What do you think?
I am the United States of America, not to be confused with the Continent of the Americas.
Some believe me as merely a vast expansion of land stolen from its rightful owners by invading hoards of disease ridden white Europeans. Others view me as an idea rather than a place. Some believe the prosperity of my people came from wealth stolen from lesser nations. Others believe their prosperity is a result of the exercise of and protection of God-given freedom. Some believe that I, whether place or idea, am the root of all the world’s problems. Others believe I am the last best hope for humankind, a beacon shining out into the darkness of an imprisoned world.
What do you think?
The system of government designed by the founders, the idea behind the place, is unlike any other ever devised by men in the recorded history of earth. Some want to repeatedly call it a democracy. It is not. True democracy fails. Democracy is mob rule best described in this paraphrased quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin. “Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for lunch.” The end is usually in sight when the takers from the treasury outnumber the contributors to it. Also, Mr. Franklin supposedly declared, “Liberty is when the sheep has a gun.” The foundation of this government is individual liberty. The United States of America is the only nation in recorded history to guarantee individual liberty in its founding documents and constitution. It is a government that promises an equal chance for all, but not an equal outcome. This is a Representative Republic.
Others believe that the government should be all controlling. The liberty of the individual must be subjugated to what is good for all – the greater good. And a non-representative government gets to decide what is best for all – not for some unseen “all”, but for you and me. They want to achieve social justice by redistributing wealth and achieving equal outcomes rather than equal chances, or in the modern vernacular “level the playing field.”
What do you think?
Some believe I am Christian nation. God inspired and blessed accordingly. Others do not believe that. Rather they accept that there is no God, or that there are many Gods and the Christian God is just one of the many. Some believe I became a great nation because I was a good nation – a God-fearing and benevolent nation guided by Judeo-Christian values. Others believe I am a despicable nation trying to force values on to individuals and even on to other nations – rather than allowing each individual to choose his own path.
What do you think?
There are atrocities in my past. Slavery and treatment of Native American Indians were likely the most egregious. My detractors do not like to accept that slavery was abolished and what was ended in this land is still practiced in nations across the world. For Native American Indians, rather than integrating them into society, we told them that government will see to all of their needs. According to many of them, the most egregious act ever committed against Native American Indians is naming a football team the “Redskins.” While some will dwell on past atrocities committed on this land, they will never discuss the unspeakable atrocities. The killing of more than 50 million unborn children, the welfare state that has decimated families and generations, moral degradation of society, the collapse of the education system….
What do you think?
My people? A true menagerie. They come from all races, all beliefs, and from all points of the globe. Some will tell you that we should open our doors to all who want to come here because immigrants built this land. It was immigrants, but it was immigrants that embraced the idea of the United States of America rather than the place. It was immigrants escaping from tyranny and abject poverty that came here to embrace the idea and not for promises of welfare and healthcare. When they pledged allegiance, it was to the idea not the place.
God owns freedom. He planted in the hearts of every man and woman. If the idea of God-given freedom leaves this land, God will plant the idea somewhere else. And, another place will shine that beacon to the rest of the world and people will come there seeking it.
I think freedom’s place is right here where God planted it and it is the charge of the citizens of this great nation to be the guardians of it.
What do you think?
© 2014 J. D. Pendry American Journal.
Category: Politics
If you remove GOD from the government and culture then he is no longer the farmer. He will make us suffer for forgetting HIM.
We still have immigrants coming here believing in that idea. They want to come here and earn their keep. Granted, there are plenty coming here not to “earn” it, but to get what they can.
What we see is more and more people who were born here thinking the country owes them something just for giving us the privilege of their being in this country.
People of the US need to remember no one owes them anything and need to appreciate their living in this country. There are a couple hundred others where it just plain sucks.
Mr. Pendrey…You ask, “What do you think?” I think you are correct in your essay here. I pray God will not turn His hand against us or remove His favor from us and give it to another. Those are my beliefs, based on my faith. God bless the United States of America, now and forever.
What do I think? I think we have two kinds of people in this world:
1 – those who want something and are willing to work for it
2 – those who want someting but are not willing to work for it, and will blame everyone except themselves for their failures
The rest is just details.
Here’s what I think, as the resident anti-religion nudge… Don’t use god to drive the government. We all know the founding fathers were religious men. They knew all too well however how religion and the hand of man masquerading as the hand of god was easily corrupted and abused to the detriment of all. You see that religion is used that way today, here and elsewhere throughout the world, as a tool for controlling the masses more than a tool for raising the quality of life for all. The inherent flaw in religion as what to do about the non-believer or the non-conformist. It’s apparent to me that for many religions the answer is at a minimum to disassociate from those who believe differently. The other end of the spectrum is jihad, but there are certainly a lot of flavors of intolerance along the road from disassociation to jihad. Those men who founded this idea were wise enough to recognize that cramming a religion down the throat of the masses did more to take god out of society than to integrate god into society. You ask what I think? I think the founding fathers were the wisest men of all history to write protections for people like me from the likes of those who would tell me that god is what made this nation great, and that “getting right with god” is the only way this nation can remain great. Those who believe the only path to righteousness and greatness is through some fairly tale about a magical sky man who insures that Texas A&M will have a successful homecoming outcome are more dangerous to the individual liberties of this nation than any ignorant muslim holding an AK will ever be to this nation. The founder kept god out of the law for good reason, they knew god has no business there in our laws. I would suggest to you that part of the problem with our “decline” over the last 30 years, wasn’t just the welfare state but Reagan and company initiating diplomatic relations with the Vatican under the… Read more »
I don’t think one can separate the two. True, the Founders were wise men who kept a deity out of the law. But they also were firm about the idea that this nation was founded on godly principles. One need only read their words to see that. So to tell people to, “…stop trying to place your god into my great nation.” is akin to the fervently religious who demand that one bow to his or her deity. I would suggest that it’s as dangerous as that Texas A&M fan you disparage. As I see it, the Founders knew that religion, especially a state sponsored religion, could be toxic to a society. But the principles of that religion were sound and should be integrated into our laws. Again, read their very own words.
As for Reagan, The US wasn’t the first nation to recognize the papal state. That honor would actually belong to the very nation that Vatican resides in, Italy. To suggest that is the root of national decay is simply absurd. One can point to many reasons for the state the nation is on today, but that truly isn’t on of them.
Veritas Omnia Vincit…Despite my strong religious views I understand and agree with your post. I thank you again for a well spoken comment. However I may express my beliefs, I believe our nation is first and always, a Republic based on laws established in the Constitution, not religion. I believe our nation and its changes over the past decades are a product of voters and elected officials, not religious zeal or lack thereof. While I practice my beliefs I do not impose them on anyone else OR the lawful, Constitutionally established nation I live in. I bring my conscience and well informed political thoughts to the voting booth…not my Bible. I do believe in separation of Church and State and do not believe our nation could stand without this foundational truth. VOV, I would sincerely hope most of all, that those who say they share my beliefs, (and sometimes those who say so make me shudder) would as I, not be so shallow as to think those beliefs are for the benefit of a “Texas A&M Homecoming” or who makes the Final Four in March Madness. That is not the God and faith I believe in, worship or practice. My faith is a quite personal matter for me which I DO NOT impose on my political thoughts and decisions. I speak for myself here but truly wish all who say they “believe” would exercise the same caution when practicing their faith versus practicing their politics. Sorry this was wordy and perhaps, no I am sure, I could have said this better or at least, shorter.
I agree with your statement, “I believe our nation is first and always, a Republic based on laws established in the Constitution, not religion.” But I have to ask, in all seriousness, how you separate your religious belief from your political belief. I’m not trying to call you out or start an argument. Nor is it my intention to denigrate you in any way. I just don’t understand how one can separate a deeply held belief. I am who I am (no, that’s not a religious reference), and I can’t separate who I am from what I believe.
ArmyATC…A very fair question and I take it as honestly as you asked. Sometimes and sometimes, is an often occurrence, my religious beliefs do not equate to what I believe at all, would be the best for our nation. I do pray for our country, its safety, well being and future every day. I pray for good candidates to choose from. But before I walk into the voting booth, I know from well informed prior due diligence, that the candidate, perhaps an Atheist but their beliefs matter not to me, who has better insight, a better personal resume of performance and better plans for our nation’s future is by far the better choice for our nation, than another candidate who may “believe” as I do completely, but who also does not have the best to offer our country. Either knowingly or unknowingly. Whether due to their lack of experience, their personal interests over national interests, lack of foresight and hindsight or who are merely (and this is the WORST sort of candidate I see) hanging their hat on the “Christian Values” peg, looking for that alone to carry them into office. Yes they will garner many votes from people who vote their beliefs first and the betterment of our great nation second. I am NOT, never have been, nor ever will be someone who votes this way. It goes along with my strong conviction that we are blessed with the Republic and Constitution we are governed by. I honor that and the betterment of America, as highly as my personal religious beliefs and I vote accordingly. Yes my beliefs are strong and first in my life. However among my beliefs, is the call to do what is best for this great country I am blessed to live in. It is by no accident, in my mind, that our nation was formed the way it was. Freedom of religion along side the freedom and duty, to protect this nation from any and all who would detract from or destroy its foundational values. Those values are defined in and by the United… Read more »
Sparks, thank you for a thoughtful response and taking my comment in the spirit it was meant. Are you a walking contradiction? Not at all. I see no contradiction at all in a rational religious person (to the dogmatic atheists, yes there is such thing as a rational Christian). Now that you’ve told me more about yourself, I think we are much the same. While my life experiences do make up who I am and even color my view of the world, I can balance that with rational thought to make what I believe to be the best choice of candidate for office. Like you, I don’t vote for the person simply due to party or religious affiliation. I try to gather as much information as I can on each person running to make my decision based on what I think they can do positively for the country. I firmly believe that dogmatics of whatever stripe are a curse on this country and one huge reason it is in the condition it is today.
Sparks and ATC, thanks for the thoughtful responses. I do agree that for most people separating their religious belief from the moral or legal perspective is a difficult if not impossible task. I apologize if my reference to all of those who pray to god for a positive outcome in a sporting event was out of line.
I would argue that the founders knew their morality was a time based perspective due to their religion and their experience. Having read their words many times I believe people like Jefferson were tremendously conflicted by the concept that all men were created equal except for the blacks they kept as slaves. I think they knew that times would change and religion might not be the basis for maintaining the Republic, and that laws that encouraged the peaceful exchange of power and the rights of the individual against the masses were the best prospect for that long term longevity.
A religious man might determine god placed the founders in the right time and right place to succeed. That is certainly the right of the religious to believe that. Others might think that the founders could have been any group of strong willed men disgusted with church states and the attending corruption associated with state churches and determined to not repeat the mistakes of the previous 1500 years.
As to my comments regarding the Vatican, I don’t care who recognized the papal state first. Acknowledging the Vatican as a diplomatic equal was a mistake, it’s certainly not the beginning of the end but it serves no useful purpose either.
There is nothing of value in the Vatican politically, culturally or morally to warrant diplomatic relations beyond that of a simple mission with an envoy.
Veritas Omnia Vincit…Thank you also sir for your response. Please know I took no offense to anything you posted and understand why you referenced what you did because I hear the same all too often and it does offend me. I do agree with you in your post above. Our country and its future should be first and foremost in each citizen’s mind and actions. Be that in service in our military, their community or the voting booth. Especially, in the voting booth. Thank you again for your insight and views. You are a far better spoken man than I. I shouldn’t envy but that quality I do.
So, citizens should put country before their god?
Yes they should absolutely put country before god, because there is no god.
Furthermore without this country to defend your rights to worship that god you are subject to the whims of whatever idiocy the theologists in charge deem the law.
I’m not interested in any of that nonsense.
This isn’t the first thread where you’ve unleashed your anti-catholic vitriol, so tell us: What have the catholics ever done to you, that you hate them and their church so much?
I would happily unleash my anti-methodist or anti-mormon vitriol if the government decides to recognize any nation state that is primarily a church as a diplomatic equal.
I hold no special disdain for catholics, I believe I am an equal opportunity disdainer of religions and their various dogmas.
Catholics are no worse or no better than their protestant brethren.
So, could you expand on your theory about how diplomatic relations with the Holy See is the root of the political issues in the Middle East?
I prolly shouldn’t judge without hearing it from VOV first, but I think this comment;
“Pretending religious states are valid political entities has created nothing but problems for the United States, it’s the root of the political issues in the middle east.”
Was directed toward either the divisions between the different Muslim faiths and how that impacts the political scene there, OR, our healthy financial and idealistic support of the Jewish state of Israel, a support that seems to many to be born not out of a sense of international brotherhood, but out of a necessity to support the ultimate source of what some believe is this country’s Judeo Christian identity.
Neither have anything at all to do with the Vatican…
The Sunni and Shiite schism is over a thousand years old and the US has supported and recognized Israel from its beginnings.
I think VoV has to back a statement like that up with some sort of explanation.
“Neither have anything at all to do with the Vatican… ”
Right, and the comment wasn’t directly related to the Vatican either, it was an expansion on the theme of the problems of religion mixed with politics.
As for your observations on Islam and Israel, so what? Does that mean that religion isn’t at the root of most middle eastern problems? There’s nothing to back up, the problems are painfully obvious.
As for him picking on the Vatican, meh, it’s a non-issue to me. He’s got a right to his opinion, and doesn’t have to explain himself to you, me, or anyone else.
Here’s the comment to which I am responding:
“I would suggest to you that part of the problem with our “decline” over the last 30 years, wasn’t just the welfare state but Reagan and company initiating diplomatic relations with the Vatican under the premise that somehow a city devoted to catholicism was an actual nation…our country existed rather nicely until 1984 without ever formally recognizing the vatican diplomatically”
That comment is directly specifically at the Vatican and Catholics in general. VoV is making some sort of statement that when the US recognized the Vatican it started the decline of our nation.
I refer to the Middle East and Israel only because you brought it up, when you said you ‘prolly shouldn’t’ speak for VoV (maybe you shouldn’t).
Religion is certainly at the heart of the problems in the Middle East, but Christianity, specifically Roman Catholicism isn’t one of the religions involved.
Of course VoV doesn’t have to explain his opinions. However, If you want to try to explain them for him you have to be prepared to accept the response.
You wrote just now;
“I refer to the Middle East and Israel only because you brought it up,”
However, you first wrote;
“So, could you expand on your theory about how diplomatic relations with the Holy See is the root of the political issues in the Middle East?”, before I wrote anything at all.
You’re right, maybe I shouldn’t try to explain VOV’s post, after all, what’s the point in trying to explain something to someone who can’t even keep track of their own posts. Cheers! 🙂
I have no issue with our great allies the Israelis…you are safe in assuming that what I meant is along the lines you propose.
Placing diplomatic value on the catholic church has provided nothing of value to the US that a simple envoy and mission would not have provided. Pretending there is a legitimacy to a theocracy places you in the position of accepting other theocracies as equally legitimate as the only requirement for legitimacy becomes whether or not your rulers believe in some superior creator and thus their laws and views are legitimized by their adherence to some dogma or rule book supposedly cast down from the heavens to be obeyed without reservation. When the Vatican was just a diplomatic curiosity served by a mission with an envoy the US could hold the diplomatic position that while we recognized the right of the Vatican to consider itself a sovereignty the nature of theocracy was anathema to the founding of this nation as a nation of laws independent of the constriction of theology. If we recognize the legitimacy of a nation that declares their god is the only law they recognize how do avoid recognizing nations like Iran or Saudi Arabia as legitimate nation states with the right to restrict their citizens freedoms of movement and the legal authority to treat women as chattel? Pretending that a religious state is a valid diplomatic partner creates the room for movements like ISIS/ISIL to claim they are also legitimate actors in their region of the world as they are following the dictates of their prophet and his mountain moving capabilities. The Vatican entered into an agreement with Germany in 1933, the Germans used that agreement to pretend there was a legitimacy to their national socialist government. The US at the time had no reason to support that legitimacy or recognition because the US didn’t recognize the diplomatic legitimacy of the Vatican. The Vatican is used as a tool by despots the world over for such purposes, the Vatican makes these agreements in the hopes of maintaining churches for believers in the shitholes ruled by these despots. These agreements are the actions of a church maintaining its followers not an actual government using any moral authority. Lending… Read more »
I am an American, I have no other ethnicity-no other culture with which I claim affiliation. The “atrocities” in America’s past (and the West generally) are no worse than those we see in the histories of other nations and cultures-despite the emphases of the cultural Marxists who control our institutions of higher learning.
I believe that the government is a giant machine for creating perverse incentives and unexpected outcomes. If a thing must be done, it should generally be done privately in order to avoid both of those things in addition to the corruption inherent in any politicized process. Where this is impossible, but the task is vital to the nation, the only alternative is the government. Defense and some aspects of criminal justice fit these criteria-not much else (the founders, in their wisdom, did a pretty good job of laying all this out in Article I, Section 8). The power of government should be as diffuse as possible in order to minimize the reach of political elites.
I am not religious. I respect religion as the primary motivation for millions of people. As the government retreats in the public sphere, religious institutions will fill part of the void. I am fine with this. The religious make no demands of me, this cannot be said of the government.
+1
This is just a ridiculous comment. First, ‘American’ is not an ethnicity, it is a nationality.
To say that government is just a perverse machine for ‘creating perverse incentives and unexpected outcomes’ is simply nonsense. Government has its excesses and moments of idiocy, but it also provides the commons within which society operates. The monetary system, education, commerce, and even traffic laws demonstrate the value of government.
First, ‘American’ is not an ethnicity, it is a nationality.
You are incorrect, approximately 20 million people identify themselves as ethnically American-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ethnicity
Wikipedia helpfully provides a link to a definition of “ethnic identity” within that article which it defines thusly: “An ethnicity, or ethnic group, is a socially-defined category of people who identify with each other based on common ancestral, social, cultural, or national experience.” American qualifies as well as any other ethnic identifier.
As to the rest of your reply I am thankful to you for further making my point: The monetary system, education, commerce, and even traffic laws demonstrate the value of government. If by that you mean our devalued fiat currency, an education system that spends more per pupil than any other country except Switzerland, but languishes near the bottom in test scores among industrialized nations, regulations that strangle honest business owners struggling to make a living and a system by which local governments makes collection agents of police officers, that is.
What do I think?
I think that in spite of its flaws and its problems, this is still the best country to live in. I hope that some day we return to that attitude as a nation and start countering the idiocy we have allowed to flourish here out of a misguided sense of benevolence.
I think as a nation, we need to return to the idea that people who move here have to conform to our civilization and not the ones that they left.
I think that our government needs to have its leash tightened and to be starved of the money that feeds it until it returns to being our obedient servant instead of persisting with the delusion that it’s our master.
What do I think? Religion and politics need to both go back to minding their own business. Both continually increase their meddling in places they are not needed, ie., individual affairs.
Under our Constitution, you have the right to believe and practice any religion you want. And I gladly defend that right. At the same time, I have the same right not to believe. Or to believe in something entirely different than you. Quit telling me how you think I should live my life.
Government has the duty to provide for the safety and security of its citizens. That doesn’t mean it has to provide a “cradle to grave” subsistence for you. The individual is responsible for their own wellbeing. When the government takes from me to provide for ingrates and makes it harder for me to provide for my family, that’s when government steps over the line.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”
That’s it. That’s all there is. There is no word added and none omitted. The Constitution is quite clear regarding religion. So how did matters get so screwed up regarding the Constitution and religion? You know how: the courts, particularly the US Supreme Court, that’s how.