Talk:United States of America

The thing on freedom of religion should be improved, as most people interpret it primarily as freedom of belief first, government noninterference second. I'm thinking an article on freedom of religion would probably be warranted, as that's a major issue in the world today. --John 14:13, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Shouldn't that go under Bill of Rights or US Constitution?--Sub Zenyth 23:28, 6 March 2007 (EST)

The part about spreading democracy is empirically not true. There were much more significant increases, especially throughout the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union. The spreading of democracy has been a stated goal of the United States throughout its entire history. So I have deleted the last line because it just sounds like speechwriter hyperbole. --Jack 17:20, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

This article needs to be cleaned up

---

The part of the introduction "is widely considered one of the greatest and most powerful nations on Earth" is a personal perspective, and should be changed to "is widely considered one of the most INFLUENTIAL and powerful nations on Earth". The word greatest symbolises arrogance, as most people would deem there own country the 'greatest'. --Joobs 16:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Changed. --Hojimachong^talk 16:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

---

I think this is a pretty good article (are there noms for pretty good articles here on CP?). I just added a quick blurb about Lewis and Clark to the LA territory paragraph, can someone add years and the President who commissioned them to do the job? Human 18:35, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Jefferson, 1804-1806. --Hojimachong^talk 18:35, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, I, the lazy person, added that. Human 20:01, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Political Parties

The article says the US has been governed by one of two parties since JQA. Then it goes on to say that one of the two was founded in 1854. If the 'two parties' isn't referring to any two particular parties, wouldn't it be from the first Adams? Even during the Era of Good Feelings, the Federalists had a big chunk of Congress from New England. I think. GodlessLiberal 19:48, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

It doesn't make real sense anyway - the US has often been "governed" (if we take the exec and leg branches to be the governing bodies) by the two parties together - ie, a president from one party and congress run half or all by the other party ("divided government"). Now it is true that the two houses and the presidency have been controlled by one of the two major parties, I guess. Since when, I don't know. Maybe an article on Political Parties in the U.S. would be a good thing? Human 20:05, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Background

After reading the main page, and your above comments on GOD, Political parties, Constitutional documents and such, I have made an attempt to consolidate all that you have said into a revised section that I have named: "Background, GOD, The Constitution, and Political Parties". I tried to essentially rewrite what was already there, but re-arranged in a more "logical flow" , and to make it easier to read. I did my did my best. Hope you like it. Starfleet7 16:45, May 5, 2007 (EDT)

I'm glad someone already fixed the "allcaps" words. I split the section in two, since the first half was about one thing, and then in the middle the religion issue is introduced and discussed. I hope I have not offended anyone with my decision to do this. Human 19:52, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

The section needed a rewrite. I tried to make the section a bit more balanced, while still staying on the conservative side of balance. Stile4aly 23:12, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

By the way, "In America today, an individual's party affiliation is often determined by their personal view of the relationship between religion and government." is insane and completely ignores why many people choose how to vote. It is a completely strange POV. Of course, some people decide how to vote based on that criterion - but not many. Often? That's pushing it. Can this we reworded to perhaps show how the energization of the Christian right wing is related to it (this site, for example)? Human 00:08, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I completely agree with you, but I was afraid I might face a ban for suggesting this isn't a Christian nation being overrun by the pagan hordes.Stile4aly 07:04, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Reversion of this section by RobS?

I don't know why, but the cleaning up we just did was reverted back to Starfleet's version by RobS. 1. It clearly is two sections, the first part has nothing to do with the religion in government. 2. The use of allcaps is very distracting, I do believe it is "God", not "GOD". There's no need to shout, right? 3. The section(s) were beginning to get very clear and wll written, after Starfleets bringing them together logically. Would someone with either the nerve or the rank please undo this reversion? I'm not going to war with a sysop, even if I think I'm generally correct here. I like not being blocked. Human 13:11, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

User:Stile4aly was infintely blocked for trolling. [1] All his edits are suspect. The removal of this information, [2] had not been properly vetted yet, and Stile4aly replacement of it with this,

• "A contentious issue in modern politics is the role of religion in public life and particularly government entanglement in religious affairs. Some groups that self identify as Republican, or in some cases Dominionist, argue that the US was founded on Christian principles and that the modern US Government should be more lenient with regards to entanglement of Christianity with politics.

confirms those suspicions. RobS 13:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Ah, thank you for the clarification. Do you mind if I do that reformatting again, then? All I am going to do is split that section in two, as I did before, and get rid of the allcaps stuff. I doubt I'll touch any text, except maybe to make bigger paragraphs. I knew there had to a be a reason... Human 13:51, 6 May 2007 (EDT)