Quote:
Ah yes . . . our values are better and so its okay when we invade your society, undermine its foundations, and try to bend it to our views. But, when you do it, its wrong.
Zobel said:Quote:
The prejudice should be placed against those values incompatible with our Constitutional values, not the God they worship.
these are fundamentally related. lived values are downstream of moral / faith / philosophical claims.
people who worship death-gods aren't going to have the same understanding of the right to life as you are.Quote:
Oaths to the Constitution, required civics classes, interviews to determine willingness to conform to standards / values, orientation programs about rights and responsibilities...If Muslims, on average, tend to be less willing to conform to American values, then I would expect an immigrant rate from Muslims that should be lower.
this will result in a disparate impact, as you note. that is legally considered discrimination. sorry, but that doesn't meet your own criteria.
Zobel said:Quote:
Ah yes . . . our values are better and so its okay when we invade your society, undermine its foundations, and try to bend it to our views. But, when you do it, its wrong.
but seriously, hang on. do you not think our values are superior to those of other cultures? what you call our constitutional values?
Zobel said:
what oath to the constitution have you made? just curious
kurt vonnegut said:dermdoc said:
Christians on this board
Look at recent history of Muslim violence, persecution of Christians, murders, terrorism, refusal to assimilate, etc.
Atheists on this board
Christians are just as bad because of their attitude towards Muslims.
Christians on this board
Huh?
I think there has been pretty open acknowledgement that Islam is currently more violent that Christianity. But, you can continue to ignore it, if you'd like.
This discussion started as a warning that a sufficient Islamic population could result in those persons utilizing political and economic power to change things. I assume that the 'just as bad' comment is a reference to me pointing out that this is a page from an old playbook used for thousands of years to manipulate foreign populations - especially by Christians.
This reminds me of the saying you see here in Texas now in light of the number of people moving here from California: "Don't California My Texas". Basically, Christians don't want Muslims coming here and "Muslim-ing their country."
And because you aren't a hypocrite, I assume that you respect other countries that don't want Christians "Christian-ing their country". Right?
kurt vonnegut said:
Ah yes . . . our values are better and so its okay when we invade your society, undermine its foundations, and try to bend it to our views. But, when you do it, its wrong.
Swimmer, with all due respect, I think you said the quiet part out loud on this one.
swimmerbabe11 said:kurt vonnegut said:
Ah yes . . . our values are better and so its okay when we invade your society, undermine its foundations, and try to bend it to our views. But, when you do it, its wrong.
Swimmer, with all due respect, I think you said the quiet part out loud on this one.
Woah woah woah, first off, I just checked my calendar and I haven't been doing any invading or undermining this holiday season.
Also, pretty sure I said "my beliefs are good and that's why I have them" and if Muslim countries enforced keeping their country muslim through immigration laws and civilized stuff like that rather than burning down schools with children inside and giving women nice acid showers on the street, I'd respect them maintaining their country's status quo (while still praying for their conversion)
I'm a pacifist and don't really want my government going around and invading anything, but I'm not going to pretend like I don't think it would be objectively better if everyone was Christian. Of course I do. Just like no one should endorse the DH.
Quote:
Cool, where did I say we should allow in people with different understanding on the right to life?
Quote:
US Immigration law already includes what amounts to ideological and constitutional compatibility requirements. Those requirements do not include a requirement to worship the Christian God.
Quote:
Yes, I generally think that Western values are better than say Middle East values. However, my set of values does include an entitlement of forcing my values on others. Does yours?
Quote:
Again, you all want the sanctity of your country's values protected while seeing no problem with violated the sanctity of someone else's. And I think this is an unbearably arrogant and self-righteous view.
kurt vonnegut said:Zobel said:
answer the question. how do you filter for people who don't share our values without prejudice?
Oaths to the Constitution, required civics classes, interviews to determine willingness to conform to standards / values, orientation programs about rights and responsibilities.
The prejudice should be placed against those values incompatible with our Constitutional values, not the God they worship. And if wish to draw no distinction between those, you go ahead. The fact remains though, that I am not advocating open borders or open immigration from the Muslim world. If Muslims, on average, tend to be less willing to conform to American values, then I would expect an immigrant rate from Muslims that should be lower.
Sapper Redux said:
One of the things that made Descartes controversial was that he removed a presupposition of God in his philosophy and established his positions logically through his individual perception of the world. Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Montesquieu, Rousseau, etc… all drew on and expounded this approach to philosophy. Montesquieu in particular developed his political theories without particular concern for the religion involved and argued for the benefits of religious toleration in the state. In Enlightenment political thought it was human reason that determined and codified rights while God was removed to the watchmaker role of one who gives men reason to find their natural rights. Sure, there were ministers and religious Christians who took part in the founding. The theories they drew on were not taken from Christianity but from secular exercises that often used deist language or attempted to ground their arguments in the veneer of Christianity to avoid controversy.
one MEEN Ag said:
Do muslims residing in America even celebrate thanksgiving? Or is it like Jews getting Christmas day off and going to eat Chinese food?
Ironically, Sapper is an expert in both religions nowadays so he should be able to provide detailed answers.
Cultural assimilation test happening today.
one MEEN Ag said:Sapper Redux said:
One of the things that made Descartes controversial was that he removed a presupposition of God in his philosophy and established his positions logically through his individual perception of the world. Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Montesquieu, Rousseau, etc… all drew on and expounded this approach to philosophy. Montesquieu in particular developed his political theories without particular concern for the religion involved and argued for the benefits of religious toleration in the state. In Enlightenment political thought it was human reason that determined and codified rights while God was removed to the watchmaker role of one who gives men reason to find their natural rights. Sure, there were ministers and religious Christians who took part in the founding. The theories they drew on were not taken from Christianity but from secular exercises that often used deist language or attempted to ground their arguments in the veneer of Christianity to avoid controversy.
Ironically, Descartes is seen as removing a huge stabilizing lynchpin in civilizational load bearing because of his insistence about removing God from all discussions.
Non-atheist philosophy discussion views Descartes as ushering in the golden age of secularism and all its rotten, unmoored, fruit where government no longer has any checking authority above it or beside it.
swimmerbabe11 said:
that sounds delicious. I want my thanksgiving leftovers right now.
swimmerbabe11 said:
the scale suggested I gained a significant number of pounds overnight and I considered it a testament to my success as a hostess for thanksgiving.
canadiaggie said:swimmerbabe11 said:
that sounds delicious. I want my thanksgiving leftovers right now.
I've got barely any left. Wife and I spent Saturday and Sunday devouring all the leftover brisket, banana pudding, pecan pie. I also depression-ate half of the stuff on Friday after we lost.
Calories don't exist on Thanksgiving weekend
swimmerbabe11 said:
Woah woah woah, first off, I just checked my calendar and I haven't been doing any invading or undermining this holiday season.
Also, pretty sure I said "my beliefs are good and that's why I have them" and if Muslim countries enforced keeping their country muslim through immigration laws and civilized stuff like that rather than burning down schools with children inside and giving women nice acid showers on the street, I'd respect them maintaining their country's status quo (while still praying for their conversion)
I'm a pacifist and don't really want my government going around and invading anything, but I'm not going to pretend like I don't think it would be objectively better if everyone was Christian. Of course I do. Just like no one should endorse the DH.
Quote:
Theoretically, yes. I think they have the right to protect their countries the way they see fit.
Practically? No, because everyone should be Christian. Because Christianity is better than Islam.
dermdoc said:
Sure I respect them. If they do not want the Gospel, that is fine. I do not advocate infiltrating Christians to change their culture. Especially with violent tactics like we have seen from Muslims. There is a stark difference.
And to me, you still seem to equate through moral relevance that somehow the violent actions of Muslims is somehow similar to Christians not liking Muslims or not wanting them in the US.
And then you resort to the tired cliche of calling Christians hypocrites. And apparently gloss over the atrocities committed by Muslims.
Such a tired vapid argument that I have heard a million times.
God and I still love you. And the Gospel is open to everyone.
And we won't kill you if you decline.
The only thing I am guilty of is having a Biblical Christian worldview. No violence. No force. Just the Gospel.
Shalom
one MEEN Ag said:
Okay great, either you understand that Islam is antithetical to all of those things or you don't. They will not take an honest oath to the constitution, Islam has its own baked in view of government and it isn't the constitution. They had no willingness to conform to these standards or values, or enshrine these rights or responsibilities. Or view themselves as having a duty or responsibility to non-muslim groups within america. All your going to get is muslim tribalism until they reach critical mass and can go, 'Yup we were lying about accepting your values - its Sharia law time.' And that is all condoned by their religion. Your oath to a piece of paper is meaningless.
Again, this whole conversation is about presuppositions. You don't have a religion, so the highest allegiance you can make is to the state.
Ironically, you're just one step behind me here. I agree with all your claims, coming to america should require:
Oaths to the Constitution, required civics classes, interviews to determine willingness to conform to standards / values, orientation programs about rights and responsibilities.
And I state that disqualifies the whole muslim world and most of modern europe actually. You'd call your own worldview prejudiced once its applied.
The whole idea that you can just jump through hoops and get access to america is ridiculous anyway. People will absolutely lie and cheat their way for a chance at becoming american. They'll sign and say whatever to get out of their 3rd world country.
swimmerbabe11 said:
Africa is kind of a funny place to bring up given whats happening in Nigeria.
kurt vonnegut said:one MEEN Ag said:
Okay great, either you understand that Islam is antithetical to all of those things or you don't. They will not take an honest oath to the constitution, Islam has its own baked in view of government and it isn't the constitution. They had no willingness to conform to these standards or values, or enshrine these rights or responsibilities. Or view themselves as having a duty or responsibility to non-muslim groups within america. All your going to get is muslim tribalism until they reach critical mass and can go, 'Yup we were lying about accepting your values - its Sharia law time.' And that is all condoned by their religion. Your oath to a piece of paper is meaningless.
Again, this whole conversation is about presuppositions. You don't have a religion, so the highest allegiance you can make is to the state.
Ironically, you're just one step behind me here. I agree with all your claims, coming to america should require:
Oaths to the Constitution, required civics classes, interviews to determine willingness to conform to standards / values, orientation programs about rights and responsibilities.
And I state that disqualifies the whole muslim world and most of modern europe actually. You'd call your own worldview prejudiced once its applied.
The whole idea that you can just jump through hoops and get access to america is ridiculous anyway. People will absolutely lie and cheat their way for a chance at becoming american. They'll sign and say whatever to get out of their 3rd world country.
Do you speak for all Muslims or all Muslims in America?
I would rather listen to Muslims tell me what their values are than have you tell me what their values are.
What I think is funny is that these argument sound very much like the arguments against Catholic immigration circa 1850-1900 or so. It was said that Catholics could not be loyal to the US over the Pope, that they would bring Protestant-Catholic violence to the US, that they would bring poverty and violence, and that their values were not compatible with democratic values.
I just did a search for 'quotes on anti-Catholic sentiment in the US focusing on compatibility with American values' . . . and what a gold mine. . . here are a couple favorites:
"The Roman Catholic religion is not compatible with republican institutions. Popery… is opposed to civil and religious liberty." "If the Catholics gain an ascendancy, farewell to the religious and civil liberties of our country." - Sam Morse
"The State shall not support sectarian schools… especially those whose allegiance is to a power outside our borders." - Senator Blaine regarding allowing Catholic schools
"Popery is a system of darkness… whose spirit is incompatible with freedom." - Lyman Beecher
Anyway, I encourage spending some time reading through anti-Catholic sentiment from this time. The parallels between the rhetoric then (Catholics) and today (Islam) are just fantastic.
swimmerbabe11 said:
I don't think this is super complicated.
I am a Christian, I believe everyone should be Christian because it is the only path to Heaven and has the Truth in a fallen and imperfect world. It would be an objectively good thing if everyone were Christian.
From a political standpoint, I do not think our government should be militarizing missionary work.
And from a political standpoint, if people are taking political steps to maintain the status quo in their country, I respect what they are trying to do and they are more than welcome to do so.
I do not respect when they do it through violent, genocidal, barbaric ways.
Zobel said:
If you believe our values are better, why is spreading them a bad thing?
kurt vonnegut said:Zobel said:
If you believe our values are better, why is spreading them a bad thing?
Depends on how you spread them. No?
kurt vonnegut said:swimmerbabe11 said:
Africa is kind of a funny place to bring up given whats happening in Nigeria.
I can be simultaneously against violence against Christians in Nigeria while also being against Christian lobbyists attempting to fund religious-political movements in foreign countries.
AGC said:
Does Dearborn count? Or are we just evaluating the one or two on texags that says they agree with all the things we do? How can you sort through the truth of any of it, if you don't understand the culture or religion they come from anyways? You don't speak the language and can't read the Quran; why do you think you can discern such a thing?
I had a friend in turkey who was fairly liberal. Erdogan has them backsliding and I wouldn't spend time in the country anymore, like going to tarsus as I did a decade ago. It takes a strong secular government to check Islamic excesses.
dermdoc said:kurt vonnegut said:Zobel said:
If you believe our values are better, why is spreading them a bad thing?
Depends on how you spread them. No?
Do you have examples of Christian using force to stress the Gospel? Never seen or heard of it.
kurt vonnegut said:dermdoc said:kurt vonnegut said:Zobel said:
If you believe our values are better, why is spreading them a bad thing?
Depends on how you spread them. No?
Do you have examples of Christian using force to stress the Gospel? Never seen or heard of it.
You cannot think of any examples of forced conversation by Christians?
Zobel said:
Does it? I mean you've spoken negatively of missions, military, political activism. Those are basically the three levers of mass influence. The only thing left is individual immigration, en masse, with outcome of changing culture but it kinda seems like you're against that too?
You said other cultures have a "right to self preservation". Where does that right come from? Also consensus?
