skirtcafe.org

Uncle Al wrote: We can agree to disagree but if I had to choose between 'Billary' and 'The Donald'
I'ld take 'The Donald' any day of the week

Uncle Al

In that case I will pick 'The Punisher' instead, much more competent and experienced than BOTH of them

Regardless of whether the snopes article is true or not, I'm not sure how a prohibition of any major religion could hold up in court as it would violate one's first amendment right.

I know the Quran commands the execution of infidels, however if we want to play that card, the Bible pretty clearly points out the execution of homosexuals. (Leviticus 20:13) Naturally, pretty much all American Christians (and Christians across the world for that matter) won't follow that verse to the letter. However that said, there have been a fair number of Christian leaders who have praised the killings which is quite detestable in it's own right.
https://www.google.com/search?q=christi ... 8&oe=utf-8

So if we start banning religions that sanction harm to others then we might as well through Christianity into that ring too. OR we could just use common sense and peacefully coexist with peaceful Muslims, who like Christians choose not to follow every passage of their holy book to the letter.

If the shooter was a die hard Christian who cited Leviticus as his reasoning for the massacre, we would NOT be having this discussion! We would be blaming the man who pulled the trigger, the gun, anything but the religion! Tell me I'm wrong!

Just sayin'

Sorry, in my ignorance I may have been corrected.

moonshadow wrote:Regardless of whether the snopes article is true or not, I'm not sure how a prohibition of any major religion could hold up in court as it would violate one's first amendment right.

I know the Quran commands the execution of infidels, however if we want to play that card, the Bible pretty clearly points out the execution of homosexuals. (Leviticus 20:13) Naturally, pretty much all American Christians (and Christians across the world for that matter) won't follow that verse to the letter. However that said, there have been a fair number of Christian leaders who have praised the killings which is quite detestable in it's own right.
https://www.google.com/search?q=christi ... 8&oe=utf-8

So if we start banning religions that sanction harm to others then we might as well through Christianity into that ring too. OR we could just use common sense and peacefully coexist with peaceful Muslims, who like Christians choose not to follow every passage of their holy book to the letter.

If the shooter was a die hard Christian who cited Leviticus as his reasoning for the massacre, we would NOT be having this discussion! We would be blaming the man who pulled the trigger, the gun, anything but the religion! Tell me I'm wrong!

Just sayin'

Exactly. And yes, there are cases where Christians have committed such violence in the past, like the Spanish Inquisition for example.

Al, perhaps what you, or the authors of that material, wanted to imply is that Islamic Law, not the practice of Islamic worship, is illegal? I think that's a moot point since not even Christian sects may enact or enforce corporal laws that counter those by duly elected governmental bodies or deprive citizens of their constitutional rights. That's the way it should be, since civil liberty and freedom of worship can be assured ONLY by a secular state. Freedom of religion exists...but only up to a point...for both Muslim and Christian. So I am not really sure what the point was in what you posted, but it is obviously a dubious extrapolation to claim that Islam is banned by law. If any judicial scholar believed that was the implication, it would surely be challenged constitutionally.

Regardless, if that law or any other protects us from Islamic law, I presume it protects us from ALL religious law "which is antithetical to the US government, the Constitution, and to the Republic" as well?

My challenge to you is simply to consider where the most immediate threats to liberty might actually be originating. Muslims comprise only 0.9% of the US population, and most who are able to immigrate here do so as educated professionals. The greater threat that American freedom faces, IMHO, is defending our civil rights and liberties from creeping theocracy, which, in the US, is obviously not Islamic.

I didn't mean to be so acerbic in my response, Al, but I just get easily annoyed at one-sided stuff, since from my current POV it is a Christian Conservative legislature in my state that is depriving us of the blessings of liberty. I just don't feel a credible existential threat from so-called radical Islam, as far as my freedoms go, except perhaps in the our reactionary legislative responses to that embellished (IMHO) threat. Do I despise Muslim terrorists and those who support their perverse rule? You betcha! But I have a very different perspective of the extent of that to our freedoms. The Muslim terror threat is simply not an EXISTENTIAL threat to our country or our Constitution.

The threats to freedom I DO feel, and which have been amply demonstrated in my state, come from Conservative Christians, not Conservative Muslims. Such threats come through religion-abetting laws that one might wisely recognize as the creeping Christian version of Sharia. So, from my POV, conservative Muslim = conservative Christian = conservative Jew = conservative Any-Faith; they ALL appear to me to be ultimately destructive to civil liberty and constitutional rights; theistic rule being, by nature, ABSOLUTE. But in this case the US faces repressive, politically insurgent Conservative Christianity as an IMMINENT reality, wielding far more effective peril against our current freedoms than could be achieved through either drastic acts of Muslim terrorism or mass killings by deranged individuals not religiously affiliated. At this time, it isn't clear what sort of motive was at the forefront of the Orlando killer's mind; it seems to be an amalgam of many things jumbled together.

But back to my challenge to your thinking, Al...do you actually think that if Conservative Christians ran this country as a theocracy, as Conservative Muslims do in Saudi Arabia and Iran, that Christian theocrats would be LESS inclined toward brutal repression? When the will of God is inferred in any governmental regime, not only do the most hideous acts of punishment and the total repression of individual choice and expression become possible, they become necessary and essential; compliance with the theocrats' interpretation of God's will is mandatory even unto the grizzly death of the offender.

Call me misanthropic if you wish; perhaps my distrust is misplaced, but I'd rather not take the chance. I think to say "It can't happen here because we're Christian and they're Muslim" is perilously naive.

So, Al, if you want to assail the evils of THEOCRACY in general, I'll be happy to support you, but I know which conservative religion is MOST threatening to my freedom at this moment in time. Don't mistake my ire at your post as being pro-Islam or anti-Christian; I find all theocracy equally dreadful. I'm simply saying distrust and anger should be directed where it really belongs - protecting us all from religious domination. Let faith be chosen, not forced. Let law be impartial, sensible, and merciful. Let the few and the weak enjoy the same rights and privileges as the many and the strong.

As for the election, nothing anyone says at this juncture will change a single heart or mind, so who you vote for is no concern to me. Personally I prefer leadership that speaks of vision for progress, and not one that leads by generating fear and loathing against some enemy or minority, because I know that I, and/or any of us, may be the next enemy or minority added to that list. Sadly, that's a too-common tactic for both sides.

dillion wrote:So, Al, if you want to assail the evils of THEOCRACY in general,
I'll be happy to support you, but I know which conservative religion is
MOST threatening to my freedom at this moment in time. Don't mistake
my ire at your post as being pro-Islam or anti-Christian; I find all
theocracy equally dreadful. I'm simply saying distrust and anger
should be directed where it really belongs - protecting us all from
religious domination. Let faith be chosen, not forced. Let law be
impartial, sensible, and merciful. Let the few and the weak enjoy the
same rights and privileges as the many and the strong.

Dillion, this is something we totally agree on. I've witnessed a few of
the radical Christians and they DO NOT reflect my christian beliefs.

Several people (with radical/extremist tendencies) can, and will, ruin the
lives of others by pushing their 'faith' on to anyone around them. Sorta like
'Don't let the one wormy apple spoil the bushel for the rest of us'.

By my 'wading in' on this thread, I've broken one of my personal rules.
Do Not Discuss these 3 things - - - - Wives - - - - Religion - - - - Politics
These 'things' are Hot Buttons for about 99.9% of the general public
because the discussion can 'usually' lead to out-n-out flame wars.
This is something we don't need at Skirt Cafe'.

I've underlined and bold typed 2 areas of your statements.
These areas should be UNIVERSAL for all humanity. I know
these concepts will not reach all humanity in my lifetime.

When it comes to 'law making', why not enforce the existing
'laws' instead of writing new 'laws'. On immigration I'm for
anyone who chooses to come to the U.S.A. by following the
proper channels. Coming over the 'back fence' is not the
proper channel. Check out Roosevelt's speech he made about
immigration to the U.S.A. Truth or Fiction.com and Snopes.com

I'm tired of people who are born and raised in America who do not
speak English. This shows the parents are disrespectful to 'our' country
by only teaching their kids how to speak Spanish, Italian, German
or any language other than English. When the kids get to school, taught
in English, they fumble around and can't communicate with the teachers.
More teachers are hired to teach English to these kids. Being Multi-Lingual
is fabulous but, English is our primary language and should be taught first.
THEN teach the other languages.

You may call me 'old fashioned' but the use of multiple languages in
the same country is one of the easiest ways to cause a country to crumble.
Communication is very important. If the populace can't communicate with
each other, 'There's Trouble In River City'.

So, I'll put the away and back out of this 'conversation'.
Yes, we(admin) have bent the rules a bit so remember - keep it civil or this
thread will be locked.


Uncle Al

I may have to disagree with you a bit on immigration, though. I am married to an immigrant; we met in graduate school. My kids have dual citizenship here and in Argentina. I agree that immigrants should go through the system, but, having butted heads with the Immigration system, let me say that it's an absurd mess. It penalizes those who try to comply and lets those who employ undocumented workers off the hook with only a slap on the wrist. Still, to grant amnesty on a wholesale basis only punishes those, like my family, who did make the expensive and anguishing effort to comply with the law.

America needs a guest worker program badly; this fact is one of only three things upon which I agreed with "Dubya". Those who say immigrants are taking American jobs are full of crap; it's out-sourcing overseas that is taking American jobs. We need immigrants to do the work lazy Americans won't do (see next paragraph), and we need to bring a youthful population into the country to pay into Social Security. When that program was put in effect, people died in their sixties; many paid in but never collected SS. And we had an overwhelmingly younger population, and not an bunch of Boomers facing retirement, and living way longer than projected. The potential retirees can't have more kids, so immigration is the main part of the solution.

One of my farmer clients applied for the first time to have H2A labor on his farm; but the EEOC first made him prove he couldn't find help from unemployed US citizens. Over a few weeks they sent 35 people from the unemployment roles to his farm. None made it a full week. Most left after the first day. Some went out to lunch and never returned. That is why immigrant labor is important; farm work is HARD LABOR! So is roofing, road paving, painting, trash collecting, grounds care, etc. Hence the reasons so many undocumented workers are in those trades.

Ironically, or should I say, hypocritically, anti-immigration conservatives are most often the employers hiring the undocumented alien workers! I am an ag consultant; I see it everywhere.

You may think I am prejudiced in how I suggest immigration be applied, but I think the Guest Worker program should be run in conjunction with our NAFTA and CAFTA trading partner countries. We have far more cultural similarity with the countries of our hemisphere than with most of the rest of the developing world. It makes sense to build our own hemisphere. I'm not against other lands, just being realistic about what's best for the US. Plus, it just won't fly, politically, with middle-class Americans, white or black, to bring a million Egyptians, Pakistanis, and Indonesians here as guest workers. By keeping the program hemispheric we can bring undocumented aliens out of hiding and let them have a chance to work legally.

A Guest Worker visa should last maybe four years and be renewable four times; after the first renewal, a worker should be allowed to apply for permanent residency. For amnestied aliens, after several renewals, but before the 20 years have lapsed. A Guest Worker program gives us a chance to look at individuals before offering anyone a path to citizenship; we desire stable individuals and families, and reliable workers. And a track record of law abidance, at least on par with US citizens. We can weed out those who offer only trouble; we can also ensure that Guest Workers are paid fair wages and benefits, and that taxes/SS withheld by the employers are actually rendered to the IRS.

On the matter of language, I also think the US should be officially bilingual; all children should learn both English and Spanish; and other language education should be available at a young age. The world is shrinking, and foreign language skills in our next generations will be critical to America's success. We lag at the tail end of the developed world in producing internationally capable business leaders, mainly because we don't teach foreign languages. We don't need to be any more suspicious of a person speaking Spanish than he does of our conversation in English. This is in our best interest.

I also think it may be time for the US to rethink citizenship by nativity. This entices foreign nationals to conduct unhealthy travel in order to deliver children on US soil. I'd favor citizenship by having at least one parent a US citizen, native or naturalized, regardless of where the child is born. I guess that's sort of Republican, what with Ted "Canuck" Cruz and all.

Switzerland has, I believe, four recognised languages. It's hardly going to hell in a handcart. Just saying.

Ray wrote:Switzerland has, I believe, four recognised languages. It's hardly going to hell in a handcart. Just saying.

It's interesting you should bring that up, as it's a similar card I've played in the real world. Everyone always says "we don't want to end up like Europe!", and yet as I've talked with several Europeans on this site and on facebook, it seems that our civil liberties PALE in comparison to theirs (the Europeans). I'm not saying that I believe life is perfect on the other side of the pond, I know they have their problems too, but from all appearances they don't seem to be miserable, and their nations seems pretty solid.

So I've started rebutting with "Why don't we want to be like Europe? What's wrong with that?", and after some brief discussion on how life DOESN'T suck over there, they are forced to concede the debate.... and that is simply that America ISN'T the greatest country in the world. We just have our head stuck so far up our own ass we can't see it for what it is.

https://youtu.be/VMqcLUqYqrs

Europe has a worse immigrant problem than the US can imagine, if we were to put it to scale. We have a relatively small Muslim population, and many of our Muslim immigrants came here having or to obtain advanced education, Western education, and understood our value system, and, with some exceptions, have assimilated well into society despite the difference in religion.

Europe, on the other hand, has brought in many poor from Muslim countries, to supplement the labor force, and their assimilation has been very difficult, and in the Muslim enclaves, almost non-existent. Hence these places have become fertile ground for extremist radicalization and recruiting. Europe has a huge cultural chasm between poorly-educated, highly-religious Muslims and the more well-off, ostensibly Roman-Catholic or other Christian, but perhaps mostly secular, citizenry. And they have largely ignored that growing divide until recently.

In this respect the US is in a fortunate position compared to Europe. Our immigrants are mostly from our hemisphere and we share cultural similarities and social values.

I want the US to adopt some workable way to bring our undocumented aliens out of the shadows, but it must be fair to those who have complied with our laws.The idea of having undocumented workers pay fines to obtain amnesty is a lame idea. These are people living from hand to mouth. Placing a debt burden on their families is just spittin' in the wind. I think our politicians understand this, and understand the ludicrous "Great Wall of Trump" is just a joke to identify manipulable voters. I wonder if he has any idea how long our borders are and what sort of terrain has to be covered. I'd hate to see a beautiful place like Big Bend National Park bulldozed to build something that doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of working.

We have to find a workable way of building economies, reducing crime, and developing responsible republics to our south; when opportunity exists at home, people stay home. This is the current situation in Mexico; an improving economy there and lower opportunities here, coupled with immigration enforcement has resulted in a net outflow of immigrants from Mexico.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... om-mexico/

To really reduce the problem, however, we have to go much farther south. Central America, especially Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua are still basket-case economies with police-state para-military, nearly lawless, governance. The flow of immigrants from those countries is increasing. And we are still at risk of another immigrant flotilla from Haiti. Our politics have become so obsessed with the Middle East, we have forgotten our own hemisphere.

dillon wrote: America needs a guest worker program badly; t

A Guest Worker visa should last maybe four years and be renewable four times; after the first renewal, a worker should be allowed to apply for permanent residency. For amnestied aliens, after several renewals, but before the 20 years have lapsed. A Guest Worker program gives us a chance to look at individuals before offering anyone a path to citizenship; we desire stable individuals and families, and reliable workers. And a track record of law abidance, at least on par with US citizens. We can weed out those who offer only trouble; we can also ensure that Guest Workers are paid fair wages and benefits, and that taxes/SS withheld by the employers are actually rendered to the IRS.

The first thing we should do is acknowledge that many people are not classic immigrants. That many come only for a job, and have no emotional commitment to the country.


Such realism seems to be absent from the USA's mythology, which emphasizes that we are a country of immigrants.

Hi Dillon,

I agree with what you have said about immigration etc. You have given a well-thought-out plan. I'm not sure why you feel the time restrictions are important, but some kind of renewal makes sense.

Because many of the immigrants we TALK about are really only interested in seasonal work. For them, and our country a guest worker program is ideal, it worked well in the 40's and early 50's and can and should be brought back.

But let's be clear on a few things. Agricultural work does not pay anything close to what it should for the amount of effort involved. I don't understand the lower minimum wage for ag work and therefore believe it should be abolished. But won't that raise the cost of food? I doubt it, the percent of the grocery store price of food that goes to farm labor wages isn't worth worrying about. Even if it did increase our grocery bills by a few %, what of it? Who are we to enjoy, let alone expect, cheap food based on the exploitation of people who can't do much to improve their lot.

Not to mention the all-American solution to any labor problem -- mechanization and automation. In the '50's when Congress was debating ending the braceros program the tomato farmers argued that ending that guest worker program would create such a shortage of tomatoes that the price would go through the roof. Congress rolled the dice and by the next growing season the farm equipment companies had tomato picking machines ready for purchase.

OK, in time it lead to those nearly indestructible, tasteless, perfectly round, red things they CALL tomatoes in the grocery stores, but it's also created a market for old school tomatoes at premium prices.

Even if we can ran the farm labor issues to ground we would only cover HALF of the illegal aliens; the other half are professionals and others who have "overstayed" student, tourist, temporary work visa's and blended into the US. Clearly we want most of them because they're highly capable, enterprising folks -- some of us may be working for one and not have a clue --but fitting them into a revised legal framework isn't going to be easy either.

I'm just saying.

I agree. I suggest renewal periods to distinguish the program from legal permanent residency (green card) as an inducement to work through the system. Those who are exemplary in their records under the program should be strong candidates for permanent residency. Once permanent residency is obtained, there is usually a 2 year wait to apply for citizenship. Those who entered and worked unlawfully should have the penalty of a longer wait. We need immigrants to supplant our aging population. I favor a hemispheric approach, because the way the system is working today we are robbing educated workers from the rest of the world where their talents might benefit their homelands. We should focus on our own education system at home and developing the governance and economies of our own neighborhood. That is the only real solution to the migration northward.

I see you point about renewals, but I still see the reason for a cut-off period. If a person wants to be a guest worker for their whole life, what's the harm to the rest of us?

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:I see you point about renewals, but I still see the reason for a cut-off period. If a person wants to be a guest worker for their whole life, what's the harm to the rest of us?

Because it would replace legal permanent residency. Guest worker status would be intended from the outset to be limited, as are most work visas now. The worker could use his record on guest worker as weight on his application for permanent residence. Why should we have 2 programs with the same end result?