Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really?
Yup. Name one other country where the anthem is a show off for the performer rather than just the same thing every time
You clearly don’t watch a lot of other countries anthems being sung.
Quantifying the diva-ness of national anthem performances
121–130 of 131 posts
Re: Quantifying the diva-ness of national anthem performances
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Personally, I have always felt very strange in the entire concept of having to sing this at various events or in school as well as the pledging of allegiance. We live in a society. The government takes 40-50% of your income every year so you can support the other people who are part of the same society. It allows you to survive and protects you from those that would harm you both internal and external. Saying a sho…
Such taxes to such an extent are relatively modern in US history. I think people like to think that the money is spent for good because it would hurt even more if it wasn’t but I think much of it is wasted and a lot of it is counter productive. But perhaps I’m bitter at having governments subsides my competitors making my industry really unfair.
rayiner is just exaggerating by a factor of two.
Re: Quantifying the diva-ness of national anthem performances
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, it’s the “separation of church and state” that’s more analogous to the civil war memorials being a 20th century creation. “Separation of church and state” isn’t in the Constitution. It was something Jefferson said, but he was not representative of the founding fathers on that point. John Adams, by contrast, said: “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to th…
It sounds like you’re perfectly fine with secularism being removed from Bangladesh then.
[deleted]
Re: Quantifying the diva-ness of national anthem performances
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, it’s the “separation of church and state” that’s more analogous to the civil war memorials being a 20th century creation. “Separation of church and state” isn’t in the Constitution. It was something Jefferson said, but he was not representative of the founding fathers on that point. John Adams, by contrast, said: “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to th…
It sounds like you’re perfectly fine with secularism being removed from Bangladesh then.
I think imposing secularism on an overwhelmingly Muslim country was overreach by western-influenced elites. But nonetheless, Bangladesh’s Constitution, which was legitimately adopted by a government that had the support of the people, expressly incorporates a principle of “secularism” (using those words). Article I of the French Constitution likewise states that France is a secular republic: “La France est une République indivisible, laïque, démocratique et sociale.” Secularism in France, too, was legitimately adopted into law by elected governments.
By contrast, the US Constitution doesn’t mention secularism or anything like it. It has a prohibition on the federal government interfering with established state churches, and a protection of freedom of religion. In that respect, the First Amendment is more comparable to the German Basic Law, which guarantees freedom of religion but lacks any requirement of secularism. And the Basic Law has been understood to allow quite a bit of public religion. Religion classes are required in school (though you can opt out and take a class in secular morality instead). Government buildings in Bavaria are required to display crosses. There is a church tax. I think the German approach better fits America both as a legal matter and in terms of what the people want. (America is by far the most religious developed country—the percentage of Americans who pray daily is comparable to Iran!)
What happened with the Establishment Clause in the US is more like what Ershad did in Bangladesh: he changed the constitution from its original meaning, without going through the proper means for amending the constitution. At least in Ershad’s case, the public probably supported theu result. Even as of 2013, most Americans still opposed the prohibition on school prayer.
Re: Quantifying the diva-ness of national anthem performances
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like you’re perfectly fine with secularism being removed from Bangladesh then.
I think imposing secularism on an overwhelmingly Muslim country was overreach by western-influenced elites. But nonetheless, Bangladesh’s Constitution, which was legitimately adopted by a government that had the support of the people, expressly incorporates a principle of “secularism” (using those words). Article I of the French Constitution likewise states that France is a secular republic: “La France est une Républ…
Thanks for the detailed reply.
Re: Quantifying the diva-ness of national anthem performances
#126Trevor Noah has a bit about how 'muricans are the only ones that sing the national anthem all the damn time. He adds how it's also the only anthem where it is sung differently each time depending on the performer. Personally, I have always felt very strange in the entire concept of having to sing this at various events or in school as well as the pledging of allegiance. It just feels very cultish or something you'd e…
you'd be surprised to learn how some countries treat their national anthems.
if you watch cinema in India, you have to stand up for the national anthem before the movie starts lol. similar situation in Thailand iirc.
Re: Quantifying the diva-ness of national anthem performances
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it was shoehorned in. The founding fathers very much did not want the government to be dictated to by religion. They also very much wanted people to be able to practice which ever religion they wanted. This is why there is the concept of separation of church and state with the establishment clause. The pledge itself wasn't even around until the Civil War, and was worded differently than what is used today. There'…
Actually, it’s the “separation of church and state” that’s more analogous to the civil war memorials being a 20th century creation. “Separation of church and state” isn’t in the Constitution. It was something Jefferson said, but he was not representative of the founding fathers on that point. John Adams, by contrast, said: “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to th…
"It if proper to take alarm at the firft experiment on our libertief ... Who doef not fee that the fame authority which can eftablish Chriftianity, in exclufion of all other Religionf, may eftablish with the same eafe any particular fect of Chriftians, in exclufion of all other fects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of hif property for the fupport of any one eftablishment may force him to conform to any other eftablishment in all cafes whatsoever?"
Jamef Madifon. Checkmate, theist.
(Pulled from Engel v. Vitale, one of the "thin air" cases you allude to.)
Re: Quantifying the diva-ness of national anthem performances
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe in England, but we fought a whole revolution not to say dumb shit like this unless and until the spirit moves us. It's why we're better. Are they just not teaching civics anymore? Even the nuns at St. Barnabas were clear on this point with us. If this is reverse psychology trying to get me to put my hand on my heart and pledge the flag, well played.
I thought we fought a war because we didn’t want to free our slaves?
Are you confusing the civil and revolutionary wars?
Re: Quantifying the diva-ness of national anthem performances
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like you’re perfectly fine with secularism being removed from Bangladesh then.
I think imposing secularism on an overwhelmingly Muslim country was overreach by western-influenced elites. But nonetheless, Bangladesh’s Constitution, which was legitimately adopted by a government that had the support of the people, expressly incorporates a principle of “secularism” (using those words). Article I of the French Constitution likewise states that France is a secular republic: “La France est une Républ…
> ... what Ershad did in Bangladesh: he changed the constitution from its original meaning, without going through the proper means for amending the constitution.
Tangential: Seems analogous to changing code without changing the documentation — if the change makes things run better, well ....
(And saying, "you're never, ever allowed to change the code unless you change the documentation first" seems to have priorities backwards.)
Re: Quantifying the diva-ness of national anthem performances
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, it’s the “separation of church and state” that’s more analogous to the civil war memorials being a 20th century creation. “Separation of church and state” isn’t in the Constitution. It was something Jefferson said, but he was not representative of the founding fathers on that point. John Adams, by contrast, said: “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to th…
"It if proper to take alarm at the firft experiment on our libertief ... Who doef not fee that the fame authority which can eftablish Chriftianity, in exclufion of all other Religionf, may eftablish with the same eafe any particular fect of Chriftians, in exclufion of all other fects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of hif property for the fupport of any one eftablishm…
think you have a typo in theiſt