<p>^^Then that one person had a specific agenda that is not normally inherent in this phrase.</p>
<p>I find the “God” part of the message troubling, too. But from a religious pespective. I think it denigrates God.</p>
<p>Yes, many people ask for personal blessings for family and others close to them. I think this is natural, though still kind misses the point of God, to me.</p>
<p>But when it becomes a gesture of patriotism, such as being played at baseball games, it’s not personal, it’s political.</p>
<p>If I care about people more who share my nationality than I do those who don’t share mine, then I am not blessing God. And I think that’s the greater point.</p>
<p>@ 'tisthetruth: Taking my family prayer example, if I had said, “God bless this happy family,” and someone said, “No, you meant 'God bless all the universe,” why shouldn’t the first person make the counterpoint: </p>
<p>“No, I mean ‘God bless this happy family.’ You’re reading something into the message that isn’t there, but I meant what I said. Instead of trying to find the way to construe it as being narrow-minded, consider it again, using an open-mind, and construe it as though it is meant in a way that is not as narrow-minded as you seem to relish in pointing out that it is…according to you.”</p>
<p>The first person, crossing out the word “America” seemed quick, judgmental and narrow-minded. Re-writing the word “America” could mean that the person making the counterpoint does, in fact, subscribe to a jingoistic view of God. Then again, the person who rewrote “America” could also be making the point that, sometimes, people mean what they say and it doesn’t have to be construed in the most negative way.</p>
<p>The first person to alter the message could have been one of those judgmental people who, without seeing the paradox and hypocrisy of their actions, thinks that they are more open-minded than everyone else. And, being so superior, they perhaps presupposed that the message was jingoistic, because they are too narrow-minded to see how it’s not necessarily so.</p>
<p>Then again, that first person could have approached it with a more generous spirit and was saying, “Hey! And let’s not stop there!”</p>
<p>Who knows? It’s difficult to truly understand intentions and all too easy for us to infer them. It’s difficult for me to answer your question as to what motivated either person to alter the original message. I can’t say for sure what inspired the first person to write the message. All I can say is that there are good-spirited motivations plausible for all parties to enter the symbolic conversation that you depicted…if only we were willing to try to see them instead of rushing to point out the evils in others.</p>
<p>I always liked the Lincoln quote: “Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side.”</p>
<p>Hey - we made it 17 posts before we got a belligerent reference to Hitler! Not bad for a thread which includes not only “America” but also “God”! :)</p>
<p>
Yes. Exactly.</p>
<p>It seems to be a pasttime these days…searching for new ways to be offended.</p>
<p>This same thing happened to me recently on a CC thread in which I made a statement about my parenting philosophy and my children. A post in reply said something on the order of (not exact quote) “I’m <em>sure</em> you didn’t mean to imply that OTHER parents are inferior.” She was right ('cept for the sarcasm). In actuality, I meant to imply no such thing. But, when we are LOOKING for affronts around every corner, we are certain to find them. They used to call it “having a chip on your shoulder.” I still view it that way.</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>Mathmom–I love that quote.</p>
<p>Why are some of you implying that I was offended? I said no such thing. You were seeing things that weren’t there.</p>
<p>There is room for both “God Bless America” and “God Bless the World.” </p>
<p>The person who crossed out “God Bless America” is the person that has a lot of learning to do, as do those that jump to the conclusion that this phrase is “jingoistic” and “ethnocentric” (the OP), and that worst of all characteristics–offensive to nonbelievers.</p>
<p>“Belligerent” reference to Hitler? That’s right, kluge–on Fathers’ Day no less! Imagine that (to quote cgm).</p>
<p>I guess it’s a all a fairy tale for you, isn’t it. According to your CV, dealing with Little League moms is the closest you’ve come to abject terror in the face of evil. You want belligerent?–I can give you belligerent.</p>
<p>
<strong><em>OMG!!!</em></strong> <strong><em>ROFLMAO</em></strong>!!! 
:D</p>
<p>Hitler’s just fine. Leave him alone, hh!! :mad: It’s those moralistic, histrionic, self-important, little league mama maniacs fightin’ the ol’ local yearbook who are “disturbed”!!! ;)</p>
<p>I agree with Wikipedia that ethnocentrism is “the tendency to look at the world primarily from the perspective of one’s own culture.” Agreeing with the phrase “God bless America” certainly fits this definition. Whether you realize it or not, your perspective on the world is colored by your being part of a given culture. The phrase has deeply embedded cultural meanings. However, it’s not up to me to decide whether your passive acceptance of this cultural bias is appropriate or not. Also, some of you could’ve just said “Well, because I’m proud to be American!” instead of losing your composure.</p>
<p>However, to settle this, I asked God to bless America, and he said no. So there you go… No need to say it anymore, k? thanx.</p>
<p>I’m perplexed and amused at the same time that grown adults would roll on the foor laughing their asses off.</p>
<p>Also, I have this ambitious plan to strip myself of any cultural bias. Nearly impossible to do, but the effort is well worth it to me. Culture is probably somewhat driven by evolution, but I seek to defy it (of course, I won’t be successful but whatever).</p>
<p>@ 'tisthetruth: I don’t see where anybody implied anything or inferred anything about your reaction. (At least not since your post #20, above.) I was quoting an imaginary conversation between the two people who altered the message (or family prayer analogy), and that was excerpted and quoted in a different post…but neither instance referred to your views or opinions.</p>
<p>In my case, I was suggesting what a person might have been thinking by crossing out “world” and replacing it with “America” as a counterpoint to the first person’s statement that it should be “world,” and not “America.” I think we’re all speculating as to what was going on in the minds of the people who actually participated in this battle of words that you described. That should come as no surprise as that’s exactly what you invited us to do.</p>
<p>this “preacher” was on a very established tv station, not some fly by night one, and this man of God was indeed a snake oil salesmen, and who are we to say his message was wrong- he had all the scripture to back him up, he has a tv show, and his message is actually pretty common these days among tv evangelists and ministers- give us money and you will be “rewarded” </p>
<p>his method was cruder, but his message is, in this day and age, pretty darn common</p>
<p>To D’yer: In post 29, hereshoping said that
</p>
<p>And what if I told you that I was the one who replaced “America” with the “world” just for the fun of it? What if I told you my anthropology professor thought it would be a fun little experiment?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.wweek.com/html/leada032900.html[/url]”>http://www.wweek.com/html/leada032900.html</a></p>
<p>“I’m prospering the same way anybody else can”–by believing God wants you to be successful, pursuing success for yourself and tithing 10 percent of your income to the church.</p>
<p>Aggressive tithing isn’t unusual among nondenominational evangelical churches. It’s a biblical requirement and, in the absence of a denomination to draw on, a financial necessity. What makes tithing different at New Beginnings is the concept that money dropped into the translucent, plastic buckets every week is more than just a donation, it’s an investment with a guaranteed return. During services, Huch tells of people who began tithing and subsequently received cars, buildings and better-paying jobs.</p>
<p>(that is the pastor of New Beginnings, one of the nations fastest growing congregations in the world)</p>
<p>you give to the church and you get material goods, how swell, so the charelton on TV has lots of wonderful God loving greedy company</p>
<p>I missed that reference to the OP.</p>
<p>I’ve already answered your question, regarding what was going on in the mind of the person who crossed out the word “America” and write “world.” I said that it would be just as big a mistake to infer that person’s intentions as being narrowminded as it is to infer that it’s narrowminded to revert the wording to its original form:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because, if you have read your history. This country of ours was the first to accept all people no matter their religion or more importantly, their economic class.<br>
READ YOUR HISTORY and realize what a difference the revolution made in this, our United States.</p>
<p>What I find interesting is that the motivation, etc. of the person who crossed out “America” and wrote “world” has been questioned; but not that of the individual who then crossed out “world” and wrote “America”. I can understand the point of the person who expanded the plea for divine blessing. The intent of the individual who elected to exclude all of the world other than America seems to me to be more interesting.</p>
<p>
Why look for an affront where there was none?</p>
<p>And along those same lines, I suppose I could find it EXTREMELY reprehensible that one would fail to include the beings of the extraterrestrial type. I mean, why stop with the world?? That’s exclusive. How about the other solar systems and galaxies or the universe?? Why should those not ALSO be “blessed” by G-d? </p>
<p>THAT is much, much more interesting to me.</p>
<p>~berurah</p>