School Tries (and Fails) to Take ‘God’ Out of ‘God Bless the USA’

Tinkering with the lyrics was stupid.  First, as you mentioned, it makes for a pretty shitty song.  Secondly, and I’ll probably get killed for this, but I really don’t think it’s right to so twist the meaning and intent of Greenwood’s song while still trying to obviously have it sound like his song.  Look, we flipped out at Cee-Lo for what he did to “Imagine” (and rightly so).  The right move is to not sing the song at all, not to try and tweak it in a way that so alters the meaning of it.

If kids in another country were singing, say, “God Bless the Islamic
Republican of Iran,” we’d be pissed off. Why is it ok in America (or, should I say, American) to say God loves us — or pledge that we’re “one nation, under God” — when we’d call it indoctrination or brainwashing if other countries did the same thing?

Because “God Bless America” is the short version of “God Bless America and no one else.”

Well, if the USA were good enough for Jesus’ second coming, they are sure good enough for me. *wink*

Changing someone else’s work gets into the revisionism aspect.  It might seem okay in the remix culture, but there is a real division between mash up vs plagiarizing/revising.  This really falls in the later. 

Like others here, my mind went exactly to Cee-Lo’s weak lyrical substitution on Imagine. Don’t like the lyrics? Don’t perform it.

It’s a combination of ‘American’ and ‘where’.  “I’m proud to live in America where” would be correct.

I think he means that even though he may have the other problems that people everywhere commonly have, at least he knows he’s free. Of course, how free he really is is debatable.

Assuming it’s not rhetorical, it’s okay because of cognitive dissonance and American exceptionalism.  Pretty much the explanation for everything, really.

Side note: If kids in another country were singing, say, “God Bless the Islamic Republican of Iran,” we’d be pissed off. Why is it ok in America (or, should I say, American) to say God loves us — or pledge that we’re “one nation, under God” — when we’d call it indoctrination or brainwashing if other countries did the same thing?

The whole idea of a pledge is creepy. If their was a news story about Chinese public school children reciting an ‘oath of loyalty’ or something like that to The People’s Republic the comments would all be about those horrible brainwashing communists.

It’s not even effective nationalist propganda. Forcing people to repeat things works best when you make huge crowds do it like the Nazis or North Korea, the bigger the crowd the more people will feel pressured to go along with the group . Making a room full of students grumble through it once a day doesn’t inspire loyalty the same way.

Thanks. Now I get it. I was having a brain fart.

I agree with the first comments.   If you don’t want to sing about God at the assembly, and I’m all for that, the best way is to change out the song itself, not the lyrics.  

And anyone who thinks Americans are born free never got an obstetrics bill.

Defensible.

I’m pretty sure those countries do sing about how a god has blessed their nation. I don’t think anyone gets pissed off about it.

wow the comments secction is full of Christian apologists, so can everyone bump this RATIONAL comment “I think we need to keep God out of the schools because I don’ want the
schools to teach my child a religion that is not one our family follows
and it’s unfair force my religion on someone of another faith…” to the top by clicking “like” (you don’t need an account to vote on comments) http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/morning_show/should-god-be-taken-out-of-songs-in-schools-04052012#comment-487663357

 Honestly, I think that makes more sense both lyrically and grammatically.

I sang this song in elementary school and we change the Lyric from “Men who died” to “Ones who died”, because of the reason that Hemant mention. NO one gave a shit. This was during Desert Storm the first gulf war.

It’s better than tribalism.

So god is also being asked (or told?) to bless Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Colombia Etc.  Well, they ARE all American, just not USA American.

 It IS tribalism.

 Except they all refer to themselves as Canadian, Mexican, Brazilian, Colombian, etc.  Everyone on the planet knows that when you refer to yourself as American you are from the USA.  You even say it that way in foreign languages when you refer to yourself.  It’s not a matter of being arrogant.  It’s a matter of you come from the United States of America.  It’s an asinine thing to get all bent out of shape about.

The two clauses are set off with a comma. The first clause is independent whereas second clause is dependent, both connected via the verb “to be,” so there is no grammatical error.

I’m proud to be an American (INDEPENDENT), COMMA where at least I know I’m free. (DEPENDENT, the speaker is proud to be in a place where he is free).

It would be like saying, “I’m proud to be a Harvard student, where I have the opportunity to receive a high-quality education.

 You are correct, sir.  The line is actually grammatically correct. The song still sucks, but the grammar (at least here) checks out.

And thanks Hemant, for getting this terrible song stuck in my head…”And I proudly STAND UP [ba-nah-nahhhh] …and blah blah blah blah blahhhhhh”

 That’s four if you add the War of 1812, not “many.”   There have only been a handful of times when American territory or American citizens were threatened.  All the countless other engagements have been forceful extensions of our foreign policy.  *Civilians* are the ones who protect our freedoms by voting on civil rights, privacy issues, etc., and occasionally by protesting in the streets.  
As a veteran, I am creeped out by people who thank me for my service, while professing views that are one bus stop short of fascism.

Freedom isn’t an on/off switch, and rarely is the degree of freedom ever zero. Even people in totalitarian states have freedoms. They just might not be what you have come to take for granted. Similarly, poor people have freedoms in this country, but are not as free as rich people. This should be obvious on the face of it. Poor people have to work for a living, often at more than one job just to pay bills, restricting them to a way of life that, while “free”, not many in the first world would envy and is prohibitively difficult to break free from without a stroke of luck; wealthy people can travel the world and work if they choose to at something they truly enjoy.

“…has blessed America because so many people seek Him and ask for His will to be done.” I have never understood this concept – not even when i was amongst the devout. “Please, lord, do whatever the f&*# you want to do.” Why oh why do you feel the need to ask god to assure that god’s will is done?

I’m not getting bent out of shape about it, (and I’m not accusing anyone of being arrogant) I’m just trying to point out that that, although christians might like to think that the message this song gives out is that a god is blessing the US, what it could be saying is that a god is being asked/told to bless lots of other people as well.  I wonder how they feel about that, after all, if true, it makes the country just that little bit less special in the eyes of their god.

Just me having a different take on how to annoy and irritate christians.

And Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, and Colombians into the bargain.

^this^Thank you.
Why should anyone be pissed off about another country singing a patriotic song? I think Hemant is slowly turning into  the “Hyper-critical Atheist”.

I decided to get a little peer review from a college English instructor.

The intent of both utterances is that the “where” clauses are noun clauses functioning as appositives modifying “Harvard” (the place) and “America.”  Since “Harvard” (the place noun) and “America” are nowhere present in these sentences, the modifying clauses are “dangling.” In the Harvard case, “Harvard” functions not as a place noun, but as an adjective, because it is a word the modifies a noun (student) by describing “what kind.”

She does go on to say:

From a rhetorical grammar perspective, Mr. Greenwood arguably got it right, insofar as his country song would not be particularly catchy, and it wouldn’t have rolled off the tongue particularly well had he worded it as I have. So the song is most rhetorically effective as it is for its writer’s purposes and within its particular rhetorical situation (its intended audience and the genre constraints and exigencies that call the text (song) into being and act upon/shape it).

(in full disclosure, the peer is also my cousin)

I do think that if we’re going to pick apart the grammar in pop songs, then we’re opening a massive can of worms.

You see no difference where I do, and you see a difference where I do not.

You are saying that there is no difference in meaning between “God bless the USA,” and “We love the USA.” It’s the title of the song, and it’s the climactic line, not just an incidental phrase. I think there’s a very great difference in meaning, and according to the news report,  so does the song writer, Lee Greenwood. I think the writer of poetry or prose has a pretty weighty opinion about the intended meaning of his or her words.

You say there is a difference between an adulterated song being performed by a paid professional and being performed by some kids at a pep assembly. I think whatever that difference might be has no bearing on the principle of respecting an artist’s work and leaving it as it is. This is not a change of  “artistic style” in the performing of it, it’s a big change in the writer’s message.

As an artist and a writer, I have strong opinions about respecting the integrity of someone’s creation, even if one doesn’t like or agree with that creation.  I don’t particularly like Greenwood’s song, but changing its most important lyric and meaning in any public performance is out of line.

If you don’t like a painting, just don’t buy it, instead of repainting it without permission to change the artist’s intended point, message, meaning or effect of his art. If you don’t like the message of a book, just don’t buy it, instead of reprinting it with unauthorized revisions that change the author’s intended message.  If you don’t like a song as it was originally written, then just don’t perform it. There are plenty of other songs, or write your own.