America. One nation, under God?

[Roadkill Quiche]

Exploring the issue with hypotheticals:

Religious: Bush campaigns for his party on a platform of spending tax money to build cathedrals. Result: 20% of the populace is thrilled, the rest vote in a Democratic congress.

Militaristic: To supplement his chest-thumping over Iraq, Bush reinstates the draft. Result: 5% of the populace is thrilled, the rest vote in a Democratic congress.

Scientific: Bush campaigns on a platform of spending tax money on higher education and the funding of basic research. Hmmmmm. Sounds like a winner.

Commercial: Bush campaings on a platform that commercial enterprise should be free to conduct itself in whatever it sees fit. Arthur Andersen is thrilled; the rest of the country votes in a Democratic congress.

Expansionist: Bush campaigns on a platform of admitting Alberta and B.C. to the United States. The Canadians are alarmed, while the domestics are trying to find those provinces on a map.

Industrious: Bush campaigns on a platform of opening ANWAR to oil exploration and diluting environmental regulation to promote domestic industry. Sound familiar?

conclusion: Scientific and Industrious

[One_Brow]

Perhaps we are taking "expansionist" too narowly? Just becuase colonies don't work doesn't mean civilizations like the USA are vigorously expansionist. It's just that they are tryingt o expand their culture and values instead of their government.

I think America is expansionist not only because of the "manifest Destiny", but also because in this century it has continually tried to get other countires/cultures to adopt its values. This would be quite similar to countries like England and the USSR, and very different from France and India.

I think this type of cultural push is the modern equivalent of "Expansionist".

[Serb]

Absolutely agreed.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Roadkill Quiche
Scientific: Bush campaigns on a platform of spending tax money on higher education and the funding of basic research. Hmmmmm. Sounds like a winner.

or Bush limits government spending on certain research that is offensive to certain religious groups and promotes school voucher systems, which I've never been sure exactly what they'll do . Thats familiar.

Originally posted by Roadkill Quiche
Commercial: Bush campaings on a platform that commercial enterprise should be free to conduct itself in whatever it sees fit. Arthur Andersen is thrilled; the rest of the country votes in a Democratic congress.

or Bush places a tariff on foreign steel to bolster the domestic industry, supports opening ANWAR to oil exploration in support of massive commercial interests backs out of Kyoto to protect the economy and again those massive energy interests... very familiar.

Originally posted by Roadkill Quiche
Expansionist: Bush campaigns on a platform of admitting Alberta and B.C. to the United States. The Canadians are alarmed, while the domestics are trying to find those provinces on a map.

or Bush conquers a troublesome nation after 9/11 and supports a new leader who just happens to be a former executive of a US oil company. that might go under a couple of categories...

Originally posted by Roadkill Quiche
Industrious: Bush campaigns on a platform of opening ANWAR to oil exploration and diluting environmental regulation to promote domestic industry. Sound familiar?

Sounds commercial...

[sabrewolf]

rating america of the past 50 years (F-15 time, e.g.), two traits fit the best:
commercial (no explanation needed) and
militaristic (no presidency without at least one war, NEVER defensive wars, in the cold war extremely powerful army, today still the strongest)

of course, the industious and scientific traits also fit, but not as good as the first two.

[sabrewolf]

oh... however, in lincoln-days, expansionist (colonize the west) and religious (all the religious christian fanatics and ultra-orthodox believers left europe to live in northern america...
so in those days: expansionist / religious

[Beren]

Sabrewolf is linking militaristic to agression once again and I don't blame him, but I disagree with him. What you should look to is military spending, which is high in the USA so America should be militaristic judging from the last half a century.
And about all these wars recent presidents fought, well I think they always stood for democracy (tendancy especially big during democrats) and corparate interests (tendancy especially big during republicans, but both of these political groups have a bit of both). Most important point: the USA didn't do all that just for corporate interests and its own interests.

[Serb]

Are you absolutely sure about this?
Personaly I can't remeber a single war where USA didn't fought for its own interests.

[sabrewolf]

beren,
i didn't say these wars where wrong, because that would be off-topic. i was purely going by the fact of those many wars and - as you said - by the fact of those incredibly high spendings.

i know the US is democratic (allthough more a republic imho) and the least wars where for corporate interests (vietnam, korea, etc.), but they were wars after all...

you said you disagree about militaristic = agressive. let's have a look at the civ3-militaristic civs:
Celts, Vikings, Mongols, Germans, Rome, Japan --> these all were agressive in real life.
Zulu were considered as primitive and agressive civilization.
that leaves us china and aztecs. of the latter i don't know enough, but i do think the chinese (even though they fough a lot) deserve imho scientific, industrious or commercial more than militaristic. but then, i'm looking at the ancient china.

what i actually wanted to say: in civ3, militaristic civs were mostly agressive civs --> militaristic = agressive Q.E.D

[gsmoove23]

How high is America's military spending compared to its GNP? If it were judged relatively I don't think you could call it militaristic. Neither does the US have a very military culture compared to military civs, certainly not after the Vietnam war.

Plus the wars we were engaged in in the last 50 years, most of them were fought in the context of a wider conflict, the Cold War where we were arguably not aggressors. After the Cold War I believe most of our wars were conducted with the cooperation of the UN, so calling them aggressive is a little iffy although still possible. I don't think militaristic works for even the last 50 years, at least not as one of our top 2 traits.

[gsmoove23]

The militaristic civs you mention all had very strong warrior cultures or warrior cults that had a great influence on their society, except perhaps China, I'm not sure. This is whats missing in American society.

[Apep]

I would say the US is militaristic, the citizens might not be, but the foreign policy is.
For example the US declaed something similar to the Civ III Trade Embargo on New Zealand because we refused to allow any type of nuculer ship into our waters.
(Personally I feel it's totally unnessecary to have nuke ships at all)
Also, it has been pointed out that if you took 1% of the US yearly military budget, it would be enough to feed all the starving people in the world for a year (This was said in 1997, so it's probably not quite true any more). It is said that the USA is a superpower, and this is definatly not because of Religion, Comercialism (That was the British Empire) or Indusrialism (I'd say that is more China, notice how much is 'Made in China').
That said, a historic building down the road was just knocked down to make way for the American Fast Food Franchise, Mc ******s so that might make a case for commercialism.

[Beren]

Originally posted by Apep
Also, it has been pointed out that if you took 1% of the US yearly military budget, it would be enough to feed all the starving people in the world for a year (This was said in 1997, so it's probably not quite true any more).

What do you mean? Poverty might have expanded and the sheer size of the world population, but so has America's military spending.

[Bos]

I would narrow the choices down to Militaristic, Commercial, and Expansionist.

I suppose only picking two, it would be Commercial and Militaristic.

My reasoning:

----------------------

EXPANSIONIST

America has not directly spread out across the world, as past empires have done. For example, the British Empire spread out across the world by sending its explorers, settlers, and military directly to those regions. The military subdued the local ethnicities while the settlers brought in their own. Such was the common trait of the Colonial Era.

America, however, has rarely used direct military action in order to gain masses of land, except before continental America was unified and also during wars where the other side made the first strike (ex: Pacific in WWII).

While America is not expansionist directly, the are very powerful in using dilpomacy and economics to control their interests. Latin America has been very dependent on America, as evidenced by the "banana republics" which are nations mostly run by American businesses.

America also has military bases (arranged diplomatically or through past wars) in many nations throughout the world. How many German, British, or even Israeli military bases do you see in America?

All in all, I decided not to choose Expansionistic because it is more a result of America's power in economics and military, which then leads to its power in diplomacy. That means: Commercial and Militaristic.

COMMERCIAL

Little needs to be said here. While nowadays nearly every corporation in America is owned by a European or Asian conglomerate, many of those corporations began in America. The nation's culture is everywhere: music, clothes, and even food. Case in point: McDonald's. Also, to lead into my explanation of my next trait: oil corporations rule America.

MILITARISTIC

Skimming through the previous posts, it seems the trend was for Americans to decline that their nation was militarisic; while non-Americans were agreeing with this statement. With America's new military spending plan, America's military budget will be greater than that of every nation in the world combined. I noticed someone mentioning how in relation to the GNP, the spending is not that large. America's GNP is not equal to the rest of the world.

From the viewpoint of those that are not Americans, it is seen that America's power in diplomacy is largely due to its military strength. While President Clinton was in power, I would have seriously rethought having Militaristic included; but with the return of someone like W. Bush in office I feel such a trait is needed.

Regime change is illegal, as ruled by the Treaty of Westphalia. There have been numerous cases of military coups occuring to overthrow a ruler, as backed by American forces: Chili, Cuba, Afghanistan, Venezuela, and possibly Iraq -- just to name a few.

Also, military bases established back in the two World Wars still exist, with I believe France being the only nation so far that was willing to stand up and get rid of them.

----------------------

Americans: I apologize if I insult you, but these are all events that have occured. However, they are often downplayed in American media, because why would American media insult its biggest supporter? I do not speak for every person in the world, but this is how many people outside of America see your nation.

I suppose you could say it is fear. America has the power to take over the world -- will there be a President that decides to use it? Hitler was democratically elected. The greatest of evil gain power because they are excellent at tricking people into believing in them. "A good diplomat can tell you that you are going to Hell, and make you look forward to the trip."

[siredgar]

America is definitely Expansionist and it hasn't stopped being so.

Louisiana Purchase
Florida
Texas (give it back to the Mexicans! take Bush, too!), Western Frontier
Alaska
Puerto Rico
U.S. Virgin Islands
Hawaii (it should be independent!)
Guam
American Samoa
Northern Mariana Islands
Midway Island
Philippines
Panama Canal
Japan (GI's: stop raping Japanese schoolchildren!)
South Korea (GI's: stop raping/killing Korean women!)
West Germany
Spain
Turkey
Greece
U.K. (America's *****)
Italy
Saudi Arabia
Kuwait
etc. etc. etc.

And this is just in terms of territorial occupation. The U.S. media, entertainment, and commercial arms are attempting to make the rest of the world conform to its standards. We don't follow the metric system, but we expect others to think, watch, and eat what we do???

Now the U.S. is trying to get Iraq's oil fields (one of the largest reserves in the world). No wonder so many people hate us.

[siredgar]

I chose Industrious as the second trait because whatever other people say Americans ARE hardworking people. While I was tempted to put Commercial, it is only NOW that the U.S. is so commerce-oriented and loves to spread its capitalist gospel to the rest of the world (whether they want to listen or not), this is pretty recent. Throughout most of its history (and even today), the U.S. has relied on domestic production and consumption for its growth.

[Bos]

I had made the same consideration in choosing industrial versus commercial. However, I decided that during America's prime industrial era (1910s to 1950s), America had not particularly been the largest power. During WWI, America was clearly not the dominant power; and during WWII they had still not made much name for themselves (particularly because the Depression had crippled American power). By the time the highway system was largely completed in the 50s and 60s, the industry was already moving out to the Four Tigers of Asia.

I chose to keep commercial rather than industrial because during America's industrial era, they were not nearly as dominant a power as they are today -- in their commercial era.

Then again, it's always up to your opinion: whatever era you decide best represents America.

[Beren]

Originally posted by siredgar
I chose Industrious as the second trait because whatever other people say Americans ARE hardworking people. While I was tempted to put Commercial, it is only NOW that the U.S. is so commerce-oriented and loves to spread its capitalist gospel to the rest of the world (whether they want to listen or not), this is pretty recent. Throughout most of its history (and even today), the U.S. has relied on domestic production and consumption for its growth.

Well I do think this is America's golden age (or maybe just after it.) Of course Americans are hard-working people, but so are Germans, English, French, Spanish, Celts, Romans, Greeks, Russians, Vikings, Mongols, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Indians, Persians, Babylonians, Arabs, Turks, Egyptians, Carthaginians, Zulus, Aztecs, Iroqouis.

[sabrewolf]

well... exclude the french and italian. they're permanently striking, they don't have time for hard work

btw: i still think the american golden age is going on. and it started in the ninetees after the end of the soviet union. since then the US (america isn't actually the right expression) is un equaled in military and still is in economy, politics, science and industry.

edit: unequaled doesn't mean that it's good. i'm just talking about "bigger" and "more powerful"

[The Pioneer]

It could be all of them. I could discuss and make a case for each of the traits. I would go for Ind/Exp. Do not forget though that the US is and was a very religious State. They were religious before they were Expansionistic since the first settlements in the New World!

So long...

[Ray K]

Originally posted by Apep
As an outsider (a Kiwi). I would think of America as militaristic (In 300 or so years look how many wars America has been involved in) & expansionist (Goes hand in hand with militaristic really) after all it is known as 'America' even though it's a relativly small portion of the American Continents.

What a crock.

There was a 5-10 year (or so) period after WW2 when the US was the ONLY country with atomic weapons. We could have waltzed over any country in the world. Who did we use them against? Who did we threaten them with? If you were playing Civ with such an overwhelming advantage against your rivals, would you have shown such incredible restraint? (doubtful)

Name any other country in the history of the world that has had such a huge military advantage over its rivals and NOT used it to conquer territory. Even today, do you see the US invading Mexico or Canada in order to expand their borders?

Of course not. All you see is a whiny redefining of "imperialism" to include cultural influence, so that detractors can complain about a Disneyland in France and a McDonald's in the Soviet Union.

The US is by known means a perfect country, but to call it 'expansionist' and 'militaristic' is about as wrong-headed as you can be. Learn your history.

[Apep]

Even for a militaristic nation war is a bad thing for the economy, the USA has such a large military that it orders the rest of the world around and threatens the countries who annoy it.
Then, it sticks its nose in where it dosen't belong, for example the Gulf War, they put their prices up for oil, the US government makes an excuse and marches straight in, the USA couldn't have cared less about Kuwait. And THEN your government demands that they dissarm and even when they say the will your government says, "Uh, They're playing word games," you throw your weight around wherever you can and it annoys the **** out of everybody outside your country. The USA uses its military alright, it uses it in a, "My words are backed by nuclear weapons policy"
And then, you people go, "Oh, no, I didn't do that, my government did," who do you think votes for the government? Who rolls over and says, "USA is the greatest nation on earth!" time and time again? It might intrest you to know that most of the world lives outside of the USA and most of it hates your guts!
(Coincidentially, your signature talks about barbarism, the condition of being a barbar or hairdresser, it should be barbarianism)

[Ray K]

Originally posted by Apep
Even for a militaristic nation war is a bad thing for the economy, the USA has such a large military that it orders the rest of the world around and threatens the countries who annoy it.

Then, it sticks its nose in where it dosen't belong, for example the Gulf War, they put their prices up for oil, the US government makes an excuse and marches straight in, the USA couldn't have cared less about Kuwait.

more BS. I'll remind you that it was Iraq who INVADED (hint: militaristic) Kuwait and it was Kuwait who pleaded to the UN for liberation. Then the US built a coalition (hint: diplomatic) before driving Iraq out of Kuwait.

Now, once the US had Iraq on the ropes did they depose Hussein? No. They respected the UN resolution and let him stay in power. Exactly how is that militaristic?

And THEN your government demands that they dissarm and even when they say the will your government says, "Uh, They're playing word games," you throw your weight around wherever you can and it annoys the **** out of everybody outside your country. The USA uses its military alright, it uses it in a, "My words are backed by nuclear weapons policy"

The US government is retaliating to terrorist attacks on its country. You act as if Hussein is the legitimate leader of Iraq.

And then, you people go, "Oh, no, I didn't do that, my government did," who do you think votes for the government? Who rolls over and says, "USA is the greatest nation on earth!" time and time again? It might intrest you to know that most of the world lives outside of the USA and most of it hates your guts!

uh huh. The US is the world's #1 donor in foreign aid by a HUGE margin. If anyone hates our guts, then they have political differences.

(Coincidentially, your signature talks about barbarism, the condition of being a barbar or hairdresser, it should be barbarianism)

my signature is a direct quote from a REH novel. "Barbarism" has nothing to do with being a "barber" (check your spelling). It's usage is also correct.

[Bos]

First, I want to point out that I am by no means attempting to inflame people's nationalism or hatreds in what I write. I want to educate people on the other viewpoints that are held throughout the world.

There is propaganda in all media:
-Some events you know about,
-Other events you do not know about,
-Many more events where you have heard a different story.

There is always more than one side to each event. Cognitive dissonance states that bias is everywhere -- it is impossible to escape it. Never trust the media: question everything.

Originally posted by Ray K
more BS. I'll remind you that it was Iraq who INVADED (hint: militaristic) Kuwait and it was Kuwait who pleaded to the UN for liberation. Then the US built a coalition (hint: diplomatic) before driving Iraq out of Kuwait.

Now, once the US had Iraq on the ropes did they depose Hussein? No. They respected the UN resolution and let him stay in power. Exactly how is that militaristic?

Invasions occur all the time and millions are slaughtered every day in nations throughout the world. America (nor many other nations) pay little heed to the battles because the nations are of little importance to the world economy. Three factors came into play that led to America bringing the world in to intervene with the Iraq-Kuwait conflict.

The first and probably largest reason was oil: other nations need it; Iraq and Kuwait have it -- a lot of it. America definitely has a lust for oil, but by no means am I saying that the pursuit of oil was also not a large factor in other nations as well.

The second factor was military. This was more of an American interest as at the time the Soviet Union was falling apart, thus leaving America as the sole superpower. Iraq had one of the largest armies in the world, and stood as a possible contender in world affairs by becoming a superpower. Just as current President Bush's new security policy dictates, America will not stand for another nation to ever become a superpower that could rival America (this even includes if the superpower was an ally of America). Interests always trump alliances.

The third factor, and least of all, was the moral issue of a sovereign nation being invaded. The act of invasion breaks numerous time-honored treaties dating back four hundred years; but most nations have never really followed such treaties in the first place. Again: regime change was declared illegal in the same treaty where invasions were declared illegal. A ruler has his or her sovereign right to rule.

Here is a link to a page containing the Treaty of Westphalia, which declared both invasions and regime change illegal:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/...westphalia.htm

There has never, and may never be, a nation that is built on and dedicated to the ethics of peace. In the current state of the world, such a nation would fail quite quickly. Without pursuing your nation's own interests -- which in today's world often requires military might to coerce or use directly -- the nation is destined to eventually fail.

America often wields its military might. Yes, there have been no recent wars with Canada nor Mexico, but there have been many wars elsewhere that America has directly taken part in or at least sponsored. Here is a small list of just some of the more recent and prominant American military acts:

Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Chile, Venezuela, Iraq, Columbia, Israel-Palestine, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia (Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo), Somalia, Kuwait...

Again, there are many more, but those are the ones that the average American should know about. The reasons behind those wars were all to serve America's interests: be it a proxy war against the USSR, a quest for oil, control of a "banana republic," or an attempt to set one side against the other so as to weaken them all for eventual invasion of both sides -- a tactic utilized by Kaiser "Bill" Wilhelm II (or for those who know their history from playing Civ, Bismark was the prime thinker behind the tactic). Yes, it is a very powerful and efficient military tactic, but is it moral?

In the Gulf War, it is true that America did not invade Baghdad. However, this was not so much a humanitarian gesture as it was a diplomatic manuever. While I believe there was a sense of humanitarianism in former President Bush, much of the decision not to conquer Iraq was because of the political backlash. Had America stepped beyond what they had come in to accomplish, they would be in much the same predictament they are in now. It seems the elder Bush was wiser than his son, who much of the world sees as a foolish and hot-headed man akin to -- once again mentioning this name -- Kaiser Wilhelm.

The US government is retaliating to terrorist attacks on its country. You act as if Hussein is the legitimate leader of Iraq.

The world understands America's desire to defend itself against terrorists, as this is a common desire shared by other nations as well. Europe has been asking for proof of Iraq's role in terrorism against America or Europe -- which is all Europe wants before they join America's side. However, America has yet to produce one piece of evidence linking Saddam Hussein to terrorist attacks on the United States.

Let us not forget that America has also backed many ruthless people in the past. Saddam Hussein was once America's ally: America gave him chemical weapons and gave him orders to use them against the people of Iran. America supported Osama bin Laden against the Soviets; and in the recent war in Afghanistan, the Al-Qaeda forces used the same American weapons that had been given to them fifteen years ago.

Even today, America supports Ariel Sharon, who is often suspected of being behind the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin (although I do not believe much evidence has been accumulated, so do avoid being a hypocrite I do not directly accuse him of doing so). Sharon has forced millions from their homeland and killed hundreds doing so. His policies for peace and security have only led to more insecurity and chaos. Palestinians are forced to do whatever they can to retaliate. I should point out that I do not support Palestinian attacks on civilian targets; but at the same time Sharon is also guilty of attacking Palestinian civilians. The entire conflict, with much bloodshed on both sides, is sponsered by American dollars. One side is fighting F-16s by throwing stones.

Every nation harbors terrorists, it is just a matter of who admits it. America is home to more wanted terrorists than any other nation in the world. There is a member of the IRA living outside of Detroit. He is wanted by England for the killing of several important people, and his guilt has been thoroughly proven (the wanted man has even admitted it). England has provided his name, home address, office address, and even respective phone numbers to the United States. However, the US has not even given a thought to turning him over.

uh huh. The US is the world's #1 donor in foreign aid by a HUGE margin. If anyone hates our guts, then they have political differences.

The US is indeed the largest in foreign aid, but there are two factors to look at. First, America's economy is absolutely massive -- there is simply more money to use in foreign aid. Perhaps you should look at the statistics of money spent on foreign aid versus the gross national product?

Second, examine where the money is going. As I mentioned above, much of America's money goes to sponsor rising leaders that can further serve America's interests. There have been very few true gestures of goodwill in history. Even the Marshall Plan was created to bring Europe to America's side to prepare for the rising tensions in the Cold War. A vast majority of America's foreign aid goes to Israel. While under Yitzhak Rabin, who was a powerful supporter of Middle East peace until he was assassinated by another Israeli, I would have supported such aid to Israel; but under Sharon I have drastically changed my viewpoint.

America has never come close to paying its dues to the United Nations. Oftentimes, people argue that because America permitted the United Nations be built on land in Manhattan, America has more than paid its dues. Accounting for the value of the land the United Nations occupies, America still comes far beneath what is owed to the UN. The land given was merely a sunk cost, which as any student who has taken economics should know, is irrelevant.

[TommyGunn]

I would like to add my 2 cents for what it's worth. How did this become a discussion of differences? US IS militaristic. Case in point. Afghanistan. The Bush admin were ALREADY discussing how to invade before 9/11. Why? Soviet oil had no way to be pumped to the gulf. Oil plays a BIG factor in what countries the US plays up to. Every war ever fought by the US with the exception of Vietnam (we were asked to help. It wasn't a war but a police action) and WWII which we were drawn into by Japan, was based on economics. I'm not saying we wouldn't been in WWII. I am saying we would have been in at a later time if Japan had not attacked when they had and at that time Germany would have had a much stronger hold on Europe. My gun is bigger than yours.

Othe trait: Commercial. Can't watch a good movie without it be interrupted 15 times with commercials.

[Sava]

Interesting poll...
I think the Americans should be Militaristic and Industrious... We're talking about the most successful military force in the history of mankind; and the most prolific industrial power ever...

It's too bad some Civ's can't be more than 2 and still be fair. The fact is, America qualifies under Military, Expansion, Commerical, and Industrious...

Come to think of it, for playability and balance, I like the current settings.

[sabrewolf]

sava. the other two count too.
america is a leading nation in science (economy funding colleges generously)
and the US could also be religious. no other western civilisation is so extremely believing, afaik no other nation has "in god we trust" written on their money and what i heard from a recent survey, 80% actually believe, creationism is true! further, all religious fanatics emigrated from europe to northern america a few centuries ago, because they weren't tolerated in the "old world".

still: militaristic and commercial is my choice.

[Apep]

I'd be willing to bet that Saudi Arabian money has something about Allah on it. Considering that Aztecs & Japanese are the games definition of religious I wouldn't term that as an American trait. After all, there is no real state religion, and few people in contrast with the total population would ACTUALLY go to church every weekend (I imagine).

[Bos]

It could be easily argued that every nation is religious. Then again, it could be easily argued that every nation fits every trait.

America is definitely unique in its ways of religion. The country was colonized by those of "heretical" religions, yet at the same time the country was organized to be a country with attempting to keep politics and religion separate.

Personally, I would choose America to not be a religious state because of his point regarding church attendance. To add on to that: how many attend church and both pay attention and enjoy it?

There are some religious aspects of America, such as "In God We Trust" being on its currency; but again all nations have aspects that fit each trait.

Also, America does not have a particularly unified populace when it comes to religion. I believe about a quarter of America is of non-Christian faith. That is quite a massive number. Then again, how much that matters to you is really on what you consider the Religious trait to represent: a populace dedicated to their beliefs and all adhering to the same belief; or to simply a populace believing in anything -- whether their beliefs be different or not.

[RyanR]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
sava. the other two count too.
america is a leading nation in science (economy funding colleges generously)
and the US could also be religious. no other western civilisation is so extremely believing, afaik no other nation has "in god we trust" written on their money and what i heard from a recent survey, 80% actually believe, creationism is true! further, all religious fanatics emigrated from europe to northern america a few centuries ago, because they weren't tolerated in the "old world".

I don't know where you foriegners get these crazy surveys. Absolutly nuts. You should really come visit . I've never met anyone in my life that believed in creationism. And what is on the money is just plain outdated, and not an indicator. I still will say that America should possibly be religious though. Not for how it is now, but in the past. America has a history of strong religious conviction. But I think it's most important are commerical and industrious. Although the US does not have the highest per capita GDP, it's pretty high. I also think it should be militaristic though. Nobody puts more into their military (now at least). It's tough to say I guess. I disagree with expantionist though. It's revisionism to say that expansion now includes cultural influence. There was the whole "manifest destiny" stuff though so I guess I am sitting on the fence on all of them.

Protestant 56%, Roman Catholic 28%, Jewish 2%, other 4%, none 10% (1989) (CIA World Factbook)

That's for the US. It's apparently impossible to get accurate numbers though because the Census Bureau legally cannot ask people their religion. I have a hard time believing those statistics, but I live in Northern California and there are a hell of a lot of athiests here.