The End of Christian America?

[Crossbow]

This news story is so biased. They pick the lamest Christian guy and have him go up against a very articulate atheist. As if it symbolizes the downfall of "outdated" Christianity.

MSNBC has such a leftist agenda. If the left was Christian based they wouldn't run this story.

Fox news, though it is biased towards the right, presents these types of stories with respect towards both sides.

I wonder why they never mentioned that Christians have LOTS more kids than atheists do?

This is more like a WWF rigged wrestling match than an actual debate. This reminds me of that southpark episode with the violent atheists.

Blackwell and many other 'average' traditional Christians often only possess knowledge of Christian history and the Christian faith. For them that is enough, studying other convictions is not encouraged among the parishioners and even may present a thread. And that is something they carefully avoid. They should have sent someone else to this debate then, not this man.

[Magister Eckhart]

American- Economic policy in Iraq and Afghanistan- taxation set by democratically elected politicians in Iraq and Afghanistan. The people have a democratic say so in government. We are loaning lots of money to build up their own private/public economic infrastructure and boost private businesses. Monopolies (which cheat people out of their money) are outlawed.

British/Spanish Imperial- Economic
- taxation set without the consent of the public being taxed, people of colonies have no governmental influence. Monarchy. Taxes were high to steal what the colonies earned through hard work and send it back to Europe. Certain items were banned from being sold within the colonies so the European governments could create a monopoly within the colonies to suck out as much money as possible.

British/Spanish Imperial- Social/Cultural
- Spanish forced people to be Catholic only. (they even killed protestants in Florida because they didn't want them living on their land)

American- Social/Cultural policy in Iraq and Afghanistan
- We're setting up Islamic democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan because that's what the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan want.

You should begin to notice that all our, Americans, main requirement is simply that the country becomes stable and peaceful and that the people are free to determine their own future. Now compare that to British/Spanish colonies where the goal was to take as much money out as possible and impose their own religion in the case of Spain.

Furthermore what America has today is not imperialism because we are no longer in control these countries. We set them up and the people like them, so they are not going to change the government. Read the definition of imperialism- we are not extending our rule over foreign people- instead we are allowing these people to rule over themselves.

American, British, and French imperialism all brought a foreign, liberalised political culture and dropped it in the middle of these people, with the assumption that it's what "the people want" because, it's assumed here in America that "freedom", "liberty", "democracy" and other liberal inventions are universal goods-- it's no different from the notions Britain and France had of bringing civilization to the savages - it's even phrased the same. We drop in, we tell the people "this is the way things will be done now", and say that because it's "democracy" we're forcing down their throats, that we're not in fact forcing anything on them. It's bald-faced imperialism with the intention of establishing liberal Americanism in a place that neither wants nor needs Americanism.

We are using Iraq and Afghanistan to establish ideological footholds in the region to help inch the golden arches in just a little bit more. Any idealistic belief that somehow we're "liberating" anyone-- or that we've ever "liberated" anyone is pure fantasy. "Liberation" is the liberal word to express "conquest", because "conquest" isn't acceptable to the liberal mind. The French didn't exploit the Algerians, they civilized them. America has been an imperial power for as long as liberal, Enlightenment ideology has coursed through its culture. The two are inseparable, because liberalism cannot tolerate any sort of ideological challenge, proven by the extermination of the Indians, the "arsenal of democracy" propaganda that drew us into two world wars, and the survival of the language of "savagery" and "barbarian" alongside "civilization". We define "barbarism" as, essentially, "anything un-democratic", which includes governments in Russia, China, and Iran - despite the fact that, in reality, the governments in these countries are governments that conform perfectly to the cultures of those races.

If you think that somehow the fact that America isn't making any money on Iraq and Afghanistan disproves this, you have a child's understanding of the imperial project - all you need to do is look at global and American-based corporations that are making millions on the Middle East project, as well as our economic imperialism in South East Asia, Africa, South America, and everywhere else that the American government has paved the way for American corporations to move in and do the same thing the British, French, Dutch, and Spanish did before them, but under a different name. In addition, the British government and French government also lost a ton of money on their own projects; nor did the Spanish historically make much gain on their Empire; the silver flowing into the Empire actually only managed to destabilize the economy, which helped to contribute to the collapse of the Empire.

Furthermore, painting America's project up as somehow being more noble than the British project completely ignores the language used by the British and French in their imperial projects. The entire goal of the British in America, for example, was to "civilize" the Indians, so that they could understand how things like "property rights" worked, and those who refused to accept it were stripped of their land - the British weren't just paying lipservice to liberalism; rather, the attitude of British (and later American) imperialists on this continent was that unless people approached economics and government the way the "developed world" approached economics and government, then they were clearly doing it wrong-- and "for their own sake", they shouldn't be allowed to do it wrong.

As for India, the fact of the matter is that in British occupation, the majority of the country was still owned and run by Indians-- native Indians. Britishers held high posts, to be sure, and the military was British, but the governments were all by and large run by Indians (ironically this is what made the boycotts and strikes so effective during the struggle for independence). In reality, the British still basically own India, because all of India's leaders were educated by the British in British modes of thought, such that India has become essentially a liberal European power with less money.

If you think for an instant that America is not fully in control culturally and economically of the countries whose governments we've overthrown to impose our own form of government, you either have a spoon-fed vision of our project (I take it you watch a lot of Fox News?) or you have fallen victim to simple naivete. American imperialism, just like any imperialism, has never begun or ended with the American government, but with American corporate and cultural interests, which stretch far, far beyond the government's active involvement (all one needs to do is look at Europe during the cold war for proof of this -- Germany has become thoroughly Americanised, which means essentially that it has become thoroughly Anglicised.)

Anglo-American world-rule (with the help of our plucky cultural side-kick French republicanism) is the reality.

[Oreka Bailoak]

American, British, and French imperialism all brought a foreign, liberalised political culture and dropped it in the middle of these people

Provide an example, if you think we are liberalizing the culture of Iraq or Afghanistan you have to be kidding! the only thing I can think of is women getting an education, or banning stoning.

We are using Iraq and Afghanistan to establish ideological footholds in the region to help inch the golden arches in just a little bit more.

You have to be kidding me? This is basic economics. McDonalds is a great food chain by the way that supplies employment, wages to workers and is very efficient at cutting prices to help make food cheap for the average public and if the people don't like it they don't have to eat there. What a strange argument.

America has been an imperial power

But I just proved in my earlier post that American policy in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't fit the definition of Imperialism.

as well as our economic imperialism in South East Asia, Africa, South America, and everywhere else that the American government has paved the way for American corporations to move in and do the same thing

Such an incredibly overgeneralized statement that shows tremendous lack of understanding of basic economics. I suggest you take a basic economics class on trade theory or foreign investment. While you're at it why don't you study the abysmal economies of Germany and Japan to see the evil effects of our "american imperialism" which sucked their countries dry of money- or wait- they are today two of the strongest economies in the world with extremely high living standards- but I'm sure they didn't want our economic help right? they would rather go it alone with out investment to help build their infrastructure. In economics all countries benefit through free trade, free investment yada yada.... I have a degree in Economics and now I'm studying Government Economic policy now. And I can't believe I'm arguing over this topic.

American corporations to move in and do the same thing the British, French, Dutch, and Spanish did before them, but under a different name.

No wrong, because of the reasons I listed earlier. Economics is not a zero sum game, British colonialism is based on mercantilism that economics is a zero sum game.

nor did the Spanish historically make much gain on their Empire

^ They gained tremendous wealth. I watched a show about Spanish cities that because of trade and wealth brought over from the colonies they were able to become extremely wealthy and finance MASSIVE public buildings etc. etc. This is common knowledge.

the silver flowing into the Empire actually only managed to destabilize the economy, which helped to contribute to the collapse of the Empire.

^Read Adam Smiths book the Wealth of Nations. The collapse was caused by bad economic policy based on Mercantilism . In Mercantilism European and global economies are seen as zero-sum games which has been proven wrong by Adam Smiths book. (and also Mercantilism shows much of these imperial ideas you are putting forth by focusing on the gains of one side which only shows a lack of basic 18th century economic understanding)

In reality, the British still basically own India, because all of India's leaders were educated by the British in British modes of thought, such that India has become essentially a liberal European power with less money.

Ridiculous, economic theory and basic democracy would work even for monkeys and chimpanzees. This is not some sort of alien system imposed on the Indian people but rather something that they learned and choose to keep because it works.

countries whose governments we've overthrown to impose our own form of government

Again this shows a lack of understanding. How is creating an Islamic Democracy and allowing the people to elect their own representatives us imposing our government on them? When we leave and they are free to have which ever government they wish- AND THEY WILL KEEP THEIR GOVERNMENT BECAUSE THEY LIKE IT- how is that us imposing OUR OWN government on them? This is something that they like by and large over authoritarian governments.

you either have a spoon-fed vision of our project (I take it you watch a lot of Fox News?) or you have fallen victim to simple naivete.

I learned my economic theory and government ideas from countless school classes on the subject when I majored in Economics and now as I study government economic policy (public finance). Where do you get your economic ideas I would like to ask? Where do you get your crackpot definition of Imperialism from I would like to know? By your expert knowledge I take it you must have majored in Imperialism at Harvard?

So far you have
1) Talk in generalities and not brought up one solid piece of evidence to support your claim that America is imperial either politically, culturally or economically in Iraq and Afghanistan. (again read the definition). But in reality what America is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is not imperialism so you cannot argue this case as it doesn't fit the definition of Imperialism.
2) Have shown tremendous lack of understanding of basic economic theory in the areas of public government finance, world econoimc theory, investment, mercantilism, and US government policy.

Educate yourself.

http://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Inter...9344972&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Economic-Devel...9345027&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Making-Modern-...1&sr=1-1-spell

I can't waste more time on this.

[Austin]

I'm not super religious personally but even I see the argument of the secular and the atheists to not add up on a purely numerical level (which is ironic considering aren't they suppose to be the brilliant ones?).


"Secularism will dominate"

"Christianity is on the decline in the West"

Then the reality of:

"Western-secular populations produce not-even half the children Western-Christian populations produce"

.................................................. ..........

"Yet let us not forget, somehow secularists are going to numerically take over"

[Joe McCarthy]

Insofar as I can tell, the Founders had a strong aversion to what they called "European entanglements." They wanted to spread the idea of republicanism and constitutionalism to Europeans oppressed by aged monarchies and corrupt priesthoods which were little better than kingly appointees, but only "from the point of the pen" and not "from the point of the sword."

How quickly a grand idea is seduced and perverted!

Good and romantic stuff that should have been put aside after WW1. It took WW2 to realize it doesn't work anymore.

At any rate, the only worse long term bet than white atheists is Oprah's next weight loss plan.

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by The Wagnerian
There is no obvious difference between American economic, social, and cultural imperialism and the imperialism of European powers. The principle difference is means and approaches, not the institution itself.

Yes, there is. Imperialism generally paid. We're dumb enough not to make wogs pay for these wars.

It has been an uninterrupted history of meddling in foreign nations' affairs and provoking the righteous anger of the coloured world against the West since the dawn of liberal thought.

Perhaps you can atone for such meddling by the British on the North American continent, pay homage to Geronimo, and promptly head 'back' to whichever European country you identify with most.

A world with an isolationist America is one where the law of the jungle will rule supreme, and as nature always abhors a vacuum, it will lead to a Chinese century.

It is an iron law that the West will dominate or be dominated. Such is the nature of things, and prior to the Age of Discovery, we were the ones typically dominated.

[Curtis24]

It may be the end of Protestant America. But we're still getting waves of devout Catholic Mexicans.

Now, some would argue that the religion those Amerindians practice is not Catholicism but some blending of Amerindian beliefs with Christianity. But that is a different argument altogether.

[Cato]

It might be time to drag out Deism as an exemplary religion for thoughtful people who just can't seem to come to grips with the theological requirements of traditional Christianity. God knows, I've tried, and it's something that I really can't bring myself to accept in toto. One of the pitfalls of Christianity is that it demands of its followers the acceptance of something outside of the realm of personal experience, which I've always had trouble dealing with.

I'd much rather see a Deist America, or even a Catholic America, than an atheist, or heaven forbid, Muslim America.