How about merely letting Philippino OFW’s carry rosaries, attend Mass and hold bible studies…or let IndianHindus have small shrines in their quarters?

My cousin was forced to throw out her rosary by customs when she went there to work as a nurse…

BIG UNREPORTED STORY: the number of OFW that live and run Saudi Arabia…while local unemployment is high…

Good point.

Honest to Pete. Why does this have to be so difficult?

It is amazing to me how unappreciated is the simple fact that long term, sustainable prosperity and freedom are the result of THE BEHAVIORS THAT ARE PROMOTED AND/OR DISCOURAGED BY THE CULTURES THAT ENJOY THEM!!!!!

(Ahem, sorry. Kind of embarassing to lose it like that in public **blushing**)

Prosperty, wealth, etc… aren’t things that just happen to hover over certain geographic areas, bestowing their gifts on people whose only responsibility is to figure out how to get to these fortunate places.

I think you misread me. I am not debating the justification for war, only that war not be hidden under the guise of morality. This, I think is not something being done by the government, but rather by some war supporters who don’t wish to face the fact that we are killing people. I think that the millitary action in Afganistan (and to a lesser extent in Iraq) was likely unavoidable. It does seem to be a gamble, but a gamble that may save us a lot of problems in the future.

However, all of the good and rational reasons in the world still cannot make killing people moral. Necessary, unavoidable, in the best interests of our future… but not moral.

I think its important that we face the real us, the us that may try to be moral… but that must, sadly still bloody their hands.

Somehow you guys think I’m against the war, and that’s simply not the case.

Call it a rule and a corollary.

Here’s one for the “host” culture. Wherever your immigrants came from must really suck otherwise they would have stayed there. You are not required to allow them to recreated the conditions which sucked so bad they had to leave.

Your argument about “cloaking” the issue under “the guise of ‘moral justification’” is largely a straw man. Specific reasons for the war were given. Please don’t claim you haven’t heard them.

A couple of years ago, I was still willing to argue with people about the necessity for this war.

The opposition at that time was unwilling to do anything other than chant, “But it’s all about the oil/Halliburton/the eeevil Bush family/American imperialism.” Time and time again I was told by these reactionaries that I had been “tricked” and that the reasons I had in my heart weren’t the “real reasons” for the war.

So excuse me if I no longer have patience to debate the subject.

Which culture created the circumstances the immigant chose to flee?

Which culture created the circumstances the immigrant chose to flee TO?

Gawdallmightyfrickinehell I’m sick of this.

Sick. Of. It.

Snippet’s Rule of Justified Cultural Hubris:

If you have managed to create a culture that is a magnet, rather than an creator of, immigrants, then you have the right AND THE OBLIGATION to compell immigrants to accept the tenets of your culture.

If your culture creates more immigrants than anything else, than your culture is in drastic need of an overhaul.

Is that two rules?

You seem to be making the argument that Christians who use their primary influence in life, what they base their standards on, are forcing their views on everyone else if they participate in the political process. Everybody has some sort of process that forms their beliefs, not always religous. The non religous person does not go into the voting booth with a blank slate in his mind.And most issue are not based on science. They often involve value judgements.Religous based or not. And the very nature of legislature institutes restrictions on other humans, directly or indirectly. By voting up or down on tax issues,social issues, zoning issues, constitutional issues, there is almost always some sort of restriction or penalty involved. The thought that non religous people do not impose their values through the legislative process on others does not hold water. just because they may not have a formal, written set of values does not mean they have not constructed one of their own. And you may not want the Christian community to ignore the political process. During the Jim Crow era, southerners who did not buy into that racist form of legislature used the very arguments you presented to opt out of the political process and thus handed the victory to the committed racist. And when Jesus forced the money Changers out of the Temple he was forcing his views upon the people he thought were defiling the Temple.

Participatory Democracy was not a common thing when the Bible was written. It says to respect and Honor the authority above, unless it is forces you to perform actions that would dishonor God.When the Romans tried to eliminate the Christian faith Jesus did not expect his followers to go along with the authorities. It doesn’t say don’t vote. And if you vote you must express an opinion and “push” your views on others if you happen to vote for the winning side. The people who vote for the loser are going to expierence things that he or she is not pleased with.Lets forget the religous issues. The Bush tax cuts imposed changes on everyone. No matter whether you thought them to be good or bad, everyone was affected with either higher local taxes, a cut in their own taxes, some lost government monies from programs that they recieved before the cuts, some recieved new monies. The question of gay marriage is bringing change. Whether you are for it or against it, everyone has ideas on the issue. Those who are for it are trying to change the status qou. Those who are against it want to retain the status qou. One side is going to be dissapointed. And whoever wins is going to have his ideas validated at the expense of the other. That is the nature of democracy. The most important thing is to deal with the results with grace and to respect the outcome. It doesn’t mean that you can’t try to change the outcome. Or change your views. As long as it is done in a democratic fashion.

Prop 209, banning racial quotes, was opposed by every major newspaper in California. Of course, they all have their own affirmative action programs, so when the wonderfully diverse editorial board sits down to discuss quotas, no one knows who was promoted on the basis of race & who got ahead by talent, but they have some ideas. Imagine the tension in that meeting.

The SF Comical hit a low point with a banner editorial whose only argument was “Wouldn’t you rather vote against something David Duke supports?” When a major daily is that anti-intellectual, something else is going on

And, Godspeed your boys’ safe return, Rhod.

I think you might be taking the idea to an extreme view. But, nontheless thanks for the debate