I'm aware of the oath of allegiance, and of its meaninglessness in this age of tolerance to the point of suicide, which is why I specified that I would have to believe there would be real intention to enforce an oath, and why I specified that it would have to be explicit re the beliefs that make Islam more a conquering political ideology than a religion in practice.
And I noticed that you didn't comment on the mormon assimilation.
Seriously, you just cannot compare our society's ability to assimilate newcomers today to its ability back in the days when the very thought of public schools teaching in foreign languages (other than as a fast bridge to english in the most enlightened environs) would have been considered preposterous. Same thing relative to the attitude that prevailed which more or less required Kennedy to renounce allegiance to the Pope as a condition of his run for the presidency.
A lot was wrong with the country before we became terrified of requiring assimilation; but requiring assimilation was not a wrong. Willingness to assimilate should be a hard requirement of immigration. And virtually any sign of unwillingness to assimilate on important matters should be grounds for revocation of a green card and deportation.
If guys are turning up on neighborhood sidewalks with two bloody holes behind their ears it's a good idea to be very attentive to the fat guys in the wifebeater T shirts who hang around at the coffee shop on the corner. Which brings me to another point about assimilation of groups with very different traditions and belief systems. The Mafia would most likely still be active and perhaps more powerful if its members had enjoyed the sort of "tolerance" and "rights" CK is asserting existed in America in former days when "we" were more demanding of assimilation.
"We" Americanized (were Americanized) and reformed those disparate groups in part by the liberal application of all sorts of discriminatory sanctions that encouraged the surrender of "unamerican" belief systems and the great desire to assimilate. Despite all of those sanctions "we" have never assimilated groups like the Amish, who fortunately don't have an urgent desire to kill or convert the rest of us.
I find it interesting that you mention the Mormons, one of whose core beliefs (plural marriage) was outright banned as part of the deal that permitted them to retain their religion.
I would have no problem with importing and making citizens of Muslims who are willing to publicly swear a solemn oath denouncing Sharia, Jihad and all other supremacist tenets of the religion if I were able to believe we would actually strip citizenship of those who revert.
Tolerance does not extend to yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, prescribing magic mushrooms as a vision aid or handing poisonous vipers to children as a test of faith; and it should not extend to immigration with the avowed purpose of imposing intolerance.
And, your efforts to equate suicidal tolerance with "Americanism" do not survive the test of logic.
For the chance to meet you I may well decide to buy some bibles and brave the crowd. One of us can carry a sign. My first draft of its content is: "Leftist Jews and Conservative Post Christian Agnostics for Interfaith Dialogue"
For the CI, opening on September 11th emphasizes their central message that Muslims, rather than being co-responsible for 9/11, can stand diametrically opposed to Bin Ladenism. The terrorists destroyed buildings, killed strangers, and preached the clash of civilizations. The CI is constructing a building, welcoming strangers, and preaching interfaith cooperation and exchange.
I may go up for the opening and hand out some bibles to the entering crowds in the interests of interfaith exchange. I'll also be interested in hearing the preaching and reading a translation of any parts that are delivered in Arabic. I'm sure there will be strong and unequivocal condemnation of Bin Ladenism.
@ CK MacLeod:
I'm aware of the oath of allegiance, and of its meaninglessness in this age of tolerance to the point of suicide, which is why I specified that I would have to believe there would be real intention to enforce an oath, and why I specified that it would have to be explicit re the beliefs that make Islam more a conquering political ideology than a religion in practice.
And I noticed that you didn't comment on the mormon assimilation.
Seriously, you just cannot compare our society's ability to assimilate newcomers today to its ability back in the days when the very thought of public schools teaching in foreign languages (other than as a fast bridge to english in the most enlightened environs) would have been considered preposterous. Same thing relative to the attitude that prevailed which more or less required Kennedy to renounce allegiance to the Pope as a condition of his run for the presidency.
A lot was wrong with the country before we became terrified of requiring assimilation; but requiring assimilation was not a wrong. Willingness to assimilate should be a hard requirement of immigration. And virtually any sign of unwillingness to assimilate on important matters should be grounds for revocation of a green card and deportation.
@ Fourcheese casady:
If guys are turning up on neighborhood sidewalks with two bloody holes behind their ears it's a good idea to be very attentive to the fat guys in the wifebeater T shirts who hang around at the coffee shop on the corner. Which brings me to another point about assimilation of groups with very different traditions and belief systems. The Mafia would most likely still be active and perhaps more powerful if its members had enjoyed the sort of "tolerance" and "rights" CK is asserting existed in America in former days when "we" were more demanding of assimilation.
@ CK MacLeod:
"We" Americanized (were Americanized) and reformed those disparate groups in part by the liberal application of all sorts of discriminatory sanctions that encouraged the surrender of "unamerican" belief systems and the great desire to assimilate. Despite all of those sanctions "we" have never assimilated groups like the Amish, who fortunately don't have an urgent desire to kill or convert the rest of us.
I find it interesting that you mention the Mormons, one of whose core beliefs (plural marriage) was outright banned as part of the deal that permitted them to retain their religion.
I would have no problem with importing and making citizens of Muslims who are willing to publicly swear a solemn oath denouncing Sharia, Jihad and all other supremacist tenets of the religion if I were able to believe we would actually strip citizenship of those who revert.
@ CK MacLeod:
Tolerance does not extend to yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, prescribing magic mushrooms as a vision aid or handing poisonous vipers to children as a test of faith; and it should not extend to immigration with the avowed purpose of imposing intolerance.
And, your efforts to equate suicidal tolerance with "Americanism" do not survive the test of logic.
And, now that I've googled unsuccessfully for the answer. . . what the heck is the derivation, meaning, significance of "fourcheese casady"?
@ CK MacLeod:
The disease is Tolerance as our state religion. As has been known to occur in all religions, our particular sect has progressed to suicidal extremism.
@ Fourcheese casady:
For the chance to meet you I may well decide to buy some bibles and brave the crowd. One of us can carry a sign. My first draft of its content is: "Leftist Jews and Conservative Post Christian Agnostics for Interfaith Dialogue"
You are free, of course, to suggest revisions.
@ CK MacLeod:
A very good question, deserving of an answer. I'm not sure America has already died; but I'm close to sure it has a terminal disease.
I may go up for the opening and hand out some bibles to the entering crowds in the interests of interfaith exchange. I'll also be interested in hearing the preaching and reading a translation of any parts that are delivered in Arabic. I'm sure there will be strong and unequivocal condemnation of Bin Ladenism.