Independence Now

[Nihil]

I remember now the past month and I see the horror in Russia.
A school full of frightened children with terrorist claiming for independence! Is that a reason?
I would like to discuss that in here... <_<

[omu]

Would you let them organize their own country, with their laws, in this world?

[vicente]

Independence Now, For or against independentist movements?

Aztlan!, Aztlan!, Aztlan!

Yes,...I'm all for the independence of Aztlan.

The Declaration of Independence suggests that "When in the Course of human events, the unalienable Rights guarenteed to the people are, through a long train of abuses and usurpations destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people, it is their duty, to throw off such Despotism, and to provide new Guards for their future security that respect and honor the values and ideas of the Constitution. It is the Right of the People to dispose of that evil by abolishing the illegal forms, traditions and revisionist attempts to indoctrinated the citizenry".

Vicente
:)

[Nihil]

Would you let them organize their own country, with their laws, in this world?

The fact that they use violence to achieve their goal is a consequence of the major entity! No nation should be built upon blood and terror but on cultural difference! I do not know very well Tchetchenia's culture but, in the basque country for instance, there is even a different language - the question is: what is a nation and should nations exist!?


Aztlan!, Aztlan!, Aztlan!

Yes,...I'm all for the independence of Aztlan.

The Declaration of Independence suggests that "When in the Course of human events, the unalienable Rights guarenteed to the people are, through a long train of abuses and usurpations destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people, it is their duty, to throw off such Despotism, and to provide new Guards for their future security that respect and honor the values and ideas of the Constitution. It is the Right of the People to dispose of that evil by abolishing the illegal forms, traditions and revisionist attempts to indoctrinated the citizenry".


I didn't know about Aztlan movement.
And I think your quotation is suitable for the problem here discussed.
But now imagine this; is a nation nothing but a way of "aggrouping" people in a system of pre enabled thought?
So, if I have a group of people that share the same system of thought and traditions, they should have their own territory with their own laws!

[sahyo]

is a nation nothing but a way of "aggrouping" people in a system of pre enabled thought?

fear tries grouping, territorying

[vicente]

if I have a group of people that share the same system of thought and traditions, they should have their own territory with their own laws!

I'm rather a novice regarding Political Science, although I'd say it should be an element of ones ontosophical viewpoint.

The Aztlan independence movement has a large following, and the odds of its independence is much greater than most would consider at this time. My own wish for an independent Aztlan is much different than the average pro-Aztlan chicano (I'm not a chicano),...in that I see it as a letting go of the gringos religions, calendrics, and desire for an insane manifest destiny.

Should any system of same thought and tradition be allowed a unilateral course of action, like the U.S. illegal invasion of Iraq? Not in my opinion.

America is one nation under a Constitution. Although the Constitution sets up a representative democracy, it specifically was amended with the Bill of Rights in 1791 to uphold individual and minority rights. On constitutional matters we do not have majority rule. The majority has no right to tyrannize the minority on matters such as race, gender, or religion. http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/?t=xian.txt


As for Aztlan, it should not be allowed independence because the majority of those who live in Aztlan want it to be so,...but it should be independent because the long train of abuses and usurpations by despots (as those whom unConstitutionally print the words "in god we trust" on the Nations money) unamericanly indocrinate the citizenry towards their Christian majority insanity.

:)

[todd]

No nation should be built upon blood and terror but on cultural difference!

All nations are built upon blood and terror...
This is who we are. This is what we try to deny. This is what we try to forget.

[Ayres]

Nihil said,
The fact that they use violence to achieve their goal is a consequence of the major entity! No nation should be built upon blood and terror but on cultural difference! I do not know very well Tchetchenia's culture but, in the basque country for instance, there is even a different language - the question is: what is a nation and should nations exist!?

Basques have never been a nation invaded by "Spain". Spain is the modern political consequence of the old kingdoms and territories of Hispania, and the Basque lands are a part of that union. Whatever they lost in the past (their fueros... local laws and traditions) is something that all the nations and territories which conform Spain lost too.

If something, the History of Spain is written with Basque names the same, if not more, than many other territories. It was the fight of Basques and Cantabrians against the Moors that gave way to the formation of the Kingdom of Castilla. It was Castilians (with strong Basque origins) and Basques who more territory reconquered to the Moors. It was Castilla's determination which led to the reunion of other kingdoms and territories back into the Union of Spain. It was the Basque language which influenced so much into the old Romance language spoken by Castilians, to make it distinctive from other Romance languages. And it is that old Castilian, with its distinctive sounds inherited from the Basques, the language that was transformed to become what you know as Spanish language.

So, there is no "Spanish" enemy because, they are all Spain and no territory is more nor less Spain than another.

Basque independentism only exists since 19th century onwards, and it's the product of a sick minded man whose family lost fighting in the Carloist Wars, on the side of the Traditionalist Carloists ... whose motto was/is Dios - Patria (España) -Rey (el Rey de España).

Look at the ikurriña, the Basque flag. It's the invention of that mad man, Sabino Arana, and it is a copy of the Union Jack as to show how much he hated Spain. Because, in his madness, he blamed "Spain" for the lost of priveleges, whereas Carloists were also strong in other territories and they also lost from it against the Liberal Isabelinos.

The language argument is nothing but little and fallacious. Do you think Miranda do Douro should be independent because they speak Mirandum instead of Portuguese, the origin is not even the same, whilst Portuguese has its origins in Galician, then called Galaico-Português, Mirandum has its origins in old Leonese.

[Nihil]

Ayres said,


Basques have never been a nation invaded by "Spain". Spain is the modern political consequence of the old kingdoms and territories of Hispania, and the Basque lands are a part of that union. Whatever they lost in the past (their fueros... local laws and traditions) is something that all the nations and territories which conform Spain lost too.

If something, the History of Spain is written with Basque names the same, if not more, than many other territories. It was the fight of Basques and Cantabrians against the Moors that gave way to the formation of the Kingdom of Castilla. It was Castilians (with strong Basque origins) and Basques who more territory reconquered to the Moors. It was Castilla's determination which led to the reunion of other kingdoms and territories back into the Union of Spain. It was the Basque language which influenced so much into the old Romance language spoken by Castilians, to make it distinctive from other Romance languages. And it is that old Castilian, with its distinctive sounds inherited from the Basques, the language that was transformed to become what you know as Spanish language.

So, there is no "Spanish" enemy because, they are all Spain and no territory is more nor less Spain than another.

Basque independentism only exists since 19th century onwards, and it's the product of a sick minded man whose family lost fighting in the Carloist Wars, on the side of the Traditionalist Carloists ... whose motto was/is Dios - Patria (España) -Rey (el Rey de España).

Look at the ikurriña, the Basque flag. It's the invention of that mad man, Sabino Arana, and it is a copy of the Union Jack as to show how much he hated Spain. Because, in his madness, he blamed "Spain" for the lost of priveleges, whereas Carloists were also strong in other territories and they also lost from it against the Liberal Isabelinos.

The language argument is nothing but little and fallacious. Do you think Miranda do Douro should be independent because they speak Mirandum instead of Portuguese, the origin is not even the same, whilst Portuguese has its origins in Galician, then called Galaico-Português, Mirandum has its origins in old Leonese.


These are historical facts - I assume that you base independence in a historical point of view.
But there are other thing that you should think about: there are some groups that do not have the same political ideas: have they to live under rules they do not agree?

[Nihil]

All nations are built upon blood and terror...
This is who we are. This is what we try to deny. This is what we try to forget.
Unfortunately you are correct... :cry:
But is there not any way create a autonomical society that is not based on those facts? Or is it better to have a universal ruler? Keep that in mind - although we have a dark past, that doesn't mean we need to build a dark future!

[Nihil]

vicente said,

I'm rather a novice regarding Political Science, although I'd say it should be an element of ones ontosophical viewpoint.

The Aztlan independence movement has a large following, and the odds of its independence is much greater than most would consider at this time. My own wish for an independent Aztlan is much different than the average pro-Aztlan chicano (I'm not a chicano),...in that I see it as a letting go of the gringos religions, calendrics, and desire for an insane manifest destiny.

Should any system of same thought and tradition be allowed a unilateral course of action, like the U.S. illegal invasion of Iraq? Not in my opinion.


I have a similar point of view, but that would mean anarchy, and only a strong moral code could forbid people to have anti-natural actions (murder...) and I do not think we are evolving as a society towards that goal!

As for Aztlan, it should not be allowed independence because the majority of those who live in Aztlan want it to be so,...but it should be independent because the long train of abuses and usurpations by despots (as those whom unConstitutionally print the words "in god we trust" on the Nations money) unamericanly indocrinate the citizenry towards their Christian majority insanity.


I share the last thought (although I do not live in America) but I am very confused about the way Aztlan could be independent - you should think about the future: will your descendents have the same opinion; and will that territory be self-suficient in oder to keep its natural inhabitants in it? Look at Ukraine: they have independence from URSS but they are now with a serious crisis of emigrants because thay do not have enough capacity to enploy all of their people. This means that a cirurgian has to travel to other countries that give him a better salary for a rather "inferior" job!

[Nihil]

asheera said,

is a nation nothing but a way of "aggrouping" people in a system of pre enabled thought?

fear tries grouping, territorying

That is psychological! :think:
I guess that when people start to be afraid of their thoughts because other do not think so, they have the tendency to join others with similar thoughts and to cry for independence - or at leats they create some kind of secret society. But that wish is also about space - land -and that is why that group wants independence: so they can think freely and loudly in their own free space and to provide their similars the same oportunity! :thumbsup:

[Ayres]

Nihil said,
These are historical facts - I assume that you base independence in a historical point of view.
But there are other thing that you should think about: there are some groups that do not have the same political ideas: have they to live under rules they do not agree?
Well, once again, concerning Euskadi (Basque Country), your argument is the worst ever. :hahaha: ;)

First, Euskadi is not only ETA, or their supporters. Second regarding various polls on the matter 76% of Basque population don't give a a rat's arse -- forgive me the expression -- about independence. Just for the record, 14% don't care if they are independent or not, and only 10% expressed their wish to be independent.
(I'm using the results of the last one, made in 2003, iirc.)

Even in groups, political ideas vary. For instance, let's imagine the following, as you probably know most Alentejanos are commies or left-wingers, except in Évora, where right-wingers are the majority. Now let's imagine Alentejo is independent, but since in Évora they aren't commies or left-wingers, should they be independent? Do you think they would be self-suficient?

Another thing is, political ideas come and go with new generations, so, do you want microstates being created every once in a while? Then they change their ideology and want to be part of the old country again?

History is continuos and perpetual, whilst political ideas of groups are not.

[jesupocaplypse]

What if, instead of making everyone independant... we made it so everyone was very DEpendant, on one thing from each other. Then we would all have to get along, because we would all depend on each other! <_< :lol: Example: Every nation depended on nation A for resource A, and that was all that nation A had to worry about producing and providing, everything else they needed they would get from all the other nations. Nation B would only be concerned with producing resource B, and such on and so forth. :think: or maybe not :)

[Nihil]

Well, once again, concerning Euskadi (Basque Country), your argument is the worst ever.

First, Euskadi is not only ETA, or their supporters. Second regarding various polls on the matter 76% of Basque population don't give a a rat's arse -- forgive me the expression -- about independence. Just for the record, 14% don't care if they are independent or not, and only 10% expressed their wish to be independent.
(I'm using the results of the last one, made in 2003, iirc.)

Even in groups, political ideas vary. For instance, let's imagine the following, as you probably know most Alentejanos are commies or left-wingers, except in Évora, where right-wingers are the majority. Now let's imagine Alentejo is independent, but since in Évora they aren't commies or left-wingers, should they be independent? Do you think they would be self-suficient?

Another thing is, political ideas come and go with new generations, so, do you want microstates being created every once in a while? Then they change their ideology and want to be part of the old country again?

History is continuos and perpetual, whilst political ideas of groups are not.

I have mentioned part of the problem to vicente;

I share the last thought (although I do not live in America) but I am very confused about the way Aztlan could be independent - you should think about the future: will your descendents have the same opinion; and will that territory be self-suficient in oder to keep its natural inhabitants in it? Look at Ukraine: they have independence from URSS but they are now with a serious crisis of emigrants because thay do not have enough capacity to enploy all of their people. This means that a cirurgian has to travel to other countries that give him a better salary for a rather "inferior" job!


I do not defend microstates in the way you seem to understand; I am just concerned about the individual and it's opportunity to live in a world where there is no "mind-jail" or political influences! Imagine that there is a political regime that orders you to do something that you didn't want to do; what would you do? It's the old Hamlet question - would you stay and fight or would you go away (a little bit adapted :P )
Or you might prefer the group to the individual and, thus, I'll need to respond you in a different way :boxing:

[Ayres]

I do not defend microstates in the way you seem to understand; I am just concerned about the individual and it's opportunity to live in a world where there is no "mind-jail" or political influences!
Go to the Free World -- US of A -- then... Leave Europe alone. :)

Imagine that there is a political regime that orders you to do something that you didn't want to do; what would you do?
I would, if some benefit for my kindred would come out of it. And btw, that's hardly the case nowadays.

It's the old Hamlet question - would you stay and fight or would you go away (a little bit adapted :P )
Or you might prefer the group to the individual and, thus, I'll need to respond you in a different way :boxing:
Yes, I, most of the times, value more the group than the individual. Especially concerning political issues.

[vicente]

Go to the Free World -- US of A

That is such a naive statement,...The USA has not been "free" since the McCarthy Era, and has not been fully accessible since SCOTUS appointed the criminal George Bush as President.

The USA, today, is a Conservative Christian Fascist State,...not much different than portrayed in Margaret Atwood 'A Handmaid's Tale'.

The truth however is that the USA is NOT suppose to be the hateful, arrogant Christian Nation it has become.
http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php

I am an American,...most US citizens are not,...but are actually unAmerican criminals like the sociopath Bush.

:)

[NeverMind]

vicente, I whole-heartedly agree.

Since when doesn questioning government corruption un-patriotic? Why are the ones pointing out what is wrong labled communists or um-americans?

The United States of America is NOT free. The Patriot Act has made sure of that.

Questioning authority is what the founding fathers would have wanted us to do! That's what THEY did!

[Ayres]

That is such a naive statement,...The USA has not been "free" since the McCarthy Era, and has not been fully accessible since SCOTUS appointed the criminal George Bush as President.
That's why Free World was in Italic... :P

The USA, today, is a Conservative Christian Fascist State,...not much different than portrayed in Margaret Atwood 'A Handmaid's Tale'.
Twisting reality? :D

Last time i turned MTV on it could be many things, but conservative, christian or fascist it was not, for sure. (Just an example)

The truth however is that the USA is NOT suppose to be the hateful, arrogant Christian Nation it has become.
http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php

I am an American,...most US citizens are not,...but are actually unAmerican criminals like the sociopath Bush.

:)

Sorry if I offend you, but to be honest, I don't give a rat's arse about the Us of A. I, however, have problems with their multicultural views that are imported to my country and are being followed by some youth. A pity, imo, actually.

Weren't the thirteen colonies colonized mostly by Puritans?

Being an American is a nice concept, what is an American according to you?
Someone who were born there? Someone who belong to the most common ethnicities there (i.e. Anglo-Saxon, German, Irish, etc.)
Someone who lives there before the 19th century, for instance?

[vicente]

Weren't the thirteen colonies colonized mostly by Puritans?

That's a fallacy.

"What about the Pilgrims and Puritans?
The first colony of English-speaking Europeans was Jamestown, settled in 1609 for trade, not religious freedom. Fewer than half of the 102 Mayflower passengers in 1620 were "Pilgrims" seeking religious freedom. The secular United States of America was formed more than a century and a half later. If tradition requires us to return to the views of a few early settlers, why not adopt the polytheistic and natural beliefs of the Native Americans, the true founders of the continent at least 12,000 years earlier?

Most of the religious colonial governments excluded and persecuted those of the "wrong" faith. The framers of our Constitution in 1787 wanted no part of religious intolerance and bloodshed, wisely establishing the first government in history to separate church and state."
http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php

If that doesn't satisfy you, try this one:
According to the Yearbook of American Churches, a very prestigious publication, in 1800 only 6.9% of US citizens were affiliated with a Christian Church. In 1850 that number rose to 15.5%, and in 1900 was 37%. But, not until 1942 did Christian affiliation exceed 50%, and soon after McCarthyism began, which, considering Republican hate and viciousness over the past few years, has been growing stronger and stronger.

The 1st Amendment begins "no law respecting an establishing of religion (FREEDOM FROM RELIGION), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (FREEDOM OF RELIGION)"

:)

[Ayres]

vicente said,
That's a fallacy.
You are right. It was in New England. Mea culpa.

"What about the Pilgrims and Puritans?
The first colony of English-speaking Europeans was Jamestown, settled in 1609 for trade, not religious freedom. Fewer than half of the 102 Mayflower passengers in 1620 were "Pilgrims" seeking religious freedom. The secular United States of America was formed more than a century and a half later.
Colonial America

Starting in the late 16th century, the British began to colonize North America. The first attempts, notably the Colony of Roanoke, resulted in failure, but successful colonies were soon established. The colonists who came to the New World were by no means a homogeneous mix, but a variety of different social and religious groups which settled in different locations on the seaboard. The Quakers of Pennsylvania, the Puritans of New England, the gold-hungry settlers of Jamestown, and the convicts of Georgia each came to the new continent for vastly different reasons, and they created colonies with very different social, religious, political, and economic structures.

In generalizing the regions of development in colonial America, historians typically recognize four regions in the lands that later became the eastern United States: from north to south, New England, the Middle Colonies, the Chesapeake Bay and Southern Colonies. Some historians add a fifth region: the frontier, which had certain common features no matter what sort of colony it sprang from. By the late 18th century, these different colonies found themselves more closely united than ever before, at odds with the British government on issues of taxation and representation.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_America)

If tradition requires us to return to the views of a few early settlers, why not adopt the polytheistic and natural beliefs of the Native Americans, the true founders of the continent at least 12,000 years earlier?
Are we talking about the US of A as a country, or as a land mass?
And since when a continent have founders?

Most of the religious colonial governments excluded and persecuted those of the "wrong" faith. The framers of our Constitution in 1787 wanted no part of religious intolerance and bloodshed, wisely establishing the first government in history to separate church and state."
http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php
Well, apart from this excerpt, I'm really having an hard time to believe in a source called Freedom From Religion Foundation, I'm absolutely sure they are independent and therefore not biased at all. :D



If that doesn't satisfy you, try this one:
According to the Yearbook of American Churches, a very prestigious publication, in 1800 only 6.9% of US citizens were affiliated with a Christian Church. In 1850 that number rose to 15.5%, and in 1900 was 37%. But, not until 1942 did Christian affiliation exceed 50%, and soon after McCarthyism began, which, considering Republican hate and viciousness over the past few years, has been growing stronger and stronger.

The 1st Amendment begins "no law respecting an establishing of religion (FREEDOM FROM RELIGION), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (FREEDOM OF RELIGION)"

:)
Just a thought, wasn't it really hard -- for an immigrant, for instance -- to get an American citizenship by that time?

If so, that doesn't really mean the Christians were few, but the Christians who obtained citizenship were.

[Nihil]

Originally posted by jesupocaplypse@Oct 12 2004, 03:18 PM
What if, instead of making everyone independant... we made it so everyone was very DEpendant, on one thing from each other. Then we would all have to get along, because we would all depend on each other! <_< :lol: Example: Every nation depended on nation A for resource A, and that was all that nation A had to worry about producing and providing, everything else they needed they would get from all the other nations. Nation B would only be concerned with producing resource B, and such on and so forth. :think: or maybe not :)
Answering jesupocaplypse

I believe that your idea is the most marvellous political utopia I have ever heard!
Although your “wish” is logically correct, it is the contrary of what happens today (unfortunately). Let’s imagine your world...
I live in a country that is dedicated to corn fields; I work in corn fields and my country is the only one to produce that good. Whenever my country wishes to acquire something else, make it be iron, it exchanges it with the nation that produces iron! But in which proportions will that business be done? Iron is harder to produce than corn; will it be fair? And there is another problem: people would have to work in something that could be, or not, needed by other countries. One day, the need would stop and all the investment in the technology to develop the production of that good will be useless! Man has that natural tendency to act by its interests (I’ll focus this in the Philosophy forum whenever I’ll got the time) and, in a bigger proportion, so do groups. Do you believe that a world like the one of today can be changed from the night to the day in such deep proportions? What you ask is a challenge nobody wishes to enter in! An example for you to understand this “economical cruelty”: in the end 19th century, during the Industrial Revolution, British were in need of rubber in order to make the first automobile tires; that yellowish elastic material obtained from the milky sat of various tropical plants was common in Indonesia and British decided to go there to get what they needed. And how they did it, must you be asking! Simply; they started buy buying great quantities of it; then, they made exchange companies in there in order to have the whole production only to them and forbid other countries to have it. But they NEVER BUILT INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES! They carried natural rubber towards Britain, transformed it there and sold it with higher prices to other countries. When synthetic rubber was discovered in the twenties, they cancelled their contracts leaving Indonesia without any means of self-providing facilities. That fact is the main responsible for the Indonesian Crisis that only now is coming to an end. And this example is suitable for your case because of this – political ideas vary but history evolves always (paraphrasing what Ayes said with some reason). You may believe that it would be much better to the world to have inter-dependent countries but it is not a solution, at least a stable one!
I hope you understand my point of view; I do not say you are wrong, but, as I said before, it is too radical for the common situation of the world to change a system of closed markets to a universal exchange one.
Another thing regardless the discussion – independent is with an “e” and not with an “a” as you write it (I believe it is the French way to write that word). Don’t get me wrong, but I hope you get rid of that mistake for your personal sake.

[Nihil]

Originally posted by Ayres@Oct 15 2004, 03:07 PM
I do not defend microstates in the way you seem to understand; I am just concerned about the individual and it's opportunity to live in a world where there is no "mind-jail" or political influences!
Go to the Free World -- US of A -- then... Leave Europe alone. :)

Imagine that there is a political regime that orders you to do something that you didn't want to do; what would you do?
I would, if some benefit for my kindred would come out of it. And btw, that's hardly the case nowadays.

It's the old Hamlet question - would you stay and fight or would you go away (a little bit adapted :P )
Or you might prefer the group to the individual and, thus, I'll need to respond you in a different way :boxing:
Yes, I, most of the times, value more the group than the individual. Especially concerning political issues.
The Freedom in America is, by my point of view, a pseudo-liberty. ;)
They give you everything so you cannot complain and you don't realize you're being programmed by a powerful machine; and I do not defend exacerbated patriotism :P
I do not share your opint of view about the priorities - state/individual but you are correct when you say it is the case nowadays.
Individual builds group - you loose your identity if you loose yourself to a common goal you haven't buil all alone; but it is your will and not mine, and, therefore, I do not care! :hahaha:

[Nihil]

Originally posted by vicente@Oct 15 2004, 05:05 PM
Go to the Free World -- US of A

That is such a naive statement,...The USA has not been "free" since the McCarthy Era, and has not been fully accessible since SCOTUS appointed the criminal George Bush as President.

The USA, today, is a Conservative Christian Fascist State,...not much different than portrayed in Margaret Atwood 'A Handmaid's Tale'.

The truth however is that the USA is NOT suppose to be the hateful, arrogant Christian Nation it has become.
http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php

I am an American,...most US citizens are not,...but are actually unAmerican criminals like the sociopath Bush.

:)
Man you hate are built by the society you live in; don't blame them by who they are but by where they belong - I don't like Bush, but not the pseudo-person he is supposed to be, but the ideal he stands for - America is only a country and, as long as countries exist, they have all the same rights and shouldn't be threatened by others.

[Nihil]

Originally posted by NeverMind@Oct 15 2004, 08:25 PM
vicente, I whole-heartedly agree.

Since when doesn questioning government corruption un-patriotic? Why are the ones pointing out what is wrong labled communists or um-americans?

The United States of America is NOT free. The Patriot Act has made sure of that.

Questioning authority is what the founding fathers would have wanted us to do! That's what THEY did!
The problem is not if a country is free but if its individuals feel so! I believe most do because they never stopped to think about that :rolleyes:
When a State says that Questioning is Anti-Patriotic, then the state became a Dogmatic Religion of Government :nono:

[vicente]

Ayres suggests:
Starting in the late 16th century, the British began to colonize North America. The first attempts, notably the Colony of Roanoke

I find that quite difficult,...Roanoke was to the 16th Century what the Dakota's were to the 17th Century. Overall I get the impression that your history is rather "reconstructed" from a Christian point of view.

Are we talking about the US of A as a country, or as a land mass?
And since when a continent have founders?

The term United States of America was coined by Thomas Paine, the Father of the American Revolution, of whom only 3 public statues exist in all the US. Paine is one of the most hated by Christian Renconstructionists.

Some Paine quote:

"All this [Paul's writing] is nothing better than the jargon of a conjurer who picks up phrases he does not understand to confound the credulous people who come to have their fortune told." Thomas Paine

"Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses, who gave an order to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and then rape the daughters. One of the most horrible atrocities found in the literature of any nation. I would not dishonor my Creator's name by attaching it to this filthy book." Thomas Paine

"It has often been said that anything may be proved from the Bible; but before anything can be admitted as proved by the Bible, the Bible itself must be proved to be true; for if the Bible be not true, or the truth of it be doubtful, it ceases to have authority, and cannot be admitted as proof of anything." Thomas Paine

"The Christian system of religion is an outrage on common sense." Thomas Paine

"Washington's sword would have been yielded in vain had it not been supported by the pen of Paine" James Monroe

I'm really having an hard time to believe in a source called Freedom From Religion Foundation,

Of course you're having a "hard time". Christian hate is notorious for attacking the messenger when the message conflicts with the delusions they cling to for their identity.

Just a thought, wasn't it really hard -- for an immigrant, for instance -- to get an American citizenship by that time?


Let me rephrase that. 6.9% in 1800 represented all who were included in the census, which included immigrants living in the new Country.

To further add to the subject,...under George Washington, a document was drafted in 1796, then unanimously ratified by the US Senate and sign into law on June 10, 1797 by President John Adams which said, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded upon the Christian religion".

Although that document was read aloud in Congress without dissension, and well publicized at the time, there were no complaints or public outcry, as when Christians balked over the illegality of the addition of 'under god' in the Pledge. In fact, at the signing of the above 1797 document, Adams said, "Now be it known, that I, John Adams, President of the United States of America, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End, may it be observed and performed with good faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; and I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill every clause and article thereof".

The Founding Fathers would have had executed the criminal George W Bush before 9-11.

:)

[Nihil]

To all of the previous participants of the thread

I believe you are a little bit lost in the theme!
To answer the religious problem, what I could argue is that laws are a social creation regarding the expectation of the group. When I read «no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI) », I assume that in practice that will only happen if the personal identity is influenced by that, i.e., that the person will act accordingly the rules of the country and not by his own impulse! The problem of religion in countries of the West is that, sometimes, laws do not fill within the dogma. That is the problem! Due to that confusion, the individual that is conservative, for instance, due to his religious creed and belief, won’t accept someone of another religion (the aspect of someone can say a lot about that) to work in is shop.
When you talk about the Christianity of “Americans” I must ask: the what of who?
America was a colony – it is not any more! The question is, regarding to the theme of the thread, if America is really independent in a way it is supposed to be. And don’t come with racial analysis; Native Americans came from Asia in the Glacial Era; it is proved because the found in America the very same instruments that they discovered in Lascaux caverns in France!
Independence is a intellectual concept and should remain in this domain; we only created it because we’re rational and have different paths of being that way. If not I propose the independence of the Zebras from the Horses! It is the same, sorry if I offend any mind, stupidity! It is true that geographical location interferes in the social behaviour and origins the called “culture”. But we are talking about ideals and not the colour of skin, the size of the nose or the DNA quality!
Another problem with religion is that it assumes that what they believe in is the answer for the universe; that’s, how I see it, the cause of several wars, mostly provoked by the US of A!
Personally, I am against such kind of influences. But when I hear about someone that is censored by having a different idea from the rest of a group - that simply disgusts me!
I hope you understand my point of view and start talking about the real questions of the thread – adapting it: What is the purpose of an independent movement? Should it be accepted? Is violence a way to achieve our will?
If you desire to talk about constitutions, please go the thread I made about that! I just hate the messing up of themes – don’t get me wrong but “c’est la vie”!
Constitution Thread (http://www.thebigview.com/discussion/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=219)