here's a hilarious exchange from Neil deGrasse Tyson's twitter from the other week:

Neil deGrasse Tyson, "His passing has left an intellectual vacuum in his wake. But it's not empty. Think of it as a kind of vacuum energy permeating the fabric of spacetime that defies measure. Stephen Hawking, RIP 1942-2018."

Jean Claude Van Gitabushi, "Actually, Resting in Peace would indicate an identity existing beyond death that would be able to "rest" or have a sense of peace. I'm surprised that someone who so often corrects others on science would embrace such a religious viewpoint."

Neil deGrasse Tyson, "Wait, there’s more. I say “bless you” to sneezes. I say "goodbye" (from God-Be-With-You) to those who leave. I say “Godspeed" to astronaut friends about to launch. And I gleefully use BC & AD. (p.s. I’d bet you use the term “sunrise" even though you know Earth is what turns.)"

He's the president, not the pope. — Sapientia

He's a man who is his own person, and as much as you'd like to try and take away his personhood, you can't.