Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
2000 Words on Why America Should Change. :)
MindGate
United States Veteran
Written by yours truly in about 3 hours, I just finished it. I wrote it up for the sole reason of wanting to write it up. Tell me what you think, if you bother to read it. Thank you. 
America the “Free”
An Essay on Why America Needs to Change
1) Discrimination
We were one of the last countries to actually comprehend the fact that slavery is wrong. We were racists even after the civil war, and some people still are, but African Americans have all the rights now that any other person does. Our government apparently does not “discriminate.” This is wrong, though. We may no longer be a racist nation in the sense of slavery, but now we are homophobic and intolerant of the beliefs of others. Gays cannot marry, Atheists and Agnostics lose custody of their children because of their beliefs, and we show bigotry towards certain cultures.
Many states do not allow a same-sex couple to marry just because they are the same-sex. What is the thought process behind this? Is it unnatural? I suppose that theory would be relative to the person thinking about it. Homosexuality is actually found in nature. I’ve seen quite my fair share of animal homosexuality/bisexuality. Why should marriage be reserved to only a man and women? It shouldn’t be. Anyone who loves each other (taking age into consideration of course) should be allowed to marry.
The government shouldn’t tell us how to live our lives as Americans because some people think differently about how to do it. It’s not hurting anyone. This also goes for Atheists/Agnostics and people of non-Christian faiths, for they have been getting the same issues with them being told not to marry.
Recently, as of January 2011, there have been some cases in which Atheist/Agnostic parents have been stripped of their right to see their children solely on the basis that they believe something else than their ex. This, again, is pure bigotry. No belief should be forced on a child at all, period, so it shouldn’t matter if the parents have different beliefs.
And last, America is quivering in their boots at the thought of Muslims. The whole Ground Zero Mosque issue popped up recently, and clearly most of America hasn’t read up much on the subject before taking a stance. I think Americans should actually learn about Islam and other issues before taking a side. It’s all silly hysteria. Get over yourselves.
2) Church/State
In the original pledge, we did not have God involved. On early money, we did not have God involved too. A significant portion of our founding fathers were not Christians, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, James Madison, Ben Franklin, and even a later president: Abraham Lincoln. We are not a Christian nation. Though, we are a nation of Christians, but Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus and non-believers too. We were not founded as a Christian nation; we were not founded on Christian morals. God has no place in our government.
God on currency and in the pledge should be taken away. It is, as our founding fathers would see it, quite un-American. Religion in politics messes many things up (or has potential to as well). Laws being based on it, political positions being in jeopardy because of it, public schools being taught it are all current issues in regards to religion, mainly Christianity. We are not a Christian nation or of any other religious affiliation. It’s not American to say so. Simple as that.
3) Personal Rights
I believe that if we are to call ourselves a free nation, we should be truly free. We should be able to do what we want, as long as it harms no one. Should we steal? No. Kill? No. Drunk drive? No. These do or have potential to harm someone. Should we have to wear a seatbelt while driving, such as have a law requiring it? I do not believe so. If we are of age, we should choose whether or not we want to take the risk of wearing a seatbelt. Not wearing one would hurt no one but us. It’s a personal freedom. It can harm no one but us by not wearing a seatbelt. It’s that simple.
Why should there be a law requiring you do something you should have the right to choose to do. Right now, this instance, you have the chance and right to hurt yourself. You could staple yourself in the head or stab yourself. But do you? No. Could you? Yes. Does that mean government should take away your stapler to prevent potential injuries? Of course not. Should they take away all your knives to prevent you from killing yourself? No. Should they make you wear a seatbelt to prevent you from getting hurt? No!
You should have the personal right to choose whether or not you want to take the risk, government shouldn’t be involved in this. I think though, there should be an age limit, such as: when you’re 18 (or 16 or 21), you should have the right to choose. Under that age, you must wear a seatbelt. The sole purpose of this is so someone is fully mature enough to comprehend the risk they are taking. This whole argument goes for drugs too.
Will marijuana cause you to hurt anybody? That’s highly unlikely. Will whiskey? Now, that has quite a high chance. So it doesn’t make sense to me why one is legal and the other isn’t. You should have the right to choose whether or not you want to smoke pot. If we are a free nation, we should have personal freedoms. Freedoms to do whatever we want to ourselves as long as it doesn’t infringe on the right of others. The government’s job should not be to tell us how to live our lives; it should be to keep order so anarchy does not ensue. Will these little personal freedoms cause anarchy? Probably not. Same goes with prostitution and many other things. Personal freedoms (that do not hurt others) should be allowed, they shouldn’t be controlled. People know the risks and if we were free, we should be free to take them.
America the “Free”
An Essay on Why America Needs to Change
1) Discrimination
We were one of the last countries to actually comprehend the fact that slavery is wrong. We were racists even after the civil war, and some people still are, but African Americans have all the rights now that any other person does. Our government apparently does not “discriminate.” This is wrong, though. We may no longer be a racist nation in the sense of slavery, but now we are homophobic and intolerant of the beliefs of others. Gays cannot marry, Atheists and Agnostics lose custody of their children because of their beliefs, and we show bigotry towards certain cultures.
Many states do not allow a same-sex couple to marry just because they are the same-sex. What is the thought process behind this? Is it unnatural? I suppose that theory would be relative to the person thinking about it. Homosexuality is actually found in nature. I’ve seen quite my fair share of animal homosexuality/bisexuality. Why should marriage be reserved to only a man and women? It shouldn’t be. Anyone who loves each other (taking age into consideration of course) should be allowed to marry.
The government shouldn’t tell us how to live our lives as Americans because some people think differently about how to do it. It’s not hurting anyone. This also goes for Atheists/Agnostics and people of non-Christian faiths, for they have been getting the same issues with them being told not to marry.
Recently, as of January 2011, there have been some cases in which Atheist/Agnostic parents have been stripped of their right to see their children solely on the basis that they believe something else than their ex. This, again, is pure bigotry. No belief should be forced on a child at all, period, so it shouldn’t matter if the parents have different beliefs.
And last, America is quivering in their boots at the thought of Muslims. The whole Ground Zero Mosque issue popped up recently, and clearly most of America hasn’t read up much on the subject before taking a stance. I think Americans should actually learn about Islam and other issues before taking a side. It’s all silly hysteria. Get over yourselves.
2) Church/State
In the original pledge, we did not have God involved. On early money, we did not have God involved too. A significant portion of our founding fathers were not Christians, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, James Madison, Ben Franklin, and even a later president: Abraham Lincoln. We are not a Christian nation. Though, we are a nation of Christians, but Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus and non-believers too. We were not founded as a Christian nation; we were not founded on Christian morals. God has no place in our government.
God on currency and in the pledge should be taken away. It is, as our founding fathers would see it, quite un-American. Religion in politics messes many things up (or has potential to as well). Laws being based on it, political positions being in jeopardy because of it, public schools being taught it are all current issues in regards to religion, mainly Christianity. We are not a Christian nation or of any other religious affiliation. It’s not American to say so. Simple as that.
3) Personal Rights
I believe that if we are to call ourselves a free nation, we should be truly free. We should be able to do what we want, as long as it harms no one. Should we steal? No. Kill? No. Drunk drive? No. These do or have potential to harm someone. Should we have to wear a seatbelt while driving, such as have a law requiring it? I do not believe so. If we are of age, we should choose whether or not we want to take the risk of wearing a seatbelt. Not wearing one would hurt no one but us. It’s a personal freedom. It can harm no one but us by not wearing a seatbelt. It’s that simple.
Why should there be a law requiring you do something you should have the right to choose to do. Right now, this instance, you have the chance and right to hurt yourself. You could staple yourself in the head or stab yourself. But do you? No. Could you? Yes. Does that mean government should take away your stapler to prevent potential injuries? Of course not. Should they take away all your knives to prevent you from killing yourself? No. Should they make you wear a seatbelt to prevent you from getting hurt? No!
You should have the personal right to choose whether or not you want to take the risk, government shouldn’t be involved in this. I think though, there should be an age limit, such as: when you’re 18 (or 16 or 21), you should have the right to choose. Under that age, you must wear a seatbelt. The sole purpose of this is so someone is fully mature enough to comprehend the risk they are taking. This whole argument goes for drugs too.
Will marijuana cause you to hurt anybody? That’s highly unlikely. Will whiskey? Now, that has quite a high chance. So it doesn’t make sense to me why one is legal and the other isn’t. You should have the right to choose whether or not you want to smoke pot. If we are a free nation, we should have personal freedoms. Freedoms to do whatever we want to ourselves as long as it doesn’t infringe on the right of others. The government’s job should not be to tell us how to live our lives; it should be to keep order so anarchy does not ensue. Will these little personal freedoms cause anarchy? Probably not. Same goes with prostitution and many other things. Personal freedoms (that do not hurt others) should be allowed, they shouldn’t be controlled. People know the risks and if we were free, we should be free to take them.
0
Comments
In our Declaration of Independence, it stated that we as Americans should have the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet, we have a death penalty in some states. If someone is convicted of a crime, they are sentenced to death as though they are not Americans. Gandhi once said, “An eye for an eye makes the world blind.”
Are we really so uncivilized that we still kill our criminals? Are we really that scared, that unforgiving and cold that we kill people? If we truly feel as though someone has committed such a heinous crime and cannot be rehabilitated, should we kill them? I don’t think so. I think that death sentences should be replaced with life sentences without possibility to parole if people really feel it’s necessary. That’s a free country. Whether or not we break a crime, that’s the humane thing to do, but even if you don’t want to kill people on a moral basis, let’s look at the facts:
• As of today, 138 wrongly convicted people on death row have been exonerated, but still many have died.
o Life without parole pretty much means no reoffending. It’s not a fun, luxurious life either. But, it gives the chance that an innocent person can eventually be found not guilty.
o DNA is rarely available in homicides, sometimes irrelevant and can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.
• The death penalty actually does not seem to be reserved for even the most terrible crimes. It seems to be the work of bad lawyers. Many people sentenced to death relied on public defenders. How many wealthy people get sentenced to death? It seems as though not many.
• It’s cheaper to keep someone in a life sentence then to kill them with a death sentence. Many studies have shown this.
o The death penalty actually costs quite a bit of money. It’s mainly for the complicated legal processes, such as the pre-trial and trial stages themselves. It costs so much to avoid convicting innocent people and is a very long process which costs a load of money.
• Murder rates are higher in states that use the death penalty consistently than in the ones that don’t. It doesn’t seem to deter violence. FBI reports confirm this.
(Sources:
Death Penalty Information Center, www.deathpenaltyinfo.org
FBI http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm and
http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates… which gives state by state rates from the FBI (alphabetically) and indicates which states have the death penalty
The Innocence Project, www.innocenceproject.org
http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-…
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/COcostte… page 3 and 4 on why the death penalty is so expensive)
5) Abortion/Stem Cell Research
Many Americans are against stem cell research and abortion. The main cause of this is probably moral issues due to religion. My thoughts on each issue:
1) Stem cell research should absolutely be allowed. It has potential to heal or relieve victims of many diseases and ailments. Many people dislike stem cell research due to their lack of knowledge about it. There are different forms of stem cell research, but one of the most promising forms kills nothing but cells. It does not kill babies, it is not murder.
Excerpt from tellmeaboutstemcells.org:
“Unlimited stem cells are currently obtained with patients' permission from leftover three-day old embryos that would otherwise be discarded from fertility clinics. These embryos are created and exist entirely outside the body. Unlimited stem cells can develop into any kind of cell type or tissue in the body…
Unlimited stem cells offer significantly more promise in curing diseases [than adult stem cells, which do come from fetuses]. ”
These three day old embryos will not turn into life. They will not become babies. They will be discarded anyways and are just merely a mass of cells to begin with. No organs, or heartbeat, no pain; it’s just a mass. These masses will be thrown away anyways at fertility clinics, but can be used to help millions of people worldwide.
2) In the early stages of a child, soon after conception, the ‘baby’ is just a mass of tissue. The baby will begin to breathe and have a heart beat a couple of weeks into its conception. At four and a half months, it will be able to feel pain. This is why I believe abortion should be allowed, but only soon after conception. This can be done through medication and is safe. More reasons for abortion: women should be allowed to control their own body; unsafe, illegal abortions would be done anyways, potentially causing adult death; aborting unwanted children will most likely lower the rate of child abuse; and rape and incest victims shouldn’t have to bear the burden of having their rapist’s child inside them.
6) Airport Security
There’s an unbelievably low chance that you will ever encounter a terrorist on an airplane with just metal detectors. There is no need for random pat-downs or TSA’s body scanner (aka: naked machine). These things are stripping away (pun not intended) our civil liberties. We are supposed to be “home of the brave,” not “home of the so scared we’d allow our grandmother to go through an x-ray machine that nearly shows her in the nude.” The pat-downs and machines are unneeded. It’s a small chance we’ll ever have a terrorist attack, and this extra security is not needed. Even if it is argued that it is needed, it’s still a violation of privacy! From what I’ve known, we have the right to privacy. It’s not needed.
We should be just as scared to ride buses or be in public buildings too if we always think terrorists are going to attack. It seems as though the terrorists did win, we’re scared out of our minds and are willing to give up our pride to ease this fear.
America had and still has potential to be a great country. We’ve had the same working government for about 200 years and haven’t fallen victim to any enemies. Yet, we are far from being a “free” nation, we just like to think we are.
Also, just because African Americans have rights in the constitutional amendments doesn't mean that in practice, they're able to exercise those rights. Look at how many African Americans (and Hispanic Americans and Native Americans) were cheated out of their vote during GW Bush I and GW Bush II elections. Racial discrimination is alive and well in America.
RE: freedoms, body scanners, etc.: don't forget that the government is still practicing surveillance on our domestic phone calls.
Good job, MG. I'd suggest you keep developing it. Consider this a draft, and add to it as thoughts come to mind. It's a good project.
And in regards to the whole African Americans having rights thing, I tried to imply that even THAT isn't being followed wholly.
And I suppose I should check up on the surveillance too.
Thanks for your input, CW.
--Somewhat irrelevant.
RE: Obama--yeah, he probably feels it'd be too politically risky to say so up front. Very conservative climate in the country these days. Sort of fundamentalist, almost. Kinda scary.
Is it any wonder emotions are stirred up to the extent that violence then actually occurs? Your newspapers are relatively tame in their reporting, but it seems your radio stations are not averse to stirring up emotions by broadcasting in very energetic, hostile and vitriolic diatribes by reporters and DJ's....
DJ's and presenters here have been sacked and publicly pilloried for lesser transgressions.
Something's wrong somewhere..... And I hate to say it, but if there are rotten apples in the barrel, your pickers need talking to.
Your clause of "Freedom of Speech" clashes with your 'Right to Bear Arms. And I see there is no clause pointing out that "Freedom of Speech doesn't mean Freedom from Ultimate Responsibility". As I often point out on this board.....
Given that the ability to communicate verbally has increased and broadened by such a huge extent in modern times, I really think this particular clause needs tightening up.
Personally.
If more people were held accountable and responsible for the crap that passes through their mouths, things may not get so highly-strung....
I've seen broadcasts and heard radio reporters/DJ's/announcers go stir-crazy mouthing off stuff I simply could not believe they were saying!
Secondly I would like to make a statement related to the subject of your post. I think the democratic process in America has been hijacked. It is now what I would call "reverse democracy". By that I mean the agenda has already been set and the votes are "gathered up" to push the agenda through. This gathering process takes many forms such as trying to instill fear among voters, trading votes (i.e. you vote for my agenda and I'll vote for yours), threats and even more sinister things like falsely demonizing opponents and actually cheating on the voting process.
Gone are the days when several possible solutions are presented and voted on to actually see which one the majority of people would freely choose. I see the word "freely" as representing freedom and that is the part of the democratic procedd that is currently missing in America.
to be honest, i can think of a few countries where i would enjoy more freedom and possibly a better life (i'm a lesbian), but i can also think of ones where my life would be significantly worse. i'm not saying that you shouldn't bring awareness to america's failures, i'm just saying that if you focus on the bad too much, you forget about the good. when i read things like this, i don't become energized and fired up, i just become depressed. maybe this is just me.
"War is just God's way of teaching Americans geography".
There is no way to constitutionally justify mandatory seat belt laws. However, these same mandatory seat belt laws do not violate the personal rights of individuals.
Those who lobby for mandatory seat belt laws justify their position because seat belts save lives.
However, I personally justify mandatory seat belt laws because it lowers insurance rates while saving lives and reducing catastrophic health injuries.
Each time an automobile accident occurs and a personal injury results, the medical bills can range from hundreds of dollars up into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Who actually pays these medical bills? Is it the person who was injured? Rarely (though they do pay in pain and suffering). Is it the insurance companies who pay? Well, they act as the brokers. Is it the hospitals? Definitely not. Any money they cannot recover will be kicked back in the form of higher fees or tax dollars. The truth of the matter is that every personal injury that occurs in a car accident is paid for by every single person who drives a car or pays for medical insurance.
Like all businesses, insurance companies exist to provide a service and from that service, make a profit. When insurance companies pay a medical bill, it counts against their bottom line, and they must then recoup that financial expenditure with a matching income. As their source of income is client premiums, every time a bill is paid, the clients premium must go up.
For a minor injury, that may result in a rise in the price of the premium by a fraction of a cent; however, in the case of a major injury, the increase could be considerably more. The statistics regarding seat belt usage provide empirical evidence that those drivers who are involved in an accident are less likely to be injured or killed, and in those cases where an injury occurs, the injuries to those wearing seat belts are significantly less severe than for those who do not use the safety belts. Thus, those individuals who 'choose' to drive without a seat belt ignore the statistics that show that in the case of an accident, they are more likely to sustain a major injury, resulting in significantly higher expenses to the insurance company, thus, causing a related rise in the premium of every other driver who is insured through that same company.
In the United States, we have chosen to implement mandatory safety belt laws in an effort to protect human lives and to reduce the price for standard vehicle insurance.
In short, though mandatory seat belt laws by individual states are not unconstitutional, nor do they violate any individual's rights; we should attempt to look for a private party solution before allowing our government to insert itself into our private lives.
Source: http://www.helium.com/debates/80965-do-mandatory-seat-belt-laws-violate-individual-rights/side_by_side
But I really cannot see this as a viable reason for not wearing a belt.
Why put myself in a potentially lethal situation, which might cause me internal injury to such an extent that my only chance of survival would be that organ's transplant - when I already have a perfectly good fully-functioning one?
Technology and medicine is now exploring areas which help those needing transplants, survive for longer. In time, I believe organ donation will be unnecessary, and a thing of the past.
Wearing seatbelts saves lives, because people drive too fast, and speed, kills.
if people slowed down, then belts might not be so vital.
Anyways. I am not saying that you shouldn't wear seatbelts. Of course you should. What I'm saying is that it shouldn't be MANDATORY. You shouldn't smoke cigarettes, nor should you do drugs. You shouldn't beat your head off of a wall, nor should you kill yourself.
What I'm saying is - if we are truly a free nation, we should be allowed to do these anyways.
There is no freedom in samsara.
2) We fought a war, a Civil War , for the express purpose of eliminating slavery. I am proud to say this mission was accomplished: 150 years ago. Today, in Los Angeles, the school board makes accommodation for close to one hundred languages. "From many, one," is an ideal more closely approached in the USA than anywhere else. Racism, "my differentness" , is human and universal. In the USA we strive to put measures in place which allow all people to live together in peace. We do not seek to change how people think, only how they act. This is freedom. Name another country (please do not compare us to Sweden or Ireland) which has done more in this regard while facing such an enormous task.
3) Many of us here do not believe in the death penalty. It is , in those states which allow it, seldom imposed.
4) Ask the Dalai Lama his views on same- sex marriage. Further, why should marriage be limited to two people? If I am a bi-sexual, would you impose your mono-sexual ideals on me?
5) Driving is a privilege. If, without your seat belt, you crash and sustain injuries, your injuries will be worse. My insurance rates will go up to cover this and I will therefore be injured.
6) If I hear one more crack about the Florida election ten years ago I will be sick. The Democrats in charge of that state's election have declared it free from fraud. There must be some more recent red herring you can glom onto for your attacks on Republicans.... Oh yea, I remember, we are all Sarah Palin supporters. Whatever...
7) The United States of America is a great nation. It is more than geography, more than industry, more than idealism: it is also our resolve. We will help you if we can, we will protect you if we must. We see our faults as those all human being are heir to. We do not seek to perfect ourselves, but to allow each person the opportunity to perfect himself if he sees fit. A world without us is to be dreaded. Who would you nominate to fill the void?
1) Um, nope.
2) Oookay then...?
3) Define "here." America? Um, I'm pretty sure many people do support it.
4) No, go ahead, marry as many people as you like. I'm all for freedom.
5) So, if someone hits you and they are hurt because they chose not to wear a seatbelt, your insurance rates would go up even more than if they had worn one? What?! I don't drive, so I wouldn't know, but that seems pretty fucked up.
6) ... What?
7) Opinion. Not everyone in America thinks the way you do. Many people are simple minded, selfish bigots. I'm sorry, your idea that we are a great nation full of great people is a flawed idea.
#6) sorry, that is a shot at compassionate warrior's comment. I conflated your arguments.
#5) Statistically, it is safer to wear a seat belt than not. If you receive injuries that would not have occurred were you wearing a belt, we all must pay. If you wear a seat belt you will be less injured and it will be cheaper to fix you. This will cost all of us in the insurance pool less money.
#7) yes opinion. just like your retort. Can you imagine a world without the USA?
#2) No people, no country does more to fight discrimination. You use examples , from a country of 300 million, of aberant cases: "Agnostics not allowed custody" , did it happen once? I never heard of this "trend."
"Gays not allowed to marry" In how many countries are gays allowed to marry? If this is the benchmark for discrimination, the list of countries which fall into this category is very large indeed.
The ground zero mosque controversy should be aired. All sides should be heard. I never heard a serious person suggest this edifice be forbidden by law. We all know they have a right to build it wherever they want. I wish they would not because of the feelings being stirred but I would not lift a hand to stop them. In the end, I want more mosques and like institutions.
Sure, we're a good nation. Very advanced, yes. Blah blah blah. BUT, we pride ourselves too much. We aren't perfect, we aren't this amazing nation better than everyone else. We have our pros and cons, and so do other countries.
Thats my problem.
I do not believe in the perfectibility of man (pardon me my Buddhist brothers). I believe in the rule of law. I believe the USA leads because" we the people" yoke ourselves to that law and can therefore be trusted in the world community. Is this greatness?
A hate spewing KKK parade processes down our Main Street , largely ignored. Burkha covered women, without comment or controversy, walk our streets welcomed (this in light of current events). Aztlan warriors seek repatriation , as do native Hawaiians: all having their say peacefully. Gender benders proceed unmolested - we have learned to tolerate much here. Pockets of Orthodox Jews , and Amish, and Survivalists, and , well you name it, create and live lives of their choosing. Our Muslim population , unlike other great nations, is not radicalized. Why not? We have come to terms with our Native American population. Affirmative Action has , and continues to make great strides. Is there greatness in all of this?
People are dying to come here; dying- I am not being euphemistic. Twenty years ago we dealt with our Southern border problem by granting millions of people amnesty and allowing them to stay legally. We face the same issue again today . Do you believe we (that is the people of the USA) will "round them up and throw them out?" No we will not. We will talk and yell, then their kids will marry mine and we will continue on... Millions have crossed our borders and gained admission without permission. We the people understand why they come. I hope you will understand too.
America will change when it collapses - not before. America is the land of the people of the lie. Truth will be known only by upheaval.
America, IMO is a self appointed leader of the free world much like a playground bully is the leader of the playground. (This is a depiction of the countries leadership, not its people... although they do not seem to mind).
Granted I don't speak for all Canadians either but my opinion is based on conversations with people from one side of this country to the other... Unfortunately, again in my opinion, Canadian politics are greatly influenced by our southern neighbors... It is easier to side with the bully in the playground and act as he does than to appear to oppose him and take a pounding. (That pounding can come in many forms, not just military ones... The US's control and abuse of NAFTA is a great example of this.)
We lead, as atavistic as this sounds, because we are mighty, not because we are"self appointed." Our people go about their business as people do elsewhere. The difference is we have security. We are safe. We are free. I do not care, not really, how we are perceived. This land has welcomed and supported my family and I am grateful. This is the reality for this immigrant's son. The faults you list as ours alone define the human condition and can be found in every country, in every people. Here, at least, all decisions by our government are hotly debated and policy changes occur frequently. All topics are aired and opinions heard. We vote and head in another direction often.
No peaceful country need fear us. I hope no despot feels comfortable on his throne. I hope they continue to fear us. Our military is the most educated in history: hardly the makings of an organization of blind followers.
If one day we dissolve, the vacuum created will be a terrible thing to survive. Perhaps this is the worst thing ,at this moment in history, to wish on the world.
The USA, in maintaining, by virtue of its power, stability in the world, is Buddhism's best friend. I believe this kind and gentle world view requires such a platform to thrive. I welcome and cheer your success.
We get better every day. We get worse too. The people who flood our borders know well what they are getting into: not heaven on earth but a chance to live with dignity and hope.
A "bully" takes what he wants. We could enslave the world quite literally. But our people are great, high minded and idealistic. The world does not fear us as it would a bully. We make mistakes (Iraq perhaps our latest) but we right the ship and sail on. Whether you realize it our not, humanity depends on us.
The USA is not safe, not by any means... Those in power know this... Those in power are not brave courageous people... They are as full of fear as the bully on the playground who puffs his chest and puts on a show in hopes no one will call his bluff... Its policies and practices reflect this fear glaringly...
I respect your personal belief that what you believe about America is what it is but the US, if it keeps to its current coarse will most likely bring about its own demise... I'm sure the Romans, Nazi's, the Achaemenid Empire, the Mongolian Empire, etc felt the same way about their empires as you do about your own... But history has a way of repeating itself that some fail to take note of.
I am not making statements to be inflammatory, just another person's perspective who see's a historical trend repeating itself once more.
I find this Map quite interesting (keep in mind it was made in 2007)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_military_bases_in_the_world.svg
Look at the similarities between this map of the once mighty British empire - which consisted of officially colonized countries - not much mystery about whose model the US follows. Check a map of the Roman or Persian empires too. All gone. The US has undergone one mighty civil war 100 years into its history - incidentally despite all rhetoric it was not solely about slavery - rather secession and states rights - and in the South some say it is still being waged 150 years hence. Whether it "sails on" after the next one is debatable. Those duped by this megalith that has sprung so many vital leaks deserve great compassion as they salute the flag as the ship sinks instead of swimming for their lives.
You lump Americans together as if we all thought as one. For example, on the issue of slavery, before the Civil War there were an equal number of slave states and free states, and free states abolished slavery as early as 1777. When you say that, "We were one of the last countries to actually comprehend the fact that slavery is wrong," well, not sure that's true. You might want to do a Google search of "modern slavery" and learn about current chattel slavery along the west coast of Africa (nearly a quarter million child slaves today), imprisoned child slaves in India and Pakistan, and so forth. Of course, America's history regarding slavery is shameful, but not all Americans ever believed in slavery.
"Atheists and Agnostics lose custody of their children..." Gee, the atheists and agnostics whom I know live normal family lives. You make it sound as if this is normal practice. And again, some Americans "show bigotry towards certain cultures", but many -- perhaps even most -- do not.
The issue of the Ground Zero Mosque is an interesting one. And there clearly is not an "American stance". I know there are those who believe it shouldn't be allowed, and they are wrong. Everyone I know, however, realizes they have the right, but also think it is in poor taste to locate it there. And I agree. Do the Muslims have the right? Yes. Is it a good idea? No. Just as the way American missionaries sometimes have no sensitivity in generally non-Christian countries about some of the things that they do.
You're wrong about "a significant portion of our founding fathers" not being Christians. Check out the Wikipedia article which in great detail outlines the frequency of his church attendance and where he attended; and from personal experience since I lived in what was once colonial Virgina for many years, there are many churches directly associated with Washington's regular attendance. Jefferson was unorthodox about his religious beliefs, but was nonetheless a Christian, even writing his own "Jefferson Bible" in which he laid out the things that he felt Christ had actually said. John Adams was a devout Unitarian. Paine is most interesting -- he did not believe in established churches, but in 1794, wrote that, "I believe in one God." Ben Franklin attended -- off and on -- Christ Church. Lincoln never joined a church, but frequently quoted the Bible from heart.
I can agree with you that religion and government should be virtually totally separated, and that was a position taken by a number of founding fathers. But, does that also mean that, for example, a politician should be denied freedom of speech to talk about this religious beliefs? A difficult question.
Your arguments about small personal freedoms...well, I'll not go through them one by one. I agree with you in some cases, and disagree in others. But overall, I think that this area is one where "freedom" and "democracy" sort of butt up against each other. Our form of democracy has developed in a way that allows curtailment of some personal freedoms. And it's not the case that you can fully have both full personal freedom and full democracy.
In terms of the death penalty, I can see both sides of the issue. In fact, in my life I've gone from being pro death penalty to anti death penalty several times. I can see the point of all of your arguments against the death penalty. But have you ever been in a prison? I have. These are not misunderstood boy scouts in there. Some of these men are the scum of the earth, quite literally. Some of them are gang members who have indiscriminately murdered and raped innocent people. What I would say is that we need to look at our whole criminal justice system and reform why we send people to prison and have a more logical hierarchy of punishments. Right now I am a bit on the pro-death penalty side, but I think the death penalty is used far too often, particularly in certain states like Texas. But again, I can see both sides of the issue.
I think the issue of stem cell research is misunderstood by many, but there are some forms of stem cell research that are probably unnecessary. But whether we are talking about stem cell research or abortion, for many (if not most) Americans, the issue is not whether or not SCR or abortion should be allowed, it's where the lines should be drawn. Under what circumstances should it be allowed and what circumstances should it be restricted. And, in my view, that is where democracy comes in.
I am so fed up with airport security and flying culture in general that I now only fly if there's an absolute necessity (and from 1985-2010 I was frequently an international traveler). But I don't see where I've lost any civil liberties regarding the TSA. I don't see anything in the Constitution about personal freedoms while flying.
Again, I think it's great that you are thinking of things so deeply, but it sort of seems like you think your personal wisdom is the only wisdom that should be adopted by Americans. What about my personal wisdom? What about Cloud's personal wisdom? Mindgate's? And that is where representative democracy comes in. All nations have a collective culture...some of it good, some of it bad. I like what Mindgate said earlier: "What my problem with America is: We think we're better than we are. Sure, we're a good nation. Very advanced, yes. Blah blah blah. BUT, we pride ourselves too much. We aren't perfect, we aren't this amazing nation better than everyone else. We have our pros and cons, and so do other countries."
become enlightened and save everyone. but when that happens you'll be laughing a lot at this post.
the doctor creates the patient and the patient creates the doctor.
roles are roles. each role needs its counter role. most people don't see it like that. thus we need a shift in consciousness. even if you teach people how to be good people, the change needs to happen at the core.'
when it comes down to it. this is just my opinion anyways.
Slavery was outlawed in the North; therefore, the south had a huge economic benefit i.e. not having to pay for labor! Do the maths
@Mindgate...... Although its great to have an opinion, it takes a long time to develop wisdom