immigrants

quote:

---

Nixon would be a mainstream Republican today.

---

Are you seriously asking me to believe that a Republican politician who today suggested that we need to create a large, new federal government agency devoted to the protection of our environment from exploitation and degradation by big business interests would be welcome inside the Republican party, let alone be considered as a presidential candidate?Would his development of OSHA, another federal governmental agency created to protect individual workers from the exploitation of big business, have endeared him to today's Republican party and their backers?What about his support of the touchy-feely, tree-hugging impediment to corporate enterprise, the Endangered Species Act? That smacks of hippie liberalism, don't you think?All those regulations and rules restricting business interests in favor of the individual citizen, the american citizenry as a whole and, to top it all off, dumb animals!? Are you SURE that he would be welcomed in the Republican party today? Are you SURE he would have ever been considered as a presidential candidate, let alone won his party's nomination?

quote:

---

As for the left...I don't want to name names because, as i explained, that would detract from my point about the paradign shift in the ovrall left wing towards something radical, vis a vis classical liberalism.

---

That is just a lame attempt at a dodge.The reason you cannot name any names is because there aren't any radical left-wing politicians.If you refust to name them, I don't have to believe that they exist.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-19-2006 08:56 AM

In Europe. Do you think that because your cultural tradition is European, you might simply not be familiar with the contributions of other religions or movements?I mean how much Chinese art have you studied? How much Indian music?

It is simply fact that Christian civilization has contributed, by far, the most to humanity with respect to political structure and rights and freedoms, and in art, literature and music. Surely you realize that the Church sponsored Bach and Michelangelo? Surely you realize that the majority of those who birthed ideas on freedom and rights, and those others, who supported them to fruition, were religious Christians in an era when almost everyone was devout, and everyday life was intertwined with faith and religious organizations and institutions?You don’t deny that Islamic countries are part of Islamic civilization, but you do deny that that the west is part of Christian civilization. That is a contradiction. I am not Christian. I am aware that there were some non-Christians who contributed, and some not much religious Christians as well. But they did that within the overall body of the civilization in which they lived. Any ideas they had were adopted by the civilization in the context of its identity. Einstein, fore example, would not have come up with E=Mc2 had he lived in Saudi Arabia. Beethoven would not have composed what he did or anything nearly as incredible had he lived in China. They needed the body of science and music that preceded them to do what they did, and that body arose, slowly, within the Christian west.The “whole idea of America” was several things, including rights, freedoms and democracy, no matter how circumscribed originally. It was not that a nation should not be based on religion, but that a nation should not have an official state religion, unlike in Europe then and, residually, even now, i.e., Church of England. Thus, those of a minority Christian faith, like the Pilgrims, would be free to practise it. Of course this generalized to people of other faiths too, but they were a tiny minority in the Christian world at that time, and in the US as well, of course.You wrote: “My point is you are making Christianity seem like it was a force in the invention of everything in the last 200 years when it is purely irrelevant to the inventing. If the inventers were not Christian I think they would have go the ideas regardless.”
First, I have been speaking of Christian civilization, not of the Christian faith. However, I do imply that the Christian civilization that arose may been possible because of the faith. Less, though, than specifically because of the faith - although it may have contributed - than because unlike other faiths, it was not inimical to notions of liberal democracy. If you read the Koran, you will see how, in contrast to the NT, it has a major theme - man is to be ruled by Allah as prescribed by specific laws, i.e. Sharia law, in the Koran. There is no “render unto Caesar . ” passage there, or any such theme. That is why many prominent Islamic clerics and political leaders argue that democracy is sinful. That is, they argue that it is rule of man by man, contrary to Allah’s word as expressed clearly in the Koran (which is considered Allah’s precise and exact words as recited to Mohammed).

I've studied quite a bit of eastern music, as a matter of fact. (I studied music in university.) My wife has been a professional artist. The music and art of non western nations is wonderful, but not even fractionally as developed, as expansive, as evolving. There is a reason why, today, for example, the greatest musicians of Asia are principally western classical music composers and performers.

You seem unaware of Bush's various legislation with respect to many things, and that Republicans are no less environmentally concerned than non Republicans. (Interestingly, I read in a car magazine that a survey indicated more Republicans than Democrats are buying hybrid cars.) The left maintains favourite biases about the right which hold no water. If truth is what you seek, beware.

You seem unaware of Bush's various legislation with respect to many things, and that Republicans are no less environmentally concerned than non Republicans. (Interestingly, I read in a car magazine that a survey indicated more Republicans than Democrats are buying hybrid cars.) The left maintains favourite biases about the right which hold no water. If truth is what you seek, beware.You seem unable to understand my point about a wholesale shift in the left towards radicalism which conflicts with classical liberalism. And that's despite my offering a post replete with examples.

Read my posts again... it should be obvious that this is not what I argue for.
My position was clearly stated that if these people are in the country, and there is the need for their labour... what is the sense in deporting them/criminalising them?
the obvious answer is to make them legal, this way, you have lessened the problem of illegal immigration, generated tax revenue now that they can work legally, and you've maintained the workforce which is obviously needed.

mass illegal mexican immigration. Which doesn't mean he hasn't a valid point.http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=...

Who defines "need for their labor", other than Bush, who needs them for a boom in housing market etc. to spur economy? It is not a "need" for their labor. It's more like "hey we don't have to pay as much for illegals than for Americans, and for that price, hey go ahead and cut my lawn, and clean my room, etc."And, by your logic, then when the next recession hits, and we don't need so many, is that when we deport them? Or, do we put them on welfare? They broke immigration law, and I should not have to pay for their transgression.Finally, you and others keep ignoring the invasion of criminals into to America. Legalization does not lessen the problem. It increases the problem by inviting more illegal aliens with the promise of taking American jobs and living off the American taxpayer. Besides that, legalizing them adds more problems, by increasing the cost to those who hire them (hence, they won't be able to afford the cheap labor anymore)
making it even more likely to live off the taxpayers.America got along great for a long time without the massive influx of illegal aliens. We do not need them. We certainly don't need to increase the problem either.

The Japanese invented the novel. The Chinese invented the printing press. The earliest paintings date from France, circa 35,000 years ago, before Christianity. Democracy? A Greek word, of course, developed by pre-Christian Greeks.You mentioned Shakespeare - but surely you're aware that the Church was far more antagonistic to secular theatre than supportive of it; in Shakespeare's time going to the theatre was a leisure activity roughly on par with whoring and gambling. Shakespeare's contemporary Kit Marlowe was actually convicted of atheism and briefly imprisoned before being pardoned by the Queen as a reward for his clandestine public service. This bears almost no relation to actual history. The architects of the American political and intellectual tradition were men whose freedom of conscience was being oppressed by the government working in concert with the Christian church. It hardly seems reasonable to credit Christianity with the development of ideas in reaction to oppression by Christian churches and governments!Or is it merely your assertion that, so long as Shakespeare prayed to your Christian god, Christianity is to recieve the credit for his works? It's impossible to study the history of the West and not realize that the liberal, progressive ideas you keep referring to were developed not at the behest of Christianity, but in spite of, and opposition to, Christianity. To then turn around and credit Christianity with those ideas is akin to crediting Hitler for the New York City Holocaust Museum. There's no such thing as "Christian civilization", or, if there were, it ended in the Renaissance - which is when the ideas you praise were born. The civilization you're referring to is the European civilization; the intellectual tradition you're referring to is called the "Enlightenment", not "Christianity" which has largely been in organized opposition to the values you claim it's responsible for. The fact that many, even most, of the Enlightenment thinkers were Deists or Christians of some loose sort hardly changes the fact that contemporary Christians considered them mavericks and decried their ideas as dangerous. Christianity's relationship to Enlightenment values was as a stimulating oppressive opposition, much in the same way that Axis aggression in WWII stimulated, but cannot be credited with, the development of the nuclear age. Many Christians made the same argument. Democracy, or even the concept of it, does not appear in the Bible. Rather the Bible admonishes us to remain loyal to our king, who rules because that's God's will. What could be more disloyal and antithetical to the Bible than the idea of casting a vote against our leader? What could be more treasonous to God?

What post was that?

If they have been working and paying taxes they would be perfectly entitled to welfare if the work dissappears as would any tax paying quote"American"unquote. People will only move here and stay here if work is available. If there are no jobs, what reason is there for people to come here?If there is work available, they why not have the workforce here... but allow them to come here legally and contribute to the economy(not that they don't already)in a more 'legal' way.

Yu're absolutely right: it's about cheap labour, not labour to fill a void. In fact, it is quite likely that the millions of illgeals have depressed wages to the point where, yes, many Americans refuse to do the jobs mexicans do. And worse, lower wages at the base have depressed wages up the ladder for much labour.You're also right about the urgent need to at least keep criminals out and deport those here.And you're right again that a mass legalization without truly setting and enforcing future boundaries, figuratively and literally (get that security barrier built!), will only ensure a repeat until mexican-Americans are such a powerful political force that politicans dare not in the future enforce rational controls.What probably is true is that at this point there would be some economic harm if all illegals were deported. But to the degree that many fear. One of the compromise plans might make sense, in that it might ensure that good guys stay, bad guys get booted, and citizenship in future in contingent on good behaviour and productivity in so many years to come.

again, you so badly misread and misunderstand what i say that i see no point to responding. Moreover, you're confused by the distiction between Christianity the faith and Christianity the civilization, which only became principally secular in the past generation or two - although most Americans and even, surprisingly, most Europeans, are believers in jesus. And the secular society in which you revel is, in fact, based on all that preceded it, which was relgious society.You seem to have no sense of gradualism, of how socities and ideas evolve over time. Of course, you would deny that, but it is revelaed in your perspective and argumentation and assumptions.You think becauswe you can point out to inventions of others, that disproves that the Christian world has invented far, far more, and its arts have so much evolved beyonf others. How silly.
How seriously devoid of critical thinking. How oblivious to facts all around you.You think because some religious people, and certainly the RC, opposed democracy that proves that christian civilization was not a factor in its development. You think because the bible does not call for democracy that proves its evolution had nothing to do with christian civilziation. How small is your comprehension. How limited is your vision.I am a Jew. I know full well the evils that Christian civilization perpetuated. I know how barbaric was much of christendom until The enlightmentment and, especially, until democracy. But I also recognize facts for what they are, and the facts are these: only Christian civilization arose from barbarity and mass injustice, to bring democracy, rights and freedoms to the world. And along with these freedoms came a wealth of new thinking in all fields, the unleashing of ingenuity and discovery that has brought hitherto undreamed of health, longevity, quality fo life to all...including Jews.

quote:

---

ensure that good guys stay, bad guys get booted, and citizenship in future in contingent on good behaviour and productivity in so many years to come.

---

Yes. And, that sounds like the mission of the existing immigration laws!