America is Better than God

"Under God" needs to be replaced with "over God."

Let's be very clear about one thing here: We are the U-nited Fucking States of America. We are not "under" anybody or anything, God included. God may have flexed His muscles a few thousand years ago, but in the intervening era, the Children of Liberty have learned a few tricks that even God was never able to pull off. The recent silence from God has been deafening, and there's a reason for that; He knows better than to pick a fight that He cannot win. The ability to turn random people into pillars of salt and send swarms of locusts to ruin crops is a pretty cute parlor trick, to be sure. But cute parlor tricks only get you so far.

Let's see how things stack up, shall we?

AMERICA: Has the ability to destroy the entire world dozens of times over and render it all an uninhabitable nuclear wasteland for tens of thousands of years
GOD: Was only able to dump lots of water on the world for a period of 40 days. Water! Ooh, I'm positively quaking! Mercy, Lord... Mercy! Pardon me while I get out the air pump so I can inflate my fucking water wings!
AMERICA: Airlifted hundreds of thousands of ethnically-correct and delicious MREs (Meals Ready to Eat) to starving Afghans during the opening days of Operation Enduring Freedom. These people needed real food, and America was up to the challenge.
GOD: Was only able to produce manna for the Israelites during their extended tour of the desert. Manna, for Christ's sake. What kind of deity has 40 years to perfect His culinary skills and can't do any better than manna? I'm quite certain that Moses and company would have appreciated some baby back ribs and an ice-cold Budweiser from time to time, but apparently this was outside of God's reach. It is indeed a shame that America was not around at this period in history; we could have provided the Israelites with some real nourishment.
AMERICA: Can rain immense destructive power down on any area of land accurate to the diameter of a nickel by pushing a single button from thousands of miles away
GOD: Is forced to use such unreliable mechanisms as bolts of lightning, biological plagues, and ferocious bears as a delivery system for vengeance. Pardon me if I'm suitably unimpressed. All of this might have been wicked cool when the most advanced weapon that humans were able to produce was a very sharp stick, but we're past all of that now. We've got Tomahawk cruise missiles... if God is still sticking with the whole lightning gig, He's basically fucked.
AMERICA: Saves its citizens by providing them with tangible income after they retire, become unemployed, or face unsurmountable health care costs. Even the poorest Americans are much better off than the richest citizens of 90% of the rest of the world.
GOD: Provides (unsubstantiated) claims that people will be saved from (unsubstantiated) torture by believing in Him; requires 10% of personal income as a tithe to pay for said salvation. Does not provide unemployment or health care emergency assistance despite the need for all this money. One must ask: what does an omnipotent deity need with American currency? Or, as the venerable Captain Kirk once put it: "What does God need with a starship?"

I could go on, but I feel that the point has been sufficiently established. For decades, the American people have been described as "God-fearing", as if such a description was a positive way to express the collective mindset of the United States. No, I feel it is more apt to describe God as "America-fearing", for it is clear that if He were to (unwisely) get Himself embroiled in a conflict with us, He would get his Bronze-age ass kicked from here to Cleveland and back.

Does this make us, as a nation, immoral or irreverent? I don't think so. Biologists tell us that evolution is not directed and that there is no "final goal" that nature seeks to attain. That may be true. But a necessary byproduct of evolution is that evolving societies tend to become more ordered, structured, and powerful as time marches on. In our case, we have transcended the abilities of our former deity and He has become our inferior cousin. It is hateful and unpatriotic to suggest that the United States of America should play second fiddle to anyone, be they nation, state, or deity.

With this in mind, I invite you to join me in reciting our new Pledge of Allegiance:

I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic, for which it stands
One nation, over God
Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

Thank you for your time.

	A-merica to that! (3.00 / 2) (#2)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 9th, 2002 at 09:30:38 PM PST

	We righly won't stand for our soldiers being tried before some international kangaroo court made up of anti-American scoundrels like Iraq or the French, why then should we abide by every American citizen being subect to the judgement of some unelected entity that hides His methods and motives behind the excuse of "mysterious ways"? We have to stand up to those that want to undermine our sovereignty, whether a little or for all eternity. It's sad how far we have allowed those who hate our freedom to subject us to tyranny. Every since they started sneaking God into our American institutions during the 1950s -- with little resistance from a mostly apathetic and Elvis-bothered American public -- the agents of God have been becoming more and more bold. Today, terrorist networks of God-supporters operate in our country with impunity. Why is it that someone like Pat Robertson can use our nation's airwaves to threaten Florida with hurricanes if it doesn't cave in to the demands of God and not be taken into custody by Federal authorities and brought before a military tribunal? It's madness and it has to end!

	USA needs not use its divine force to squish bugs. (none / 0) (#4)
	by MessiahWWKD on Wed Jul 10th, 2002 at 08:38:50 AM PST

	Why is it that someone like Pat Robertson can use our nation's airwaves to threaten Florida with hurricanes if it doesn't cave in to the demands of God and not be taken into custody by Federal authorities and brought before a military tribunal? It's madness and it has to end! America allows Pat Robertson to speak drivel because America is not afraid of his pathetic threats. To America, God and Pat Robertson are nothing more than little puppies with big barks. Some might even feel it would be unfair if America exercised its divine force against such a weak threat. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	Bravo, gbd. (4.00 / 1) (#3)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 10th, 2002 at 02:27:32 AM PST

	Normally I whinge and moan, but this is fantastic stuff. The only problem I have with it where you say "America can rain immense destructive power down on any area of land accurate to the diameter of a nickel". Now, given recent events, either this statement is inaccurate, or the Americans are evil bastards who prefer bombing civilians and allies to bombing the enemy. Let's get this straight -- American "can't find" a man they actually met in hospital with kidney troubles, a blind man and a cripple, but they have no trouble bombing Red Cross units, weddings and Canadians? Something doesn't add up. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Thank you for your contribution. (none / 0) (#6)
	by dmg on Wed Jul 10th, 2002 at 09:20:46 AM PST

	Normally I whinge and moan Acceptance is the first stage of a cure... American "can't find" a man they actually met in hospital with kidney troubles, a blind man and a cripple, but they have no trouble bombing Red Cross units, weddings and Canadians? You forgot Chinese Embassies, and British troops. Of course, it turns out that the Chinese Embassy missile was totally intentional, and so how do we know that the wedding party were not Taliban terrorist sympathisers ? One must read between the lines. America has super-accurate weaponry. America kills someone with aforementioned weaponary. By mistake ? Of course not. But the public must always be given the bad news with a positive spin. For all we know, Bin Laden himself might have been attending that wedding. If he was, would a casualty rate of 100 innocent Afghanis be justified if it meant no more terror ? The public might be squeamish about making judgement calls like that, fortunately for us, and the rest of the world, the American Military is not. America is not "detail oriented". We paint our landscape of freedom with a broad brush. Occasionally there is some unavoidable collateral damage. You will never eliminate that completely. You might want to think about your repressed life under a Nazi regime, which would have been your lot had we had not bailed your limey asses out in WWII. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	Now look here (none / 0) (#25)
	by PotatoError on Thu Jul 11th, 2002 at 10:53:00 AM PST

	If it wasn't for the Germans, you Yanks wouldn't have survived a British invasion. So please stop branding them "Nazis" when they saved your ass. As for the bombing of British troops at the chinese embassy, I think you should be ashamed at that your country even considered taking those innocent civilian lives just on the off chance that Bin Laden was there (and lets face it what the hell would Bin Laden be doing at a Chinese Wedding?). <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	I see we have a Nazi Sympathizer here. (none / 0) (#26)
	by MessiahWWKD on Thu Jul 11th, 2002 at 12:29:15 PM PST

	If we used your logic during World War II, Hitler and Japan would have won. After all, it's "shameful" to take one hundred trivial lives to stop a threat that is destroy one million purposeful lives. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	Yeah, trivial lives and purposeful lives. (none / 0) (#36)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 15th, 2002 at 07:09:57 AM PST

	It's shameful to take 100 Jew's lives to save millions of blonde haired, blue eyed white Christians.

	You are clearly an idiot. (none / 0) (#41)
	by MessiahWWKD on Tue Jul 16th, 2002 at 07:24:29 AM PST

	There is a difference in Germany committing acts of genocide and America destroying a few innocent lives. Unlike the Germans, we don't want to destroy innocent lives, but we understand that we must if we want to save not only millions from the terrorists, but the world itself from a nuclear war. On the other hand, the Jews were doing nothing to the Germans to warrant such actions against them, making the actions the Germans committed against their superiors lack justification. I'm sure you don't understand this though, as it is clear you lack the ability to look at the world in anything but black and white. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	Black and white judaism. (none / 0) (#43)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 16th, 2002 at 12:42:44 PM PST

	Of course, the small matter that Jews were heavily influencing European and world trade to their financial advantage and were using the funds to perpetuate their Zionist empires. The Nazis saved us from the Jews. Look at them now - not so fucking uppity, are they? The same thing with the Catholic Church since King Billy, Japan since Hiroshima, and the Logan Airport since September 11th. But you can't see that, because: a) you clearly get all your ideas from the Jew-controlled American media and b) you can't see these issues in anything other than black and white. Nazis are evil and Jews are great. Even Jews who go around kiling and terrorising Arab women and children. End of story.

	No (5.00 / 1) (#30)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 12th, 2002 at 10:19:58 PM PST

	> For all we know, Bin Laden himself might have > been attending that wedding. If he was, would a > casualty rate of 100 innocent Afghanis be > justified if it meant no more terror ? No. Innocent deaths are never justified. And in this case, killing Bin Laden isn't a magic spell to end terrorism. Killing less innocents may be a beginning though.

	less/fewer (none / 0) (#31)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jul 13th, 2002 at 01:04:46 AM PST

	Killing less innocents may be a beginning though. You ought to have said "Killing fewer innocents may be a beginning though." "Fewer" is used instead of "less" when describing a discrete quantity that may be counted. Please don't criticise the War On Terror until you have learned to use English grammar properly.

	Shut up. (none / 0) (#44)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 02:00:40 AM PST

	No, really. This is getting pretty old. Try refuting this poster's claims instead of criticizing his grammar. You are no longer clever - just an ass.

	Hush you. (none / 0) (#47)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 08:06:17 PM PST

	This is no l337 h4x0r that can't get a handle on the English language. Confusing "less" and "few" is a trivial mistake. Otherwise, the poster's grammar was fairly solid. However, your butchery of the English tongue cannot go unnoticed. The last sentence of your post should have read: "There's no point in refuting the arguments of someone who cannot spell, as they are unlikely to have anything of merit to say. However, by pointing out their illiteracy, we at least offer them some hope of bettering themselves." Never heard of a comma splice, have you? Ass.

	Grammar matters (none / 0) (#46)
	by Amitabh Bachan on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 04:00:07 AM PST

	because if you are an incoherent clown then nobody takes your arguments seriously.

	You don't get it, do you ? (none / 0) (#45)
	by dmg on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 03:57:59 AM PST

	How can one give any credibility to the views of an ill-educated barely literate moron who cannot even understand basic English grammar ? There's no point in refuting the arguments of someone who cannot spell, they are unlikely to have anything of merit to say, however by pointing out their illiteracy, we at least offer them some hope of bettering themselves. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	Who could resist? (none / 0) (#39)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 15th, 2002 at 10:08:48 PM PST

	Bombing Canadians? What are the Canucks going to do? I'll tell you, they'll sit there and take it! Because, unlike Americans, they're a nation of pussies. Sure, bombing hospitals is unfortunate, but then again, the Taliban should never have used them for military purposes. They learned that you can't stop the American juggernaut, no matter where you hide your guns.

	Canadians aren't all bad. (none / 0) (#40)
	by MessiahWWKD on Tue Jul 16th, 2002 at 07:11:29 AM PST

	Let's not forget that Canadian women, except pseudo-Canadians such as Alanis Morisette and Celine Dion, have great boobs. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	Cool its the Anti-christ! (1.00 / 2) (#5)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 10th, 2002 at 09:19:03 AM PST

	Hey so how are you going to fix the middle east problem? You are the fucken anti-christ its your fucken job to save the day then screw the people who followed you blindly like a fucken donkeys. Sorry but I find this a joke. Over god is like saying "My knife will beat your 50000 pound bomb." When I paint a picture or write a story I can just as easly burn it compelely destorying it. This world is gods master piece, he can make it, edit it, and also destroy it faster then he made it. So I am going to use the ago old strategy... Hold your balls and hope.

	The Final Solution to the Middle East Conflict (none / 0) (#10)
	by araym on Wed Jul 10th, 2002 at 11:47:58 AM PST

	Nuke 'em all and let Allah sort it out. In fact, every religious person should be killed and take their rightful place in heaven while the atheists (or Satanists as they prefer to be called) rule Earth (Hell). Praise Jesus!

	Bodily Harm? (none / 0) (#13)
	by Pseudo on Wed Jul 10th, 2002 at 01:18:34 PM PST

	What the hell is it with guys? WHen things get tough just "grab your balls and hope." how silly is that anyway.(giggles) First of all if god did exist and was all powerful as you say. I don't think the protective covrage of your hands over your scotum would do much good. If he wanted them he'd have them. Second of all wouldn't it be better to protect hmmmm say, your HEAD (the one on your neck). Mabey you would start to use the age old duck and cover. Psuedo

	You're an idiot! (none / 0) (#18)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 10th, 2002 at 08:35:17 PM PST

	He never proposed a solution to the middle east problem...and God hasn't either...God started the whole mess anyway: People who self-righteously believe in HIM start killing each-other over a little fucking spot of land, and it's this guy's fault? You're an idiot. And you're part of the problem. He wrote a humorous essay. I bet you couldn't get past the 4th page of Swift's "A modest proposal" because you thought that Swift was an immoral child-eater...or you've never even read the essay and thus have no fucking idea of what I'm talking about. Why don't you do something with your life and ask your parents to put you back in school to learn something? Don't even purport to be self-righteous, because you're just a measly little dumb-ass human in a small, insignificant corner of the universe on your little "GoD-inspired" crusade to stomp out Satan and his little unbelieving minions, aren't you? Get a fucking clue, and pull yourself out of that damned fundamentalist black hole you're in.

	No (1.00 / 1) (#7)
	by Right Hand Man on Wed Jul 10th, 2002 at 09:37:05 AM PST

	Of course the assertion that the United States of America is greater than God is false, despite the relative greatness of our empire when compared to all of our contemporaries as well as every other state that has existed throughout the course of history. This should be obvious to anyone who considers why we have become so great, let alone thinks seriously about the true power of the Lord. We exist in our present state because God has allowed it. Possibly even directed it. The government of the US allows its citizens the freedom to worship Him, thus he smiles upon our country. It is safe to say that the United States has the highest concentration of upstanding Christians that you'll find anywhere, thus it follows that we hold the top position in the hierarchy of men. Look at the third world. These people, by and large, worship animals or grass or the moon or some such. God helps those who help themselves and He isn't going to allow a group of whackos like that to gain power. The former Soviet Union is yet another example. Those people were ground down under the weight of Communism, an inherently God hating form of government, and look how they ended up. Or Israel. The entire misguided non-Christian Middle East wants to see that small country destroyed. How could they withstand such an onslaught without divine intervention? The false monkey god doesn't appear to be helping out the aggressors too much, but God, the real God, isn't having any trouble keeping them at bay. Yes, American is great. Relatively great. We could easily annihilate everything on the planet if we so chose, but God's power is so great that the human mind cannot even begin to comprehend it. We should put serious effort into taking the steps necessary to prevent our great country from falling out of favor with Him, and banning mention of Him in our Pledge of Allegiance is a step in the wrong direction. Control of this country must be forcibly wrestled from the wretched left before it is too late, or we'll find ourselves sitting in the middle of a smoking crater with the world's next God loving country staring down at us. ------------------------- "Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

	Dear Religious Nut: (none / 0) (#15)
	by flowers on Wed Jul 10th, 2002 at 02:39:24 PM PST

	Why did Jesus turn down the position of King of the Jews? Because his Kingdom is not of this world. God doesn't care about your pathetic country or any other, including Israel. America, on the other hand -- America does care about Israel. That's why Israel stands against its Islamic neighbours. In summary: God doesn't care about Israel, America does. Of course, to the average American (which is just what you have so richly demonstrated yourself to be), America is God, whatever they would like to convince others or themselves to believe. In fact, that's the real reason you should omit any reference to God from your Pledge of Allegiance. It's self-referential and paradoxical to place America above or below itself. A is A. PS: God is irrelevant, and so are you. --- I have unprotected sex with multiple anonymous partners.

	No (none / 0) (#21)
	by Right Hand Man on Thu Jul 11th, 2002 at 06:00:47 AM PST

	A quick read of the bible should set you straight as there are numerous examples of God taking particular interest in the conduct of various states and their inhabitants. SImply because His methods are not readily obvious to your untrained moral eye doesn't mean that He isn't at work. Embrace God and rid yourself of your ignorance. ------------------------- "Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

	Oh, I'm sorry. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
	by flowers on Thu Jul 11th, 2002 at 08:12:19 AM PST

	I thought you were Christian, not Jewish. I didn't see Jesus saying things like, "Okay, everybody: Go to war with the Romans! You'll win! I'm on YOUR side!" This despite the fact that this is exactly what many people wanted to hear him say. Sure, I Am That I Am really got embroiled in Earthly conflict, but I think he either got bored of that or realized how wrong he was. The New Covenant supplanted the Mosaic Law, and in the same way, His methods changed. Supporting a nation made sense when the supported nation and His chosen people were the same people, but now? Ever since Peter's vision opened the door for the message of God's Kingdom to be given to the Samaritans and the gentiles, God has favored no nation over any other. The Israelites lost their pride of place because they were arrogant. Final thoughts: A quick read of the Bible never set anybody straight on anything. It is a collection of unethical ramblings that is so nonsensical that even among those who believe it is divinely inspired, there are huge schisms regarding its interpretation. My eye is not moral. It, like the rest of me, is amoral. My eye is not untrained, either. I know the Bible, but it is milk. I've set aside the things of the boy. --- I have unprotected sex with multiple anonymous partners.

	Logic: The Bane of All Religion (1.00 / 1) (#19)
	by Carnage on Wed Jul 10th, 2002 at 11:42:40 PM PST

	What Right Hand Man is using is called a Panglossian Paradigm (which is logically false). Basically what the Panglossian Paradigm says is that all things are the way they are for the best possible reason (The Panglossian Paradigm comes from Prof. Pangloss in Candide by Voltaire). So whatever happens can be explained by if its a good situation, God made it that way, or if it's a bad situation then God made it that way because eventually it will turn out good. Well, wake up! The universe is not purpose based. We as humans are the only things that assign purpose to help comfort our fear of the unknown. Other animals just go on surviving rather than trying to explain their existence. The United States is in its current position because of planning and luck and not because God either held back his thunderbolt from killing the founding fathers or opened up the Heavens before them and gave them the Constitution. And the whole explaination of the fall of the Soviet Union, well I'm sure God ment well when destroying what little infrastructure there was in Eastern Europe and Russia because now the people can be free to starve and bask unsheltered in God's glory. If anyone has any replies that do not include dogmatic phrases, quoting scripture, or repeating yourself, please respond.

	Logic: Somewhat lacking (none / 0) (#20)
	by walwyn on Thu Jul 11th, 2002 at 05:27:25 AM PST

	It is strange that you should find it necessary to regale us mindnumbingly boring details we are all very familiar with vis-avis Francois Marie's novella, yet fail to describe in any detail such phantasmagorical literary concepts as 'America' and 'Russia'.

	No Pseudo-Intellectualism Allowed (none / 0) (#22)
	by gzt on Thu Jul 11th, 2002 at 07:51:42 AM PST

	First, it's not quite a "Panglossian Paradigm", it's slightly different. His argument is not about "the best of all possible worlds" or anything along those lines. He is arguing that God rewards Christian Americans and punishes grass-worshiping pagans. He is not arguing there is any purpose in life. And it should be named after Leibniz, not Pangloss. The "Panglossian Paradigm" you describe is not "logically false". Please know something about what logic is. Also, you do not know what dogmatism is. You, sir, are a dogmatist. There's nothing wrong with it, but you should realize it. Take it easy, chief. Cheers, GZ

	More about Panglossian Paradigm (none / 0) (#28)
	by gzt on Thu Jul 11th, 2002 at 02:32:38 PM PST

	Looking over this, I felt the need to both correct myself and correct the original person. While the original poster's argument definitely wasn't a "Panglossian Paradigm", the second dude was mistaken about the definition of "Panglossian Paradigm". "Best of all possible worlds" arguments should be named after Leibniz. Panglossian Paradigm: when a secondary phenomenon is seen as the cause instead of, say, a use of available resources. It's used by pretentious evolutionists and other pretentious liberalists. It has no relevance whatsoever to this conversation. At least, I hope I got that right. As a good little boy, I try not to pollute my mind with too much God-hating liberalist nonsense.

	Good point (none / 0) (#32)
	by phantam on Sat Jul 13th, 2002 at 01:58:31 AM PST

	I personally feal the same way, humans in general seek to explain all possibilites because of the fear of the unknown. As for that book i have no idea cause i seem to be on a much lower level of education at the moment (working on bachelors of science) but the fact remains that the explanation that the United States is on its up and up is because it plans it that way, false planning and preperation leads to september 11th events... I wonder how happy and chearful those thousands of families that lost individuals are... Now the question is was it god that reigned down laser guided bombs to destroy Al Quaude troops... i don't believe it was i believe it was the US Military dealing out punishment. The world isnt as deep as you think it is so don't over read it... Just because the US kills a group of nonchristians that bombed the WTC doesnt mean it was god that made them do it or even wanted them to do it ... it was human will. (I'm currently writing a paper on my theorys behind the entire random nogod chance theory)

	did you know (3.00 / 2) (#8)
	by topaztic on Wed Jul 10th, 2002 at 10:37:50 AM PST

	that 98% of all statistics quoted are made up on the spot?

	speak for yourself (none / 0) (#11)
	by Pseudo on Wed Jul 10th, 2002 at 01:04:26 PM PST

	I have spent many years now learning the delicate nature of grossly manipulating statistics. I take offence to the fact that people think they are just made up. No fuck way I spend das to get my math to reflect the answer I/Boss wants to hear. You take your un-truths for granted... FOR SHAME Psuedo

	so you work for nida? (none / 0) (#27)
	by topaztic on Thu Jul 11th, 2002 at 01:42:34 PM PST

	nfm

	Calling out T Reginald Gibbons (2.00 / 1) (#9)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 10th, 2002 at 11:33:21 AM PST

	Gibbons, As a fine upstanding Christian father with family values, I 'd like to see your take on this story.