Talk:United States/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 29 September 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)


Is this seriously the best that a "rational" wiki can come up with? This makes conservapedia look objective.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Yeah, the article isn't very good. You can help improve it, if you would like.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 03:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

original "article"[edit]

God, when someone makes this article real, please copy my useless snark here so I can laugh at it once in a while. humanbe in 01:29, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Im thinking one of our resident historians or other slaves could turn this into an interesting article about the US and religious freedumm..just sayin'--PalMD-Goatspeed! 19:57, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

I don't know enough about American history to contribute - but shouldn't these be some mention of the Indian wars here?--Bob_M (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2007 (CDT)
Shhhhhhh! "They all moved to Canada and Australia". humanbe in 13:31, 22 July 2007 (CDT)


Wp:Jesusland gets a mention, but could it be expanded on? Or is that too much like evolution? Totnesmartin 10:21, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

How about redlinking it and writing it? Sounds like a good separate article to me... humanUser talk:Human 12:51, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Whats wrong with the KKK joke? Elassint Throw things at me 13:35, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Ummm, it wasn't really funny. PFoster 14:11, 4 November 2007 (EST)

This is like uncyclopedia, only slighty more factual. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Thank you! I tried... humanUser talk:Human 12:23, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Found a good quote to work into the article.[edit]

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing — after they've tried everything else." — Winston Churchill What do you think? I love it personally. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 17:25, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

I like it. Rational Edperception 17:27, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Hehe... You have source too? humanUser talk:Human 18:10, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
I don't know, I got it from Wikipedia... but considering it's from Winston Churchill, it shouldn't be too hard to source. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 20:33, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
And WP usually (always?) sources their quotations, so that shouldn't be hard to find. Which WP article, do you remember? humanUser talk:Human 21:06, 7 May 2008 (EDT) --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 21:36, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Dang, it's unsourced. I have old quote books, I wonder if it's in one of them? humanUser talk:Human 21:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
I imagine it should be. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 22:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Wikiquote has it as "The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative", and it's in the "disputed" section, I'm afraid.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 22:44, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
OK, here's the deal. It's a great "quote", but perhaps without source. So we just use it without attribution. I go do so now :) And thank you, Eira. humanUser talk:Human 00:23, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
By giving it no attribution, we give it attribution. At the very least, it says, "we're not making this up... someone else did, but we didn't." :) --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 18:36, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Spanish colonists[edit]

1. read the next paragraph:

Maryland was founded as a refuge for Catholics. Its enlightened rulers decided to only persecute those lousy non-Christians.

Less snarky: "read the following paragraphs":

The French and Spanish also founded many colonies in what was to become the United States (and Mexico) in the 16th and 17th centuries, most of which were later sold (France) or lost in wars (Spain and her successors) to the U.S., which is why the country today is trilingual.

Ok... fine, this says that there were many French and Spanish colonies as well... however it doesn't establish that the vast majority of Spanish colonies are far older than even Jamestown. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 13:21, 13 May 2008 (EDT) 2. Florida is on purpose: Why? Florida wasn't one of the original thirteen colonies... so mentioning it over New Mexico, and other Spanish colonies that later became the United States is... why? --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 13:21, 13 May 2008 (EDT) 3. please discuss on talk page Ok. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 13:21, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

The point was simply to compare the two east coast colonized areas - I don't know if you noticed, but this article is a bit tongue-in-cheek. It may not hit the reader over the head, but "16th" century, as mentioned, does come before any English settlements. The info you want is there. One of these days we should write "the lost century" (or some such) - US history has a tendency to skip from 1492 to 1620 as if the 1500s never existed. humanUser talk:Human 13:27, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Whatever :P hehe. I come from New Mexico, where people are like "yay, the 400th anniversary of the founding of our city" and then on the east coast they're like "yay, we're the oldest part of the United States with our now 300th anniversary" and it's all.... wait, wtf? Of course, I have issues with the neglect of the Hispanics and such all the time already. It's like people commenting about people moving to Seattle (where I now live) and complaining that people don't speak English, and I'm all, uh... you know there are native-born Americans born to native-born Americans in New Mexico who speak Spanish as their first language right? And everyone just seems to ignore that New Mexico and other Hispanic parts of the country exist. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 20:48, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
Would you like to help me come up with an article on the 16th century in colonial 'Murka? It sounds like you've got plenty of inspiration, plenty of knowsthings, and we could make it teh funny too. Title? How about "America: The Forgotten Century", "Project for a Lost American Century", "The lost American century"...??? humanUser talk:Human 20:53, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
Totally, get it started and I'll lend my typical overly snarky hand :) hehe. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 16:22, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
Would you care to pick a title? humanUser talk:Human 16:26, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
I think I kind of like the idea of: "The United States in the 16th century: Los años perdidos"
Excellent title. That's why I wanted you to come up with it. I suppose it should be written in mixed English, French, and Spanish? (and Nipmuc?) ħψAnarchy dd00dd.pngUser talk:Human 18:54, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
OK, I stubbed its toe. Now all it needs is 10,000 pointzes worth of improovemints! ħψAnarchy dd00dd.pngUser talk:Human 19:04, 21 May 2008 (EDT)


Why are you guys so anit-American. This seems like excerpts from the Uncyclopedia article. Seriously, like deficiencies in Britain can be overlooked. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Well anon, first, why did you ask your question in the middle of an 18-month-old conversation? And what's "anit-american"? anyway, We're anti-american because we're all part of a Russian cyberhacking initiative. Hope this helps. Totnesmartin 17:41, 11 December 2008 (EST)

We're not so much anit-American as anit-whatever the target du jour (that's French, son...) is. We're pretty anit-British, too. PFoster 17:46, 11 December 2008 (EST)


My main problem with this article is this ... it genealizes over 305 million people (Americans) in many nasty hateful negative stereotypical ways. I think this could be a good article that mentions the things that sites such as Conservapedia refuse to state, but instead it has simply become a place where anti-Americans can rant about their dissent for the United States of America and the millions of people who are citizens of that country. This could be debated, but in my opinion, this article is not at all liberal, but instead is very much like a conservative article ... full of hate, lies and generalizations. That, in my opinion, is something no liberal or socialist, or anyone on the left, should be supportive of. There can still be satire or jokes within in the article, but hateful jokes that insult people based on physical apperance is something that I'm not supportive of, nor am I supportive of non sense that is not true. The article fails to specifically state the issues with the conservative liberal divide in America and also fails to state the many sucessful liberal organization of the left that are active within the United States. Jusy my opinion.

Are you reading the same article I just skimmed? Also, RW isn't a "liberal" site (just most of its editors...). ħumanUser talk:Human 21:18, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
I agree with the previous user. No surprise that you have no problem with this because of your own prejudice towards US citizens. Were this any other nationality, the same level of vitriol would not exist. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
No sense of humour (or even humor), these Yanks. Innocent Bystander (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not American (I do live in the USA) and I DO have a sense of humour, it's just that cheap stereotypes and sweeping generalisations aren't particularly clevor or amusing. It's one thing if the editors of Rational Wiki were equal oppurtunity offenders but they aren't; look no further than the United Kingdom or Islam pages which do not have the same level of vitriol. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
@ If you're still around, you may want to take a look at the latest version. I have made many improvements to what seemed like an outlet for anti-American trolls. Nerd271 (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

"God's Chosen Nation"[edit]

  1. I object to the needless insertion of racial invective into this section when there is nothing at all racial about the subject. White-supremacism is being mistakenly conflated with Christian fundamentalism.
  2. Using the term "WASP" to describe white fundamentalists is incorrect, as a good number of them are actually of Celtic extraction.
  3. The grammar of the disputed section is atrocious and it consists mostly of JAQing off.

Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Americans know more about this than I do. Proxima Centauri 19:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Then why are you writing about it as if you know it? Why not just bring it up on the talk page to get the ball rolling? ħumanUser talk:Human 19:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
PS, LX, I was sorely tempted to just delete the whole section, but I hate to do that if there's a possibility it can be turned into something coherent. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
To quote the mighty Edwyn Collins: "Rip it up and start again." Totnesmartin 20:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Probably a good idea... I always wonder when PC does these things how many other wikis have to cope with the badly-written screeds... ħumanUser talk:Human 20:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

What is this crap?[edit]

"The U.S. is the only nation in the world to have ever used an atomic weapon in anger, and they did it twice in final days of World War 2. Several other countries have set them off, but not in anger, more for jovial kicks. It is rumoured that the former USSR was threatened and suspicious of America's nuclear might which in part lead to the growing mistrust that permeated the Cold War."

Umm, no, it wasn't anger, it was a quick and relatively bloodless way to end the war. And what's with the last sentence? Of course they were threatened, that's what lead to the pissing contest known as the Cold War.

"In America, it is only eaten Freedom Fries and drunk Kool-Aid."

Does this intentionally sound like it's literal translation of a sentence in another language? -- Nx / talk 16:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Am with Nx. The atomic bomb was probably the best way for the Americans to end the war, even for the Japanese. EddyP (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Choose a better phrase then, don't delete it. Besides, "In anger" is just a metaphor for "Seriously, in a war" in this instance, and that would be true. Apart from anything else, many people, myself included, think that the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians was a totally unforgivable act and that "anger" is a better way to phrase it than "with deep sorrow and only doing it while thinking of little puppy dogs". –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I didn't delete it. My problem is that it sounds like the American were just being dicks and killed thousands of civilians to show the Japanese who's boss. The truth is not black and white like that. -- Nx / talk 16:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
EddyP's version is fine. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Then how would you have ended the war? EddyP (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Conventionally. By that time, the Japanese basically had no air force or navy and their army was reduced to almost medieval levels of technology due to lack of supplies. There's every likelihood that the Japanese would have surrendered anyway after the USSR declared war (between the two nuclear bombings) and annihilated them at... can't remember the name of the battle. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
We're dealing with a country that wouldn't surrender even after one atomic bomb was dropped, even after the firebombing of Tokyo (which claimed more immediate lives than the atomic bombs), even after it had been reduced to it's main islands, even after it was the last member of it's team standing. The government was planning on having civilians fight hand to hand if need be. Said the war office: "We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight." Read A Boy Called H. It's enlightening as to the Japanese government's attitude towards the war. EddyP (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The nuclear attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a disgusting USian war crime. --(((Zack Martin))) 06:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll offer to do a rewrite.[edit]

Even though it raises many good points (why Americans generally focus on the Puritans in New England as the 'start' of the future USA, the wiping out of Native Americans and whitewashing of history, the Gallic and Hispanic presences in the current day United States -- "The United States in the 16th century: Los años perdidos" still makes me laugh to this day...) the article is clearly designed at this point to troll as many people as possible, and seeing defenders on the talk page refute other serious and dissenting opinions reminds me of certain Conservapedia sysops.

So I'm willing to do a rewrite of the article. Don't worry -- I'll keep the snark. And I'm a good little left-liberal, so hopefully my ideological credentials are acceptable. But it's sort of childish to see a lot of muck being thrown around in this manner. Granted, if anyone wants to join and/or discuss me in this I'll happily welcome the lot of you. I just think a site named RationalWiki (which I do love) should be able to do its intellectual curbstompings better. Photovoltaic Array (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Glad you like some of what I might have once written here. Sorry to perhaps see much of it go away. Ah, RW is changing... ħumanUser talk:Human 06:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This article kinda sucks.[edit]

"Several other countries have set them off, but not in anger, more for jovial kicks."

1. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just part of a strateigic bombing campaign. Many more people died in firebombings. Over 2 million Japanese civilians were killed from November 1944 to August 1945. The two A-bombs combined killed 250,000. The Germans, British, Soviets, Japanese and Americans all bombed cities filled with civilians. It was one of terrible things that happened in a total war.

"It is rumoured that the former USSR was threatened and suspicious of America's nuclear might which in part lead to the growing mistrust that permeated the Cold War."

2. This is false. The Cold War started because of the Soviet occupations of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, and Yugoslavia after WW2. It was escalated by the Berlin Airlift and the Marshall Plan. Moonshot926 (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You should change your handle to "smarty-pants." (I mean that as a compliment).Rand0 (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


Anyone care to mention the 'accidental happening' of the president elected every 20 years 1840-1960 dying in office - until the bad luck was circumvented by the Gipper? (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you care to mention it. And you just have. SophieWilder 16:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You should have kept that tradition going...

Had a thing...

History of the American Flag (Pseudohistory)[edit]

A friend of mine linked me to this video to debunk it:

Apparently it's about the "real" history of our flag. The video cites multiple sources, but I'm having a hard time finding those sources. I was wondering if anyone else could help with that.--Tsunadi (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd love to see irrational wiki debunk this video, I mean it's a 5 minute, and they still haven't!-- (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The video title and the first 6 seconds were enough for it to debunk itself--Miekal 01:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
How so? How do i know you're not avoiding the question?-- (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Still waiting!-- (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
You might be waiting a while. (... yawn ...) Scream!! (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Why? Can't debunk it? I believe you have an article conceerning this: -- (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Did you even watch the video???-- (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Too negative, too much satire, not enough fact.[edit]

Compare this article (too much satire, almost all negative) to the one on Canada (too much satire, exclusively positive), or the one on the UK (almost no satire, very positive). Bonus points is that both of the other articles take potshots at this one. (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The original article felt like it was written by anti-American trolls who were having a field day. Fixed it somewhat. Nerd271 (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I have HUGE issues wit a part of this article.[edit]

Okay, you're probably going to remove this, but whatever. You asshats always say to address WHY we disagree, so here we go:


You see these? They were from a GOOD YOUTUBER! And you immediately called them bullshit. well, I got news for you, it is TRUTH what he put in those videos. What's more: Did you know that ALL of America, it's monuments are of Babylonian origin? You need to do your research! The New World Order Illuminati are among us and YOU keep dismissing them!

Look, it's not my choice. It's God's. But according to what the bible says YOU guys will be burning in hell, for ever and ever, being tortured forever and ever. It will not be a year.. mor ethan that.. mor ethan 10, 1000, 10000, 10000, trillions of years you will suffer unbearable torture... and it will STILL go on! You guys obviously don't understand eternity!



Check out that guy's videos that you so hopelessly tried to censor. He speaks the truth of the true origin of America. If you don't, may God have Mercy on your soul. I don't choose it, but if he does...

Other truth you guys tried to censor: TELEVISION CLAIMS WASHINGTON IS GOD! Masonic rituals mind controling us Freemasonry's secret part 1 Freemasonrys secret part 2 Every flag is of Roman Origin, NWO Freemasonry's secret Foundation Washington is the beast of Revelation! Washington: God of Earth. REAL secret America Our GEOGRAPHY is of satanic origin! New Roman Law Bush says the BIBLE IS A LIE!? The antichrist is already here Freemasons in THEIR OWN BOOKS admit they're a religion!

Freemasonry's faulty foundation part 1:

Part 2

Part 3 Part 4

The secret foundation of freemasonry part 1

Secret foundation of freemasonry part 2 (talk) 13:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You have huge issues, but they're not with the article... Queexchthonic murmurings 13:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Just the response I would expect from unbelievers like you.

You see, the bible says you won't listen no matter what unless you're one of the elect. My only Job is to proselytize. Not force. the Arminians who are forcing are doing it wrong.

So I will ask one more time, and I will be done here. It will all be God's work:

Repent your sins. watch the videos I showed you and wake up. The world isn't what it seems. The truth will set you free, and once you realize all the evidn ece for God beign hidden you will realize how deceived you are.

My time is done here. I pray to God that any one of you here are of the elect. I already see one particular person here, who I will not name, who has fallen way. I knew him at ChristianForums. As an apostate, he will be damned to hell unless he comes back. But Only God can do that. You have been warned.--Trinity (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

If only you'd decided your time here was done before you'd typed anything, it would have saved all of us a little time. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
What's funny is I watched some of these videos in the past... and the ones I saw, after doing the research you always tell me to in the nicest way to put it, are utter bullocks. Mind you I didn't see all of them, but since they're all mad by the same person, I question the content in the others. In other words, utter waste of time.--サトセレ (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah, but that's exactly the sort of thing an illuminati stooge would say to divert attention from these Very Important sources. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
'Mad by the same person' - deliberate or accidental slip? (talk) 09:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

You guys are ignoring a quality Youtuber, and thus you are extremely dishonest. I'll show some quality videos as an example: Supreme court corruption New World Order: Final Chapter

Quote by Obama:

"I have been ordered to fight against people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah and until they perform the prayers and pay the zakat,a young goat and if they do so they will have gained protection from me for their lives and property, unless [they do acts that are punishable] in accordance with Islam. Obama is a Muslim! He admits it!

Final Warning to Supreme Court! Masonic Goat of 9/11! Apotheosis of Washington shows Washington as a God!

Masonic Government Desacrated 10 commandments! NWO: Electronic Shepards! Ishtar, babylonian Goddess on Catholic cross!

Also, the Washington Monument is described as "A great memorial to the father of our country!" Really?? Gearge Washington is a GOD Now?? More videos here exposing Freemasonry, Babylon, and the NWO--P.S. (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

You should be aware that it's highly unlikely that anybody is ever going to watch a list of Youtube videos that long. I do not believe that gods or hells exist so I'm afraid that you are wasting your time threatening me with them.
Anyway, if I'm such a horrible person why should you CARE if I go to hell? From your point of view you'll be in heaven watching me being tortured mercilessly for eternity at the behest of your all-loving god. So why all the ranting? It's all roses from your point of view.--Weirdstuff (talk) 11:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
That's not what the bible teaches. We won't be watching you be tortured mercilessly. Whoever told you that is a false teacher.

I'm warning you about hell because G-d told us to. He said to warn everyone. He said to witness (proselytize). And i've watched all those videos. they're accurate. I've checked sources and everything. And I never called you a "horrible" person. Don't twist my words.--P.S. (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe God, G-d, god, gods, Gods exist. Will I, in your opinion, go to hell for eternity for punishment?--Weirdstuff (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Just wondering, but what properties would an entity be required to have for you to consider them 'godly'? (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
You will not go to hell. You wil be thrown in the lake of fire. However, you will cease to exist. Eternal Torture was a false teaching created by the catholic church. However, considering what your article on heaven says, you don't know what the bible says about heaven.

If this is the case, it is no wonder why you are not interested in Christianity.--P.S. (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of Catholics, did you know that mentions of "the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" in the Bible were actually later additions to scripturally substantiate the Trinity doctrine? (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I am aware of that. It's also the same think with the Pentacostal belief that True Christians will able to handle snakes and drink poison without hurting themselves.--P.S. (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Wonderful. So what we have learnt is that Christians can't agree on their own mythology. No wonder non-believers think it's not credible.--Weirdstuff (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Now now, you don' need to paint some Christians rejecting some of the silly stuff the hardliners obsess over as a negative thing. (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
No it shows that you have to study the bible in order to get True Christianity. One minor screw up isn't likely to get you to hell (Like hwether the Earth is young or old), but Major ones (Like how to attain salvation) are. False teachers are everywhere. If you do your research and watch the videos listed, you will learn a lot, not only about the people who control the world, and bring upon the mark, but how they have corrupted the bible, and infiltrated the modern church.

As for who is the antichrist: So many people have made predictions that it has made a fool out of Bib le prophecy. We will not know for sure until it is time. We're supposed to look for signs, that the bible has mentioned. Is Obama the antichrist? Is the Pope? Who knows? What is the mark? RFID? Barcodes? a tatoo? We don't know... yet. We d0n't even know if the antichrist will come in our lifetime! We're supposed to watch for the signs, and be ready all the time.

God Bless.--P.S. (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

If you guys can't get your own fairy stories coherent it's hardly surprising that people don't believe you. There are so many varieties of "Christianity" that it seems that there is one for everybody. Some say you must be X religion to avoid Hell, others that it's not so important. Some the Earth is young some it is old. Some the trinity exists and some it doesn't. Some say these things are important and others they aren't. Some say only the bible and other the bible plus something else. Yet you think you can tell others that you have the truth! It's a joke.--Weirdstuff (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, if there's a near-infinite variety in "Christian" views, one of them is bound to be correct, right? ;) (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
If god don't exist then you could have infinite beliefs about his nature and they'd all be wrong. (Unless "non-existence" was the belief you held.)
But even taking your argument, if you are one of the sects that believes that you have to get things exactly right to hit the heaven jackpot and avoid the hell fowl then knowing that you almost got it right as you suffer Gods merciful wrath for eternity won't be much consolation.--Weirdstuff (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
It's not quite as simple as "if you're a Christian you'll still think God exists so you're probably wrong" though. Some Christians consider most of the Bible as just fancy tales not meant to be taken literally, consider Christ as a wise moral guide that didn't have any laws-of-physics defying powers and take "God" as a metaphor for the universe. I totally agree with your point about the you-gotta-get-it-exactly-right-or-you're-screwed denominations, though. (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Sure christians are a catholic bunch though not all of them are Catholic. (Was that gag too subtle?)--Weirdstuff (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Seriously the arical is nothing but hate filled propaganda. Either it is improved or it gets deleted.-- (talk) 09:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Empty threat. PacWalker 10:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Already taken care of. The internet has already made me Anti-american, the damage is already done, it shall "educate" me no more.-- (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Update: article is still here. See my previous comment. PacWalker 12:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

General comment - if you are going to badmouth RW at least ensure that your spelling and grammar are correct, and do not be abusive as it gets peoples' backs up. (talk) 09:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Incoherent rambling about "non-believers". — Unsigned, by: / talk

Founded on Slavery?[edit]

There's was this book written by an Black Historian that argue that this entire Nation was founded on Slavery. I'm curious if anyone here read it and were going to cite it here in the article.Melonhead (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)