America. One nation, under God?

[Underseer]

Originally posted by joncnunn
The reason we've never had a state sponsered religion is because the founders had DIFFERENT favorate religiious denominations;

This is a fallacious argument. Anyone with even passing familiarity with religious folk knows that it is simply not in their nature to tolerate other religious views.

If, as you claim, all the founding fathers were the same kind of religious zealots that insisted on adding "one nation under God" in the 1950s, then whichever religion was the most populous would have dominated the others and made themselves the official religion in the aftermath of the revolution.

Furthermore, they would not have insisted on separation of church and state. Even if you accept the bad argument that religious believers would willingly accept other people practicing a different faith, they would not have insisted on keeping religion out of the government. Even in this modern and supposedly enlightened era most religious folk (regardless of which faith) are offended by the very idea of a government that is not controlled or at least guided by faith. Their faith. That sentiment is the same here, in India, the Middle East, etc., etc.

Like it or not, it was the presence and prominence of so many "heathen infidel unbelievers" that made this country the ultimate safe haven for religion. Otherwise, we would probably have a fundamentalist government, à la Iran, complete with public executions for feminine infidelity.

[Underseer]

Originally posted by sabrewolf


ok, but consider this:
- SETI project isn't really that important. search for extraterrestial life? i hope there is something like that, but until now: no sign of it (except some crop signs and crazy farmers)
- the internet was developed by the department of defence and was used a decade as ARPAnet. but the breakthrough (away from militaristic and academic use) came only, when the WWW got developed.... and that was at the CERN in geneva. however the basics of the internet (TCP/IP) was developed by an american. this wonder only counts half.
- the hoover dam is big and impressive, but nothing really special about it. it wasn't the first water powerstation, it wasn't the most powerful, it wasn't the most effective.
- manhattan project & apollo program: yes, both definetly american contributions.
- UN: allthough initiated by president wilson, it is an international accomplishment. it just needed the patronate of a powerful and influencial person.

Maybe I was wrong to bring up the wonders.

Sure, SETI isn't exactly a contribution. Heck, I consider it to be right up there with the Shirley McClane crowd (mood crystals, et. al.). But for whatever reason, the game designers presumed it important enough to include in the game. Probably because any civilization with resources to throw away on something so silly must have a lot of resources devoted to research. *shrug*

There's a reason the wonder is called the Internet and not the WWW. I'm not downplaying the significance or importance of the WWW and its impact on the world's population, mind you, but if I were to use the same logic I would claim that America "half invented" the computer, when correct attribution would go to the Germans and English. Without the Internet connecting so many universities and research facilities, the WWW would never have come into being. (Aside: if the wonder were the WWW instead of the Internet, its effects wouldn't be limited to one continent and it would influence more than just research.)

I didn't bring up Hoover Dam. That other guy did. I agree that it doesn't belong in a discussion about scientific wonders, no matter how big it was or wasn't.

Neither did I bring up the U.N. That's neither uniquely American, nor particularly scientific. We just happen to be the poor sorry saps that have to put up with huge waves of diplomats ignoring traffic laws.

We're all getting way off track from my original point though. Do you think America warrants being listed as a scientific civ based on contributions to applied science? Or are only contributions to theoretical science applicable. If that's the case, I may argue with a few civs currently listed as "scientific" in the game.

[Wycoff]

Commercial and Expansionist... McDonald's and Manifest Destiny...

[Stuie]

Commercial and Militaristic. We are the modern day Roman Empire, after all, so our traits should mirror theirs.

[joncnunn]

And some non-Religous people are intolerant of all relgiions.

Originally posted by Underseer

This is a fallacious argument. Anyone with even passing familiarity with religious folk knows that it is simply not in their nature to tolerate other religious views.

[sabrewolf]

yes, because atheism is also a kind of religion.
we "believe" there is no god.
and we can't prove there is no god, just as little as you can prove there is one.

but i think it's a fact that there are more tolerant and much fewer radical atheists than there are god-believers.

[sabrewolf]

stuie,

Commercial and Militaristic. We are the modern day Roman Empire, after all, so our traits should mirror theirs.

i agree with your choice of traits (commercial is imho absolutely indisputable), but i wound't call the US the roman empire of today.

rome was a great empire, one of the greatest in history and covered a big part of the known civilized world. imho only the chinese and the british empire can compete with rome.

the US is big, influential and powerful and the clear #1 in most aspects (good and bad) today. but it still is nothing compared to rome.

[Underseer]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
stuie,

the US is big, influential and powerful and the clear #1 in most aspects (good and bad) today. but it still is nothing compared to rome.

And we won't, either. Rome lasted 1000 years and I seriously doubt our time in the sun will last that long. In this modern age, everything changes faster (ironically, because of some of our own innovations), so even if we were as "great" as Rome, we wouldn't last as long, so history would see us as less.

Considering some of the things Rome did to conquered peoples, I'd just as soon not be as "great" as they were.

[Beren]

Well, if you compare original Roman politics with contemperary countries, the country that comes most close to it is USA.
(With all backing up by lobbies (Roman=patronus and clientela))
I agree that there are a lot of differences, but my point is: no country comes closer to it.
Oh and about the issue on topic: Commercial and Universal
On a thread about Romans I already gave them Military and Universal. Universal means you can easier integrate non-Americans to Americans (certainly true) and non-Americans are less likely to resist your rule (less true).

[sabrewolf]

hey, that's an interesting idea for a new trait!

quicker adaption and integration of foreigners.
you keep getting foreign citizens leaving their native towns and joining yours.
higher chance of flipping.
higher chance of successful propaganda.
less resistance during and after wars.

not bad

[Panag]

hi ,

indus and expa are great traits , but if the nuber of traits where to double the some some civs should get more then just two , in that case commercial should be added , ... maybe scientific also , .....

have a nice day

[Sava]

As much as I think the US government is infected with religion, I don't think its enough to justify America being a religious Civ. America has only been around a few hundred years. Who knows what an "American" will be in two hundred more years. For all we know, white people might not even be the majority. The history of America definitely justifies Expansionist and Industrious. A close third would be militaristic, then commercial. Religious would definitely be the least applicable trait for America.

[Generalissimo]

I think that industry is the most "American" trait around America had and still has a huge amount of resources and not like other countries (a.k.a Zaire and other African countries) America used and still using those resources.
Besides when looking at all the major wars that America was involved in. it’s the industry that won and not the boys from west point.
Crushing the south, unfreezing the WWI fronts, bombing the sh*t out of the axis.
Everything was achieved with the might of the American industry.

Commercial should be second. Obvious isn’t it

As far as militaristic in the beginning of the 20th century America was anything but a militaristic. The government zealously avoided war.
And as far as their militaristic foreign policy, what did you expect they do. They’re the only superpower around they can pretty much do what ever they like. And its their duty to make sure that their interests will come before others if they’re interests wont come before other nations they can forget about being a superpower.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Generalissimo
Commercial should be second. Obvious isn’t it

Industrial and Commercial? Give the US the same traits as the French? Sacrébleu!!

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

I would have to concur that America could easily be "militaristic and commercial"... our principles of government are, after all, taken almost directly from Rome.

Which is too bad, because "great" as Rome might have been, it's formative days were based on slaves, and the greater part of its history was not spent in "greatness"... it was spent rotting.

I'm not saying that this is not true of most other cultures that lasted a long time. I just feel that Rome is often credited with being the greatest civ of all time, when in fact, if you look at it, the duration of "empire," most of which was wretched and ineffective, was much longer than that of "republic".

The same could be true of this country (America). Too bad none of us can live 1,000 years to see what happens!