"We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation."
 

Well that's nice to know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIVd7YT0oWA

And said in Turkey no less.

Depends on what the definition of "We" is.

Regardless of your beliefs, I think we (USA) have always considered ourselves to be a Christian nation. For example - "In God We Trust"

But I guess I'm just one of those guys who clings to his guns and religion... :mad:

Since we're not.....
 

Since we're not a Christian Nation anymore I guess $50,000 for earthquake relief is plenty.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

...and the apotheosis of George Washington painted in the rotunda of the United States Capitol?

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/gw/gwmain.html

...just one example... :confused:

I just cant seem to wake up from this bizarre dream state I am stuck in.

I call them nightmares.

His own words are more disagreeable than the title of this thread suggests. He not only degrades Americans who worship Christ, he questions the commitment of Jews and Muslims to their beliefs as well.

The polling data suggest that the American people disagree with the president's assessment. <<LINK>>

His comments about a global society without cultural conflict certainly serves the interests of the Turkish government and many sectors of its population, at least in regards to the ongoing denial of the Armenian genocide. Let's see if the president lives up to the position he outlined when he was a candidate. I'm not holding my breath. <<LINK>>

I begin to wonder if study of dhimmitude is appropriate.

I also wonder what becomes of a nation as the cultural bonds between and among its people are diminished.

These bonds are foremost in my mind when I brood about this country's future.

IMHO, they remain strong. Are these sinews of American civilization durable enough to outlast an age of economic crisis, intense partisanship, a global war, and a president not yet ready for the demands of his job? I believe so but I do not know.

Cultural bonds within a nation appear to be robust. For example, my naive perceptions suggest Germany has had its problems, but the underlying culture seems intact. Perhaps there is less emphasis on martial elements.

But are we still a nation? Or are we, as suggested by some staffers in the previous administration, more of an empire? Once again, my perception is that empires have a relatively fragile culture, which tends to be imposed by the central government.

Much has changed in the last 50 or so years that I can remember. And the culture I see today is profoundly different than what I experienced back when. What effect such changes will have, I do not know.

Have there been historical examples of nations that endured deep and extensive cultural change? What happened to them?

"Naive" is a word that never comes to mind when I think of you and your posts, my friend.

Although the topic remains an issue of debate, I think that what happened in Germany was that the pressures of the interwar years atomized social and cultural bonds. The Nazis rose to power by providing a 'glue' to hold everything together.

They had enough variations of their noxious mix of cool aid so that one could pick and choose the appealing elements and conveniently ignore/deny/overlook/rationalize ones that might have caused discomfort. Hitler promised everything to everyone and mass communications were not sophisticated enough at that time for enough people to compare notes and realize that things didn't quite add up.

And if you didn't want the cool aid? A quick trip to the ally out back and so much for you. (Eventually, almost everyone was going to be dead anyway--the master race was meant to emerge from the cleansing fire of global war.)
My two cents are that we remain a nation. A nation divided, discontented, distressed, dismayed, and disheartened but not diasporic.

Dysfunctional? To paraphrase Tolstoy, every nation's culture is dysfunctional in its own way. (And if I could find my copy of Anna Karenina, I could do something about the insomnia.;))

("Empire" has such negative connotations in the historiography of American foreign relations that the word makes me bristle when I see it.:mad:)
To me, this point captures the essence of this moment in our history. Were we to list of all the cultural changes we've experienced and to rank those changes as 'good' or 'bad', how similar would our lists be? Would there be more pluses than minuses? Would more people think things have gotten better overall but for divergent reasons?

For me, the pluses both outnumber and outweigh the minuses. Even now.
I think America has survived several instances of profound cultural change that few other nations could have endured. I'm "all in" on our ability to do it again.:cool:

I agree with Sigaba on this topic. I admit, however, that I am an eternal optimist. But having lived throughout the world for many years and then spending over a decade in the oft frustrating but ultimately rewarding sub-world of educating our teenagers, I remain optimistic and - in agreement with the likes of those such as Victor Hanson - think that, perhaps, a better way to assess America's chances at maintaining our preeminence (and not 'empire,' as some are quick to suggest; I do not think of America as an empire in the more classical sense for many reasons which would be another topic of discussion) is simply to ask the same questions that are the historical barometers of our nation's success or failure:

• Does any nation have a constitution comparable to ours?
• Does merit - or religion, tribe or class - mostly gauge success or failure in America?
• What nation is as free, stable and transparent as the U.S.?

Try becoming a fully accepted citizen of China or Japan or Germany if you were not born Chinese or Japanese or German. Try running for national office in India from the lower caste. Try writing a critical op-ed in Russia or hiring a brilliant female to run a mosque, university or hospital in most of the Middle East. Ask where MRI scans, Wal-Mart, iPods, the Internet, F-22s, or any of a myriad number of inventions came from. How many nations have ever placed a human on another world or have shown the ability to rather routinely launch and recover a space shuttle. Several have tried (the ESA, Russia, Japan), but only America has succeeded - and it is now considered by us to be an antiquated program soon to be replaced with the newer generation of hyperspeed, space-skipping craft.

In the last 60 years, we have been warned in succession that the societies of racially pure Germany, the Soviet workers' paradise, Japan Inc. and now 24/7 China all were about to displace the United States. None have. All have had relative moments of amazing success - but in the end, none proved as resilient, flexible and adaptable as America's Gunny Highway "improvise - adapt - overcome" approach to life in this world.

And then there is our military. Many make the superficially false comparisons of how the American military - much as the Romans - must adhere to empire-like acceptance or foreigners and contract workers to fill its ranks, yet all large militaries contract out services. The Ottoman fleet was run by renegade Italian admirals. The British 19th-century military ruled the world with a tiny force supplemented by indigenous hires. The French Foreign Legion is not so tres French. In fact, purely mass conscription civic militaries - such as ours that defeated Hitler and Tojo - are rare in civilized history. More importantly, the current education level of the U.S. military now exceeds that of the general population. Its private contractors are subject to a level of official and media scrutiny unknown in any other courts, and the Pentagon is subject to a degree of oversight unimaginable among any of the world's hegemonies - empirical or not.

And that brings us to what many consider to be the United States' greatest strength: radical self-critique. Read the threads of this forum. We Americans are worriers, always believing we're on the verge of extinction. And so, to "renew," "reinvent" or "save" America, we whip ourselves into a frenzy of self-preserving action to fight angst generated "wars" on poverty, drugs and cancer; space "races" and missile "gaps;" literacy "crusades;" and "campaigns" against litter, waste, smoking, and now - the unknown effects of global climate change.

In other words, we anxious Americans have always been paranoid about the idea that we must change and improve in order to survive. And so we usually do - and manage to do so just in time.

I used to have a yellow, triangular sign on the wall just outside my classroom door which said - "Warning: America taught here." I still believe in the merit of that idea today. :lifter

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Richard,

Excellent post! This is so very well-said that it should be an "op-ed" piece in every newspaper - especially your "Pravda on the Hudson"! I agree with you completely. Perhaps it is working with young people that fills us with optimism, but I refuse to believe that this period is the "end" of America as we know it.

I always dig through that pile of manure, looking for the pony that must be there.:)

As the discussion here and elsewhere goes on, I become more and more amazed at the form of government that our founders put together.

I think in many cases our continued ability to shake off what appears to be a cataclysmic social change is the amazing flexibility and applicability of our founding documents. Regardless of how far to the left or right we swing they are applicable.

As to the denial of the U.S. being a Christian nation I believe that to be more of an effect of the MSM Kool-aide that is distributed.

How do you determine the definition of what makes a Christian nation. Is it NOT being muslim? Or is it a morality and rule of law that is based upon the teachings of Christianity?

Being an optimist does not mean you are not prepared...:cool: