America is in Denial! A short overview a larger issue
America is in denial about a couple of issues. These issues are separation of church and state, gay rights, and immigration. We are in denial about these topics because we do not practice what we preach in these instances.
Separation and church and state:
Our founding fathers, wanted the church and other religions separate from the state or politics. It is apparent in almost we do as a nation. Moments of silence, the pledge of allegiance, any transactions with money. Religious symbols and beliefs are everywhere.
Gay Rights:
A simple thing. All men are created equal. Then why deny a group of people the right to marry. Forget the religion. That should not be influencing anyone for there is supposed to be separation of church and state. There is no reason to stop a group from being equal. We allow murders rights so why not homosexuals.
Immigration:
If anyone looks back i history they can see that we all are immigrants whether we came here willingly or not. To deny others from coming here for the same reasons we did is just wrong. We are denying our own history by denying others the same freedoms we have made ourselves in the New World.
Comments?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
No one is trying to deny others to the right to immigrate here.
We simply oppose those who wish to come here without going through the process our ancestors went through, thereby arriving in this country without any concept of the government, no screening of diseases, and without paying their dues to society.
engkatiemarie,
Lou Dobbs produced an "expert" in his show, who tried to prove that undocumented Mexicans reintroduced leprosy in the USA. Are those the diseases you are talking about?
Last year I payed 30K in income taxes alone, and this year I already pre-paid as much. Are those the taxes you say illegal immigrants don't pay? Or the 8.5 billion a year we pay to Social Security and Medicaid?
Before 1920 the only "screening" immigrants experienced where weeding out the criminally insane and quotas for some races. Is that the "due process" your ancestors went through?
Please, explain to me the concept of government. On second thought ... no, don't explain me anything.
Mongo
www.itsnofun.com
You are right, ther is a separation of church and state. With that being said, in the same breath, you are basically saying that the state cannot dictate the terms of marriage, being that marriage is a religious insitution. If the religion says gays cant be married, then they can't. Civil unions are a whole different ball game
Socraties Ray
all couples should have the same rights whether they are homosexual or not.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth!~JFK
1. Separation of Church and State:
Exactly what section of our Constitution do you find that in? Hint: Its not there, Those words were taken from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson and are not part of our Constitution.
The establishment clause guarantees people the right to freedom of religion. Note that it does not guarantee them freedom FROM religion. Given that people are free to practice their religions why would you not expect to see religious symbols and observances in our society?
2. Gay Marriage
I believe you are mistaking words from the Declaration of Independence with words that you wish were in the Constitution. They are not there.
Because they are not there, The Constitution says it is an unenumerated power that should be reserved to the States and the people. States should decide. The beauty of federalism is that it gives the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. States that want gay marriage can have it and states that don't want it don't have to have it.
3. Immigration
Except for the original people who evolved in Africa every person living everywhere is a decendent of immigrants. Your point is therefore non-sensicle. Of the 6 billion people on earth, about 5 billion of them are poorer than Mexicans and a very large number of them would come to America if we allowed the open immigration that you are suggesting. We simply cannot accept these people without destroying our country for our existing citizenry. We have the world's most generous legal immigration system and it is reasonable for us to demand that prospective immigrants follow our laws and to deny citizenship and residence to those who don't.
I beg to disagree myself.
Separation of Church and state is the foundation of modern nation-states. Anything else is theocracy, period. I don't understand your complicated assertion
Marriage is not a religious insittution.
Your might have a point on some of your immigration assertions, but it is intellectually dishonest to put illegal immigrants from Mexico in the same footing as illegal immigrants from elsewhere. Those "6 billion" do not share a history with the US in the same way Mexico does (along with one of the largest income gaps and land borders on earth).
Mongo
www.itsnofun.com
"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "
That is the entire text of the first amendment. It guarantees that the Federal Government will not establish a state religion and it also guarantees that the citizens shall have the have the free exercise of their religion.
About 90% of Americans claim to be Christian. Given that the Constitution guarantees them the right to freely exercise their religion why would you not expect to see religious symbols and observances in America? These people are simply exercising their Constitutional rights. Are you wanting to deny them these rights?
Read that amendment carefully. Do you see any words in there that guarantee you or anyone the right to freedom FROM religion? Most religious observations in our public proceedings are carefully non-secular. They may mention God but when they do it is not at all clear which God they are talking about. Often opening prayers are given by Muslims and Rabbi's and other Holy Men from all manner of religions and during moments of silence each partipant is free to pray or not to pray. It is up to the individual and all that is required is decency and respect for the rights of their fellows.
I'm not particularly religious but I don't see how these people practicing their religion hurts me in anyway and it sure does not bother me. I recognize that almost everything decent and good in America including all of our freedoms and the Constitution is the product of people who considered themselves Christian.
Incidentally, the Bill of Rights only limits the powers of the Federal Government. Unless specifically stated otherwise, it does not limit the rights of the State Governments. At the time the Constitution was drafted and signed, several of the States had official State Religions and it was understood that this was constitutional or those states would not have ratified the Constitution. On the contrary that amendment was written to keep the Federal Government from elevating the State religion of one State above that of the others.
I'm not sure what your point is that marriage is not a religious institution. Of course marriage is a religious institution. Marriage has been an institution of religion from before the time when there was even such thing as governments. It is perhaps the basic building block of society and is found in even the most primative cultures. To my knowledge one thing that has never been found in any of these cultures is gay marriage. Personally I think the government should get out of the marraige business altogether and leave it to churches. The government should limit itself to civil unions. If that happened then a lot of this issue would go away. Gays could then find a church that would marry them. I think the Episcopals are doing a lot of this now.
With respect to immigration from Mexico, it seems like you have changed the subject. The original blog was talking about immigration generally and not immigration from Mexico. But with respect to immigration with Mexico your argument is also intellectually dishonest. The USA should have every right as a sovereign nation to have an immigration policy duly enacted by our elected government by the popular will of our citizenry and within the bounds of our Constitution as Mexico does to have their own immigration policy enacted by their own Democratic government. Both nations have a right to legislate and enforce these policies. Having borders and controlling them is the essence of a sovereign nation which is why our Constitution guarantees that the Federal Government shall protect each state from invasion.
Mexico's immigration policy is incredibly more restrictive and also a million times more racist than the USA policy. And they enforce it brutally particularly on their southern border. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
And exactly what shared history are you talking about with Mexico? Very little of that History has been positive and it has been largely characterized by strife. We fought against in the Texas War if Independence and again in the Mexican American War and we sent General BlackJack Pershing down there in 1916 on a two year punative expedition after Pancho Villa repeatedly violated our sovereignty and murdered Americans and stole and destroyed our property. Mexico has NEVER behave like an ally of the USA and almost never missed an opportunity to thwart our foreign policy despite all the aid we have sent them and the multiple bail-outs of their economy. We have far more shared history and common culture with any European country than we do with Mexico. Canada has a much longer border with the USA and yet somehow they manage to respect our sovereignty. And the desparity between incomes between America and Mexico is totally Mexico's doing. They are a rich country abundantly endowed with natural resources. Just because they refuse to establish the rule of law or respect private property or educate their citizenry or invest in infrastructure that makes commerce flourish does not make their problems our problems.
I second everything written here by jackbenimble.
"About 90% of Americans claim to be Christian. Given that the Constitution guarantees them the right to freely exercise their religion why would you not expect to see religious symbols and observances in America?"
I do expect to see it. I just don't expect to be underwriting it with my tax money. We have a secular government with a neutral, godless Constitution, and that is exactly what makes America great.
Check your stats. The US hasn't been anywhere near a ratio of 90% Christian in almost 2 decades according to the US Census Bureau (1990-88.3% Christian). In 2001 it was 79.8%, and for most Christian Denominations their numbers were decreasing. While I'm sure you'll say something about how that's still a huge majority, that still makes for a SIGNIFICANT minority who is non-Christian. Theoretically applying the percentage of non-Christians to the current US Census Bureau count of 303,662,602 citizens, means that there would be over 61 million non-Christians. In reality, that number is probably higher.
As one of the non-Christians myself, I felt excluded not only by my devout Christian teachers and peers in high school, but also by my government when being required to state the pledge of allegiance to a God I didn't pray to. Some people like myself view additions like that (many of which were added in the 50's to distinguish us from the "godless communists") as an official establishment of religion. If it is implied that a true patriot puts his faith in a creator god, then that means that almost 1 in 6 Americans are not true patriots.
Marriage has been sanctified by Christians as being a religious establishment, but not all cultures nor religions regard it the same way. The historical Buddha felt that marriage was not in any way a spiritual or religious concern, but was a civil contract between families. So then how do you justify denying individuals the equal rights and privileges granted to marriages BY LAW, but which aren't recognized by civil unions. If marriage were TRULY a religious contract, then the state WOULD NOT grant it so many more privileges than civil unions. No, marriage is a social and legal construct, with religious implications for some.
And as far as your accusations that Mexico has never acted as an ally: The whole reason we went to war with Mexico in the first place was because OUR settlers invaded their lands, then decided to annex themselves and the Mexican territory they'd invaded, to become part of the United States. In that case, WE were the ones not acting respectful of agreed upon borders. And if one country invades another one, why wouldn't the defending country try to reclaim its rightful territory??
Many of your assertions at the end are downright racist. Sometimes I think the only times that many Americans have a problem with immigrants is if they are culturally, linguistically, and racially different from the White Judeo-Christian America that they want to believe is the ONLY America.
~~Every human heartbeat is a universe of possibilites.~~
Gregory David Roberts
Separation of Chruch and State
Your personal opinion that all good in the US stems from the fact that of the founding father being Christian (should I read Protestant?) is interesting, but hard or to prove.
I still don't see the relationship between the fairly simple concept of separation of Church and State and your hair-splitting about what the authors of the amendments meant. None of us is questioning religious freedom here.
Would you make your point a little more explicitly?
Marriage
Of course marriage is not a religious institution. Marriages are sanctioned by an officer appointed by the government, which can happen (or not) to be also a religious representative. The fact that in the past centuries the spheres of what is civil and what is religious were intertwined doesn't mean at all that religion still has a saying on what legally constitutes marriage today.
Immigration
If you want to deride Mexico, I suggest you to start another post, where I can answer you at length without straying too much from the subject.
Let me remind you that t was you the one brining that country into the discussion, with a feeble attempt to push your anti-undocumented immigration views from the left (the absurd "Mexico is cutting line from other poor people in the world" statement).
Of course th US can exercise its right as a sovereign nation, which includes controlling its borders. The "denial" the post owner is talking about is, I reckon, the paranoid attitude of half-heartedly control immigration, benefiting from the pool of illegal labor, and then crying "invasion", all at the same time.
Exactly as you do now.
Mongo
www.itsnofun.com
Separation of Church and State:
The author of the blog was complaining about symbols of religion being everywhere and asserted that the Founding Father wanted separation of Church and State.
I point out that the Consititution does not contain those "Separation of Church and State" words. That is a myth taught by the public schools who are dominated by liberal secularist teachers. They have fed the kids a lie and have been doing so for years.
The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion so it is no surprise that as a result of people exercising those constitutional freedoms that the symbols, trappings and practice of religion are to be found everywhere. Americans are overwhelmingly religious and when they exercise their freedoms it is not surprising that it is visible to anybody who cares to notice.
Why is that hard for you to understand?
Marriage:
I'll meet you half way on marriage because your point is well taken. Marriage has evolved from primarily a religious ceremony into something that has legal connotations in the civil arena. It is BOTH a civil and religious institution. Religions have very clear thoughts about marriage and don't recognize everybody who the government says are legally married as spiritually married. Likewise the government doesn't recognize everybody that a church might marry as civilly married. The Hmong immigrants for example are still practicing polygamy.
Immigration:
"The "denial" the post owner is talking about is, I reckon, the paranoid attitude of half-heartedly control immigration, benefiting from the pool of illegal labor, and then crying "invasion", all at the same time."
If that is what the blogger meant than he should have written that and I would have disagreed with that in my response.
But it seems to me you are putting words in the bloggers mouth because what the blogger actually wrote was:
"If anyone looks back i history they can see that we all are immigrants whether we came here willingly or not. To deny others from coming here for the same reasons we did is just wrong. We are denying our own history by denying others the same freedoms we have made ourselves in the New World."
Which is an argument for open immigration with no limits which I shot down convincingly and you at least partially agreed with in your last post when you wrote:
"Your might have a point on some of your immigration assertions,"
You, in a subsequent post, then changed the subject to Mexican immigration and suggested that they should have special rights because of our shared border, common history and their poverty. I think I did a pretty good job of shooting that down too and it seems like you now agree with me because you write:
"Of course the US can exercise its right as a sovereign nation, which includes controlling its borders."
So now I will address your most recent assertion which seems to be yet another change of subject but what the heck:
As far as half-hearted immigration control goes, that argument is just lame. I admit that I often speed when I think I can get away with it. On rare occassions I have been caught and when I do I expect to be fined because I have broken the law. What do you think a judge would say if I went into court and argued, "I speed on this section of road going to work everyday so it is unfair that you are going to punish me for doing it last week when you finally got around to catching me because you did not catch me all those other times?" Lax enforcement does not give people permission to break the law. Your argument is garbage.
A few people (employers) are benefitting from the lax enforcement and the vast majority of the populace is demanding more rigorous enforcement. Unfortunately the elites who don't want more enforcement are more powerful and more thoroughly rerpesented (by paid lobbiests) than the majority of middleclass and poor Americans who do want enforcement so even though we have pretty decent laws we have gotten lax enforcement. It is not the same people who are benefitting from the labor and crying invasion but rather a struggle of competing interests as often happens in a Democratic society. The tide is ebbing though and the enforcement types are starting to win because they are speaking up loudly and our elected representatives are starting to fear for their jobs. Witness that amnesty bills in the Senate have repeatedly gone down in flames while tough enforcement bill and funding for them keep getting passed. States are also passing all manner of tough new laws. Even President Bush has gotten the message and both the Border Patrol and ICE have finally started to do their enforcement jobs in a reasonably vigourous manner.
I don't suppose though that now that we are enforcing our laws vigorously that you will argue that we are no longer in denial.
What I have been taught is not i lie.
I believe that this country should uphold the Separation. Since we do have freedom of religion, all religions should be on the money or everywhere. It is not fair to embellish one religion.
I think that Seperation is important to have a democracy.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth!~JFK
What religion is on the money?
I see the words, "In God we Trust". That is pretty non-specific. It could be the Jewish God, or the Christian God or the Muslim God. Many scholars believe that is all the same God: The God of Abraham. Not everybody agrees and I've heard many Christians say that they certainly don't worship the same God as Muslims because their God is a loving forgiving God and the Muslim God does not seem to be that way. But I digress, it could be a God from an entirely different religious tradition. For all I or anybody else knows, the money is referring to Zeus or Buddah. Everyone is free to take it how they want or simply ignore those tiny little words; isn't America great!?
The exact same point can be made about "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. What religion is being endorsed and what or whose God are they talking about? Those words do not constitute the establishment of a State religion. And the Supreme Court has ruled that if you don't like them you don't have to say them (or even say the Pledge).
Even if they were talking about just the Christian God, it still would not constitute the establishment of a State religion. Which branch of Christianity? Catholics or Protestant and if Protestant, what sect? They don't by any means all get along in one happy family. Ask the Baptists how they feel about Mormans. I don't think they even consider Moramns to be Christians. Yet now we have a Morman as Senate majority leader and another Morman running for and with a fair chance at winning the Presidency. We also have a Catholic in the Presidential race along with several protestants. Two elections ago a Jew was on the ticket for the VP slot and we have had a Catholic President in the past. A Muslim got elected to Congress last year so they too are joining the political process. It hardly seems like there is much of an argument to be made that we are sliding into some sort of theocracy.
The Establishment Clause prohibits the establishment of a specific religion as the official State Religion but it does not ban the acknowledgement of God from government or any other aspect of life. Most of the founders who wrote the Constitution were deeply religious and they would have scoffed at that idea.
The only ones in denial here are those that claim that 4 words stamped on our money make us a theocracy.
Help me with my English here: it that what they call "building a strawman", exaggerating the opponent's posture so that they became easier to refute?
The blogger didn't say we were sliding into a theocracy, she just pointed out the incongruity of what you call benignly "religious trappings".
And for the nth time: freedom of religion is one thing, undue meddling of religious beliefs in State affairs is another.
It is true that in the US there is freedom to practice the religion of one's choice .
It is disingenuous to cite the politicians' diverse religious backgrounds as supposed evidence that the Christian Right does not want to get into the children's schoolbooks and in the women's uteruses.
Mongo
www.itsnofun.com
Separation of Church and State
What is hard to understand is your confusing attempts at mixing the subjects of "freedom of cult" with the definition of what a secular government is. The US Consitution clearly established a secular govermnet. The fact that the constitution doesn't specifically say " ... and BTW, we are a state separate from the church", or the personal religious habits of most Americans are both irrelevant. No liberal conspiracy here.
The blogger, then, is right in finding incongruity in what you deem healthy "religious trappings". Those would be unthinkable in countries that claim to be strict secular states like France or Turkey.
If you think the separation of Church and State is a bad thing, just say so and stop dancing around the subject.
Marriage:
People who choose live marriage according to some religious rite are free to do so. What the blogger was complaining about, righteously so, is the pernicious idea that the religious sphere can or should influence the definition of what in civil terms is considered "a marriage".
Since civil marriage exists, civil and religious marriage are separate institutions. It doesn't matter that the people involved be the same, or that the authority consecrating the contract be often the same.
As far as the government is cocerned and the (economic and otherwise) implications of civil marriage, the definition of what consititutes a marriage is probably bound to evolve. When two homosexuals want to live together and enjoy certain legal recognition and rights similar to those of an heterosexual married couple, that is a civil marriage. That it be called "civil union" to appease the ayatollahs is semantically irrelevant, (or so I believe).
Immigration:
Your posting i this subkect are reflecting more your phobias than reacting to what the blogger said.
She correctly pointed out that since we are all immigrants there should be more leniency toward modern-day undocumented migrants. That is not equivalent to an open-borders policy, except in your head.
I invite you to refute my arguments instead of trying to anger me saying they are "lame" or "garbage". As a matter of fact, your sppeding example is a perfect one. Selective enforcement is a feature of the American legal system. Nowhere this is more evident that in the immigration arena.
Almost everything you say in your last paragraph is wrong; I'll try to keep it brief so that this doesn't became a book:
-A LOT of people (not just "inescrupulous employers") are benefitting from the phenomenon of illegal immigration. You, for example, are collecting the Social Security checks that I pay.
-The current immigration laws are Kafkian and unenforceable.
-The conscious politicians that don't want to yield to demagoguery will finally find the guts to enact comprehensive immigration reform (and yes, it will contain some sort of amnesty).
-The immigration-related proposals in the Senate didn't go down in flames. They were defeated narrowly.
-President Bush made on last half-assed attempt at dismantling the SSA. Come on, I though you were a little more sophisticated!
-Governors and mayors that want to score cheap political points against a collective that can't react (the illegal immigrants) do not represent the majority of Americans. A solution has to come at a federal level, not because I want it to do so, but because the federal government can't abrogate some responsibilities.
-If you want to call some municipalities raiding slaughterhouses for the camera and turning rural chicken plants back into ghost towns "enforcing our immigration laws more vigorously", go ahead and do so.
I must have missed the point when you say you "shoot down" some of my arguments. Which ones?
Mongo
www.itsnofun.com
I'm bored with arguing with you so this will be my last post;
Separation of Church and State:
Turkey is your example? Do you read the news? They have elected an Islamacist government and given a majority sufficient to change the Constitution as they see fit. By contrast with Turkey America is not only secular but athiest.
I'm not particularly religious and I find no threat in the trivial amount of religious trappings that find their way onto the public square. How is anybody hurt by a manger scene at Christmas, Pariticularly if Menorahs and other religious symbols from other religions are allowed too,
Its not an issue I get worked up about. It was on the list with a mistaken interpretation of the Constitution so I responed.
Gay Marriage:
America is a constitutional Republic which means that our laws are generally determined by the majority with the rights of the minority protected by Constitution. The majority can do whatever it wants so long as it does not infringe on the rights spelled out in the Constitution.
There is no right to gay marriage (or any sort of marriage) enumerated in the Constitution. It is therefore an unenumerated power and all such powers were reserved to the States and the People.
I don't care it all if some states want to allow gay marriage. I like in one that probably won't in my lifetime and that is fine with me.
The Cosntitutional Reference in the original blog was mistakenly to words that are not in the Constitution but rather in the Declaration of Indepence. That is an important document but it is in no way binding on our system of government.
Gay marriage is not an issue that I get particularly worked up about but if somebody is going to make Constitutional Arguments they ought to get them right so I responded.
Immigration:
Once again you are putting words in the mouth of the blogger.
She did not say anything even close to: "She correctly pointed out that since we are all immigrants there should be more leniency toward modern-day undocumented migrants. "
She said, "To deny others from coming here for the same reasons we did is just wrong. We are denying our own history by denying others the same freedoms we have made ourselves in the New World."
First off most of the undocumented are from Mexico and Latin American so they are already in the New World.
Secondly, she placed no conditions or limitations on our ability to deny anybody. He statement explicitly states that it is wrong to deny others from coming here. That is a statement in favor of unlimited and uncontrolled immigration. I clearly find that unacceptable. It would be suicide for America.
With respect to immigration law, you are perhaps right that there may someday by an amnesty with a path to citizenship. But it is clear now with comprehensive reform having been killed three times in the last 12 monhs and the DREAM Act having been killed twice in the last 30 days that enforcement is going to come first. If Fred Thompson wins the Presidency we might even see a real effort at implementing an "attrition through enforcement" strategy which is my preferred solution to the problem. There is growing antedotal eveidence of illegals leaving Arizona, Oklahoma, Colorado and now Virginia as they implement tough new laws so I think it just might work.
My issue is population stabilization. None of the big problems in America can be successfully addressed until we stabilize our population. Every environmental problem gets harder to solve as we add people. Every educational problem gets harder to solve as we add people. Energy indepence is impossible as we add people who consume energy faster than we can figure out how to conserver or develop green energy. Every social problem gets harder to solve as we add people. Etc, etc, etc. It is hard ot think of a problem that is not exacerbated by population growth. Our population growth is entirely driven by immigration. Our native birthrate is almost exactly at the replacement level without immigration. With current levels of immigration we are on-track to hit almost 450 million people by 2050. That is 50% growth in just over 40 years and is obviously unsustainable. We need to end illegal immigration and reduce legal immigration to the replacement level (about 200,000 emigrate per year). The rest of the world is adding people at the rate of about 80 million new people per year and it is almost all in the third world. If they want to foul their own nest WHY should that be my children's problem?
I am afraid that I either failed to convey the difference between "freedom of religion" and "separation of church and state", or you can't fish any more arguments in the letter of the Constitution to which you refer so much.
Once again, how the diversity of religious symbols as a "proof" that, in the US, there is no undue meddling of religion into State affairs?
The Republican candidates trading taunts on who's harder on immigration is a sad thing to watch. For me, it denotes more desperation than anything else.
Fred Thompson? Good luck. I go with Colbert :)
Mongo
www.itsnofun.com
Since I was praised by you, I have to reply in kind.
You have that folk wisdom of, say, Uncle Jesse of the Dukes or the kind that Melanie Griffith can acquire in a month of Tocqueville+constitution+dictionary in "Born Yesterday".
Keep going, in a century or two you might become a true intellectual (an you will notice how your thoughts will lean to the left, but don't be alarmed, it is a known side effect).
Mongo
www.itsnofun.com
I wish you had also mentioned Ayn Rand as she is one of my heros. But I can't have everything.
It is amazing how well I have assimulated. You can't imagine how proud I am to be compared to a genuine make-believe American redneck like Uncle Jesse, To be compared to those pillars of American culture I must be a living breathing monument to Hispanic integration and assimulation into American society.
Did I ever mention to you that Mom was born in Cuba and I am therefore half Hispanic? I'll tell you about that sometime because it is actually a mildly humerous story. In the meantime, you might enjoy reading one of Mom's books:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/105-0097959-4911679?initialSearch=1...
I recommend Population Politics because it is aimed at the popular audience and it therefore the most readable. Population Pressure and Cultural Adjustment is also a very interesting read but it is somewhat in the stilted professional scientific style of an academic anthropologist and is therefore a more difficult read. Mexico would do well to head her advice and actually, as you pointed out, their fertility rate has dropped so her hypothesis is playing out correctly. If we were to cut off illegal immigration, the needed cultural changes would come about more rapidly.
You are probably correct that it will take a long time before I achieve the dubious status of "intellectual". But I will be very alarmed if I ever start thinking like a leftest as I will take it as a sign that my brain has turned to mush. Are you aware that more human beings have been murdered in the name of leftest ideology then for all other reasons combined? There even has been a fair amount of that behavior in Latin America.
Yes, Erdogan comfortably won the elections in Turkey, demagogically appealing to the Islamists.
However, his party's platform is strictly devoid of religious elements (Justice and Development Party), and claims to be conservative ans secular.
It is already part of the Turkish folklore that if a woman lawmaker tries to wear a head scarf she will be thrown out of the Parliament.
Sincere or not, any political party in Turkey has to make such remarks before even be allowed to exist.
The Turkish military would not have it any other way.
The Turks are very strict in regard to the separation between Church and State, and the military (many of them devout Muslims) are the safeguard of that foundational feature, which dates from the time of Kemal Ataturk.
Even a character like Erdogan considers unthinkable that a phrase like "in God we trust" be written on bank notes.
That little pyramid is some sort of Masonic prank, but I still think, in line with the blogger, that it is out of place.
Mongo
www.itsnofun.com
Jack,
Please pass this advice to your lady mother: tell her to remove from her front page
http://www.virginiaabernethy.com/
that link to the anti-immigrant VDare, because precisely today they start their page by praising James Watson for saying that Black People are genetically inferior.
That doesn't look very good.
Mongo
www.itsnofun.com
Dr. James Watson is the Nobel Laureate (like algore) who discovered the double helix structure of DNA, played a key role in the Human Genome Project and probably knows as much about genetics as any man alive. I don't know a thing about genetics and I image your knowlege is on a level comparable to mine or at least within a single order of magnatude. I'm sure you won't assert that you know what Watson knows.
If a brilliant man like Dr. Watson makes a statement like that, then I have to give it a fair amount of credence. Just because a fact is not politically correct and makes people uncomfortable does not necessarily make it is scientifically untrue.
I don't know for certain if he is right or wrong but I am a heck of a lot more inclined to believe him than you. Can you cite any sources that disprove Watson's statement about IQ testing? My understanding is that he was citing peer reviewed data from IQ tests that were conducted at various times across the world.
This is reminiscent of that ridiculous brouhaha that cost Larry Summer's, a liberal, his job as Harvard's President for merely hypothesizing (not asserting) that men and women have different intellectual capabilities.
I hate the Political Correctness Police because they play the race-card to stiffle uncomfortable truths. They reffuse to be intellectually honest and they attempt to stiffle any truth that they deem to be uncomfortable. The Catholic Church used to be like that; look how they treated Galileo.
Vdare.com publishes quite a bit of stuff that I disagree with but they are one of the few organizations that stands up to the self-appointed Political Correctness Police and I admire them for it, In Dr, Watson's case, I can't speak to the accuracy of his assertion but I hate to see a brilliant man shouted down just because clueless people like yourself who can't hold a candle to him intellectually, don't like what he is saying.
So you second VDare and earlier James Watson assertions that people of African descent are genetically predisposed to have a lower IQ?
Mongo
www.itsnofun.com
Actually I believe I said I did not know enough to pass judgement.
But I also said that when a mental giant like Dr. Watson whose discoveries have already done untold good for humanity and whose life work will be the basis for most advancement in the realm of genetic biology and untold additional good for humanity over the next century, says something that falls within his realm of expertise, I am inclined to give him considerable credence. I certainly am more inclined to believe him rather than the politically correct but unsupported assertions of a relative (to Dr. Watson) mental midget like yourself.
This discussion has strayed very far from the intent of the original blogger. I'll now attempt to swing it back at least partly in the direction of the original post.
One of the blogger's concerns was about religion and, if I understood correctly, were specifically that unchallengeable tenants of faith resulting from religious beliefs were leading to a public policy on gay marriage that was wrong and immoral. The blogger was arguing for a secularist government because secularists would not have their judgements clouded by unchallengable tenants of faith. Science and secular morality (defined by who?) would supercede religious superstition. (I believe that is a fair characterization of the blogger's argument but correct me if I am wrong.)
I'm not very religious and often describe myself as agnostic and sometimes as an athiest. (I waiver a little.) I think many articles of faith of many religions are absolute baloney and are merely superstitions from a time when humans were ignorant. I absolutely reject the notion that religion should in anyway suppress scientific truth or the qwest for knowledge. I mentioned Galieleo in the previous post and there have been many other and more contemporary examples. Darwin ....
You could say that I have strong secularist tendencies.
But the problem with secularism is that it is just becoming another religion with a whole new set of unchallengable beliefs which cannot even be discussed. Anybody who challenges these articles of faith is set-upon by the PC Police with the absolute intent of destroying their reputation, career and credibility. How is that different from what has been done in the name of previous religions? Science, knowledge and truth are suppressed in the name of the secular religion called Political Correctness. We have a whole new set of dogma that the secularists would like to require us to accept on faith.
I am not even slightly surprised by the notion that some racial groups have evolved differently from others. They were geographically isolated and faced differing environmental challenges and selection criteria. Their societies may have been organized to amplify natural selection. Clearly different physical characteristics and capabilities have evolved between the different races. It seems perfectly possible to me that intelligence is one of those traits that evolved differntly in different groups of human beings. I don't know if it is true but I believe it could be true.
I support the science to investifate this hypothesis and I believe that the results of the science should be published and that expanded knowledge will accrue to the benefit of humanity. The research might prove that the hypothesis is fales which is fine with me. I have no axe to grind and just want the truth.
Dr. Watson did not makes his comments because he had any animosity towards blacks or Africa but on the contrary because he felt that as a result of our reliance on Politically Correct dogma we were pursuing polices that were destined to fail and therefore would do nothing to help Africa. Knowlege is good and in this case could be used to guide policy.
Secular society coupled with their religion of Political Correctness wants to supress this advancement of human knowledge and to suppress the work that has already been done. They are so opposed to having this tenant of their faith based PC dogma investigated that they are determined to destroy Dr. Watson.
You apparently worship at the feet of the God of Political Correctness and are comfortable with the suppression of science. I don't. Who is the REAL progressive?
I support Vdare not because I believe everything that they publish but because they oppose your knowledge supressing religion and don't support its unchallengeable tenants and dogma of Polically Correct faith. You of course view them as the secular version of the anti-Christ.
So, you support VDare on everything else except for the part where they uphold the idea that Blacks could be genetically inferior?
Mongo
www.itsnofun.com
Do you have reading comprehension problems?
As I stated, I support Vdare because they stand against the knowledge and science suppressing Secular Religion of Political Correctness,
As I stated, I don't support everything that Vdare publishes. As one of many examples, they frequently publish articles by Pat Buchanon. I agree with Pat Buchanon on some things like immigration policy and opposition to the Iraq War, and I disagree with him on other things like trade policy, and his statements that tread dangerously close to anti-semitism. There are other examples but I don't spend enough time on that web site that they jump into my mind.
So you can't say if the theory of Blacks being genetically inferior is correct, but you applaud the courage of VDare in upholding that theory, against a misunderstood political correctness. Is that what you are saying?
Mongo
www.itsnofun.com
Why not take the middle ground. No persecution and no catering to. If it's law right now, just leave it alone. It's working fine.