• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

America's greatest sin [W:264]

What is America's greatest sin?

  • The war for independence

    Votes: 1 1.2%
  • Slavery

    Votes: 27 31.4%
  • Indians / native Americans

    Votes: 31 36.0%
  • Hiroshima, Nagasaki bombing

    Votes: 3 3.5%
  • The war in Vietnam

    Votes: 1 1.2%
  • The FED

    Votes: 6 7.0%
  • The Cold war

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The Civil war

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 14 16.3%
  • I can't tell

    Votes: 3 3.5%

  • Total voters
    86
Pro-Feudalism more than monarchy. I have no issue with slavery in general, just slavery based on race alone. I am a much larger believer in PRIVILEGES than Rights which are dependent both on your place in society and your thoughts, words, and deeds. No race is any more or less than any other. It's individuals who are better or worse depending on who they are.

Feudalism and monarchy are intertwined .... Why is slavery based on race any worse+???

Also who grants the privileges and what gives them the right?

Also who decides what is the measure of what is better or worse and why?

Personally, I think the ideal society would be loosely based on the Norman kingdoms of the 12th and 13th centuries.

The Middle ages, .... Well there is a reason that time period sucked, had no progress, people died young, and there was no real freedom at all, and you had tons and tons of incompitent leaders.

"Cannons are the Ultimate Arguement of Kings" - Napoleon. Might makes right. Always has and always will, RGacky.

Then Stop bitching about "values."

I have plenty of values. They're just not the ones that most people embrace these days.

You don't based on your theory that might makes right ...

WHich basically means that anything the US does is right, since they hvae the might ...

Clearly logic and reason is not one of your values.
 
What are you talking about ???? Religion devalued private property .... from the begining .... Secular Humanism is not at all the national religion, there IS NONE; nor does it have anything to do with private property or the deficit ...

The idea of progressive taxation in order to fund federally administered social programs is based on secular humanism. It should be unconstitutional. And it has everything to do with private property. How can one be secure in his person and possessions if the government takes on greater and greater financial burdens that it can't afford? The entire thing is an illusion.
 
Feudalism and monarchy are intertwined .... Why is slavery based on race any worse+???

Feudalism can exist without Monarchy. What Feudalism requires is a strong ruling caste. That caste does not need to be based on familial succession; though it does need to be a heirarcy. Personally, I'm in favor of a system where that upper echelon is actually a panel of Elders who have proven themselves Morally Enlightened.

Slavery based on race leaves no room for the individual to prove their worthiness or worthlessness before the sentence is handed down.

Also who grants the privileges and what gives them the right?

That top rung of the Feudal Order grants the privileges. They have that right by the fact that they have proven themselves to be Morally Enlightened. In other words, to decide what is Right, you have to prove that you know what's Right. By this means there is no opportunity for a change in the value structure over time.

Also who decides what is the measure of what is better or worse and why?

Does it follow the Moral Path. It's not terribly difficult.

The Middle ages, .... Well there is a reason that time period sucked, had no progress, people died young, and there was no real freedom at all, and you had tons and tons of incompitent leaders.

Those are the same reasons why I'd go back there in a second, given the option. The incompetent leaders I could do without, but that's why I'm not a fan of familial monarchy. It is better to live properly for two minutes than to live improperly for a hundred years.

Then Stop bitching about "values."

The Rules of War and the Rules of Peace are not the same; and I'm pretty sure you understand that. Also, the rules of dealing with those who are not like yourself are different than the rules for dealing with those who are. I'm sure you understand that as well.
 
What Feudalism requires is a strong ruling caste.

Feudalism is an economic system ...

Personally, I'm in favor of a system where that upper echelon is actually a panel of Elders who have proven themselves Morally Enlightened.

Proven themself to whome????

Slavery based on race leaves no room for the individual to prove their worthiness or worthlessness before the sentence is handed down.

So what???? Slavery in itself leaves no room for that ...

That top rung of the Feudal Order grants the privileges. They have that right by the fact that they have proven themselves to be Morally Enlightened. In other words, to decide what is Right, you have to prove that you know what's Right. By this means there is no opportunity for a change in the value structure over time.

Proven to whome ... and so they only decide waht is right ... because they already know waht is right????

Does it follow the Moral Path. It's not terribly difficult.

Slavery is not moral, neither is spousal abuse, neither is hiearchy ... neither is unaccountable or unjustified authorty ... SO yeah ... it is terribly difficult, because your just making up what is moral.

Those are the same reasons why I'd go back there in a second, given the option. The incompetent leaders I could do without, but that's why I'm not a fan of familial monarchy. It is better to live properly for two minutes than to live improperly for a hundred years.

And why would'nt the ruling caste just pass it down to their children??? Who's gonna stop them???

So you basically hate humankind and would prefer a system where most people suffer???

The Rules of War and the Rules of Peace are not the same; and I'm pretty sure you understand that. Also, the rules of dealing with those who are not like yourself are different than the rules for dealing with those who are. I'm sure you understand that as well.

Except the principles of going to war are the same .... you didn't qualify might makes right ... moral philosophy is moral philosophy, if genocide is wrong then its ALWAYS wrong.
 
So you basically hate humankind and would prefer a system where most people suffer???

I really see no value in the human race at this point. I believe that we are all here for a single purpose.... as a test of our Soul; to see if it's ready to move on to a Higher Plane of existance. If not, then the Soul is forced to endure Punishment and Re-Education before being allowed to take the test again, until it is no longer deemed worthy of additional chances, and cast into the Lower Planes for eternity.

I would suggest that part of the reason for the decay of our society is because many of the decent Souls have already moved on, and we're left with an ever increasing percentage of the population as Souls that will likely never reach that Higher Plane.
 
So you think American Muslims are treated the same as American Christians?

By the law absolutely. But I can see the argument that they are sometimes treated differently within civil society.

What I don't see is how anyone with the mental acuity to form coherent sentences can nonetheless be so utterly idiotic as to claim that they are viewed the same as slaves or Native Americans throughout the 19th Century.

When we start rounding Muslims up and storing them on military camps, let me know. When we start buying and selling Muslims as chattel that you can rape, beat, or kill at will, let me know. Until then, your post remains moronic.
 
By the law absolutely. But I can see the argument that they are sometimes treated differently within civil society.

What I don't see is how anyone with the mental acuity to form coherent sentences can nonetheless be so utterly idiotic as to claim that they are viewed the same as slaves or Native Americans throughout the 19th Century.
What I claimed was, it was the same "twisted mindset" that caused those behaviors - not that they were the same behavior. I even gave examples because it's pretty obvious that what we did to the American Indians (killing and displacing them; in essence conquering them) wasn't the same things we did to the Africans (buy, sell, and use them as slaves). I'd think anyone "with the mental acuity to form coherent sentences" could see the differences in those two examples. I'd also think one could see the similarities as I noted, that we had "no respect for [those] people or their culture".

When we start rounding Muslims up and storing them on military camps, let me know.
You mean like we did with the Japanese Americans in WWII? Some people actually talked about doing that with the Muslims after 9/11 - "to protect them".

When we start buying and selling Muslims as chattel that you can rape, beat, or kill at will, let me know. Until then, your post remains moronic.
Muslims have been beaten and/or killed just because they were Muslims. Having title/deed to their person was not required.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
By the law absolutely.

Actually not at all, the FBI targets them, you even have cases of the FBI trying to set them up, they can be detained over anything based on being called a terrorist and so on.

Tigger said:
I really see no value in the human race at this point. I believe that we are all here for a single purpose.... as a test of our Soul; to see if it's ready to move on to a Higher Plane of existance. If not, then the Soul is forced to endure Punishment and Re-Education before being allowed to take the test again, until it is no longer deemed worthy of additional chances, and cast into the Lower Planes for eternity.

I would suggest that part of the reason for the decay of our society is because many of the decent Souls have already moved on, and we're left with an ever increasing percentage of the population as Souls that will likely never reach that Higher Plane.

You really need help, your clearly deeply sociopathic.
 
Going through the list.... Slavery-Obviously not a good thing.... But WE did not create the practice. At the time of conception of this country, it was practiced throughout much of the world and had been going on since people have been on this planet. Continuing a practice is not a sin in of itself, when there was at the time no glaring examples of its wrongfulness. (I am talking about the 1770's) If we were to still continue the practice when it became knowingly wrong then yes, it would be the greatest sin.

Native American- My wife has very strong Native American heritage, enough that her mom lives on a reservation and goes by the name of White Dove while on the reservation. My wife would qualify to be on one if she chose to. I have learned a little history of Native Americans. And, history over time has been altered by some to make the wrongs look more evil then they really were, at the time. Native Americans welcomed the Europeans and incorporated European culture and their advanced technology. You can see clear evidence of this. And, while there are some really bad things that happened, Native Americans did agree to some of it as well. Overall one of the worst black eyes of the USA, but the history of it has been re written just like so many other things and it has taken on a greater sin than what it originally was. That is the problem with the history re writes. We look at it through the lens of current time and how wrong it would be IF it were to be going on today.

Dropping Nukes on Japan- I agree we did the correct thing there. The war would have gone on for a considerable length of time had we not and over time, as many people perhaps many more would have died. We did it all in a short amount of time. And it was not by any means a surprise attack. We warned Japan that we would do this, more or less begged them to surrender to avoid a drawn out war that neither country wanted. The Japanese government did not accept this. Doing so ended what would have been a bloody prolonged war that would have actually hurt both countries in many ways worse. Look at Japan now. They not only survived two nuke attacks but have gone on to thrive and have become a world power.

The cold war- Can't say its a sin since we never used the thousands of nukes we built. During the time of cold war, there was actually more peace throughout the planet than at any other time in modern history.

I won't even bother to acknowledge the others. I cannot really choose any great sin. the USA has done so much more good for the world and has treated its citizens overall far better than any other country in history. What bad we have done has been done by so many other countries and far worse measurably.
 
Last edited:
I'd have to say slavery is the worst, but the treatment of Native Americans ranks up there.

Basically, I'd say race relations in general, and the treatment of racial minorities is the worst thing ever to happen in America.
 
You're coming slightly late to a conclusion that has been generally accepted here at DP for some time.

And which all of you know is never going to change. Which is why I often wonder why many of you even bother to engage in conversation with me most of the time.
 
the deaths in the native American communities were largely the result of disease, not genocide on the part of the Americans.

while our treatment of them was generally abusive and in many instances horrific, it does not come close to the stain of slavery.

Trail of Tears? Forced relocation of entire Native American nations? Thousands round up in concentration camps? I get where your going, but the reason many Native Americans died from disease were due to the conditions they forced into by the United States. But in comparing the killing of Native Americans and slavery, both are equally horrifying.
 
Probably slavery and the treatment of native peoples were the worst sins in America's past.

But that around 66% acknowledge that today in a poll on an internet forum, in 2012, and say it was disgraceful, is probably proof for the good intentions living inside America today.
 
I have to ask a question to all of you who are including the treatment of the Native Americans in your list....

What else is a conquering force supposed to do with a still potentially hostile foreign force that may attempt to counter-attack? They will not embrace the new culture and assimilate. They are not happy about the idea of moving to another location. What else were we supposed to do with them.

P.S. - Answers to this question should be based in REALITY, not the happy sunshine, gumdrops, and rainbows, bull**** philosophy that everyone can "just get along".
 
The mission creep of the federal gov't is our major sin and likely to be our ultimate downfall as a nation. The constitution was a well thought out compromise on individual freedoms, national control/identity and with ALL ELSE being left to the several states. We had gradually (but at an ever accelerating rate) been elevating EVERYTHING to the federal gov't level, manly because of the wonderful ability that it ALONE posesses to BORROW and spend more than taxation will cover.


The constitution clearly does NOT give the federal gov't any power over education, yet the fastest growing, cabinet level federal department is DOEd; it now provides about 10% of all state's budgets. It allows the states to spend FAR more than they need to tax yet have "balanced" budgets; as such they are dependent on the federal control (mandates) that accompany this "free" money. Other such "partnerships" exist within social programs (again most NOT constituional) like Medicaid that allows the states to spend "free" money but ONLY if they agree to INSANE (and unconstitutional) federal rules.
 
Last edited:
It's interesting to apply different POVs to this question. One is what was the most damaging to to us now, i.e. the after effects. In my judgement it was how we treated the 'Indians' and then we allowed slavery. For example, when you think of how Jefferson behaved, thinking he was a good slave owner and enjoying one of his woman slaves and their children for many years, by today's standards, you have to question if our for-fathers got our Constitution absolutely correct.
 
Last edited:
What else is a conquering force supposed to do with a still potentially hostile foreign force that may attempt to counter-attack? They will not embrace the new culture and assimilate. They are not happy about the idea of moving to another location. What else were we supposed to do with them.

that's not true at all...the Cherokee nation was assimilating.....yet the removal act was still passed.
 
that's not true at all...the Cherokee nation was assimilating.....yet the removal act was still passed.

During the formation of our nation, leading to its current borders, it was not a question of "native" rights so much as preventing OTHER foreigh powers from gaining control of the territories that we now hold and enjoy. The same conquering of indigenous peoples occured worldwide for centuries, yeilding the modern, and now fairly stable, global boundaries. If not the U.S. then Spain, England, Portugal or France would have "claimed" these territories. The native tribes of north America were doomed either way as they could not hold off the superior power of ANY of these "conquering" national forces, just as we saw in all other continents.
 
During the formation of our nation, leading to its current borders, it was not a question of "native" rights so much as preventing OTHER foreigh powers from gaining control of the territories that we now hold and enjoy. The same conquering of indigenous peoples occured worldwide for centuries, yeilding the modern, and now fairly stable, global boundaries. If not the U.S. then Spain, England, Portugal or France would have "claimed" these territories. The native tribes of north America were doomed either way as they could not hold off the superior power of ANY of these "conquering" national forces, just as we saw in all other continents.
But it would have been better done by private companies, not a government. Right? Oh, but I forgot, a lot of it was.
 
But it would have been better done by private companies, not a government. Right? Oh, but I forgot, a lot of it was.

I am not sure that you see my point. It was not IF but WHEN, and by WHO, that the indigenous people (tribes) would lose control of these areas. The same thing occured on ALL continents, not just in North America. It is not as if the U.S. did not take over these lands that the native tribes would still have them, although I must agree we were very underhanded in not making this clear to them. If you are unable to defend your territory, or secure the help of allies to assist you, then it will be taken; how long do you suppose that Israel would have lasted without its allied support? In some cases might does indeed make right. ;-)
 
I have to ask a question to all of you who are including the treatment of the Native Americans in your list....

What else is a conquering force supposed to do with a still potentially hostile foreign force that may attempt to counter-attack?
Question the value of and justification for conquest?

This is not to single out the white Anglo-American settlers. They conducted a horrific campaign of genocide in a time-honoured tradition, one that would have been familiar to Romans, Mongols, Spanish, Turks, Huns and many more historical imperial powers. Indeed ethnic cleansing continues to this day, albeit on a smaller, less bloody scale. I think my point is that expansionist imperialism has always been a brutal and unnecessary activity that simply works to satisfy a base instinct for greed, rapaciousness and sadism by clothing it in the trappings of nationalism and glory-seeking. Often these base impulses are excused through the invention of intellectually weak but emotionally attractive ideas such as exceptionalism and 'manifest destiny'. Again, it's not just Americans who have hidden behind such cant. It's what imperialists do to cover their tracks and to try to claim legitimacy for their actions.
 
Question the value of and justification for conquest?

This is not to single out the white Anglo-American settlers. They conducted a horrific campaign of genocide in a time-honoured tradition, one that would have been familiar to Romans, Mongols, Spanish, Turks, Huns and many more historical imperial powers. Indeed ethnic cleansing continues to this day, albeit on a smaller, less bloody scale. I think my point is that expansionist imperialism has always been a brutal and unnecessary activity that simply works to satisfy a base instinct for greed, rapaciousness and sadism by clothing it in the trappings of nationalism and glory-seeking. Often these base impulses are excused through the invention of intellectually weak but emotionally attractive ideas such as exceptionalism and 'manifest destiny'. Again, it's not just Americans who have hidden behind such cant. It's what imperialists do to cover their tracks and to try to claim legitimacy for their actions.

Why doesn't it surprise me that you devalue ideals such as Nationalism, Exceptionalism, and Greed? Believe it or not, there is more to life than sunshine and lollipops. Not everyone gets a trophy in the real world. You have to break a couple eggs to make an omelette. Your ideal of peace and happiness is totally unrealistic on any signifiant level.
 
Back
Top Bottom