Why I Am A Liberal

[Avatar4321]

Yeah. Nothing at all of substance. Well said.

I'll await your brilliance. When does it start?

Would you recognize brilliance if you saw it? Im not so sure. But you could surprise me.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yeah. This should be in the flame zone. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

This very simple ( described as such in the OP ) thread has, very simply, shone a light on some very simple differences between liberals and nutters. Simple.............true..................thus flame-worthy.

Except of course, as I've already explained, you're completely wrong. Oddly enough you completely ignored that post.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yeah.......I know. I'm a simpleton who just happens to have found a very simple way to demonstrate what a nasty, intolerant, bigoted, afraid and greedy asshole you are. Sue me.

Right. Because you got four of your five statements you seem to think are about me wrong.

Good job, idiot.

Getting four out of five wrong is simple and that perfectly suits LonelyLaughable.

Getting one out of five right might be a new record for him. I don't know. I dont pay enough attention to his posts.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

There has been quite a bit of discussion here lately about what defines a liberal. I thought I'd use recent events to construct a SIMPLE chart that illustrates the differences between liberals and nutters. Forgive me if this chart has formatting issues. I'm not sure how it will display. There are many more............here are just a few.


Liberal / Nutter

Knee-jerk response is to defend: Martin / Zimmerman

Feels sorry for: Fluke / Limbaugh

Thinks medical care is: A right / A privilege

Thinks 2 people who love each other need: Just love / Only 1 penis.

It would be great if the world had: Religious freedom / One religion

You answered your question quite sufficiently.

You are a liberal because you are an idiot, a hypocrite, a liar, and an ignoramus.

 

[Avatar4321]

No.....it stands. It was simple. But it has yet to be challenged.

You are a fun guy. And smart too. I can't wait to have lots of long talks with you. I'm sure I'll learn a whole bunch of neat stuff!

Funny, because I challenged it with a very indepth post. That you've still ignored.

 

[Avatar4321]

BTW isnt it interesting that he's a liberal because of what conservatives believe and not because of what liberals believe? Personally, I make choices in what I believe because they make sense and can be supported by facts and observation. I don't make choices about what I believe based on what others believe or dont believe.

Just an observation.

 

[BluePhantom]

I get what i deserve? And what is that? Are you going to say mean things about me? Heaven forbid!

How's about telling me how you personally feel about the five simple examples that I listed from current news items? Have I unfairly attributed one or more of the "nutter" column to you?

Actually none of them apply to me, at least not in the way you think it does. But if you insist sure:

Martin / Zimmerman: I defend neither as I try to avoid engaging in knee jerk reactions in the first place. Hard concept for you I imagine.

Fluke / Limbaugh: I feel sorry for neither of them. They're both dip shits.

Medical care is: A service that you purchase when needed just like any other service. It's neither a right or a privilege.

Thinks 2 people who love each other need: Just love....sorry I support gay rights but nice try

It would be great if the world had: Religious freedom / One religion - People shouldn't be enchained to any religion at all. They should develop a system of faith based upon a personal relationship with God and open communication with Him/Her.


There ya go...and yes I am a Republican.

As far as anything else...provide a decent argument or point and you will receive one. Thus far all I see are three pages of you getting torn apart and humiliated by multiple people and you doing a real shitty job avoiding the appearance of ignorance. I mean...even the liberals are telling you to piss off. Christ Almighty.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The first thing you should consider is that I did not direct my original comments at anyone in particular. I simply made a few observations.

Whether or not YOU took a position on Martin/Zimmerman this week, many, many people did. And of those people, the ones who landed on martin's side......the dead kid's side.....are very likely liberals. The ones who determined that the shooter.......the stalking shooter.....deserves compassion.......just happen to be, overwhelmingly, nutters.

Whether or not YOU took pity on Fluke or Rush......it is clear that liberals, in general, find that Rush was out of line, dishonest and took advantage of this young woman. Nutters, on the other hand, consumed themselves with whining about how Rush was being treated unfairly by the media.

Regardless of how YOU feel about medical care as stated, liberals think everyone deserves it while nutters think some do, while some, don't. Liberals are not OK with the fact that American working people go bankrupt due to medical bills. Nutters seem to be fine with that.

Again....while YOU may be in favor of gay rights..........you cannot argue that if the country were run by liberals, gay marriage would be legal everywhere. And if run by nutters, it would be legal nowhere.

Finally, while YOU may be open minded regarding religious freedom, nutters have been claiming that this is a 'christian nation' for as long as I have been alive. It isn't.....and, in general, liberals would welcome the day that religion is stricken from the world of politics and rendered a purely personal matter.

Now.....I realize that some of the people who have been "tearing me apart" are, in fact, nutters. If they were honest.......a trait not found in most nutters.......they would own it instead of whining like little bitches. The simple list that I have presented remains valid.

 

[Harry Dresden]

The first thing you should consider is that I did not direct my original comments at anyone in particular. I simply made a few observations.

Whether or not YOU took a position on Martin/Zimmerman this week, many, many people did. And of those people, the ones who landed on martin's side......the dead kid's side.....are very likely liberals. The ones who determined that the shooter.......the stalking shooter.....deserves compassion.......just happen to be, overwhelmingly, nutters.

Whether or not YOU took pity on Fluke or Rush......it is clear that liberals, in general, find that Rush was out of line, dishonest and took advantage of this young woman. Nutters, on the other hand, consumed themselves with whining about how Rush was being treated unfairly by the media.

Regardless of how YOU feel about medical care as stated, liberals think everyone deserves it while nutters think some do, while some, don't. Liberals are not OK with the fact that American working people go bankrupt due to medical bills. Nutters seem to be fine with that.

Again....while YOU may be in favor of gay rights..........you cannot argue that if the country were run by liberals, gay marriage would be legal everywhere. And if run by nutters, it would be legal nowhere.

Finally, while YOU may be open minded regarding religious freedom, nutters have been claiming that this is a 'christian nation' for as long as I have been alive. It isn't.....and, in general, liberals would welcome the day that religion is stricken from the world of politics and rendered a purely personal matter.

Now.....I realize that some of the people who have been "tearing me apart" are, in fact, nutters. If they were honest.......a trait not found in most nutters.......they would own it instead of whining like little bitches. The simple list that I have presented remains valid.

what also remains valid is that your a chromosome away from being like Chris....lighten up Gomer.....

 

[kwc57]

You people sure are impressed by Dean and Chris ( who's Chris? ). They are on your minds all the time, it seems.

They're other nutters like you that post here. You should get to know them and join their circle jerk.

 

[BluePhantom]

The first thing you should consider is that I did not direct my original comments at anyone in particular. I simply made a few observations.

No what you did is you characterized an entire group of people based on the attitudes of a very few. Furthermore, when you attempt to deflect on the basis that you were not calling me out personally, I beg to differ.

How's about telling me how you personally feel about the five simple examples that I listed from current news items? Have I unfairly attributed one or more of the "nutter" column to you?

Well that sure sounds to me like you are directing it toward me personally, so your following points about "well you might not feel that way but everyone else does" are irrelevant to the point you challenged me with. Notwithstanding, I will be delighted to educate you on each of the points and what the general opinions really are as opposed to what your biased mind thinks they are.

First, in regards to all the points you make I would like to see you back up your claims with documentation. Give me links to reliable sources of information that support your arguments. Without it, you are just blathering your useless opinion.

Whether or not YOU took a position on Martin/Zimmerman this week, many, many people did. And of those people, the ones who landed on martin's side......the dead kid's side.....are very likely liberals. The ones who determined that the shooter.......the stalking shooter.....deserves compassion.......just happen to be, overwhelmingly, nutters.

Ok as I said provide evidence to support your claim. Give me a link that shows that Republicans do not support Martin, but instead support Zimmerman. I know of no polls on the topic but I would be willing to bet that most Republicans believe that the "stand your ground law" does not apply if, as it appears, Zimmerman initiated hostilities. In fact, I believe the law is written in that way. I would also bet that a large majority support the "stand your ground" law to some degree although they probably feel that this is a poor example of the intent of the law in actual practice. I would also guess that most whites (Republican or Democrat) were particularly annoyed that the press turned it into a racial issue of black vs. white when it was actually black vs. Hispanic.

Whether or not YOU took pity on Fluke or Rush......it is clear that liberals, in general, find that Rush was out of line, dishonest and took advantage of this young woman. Nutters, on the other hand, consumed themselves with whining about how Rush was being treated unfairly by the media.

I heard very few Republicans (except "dittoheads" of course) defend Rush's comments. Now I did hear them bitch a lot about liberal hypocrisy; that when a liberal says similar or worse stuff it's completely ignored. But simply because a Republican points out the double standards of liberals, it doesn't mean they necessarily endorse Rush's position. Why must it always be so black and white with people like you? Ahhh....see the above point I suppose.

Regardless of how YOU feel about medical care as stated, liberals think everyone deserves it while nutters think some do, while some, don't. Liberals are not OK with the fact that American working people go bankrupt due to medical bills. Nutters seem to be fine with that.

And you would be wrong again. The overwhelming majority of Republicans feel that the health care system in the United States requires reform...they are just opposed to the methodology used in Obamacare. We believe there's a way to go about it that will a) actually work, b) avoid screwing everyone in an attempt to save them, c) preserves personal freedom, and d) will pass constitutional muster. None of the above apply to Obamacare. Republicans endorse the goal...it's the method we oppose.

Again....while YOU may be in favor of gay rights..........you cannot argue that if the country were run by liberals, gay marriage would be legal everywhere. And if run by nutters, it would be legal nowhere.

Oh I highly doubt that. Proposition 8 and Proposition 22 which banned the right of homosexuals to marry sure passed with flying colors in the California elections now didn't it? Surely you are not going to argue that the Republicans were the ones solely responsible for voting to eliminate gay marriage in ultra-liberal California where Republicans are ridiculously outnumbered. Ballot Measure 36 passed in Oregon banning gay marriage with 57% of the vote. I live in Oregon. I can guarantee you that Oregon is about the most liberal state you could ever find and yet even ultra-liberal Oregon banned gay marriage. For two years the liberals had the White House and super-majorities in both houses of Congress. I didn't see any gay rights legislation during that time. I didn't see liberals do a fucking thing in regards to gay rights.

Finally, while YOU may be open minded regarding religious freedom, nutters have been claiming that this is a 'christian nation' for as long as I have been alive. It isn't.....and, in general, liberals would welcome the day that religion is stricken from the world of politics and rendered a purely personal matter.

The United States isn't a Christian nation? Really? Well Gallup disagrees with you:

"78% of Americans identify with some form of Christian religion, a proportion that has been declining in recent decades."​

This Christmas, 78% of Americans Identify as Christian

ABC News seems to disagree with you too:

"Eighty-three percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Most of the rest, 13 percent, have no religion. That leaves just 4 percent as adherents of all non-Christian religions combined — Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and a smattering of individual mentions."​

Poll: Most Americans Say They're Christian - ABC News

Maybe Pew will be on your side:

"Major Religious Traditions in the U.S. Among all adults...

Christian 78.4%"​

Well......I guess not

http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf


Now as far as Republicans wanting religion in politics...only the most extreme evangelical christian or religious activist is going to endorse that kind of bullshit and of course there are plenty of people who identify as both liberal and ultra-religious. Jimmy Carter immediately pops to mind. Additionally, only a small portion of the Republican party are religious extremists. They are simply the ones who make all the noise and get all the press. That makes it easy for the media to paint the entire party as a bunch of nuts in order to influence people who lack the ability to think for themselves (you would be a great example of that demographic).

Now.....I realize that some of the people who have been "tearing me apart" are, in fact, nutters. If they were honest.......a trait not found in most nutters.......they would own it instead of whining like little bitches. The simple list that I have presented remains valid.

I think what's been effectively demonstrated LL is the only suggestion made on this thread that is valid is the one about you being completely ignorant. Certainly, your arguments above don't hold a great deal of merit.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Liberals just care soooooooo much more about the "people"..............lol

 

[Claudette]

WOW. I have quite a few liberal friends.

Funny, none of them are arrogant assholes like LL.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The first thing you should consider is that I did not direct my original comments at anyone in particular. I simply made a few observations.

No what you did is you characterized an entire group of people based on the attitudes of a very few. Furthermore, when you attempt to deflect on the basis that you were not calling me out personally, I beg to differ.

How's about telling me how you personally feel about the five simple examples that I listed from current news items? Have I unfairly attributed one or more of the "nutter" column to you?

Well that sure sounds to me like you are directing it toward me personally, so your following points about "well you might not feel that way but everyone else does" are irrelevant to the point you challenged me with. Notwithstanding, I will be delighted to educate you on each of the points and what the general opinions really are as opposed to what your biased mind thinks they are.

First, in regards to all the points you make I would like to see you back up your claims with documentation. Give me links to reliable sources of information that support your arguments. Without it, you are just blathering your useless opinion.



Ok as I said provide evidence to support your claim. Give me a link that shows that Republicans do not support Martin, but instead support Zimmerman. I know of no polls on the topic but I would be willing to bet that most Republicans believe that the "stand your ground law" does not apply if, as it appears, Zimmerman initiated hostilities. In fact, I believe the law is written in that way. I would also bet that a large majority support the "stand your ground" law to some degree although they probably feel that this is a poor example of the intent of the law in actual practice. I would also guess that most whites (Republican or Democrat) were particularly annoyed that the press turned it into a racial issue of black vs. white when it was actually black vs. Hispanic.

My ass. Look at the threads here. That is what my comments were based on and the evidence is clear.



I heard very few Republicans (except "dittoheads" of course) defend Rush's comments. Now I did hear them bitch a lot about liberal hypocrisy; that when a liberal says similar or worse stuff it's completely ignored. But simply because a Republican points out the double standards of liberals, it doesn't mean they necessarily endorse Rush's position. Why must it always be so black and white with people like you? Ahhh....see the above point I suppose.

The dittoheads are who I am talking about. Nutters. Dittoheads. Now you are getting the point.


And you would be wrong again. The overwhelming majority of Republicans feel that the health care system in the United States requires reform...they are just opposed to the methodology used in Obamacare.

Really? Where did the seed that became Obamacare first get planted?


We believe there's a way to go about it that will a) actually work, b) avoid screwing everyone in an attempt to save them, c) preserves personal freedom, and d) will pass constitutional muster. None of the above apply to Obamacare. Republicans endorse the goal...it's the method we oppose.

Bull. Obamacare is Republican plan. You have been duped.



Oh I highly doubt that. Proposition 8 and Proposition 22 which banned the right of homosexuals to marry sure passed with flying colors in the California elections now didn't it? Surely you are not going to argue that the Republicans were the ones solely responsible for voting to eliminate gay marriage in ultra-liberal California where Republicans are ridiculously outnumbered. Ballot Measure 36 passed in Oregon banning gay marriage with 57% of the vote. I live in Oregon. I can guarantee you that Oregon is about the most liberal state you could ever find and yet even ultra-liberal Oregon banned gay marriage. For two years the liberals had the White House and super-majorities in both houses of Congress. I didn't see any gay rights legislation during that time. I didn't see liberals do a fucking thing in regards to gay rights.

You think democrats in congress are liberals? Funny guy.

Finally, while YOU may be open minded regarding religious freedom, nutters have been claiming that this is a 'christian nation' for as long as I have been alive. It isn't.....and, in general, liberals would welcome the day that religion is stricken from the world of politics and rendered a purely personal matter.

The United States isn't a Christian nation? Really? Well Gallup disagrees with you:

"78% of Americans identify with some form of Christian religion, a proportion that has been declining in recent decades."​

This Christmas, 78% of Americans Identify as Christian

ABC News seems to disagree with you too:

"Eighty-three percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Most of the rest, 13 percent, have no religion. That leaves just 4 percent as adherents of all non-Christian religions combined — Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and a smattering of individual mentions."​

Poll: Most Americans Say They're Christian - ABC News

Maybe Pew will be on your side:

"Major Religious Traditions in the U.S. Among all adults...

Christian 78.4%"​

Well......I guess not

http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf


Now as far as Republicans wanting religion in politics...only the most extreme evangelical christian or religious activist is going to endorse that kind of bullshit and of course there are plenty of people who identify as both liberal and ultra-religious. Jimmy Carter immediately pops to mind. Additionally, only a small portion of the Republican party are religious extremists. They are simply the ones who make all the noise and get all the press. That makes it easy for the media to paint the entire party as a bunch of nuts in order to influence people who lack the ability to think for themselves (you would be a great example of that demographic).



Being a country where a majority of people are christian does not make the country christian. This nation is secular. The laws that govern it pay no heed to any religion.

And the extremists are the nutters. Have you figured that out yet?

Now.....I realize that some of the people who have been "tearing me apart" are, in fact, nutters. If they were honest.......a trait not found in most nutters.......they would own it instead of whining like little bitches. The simple list that I have presented remains valid.

I think what's been effectively demonstrated LL is the only suggestion made on this thread that is valid is the one about you being completely ignorant. Certainly, your arguments above don't hold a great deal of merit.

This could never end.

I never used the term "Republican" in the OP. You have done a great job of reciting their talking points...and it is clear that you have no other basis for your comments. Why not just refer me to the GOP website?

 

[Vidi]

Allow me to direct everyone to Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli which ended the First Barbary war.

It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797


It reads:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.


Treaty of Tripoli

There is black and white is the decision of our Founding Fathers. While the majority of the country, myself incoude, may identify themselves as Christians, the Government is NOT.

We are therefore NOT a Christian nation.

 

[bayoubridge]

Liberalism is a stepping stone for Elitism. Not a good thing.
Why be liberal if you don't have to be? It makes no sense to me at all. I say this with Sincerity, not animosity.
I'm not talking social issues. I have no problem with folks just being who they are.

LOL, during the 80,s and 90's, republican ideologs (extremist) were known as and called, elitist. In the 2000's, republicans decided that their new strategy would be to become projectionist. Call anyone in opposition exactly what they themselves are knowing their reactionary base would suck it up.

 

[bayoubridge]

Liberalism is a stepping stone for Elitism. Not a good thing.
Why be liberal if you don't have to be? It makes no sense to me at all. I say this with Sincerity, not animosity.
I'm not talking social issues. I have no problem with folks just being who they are.

LOL, during the 80,s and 90's, republican ideologs (extremist) were known as and called, elitist. In the 2000's, republicans decided that their new strategy would be to become projectionist. Call anyone in opposition exactly what they themselves are knowing their reactionary base would suck it up.

Honestly, your last statement is awesome. Wish more people had no problem with people being who they are. As long as you are not harmed in any way, live and let live. Life is so much more rewarding with that attitude.

 

[copsnrobbers]

Liberalism is a stepping stone for Elitism. Not a good thing.
Why be liberal if you don't have to be? It makes no sense to me at all. I say this with Sincerity, not animosity.
I'm not talking social issues. I have no problem with folks just being who they are.

LOL, during the 80,s and 90's, republican ideologs (extremist) were known as and called, elitist. In the 2000's, republicans decided that their new strategy would be to become projectionist. Call anyone in opposition exactly what they themselves are knowing their reactionary base would suck it up.

Honestly, your last statement is awesome. Wish more people had no problem with people being who they are. As long as you are not harmed in any way, live and let live. Life is so much more rewarding with that attitude.

And to think, Vidi negged me for it?

 

[BluePhantom]

First, in regards to all the points you make I would like to see you back up your claims with documentation. Give me links to reliable sources of information that support your arguments. Without it, you are just blathering your useless opinion.

Still waiting for those links

My ass. Look at the threads here. That is what my comments were based on and the evidence is clear.

The threads on USMB do not always give an accurate reflection of partisan thought. Posters on USMB tend to be far more politically active than the average Joe on the street, usually more knowledgeable about current events and their effects on society, etc. As such their opinions are generally far more entrenched than the average American. Additionally, what you frequently get on threads is one to four people making a lot of ruckus and everyone else tossing in a comment here and there in support or opposition. It's not a very accurate way to measure public opinion or overall partisan opinion.

Regardless, I am not going to wade through the thousands of pages of posts on the topic and count up the score. From the posts I have seen it's generally partisan stereotyping and I have seen a lot more Republicans defending Martin situationally than Zimmerman at all. On top of which I am not terribly interested in the topic as it's a pretty simple case where someone got killed and the law will take care of it. If they don't to the satisfaction of the people the laws will be changed or clarified.

It's not a black/white/Hispanic issue. It's a legal issue that should be decided on the merits of the case in regard to the law and race has zippo to do with it. However, people (mostly liberals) are making it into a race issue for political purposes. If they squawked just as loud when the victim was white I might be more sympathetic to their argument.

Finally on that point, in your title and OP you define yourself as a liberal and a liberal as one who makes knee jerk reactions to defend Martin. I generally feel that knee jerk reactions are a dangerous thing that implies an extremist mentality. Take that how you wish. It shouldn't be too hard to figure out how it was intended.

The dittoheads are who I am talking about. Nutters. Dittoheads. Now you are getting the point.

I got your point in the first place. I am just not sure you have established a lot of high ground from which to hammer an opposing extremist point of view.

Really? Where did the seed that became Obamacare first get planted?

Depends on what you are talking about. If you are referring to the individual mandate, yes that was initially something that some Republicans supported. However, they largely abandoned that strategy prior to Obamacare as they felt it would not accomplish the four goals I mentioned below and developed better ideas. If you are referring to Romneycare, you forget that the law is so named because Romney was the governor of Massachusetts at the time. You overlook that he had a state legislature that was 80% liberal. If he did not take action on it another strategy that would have been far more liberal surely would have been done and it's not like Romney drafted the law all by himself. In reality what Romney did was to take what the liberals were about to do and negotiated it into a model that was more acceptable to Republican ideals.

Bull. Obamacare is Republican plan. You have been duped.

Now THAT'S some classic spin. Want to know how many Republicans voted for Obamacare? Zero. Want to know how many Republicans had a role in drafting Obamacare? Zero. But it's a Republican plan that Pelosi, Reid, and the other liberals jammed down our throat over Republican opposition, huh?

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll165.xml

You think democrats in congress are liberals? Funny guy.

Some are more extreme than others to be sure but yeah they are mostly liberals. And I notice you ignored completely the fact that even liberal voter in Oregon and California, just to name a couple, opposed gay marriage. Your own fucking party voted it down. I suppose you could say "if the United States was run and populated by liberal extremists then gay marriage would be legal everywhere" and to that I would not argue. But then again that wouldn't be the USA now would it? Sounds a lot more like a socialist nation or a dictatorship to me.

Being a country where a majority of people are christian does not make the country christian. This nation is secular. The laws that govern it pay no heed to any religion.

Hold on...let me run that through my mind again....."being a country where a majority of people are christian does not make the country christian"........HUH?!?!?!?!? You have some very interesting ways to define a society. The government in Iraq under Hussein was largely a secular government. Are you suggesting that Iraq was not an Islamic nation? Of course we are a Christian nation. Now do we have a Christian government? No. But that's not what you argued. Had you argued "we do not have a Christian government" I would have agreed with you and pointed out in my response that the vast majority of Republicans...even the Christian ones...don't want a religious government.

This could never end.

The ferocity with which you display your ignorance seems to indeed indicate that there is no end to it. At least we agree on something.

I never used the term "Republican" in the OP. You have done a great job of reciting their talking points...and it is clear that you have no other basis for your comments. Why not just refer me to the GOP website?

I have no basis for my comments? You are the one who asked for my personal opinion pal. I am the one who has provided links and documentation to support my arguments. You are the one who continues to blather without such supporting evidence.

 

[Liability]

Allow me to direct everyone to Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli which ended the First Barbary war.

It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797


It reads:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.


Treaty of Tripoli

There is black and white is the decision of our Founding Fathers. While the majority of the country, myself incoude, may identify themselves as Christians, the Government is NOT.

We are therefore NOT a Christian nation.

We were clearly founded on Shintoism.

A brief historical recap:

The evil Europeans escaped even more despotic evil over there in Europe to come here. One thing led to another and eventually it was all the rage to imagine a nation where people were free to practice Shintoism. This led, inexorably, to the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution itself, the ratification of the Constitution and the eventual ratification of the Bill of Rights.

Look it up.

We are clearly -- beyond doubt -- a nation with Shintoism roots.