The US Recovery

[GVChamp]

it's the basis of what "national identity" is made of. is it of a religious/racial character? there's varying degrees of problematic there.

that's not to say there are other issues involved. i believe in opening up immigration, but on the other hand i don't believe in -unlimited- immigration either...and there's -some- room for cultural considerations in that.

Some national identities are going to include religious or racial dimensions. It's not really our problem if Poland says you have to be Catholic and White to move there, or Israel decides you need to be Jewish to move there. Not everyone has to share our ideals, and our international institutions should be about advancing our common interests and not imposing said ideals.

If we are interested in imposing our ideals, we should just amp up military spending and start appointing some Imperial Governors to rule the barbarians.

[DOR]

snapper,

not sure where DOR is trying to force any country to do anything...just stating what he believes is the root reason for rejecting Muslim/African migration.

What he said I said about what you said.

[DOR]

How low can you go? (Unemployment, that is)

In the US, continuing unemployment claims in the first week of October were lower than at any time since January 1974, nearly 44 years ago.

The 1.89 million figure was the 27th week in a row below the two million mark. To put that into perspective, the last time the figure was below two million was for five out of seven weeks in the spring of 2000. Five out of seven brief weeks, compared to 27 weeks in a row.

Another perspective: 1.89 million today is 1.2% of the labor force or 0.6% of the population. In 1974, it was 2.2% of the labor force and 0.9% of the population.

Initial claims: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ICSA
Continuing claims: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CCSA

[snapper]

snapper,

not sure where DOR is trying to force any country to do anything...just stating what he believes is the root reason for rejecting Muslim/African migration.

Rofl he may find trying to enforce his views on others as more difficult than stating them. I do not try when it comes to religion as for me my relationship to God is a private matter that has no influence on what policy I might think wiser or less wise. I have seriously considered the Convent at times before but I am not about to - nor do I think it wise - force all Ladies to become Nuns. I can understand that David may not be as religious as me - or even not religious at all - not a problem for me; I am not on a mission to convert others to my faith and my path to the Lord may not be right for others anyway. But for someone to state that wishing to live in a Christian community is "racist" or some other such form exclusivity denies the Christian choice. Will you introduce Imans, Ayatollahs etc to Convents and Monasteries? Why not also Buddhist teachers or Zoroastrian Magi and every other faith? No I reject even the suggestion of this enforcement of 'multiculturalism' on those who's choice, heritage and tradition is interwoven with their faith. It is intolerance of their very being.

[DOR]

Rofl he may find trying to enforce his views on others as more difficult than stating them. I do not try when it comes to religion as for me my relationship to God is a private matter that has no influence on what policy I might think wiser or less wise. I have seriously considered the Convent at times before but I am not about to - nor do I think it wise - force all Ladies to become Nuns. I can understand that David may not be as religious as me - or even not religious at all - not a problem for me; I am not on a mission to convert others to my faith and my path to the Lord may not be right for others anyway. But for someone to state that wishing to live in a Christian community is "racist" or some other such form exclusivity denies the Christian choice. Will you introduce Imans, Ayatollahs etc to Convents and Monasteries? Why not also Buddhist teachers or Zoroastrian Magi and every other faith? No I reject even the suggestion of this enforcement of 'multiculturalism' on those who's choice, heritage and tradition is interwoven with their faith. It is intolerance of their very being.

I have not said wishing to live in a Christian community is racist. Nor have I said that one who believes differently or has no belief must be admitted to any religion's training or worship facilities. Obviously, this is a straw man to which we can all point and laugh.

What I will say is wishing to exclude someone from your community on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, size, hair color or any of a dozen other things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the neighborliness of an individual is the opposite of the Christian-Judeo ideal.

Oh, and it may well be racist, bigoted, xenophobic and intolerant.

And, if your belief system or your community standards dictate that entire groups of people must be excluded because of characteristics over which they may have no control (including family religious traditions), then congratulations, you, too, are likely to be racist, bigoted, xenophobic and intolerant.

[snapper]

I have not said wishing to live in a Christian community is racist. Nor have I said that one who believes differently or has no belief must be admitted to any religion's training or worship facilities. Obviously, this is a straw man to which we can all point and laugh.

What I will say is wishing to exclude someone from your community on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, size, hair color or any of a dozen other things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the neighborliness of an individual is the opposite of the Christian-Judeo ideal.

This seems contradictory. It is not wrong for religious orders to wish to live in peace with their Brothers or Sisters excluding others but yet you claim it is 'unchristian'. Is a hermit, seeking to recluse him for spiritual reasons to be condemned for his or her desire for seclusion? Yet you seem to claim that it is the Christian duty for the hermit to surround themselves with those who have different beliefs and interests. How long did Jesus spend in the desert? Most unchristian of him! Your view of Christian choice if enforced would forbid different sporting teams for different sexes, societies, clubs - perhaps toilets. A person has a right to practice their faith in any way they see right as long as it does not harm others. I know there are some London Clubs that still do not admit Ladies as members but I never held a grudge these old men - they are not harming me or others. Nor is a Christian community of Nuns or Monks harming others or same sex sporting teams and toilets. One can be a Nun and welcome a Priest to perform the Mass but by definition and for the tranquility of the Sisters who are married to Christ alone he cannot be part of the Community. No harm done and of course it is your duty to be charitable towards others and the Sisters I knew welcomed guests on 'retreats'. No it is not your Christian duty to consort with every different person than yourself under sun - it is merely a requirement not to harm them and be charitable to others.

[GVChamp]

There isn't a Judeo-Christian ideal. First, because there is no "Judeo-Christian." The two religions diverged almost 2 millennia ago and have different philosophies and different evolutions. Some might look vaguely similar because they both developed in a Western context. Which is what this "race and religion shouldn't matter" is, a Western philosophy.

There is no ideal Christianity, and attempts to create one provoked centuries of endless war.

Those centuries of warfare produced the idea that Poland is created by the Poles, for the Poles, and the purpose of Poland is to realize an idealized Polish identity, which happens to contain Roman Catholicism. The relevant modification for the modern era is that Poland needs to treat its non-Polish minorities with respect and not violate their basic human dignity. That these minorities are not Polish is not in question, because other nations do not have the right to tell Poland anything, and the issue isn't relevant as long as Poland doesn't go about killing or otherwise oppressing their minority groups.

Also the idea that idealized Jewish involves ethnic diversity is just ridiculous. Jews are an ethnic group based in the Middle East, that knew centuries of war with other competing ethnic groups. Their mythology reflects this and involves massive genocide, destroying enemy gods, and burning rival priests alive. One of their holiest holidays involves God killing every first born child in an entire nation. This is not the mythology of a peaceful culture that believes in ethnic diversity and mutual peace, and whatever "idealized" or "original" Judaism is, it isn't 21st reform atheist-Judaism practiced by Bernie Sanders. And it doesn't matter how awesome you think Bernie Sanders is compared to King David, who is known for killing Goliath, and not for accepting refugees from Syria.

[DOR]

snapper,

Are you deliberately misrepresenting a hermit-like convent of nuns and monks with a community?

No one disputes the right of a religious order to have an exclusive, closed off retreat from the world.

What is an entirely different matter is when public communities supported by taxpayers and voters deny the rights of people to think – to worship, or not – as they please without interference.

It’s what I call racist, bigoted, xenophobic and intolerant behavior.
Oh, and unChristian, too.

What do you call it?

(And just for the record: Jesus wasn’t a Christian.)

= = = = =

GVChamp,

The term Judeo-Christian became prevalent towards the middle of the 20th century in the United States to link broader principles of Judeo-Christian ethics such as dignity of human life, adherence to the Abrahamic Covenant, common decency, and support of traditional family values.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian

[snapper]

snapper,

Are you deliberately misrepresenting a hermit-like convent of nuns and monks with a community?

No one disputes the right of a religious order to have an exclusive, closed off retreat from the world.

What is an entirely different matter is when public communities supported by taxpayers and voters deny the rights of people to think – to worship, or not – as they please without interference.

It’s what I call racist, bigoted, xenophobic and intolerant behavior.
Oh, and unChristian, too.

What do you call it?

(And just for the record: Jesus wasn’t a Christian.)

Are you seriously trying to contend that a group of Monks or Nuns is NOT a community? There are rules and rituals for entry, behaviourial rules once part of the community, methods stipulated for electing superiors... What are they then? A bunch of individuals who just happen to end up living together according to certain rules? It is not a coincidence that people join such communities; it is their choice.

So it was ok for the Son of God to seek isolation in the desert but not ok for others who follow his teaching?

[DOR]

Yes, that's what I'm saying: in the context of this discussion, from the very beginning, we have been talking about communities. Only in the most recent post did the subject of isolated, hermit-like conclaves meant to keep out even people of the same faith who are not as strictly devout even arise.

If you want to wander in the desert, be my guest.
If you want taxpayers and voters to deny someone the right to practice their religion (or lack thereof), I'm not happy with that.
Depending on the finer details, I might even go so far as to say it seems to be racist, bigoted, xenophobic and intolerant behavior.

Even more, it is not only unChristian, but it is also ungentlemanly / ladylike.

[Firestorm]

Even more, it is not only unChristian, but it is also ungentlemanly / ladylike.

I've been following this discussion for a while and found this amusing. You've called certain behaviors un-christian a few times now. Is it wise to be handing out such labels? It is the biggest religion on the planet after all and far from homogeneous. People's ideas about christian and un-christian behavior vary wildly over distance and time. The people who ordered the Crusades and the inquisition definitely believed they were being Christian (and I'm not sure they were wrong).

There are plenty of people who'd say even today that anyone accepting evolution is un-christian. Again, I'm not sure they are wrong either.

[snapper]

Yes, that's what I'm saying: in the context of this discussion, from the very beginning, we have been talking about communities. Only in the most recent post did the subject of isolated, hermit-like conclaves meant to keep out even people of the same faith who are not as strictly devout even arise.

Well I think we evidently define 'community' differently. A Gentleman's only Club in London has every right to exclude me because of my sex; I do not have a problem with that. Women and Catholics cannot be Masons but I have male friends in Scotland who are Masons - no problem for me. Still friends and good people in my book. Hell do whatever you want as long as it does not harm others. You want to sleep with members of your own sex - no skin off my nose - have a good one. You want to dedicate your life to God - I respect your decision and can think of no better study myself - not hurting anyone else so go for it. There is a "gay community" so what do you suggest an a religious Order be called within it's ranks? I must warn you that I hope some day to become a Knight Dame of the SMOM, being a member already. Should the Order be forced to accept Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists? But that would deny it's Christian purpose! Is it a community - not as much as a Monastery or Convent which is more close knit as they live together for years. How you can say that a group of Nuns is not a 'community' absolutely baffles me. They even call themselves a community.

It is not me being 'intolerant' here but you are trying to force your multiculturalism agenda on those of who might chose - for different reasons perhaps; some historical and some religious - that it is not right for them. I do not entirely support the current Polish view myself but I can understand it and respect it.

If you want to wander in the desert, be my guest.

Wasn't aware that anyone required someone else's approval for such a task. I read some ritual once that required six months isolation, daily prayers and ceremonies etc... Apparently some have done it.

If you want taxpayers and voters to deny someone the right to practice their religion (or lack thereof), I'm not happy with that.

Of course I do not expect tax payers to fund religious Orders or Gentlemans Clubs. But conversely when the majority of tax payers elect a Government that rejects migration of other faiths I think that should be respected.

Depending on the finer details, I might even go so far as to say it seems to be racist, bigoted, xenophobic and intolerant behavior.

And your intolerance of others choices is the other side of the coin.

Even more, it is not only unChristian, but it is also ungentlemanly / ladylike.

I know you are a Gentleman and respect that. I also try to be a Lady - I do not differentiate between faiths myself, hell I have Muslim Tatar (and Jewish) IDPs from Donbass living in my property. Nor do I have problem with Chechen Muslims - I lost a Chechen friend recently. But your intolerance of other peoples choice is unbecoming of you as a Gentleman. Remember Noblesse Oblige is the rule as long as they are not harming others. You may not agree with it - that is fine - you may advise against it, which also is fine, but in the end you must accept their choice as a person, a community or a sovereign nation.

[DOR]

snapper,

The only thing I insist cannot be tolerated is intolerance.
Everything else is negotiable.

= = = = =

Firestorm,

Sure, what’s wrong with calling a hypocrite a hypocrite?
No, I’m not calling snapper a hypocrite. I’m sure she practices what she believes far more than the so-called Christian Right in America mark their beliefs to market on a daily basis.

[snapper]

I do not negotiate my private faith and beliefs. They are mine alone. Elizabeth l I think said "I do not seek a window into men's hearts". As long as you conform to the law and do not harm others do and believe as you wish. It is not the business of Government to force some idea of 'social justice' on the population but to lead by example for the benefit of all.

[GVChamp]

Intolerance of intolerance is still intolerance. The same logic that suggests tolerance for other traits also suggests tolerance for intolerance. Other people aren't like you and don't think like you and that's just part of life. Sometimes "don't think like you" includes "hates random group of people for no reason." Sometimes it includes "hates random group of people for GOOD reason." (like a crime victim suddenly becoming suspicious of all men because men commit most crime, or Tutsis becoming suspicious of Hutu-inspired institutions cropping up in their midst).

Enforcing viewpoints on other cultures will result in blow-back, like all the right-wing governments popping up in Eastern Europe right now. This has been the same since time immemorial, and is why compromise is the basis of politics.