[ALUmnus]

I'm against it because it is the view that your country (actually, your government) is better than anyone else’s, and has the right to rule others through aggression, conquest, and occupation. Those foreigners who oppose your government's aggression, conquest, and occupation are branded "insurgents" and must be crushed. Any citizens caught in the crossfire are merely "collateral damage." Never mind what those people want for their own country, they must succumb to the Federal Governments demands.

Any history majors (or professors) on here? Because I'm curious, in the history of human civilization, has there ever been a time period that was absent of this? What I'm getting at is, I think this is pretty much the norm, and your fantasy world is not of this planet. But, it would be nice for an experienced expert not named Lew Rockwell to verify this.

[Schfourteenteen]

I happen to be against American Exceptionalism. I'm against it because it is the view that your country (actually, your government) is better than anyone else’s, and has the right to rule others through aggression, conquest, and occupation. Those foreigners who oppose your government's aggression, conquest, and occupation are branded "insurgents" and must be crushed. Any citizens caught in the crossfire are merely "collateral damage." Never mind what those people want for their own country, they must succumb to the Federal Governments demands.

Unless we know what's best for them. Stupid Southerners....

[4everfsu]

I am not worried about Al Qaeda. We just cut the head off the snake.

He hasn't been the head of the snake for about 10 years now. The Al Qaeda branch in Yemen almost tried to take down an airliner back around Christmas remember? He had nothing to do with that. This was all about justice, perception, morale, etc. Certainly not that big of a deal in terms of eliminating a current threat to us.

Not so fast Sparky

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... perations/

[jbock13]

LU conn is right. Half of the point for going after Bin Laden was so that way he would constantly be on the run so much that he couldn't plan out anything. I'd say that's worked, and now Al Qaeda affiliates are picking up where he left off.

You have Al Qaeda AP, also Lashkar-e-Taiba, who did the Mumbai attacks were an affiliate as well.

[Purple Haize]

COVERT - That logic makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever. Do you believe there is NOTHING and NO ONE exceptional? I am not sure how you can say that being exceptional automatically means you should invade, rule and dominate everyone? Many countries oppose our policies yet you do not see us invading, say, France. We aren't real popular with them. You also bleed into collateral damage again. Anyone care to ask Londoners, or Dresdenites about collateral damage? Rules and methods of warfare change. Had we still been operating under WWII military strategy, we would have sent wave after wave of B 52's to fire bomb Baghdad, Kabul etc. Instead we use precision weapons which, while not perfect, significantly cut down on colateral damage.
Someone asked about a historical context. Here is one that i have heard many times and agree with. In past, nations conquered and occupied other nations. The mindset of the United States military, for better or worse, is to get in, get the job done and GO HOME! Look at the major conflicts of the 20th century. We fought (some more than once) Germany, Japan, Italy, Ottoman Empire, Korea, and Russia. We have military bases in everyone of those countries (except Russia) but would anyone consider them "occupying forces'? That is what seperates America and its use of power from just about every other "super power" in the history of the world. Do we wield a big stick in support of our national interests? Yes we do.
Even if we were to use your inane definition of "Exceptionalism" I can think of a lot of people are glad we ARE exceptional - Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Japan, Taiwan, S. Africa, Canada, S. Korea, Australia, India, Argentina, and that is just off the top of my head. I guess the best way I can wrap my hands around your world view is to label you an isolationist. And to be blunt, that world view is as outdated as the Flat Earth theory.

[Covert Hawk]

COVERT - That logic makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever. Do you believe there is NOTHING and NO ONE exceptional? I am not sure how you can say that being exceptional automatically means you should invade, rule and dominate everyone? Many countries oppose our policies yet you do not see us invading, say, France. We aren't real popular with them. You also bleed into collateral damage again. Anyone care to ask Londoners, or Dresdenites about collateral damage? Rules and methods of warfare change. Had we still been operating under WWII military strategy, we would have sent wave after wave of B 52's to fire bomb Baghdad, Kabul etc. Instead we use precision weapons which, while not perfect, significantly cut down on colateral damage.
Someone asked about a historical context. Here is one that i have heard many times and agree with. In past, nations conquered and occupied other nations. The mindset of the United States military, for better or worse, is to get in, get the job done and GO HOME! Look at the major conflicts of the 20th century. We fought (some more than once) Germany, Japan, Italy, Ottoman Empire, Korea, and Russia. We have military bases in everyone of those countries (except Russia) but would anyone consider them "occupying forces'? That is what seperates America and its use of power from just about every other "super power" in the history of the world. Do we wield a big stick in support of our national interests? Yes we do.
Even if we were to use your inane definition of "Exceptionalism" I can think of a lot of people are glad we ARE exceptional - Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Japan, Taiwan, S. Africa, Canada, S. Korea, Australia, India, Argentina, and that is just off the top of my head. I guess the best way I can wrap my hands around your world view is to label you an isolationist. And to be blunt, that world view is as outdated as the Flat Earth theory.

Well, your wrong. I am a non-interventionist, not an isolationist.

There was actually a time during warfare that citizens were strictly off-limits, for example eighteenth century Europe. Modern warfare is a different story, as bombs kill individuals indiscriminately regardless of what our intentions were.

As far as being exceptional, individual human beings are exceptional. Not Governments. Every country has exceptional human beings and every country has human beings that can't get their act together.

Governments are gangs of thieves that steal, (i.e. tax) and organize mass murder (i.e. war) and a whole host of other crimes namely benefit a select ruling class. Foreign governments only like "American exceptionalism" so long as the U.S. government backs them, thereby solidifying their power.

You know who dislikes "American Exceptionalism" - The Middle East

[jbock13]

Yeah, let's just have no government at all. That will solve all our problems!

Government must at least be institutionized to protect from illegal force or fraud. That's all the government should do.

I do agree with Covert that the Middle East hates how we are constantly invading and getting in their business, but as I said before, I believe America is exceptional, I just don't believe that "American Exceptionalism" should include going to war with every country.

[Cider Jim]

Yeah, let's just have no government at all.

"The government that governs best governs not at all" (Henry D.Thoreau, Civil Disobedience).

[LUconn]

The middle east also dislikes things like women's rights, Christianity, freedom, bacon, fertile soil, etc. american exceptionalism is in good company.

[ATrain]

It is apparent that the religous crusader mentality of middle eastern Europe has shifted from Christianity to Islam. The extremists won't be satisfied until everyone on this planet lives under Sharia law, and they have proven they are willing to go to war over it. Pakistan is currently an unstable country that has an arsenal of nuclear weapons and a military that seems to be more friendly to Sharia law than principles of freedom. The question is when do you intervene? After an attack? If after an attack and it wasn't by an established soveirgn foreign government, who do you go after? Just the terrorists? Or the terrorists and government(s) that may be harboring them?

[jbock13]

Yeah, let's just have no government at all.

"The government that governs best governs not at all" (Henry D.Thoreau, Civil Disobedience).

Not quite sure I agree with that, I prefer "Government which governs least governs best."

Which is why I wrote my second paragraph explaining what limited things government should do.

[Cider Jim]

[ I prefer "Government which governs least governs best."

Thoreau started with that Jefferson quote in CD, and then he took it a radical step further.

[Covert Hawk]

The middle east also dislikes things like women's rights, Christianity, freedom, bacon, fertile soil, etc. american exceptionalism is in good company.

I'm not sure about that. Look at some of the results from Robert Pape's extensive polling of the region.

Those polls indicate that people in Islamic countries like U.S. technology, political and economic freedom, and even culture (which polls high even in Iran). The numbers start going south only when U.S. foreign policy toward the Islamic world is mentioned.

Read the rest here

And more recently in Egypt...

Egypt's Muslims attend Coptic Christmas mass, serving as "human shields"

Muslims turned up in droves for the Coptic Christmas mass Thursday night, offering their bodies, and lives, as “shields” to Egypt’s threatened Christian community

Read the rest here

They also stood side by side against their government...

‘Muslims, Christians we are all Egyptians’: Scenes from a revolution as told by one eyewitness

Read the rest here

I know that Christians and Muslims standing side by side is the exception not the rule. But, these stories are encouraging that a better world is possible...

[pbow]

The celebration here at WVU after the death was complete craziness. We have a ton of Muslim students here from Saudi Arabia and Iran and they were celebrating in the streets with the rest of us, which I thought was really cool to see.

[Purple Haize]

PBOW That would be because they were NOT in the Middle East and were happy to be in America.
COVERTY You have put yourself into a catch 22 situation. You claim to dislike the influnce of America on other countries, yet then try to claim they are changing their views to a more "western" outlook. Having lived in the Middle East I can say that there are plenty of people who think that women should be covered head to toe, experienced first hand the struggle to find bacon, saw "purity patrols" in the street. Instead of taking an article of "random kindness" take a look at the base document influencing these governments. I did chuckle at the Coptic article. They have been the most abused Christian sect in Egypt and probably the ME, so who exactly were they being protected from? I am going to rule out a high orbiting B-52 strike or a Predator attack.
It made me smile and I needed that today.

[Covert Hawk]

PBOW That would be because they were NOT in the Middle East and were happy to be in America.
COVERTY You have put yourself into a catch 22 situation. You claim to dislike the influnce of America on other countries, yet then try to claim they are changing their views to a more "western" outlook. Having lived in the Middle East I can say that there are plenty of people who think that women should be covered head to toe, experienced first hand the struggle to find bacon, saw "purity patrols" in the street. Instead of taking an article of "random kindness" take a look at the base document influencing these governments. I did chuckle at the Coptic article. They have been the most abused Christian sect in Egypt and probably the ME, so who exactly were they being protected from? I am going to rule out a high orbiting B-52 strike or a Predator attack.
It made me smile and I needed that today.

No, I claim to dislike the Federal Government Intervening in the affairs of middle eastern countries dictating what government they should have, what their territorial borders should be etc. etc. If the Muslims in the Middle East want to adopt western values and culture, they are free to do so.

[kiltsareitchy07]

With all the heated discussions on the celebration of bin Laden's death, global imperial wars, American exceptionalism [which I detest], and geo-political, superpower politics, allow me to add a few lines to season this debate. We should be approaching this discourse not as Americans, but as followers of the living God. Here's what the Lord has to say:

On Osama bin Laden
"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you." Matthew 5:44

"Rejoice not when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles," Proverbs 24:17

On American empire and global military hegemony
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God." Matthew 5:9

"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." Matthew 5:5

"My Kingdom is not of this world..." John 18:35

"Woe to them that...depend upon horses and trust in chariots because they are many, and in horsemen because they are very strong, but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel, neither seek the LORD!" Isaiah 31:1

On the arrogance of American nationalism and "exceptionalism"
"My Kingdom is not of this world..." John 18:35

"No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money." Matthew 6:24

"Rich and poor have this in common: The LORD is the Maker of them all." Proverbs 22:2

"From heaven the LORD looks down and sees all mankind...he who forms the hearts of all,
who considers everything they do." Psalm 33:13-15

On the objectification of human beings as "collateral damage" in warfare
"So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them." Genesis 1:27

[RubberMallet]

a guy at work just whipped out the word "deathers"

yes. it happened.

[ALUmnus]

a guy at work just whipped out the word "deathers"

yes. it happened.

Whoever is contributing to this type of labeling convention needs to be put out to pasture. Let's just add "ers" to the end of any word to describe a group of conspiracy people. Let just add "gate" to the end of any word to describe a scandal. Man I get so tired of this lazy, illogical jargon.

[alum82]

With all the heated discussions on the celebration of bin Laden's death, global imperial wars, American exceptionalism [which I detest], and geo-political, superpower politics, allow me to add a few lines to season this debate. We should be approaching this discourse not as Americans, but as followers of the living God. Here's what the Lord has to say:

On Osama bin Laden
"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you." Matthew 5:44

"Rejoice not when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles," Proverbs 24:17

On American empire and global military hegemony
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God." Matthew 5:9

"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." Matthew 5:5

"My Kingdom is not of this world..." John 18:35

"Woe to them that...depend upon horses and trust in chariots because they are many, and in horsemen because they are very strong, but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel, neither seek the LORD!" Isaiah 31:1

On the arrogance of American nationalism and "exceptionalism"
"My Kingdom is not of this world..." John 18:35

"No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money." Matthew 6:24

"Rich and poor have this in common: The LORD is the Maker of them all." Proverbs 22:2

"From heaven the LORD looks down and sees all mankind...he who forms the hearts of all,
who considers everything they do." Psalm 33:13-15

On the objectification of human beings as "collateral damage" in warfare
"So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them." Genesis 1:27

kilts, I don't have time to dig out my concordance and find scriptures to back all of this up but you have taken the teachings of Jesus and the Bible completely out of context. All the teachings about love your enemies and the beatitudes (blessed are the peacemakers) were meant to instruct us how to live our personal lives. They were not meant to be a guidebook on how to be good citizens or how a king should run a country. If Osama was my personal enemy, then you would be right. I should not celebrate his downfall but he is an enemy of Caesar (the US) and Jesus said "render unto Caesar" meaning be a good citizen. If we are called into military service, we are not supposed to turn the other cheek on the battlefield. And certain nations throughout history have been favored by God. The nation of Israel was God's chosen people. Other nations have been used by God to further his plan. God told Abraham I will bless the nations that bless you and curse them that curse you. God used the setting of the Roman Empire for the birth of Jesus because the stable government provided by the Romans made it possible to spread the gospel around the world. God has also used the US to bless all the nations of the earth like no other nation in history because the US has honored Israel in my opinion. Context is important when studying Scripture. Of course, God's kingdom is not of this world but you and me ain't God and Jesus said for us to be good citizens so YES I DO CHEER WHEN I HEAR THAT THE US KILLED OSAMA. I BELIEVE IT IS MY CHRISTIAN DUTY AS A GOOD CITIZEN TO DO SO!

[kiltsareitchy07]

I know about context and Scripture. What I posted was meant to make us think, to consider Christ in the midst of all of the chest-beating, self-congratulation, and nationalist pride. I wasn't trying to lay out a political platform, because that's up to every one of us and how we reconcile the commandment to love God and neighbor with 21st century life. But I'm curious about some of the points implicit in your reply. First, it's your Christian "duty" to cheer at the death of a sinner? What in Scripture leads you to believe that? Shouldn't the reaction to bin Laden's death be something like compassion, pity, and sadness? Second, should we divorce our private lives from our public ones? do Jesus' admonitions only apply in "personal" life but not in political or public life? Are the values of our faith only applicable at home, but not in public? If that's the case, then I guess conservative Christians should stop agitating to keep gay marriage and abortion illegal. Third, God has shown favor to Israel, but ascribing favored-nation-status to the US has no scriptural precedence whatsoever. Talk about taking Scriptural principles out of context. You believe that God has created America to bless the other nations of the world? That sounds to me like you are attributing Israel's purposes to the USA. And anyway, America's position as a superpower is as much a blessing as it is a curse, especially given the kinds of things we have done [quite unChristian things] to attain and keep that position. However you reconcile faith and politics is up to you, but whatever tack you take, I'd caution you to divorce American nationalism from your faith instead of divorcing faith from public or political life. Peace.

[alum82]

I know about context and Scripture. What I posted was meant to make us think, to consider Christ in the midst of all of the chest-beating, self-congratulation, and nationalist pride. I wasn't trying to lay out a political platform, because that's up to every one of us and how we reconcile the commandment to love God and neighbor with 21st century life. But I'm curious about some of the points implicit in your reply. First, it's your Christian "duty" to cheer at the death of a sinner? What in Scripture leads you to believe that? Shouldn't the reaction to bin Laden's death be something like compassion, pity, and sadness? Second, should we divorce our private lives from our public ones? do Jesus' admonitions only apply in "personal" life but not in political or public life? Are the values of our faith only applicable at home, but not in public? If that's the case, then I guess conservative Christians should stop agitating to keep gay marriage and abortion illegal. Third, God has shown favor to Israel, but ascribing favored-nation-status to the US has no scriptural precedence whatsoever. Talk about taking Scriptural principles out of context. You believe that God has created America to bless the other nations of the world? That sounds to me like you are attributing Israel's purposes to the USA. And anyway, America's position as a superpower is as much a blessing as it is a curse, especially given the kinds of things we have done [quite unChristian things] to attain and keep that position. However you reconcile faith and politics is up to you, but whatever tack you take, I'd caution you to divorce American nationalism from your faith instead of divorcing faith from public or political life. Peace.

Again, you are confusing how Jesus taught us to live our personal lives and what it means to be a good citizen. It is not our private lives v. our public lives. It is treating others as we would we would want to be treated in personal relationships. Being a good Christian also means developing our talents to their fullest and being the best we can be in our careers and as citizens. That might mean that I personally am sad for Osama and his family as a human being but I am cheering as a citizen that my country kicked its enemies' butt. It might mean that I personally would never encourage someone to eat too much fast food but, if I take a job in marketing at McDonald's, I do my best to sell as many hamburgers as possible. I know that is a tough thing for some Christians to understand because they can't see the forest for the trees when they study the Scriptures sometimes. Jesus was very clear. He taught in parables about how we should live our lives. Then, when the Pharisees tried to trick him into commenting on whether he was giving instructions for how governments should operate, he wisely said render unto Caesar. He was saying that governments are not people and cannot be "Christians". He did not come to tell kings and governments how they should run their countries. He acknowledged that some things were Caesar's and that we should render those things to Caesar. Jesus taught us to love others and treat others how we want to be treated. If that rule was applied to any government, it could not go to war, could not punish criminals, could not administer the death penalty. Jesus basically said that the principles he taught in parables applied to how we should live our personal lives but not how kings should run their countries. The genius in that is that if all of us lived our personal lives according to the teachings of Jesus, then very little government would be needed. That is why I believe America prospered for so long. So many of its people lived according to Christian principles. Alexis deTocqueville said in the early 1800s that "America is great because America is good. If America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." He was not a Christian I don't think but he nailed it. If the people of a nation live by godly principles, that nation will prosper but sin is a reproach to any people.

Your point about gay marriage again misses the point. Who should be able to marry is a political decision. Scripture is not meant to give guidance to kings and governments. I believe only an unrelated man and woman should be able to marry because that is the only relationship that deserves special legal protections and the reason it deserves those protections is because it is the only relationship that allows for two people to jointly raise and nurture their own biological offspring and I believe that, as such, it benefits society in many ways. None of the other proposed definitions of marriage offer the same benefit to society (two men, two women, polygamous relationships, incestuous relationships, etc.) I don't look for a Bible verse to tell me what my position should be on legal marriage. Hope this makes sense.

[alum82]

Again, think about this. Assume your country is at war with Russia. As a civilian, you meet a Russian on the street and he slaps you in the face and curses you because you are an American. I say you turn the other cheek offer to help him. But, if you are an American soldier and you encounter a Russian soldier on the battlefield, I say you blow him away before he has a chance to slap you in the face. It is your duty as a citizen and a soldier. That analogy might help you understand what it means to be a good Christian v. what it means to render unto Caesar.

[kiltsareitchy07]

Alum82, we are on completely different wavelengths. I think that you have reified American nationalism so much that your reading of the Biblical texts is tinged by the America-colored glasses you read them with. I think your nationalism, rather than the voice of Christ, is why you are able to read "render unto Caesar" and apply it to "blowing [your enemy] away before he has the chance to slap you in the face." Wasn't it Jesus who rebuked Peter from attacking the servant of the high priest? Also, your response still enshrines an inconsistency between personal and political life, and in a way that elevates the nation-state over Jesus' teachings. That scares me. You mention that this hypothetical Russian may not be your enemy walking down the sidewalk, and at that point it's OK to "turn the other cheek." But if the nation is at war, then turning the other cheek no longer applies? Then it becomes your Christian duty as a good citizen to "blow him away?" What if the war that "Caesar" propagates is unjust? Is it your Christian duty, an obligation, to "blow people away"? How does that bring salt and light to politics? How is that any different than the rest of the world? Where is the scriptural justification for applying Jesus' teachings only when they don't conflict with the goals of "Caesar?' Your extrapolation of all of this from "render unto Caesar" reads like a nationalist coopting of religion. The broadest and most fundamental points (i.e. your conflation of country with Christ) in your post reminds me a lot of Gottlieb Fichte's aggressive German/Lutheran nationalism, and to a lesser extent, Rousseau's discourse on religion that reifies and supports the state. This same nationalist "we are God's nation" attitude was the same principle from which Serbs and Croats massacred each other in 1941-45, and 1990-1996, and what the Serb military has done to Albanians in Kosovo. This idea is dangerous, so be careful how you use it.

And anyway, what is so "good" about America that it's a more appropriate candidate than anyone else for favored-nation-status from God? What specifically did Tocqueville mean when he said "good?" The context and nuance of words changes over time. Did he mean "good" politically? Morally? What? Furthermore, at the time Tocqueville, a non-Christian, called America "good," this country's constitution formally established and protected the dehumanization of chattel slavery and the idea that blacks were qualitatively inferior to whites. God made them both, but for legal purposes, blacks were to be considered 3/5 of a true person: a white male. Disgraceful. What's even more, starting in the early 1800s, Americans had been involved in expanding westward, killing native peoples and taking their land. This process would continue for the rest of the century. Why? The set of justifications for this practice would later be called "Manifest Destiny," that it was white Americans' divine birthright to dispossess Indians of their land through force and through breaking promises from sea to shining sea, because we were better than them. Just like God wanted. It's totally OK though, because Caesar decreed it. When the US cavalry rode down Indians at Wounded Knee and massacred women and children, the troopers were just doing their Christian duty as good citizens, because the whole love your neighbor thing doesn't apply in war and soldiers don't turn the other cheek. Surely Jesus didn't mean THIS when said "render unto Caesar."

What about lately? Our support and funding for Saddam Hussein in the 1980s? Our support of the Taliban in the 1990s to secure a draconian stability for the area surrounding oil and natural gas pipelines from Central Asia that ran through Afghanistan? Our funding of corrupt and murderous dictators like Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi in Iran? The bloody and awful Iraq War, which we launched without cause, and as the intelligence has shown, no WMDs? How are any of these things righteous? How do these things honor God and respect the dignity of his human creations? Just because God chose Israel to be a light to the world doesn't mean that he's chosen America to do the same. International power politics are rarely righteous, and although they may be strategically "necessary," they're certainly not Christ-like. Justifying American actions with some divine mandate and license to do whatever we want in the service of Caesar as long as we support Israel is nationalism and idolatry. The church's mission is supra-national, it transcends borders, languages, and political ideologies. History has shown that, whenever the Gospel and Christian truth is particularized, whenever the state and church get in bed together, the Church always ends up playing the whore. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be good citizens. What I am saying is that Christ's admonitions should always be considered and should be the standard to which all action and ideology is measured. Now, as much fun as this has been, I really don't have anything more to say. We approach the Scriptures from antipodal perspectives.

[alum82]

You are so entrenched in your anti-American theology that you resort to twisting the facts of every point I make to fit your world view. This scares me. You seem to be unable to understand the concept that a Christian can be a citizen and, as such, may have fiduciary duties to governments and to corporations and must honor those fiduciary responsibilities whether the actions of the government or the corporation are just or not the actions of the government or the corporation (a division of gov) are just or not. And I did not say that, if we are at war with another nation, it changes the way we treat civilians of the other nation. I said, if you were a soldier and you encounted another soldier on the battlefield, you can't just turn the other cheek -- DUHH -- whether you are a Christian or not. The rest of your first paragraph makes no sense and completely misunderstands my point. I am only saying Christians have to be good citizens, we have to serve in the military. We have to be real people, like everyone else. The difference is how we treat others in our personal relationships.

DeTocqueville meant good morally. He was referring to the way Americans treated others how they would want to be treated. Americans inherited slavery from European monarchs and, even though they had no idea how to assimilate slaves into their society, they began immediately attempting to make it happen as early as 1787 because they knew it was wrong. The legislation forbidding the importation of slaves that was proposed in 1787 was delayed by a treaty but was passed in 1807. Less than six decades later, European slavery was banned in North America. Southerners fought it because their economy depended on it and they thought their society would be thrown into a state of chaos if it ended (slaves outnumbered whites, I believe). They were wrong and most of them moved on and lived in racial harmony.

Americans have done more to help those in need around the world than any other people in history. They have made much better use of the land than the Indians before them and the Indians have benefitted. There is no way the world can afford to give up a land mass the size of America to allow a small number of people to hunt and fish. Give me a break.

You focus on the few "bad" things America has done and ignore the good which far outweighs the bad. You sound like the anti-American professors that teach at Harvard and Yale. Jesus did mean what he said about Caesar. He distanced himself from Caesar and acknowledged that governments must do certain things that we as Christians should never do in our private lives. Read the Old Testament and the history of the people of Israel. They fought wars in God's name. You confuse organized religion with the true Church. You have some real problems.