Common sense

[Djshakes]

[quote=Rustico][quote=Djshakes][quote=Rustico][quote=Djshakes][quote=Rustico]Ever heard of the word “chattel”,Djshakes?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_bibl.htm%5B/quote%5D

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.[/quote]
The other posters have managed to get this thread to a higher level. I hope you will join them.[/quote]
Please do explain what your point was then by posting your link?[/quote]
By reminding you of the history of women as “Chattel” in the Judeo-Christian tradition, specifically connecting it to century after century of enforcement of the inferior status of women in Christendom,I thought that you might begin to challenge some of your many attribution biases.”Christianity” did not save women.[/quote]

I don’t care about your comparisons of the past. Last I checked we lived in the present. My earlier comment was about Sharia law. My question to you was whether or not you thought women were afforded more rights under Sharia law or Christianity. You responded with a snide comment…because you know the answer negates your argument.

[scaredyclassic]

what were the judeo values we were founded on? Being jewish, i don’t find the whole nation to have been founded on a particularly jewishy value. For instance, there is very minimal torah reading, and the analysis is kind of lame, from a jewish values perspective, particularly since no founding fathers spoke hebrew (or did they) and is always misconstruing the torah. Also, bar mitzvahs were rare in revolutionary times. Circumcision eventually caught on, but we werent really founded on that. Just wasn’t all that jewishy. PLus i think everyone wanted to kill jews back then. When they meant freedomof religion, they didn’t mean for freakin jews. they meant for slightly different types of christianity which had no real differences other than money power an dpolitical alliances.

And when you think about it, it wasn’t all that Christian either. it is kind of nice though, from a Jewish perspective, how we get painted into the picture after the fact as part of the very basis for this country. Judeo values, baby!

[scaredyclassic]

what were the judeo values we were founded on? Being jewish, i don’t find the whole nation to have been founded on a particularly jewishy value. For instance, there is very minimal torah reading, and the analysis is kind of lame, from a jewish values perspective, particularly since no founding fathers spoke hebrew (or did they) and is always misconstruing the torah. Also, bar mitzvahs were rare in revolutionary times. Circumcision eventually caught on, but we werent really founded on that. Just wasn’t all that jewishy. PLus i think everyone wanted to kill jews back then. When they meant freedomof religion, they didn’t mean for freakin jews. they meant for slightly different types of christianity which had no real differences other than money power an dpolitical alliances.

And when you think about it, it wasn’t all that Christian either. it is kind of nice though, from a Jewish perspective, how we get painted into the picture after the fact as part of the very basis for this country. Judeo values, baby!

[scaredyclassic]

what were the judeo values we were founded on? Being jewish, i don’t find the whole nation to have been founded on a particularly jewishy value. For instance, there is very minimal torah reading, and the analysis is kind of lame, from a jewish values perspective, particularly since no founding fathers spoke hebrew (or did they) and is always misconstruing the torah. Also, bar mitzvahs were rare in revolutionary times. Circumcision eventually caught on, but we werent really founded on that. Just wasn’t all that jewishy. PLus i think everyone wanted to kill jews back then. When they meant freedomof religion, they didn’t mean for freakin jews. they meant for slightly different types of christianity which had no real differences other than money power an dpolitical alliances.

And when you think about it, it wasn’t all that Christian either. it is kind of nice though, from a Jewish perspective, how we get painted into the picture after the fact as part of the very basis for this country. Judeo values, baby!

[scaredyclassic]

what were the judeo values we were founded on? Being jewish, i don’t find the whole nation to have been founded on a particularly jewishy value. For instance, there is very minimal torah reading, and the analysis is kind of lame, from a jewish values perspective, particularly since no founding fathers spoke hebrew (or did they) and is always misconstruing the torah. Also, bar mitzvahs were rare in revolutionary times. Circumcision eventually caught on, but we werent really founded on that. Just wasn’t all that jewishy. PLus i think everyone wanted to kill jews back then. When they meant freedomof religion, they didn’t mean for freakin jews. they meant for slightly different types of christianity which had no real differences other than money power an dpolitical alliances.

And when you think about it, it wasn’t all that Christian either. it is kind of nice though, from a Jewish perspective, how we get painted into the picture after the fact as part of the very basis for this country. Judeo values, baby!

[scaredyclassic]

what were the judeo values we were founded on? Being jewish, i don’t find the whole nation to have been founded on a particularly jewishy value. For instance, there is very minimal torah reading, and the analysis is kind of lame, from a jewish values perspective, particularly since no founding fathers spoke hebrew (or did they) and is always misconstruing the torah. Also, bar mitzvahs were rare in revolutionary times. Circumcision eventually caught on, but we werent really founded on that. Just wasn’t all that jewishy. PLus i think everyone wanted to kill jews back then. When they meant freedomof religion, they didn’t mean for freakin jews. they meant for slightly different types of christianity which had no real differences other than money power an dpolitical alliances.

And when you think about it, it wasn’t all that Christian either. it is kind of nice though, from a Jewish perspective, how we get painted into the picture after the fact as part of the very basis for this country. Judeo values, baby!

[Djshakes]

This thread has gone from whether or not Multiculturalism is a good thing to arguing about what our forefathers had in mind when creating the country. A bit off track if you ask me. The argument should be whether not most of the European leaders arguing its failure is correct…not what religion is better or worse. It doesn’t matter who or what is superior..it is whether or not integration will work. The libs are going to argue it will because…well, in their mind it is the right all embracing thing to do…even if it doesn’t work just because we should all love one another. This isn’t a matter of being bigoted or racist, which is a term they love to through around. It is accepting reality while still RESPECTING difference. For example, I don’t certain aspects of a culture..but I still respect. Just because you don’t immerse yourself in it doesn’t mean you are a racist or closed minded.

Another great article:

There was a reason why employers in the middle of the 19th century had signs that said, “No Irish need apply” — and why employers in the middle of the 20th century no longer had such signs. It was not that employers had changed. The Irish had changed.

The Catholic Church for years worked to bring about such changes among the Irish immigrants and their offspring, just as various religious and secular organizations among the Jews, among blacks and among other groups worked to bring about changes within their respective groups. By and large these efforts paid off. All these groups were advancing, long before there were civil rights laws.

Yet today, attempts to get black or Hispanic youngsters to speak the language of the society around them are decried by multiculturalists. And any attempt to get them to behave according to the cultural norms of the larger society is denounced as “cultural imperialism,” if not racism.

The multicultural dogma is that we are to “celebrate” all cultures, not change them. In other words, people who lag educationally or economically are to keep on doing what they have been doing — but somehow have better results in the future than in the past. And, if they don’t have better results in the future, it is society’s fault.

Such notions have been tried, and failed, in other countries and times, long before they became a fashionable dogma called multiculturalism.

In 19th century Latvia and Bohemia, among other places in Eastern Europe, the great majority of Germans were literate, while most of the indigenous peoples around them were not. Not surprisingly, Germans had more education and skills, and enjoyed a higher standard of living.

In both Latvia and Bohemia, the German minority held most of the jobs requiring education and skills. But, in both places, the indigenous people — Latvians and Czechs — could rise by acquiring the German language and culture, and many did.

But, for the newly rising Latvian and Czech intelligentsia, that was not enough. They wanted to be able to rise without having to learn a different language and culture.

Nor were Latvians and Czechs unique. Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, Malays in Malaysia and Maoris in New Zealand are just some of the others who have wanted the same thing — namely, to cling to their own culture and yet achieve the same success as people with a different culture.

Many of these efforts have failed and few have succeeded. But what is truly painful is how often the polarization created by these efforts led to tragedies, such as civil war in Sri Lanka and brutal mass expulsions of millions of Germans from Czechoslovakia, to the detriment of both the Germans and the Czech economy.

The history of blacks in the United States has been more complicated. By the end of the 19th century, the small numbers of blacks living in northern cities had, over the generations, assimilated the culture of the surrounding society to the point where they lived and worked among the white population more fully than they would in most of the 20th century.

In New York, Washington, Chicago, Philadelphia and other Northern cities, black ghettos became a 20th century phenomenon. It was after the massive migration of far less acculturated blacks out of the South in the early 20th century when a massive retrogression in black-white relations took place in the Northern cites to which the migrants moved.

The blacks who moved to these cities were of the same race as those who were already there, but they were not the same in their culture, values and behavior. No one complained of this more bitterly than the blacks already living in these cities, who saw the newcomers as harbingers of a worse life for all blacks.

This same process occurred on the west coast decades later, largely during World War II, when the same influx of less acculturated blacks from the South marked a retrogression in race relations in places like San Francisco and Portland.

Cultural differences matter. They have always mattered, however much that may be denied today by the multicultural cult.

[Djshakes]

This thread has gone from whether or not Multiculturalism is a good thing to arguing about what our forefathers had in mind when creating the country. A bit off track if you ask me. The argument should be whether not most of the European leaders arguing its failure is correct…not what religion is better or worse. It doesn’t matter who or what is superior..it is whether or not integration will work. The libs are going to argue it will because…well, in their mind it is the right all embracing thing to do…even if it doesn’t work just because we should all love one another. This isn’t a matter of being bigoted or racist, which is a term they love to through around. It is accepting reality while still RESPECTING difference. For example, I don’t certain aspects of a culture..but I still respect. Just because you don’t immerse yourself in it doesn’t mean you are a racist or closed minded.

Another great article:

There was a reason why employers in the middle of the 19th century had signs that said, “No Irish need apply” — and why employers in the middle of the 20th century no longer had such signs. It was not that employers had changed. The Irish had changed.

The Catholic Church for years worked to bring about such changes among the Irish immigrants and their offspring, just as various religious and secular organizations among the Jews, among blacks and among other groups worked to bring about changes within their respective groups. By and large these efforts paid off. All these groups were advancing, long before there were civil rights laws.

Yet today, attempts to get black or Hispanic youngsters to speak the language of the society around them are decried by multiculturalists. And any attempt to get them to behave according to the cultural norms of the larger society is denounced as “cultural imperialism,” if not racism.

The multicultural dogma is that we are to “celebrate” all cultures, not change them. In other words, people who lag educationally or economically are to keep on doing what they have been doing — but somehow have better results in the future than in the past. And, if they don’t have better results in the future, it is society’s fault.

Such notions have been tried, and failed, in other countries and times, long before they became a fashionable dogma called multiculturalism.

In 19th century Latvia and Bohemia, among other places in Eastern Europe, the great majority of Germans were literate, while most of the indigenous peoples around them were not. Not surprisingly, Germans had more education and skills, and enjoyed a higher standard of living.

In both Latvia and Bohemia, the German minority held most of the jobs requiring education and skills. But, in both places, the indigenous people — Latvians and Czechs — could rise by acquiring the German language and culture, and many did.

But, for the newly rising Latvian and Czech intelligentsia, that was not enough. They wanted to be able to rise without having to learn a different language and culture.

Nor were Latvians and Czechs unique. Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, Malays in Malaysia and Maoris in New Zealand are just some of the others who have wanted the same thing — namely, to cling to their own culture and yet achieve the same success as people with a different culture.

Many of these efforts have failed and few have succeeded. But what is truly painful is how often the polarization created by these efforts led to tragedies, such as civil war in Sri Lanka and brutal mass expulsions of millions of Germans from Czechoslovakia, to the detriment of both the Germans and the Czech economy.

The history of blacks in the United States has been more complicated. By the end of the 19th century, the small numbers of blacks living in northern cities had, over the generations, assimilated the culture of the surrounding society to the point where they lived and worked among the white population more fully than they would in most of the 20th century.

In New York, Washington, Chicago, Philadelphia and other Northern cities, black ghettos became a 20th century phenomenon. It was after the massive migration of far less acculturated blacks out of the South in the early 20th century when a massive retrogression in black-white relations took place in the Northern cites to which the migrants moved.

The blacks who moved to these cities were of the same race as those who were already there, but they were not the same in their culture, values and behavior. No one complained of this more bitterly than the blacks already living in these cities, who saw the newcomers as harbingers of a worse life for all blacks.

This same process occurred on the west coast decades later, largely during World War II, when the same influx of less acculturated blacks from the South marked a retrogression in race relations in places like San Francisco and Portland.

Cultural differences matter. They have always mattered, however much that may be denied today by the multicultural cult.

[Djshakes]

This thread has gone from whether or not Multiculturalism is a good thing to arguing about what our forefathers had in mind when creating the country. A bit off track if you ask me. The argument should be whether not most of the European leaders arguing its failure is correct…not what religion is better or worse. It doesn’t matter who or what is superior..it is whether or not integration will work. The libs are going to argue it will because…well, in their mind it is the right all embracing thing to do…even if it doesn’t work just because we should all love one another. This isn’t a matter of being bigoted or racist, which is a term they love to through around. It is accepting reality while still RESPECTING difference. For example, I don’t certain aspects of a culture..but I still respect. Just because you don’t immerse yourself in it doesn’t mean you are a racist or closed minded.

Another great article:

There was a reason why employers in the middle of the 19th century had signs that said, “No Irish need apply” — and why employers in the middle of the 20th century no longer had such signs. It was not that employers had changed. The Irish had changed.

The Catholic Church for years worked to bring about such changes among the Irish immigrants and their offspring, just as various religious and secular organizations among the Jews, among blacks and among other groups worked to bring about changes within their respective groups. By and large these efforts paid off. All these groups were advancing, long before there were civil rights laws.

Yet today, attempts to get black or Hispanic youngsters to speak the language of the society around them are decried by multiculturalists. And any attempt to get them to behave according to the cultural norms of the larger society is denounced as “cultural imperialism,” if not racism.

The multicultural dogma is that we are to “celebrate” all cultures, not change them. In other words, people who lag educationally or economically are to keep on doing what they have been doing — but somehow have better results in the future than in the past. And, if they don’t have better results in the future, it is society’s fault.

Such notions have been tried, and failed, in other countries and times, long before they became a fashionable dogma called multiculturalism.

In 19th century Latvia and Bohemia, among other places in Eastern Europe, the great majority of Germans were literate, while most of the indigenous peoples around them were not. Not surprisingly, Germans had more education and skills, and enjoyed a higher standard of living.

In both Latvia and Bohemia, the German minority held most of the jobs requiring education and skills. But, in both places, the indigenous people — Latvians and Czechs — could rise by acquiring the German language and culture, and many did.

But, for the newly rising Latvian and Czech intelligentsia, that was not enough. They wanted to be able to rise without having to learn a different language and culture.

Nor were Latvians and Czechs unique. Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, Malays in Malaysia and Maoris in New Zealand are just some of the others who have wanted the same thing — namely, to cling to their own culture and yet achieve the same success as people with a different culture.

Many of these efforts have failed and few have succeeded. But what is truly painful is how often the polarization created by these efforts led to tragedies, such as civil war in Sri Lanka and brutal mass expulsions of millions of Germans from Czechoslovakia, to the detriment of both the Germans and the Czech economy.

The history of blacks in the United States has been more complicated. By the end of the 19th century, the small numbers of blacks living in northern cities had, over the generations, assimilated the culture of the surrounding society to the point where they lived and worked among the white population more fully than they would in most of the 20th century.

In New York, Washington, Chicago, Philadelphia and other Northern cities, black ghettos became a 20th century phenomenon. It was after the massive migration of far less acculturated blacks out of the South in the early 20th century when a massive retrogression in black-white relations took place in the Northern cites to which the migrants moved.

The blacks who moved to these cities were of the same race as those who were already there, but they were not the same in their culture, values and behavior. No one complained of this more bitterly than the blacks already living in these cities, who saw the newcomers as harbingers of a worse life for all blacks.

This same process occurred on the west coast decades later, largely during World War II, when the same influx of less acculturated blacks from the South marked a retrogression in race relations in places like San Francisco and Portland.

Cultural differences matter. They have always mattered, however much that may be denied today by the multicultural cult.

[Djshakes]

This thread has gone from whether or not Multiculturalism is a good thing to arguing about what our forefathers had in mind when creating the country. A bit off track if you ask me. The argument should be whether not most of the European leaders arguing its failure is correct…not what religion is better or worse. It doesn’t matter who or what is superior..it is whether or not integration will work. The libs are going to argue it will because…well, in their mind it is the right all embracing thing to do…even if it doesn’t work just because we should all love one another. This isn’t a matter of being bigoted or racist, which is a term they love to through around. It is accepting reality while still RESPECTING difference. For example, I don’t certain aspects of a culture..but I still respect. Just because you don’t immerse yourself in it doesn’t mean you are a racist or closed minded.

Another great article:

There was a reason why employers in the middle of the 19th century had signs that said, “No Irish need apply” — and why employers in the middle of the 20th century no longer had such signs. It was not that employers had changed. The Irish had changed.

The Catholic Church for years worked to bring about such changes among the Irish immigrants and their offspring, just as various religious and secular organizations among the Jews, among blacks and among other groups worked to bring about changes within their respective groups. By and large these efforts paid off. All these groups were advancing, long before there were civil rights laws.

Yet today, attempts to get black or Hispanic youngsters to speak the language of the society around them are decried by multiculturalists. And any attempt to get them to behave according to the cultural norms of the larger society is denounced as “cultural imperialism,” if not racism.

The multicultural dogma is that we are to “celebrate” all cultures, not change them. In other words, people who lag educationally or economically are to keep on doing what they have been doing — but somehow have better results in the future than in the past. And, if they don’t have better results in the future, it is society’s fault.

Such notions have been tried, and failed, in other countries and times, long before they became a fashionable dogma called multiculturalism.

In 19th century Latvia and Bohemia, among other places in Eastern Europe, the great majority of Germans were literate, while most of the indigenous peoples around them were not. Not surprisingly, Germans had more education and skills, and enjoyed a higher standard of living.

In both Latvia and Bohemia, the German minority held most of the jobs requiring education and skills. But, in both places, the indigenous people — Latvians and Czechs — could rise by acquiring the German language and culture, and many did.

But, for the newly rising Latvian and Czech intelligentsia, that was not enough. They wanted to be able to rise without having to learn a different language and culture.

Nor were Latvians and Czechs unique. Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, Malays in Malaysia and Maoris in New Zealand are just some of the others who have wanted the same thing — namely, to cling to their own culture and yet achieve the same success as people with a different culture.

Many of these efforts have failed and few have succeeded. But what is truly painful is how often the polarization created by these efforts led to tragedies, such as civil war in Sri Lanka and brutal mass expulsions of millions of Germans from Czechoslovakia, to the detriment of both the Germans and the Czech economy.

The history of blacks in the United States has been more complicated. By the end of the 19th century, the small numbers of blacks living in northern cities had, over the generations, assimilated the culture of the surrounding society to the point where they lived and worked among the white population more fully than they would in most of the 20th century.

In New York, Washington, Chicago, Philadelphia and other Northern cities, black ghettos became a 20th century phenomenon. It was after the massive migration of far less acculturated blacks out of the South in the early 20th century when a massive retrogression in black-white relations took place in the Northern cites to which the migrants moved.

The blacks who moved to these cities were of the same race as those who were already there, but they were not the same in their culture, values and behavior. No one complained of this more bitterly than the blacks already living in these cities, who saw the newcomers as harbingers of a worse life for all blacks.

This same process occurred on the west coast decades later, largely during World War II, when the same influx of less acculturated blacks from the South marked a retrogression in race relations in places like San Francisco and Portland.

Cultural differences matter. They have always mattered, however much that may be denied today by the multicultural cult.

[Djshakes]

This thread has gone from whether or not Multiculturalism is a good thing to arguing about what our forefathers had in mind when creating the country. A bit off track if you ask me. The argument should be whether not most of the European leaders arguing its failure is correct…not what religion is better or worse. It doesn’t matter who or what is superior..it is whether or not integration will work. The libs are going to argue it will because…well, in their mind it is the right all embracing thing to do…even if it doesn’t work just because we should all love one another. This isn’t a matter of being bigoted or racist, which is a term they love to through around. It is accepting reality while still RESPECTING difference. For example, I don’t certain aspects of a culture..but I still respect. Just because you don’t immerse yourself in it doesn’t mean you are a racist or closed minded.

Another great article:

There was a reason why employers in the middle of the 19th century had signs that said, “No Irish need apply” — and why employers in the middle of the 20th century no longer had such signs. It was not that employers had changed. The Irish had changed.

The Catholic Church for years worked to bring about such changes among the Irish immigrants and their offspring, just as various religious and secular organizations among the Jews, among blacks and among other groups worked to bring about changes within their respective groups. By and large these efforts paid off. All these groups were advancing, long before there were civil rights laws.

Yet today, attempts to get black or Hispanic youngsters to speak the language of the society around them are decried by multiculturalists. And any attempt to get them to behave according to the cultural norms of the larger society is denounced as “cultural imperialism,” if not racism.

The multicultural dogma is that we are to “celebrate” all cultures, not change them. In other words, people who lag educationally or economically are to keep on doing what they have been doing — but somehow have better results in the future than in the past. And, if they don’t have better results in the future, it is society’s fault.

Such notions have been tried, and failed, in other countries and times, long before they became a fashionable dogma called multiculturalism.

In 19th century Latvia and Bohemia, among other places in Eastern Europe, the great majority of Germans were literate, while most of the indigenous peoples around them were not. Not surprisingly, Germans had more education and skills, and enjoyed a higher standard of living.

In both Latvia and Bohemia, the German minority held most of the jobs requiring education and skills. But, in both places, the indigenous people — Latvians and Czechs — could rise by acquiring the German language and culture, and many did.

But, for the newly rising Latvian and Czech intelligentsia, that was not enough. They wanted to be able to rise without having to learn a different language and culture.

Nor were Latvians and Czechs unique. Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, Malays in Malaysia and Maoris in New Zealand are just some of the others who have wanted the same thing — namely, to cling to their own culture and yet achieve the same success as people with a different culture.

Many of these efforts have failed and few have succeeded. But what is truly painful is how often the polarization created by these efforts led to tragedies, such as civil war in Sri Lanka and brutal mass expulsions of millions of Germans from Czechoslovakia, to the detriment of both the Germans and the Czech economy.

The history of blacks in the United States has been more complicated. By the end of the 19th century, the small numbers of blacks living in northern cities had, over the generations, assimilated the culture of the surrounding society to the point where they lived and worked among the white population more fully than they would in most of the 20th century.

In New York, Washington, Chicago, Philadelphia and other Northern cities, black ghettos became a 20th century phenomenon. It was after the massive migration of far less acculturated blacks out of the South in the early 20th century when a massive retrogression in black-white relations took place in the Northern cites to which the migrants moved.

The blacks who moved to these cities were of the same race as those who were already there, but they were not the same in their culture, values and behavior. No one complained of this more bitterly than the blacks already living in these cities, who saw the newcomers as harbingers of a worse life for all blacks.

This same process occurred on the west coast decades later, largely during World War II, when the same influx of less acculturated blacks from the South marked a retrogression in race relations in places like San Francisco and Portland.

Cultural differences matter. They have always mattered, however much that may be denied today by the multicultural cult.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Djshakes]I don’t care about your comparisons of the past. Last I checked we lived in the present.[/quote]

So we should completely ignore history in a political discussion, and rely upon extremely broad generalizations about something as complex as religion.

Got it.

(And we’ll keep this in mind next time you bring up any historical event in one of your arguments…you don’t do that, do you?)

[Anonymous]

[quote=Djshakes]I don’t care about your comparisons of the past. Last I checked we lived in the present.[/quote]

So we should completely ignore history in a political discussion, and rely upon extremely broad generalizations about something as complex as religion.

Got it.

(And we’ll keep this in mind next time you bring up any historical event in one of your arguments…you don’t do that, do you?)

[Anonymous]

[quote=Djshakes]I don’t care about your comparisons of the past. Last I checked we lived in the present.[/quote]

So we should completely ignore history in a political discussion, and rely upon extremely broad generalizations about something as complex as religion.

Got it.

(And we’ll keep this in mind next time you bring up any historical event in one of your arguments…you don’t do that, do you?)

[Anonymous]

[quote=Djshakes]I don’t care about your comparisons of the past. Last I checked we lived in the present.[/quote]

So we should completely ignore history in a political discussion, and rely upon extremely broad generalizations about something as complex as religion.

Got it.

(And we’ll keep this in mind next time you bring up any historical event in one of your arguments…you don’t do that, do you?)

[Author]

Posts