Who here do you think has not????Some might do well to read 1 Corinthians 11.
Who here do you think has not????Some might do well to read 1 Corinthians 11.
You're talking about your response to it, not their motivation or response to it. Is it more drastic? Sure. But then, the Amish look pretty drastic in Hollywood.This is beyond pants or bonnets on Amish women.
Okay. None of that would be orthodoxy for Islam but I'm certain it is the result in some cultural settings and where it is I'll stand with you in opposing it.If their practice is to abuse or diminish women, if they practice and support killing nonbelievers then I don't approve.
I completely agree with the latter, though again I reserve the right to give "harm" the stink eye, since it can be stretched pretty thinly. Some people would say that my teaching Jack to love God is a sort of harm. I think they're ignorant. Life.You can practice your religion as long as it doesn't inflict harm on others. Our society cannot tolerate violence because it is someone's personal belief.
Can't ask for more. :thumb:Will look at the link.
That's the first thing that came to mind, though I'm also mindful that some people see harm in what I'd call the good, supra.What is an example of something harmful but also lawful? Could you mean refusal of blood like the JW or faith based fundamental Christians who refuse to take their sick kids to the doctors and believe in prayer alone?
Mostly around the blurry edges, but sure.While I have problems with it I could see that. Maybe lawful is a better way to state it. But you know laws - here today, changed tomorrow.
I'm against violating anyone's right to the free exercise of conscience.It was wrong when Christianity forced people to conform with violence and it is wrong now when Islam does the same. Two wrongs don't do something.
I agree with the last entirely. And most of the one and a half billion adherents of Islam aren't the problem.They can say Islam is a religion of peace, but actions speak louder than words
I'd say you're conflating the exception with the demonstrable rule.Perhaps they have qualified peace. If everyone converted to Islam there would be peace.
I miss it (cable cut) though I do have a good library and some of the old standards are in public domain and on FB or offered through other services. I'll be happy when TCM has a stand alone buy in like HBO. It's a really good movie. I hope you feel the same way about it that we do.I will be on the lookout for it on TCM. Great channel. Thank you Mr. Turner.
Warm, funny, sentimental and a fine, if idealized look at a time and people you wish you'd lived to walk among, though mostly on vacation.What would be your one line movie review for Quiet Man? I like that thread which I think you started.
I by and large agree with everything in that. Well said.I have an optimistic view of humanity. There are bad apples that muck it up for the rest of us. A secular government is better. Diversity is an important ingredient. The US is lucky to have so many viewpoints. It, while painful, can lead to better understanding and compassion for others. Diversity in the US is being obliterated because of news isolation. Fake News mantras, Facebook, no common truths - bleech.
I'll poke around and find it later. If I forget nudge me. :cheers:EDIT: Well, Town I cannot find that link you gave to glass. If you could be so kind.
Turns out, there's a biological basis for those reactions:
http://factmyth.com/factoids/liberals-and-conservatives-brains-are-different-on-average/
The old saying:
Liberals are open and friendly because they think everyone is pretty much like they are. Conservatives are suspicious and surly for the same reason.
Is an exaggeration, but there's a grain of truth in it.
Is it like how nature "ensures" there is a proper balance between males and females so that being annoyed is a constant state?
What is this Borg you are talking about? A stated national goal? Immigrants always assimilated in the past.
Was there a constitutional united States of America with an immigration policy in place at that time? No.Yeah, the Acadians came here from Canada in 1755, and they immediately switched to English, right?
Was there a constitutional united States of America with an immigration policy in place at that time? No.
What part of American history since the signing of the Constitution had no immigration policy? Please be specific.Actually, for much of our history, we didn't have an immigration policy in place. In Iowa there were areas where spoke German up to the mid-1900s.
Without an official language or a national immigration policy, it was pretty much libertarian until the Chinese Exclusion Act, and that only applied to a very small part of immigration.
What part of American history since the signing of the Constitution had no immigration policy? Please be specific.
I guess you are referring to the Amana colonies.
Are you saying new Germans coming in during the 1950's were not expected to speak English or assimilate?
So there was immigration policy. They had rules for those who immigrated here. I'm not talking about excluding certain countries. I'm talking about the requirement of assimilation for those applying for entry. You are claiming there was none of that before the china act?The first law limiting immigration to the United States was in 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act, which limited immigration of people from China only. Previous to this, there were laws that governed naturalization of certain classes of people, but there were none limiting immigration to the United States.
I'm referring to the immigration authorities who processed them coming in. Are you saying there was no assimilation requirements in place in 1950?Also the old order Amish communities, many of which also spoke German. Farther west,the Hutterites also spoke German.
By whom? In the 1970s, German was still used in church services in Amana, and in some Louisiana parishes, French is spoken by as much as a quarter of the people living there.
And those people considered themselves to be fully American in every sense of the word. And they were.
It doesn't matter what they chose to speak after they were admitted. I'm talking about assimilation requirements at entry.Also the old order Amish communities, many of which also spoke German. Farther west,the Hutterites also spoke German.
By whom? In the 1970s, German was still used in church services in Amana, and in some Louisiana parishes, French is spoken by as much as a quarter of the people living there.
And those people considered themselves to be fully American in every sense of the word. And they were.
It doesn't matter what they chose to speak after they were admitted. I'm talking about assimilation requirements at entry.
It doesn't matter what they chose to speak after they were admitted. I'm talking about assimilation requirements at entry.
The Naturalization TestWhen did speaking English become a legal requirement for entry?
Assimilation has always been the goal. As recently as the efforts to pass a comprehensive immigration reform act in order to give amnesty to illegals, many requirements were put in that were intended to facilitate immigration.
Do you have a reference for the assimilation requirements you assert existed, please? Since you know they existed it will be far quicker if you just reveal your source.