Who Wants To Help Me

[NOS2006]

Understand politics a little bit? I don't feel like researching, but I'd like to learn a little more UNBIASED information about politics.

Where do Democrats and Republicans usually differ? I know Dems are tree humpers and Reps typically will go to war much quicker than a Dem.

I honestly don't know hardly anything about this stuff and I wish I did since I can vote now. I also have to look up the people running.. whose all running to be Dem and to be Rep right now? Isn't it basically between Obama and Clinton right now for Democrats? And I only know of McCain running for Republican...

Somebody, please, enlighten me.

[Camino LS6]

Can of worms - open!

[the_yellow_dart]

Look up the political definitions of "Right" and "Left" wing.

Republicans: Right wing.

Democrats: Slightly less right wing.

I feel for you Americans, having to vote with no real choice. The multi-party system we have in Canada gives real options.

[avant1963]

Check your PM, NOS.

[XP715]

Understand politics a little bit? I don't feel like researching, but I'd like to learn a little more UNBIASED information I honestly don't know hardly anything about this stuff and I wish I did since I can vote now. I also have to look up the people running.. whose all running to be Dem and to be Rep right now? Isn't it basically between Obama and Clinton right now for Democrats? And I only know of McCain running for Republican...

Well there's your first mistake right there; regardless of which of the three candidates you listed win the election (God forbid), we will still end up with a Democrat in the White House.

Anybody that stands on stage with some $h!bag like Ted Kennedy and advocates amnesty for illegal immigrants and benefits for their children that you or I could only dream of receiving is no Republican I know.

[CARBIZ]

Look up the political definitions of "Right" and "Left" wing.

Republicans: Right wing.

Democrats: Slightly less right wing.

I feel for you Americans, having to vote with no real choice. The multi-party system we have in Canada gives real options.

:rotflmao:

[Croc]

NOS...I know you're a Delt at Kettering...and by logical extension that means you took the federally-mandated high school government class, correct?

Anyway...what constitutes a "Democrat" versus "Republican" is not set in stone, and has in fact varied quite a bit over the years. Generally-speaking, though:

Republicans tend to be fiscally conservative (except in regards to war), prefer low taxes, policies that benefit inheritances, investors, and businesses. Republicans tend to be more of the school of "an eye for an eye," hence why war is not shied away from, the death penalty is often favored, yet abortion is frowned upon. Republicans are generally socially-conservative, and favor protecting the rule of the majority. Not for gun control. Republicans tend to be more religious than Dems.

Democrats are not fiscally conservative and tend to favor far-reaching government in the form of social wellfare programs. Taxes tend to go up under Dems to pay for such programs. Dems like to protect the minority from "persecution," often by "lending a voice" to a small "under-represented" segment of the population. Civil rights are favored over security, and Dems as a whole are more liberal than R's. Also, most "activists" are Dems, as Dems tend to be a bit of an umbrella party for the various fringe and minority causes that exist. Pro gun control. Dems tend to be less concerned with religion than R's.

[Oracle of Delphi]

As a Buddhist, I always try to follow the Middle Way—a path of moderation in all things, especially politics. :AH-HA_wink:

[Paolino]

NOS, you just opened up for some very lengthy posts... :AH-HA_wink:

I have to say, I hate discussing politics because everyone gets so intense about them, and particularly if my friends begin talking about them, there are two families that get in such a heated debate that the room becomes silent after they talk.

Also, since I started voting... there has never been a candidate I've liked. I'm always choosing the least worse candidate.

[NOS2006]

NOS...I know you're a Delt at Kettering...and by logical extension that means you took the federally-mandated high school government class, correct?

And passed. However, that doesn't mean I learned or retained anything... I could care less about the government when I was 15 or 16 years old. I did the work I had to do and passed, and with an A or B because I never got a C until my junior or senior year.

Anyway, I really appreciate you guys helping me out here. I'm sure I'm not the only one kinda looking around at politics like, "WTF." Actually, yeah, I probably am lol. But whatever, you're all helping.

Keep up the UNBIASED discussion.

[loki]

Hold IT!!!

ok, let's pull back a little. DEM vs REP is different than liberal vs conservative. D v R can be anywhere on a 2 axis plane social vs economical , cause D and R are just labels people give each other and themselves. liberal and conservative are ideas on one axis, left and right. (typically)

[Camino LS6]

I'm going to do my best to restrain myself here, so just a few non-partisan points.

Party affiliation only goes so far, each candidate is a product of their region and upbringing. You will find a wide array of positions on a given topic among different candidates within the same party.

Don't forget that there are other parties - look into them for some perspective at least.

You will likely find no single candidate with a position you like on every issue - so check 'em all out and vote anyway.

[loki]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

* Public control of the means of production (left), or private control of the means of production (right).

* Workers' self-management (left), or employment (right).

* Redistribution of wealth and income (left), or acceptance of inequalities as a result of the free market (right).

* Equality through law (left), or equality under law (right)

* Whether the government's policy on the economy should be interventionist (left) or laissez-faire (right).

* Support for widened lifestyle choices (left), or support for traditional values (right).

* Whether human nature is more malleable (left) or intrinsic (right).

* Whether an individual's locus of control is more external (left) or internal (right).

* Personal philosophy and liberal spiritualism (left) versus traditional religious morality (right).

* Collectivism (left) versus individualism (right).

* Support for internationalism (left), or national cultural and economic autonomy (right).

* Belief in class conflict (left), or in class collaboration/class ambivalence (right).

this looks very good to me...at least as a guide.

[pow]

Keep up the UNBIASED discussion.

Bias = having an opinion or preference = politics

[loki]

so you're saying only facts can be used. facts aren't biased. and since you put opinions as = political, if that's totally true than every opinion on here violates our #2 "rule"

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Here's a very simple, basic breakdown:

Conservatives (Republicans) tend to favor tight regulation on moral issues and low regulation on economic issues. For example; most conservative people will favor censorship of entertainment (Not always a bad thing -- Our kids don't need to grow up any faster) and probably favor things such as the ten comandments being put up/left up in courthouses. (Not always a bad thing either as long as it doesn't limit freedom. This country was founded on christianity and, like it or not, cannot function without it's principles) Another example is deregulation in big business. During the Reagan years businesses were allowed and encouraged to consolidate and thus began the BIG corporations we have today (Think: Clear Channel, Fox, AOL-Time Warner, Exxon Mobil, etc.) This isn't always a good thing as it tends to make the rich richer and lead to oligopolies.

Liberals (Democrats) tend to favor very little regulation of media/entertainment, yet like to regulate big business pretty heavily. (Not at all a bad thing) For example; most of Hollywood hates the current administration because it is censoring their "freedom of speech" by giving the FCC added power. For better or worse, they do have a right to believe that because sometimes the government does get carried away. Another example is a liberal might choose to support a local business as opposed to a chain store. (Think: Buying coffee that is a little more expensive at the neighborhood shop as opposed to going to SBUX) Yet another example of this would be someone like Obama siding with the labor unions as opposed to big business.

OF COURSE, the perfect scenario is a compromise between the two (A moderate) but apparently that is the 'out of style' thing now in politics because no one seems to want to wake up and have a little common sense about the issues. Instead, ALL of the politicians seem to push this non stop turf war on issues about "how our party does it." THIS is what is ruining america, IMO. We need AT LEAST one other party to seriously run for the presidency.

I personally consider myself a moderate. I'm a registered independent and I tend to side with conservatives on moral issues but tend to go with liberals on a lot of business issues.

Edited January 12, 2008 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Republican and Democratic parties have become stale.

the middle ground is where most Americans stand and where most politicians should come from.

[Camino LS6]

Just another little tidbit:

States vary quite a bit in how they handle party afilliation. In some states, a registered democrat must vote only in the democratic primary, in others, he could choose which primary to vote in. While an independent may be able to vote in either primary, or not at all.

Here in PA, we have a closed primary (you can only vote within your registered party). So, at different times I have been registered as a Republican, a Democrat, and a Libertarian so that I could vote a certain way in certain elections.

[Robert Hall]

I tend to be middle to left on most things...socially liberal, fiscal moderate. There are just too many groups I strongly dislike for me to ever vote or identify with the Republican party..

[Satty]

I tend to be middle to left on most things...socially liberal, fiscal moderate. There are just too many groups I strongly dislike for me to ever vote or identify with the Republican party..

<---pretty much the same way

[Croc]

And passed. However, that doesn't mean I learned or retained anything... I could care less about the government when I was 15 or 16 years old. I did the work I had to do and passed, and with an A or B because I never got a C until my junior or senior year.

I'm just giving you &#036;h&#33;, buddy.

Edited January 12, 2008 by Croc

[Croc]

This country was founded on christianity and, like it or not, cannot function without it's principles

Not trying to be an ass, but that isn't accurate. The founding fathers did consist of some Christians, but many of them were atheist/agnostic and NOT Christian. The US was not founded to favor or base itself upon any religion, hence the separation clause.

[FloydHendershot]

Not trying to be an ass, but that isn't accurate. The founding fathers did consist of some Christians, but many of them were atheist/agnostic and NOT Christian. The US was not founded to favor or base itself upon any religion, hence the separation clause.

This country was founded by a bunch of rich white landholding slave owners that refused to pay their taxes.

[Satty]

Religion has no place in government. End of story.

[Camino LS6]

Religion shouldn't have a place in government. End of story.

Fixed

[Satty]

Thanks, that does make the point more clear.

[loki]

the constitution has liberty at it's heart. freedoms in the bill of rights are supposed to be protected by government, and ensured to all citizens. and the constitution was written to limit government. politicians swear to uphold and protect the constitution when they come into office. many , many politicians have not held to this pledge.

about the founders not being religious... give proof, it's like huckabee saying they were preachers, it's vague enough to maybe be true, but finding evidence to support that... will you actually take time to do that?

and besides, the principals the founders put into the Declaration and Constitution are intended to be catholic. ( little C for a reason, look it up ) but also the idea of self governing, on the individual level, is best, is backed by Catholic doctrine. I'm not telling you to convert, just saying that if religion backs the principals of this country (not individual views), is it to be denied they had any influence in the construction of these documents we should hold dearly to?

[Camino LS6]

Documents like the Magna Carta and the US Constitution can certainly trace their roots back to the 10 Commandments in a very elemental way.

The genius of the Constitution however, was to form our government as a secular entity.

A guarantee of religious freedom requires that no religion be endorsed or have undue influence.

Many have forgotten that.

[Oracle of Delphi]

the constitution has liberty at it's heart. freedoms in the bill of rights are supposed to be protected by government, and ensured to all citizens. and the constitution was written to limit government. politicians swear to uphold and protect the constitution when they come into office. many , many politicians have not held to this pledge.

about the founders not being religious... give proof, it's like huckabee saying they were preachers, it's vague enough to maybe be true, but finding evidence to support that... will you actually take time to do that?

and besides, the principals the founders put into the Declaration and Constitution are intended to be catholic. ( little C for a reason, look it up ) but also the idea of self governing, on the individual level, is best, is backed by Catholic doctrine. I'm not telling you to convert, just saying that if religion backs the principals of this country (not individual views), is it to be denied they had any influence in the construction of these documents we should hold dearly to?

It makes me nervous when our Freedoms are supposed to be protected by GOVERNMENT, I feel more comfortable with an armed citizenry protecting them.

Also catholic being universal.

[loki]

It makes me nervous when our Freedoms are supposed to be protected by GOVERNMENT, I feel more comfortable with an armed citizenry protecting them.

Also catholic being universal.

good job.

i was just thinking.... why does anyone even bring up if the founders were religious or not. it doesn't matter. the documents they wrote have created the most powerful, free, and diverse country the world has now.

supposedly the persian empire was quite free and prosperous (before they made the mistake of taking on the greeks). romans had quite some freedom for their time. if we don't stop waging war when we're not attacked, we're going to end up like these past empires. "we've" become divided, apathetic, and uncaring. when will enough of the public take note of this and demand change in unison. I hope this happens soon.

[Camino LS6]

good job.

i was just thinking.... why does anyone even bring up if the founders were religious or not. it doesn't matter. the documents they wrote have created the most powerful, free, and diverse country the world has now.

supposedly the persian empire was quite free and prosperous (before they made the mistake of taking on the greeks). romans had quite some freedom for their time. if we don't stop waging war when we're not attacked, we're going to end up like these past empires. "we've" become divided, apathetic, and uncaring. when will enough of the public take note of this and demand change in unison. I hope this happens soon.

Very valid question.

[avant1963]

about the founders not being religious... give proof, it's like huckabee saying they were preachers, it's vague enough to maybe be true, but finding evidence to support that... will you actually take time to do that?

It really doesn't take much searching to prove that Huckabee is a liar:

Only one of the 56 was an active clergyman, and that was John Witherspoon. Witherspoon was a Presbyterian minister and president of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University).

A few more of the signers were former clergymen, though it's a little unclear just how many. The conservative Heritage Foundation said two other signers were former clergymen. The religion web site Adherents.com said four signers of the declaration were current or former full-time preachers. But everyone agrees only Witherspoon was an active minister when he signed the Declaration of Independence.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/137/

Other than the fact that many of the founding fathers were Deists, the Treaty of Tripoli is usually the "written" source (other than the statement "separation of church and state". How much CLEARER can that be.) for proof that the US was not a "Christian" nation, but a secular one.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

[Sixty8panther]

Where do Democrats and Republicans usually differ?

Democrats think that the individual is stupid, but as a whole,

collectivelly we make smarter better choices. (socialist mentality)

They tend to be bleeding hearts and would like to help people

but often times just do stupid &#036;h&#33; like insist that GUNS kill people

and personal rights are less important than a safe government.

------

Republicans tend to think that as a whole, collectivelly our voice

is watered down and diluted, as a mob-metality we make stupid

choices, but the IDIVIDUAL tends to be smart and can make a

better choice without peer pressure.

However Republicans have thier problems, catering too much to

big business and such...

------

I myself err on the side of Republican but Bush is one of the

crappiest Republicans EVER. He is very un-Republican, esp.

with his lack of respect for the constitution and individual

liberties.

I'm a libertarian, but saddly seems our &#036;h&#33;ty government is

doomed (forced) into the REP/DEM duality, an independent no

matter how smart or popular can't make a breakthrough...

[loki]

Clip of the SC debates where RP defends himself for "not being electable" and talks about what it means to be a "republican"

Other than the fact that many of the founding fathers were Deists, the Treaty of Tripoli is usually the "written" source (other than the statement "separation of church and state". How much CLEARER can that be.) for proof that the US was not a "Christian" nation, but a secular one.

Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.

so it was a peace treaty. how is that supposed to overrule the freedom OF religion, not freedom from religion?

[loki]

I myself err on the side of Republican but Bush is one of the

crappiest Republicans EVER. He is very un-Republican, esp.

with his lack of respect for the constitution and individual

liberties.

I'm a libertarian, but saddly seems our &#036;h&#33;ty government is

doomed (forced) into the REP/DEM duality, an independent no

matter how smart or popular can't make a breakthrough...

Being young and nieve about what bush's policies were about in 2004, i voted for him. it was a mistake, but we don't know what a kerry presidency would've brought.

we are forced into a "lesser of 2 evils" for president about >90 % of the time. (we've had...43 presidents, so i'd have to say washington wasn't one, but i couldn't vote for him.)

Edited January 12, 2008 by loki

[Sixty8panther]

Agreed Loki... Bush is useless & an a$$hole like most politicians,

...but compared to Al Gore he's cfuking Mother Theresa!!!

[avant1963]

so it was a peace treaty. how is that supposed to overrule the freedom OF religion, not freedom from religion?

I don't think I understand what you're arguing here? Freedom of Religion MEANS freedom from Religion. NO government mandated religion (laws based on Christianity, or any other religion). If you don't want to be religious, you are free do do so. If you don't believe in a god, you are also free to do so. Why should I be a 3rd class citizen because I'm an atheist? I don't want you to teach religion in public schools (re Intelligent Design). You seem to have the Freedom of Religion idea a little messed up. Read some biographies of Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, etc to get a feel for what they really felt on Religion in government. There are some very interesting ideas there.

I would expect someone who is supporting a Libertarian in Republican clothing (Ron Paul) to believe in the whole "Government out of my bedroom/personal life" idea. That's the one Libertarian ideal I believe in.

[Robert Hall]

Agreed Loki... Bush is useless & an a$$hole like most politicians,

...but compared to Al Gore he's cfuking Mother Theresa!!!

It would have been interesting to see how things would have gone this decade w/ Gore in office..much, much better, I think. Bush is a subliterate moron surrounded by corrupt henchmen, IMHO.

[Croc]

about the founders not being religious... give proof, it's like huckabee saying they were preachers, it's vague enough to maybe be true, but finding evidence to support that... will you actually take time to do that?

Although Walt pretty much addressed it, that early treaty as well as the writings of Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, et al are the evidence/proof. Many of the early founders were philosophers, and those writings lay things out pretty well. I cannot quote titles or page numbers, but I have read enough Franklin and Jefferson to eliminate any credence to the founders being Christian men intent on founding this country as a Christian-based nation.

As for your other point about Catholic doctrines and similarities to the US Constitution...well that would be more by coincidence than anything else. The United States based the Constitution on the Greek philosophers as well as many of the philosophers from their contemporary era. That's one of the reasons governmental architecture in the US is largely neoclassical--that was a conscious decision during the Columbian Exposition (Chicago World's Fair) to create an "American" architectural aesthetic--neoclassical styles were chosen for the direct lineage to the Greeks and their political democratic philosophies.

But we don't know what a kerry presidency would've brought.

True, but we never know what the unknown will bring. We DO know some of what a Kerry presidency would NOT have brought, however.

Edited January 12, 2008 by Croc

[loki]

I don't think I understand what you're arguing here? Freedom of Religion MEANS freedom from Religion. NO government mandated religion (laws based on Christianity, or any other religion). If you don't want to be religious, you are free do do so. If you don't believe in a god, you are also free to do so. Why should I be a 3rd class citizen because I'm an atheist? I don't want you to teach religion in public schools (re Intelligent Design). You seem to have the Freedom of Religion idea a little messed up. Read some biographies of Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, etc to get a feel for what they really felt on Religion in government. There are some very interesting ideas there.

I would expect someone who is supporting a Libertarian in Republican clothing (Ron Paul) to believe in the whole "Government out of my bedroom/personal life" idea. That's the one Libertarian ideal I believe in.

...well I think there is a slight difference in what i said. but it also can go along with the libertarian view. Nobody has the right to force you to be religious, ie your personal life. but some people think that freedom from religion means that there shouldn't be a tree in a public building in december, and other such things like that. you may not espouse that idea, but there are people sue-ing to have stuff removed from buildings that have been there for "a long time" and it's just a waste of tax money for that to happen. ...took that off topic...

let's compare it too.. freedom of speech and freedom from speech. do you think there's a difference of meaning in those statements?

*recently heard about the "realID &#036;h&#33;e"* *sigh, shakes head*

[avant1963]

freedom of speech and freedom from speech

This is a little weird, but I would interpret that as " you have the right to express your opinions/speech and you have to right to turn off your radio/TV, not vote and keep your mouth shut and not express anything." No one forces us to vote or speak out. If voting was mandatory, then I think the freedom from speech would be shut down. You have the freedom to be apathetic and do nothing about it. So I guess it kind of works if I look at it that way.

A lot of the sue happy people aren't doing it for the principal, their just general trouble-makers and love it. I have no problem with a tree in a public building (hell, it's a Pagan tradition anyways, I put up a tree and celebrate Winter Solstice just like they did thousands of years ago) also long as there is a chance for other groups to add their "holiday traditions" also to the mix if it is asked. Just an "all things being equal" thing.

Personally, I think that all religions are nuts, but I'm not advocating the shutting down of churches... though I would like to talk about that "tax-exempt" BS. :AH-HA_wink:

[Croc]

Exactly. The Holiday Tree is fine. I know Jews who put up trees, they just decorate them with a Star of David. I believe, though, that public spaces and public buildings should treat all religions equally. If a place is celebrating Christian holidays, fine...but it must also observe the Jewish ones, Islamic, etc. to include ALL religions. That's daunting. So in treating all religions equally, I'd prefer not to have my tax dollars wasted on promoting/observing ANY religious holiday.

[loki]

This is a little weird, but I would interpret that as " you have the right to express your opinions/speech and you have to right to turn off your radio/TV, not vote and keep your mouth shut and not express anything." No one forces us to vote or speak out. If voting was mandatory, then I think the freedom from speech would be shut down. You have the freedom to be apathetic and do nothing about it. So I guess it kind of works if I look at it that way.

A lot of the sue happy people aren't doing it for the principal, their just general trouble-makers and love it. I have no problem with a tree in a public building (hell, it's a Pagan tradition anyways, I put up a tree and celebrate Winter Solstice just like they did thousands of years ago) also long as there is a chance for other groups to add their "holiday traditions" also to the mix if it is asked. Just an "all things being equal" thing.

Personally, I think that all religions are nuts, but I'm not advocating the shutting down of churches... though I would like to talk about that "tax-exempt" BS. :AH-HA_wink:

yes, you have that power when it consists of your ability to move or turn off something, your will. but what if someone was in a public park speaking about something you cared not to listen to, but you had to be there for some reason (couldn't get away from it, ie loud speakers or something) freedom from speech would allow you to shut the speaker up, freedom of speech means unless the person is disturbing the peace or other laws, there should be nothing you can do about it. does this make sense?

yes, the tree has pagan origin and christians put Christmas on the 25th, the julain calander day of the solstice, to "replace" that festival for converting pagans. if it's reasonable, including others is fine. reasonable as in not dress up public buildings/areas like some decorating fanatics. lol

tax exempt is bs, cause the irs shouldn't exist. at least not in times like these, the IRS is maybe useful for times like W W ( x ) and Lincoln had an income tax for the civil war (pretty sure, could be wrong), hopefully those circumstances never happen again.

[FAPTurbo]

The best way to learn about candidates is to look at many different news, and information sources, and not just those in your own country. Because Canadians are heavily impacted by American policy, our outlets spend a decent chunk of time talking about the current race for the White House. The BBC is an excellent source too, not only because their coverage is great, but they even provide profiles of the candidates; here's one for Mitt Romney, for example.

However, learning about the choices takes time, and effort, and despite easy access to information by the internet, and mass-media, people, especially those of our age seem to take no time whatsoever to do any research, and would rather make comments on YouTube, or creating Facebook fan-pages for Sanjaya.

Edited January 12, 2008 by Captainbooyah

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Not trying to be an ass, but that isn't accurate. The founding fathers did consist of some Christians, but many of them were atheist/agnostic and NOT Christian. The US was not founded to favor or base itself upon any religion, hence the separation clause.

Doesn't matter what the founding fathers believed.

Look at Christian principles, then look at the laws of our country. It has nothing to do with combining church and state, it's more or less organization over complete anarchy.

Religion has no place in government. End of story.

I agree.

Edited January 12, 2008 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

if we don't stop waging war when we're not attacked, we're going to end up like these past empires. "we've" become divided, apathetic, and uncaring.

QFT.

we are forced into a "lesser of 2 evils" for president about >90 % of the time.

Again, QFT...

And I'm afraid the same thing will happen this time around.

Edited January 12, 2008 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[Sixty8panther]

I think any decent, patriotic American, democrat, republican or otherwise

would realize that religion needs to stay the f out of politics.

[Croc]

Look at Christian principles, then look at the laws of our country. It has nothing to do with combining church and state, it's more or less organization over complete anarchy.

I agree.

Every religion shares the same basic principles of getting along with other people. Actually, when I look at the laws of our country, I see a lot of differences when compared to Christian doctrine...many fundamental. For example, violence in self-defense is acceptable in the US. Jesus supposedly said to turn the other cheek.

I think if you compared the "moral code" of just about any religion to the laws of the US you'd find a lot of common ground. There'd also be differences, though.