The top five myths about the United States

[Apos]

The change in motto and pledge was done during the Cold War era, back when the nation was over 90% Christian, and our enemies the Russkies were teh evil communist atheists snowmen. It wasn't done 100% for making the U.S. more of a "Christian" nation, moreso as to seperate us from the U.S.S.R., and to make us appear to have a higher "moral" ground.

It was the booby prize: the best that Christian Nation nuts could do at the very very height of anti-atheist hysteria.

And guess what: our country is still overwhelmingly populated by Christians. It's just that this doesn't make us a Christian nation anymore than most americans being white makes us a "white" nation.

That ain't what we're about, like it or not.

 

[The Kaiser]

It was the booby prize: the best that Christian Nation nuts could do at the very very height of anti-atheist hysteria.

Dude... the country was like, 97% Christian during that time. There *were* no Christian nuts like you'd think today. Sure, there were people who took the Bible literally and such, but back then, there weren't people constantly protesting that stuff, because the overwhelming majority of Americans liked it and didn't care.

And guess what: our country is still overwhelmingly populated by Christians. It's just that this doesn't make us a Christian nation anymore than most americans being white makes us a "white" nation.

That ain't what we're about, like it or not.

Not lawfully or politcally, but in a general sense, yeah, it sort of does. Just because the law says we can't endorse one religion over the other, the majority of the populace can still influence politics one way or the other if they all voted in the same fashion. That's sort of what majority rule and such is all about.

 

[Jintor]

Not lawfully or politcally, but in a general sense, yeah, it sort of does. Just because the law says we can't endorse one religion over the other, the majority of the populace can still influence politics one way or the other if they all voted in the same fashion. That's sort of what majority rule and such is all about.

Regretfully agreed. If there are more sheep then wolves, then the sheep rule.

 

[CptStern]

Dude... the country was like, 97% Christian during that time. There *were* no Christian nuts like you'd think today.

what?

 

[99.vikram]

Nobody says America isn't free. But many countries are just as free, so America isn't some kind of pioneer.

 

[gick]

what?

What are you trying to say? I fail to see the relevance of the Salem Witch Trials to cold war American politics.

EDIT: McCarthyism?

 

[CptStern]

What are you trying to say? I fail to see the relevance of the Salem Witch Trials to cold war American politics.

EDIT: McCarthyism?

no


he said:

There *were* no Christian nuts like you'd think today.

well yes there was ..salem witch trials being an example of "christian nuts"

 

[gick]

no


he said:




well yes there was ..salem witch trials being an example of "christian nuts"

Wasn't he talking about the cold war though?

 

[CptStern]

I think you're right ...my mistake ..thought he was talking about the founding of america

 

[Ludah]

That's sort of what majority rule and such is all about.

So this excuses exerting Christian influence in politics, even though we live in a constitutional democracy as opposed to a pure one?

I'm sorry, this isn't mob rule. Get your God off of my twenty dollar bill. Get your commandments off the public buildings. Do not make me pledge an allegiance to your savior. It doesn't matter if over 90% of Americans like or don't care about it. It's wrong, it's unconstitutional, and it's a mistake no matter how many people accept it.

 

[Dog--]

Jeez, seems like Finland is the best country to live in according to those myths...

 

[CptStern]

it's definately up there

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2149799.stm#table

 

[Glo-Boy]

So why did you say i dont know a thing about your country? Of couse i do.
Glo-boy made the original statement that america has more freedoms than any other country in the world. The burden of proof is really on him, but i dont see you americans jumping all over him.
You just have to look at the political policies of countries like holland and compare them to whats happening elsewhere.. and of course you should define freedom before arguing about it really. When i say freedom i am mainly thinking about personal privacy and liberty.
Fact is your freedoms are diminishing daily, in the name of fighting terrorism, currently (similar is happening in the uk). A lot of americans have woken up to this, but it sounds like you havent. It is happening. The people who are doing this are your enemies and yet you feel the need to defend them. I cant work out why.

Trust me, I know it's disappearing, I just hope we get a ultra-democrat in the house to reverse all this horseshit. The next place I would move to would definitely be holland. Not only am I 50% dutch, weed is legal (to an extent.)

 

[99.vikram]

weed is legal (to an extent.)

That's not how I define freedom :|

 

[Glo-Boy]

Well you live in a country where people shit in the street, so I guess you know everything about freedom.

 

[pomegranate]

Well you live in a country where people shit in the street, so I guess you know everything about freedom.

ROFL aside, that happens everywhere

 

[99.vikram]

Well you live in a country where people shit in the street, so I guess you know everything about freedom.

Why do you bring poverty into this?

Oh, and before I forget. You're an a**hole.

 

[DeusExMachina]

So this excuses exerting Christian influence in politics, even though we live in a constitutional democracy as opposed to a pure one?

I'm sorry, this isn't mob rule. Get your God off of my twenty dollar bill. Get your commandments off the public buildings. Do not make me pledge an allegiance to your savior. It doesn't matter if over 90% of Americans like or don't care about it. It's wrong, it's unconstitutional, and it's a mistake no matter how many people accept it.

I agree.

 

[DreadLord]

I like this section:

TRUTH:
Wrong again. I'll only cite the statistics here.

USA Ranking on Adult Literacy Scale: #9
(#1 Sweden and #2 Norway)- OECD

USA Ranking on Healthcare Quality Index: #37
(#1 France and #2 Italy)- World Health Organization 2003

USA Ranking of Student Reading Ability: #12
(#1 Finland and #2 South Korea)- OECD PISA 2003

USA Ranking of Student Problem Solving Ability: #26
(#1 South Korea and #2 Finland)- OECD PISA 2003

USA Ranking on Student Mathematics Ability: # 24
(#1 Hong Kong and #2 Finland)- OECD PISA 2003

USA Ranking of Student Science Ability: #19
(#1 Finland and #2 Japan)- OECD PISA 2003

USA Ranking on Women's Rights Scale: #17
(#1 Sweden and #2 Norway)- World Economic Forum Report

USA Position on Timeline of Gay Rights Progress: # 6 (1997)
(#1 Sweden 1987 and #2 Norway 1993)- Vexen

USA Ranking on Life Expectancy: #29
(#1 Japan and #2 Hong Kong)- UN Human Development Report 2005

USA Ranking on Journalistic Press Freedom Index: #32
(#1 Finland, Iceland, Norway and the Netherlands tied)- Reporters Without Borders 2005

USA Ranking on Political Corruption Index: #17
(#1 Iceland and #2 Finland)- Transparency International 2005

USA Ranking on Quality of Life Survey: #13
(#1 Ireland and #2 Switzerland)- The Economist Magazine ...Wikipedia "Celtic Tiger" if you still have your doubts.

USA Ranking on Environmental Sustainability Index: #45
(#1 Finland and #2 Norway)- Yale University ESI 2005

USA Ranking on Overall Currency Strength: #3 (US Dollar)
(#1 UK pound sterling and #2 European Union euro)- FTSE 2006....the dollar is now a liability, so many banks worldwide have planned to switch to euro

USA Ranking on Infant Mortality Rate: #32
(#1 Sweden and #2 Finland)- Save the Children Report 2006

USA Ranking on Human Development Index (GDP, education, etc.): #10
(#1 Norway and #2 Iceland)- UN Human Development Report 2005

Because if you seperate Massachusetts from the rest of the country, we place in the top 3 in almost every one of those. More people should just come to Massachusetts. It's great here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba7v6HWjs2Y

 

[Reaktor4]

That's not how I define freedom :|

so how do you define it?

 

[The Kaiser]

So this excuses exerting Christian influence in politics, even though we live in a constitutional democracy as opposed to a pure one?

Trust me, if there was enough pressure to do things like change this to a Theocracy or make murder legal (Or even invalidate the Constitution), and had massive public support in that, it would happen. There's only a certain limit to where you can say "Constitutional Democracy" and ignore what the majority wants. Because if you do that, well, the majority could be rowdy enough to do less than favorable things.

I'm sorry, this isn't mob rule. Get your God off of my twenty dollar bill. Get your commandments off the public buildings. Do not make me pledge an allegiance to your savior. It doesn't matter if over 90% of Americans like or don't care about it. It's wrong, it's unconstitutional, and it's a mistake no matter how many people accept it.

I have a question. How many of things cause you to spontaniously comburst? Does saying the word God kill you? Does touching the money make you melt? Seriously, if you've got a problem with the Speech, skip that line, if you've got a problem with the money, don't read what's on it (Who does, really?), and if you've got a problem with the Ten Commandments, ignore them and keep walking to the Judge's office. No one's making you read them, or pledge to them. They're words, or statues, and reflect what the majority of people in this country (supposedly) believe in. The government's not forcing you to believe in Christianity, nor is it saying that it is the official religion (Although a few states are trying).

Again, there's a limit to how much you can try to limit the majority's want. If all you do is go to the beck and call of the minority, you're going to get the majority angry. And guess what, they make the most of the people in the country. Sometimes, they are going to get things the minority don't get because of that.

 

[kirovman]

I have a question. How many of things cause you to spontaniously comburst? Does saying the word God kill you? Does touching the money make you melt? Seriously, if you've got a problem with the Speech, skip that line, if you've got a problem with the money, don't read what's on it (Who does, really?), and if you've got a problem with the Ten Commandments, ignore them and keep walking to the Judge's office. No one's making you read them, or pledge to them. They're words, or statues, and reflect what the majority of people in this country (supposedly) believe in. The government's not forcing you to believe in Christianity, nor is it saying that it is the official religion (Although a few states are trying).

So you're telling him to be apathetic?

 

[The Kaiser]

So you're telling him to be apathetic?

*shrugs* I truthfully don't care. If they changed the Pledge tomorrow to not have God mentioned, I wouldn't care. Little things like those shouldn't get as much attention as they do, I think. Personally, I'd rather focus Congressional and Court time on things that benefit society like Welfare and fighting against poverty. Those issues like whether God is on the dollar or not really are minor in comparison to those, at least to me. I get enough of The Lord in Church and in daily life, I could really give a damn if He's not on the dollar or in a Courthouse.

 

[DeusExMachina]

The point Ludah is trying to make is God shouldn't be on any of these things. Its unconstitutional.

 

[Ludah]

Trust me, if there was enough pressure to do things like change this to a Theocracy or make murder legal (Or even invalidate the Constitution), and had massive public support in that, it would happen. There's only a certain limit to where you can say "Constitutional Democracy" and ignore what the majority wants. Because if you do that, well, the majority could be rowdy enough to do less than favorable things.

So basically, you're saying that the tyranny that would come with a pure democracy is acceptable?

As Apos said, that is not what America is about. Sorry.

I have a question. How many of things cause you to spontaniously comburst? Does saying the word God kill you? Does touching the money make you melt? Seriously, if you've got a problem with the Speech, skip that line, if you've got a problem with the money, don't read what's on it (Who does, really?), and if you've got a problem with the Ten Commandments, ignore them and keep walking to the Judge's office. No one's making you read them, or pledge to them. They're words, or statues, and reflect what the majority of people in this country (supposedly) believe in. The government's not forcing you to believe in Christianity, nor is it saying that it is the official religion (Although a few states are trying).

Translation: Ignorance is bliss. Allow the government to endorse a single religious practice over all others because: Hey, who cares about that kind of prejudice in an administration?

Again, the majority's values should reflect to an extent. But when you start infringing upon the rights of others, it becomes unacceptable. We were not founded upon Christianity. In fact, you admitted yourself that the sudden introduction of Christian values was due to the Cold War. You would think that a sane and rational country would do away with that kind of reactionary bullshit decades after the fact.

In the end, your religious practice is YOUR BUSINESS. Not the government's. Not your state's. Not your neighbor's. If you don't give a crap one way or the other and don't require government endorsement, then respect the religious state of others and root for its removal. If you disagree with that, then please move to a country founded on different criteria.

For the record, I do cross out "In God We Trust" on my money. Not all the time, but occasionally just to remind people that we were not founded on any deity. It would do a lot of people good to be reminded of that.

 

[The Kaiser]

So basically, you're saying that the tyranny that would come with a pure democracy is acceptable?

As Apos said, that is not what America is about. Sorry.

No, but small concessions or reflections on what the majority of the populace is would do to perhaps keep them from making larger demands.

Translation: Ignorance is bliss. Allow the government to endorse a single religious practice over all others because: Hey, who cares about that kind of prejudice in an administration?

Again, the majority's values should reflect to an extent. But when you start infringing upon the rights of others, it becomes unacceptable. We were not founded upon Christianity. In fact, you admitted yourself that the sudden introduction of Christian values was due to the Cold War. You would think that a sane and rational country would do away with that kind of reactionary bullshit decades after the fact.

*shrugs* True enough, however, I've never viewed "Under God" as an endorsement of any particular religion. It doesn't say "Protestant-King James-Catholic God" or "Judeo-God", just a very general (And at the time, almost completely nationally-accepted) thought that's on the coins. As I said, I wouldn't really care if they strip it off the coins or take the commandments out of the Courthouses (Or at least the ones that deal with God specifically, as there are some like "Thou shalt not Murder" which should be universally accepted), but personally I think at the moment there are bigger fish to fry than some words that don't even hinder your daily schedule one bit unless you let them.

In the end, your religious practice is YOUR BUSINESS. Not the government's. Not your state's. Not your neighbor's. If you don't give a crap one way or the other and don't require government endorsement, then respect the religious state of others and root for its removal. If you disagree with that, then please move to a country founded on different criteria.

So basically I should agree with you and such or move out? I'm sorry, but just because you're more than a little sensitive on this sort of issue doesn't mean I'm going to sway to your side because I really don't care. They're words. There's nothing on the money saying "Christianity is right, down all the others!" Just about four words, that could mean the same thing for the three biggest religions in the world, that make up about... close to 90% of the population of the U.S.?

Truthfully, words should mean little, as with messages. I'm not going to take my time to press a Congressman or Court Justice to move on the case, because I'm pretty sure more important issues should usually take precedence.

For the record, I do cross out "In God We Trust" on my money. Not all the time, but occasionally just to remind people that we were not founded on any deity. It would do a lot of people good to be reminded of that.

Well then I'd say you're wasting ink and a little bit of time, not to mention defacing money, but hey, you want to do that go ahead, your choice. I just feel it's not that big a deal, one way or the other.

 

[Raeven0]

stuff

"It doesn't matter because it doesn't affect me."

 

[The Kaiser]

"It doesn't matter because it doesn't affect me."

Again, how offensive are words? I know a few atheists who could care less as well, it doesn't hinder them in their daily lives, and therefore it's not a big concern. The one girl just skips that line in the pledge. It's really not that difficult.

 

[Reaktor4]

Its not really about words, its about religion having influence over political policies and stuff.

For the record, I do cross out "In God We Trust" on my money. Not all the time

You should do it all the time.

 

[Cole]

Im athiest and I don't care about the Under God part. I don't have to say it. Hell I don't even gotta say the pledge or even stand up for it. Hell I can replace it with whatever I want.

 

[Flyingdebris]

Just remember, aside from some of the hippy states cough*California*cough we have gun rights, which go a long way towards freedom. They are fun to shoot too.

Not all countries allow their citizens to be armed, so we are at least more free than them in that respect.

 

[Raeven0]

Again, how offensive are words?

You've been misinformed. I'm not offended by the words, I'm offended by the idea that it's okay for some imaginary superfriend to have a place in government.

 

[The Kaiser]

You've been misinformed. I'm not offended by the words, I'm offended by the idea that it's okay for some imaginary superfriend to have a place in government.

Putting the name of The Lord on a coin is a big step away from having Him in politics. Trust me, I'd rather not have Christianity get into politics, as the brand practiced by most of the "Conservative Christians" isn't very "Christiany".

 

[CptStern]

Just remember, aside from some of the hippy states cough*California*cough we have gun rights, which go a long way towards freedom. They are fun to shoot too.

Not all countries allow their citizens to be armed, so we are at least more free than them in that respect.

the US is unique in the sense that you see that as a positive

 

[99.vikram]

Well you live in a country where people shit in the street

And that's why I'm leaving this thread. Good day to all.

 

[Ludah]

No, but small concessions or reflections on what the majority of the populace is would do to perhaps keep them from making larger demands.

And they should never be given into if that involves placing a particular gender, race, or religion over all others. Even in the slightest.

*shrugs* True enough, however, I've never viewed "Under God" as an endorsement of any particular religion. It doesn't say "Protestant-King James-Catholic God" or "Judeo-God", just a very general (And at the time, almost completely nationally-accepted) thought that's on the coins. As I said, I wouldn't really care if they strip it off the coins or take the commandments out of the Courthouses (Or at least the ones that deal with God specifically, as there are some like "Thou shalt not Murder" which should be universally accepted), but personally I think at the moment there are bigger fish to fry than some words that don't even hinder your daily schedule one bit unless you let them.

There will always be "bigger fish to fry". That's just an excuse to never make any progress on smaller issues, which is a sham since we're more than capable of taking on more than one issue at a time, especially something this simple. That it is shown such resistance and indicative of such a flawed mindset, however, does qualify it as a serious issue. When your president starts getting war messages from his big man upstairs, it's time to re-evaluate your lax attitude.

So basically I should agree with you and such or move out?

You certainly don't seem to understand what the United States were founded on. No, you don't have to move out. But wow, you conjure some grim prospects when you start talking about "limits" to a constitutional democracy, at least in this regard.

I'm sorry, but just because you're more than a little sensitive on this sort of issue doesn't mean I'm going to sway to your side because I really don't care. They're words. There's nothing on the money saying "Christianity is right, down all the others!" Just about four words, that could mean the same thing for the three biggest religions in the world, that make up about... close to 90% of the population of the U.S.?

Truthfully, words should mean little, as with messages. I'm not going to take my time to press a Congressman or Court Justice to move on the case, because I'm pretty sure more important issues should usually take precedence.

The words and any other "token" display of religion in the government are indicative of a broader mindset in the administration and the United States in general. Abortion? Same-sex marriage? How about Terri Schiavo? Have you ever noticed the extent to which personal religious beliefs can and do affect legislative action?

At the least, such displays are misinformation. At the most, it's poster material for a religious agenda. And while one is clearly worse than the other, neither are acceptable. Removing the words won't solve the problem, but hopefully it will be a step back towards sanity and get people thinking again. Leaving them only perpetuates the fiction of "one nation under God", which we aren't.

Words do matter. If you really think they don't, how about you write to your congressman and petition to have the word "NIGGER" put up on the local government property and see what kind of reaction you get.

 

[DeusExMachina]

the US is unique in the sense that you see that as a positive

I don't understand how it isn't a freedom. The entire reason we are allowed to bear arms is to have some kind of force to use against an unjust government...or if the British wanted their land back...but that latter one likely won't happen so it pertains to the former.

When the government takes our right to own weapons, then its time to be worried.

 

[CptStern]

oh come on the streets would run red with the blood of it's citizens ..any revolt would be brutally and swiftly put down ...they'll just denounce the revolutionaries as terrorists and anti-american and before you know it will end before it ever started.The government have become masters of PR ...you wouldnt stand a chance


in any event you see it as a positive ..I see it as a negative ..you're not arming people to defend themselves, you're giving people the means to take away other people's rights

 

[DeusExMachina]

How are they taking away other people's rights?

 

[Greatgat]

By killling them?