I never meant Christian nation, as in a theocracy. I used "fabric being underpinned by Christianity" to try to communicate more whether the "heart and soul" of the country is Christian, whether in origin or in the heartland today. While I've heard some about these "skinhead" type groups, I'm surprised to hear some people consider these dominionists as a real potential threat, but this is the first I've even heard of them.
The "80% Christians" I refer to are just those that call themselves Christian. Just what that means now and then is vague and probably not defined by a Bible verse. Someone could probably find some general uniquely American characteristics that would surely include apple pie and baseball.
It does seem Islam has a place in the discussion, in light of the "forced diversity" subtopic. Radical Islam seems to be using our open society and laws to take advantage of US. And radical Islam is a large part of what is allowing an imposition on our inalienable rights. (eg. security measures that end up being not so temporary).
I never meant Christian nation, as in a theocracy. I used "fabric being underpinned by Christianity" to try to communicate more whether the "heart and soul" of the country is Christian, whether in origin or in the heartland today. While I've heard some about these "skinhead" type groups, I'm surprised to hear some people consider these dominionists as a real potential threat, but this is the first I've even heard of them.
The problem with that is "what brand of Christianity would you like with your coffee?"
Remember the old blue laws? Stores would be, by law, required to close on Sunday? Can't have a bar within 1,000 feet of a church? and so on?
Well, a lot of this stuff comes down to what variety of Christianity. You and I may approve of having stores be closed on Sunday. Suppose there is a town that is majority Seventh-Day Adventists...they would want stores to be required to be closed on Saturday in that town. In a country run by Catholics, you would not be able to buy condoms or birth control pills (fine by me, but I'm sure I'm in the minority here). In a country run by Southern Baptists, we'd still be under prohibition. In a country run by rastafaris, you'd be able to buy dope at the local 7-11. In a country run by orthodox Jews or Muslims, you wouldn't be able to have that bacon and egg biscuit from your local Krystal shop.
The "80% Christians" I refer to are just those that call themselves Christian. Just what that means now and then is vague and probably not defined by a Bible verse. Someone could probably find some general uniquely American characteristics that would surely include apple pie and baseball.
It does seem Islam has a place in the discussion, in light of the "forced diversity" subtopic. Radical Islam seems to be using our open society and laws to take advantage of US. And radical Islam is a large part of what is allowing an imposition on our inalienable rights. (eg. security measures that end up being not so temporary).
I appreciate all the input ... carry on :)
The problem with saying that we are a Christian country or a Muslim country or whatever, is that the dominant denomination would love to impose itself on everybody. I think that would hold true no matter what the denomination, religion, or belief system (or lack thereof). If you'd like to see an official atheist state, take a look at how religions were treated by the USSR or China. Barely tolerated, provided they didn't step over the line. And you can see the blessings of living in a Muslim society.
If you really want this to be a "Christian" country, then I think the thing to do is to, at the grassroots level, convert people to living their own lives like Christians (80% of the people in this country call themselves Christians...but I bet out of that, less than half of them even read the Bible...much less live it). I think if the Christians concerned themselves with getting other Christians to live the gospel and Jews worried about getting Jews to live the Talmud and Atheists/Agnostics concerned themselves with getting their atheist/agnostic brethren to live an ethical life, rather than worrying so much about other peoples' business, this would be a heck of a lot better country.
Denial, Rocky? Sure, whatever. I prefer to call it disagreement. We are not a Christian nation, nor have we ever been, unless you count that brief time we operated under the Articles. I don't see any group, Christian or Muslim, changing that anytime soon.
We do, however, clearly have a Christian heritage. Is anybody denying that?
I think racial quotas for colleges is a good thing.
I won't speak for all cities, but in Milwaukee, the inner city schools aren't bastions of academia. There is so much distruption in the high school classrooms, that the teachers spend more time with discipline, rather than teaching. Shootings occur outside of the school, drugs are bought and sold, children are selling themselves for $10, its not pretty.
So, where does that leave the child of color who is willing to learn, able to learn, but cannot because the system failed her? Should she be denied a higher education because her SAT's were lower than my children's? Should the young man of color be denied a higher education because his parents are working two jobs at minimum wage, just to feed the family, and he cannot afford the SAT prep work that my children could?
Children aren't admitted into college because they are smart. They are admitted because of test scores, grades, involvement in school activities. How can you ask an inner city child in public school to compete with a suburban child in private school?
Apparently what we have here ... is a failure ... to communicate (cool hand luke)
I'm not talking about a Christian nation ... but more how much of what America ideally stands for is rooted in "melting pot Christianity"? Evan, it does seem some are denying we have a Christian heritage.
It seems to me the diversity requirement for colleges is just the tip of the diversity iceberg. Media and some people seem enamored with this "favored religion", and now we have the Supreme Court ruling in this religion's favor ... if you get my drift. Could this set legal precedent for hiring requirements?
I guess to me the deists fit in with the Christians ... maybe just a general belief in a higher power and the worthiness of a greater and common good. But I would certainly not want even that general belief to be legislated. I'm more concerned that it is being legislated against. (or worse yet, ruled against by unelected judges)
Should an official be able to choose to be sworn in on a Koran? That is an interesting question. The swearing on the Bible has an established American meaning. The Koran by my reading endorses murder of those that don't convert, unless they subject themselves to sharia law. I don't want that to be endorsed in an official capacity. It strikes me that America is more "melting pot Christian" whereas Iran would be more "Koranic".
Should the young man of color be denied a higher education because his parents are working two jobs at minimum wage, just to feed the family, and he cannot afford the SAT prep work that my children could?
Children aren't admitted into college because they are smart. They are admitted because of test scores, grades, involvement in school activities. How can you ask an inner city child in public school to compete with a suburban child in private school?
Good point ... but I'm not sure diversity translates into the inner city black over the hispanic or asian. Also I'm not sure throwing them into college is the best way to improve their position. If they are not prepared to succeed there, it may leave them not much better off, even if they are somehow allowed to scrape through with a degree. "Diversity" may allow people that are new to our society to trump out the qualified struggling small town kid with great potential.
Denial, Rocky? Sure, whatever. I prefer to call it disagreement. We are not a Christian nation, nor have we ever been, unless you count that brief time we operated under the Articles. I don't see any group, Christian or Muslim, changing that anytime soon.
We do, however, clearly have a Christian heritage. Is anybody denying that?
Disagreement vs denial? I would agree with you (to disagree) on that point, except that your posts taking issue with the particular posts, IMO, can reasonably be characterized as denial.
And obviously, as to whether the USA is or is not a Christian nation, we do agree.
Do we clearly have a Christian heritage? In general (and because I'm not familiar with the role of Christianity in the Articles of Confederation and the time during which the country was under the Articles) I do believe that there are people denying that we have such a heritage.
I agree with rhino that Islam certainly can be a part of the overall discussion on this thread. Yet, I still believe that you used Islam in these particular posts, to compare/contrast with Christianity as a way to minimize an obvious reality. What would come to play in the event fundamentalist/rightwing conservative Christians in the USA got the kind of country they desire is enough to make one shudder.
You stated that the Articles of Confederation were "self-consciously Christian". Could you explain/show us why you think that is so? I think one time that I looked at the Articles, and I don't remember seeing anything in there that indicated such.
"Self-consciously Christian" was perhaps too big a statement. I would have better left it as the current Constitution being self-consciously not Christian (or religious in any other way).
By saying so, I don't mean to imply the Articles intended to establish a Christian nation or that its government was considered Christian, but that it contained biblical language and assumptions absent from the Constitution.
And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said Confederation are submitted to them. And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.
In Witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth day of July in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-Eight, and in the Third Year of the independence of America.
Rock, forgive me but I'm resisting what feels to me like your attempt to control the conversation. That's all I have to say on the subject. Over & out.
Incidentally, this sure would have kept us out of a number of our wars:
The United States in Congress assembled shall never engage in a war, nor grant letters of marque or reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the value thereof, nor ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the defense and welfare of the United States, or any of them, nor emit bills, nor borrow money on the credit of the United States, nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the number of vessels of war, to be built or purchased, or the number of land or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander in chief of the army or navy, unless nine States assent to the same: nor shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning from day to day be determined, unless by the votes of the majority of the United States in Congress assembled.
Whether dominionists are some type of rare fringe movement with in Evangelical Christianity, I don't know. But I suspect Evangelicals would tolerate dominionists far better than they tolerate non Christians.
I have heard about the difficulties non Christians face in the military (http://mrff.blogspot.com/, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15925.htm )and, like Vegan, I've heard all about the evils of demons etc in pagan religions, read about weird weird satanic rituals attributed to Wicca etc(which doesn't believe in satan, hmmm.), read 'deliverance' stories that sound like a walk through pychosis, portrayed as normal Wiccan stuff... My 'what if I wonder' scenario didn't seem to far out to me.
But then, my experience with Christianity hasn't been all warmth and love.
It seems to me The Our Christian Heritage is often a lead into--'and we should be a Christian nation today!'
I'm thankful for a secular government and that dominant religions don't have a slick path to power over others.
My main reason for bringing it up was the Supreme Court ruling (as I recall) that quotas were wrong, but colleges were required to promote diversity, or some such. So what does that mean? If there is 80% white christian population, colleges have to diversify away from that apparently.
In my mind, this would be done by educating about other cultures, which I think most colleges do well. Unfortunately in the U.S. our public education system is pretty bad and doesn't really teach about other countries, religions, ethnic groups, etc. very much. In fact the history we learn in school is pretty much just government propaganda since they take out the bad stuff and practically deify our founding fathers. I'd say that they were even more polarized than we are at times -- you don't see congressmen having duels in this day and age, for example. Even though the federalist vs. states rights argument has pretty much gone away at this point, a lack of knowledge of it means that kids don't know why our nation had so many problems early on that led eventually to the civil war. I should stop though, my history rant is unrelated to this topic at present.
I did miss P-Mosh's comment about college, but the issue seems to extend to selective enforcement of "hate speech" as well. White guys need to be very sensitive, but others can call Christian whitey anything they want. Of course that is just the impression I get. I don't think the required diversity decision is only pertinent to college.
Hate speech requires someone from a privileged class to make a disparaging remark about a minority class person. I strongly believe in the 1st amendment, so hate speech doesn't really apply on a government level to my mind. However, I can understand why minorities appear to have more protections under the law than we of the majority do. It's simply because they have problems that we do not have, related to their minority status.
P-Mosh, it does seem you defend Muslims by pointing to the Moors, while taking christians to task for some group somewhere that you think might one day become militant. The dark ages were a long time ago and not really too relevant. It seems you are whistling past the graveyard. The Muslim problem is at hand. They have a few decades before the oil runs out and the bad factions seem to be growing.
It's relevant because history always repeats itself, although in different ways. I really don't care what happens in the middle east, as long as we can avoid being involved. My point about the Moors is that a once great culture can regress, while a crappy culture can change and become dominant. It always happens.
My concern right now is the direction I see this nation heading. I think we all agree that something bad is going on, even if we don't agree on the causes. I see militant Christianity, which I'm pretty sure did not exist 50 years ago, as a new threat. It's not really a threat right now, but in the long view, it could easily become one. I just don't trust people who want to establish a theocracy, whether by votes or with force.
But there is also the question of the huge influx from Mexico, and the calls for another blanket amnesty. I'm not sure if they are Christian, maybe it is more a question of whether they are raised with the "apple pie all American beliefs" that I'd like to think most Americans have.
My wife is from Mexico and I'm very familiar with the country. However, there is no single "Mexican culture" just like there's no single "American culture." Every region and every group is different, just like here. I could say quite a bit on the topic of immigration and Mexican politics but I don't want to derail your thread. However, in my experience, most Mexicans are more like the old-school Christians who believe in helping their fellow human beings out and taking care of others. Of course, there are all sorts of different people and not all of them are good. Still, the culture they are raised in values giving what you have extra to those who need it and believing that all are sinners and that nobody is perfect so you shouldn't judge each other.
I'd say "my problem" is with required diversity. I lived as a minority in New Orleans for a 15 years and was engulfed in diversity. I didn't mind it at all except for the crime.
I wouldn't have considered the situation in New Orleans to be diversity, that's more like a place where poor black people were hidden so they would be invisible to the rest of us. I have some other opinions but I live in Houston so I'm pretty sure that I'm unfairly biased against New Orleans.
Anyway, back to the Christian heritage topic. I am proud of Christians who have done good things, like starting off the civil rights movement of the 60's, and all the good work they did throughout our history to help protect the people from "bullying" from big government and big business, and to establish equality. The diversity that you discuss pretty much originated with Christians. The abolitionist movement to eradicate slavery was primarily run by Christians, the push to let women to vote had Christian involvement, and yes, the founding of this country did involve Christian leaders. However, I wouldn't say that our government has a specific Christian foundation because history shows that our government is based on Greek, British, and possibly some native american ideals. Diversity wasn't originally one of them, but it seems to fit in well with our nation if done right.
So, where does that leave the child of color who is willing to learn, able to learn, but cannot because the system failed her? Should she be denied a higher education because her SAT's were lower than my children's? Should the young man of color be denied a higher education because his parents are working two jobs at minimum wage, just to feed the family, and he cannot afford the SAT prep work that my children could?
Children aren't admitted into college because they are smart. They are admitted because of test scores, grades, involvement in school activities. How can you ask an inner city child in public school to compete with a suburban child in private school?
I agree with you that inner city schools face a huge problem and that the students are not taught as well as suburban schools, but quotas to college won't help the kids become smarter or better able to learn. We have to address the root of the problem in the primary education.
I agree that money is a tough thing, but that's not just for minority students. Non-minorities go deep into debt to get degrees that are mostly not worth the paper they are printed on. We're all screwed when dealing with the higher education system. That's why India and China are passing us by so quickly.
Rock, forgive me but I'm resisting what feels to me like your attempt to control the conversation. That's all I have to say on the subject. Over & out.
I respect your "I" statement and no problem on having said all you'd like to.
What are the All American Apple Pie core beliefs about which you have doubts that Mexicans and others share with you?
First the ones that want amnesty are here illegally. There may be hard workers among them, but they came over illegally. It seems the culture of corruption is greater in Mexico than here. Beyond that for starters, I'm not sure the way to get ahead in Mexico is to study hard and/or work hard. The class we are importing have often learned less noble ways to get ahead.
The Hmong man that shot those hunters in Wisconsin seemed to have different standards. I seem to recall the Vietnamese broke a lot of rules when shrimping in the Gulf. Of course there is also the gang problem we are importing. The Mexican government even put out a comic book on how to get into the US (illegally) and acquire US services. Most illegals don't pay taxes yet use government services and schools. Can an American really compete in lawn care in the south? The examples are endless.
Can an American really compete in lawn care in the south? The examples are endless.
I would suggest that we move this to a new thread, but I can address a lot of that.
There may be hard workers among them, but they came over illegally.
This is true, but we all commit crimes. Do you ever go faster than the speed limit? That's more dangerous than undocumented immigration. In either case though, it isn't (or wasn't last time I checked) a felony to come here without a visa. On the other hand, it's pretty much impossible to come here legally if you are poor, so most of those who come here do so just to feed their families. If my family were starving and living in third world conditions, I would be willing to risk my life to enter another nation and make money to be able to feed them. Our immigration system is biased towards those with white skin and with loads of money.
It seems the culture of corruption is greater in Mexico than here. Beyond that for starters, I'm not sure the way to get ahead in Mexico is to study hard and/or work hard.
They do have a bigger problem with corruption, but that is being dealt with. We have our fair share here in the U.S., but it's institutionalized. We call it "lobbying." As for studying and working hard to get ahead, it works there like it does here. The only difference is that there are less opportunities there.
Of course there is also the gang problem we are importing.
MS-13 (somewhat from El Salvador rather than Mexico) is the biggest foreign gang we have a problem with here in Houston. However, the statistics show that immigrants are less likely to commit violent crimes than U.S. citizens are.
The Mexican government even put out a comic book on how to get into the US (illegally) and acquire US services.
I saw a copy of that book, and basically it was telling them how not to die in the desert and what their human rights are. It didn't encourage them to come here and if I read it without knowing anything else, it would discourage me from going to the U.S.
Most illegals don't pay taxes yet use government services and schools.
This is incorrect. A large number pay both income and sales taxes. The income tax is usually by using fake SSNs when getting a job, and the result has been that undocumented immigrants' tax payments are more than enough to pay for the public services they use. Also they are not eligible for most public services. You're not going to see undocumented immigrants on welfare, for example.
Can an American really compete in lawn care in the south? The examples are endless.
It depends on the customers. Would you pay $10 a week to have your lawn mowed without knowing the person's immigration status, or would you rather pay $50 a week for someone you know is a U.S. citizen?
Of course, this doesn't stop with lawn services or immigrants. Shopping at Walmart is just as bad if not worse for our country than hiring undocumented immigrants is. Walmart has put thousands of Americans out of work, if not more, has helped push our manufacturing base overseas to China, and have caused many small and medium-sized businesses to go out of business. Nevermind the fact that Walmart does not provide health insurance to most of their workers, and encourages their employees to go on Medicaid and use other government services.
We need to have a discussion in this country that does not demonize people from Latin America, but does take an honest look at our economy and jobs. We blame the undocumented immigrants for what we are doing to ourselves. Now that we've cracked down on them, we already see that our food supply is shrinking and farms are going out of business now while the big grocers simply buy cheaper fruit and vegetables from other countries. In my mind, immigration is an American value, when we let people come in to work and spend their money here and contribute to our nation. Offshoring everything is not an American value, and is hurting our nation deeply.
It seems this fits under "subsidizing diversity" and the other comments have dried up ... so this seems fine here, and you gave it a good start.
Breaking the speed limit hardly compares with illegal immigration. (and if I get caught I pay a fine, I don't get let off) Allowing Mexico's poor to come over to take advantage of us seems compassionate, but if not done in a way fair to Americans, only weakens our country, and probably does most damage to the underclass we already have here, largely the blacks, (though number wise there may be more poor whites that have no preferential hiring benefits). It might be thought that we have more of a responsibility as a nation to the blacks.
I'm not sure how the system is biased to white folks with lots of money. I know Europeans that can't get in, while illegals bide their time for an amnesty of some 20 million or more. But I would guess and maybe even hope that we let good people in if they have a lot of money to spread around in a productive way.
You say working hard and studying works there, except there are fewer opportunities. So then it really doesn't work the same there. I believe the poor are much better taken care of here, at a cost to others. Mexico is rich as a nation, but they seem to deliberately push their poor across the border so they can send remittances back to Mexico, one of their largest sources of income.
MS-13 is a vicious gang and huge problem ... there is a much higher percentage of new immigrants or illegals imprisoned than natives ... I'm not sure where you got your statistic or why you chose violent crime to measure.
The best estimate from my readings on the cost of the average immigrant is $5000/year. That considers the taxes they pay versus the benefits which include health care and schooling ... I'm not sure it includes other hidden costs like problems from the unlicensed, uninsured drivers.
I'll have to check on the "undocumented workers" and welfare. Most have phony documents so don't fit in that category. "Illegal aliens" is a more descriptive and accurate term. Considering they have willfully bypassed the immigration process and usually call themselves Mexican, it is hard to call them immigrants. Invaders may be more accurate. Many legal immigrants and those waiting through the process are frustrated that the law breakers are getting to move to the front of the line ... or actually not even bothering with the line.
It does seem a methodical increase in fines on those hiring illegals would work better than these raids, but I suppose this is sending a message. While I see a problem with our exporting jobs, it is hard to blame Wal-Mart for selling foreign made products. We already have laws against illegal immigration. We don't have laws against selling cheap imports. It may be we will need some form of protectionism to protect our manufacturing base ... that may need another topic heading. The process of bringing legitimate law abiding workers into our system and way of life needs consideration. Blanket amnesty I believe is very wrong for achieving this.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
12
6
12
Popular Days
Dec 18
27
Dec 17
24
Dec 19
15
Dec 21
2
Top Posters In This Topic
TheEvan 9 posts
Rocky 12 posts
markomalley 6 posts
rhino 12 posts
Popular Days
Dec 18 2006
27 posts
Dec 17 2006
24 posts
Dec 19 2006
15 posts
Dec 21 2006
2 posts
Posted Images
rhino
I never meant Christian nation, as in a theocracy. I used "fabric being underpinned by Christianity" to try to communicate more whether the "heart and soul" of the country is Christian, whether in origin or in the heartland today. While I've heard some about these "skinhead" type groups, I'm surprised to hear some people consider these dominionists as a real potential threat, but this is the first I've even heard of them.
The "80% Christians" I refer to are just those that call themselves Christian. Just what that means now and then is vague and probably not defined by a Bible verse. Someone could probably find some general uniquely American characteristics that would surely include apple pie and baseball.
It does seem Islam has a place in the discussion, in light of the "forced diversity" subtopic. Radical Islam seems to be using our open society and laws to take advantage of US. And radical Islam is a large part of what is allowing an imposition on our inalienable rights. (eg. security measures that end up being not so temporary).
I appreciate all the input ... carry on :)
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
The problem with that is "what brand of Christianity would you like with your coffee?"
Remember the old blue laws? Stores would be, by law, required to close on Sunday? Can't have a bar within 1,000 feet of a church? and so on?
Well, a lot of this stuff comes down to what variety of Christianity. You and I may approve of having stores be closed on Sunday. Suppose there is a town that is majority Seventh-Day Adventists...they would want stores to be required to be closed on Saturday in that town. In a country run by Catholics, you would not be able to buy condoms or birth control pills (fine by me, but I'm sure I'm in the minority here). In a country run by Southern Baptists, we'd still be under prohibition. In a country run by rastafaris, you'd be able to buy dope at the local 7-11. In a country run by orthodox Jews or Muslims, you wouldn't be able to have that bacon and egg biscuit from your local Krystal shop.
The problem with saying that we are a Christian country or a Muslim country or whatever, is that the dominant denomination would love to impose itself on everybody. I think that would hold true no matter what the denomination, religion, or belief system (or lack thereof). If you'd like to see an official atheist state, take a look at how religions were treated by the USSR or China. Barely tolerated, provided they didn't step over the line. And you can see the blessings of living in a Muslim society.
If you really want this to be a "Christian" country, then I think the thing to do is to, at the grassroots level, convert people to living their own lives like Christians (80% of the people in this country call themselves Christians...but I bet out of that, less than half of them even read the Bible...much less live it). I think if the Christians concerned themselves with getting other Christians to live the gospel and Jews worried about getting Jews to live the Talmud and Atheists/Agnostics concerned themselves with getting their atheist/agnostic brethren to live an ethical life, rather than worrying so much about other peoples' business, this would be a heck of a lot better country.
Edited by markomalleyLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Denial, Rocky? Sure, whatever. I prefer to call it disagreement. We are not a Christian nation, nor have we ever been, unless you count that brief time we operated under the Articles. I don't see any group, Christian or Muslim, changing that anytime soon.
We do, however, clearly have a Christian heritage. Is anybody denying that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VeganXTC
I think racial quotas for colleges is a good thing.
I won't speak for all cities, but in Milwaukee, the inner city schools aren't bastions of academia. There is so much distruption in the high school classrooms, that the teachers spend more time with discipline, rather than teaching. Shootings occur outside of the school, drugs are bought and sold, children are selling themselves for $10, its not pretty.
So, where does that leave the child of color who is willing to learn, able to learn, but cannot because the system failed her? Should she be denied a higher education because her SAT's were lower than my children's? Should the young man of color be denied a higher education because his parents are working two jobs at minimum wage, just to feed the family, and he cannot afford the SAT prep work that my children could?
Children aren't admitted into college because they are smart. They are admitted because of test scores, grades, involvement in school activities. How can you ask an inner city child in public school to compete with a suburban child in private school?
Edited by VeganXTCLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Apparently what we have here ... is a failure ... to communicate (cool hand luke)
I'm not talking about a Christian nation ... but more how much of what America ideally stands for is rooted in "melting pot Christianity"? Evan, it does seem some are denying we have a Christian heritage.
It seems to me the diversity requirement for colleges is just the tip of the diversity iceberg. Media and some people seem enamored with this "favored religion", and now we have the Supreme Court ruling in this religion's favor ... if you get my drift. Could this set legal precedent for hiring requirements?
I guess to me the deists fit in with the Christians ... maybe just a general belief in a higher power and the worthiness of a greater and common good. But I would certainly not want even that general belief to be legislated. I'm more concerned that it is being legislated against. (or worse yet, ruled against by unelected judges)
Should an official be able to choose to be sworn in on a Koran? That is an interesting question. The swearing on the Bible has an established American meaning. The Koran by my reading endorses murder of those that don't convert, unless they subject themselves to sharia law. I don't want that to be endorsed in an official capacity. It strikes me that America is more "melting pot Christian" whereas Iran would be more "Koranic".
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
This is from just a couple weeks ago.
... five of nine justices indicated Monday that school systems may run afoul of the Constitution by using students' race to promote diversity.
With Sandra Day gone, race may not be allowed in the equation (loved her movies though ;) )
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Disagreement vs denial? I would agree with you (to disagree) on that point, except that your posts taking issue with the particular posts, IMO, can reasonably be characterized as denial.
And obviously, as to whether the USA is or is not a Christian nation, we do agree.
Do we clearly have a Christian heritage? In general (and because I'm not familiar with the role of Christianity in the Articles of Confederation and the time during which the country was under the Articles) I do believe that there are people denying that we have such a heritage.
I agree with rhino that Islam certainly can be a part of the overall discussion on this thread. Yet, I still believe that you used Islam in these particular posts, to compare/contrast with Christianity as a way to minimize an obvious reality. What would come to play in the event fundamentalist/rightwing conservative Christians in the USA got the kind of country they desire is enough to make one shudder.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Evan,
You stated that the Articles of Confederation were "self-consciously Christian". Could you explain/show us why you think that is so? I think one time that I looked at the Articles, and I don't remember seeing anything in there that indicated such.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
"Self-consciously Christian" was perhaps too big a statement. I would have better left it as the current Constitution being self-consciously not Christian (or religious in any other way).
By saying so, I don't mean to imply the Articles intended to establish a Christian nation or that its government was considered Christian, but that it contained biblical language and assumptions absent from the Constitution.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Rock, forgive me but I'm resisting what feels to me like your attempt to control the conversation. That's all I have to say on the subject. Over & out.
Incidentally, this sure would have kept us out of a number of our wars:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Whether dominionists are some type of rare fringe movement with in Evangelical Christianity, I don't know. But I suspect Evangelicals would tolerate dominionists far better than they tolerate non Christians.
I have heard about the difficulties non Christians face in the military (http://mrff.blogspot.com/, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15925.htm )and, like Vegan, I've heard all about the evils of demons etc in pagan religions, read about weird weird satanic rituals attributed to Wicca etc(which doesn't believe in satan, hmmm.), read 'deliverance' stories that sound like a walk through pychosis, portrayed as normal Wiccan stuff... My 'what if I wonder' scenario didn't seem to far out to me.
But then, my experience with Christianity hasn't been all warmth and love.
It seems to me The Our Christian Heritage is often a lead into--'and we should be a Christian nation today!'
I'm thankful for a secular government and that dominant religions don't have a slick path to power over others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
In my mind, this would be done by educating about other cultures, which I think most colleges do well. Unfortunately in the U.S. our public education system is pretty bad and doesn't really teach about other countries, religions, ethnic groups, etc. very much. In fact the history we learn in school is pretty much just government propaganda since they take out the bad stuff and practically deify our founding fathers. I'd say that they were even more polarized than we are at times -- you don't see congressmen having duels in this day and age, for example. Even though the federalist vs. states rights argument has pretty much gone away at this point, a lack of knowledge of it means that kids don't know why our nation had so many problems early on that led eventually to the civil war. I should stop though, my history rant is unrelated to this topic at present.
Hate speech requires someone from a privileged class to make a disparaging remark about a minority class person. I strongly believe in the 1st amendment, so hate speech doesn't really apply on a government level to my mind. However, I can understand why minorities appear to have more protections under the law than we of the majority do. It's simply because they have problems that we do not have, related to their minority status.
It's relevant because history always repeats itself, although in different ways. I really don't care what happens in the middle east, as long as we can avoid being involved. My point about the Moors is that a once great culture can regress, while a crappy culture can change and become dominant. It always happens.
My concern right now is the direction I see this nation heading. I think we all agree that something bad is going on, even if we don't agree on the causes. I see militant Christianity, which I'm pretty sure did not exist 50 years ago, as a new threat. It's not really a threat right now, but in the long view, it could easily become one. I just don't trust people who want to establish a theocracy, whether by votes or with force.
My wife is from Mexico and I'm very familiar with the country. However, there is no single "Mexican culture" just like there's no single "American culture." Every region and every group is different, just like here. I could say quite a bit on the topic of immigration and Mexican politics but I don't want to derail your thread. However, in my experience, most Mexicans are more like the old-school Christians who believe in helping their fellow human beings out and taking care of others. Of course, there are all sorts of different people and not all of them are good. Still, the culture they are raised in values giving what you have extra to those who need it and believing that all are sinners and that nobody is perfect so you shouldn't judge each other.
I wouldn't have considered the situation in New Orleans to be diversity, that's more like a place where poor black people were hidden so they would be invisible to the rest of us. I have some other opinions but I live in Houston so I'm pretty sure that I'm unfairly biased against New Orleans.
Anyway, back to the Christian heritage topic. I am proud of Christians who have done good things, like starting off the civil rights movement of the 60's, and all the good work they did throughout our history to help protect the people from "bullying" from big government and big business, and to establish equality. The diversity that you discuss pretty much originated with Christians. The abolitionist movement to eradicate slavery was primarily run by Christians, the push to let women to vote had Christian involvement, and yes, the founding of this country did involve Christian leaders. However, I wouldn't say that our government has a specific Christian foundation because history shows that our government is based on Greek, British, and possibly some native american ideals. Diversity wasn't originally one of them, but it seems to fit in well with our nation if done right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I agree with you that inner city schools face a huge problem and that the students are not taught as well as suburban schools, but quotas to college won't help the kids become smarter or better able to learn. We have to address the root of the problem in the primary education.
I agree that money is a tough thing, but that's not just for minority students. Non-minorities go deep into debt to get degrees that are mostly not worth the paper they are printed on. We're all screwed when dealing with the higher education system. That's why India and China are passing us by so quickly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I respect your "I" statement and no problem on having said all you'd like to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
Rhino,
What are the All American Apple Pie core beliefs about which you have doubts that Mexicans and others share with you?
Edited by oenophileLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
The Hmong man that shot those hunters in Wisconsin seemed to have different standards. I seem to recall the Vietnamese broke a lot of rules when shrimping in the Gulf. Of course there is also the gang problem we are importing. The Mexican government even put out a comic book on how to get into the US (illegally) and acquire US services. Most illegals don't pay taxes yet use government services and schools. Can an American really compete in lawn care in the south? The examples are endless.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I would suggest that we move this to a new thread, but I can address a lot of that.
This is true, but we all commit crimes. Do you ever go faster than the speed limit? That's more dangerous than undocumented immigration. In either case though, it isn't (or wasn't last time I checked) a felony to come here without a visa. On the other hand, it's pretty much impossible to come here legally if you are poor, so most of those who come here do so just to feed their families. If my family were starving and living in third world conditions, I would be willing to risk my life to enter another nation and make money to be able to feed them. Our immigration system is biased towards those with white skin and with loads of money.
They do have a bigger problem with corruption, but that is being dealt with. We have our fair share here in the U.S., but it's institutionalized. We call it "lobbying." As for studying and working hard to get ahead, it works there like it does here. The only difference is that there are less opportunities there.
MS-13 (somewhat from El Salvador rather than Mexico) is the biggest foreign gang we have a problem with here in Houston. However, the statistics show that immigrants are less likely to commit violent crimes than U.S. citizens are.
I saw a copy of that book, and basically it was telling them how not to die in the desert and what their human rights are. It didn't encourage them to come here and if I read it without knowing anything else, it would discourage me from going to the U.S.
This is incorrect. A large number pay both income and sales taxes. The income tax is usually by using fake SSNs when getting a job, and the result has been that undocumented immigrants' tax payments are more than enough to pay for the public services they use. Also they are not eligible for most public services. You're not going to see undocumented immigrants on welfare, for example.
It depends on the customers. Would you pay $10 a week to have your lawn mowed without knowing the person's immigration status, or would you rather pay $50 a week for someone you know is a U.S. citizen?
Of course, this doesn't stop with lawn services or immigrants. Shopping at Walmart is just as bad if not worse for our country than hiring undocumented immigrants is. Walmart has put thousands of Americans out of work, if not more, has helped push our manufacturing base overseas to China, and have caused many small and medium-sized businesses to go out of business. Nevermind the fact that Walmart does not provide health insurance to most of their workers, and encourages their employees to go on Medicaid and use other government services.
We need to have a discussion in this country that does not demonize people from Latin America, but does take an honest look at our economy and jobs. We blame the undocumented immigrants for what we are doing to ourselves. Now that we've cracked down on them, we already see that our food supply is shrinking and farms are going out of business now while the big grocers simply buy cheaper fruit and vegetables from other countries. In my mind, immigration is an American value, when we let people come in to work and spend their money here and contribute to our nation. Offshoring everything is not an American value, and is hurting our nation deeply.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
It seems this fits under "subsidizing diversity" and the other comments have dried up ... so this seems fine here, and you gave it a good start.
Breaking the speed limit hardly compares with illegal immigration. (and if I get caught I pay a fine, I don't get let off) Allowing Mexico's poor to come over to take advantage of us seems compassionate, but if not done in a way fair to Americans, only weakens our country, and probably does most damage to the underclass we already have here, largely the blacks, (though number wise there may be more poor whites that have no preferential hiring benefits). It might be thought that we have more of a responsibility as a nation to the blacks.
I'm not sure how the system is biased to white folks with lots of money. I know Europeans that can't get in, while illegals bide their time for an amnesty of some 20 million or more. But I would guess and maybe even hope that we let good people in if they have a lot of money to spread around in a productive way.
You say working hard and studying works there, except there are fewer opportunities. So then it really doesn't work the same there. I believe the poor are much better taken care of here, at a cost to others. Mexico is rich as a nation, but they seem to deliberately push their poor across the border so they can send remittances back to Mexico, one of their largest sources of income.
MS-13 is a vicious gang and huge problem ... there is a much higher percentage of new immigrants or illegals imprisoned than natives ... I'm not sure where you got your statistic or why you chose violent crime to measure.
The best estimate from my readings on the cost of the average immigrant is $5000/year. That considers the taxes they pay versus the benefits which include health care and schooling ... I'm not sure it includes other hidden costs like problems from the unlicensed, uninsured drivers.
I'll have to check on the "undocumented workers" and welfare. Most have phony documents so don't fit in that category. "Illegal aliens" is a more descriptive and accurate term. Considering they have willfully bypassed the immigration process and usually call themselves Mexican, it is hard to call them immigrants. Invaders may be more accurate. Many legal immigrants and those waiting through the process are frustrated that the law breakers are getting to move to the front of the line ... or actually not even bothering with the line.
It does seem a methodical increase in fines on those hiring illegals would work better than these raids, but I suppose this is sending a message. While I see a problem with our exporting jobs, it is hard to blame Wal-Mart for selling foreign made products. We already have laws against illegal immigration. We don't have laws against selling cheap imports. It may be we will need some form of protectionism to protect our manufacturing base ... that may need another topic heading. The process of bringing legitimate law abiding workers into our system and way of life needs consideration. Blanket amnesty I believe is very wrong for achieving this.
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.