Common sense

Submitted by NotCranky on February 11, 2011 - 9:25am.

Hitler.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on February 11, 2011 - 9:26am.

what the heck is the american culture everyone should assimilate into?

Submitted by Djshakes on February 11, 2011 - 9:39am.

Freedom and equality...not Sharia

Submitted by jstoesz on February 11, 2011 - 9:50am.

Well Played...

Submitted by NotCranky on February 11, 2011 - 9:51am.

Should we ban the Christian Coalition?

Submitted by NotCranky on February 11, 2011 - 9:52am.

jstoesz wrote:
Well Played...

Thanks

Submitted by Djshakes on February 11, 2011 - 10:18am.

Rustico wrote:
Should we ban the Christian Coalition?

Well, considering this country was found on Judea-Christian values that would be self destructive now wouldn't it.

If you want women to have no rights than by all means embrace Sharia. Do you embrace Sharia? Do you hate women?

Submitted by jstoesz on February 11, 2011 - 10:37am.

Rustico wrote:
jstoesz wrote:
Well Played...

Thanks

haha, you (Rustico) hijacked my "well Played." But upon further review, kudos to you all, for the good chuckles all around...

Submitted by harvey on February 11, 2011 - 10:45am.

Djshakes wrote:
Well, considering this country was found on Judea-Christian values that would be self destructive now wouldn't it.

If you want women to have no rights than by all means embrace Sharia. Do you embrace Sharia? Do you hate women?

BAWAHAHAHAHAAAA!

What happened in 1920? 144 years LATE

Here a few names of women with no rights:

Benazir Bhutto
Megawati Sukarno
Khaleda Zia
Sheikh Hasina
Tansu Çiller

What do the above have in common?

Why are there no Americans on this list?

How many times does the words Jesus Christ, Christian, or the Bible appear in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers?

Why did the Founders use words like "Providence" and "Almighty" instead of directly referencing Christ?

The world is not as simple as you'd like it to be.

Submitted by NotCranky on February 11, 2011 - 10:57am.

Ever heard of the word "chattel",Djshakes?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_bi...

Submitted by SK in CV on February 11, 2011 - 10:58am.

Djshakes wrote:
Rustico wrote:
Should we ban the Christian Coalition?

Well, considering this country was found on Judea-Christian values that would be self destructive now wouldn't it.

Banning speech of any almost kind would be destructive. Including the imaginary speech supporting Sharia law. Judeo-Christian values have nothing to do with it.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on February 11, 2011 - 11:00am.

pri_dk wrote:

How many times does the words Jesus Christ, Christian, or the Bible appear in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers?

Why did the Founders use words like "Providence" and "Almighty" instead of directly referencing Christ?

The world is not as simple as you'd like it to be.

Pri: Nor is it as simple as you're making it out to be, either. The Founding Fathers were Deists and did believe in God, but were very wary of a state-sponsored religion, especially after George III and the Church of England.

To that end, you'll note that caution in their writings, while they also express a belief in God, albeit not a God as represented by any specific faith or creed.

Whether you like it or not, this country was indeed founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and those principles are reflected in not only their writings, but the underpinnings of our legal system as well.

Submitted by NotCranky on February 11, 2011 - 11:23am.

I have to admit though, when I saw the title to this thread I thought we were going to discuss Thomas Paine. Jesus did not spark the American Revolution and perhaps Mohamed is nowhere near Cairo at this time.Where is that angel Gabriel when you need him? Justice is the same everywhere and lacking nearly to the same degree everywhere with minor vagaries of time, power and place. Religion interferes with this truth.

Submitted by harvey on February 11, 2011 - 11:27am.

Allan, I'm not sure why you think I'm making it out to be simple. It's not simple.

The phrase "founded on Judeo-Christian principles" is WAY too simple.

What exactly are these values? More importantly, which of these values are different from Islamic values? Because A LOT of them are the same.

Are we talking the Ten Commandments?

Muslims aren't aloud to kill or steal either, and we know they aren't big on adultery.

In fact, outside of the Sabbath, I think Muslims pretty much have the same rules as the Ten Commandments (and they do a much better job with the "graven image" part.)

So what makes us distinct?

A fundamental Christian value is forgiveness. How is that value represented in our founding principles?

Also, have these values changed over the years? (hint: suffrage, slavery)

(BTW, I'm a Protestant and probably attend church as regularly as any of the characters here.)

So what specifically makes our law "Judeo-Christian?"

I really don't know.

Interesting: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badast...

Submitted by Arraya on February 11, 2011 - 11:42am.

walterwhite wrote:
what the heck is the american culture everyone should assimilate into?

It's very simple. you need to keep consumer confidence and take on debt. Advertising will tell you your self interest to rationally utilize. Got it.

Submitted by briansd1 on February 11, 2011 - 11:43am.

Interesting article.

In Europe, and France in particular, they try hard to assimilate immigrants, but without giving them the same economic opportunities. That's a recipe for disaster.

In America, we have more multiculturalism thanks to our more dynamic economy. Here, immigrants can and do thrive economically within their own communities, and within the society at large. Not so much in Europe.

French intellectuals have great ideals but as an "old" country, and as an economy that's more dirigiste, they have established interests that aren't willing to cede a stake to the immigrants, despite the noble ideals. You don't really see success stories such as Fareed Zacharia and Mohammed El-Erian in France.

IMO, cultural and economic assimilation go hand in hand. It's important to share the wealth to create more wealth.

Submitted by pencilneck on February 11, 2011 - 12:19pm.

Briansd1, nailed it. Good post.

Submitted by Djshakes on February 11, 2011 - 12:22pm.

Rustico wrote:
Ever heard of the word "chattel",Djshakes?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_bibl.htm

Are you honestly going to sit and tell me Muslim women have more rights than Christian woman?

By you pointing out a couple bible versus as your source is like arguing a Yugo is better than a Mercedes because the license plate bulb lasts longer.

Submitted by Djshakes on February 11, 2011 - 12:29pm.

Multiculturalism is not just a recognition that different groups have different cultures. We all knew that, long before multiculturalism became a cult that has spawned mindless rhapsodies about "diversity," without a speck of evidence to substantiate its supposed benefits.

In Germany, as in other countries in Europe, welcoming millions of foreign workers who insist on remaining foreign has created problems so obvious that only the intelligentsia could fail to see them. It takes a high IQ to evade the obvious.

"We kidded ourselves for a while," Chancellor Merkel said, but now it was clear that the attempt to build a society where people of very different languages and cultures could "live side-by-side" and "enjoy each other" has "failed, utterly failed."

This is not a lesson for Germany alone. In countries around the world, and over the centuries, peoples with jarring differences in language, cultures and values have been a major problem and, too often, sources of major disasters for the societies in which they co-exist.

Even the tragedies and atrocities associated with racial differences in racist countries have been exceeded by the tragedies and atrocities among people with clashing cultures who are physically indistinguishable from one another, as in the Balkans or Rwanda.

Among the ways that people with different cultures have managed to minimize frictions have been (1) mutual cultural accommodations, even while not amalgamating completely, and (2) living separately in their own enclaves. Both of these approaches are anathema to the multicultural cultists.

Expecting any group to adapt their lifestyles to the cultural values of the larger society around them is "cultural imperialism" according to the multicultural cult. And living in separate neighborhoods is considered to be so terrible that there are government-financed programs to take people from high-crime slums and put them in subsidized housing in middle-class neighborhoods.

Multiculturalists condemn people's objections to transplanting hoodlums, criminals and dysfunctional families into the midst of people who may have sacrificed for years to be able to escape from living among hoodlums, criminals and dysfunctional families.

The actual direct experience of the people who complain about the consequences of these social experiments is often dismissed as mere biased "perceptions" or "stereotypes," if not outright "racism." But some of the strongest complaints have come from middle-class blacks who have fled ghetto life, only to have the government transplant ghetto life back into their midst.

The absorption of millions of immigrants from Europe into American society may be cited as an example of the success of multiculturalism. But, in fact, they were absorbed in ways that were the direct opposite of what the multicultural cult is recommending today.

Before these immigrants were culturally assimilated to the norms of American society, they were by no means scattered at random among the population at large. On New York's lower east side, Hungarian Jews lived clustered together in different neighborhoods from Romanian Jews or Polish Jews -- and German Jews lived away from the lower east side.

When someone suggested relieving the overcrowding in the lower east side schools by transferring some of the children to a school in an Irish neighborhood that had space, both the Irish and the Jews objected.

None of this was peculiar to America. When immigrants from southern Italy to Australia moved into neighborhoods where people from northern Italy lived, the northern Italians moved out. Such scenarios could be found in countries around the world.

It was in later generations, after the children and grandchildren of the immigrants to America were speaking English and living lives more like the lives of other Americans, that they spread out to live and work where other Americans lived and worked. This wasn't multiculturalism. It was common sense. - Thomas Sowell

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on February 11, 2011 - 12:35pm.

pri_dk wrote:

What exactly are these values? More importantly, which of these values are different from Islamic values? Because A LOT of them are the same.

Are we talking the Ten Commandments?

Also, have these values changed over the years? (hint: suffrage, slavery)

So what specifically makes our law "Judeo-Christian?"

Pri: First off, I drew no comparisons with Islam, and my comments weren't intended to. I'm also not of that ilk that believes all Muslims are terrorists, either. I simply believe in killing those that try to kill or harm us, and I couldn't care less if they're communists, muslims, bomb-throwing anarcho-syndicalists, or Girl Scouts. Cross that certain line and you get center-punched with a 5.56mm round and sent to whatever deity you happen to believe in (or not, in the case of bomb-throwing anarcho-syndicalists).

Second, American law is based on English Common Law, which traces its systemization to Henry II and the codification he instituted regarding trial by jury, property ownership, use of a grand jury, etc. Given that this was the 12th century, the Mother Church was omnipresent, and thus provides the background and context to many of the laws, which remain in force to this day.

Submitted by pencilneck on February 11, 2011 - 12:38pm.

I'm not familiar with the cult of multiculturalism, but I'd like to know more about them. Do they have any local churches or mosques?

Submitted by harvey on February 11, 2011 - 12:40pm.

DJ, you have an odd habit of reading things that just aren't there.

And your metaphors suck.

Simple question:

What is the authoritative source of Judeo-Christian beliefs?

Could it be .... The Bible?

So the US was founded on Judeo-Christian values, even though none of our founding documents reference the Bible, or Christ?

But then Rustico is out of line for referencing the Bible in the context of Judeo-Christian values?

Please explain.

Seems that it's time to drag this one out again:

http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/vie...

Submitted by Arraya on February 11, 2011 - 12:42pm.

The US was founded on european enlightenment thinkers musings - specifically John Locke. And if you follow the thought genes back it goes to Hayy ibn Yaqdhan from the 1200s Islamic spain and then back to Greece.

Submitted by harvey on February 11, 2011 - 12:59pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
Second, American law is based on English Common Law, which traces its systemization to Henry II and the codification he instituted regarding trial by jury, property ownership, use of a grand jury, etc. Given that this was the 12th century, the Mother Church was omnipresent, and thus provides the background and context to many of the laws, which remain in force to this day.

Right, I get that.

But how is this Judeo-Christian?

Seems to me, many of these ideas would perhaps be better labeled "European" than Christian. (Many of of our legal principles come from the Enlightenment, which was a mildly "anti-church" phenomenon.) Keep going back and we find ideas that originated with the Romans and Greeks, who were neither Jews nor Christians.

The claim that are country is based on Judeo-Christian values does imply that these values are somehow different than other religious values (otherwise, why bring religion into it at all?)

You are correct that the roots of our law are in Christian organizations (i.e. "The Church"), but there are few distinct aspects of our law that can be attributed specifically to Christian values.

EDIT: Just saw Arraya's post. He's right. We shouldn't forget the Ottomans either...

Submitted by Arraya on February 11, 2011 - 1:17pm.

Heck go back to the Code of Hammurabi for property and banking laws. In ancient Babylon

Submitted by NotCranky on February 11, 2011 - 1:14pm.

Djshakes wrote:
Rustico wrote:
Ever heard of the word "chattel",Djshakes?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_bibl.htm

Are you honestly going to sit and tell me Muslim women have more rights than Christian woman?

By you pointing out a couple bible versus as your source is like arguing a Yugo is better than a Mercedes because the license plate bulb lasts longer.


The other posters have managed to get this thread to a higher level. I hope you will join them.

Submitted by Djshakes on February 11, 2011 - 1:17pm.

Rustico wrote:
Djshakes wrote:
Rustico wrote:
Ever heard of the word "chattel",Djshakes?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_bibl.htm

Are you honestly going to sit and tell me Muslim women have more rights than Christian woman?

By you pointing out a couple bible versus as your source is like arguing a Yugo is better than a Mercedes because the license plate bulb lasts longer.


The other posters have managed to get this thread to a higher level. I hope you will join them.

Please do explain what your point was then by posting your link?

Submitted by Arraya on February 11, 2011 - 1:32pm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
Islamic law made many influences on Western legal systems.
One contribution Islamic law made to Western law, was the legal procedure. Until the Crusades, legal procedure in the West often consisted of "God's judgments" by boiling water (or another "ordeal") or by duel. By contrast, Islamic law decided on the basis of proof and allowed the defendants to express freely, a practice that had been established in the time of the second Caliph of Islam, Umar. Marcel Boisard argues that these procedures were transmitted to Europe via Louis IX, who instituted several reforms upon returning from the Crusades.

Submitted by NotCranky on February 11, 2011 - 1:35pm.

I think we can go back to the "Clan of the Cave Bear" for initial impulses about civil and criminal law.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.