Imams deported

[I.D.10-t]

You're talking about religion. I'm talking about whether a statement is true or false regardless of context. If A = B then it's true no matter who believes it.

And this from the Principia Discordia's very beginning, a Discordian koan:

GP: Is Eris true?
MY: Everything is true.
GP: Even false things?
M2: Even false things are true.
GP: How can that be?
M2: I don't know man, I didn't do it.

[jsluder]

Ah HA! (thought I'd throw that in to enhance the "funness").

You're talking about religion. I'm talking about whether a statement is true or false regardless of context. If A = B then it's true no matter who believes it.

Ah. But, in the case of religion, the assertion that a statement is true is based on faith, so it does matter who believes it.

Anyway, that's fun and all but I'm still curious why everyone is so upset with TexasPiperdude.

When I read the "other" thread I saw that Texas said Islam was a false religion. Is THAT what this is all about? Is THAT what Cynth and S1mon got all excited about? Did he say anything else? I don't get it.

I think it was more the way he said it than what he said. It was worded as a proclamation of fact, rather than opinion. When the subject is religion or politics, that almost always gets a rise out of people.

[The Weekenders]

Yeah, we probably are, but at least my position relieves me of the responsibility of trying to force everybody into one big happy multi-ethnic monoculture.

Right to the core, fiddler.

That is one of the biggest problems of kidult culture. People want to be relieved of the responsibility of any number of things, whether its thinking too hard about US actions in Iraq OR allowing immigrants to preach hate at your doorsteps without thinking about the long-term consequences.

Whoever takes action takes the heat and ridicule and are deemed crusaders of some sort. To stand up for a monoculture that has given so much freedom to so many in the face of those critical of its excesses, exposes one to any number of charges.

I believe its part of the reason we suffer a vacuum of leadership.

I have been called ignorant, bigoted and a gangster here for defending the CONCEPT of defending this monoculture. My years at school and college, years and years of reading and thinking, life experience, study on the topic of Revolutionary War history etc. are swept away by one-word reductions by certain geniuses here as though it was all for nothing.

I know better. There are thinking people who have taken a stand on the issue of responsibility. Though rightly accused of excesses, neo-cons, for example, feel they must right the destruction that Baby Boomers have wrought on the social fabric. They have decided that nationalism isn't as bad as post-nationalist chaos. That the theories of multiculturalism have proved to be half-baked and of tempoaray value. That the breakdown of social hierarchies (like respecting teachers and principals) which were swept away by post-Vietnam zeal might not have proved good, especially when youngsters seek out gangs to replace previous pecking orders...

And there is an irony. It seems that many who would preserve the environment and undo the damages of the past, turn a blind eye to a social and cultural environment that has been damaged by national traumas. And vice versa, I am sure...

And so it goes..

[s1m0n]

I repeat my assertion from another thread: I have no problem with multi-ethnicity, I have problems with multi-culturalism.

You know, when ITM came to america the locals greeted it with remarkably similar cries. It was AS multicultural as anything that's happening today.

There's no such thing as a pure North American or even plain American culture which can be distinguished from the cultures of the immigrant groups who made up the population.

Every group which comes to America brings something which becomes part of the melange and has left us different in their wake.

We on the C&F board ARE multiculturalism in action. If one day my kids are active members of some future bhanga-board, that will be OK with me.

[djm]

that was an illustration of the hypocrisy, short-sightedness, and historical ignorance of your comment about "foreigners".

The ignorance is yours, my friend. Europeans came to a new land with the pure intention of conquest in mind. There was no attempt to recognize local governments, or set up embassies, or establish trade relations. The natives were barely accorded the status of human beings (it was the Christian way).

When an individual comes here today and wishes to remain in peace as a contributing part of our society, he is more than welcome as far as I am concerned. But what is he doing here if he hates our society/culture and its values? If he chooses to remain here and stir up violence and hatred I am moved to get rid of that person. I welcome a peaceful guest, but not an invader.

As for Americans in Iraq, I do not believe they belong there under false pretexts. They are there as in invading army to impose the will of Big Oil. The natives have the right to expel the invaders if possible, but this is not likely. Iraq was never really a unified country to begin with. They were a bunch of squabbling tribes who were thrown together by the English after WW I. Like your NA natives, they are not capable of overcoming their internal differences, so are not capable of mounting a compelling resistance. They will be overwhelmed, unless financial interests look elsewhere.

djm

[s1m0n]

Even without the intentional distribution of germ-laden blankets, the ultimate result was already inevitable.

.

You might check this out
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... p?ID=18339

I'm not surprised to read this, to be honest. I've never seen a definitive account of the deliberate spreading of diseased blankets; although I've never personally investigated it, the story has always had the smell of myth to me.

My suspicion isn't disproof, either, as far as I can determine. I have yet to see a concrete determination one way or the other.

The fact that one such accusation might have been exaggerated or fabricated doesn't alter the big picture one way or the other.

And as a practical matter, intentionally spread or not, disease had done its work long before most natives ever saw a european.

None mention a store of vaccine locked away, deliberately withheld from Indians.

And this accusation is just silly. If the deliberate spreading of disease ever occurred, it was many decades before the onset of vaccination campaigns.

Vaccines provide immunity in advance of exposure; not a cure after infection, in any regard.

[The Weekenders]

Heck, I thought it was true until I found out otherwise, Simon. . Fit in well with the Trail of Tears and all...

And djm, it's inaccurate to say that the newcomers never tried to treat with the Indians. At first, there were the gross claims of the continent for various empires. But it changed after a while. For a period the Brits wanted the colonists to stay East of the mountainous ridgeline and vainly hoped that it would be "enough." There were always religious groups that wanted to acknowledge and treat with Indians but they were usually limited in their vision and expectations, by the same inclination that occurs between Europeans and Gypsies in my opinion. Though often insincere, there were many attempts to treat and purchase the land.

When the Ulster Scots came, the Quakers of Pennsylvania were greatly vexed because of the westward squatting and Indian slaughter taking place by the uncouth hordes. On the other hand, they wanted them out of Philadelphia as soon as possible! Thus the expansion south and westward. Talk about hypocrisy and denial! Many of the Anglo-Americans looked the other way while the Scots-Irish "cleared" the land, then came in later with development schemes and vigor to open new lands, start new towns (often with religious covenants and such), etc.

It's never simple.

[fiddleronvermouth]

that was an illustration of the hypocrisy, short-sightedness, and historical ignorance of your comment about "foreigners".

The ignorance is yours, my friend. Europeans came to a new land with the pure intention of conquest in mind. There was no attempt to recognize local governments, or set up embassies, or establish trade relations. The natives were barely accorded the status of human beings (it was the Christian way).

I'm not a historian (I'm guessing you aren't either), but since we're communicating in vague and groundless generalizations anyway, I might as well chip in some of my own. The Jesuits (Christians) came with the intention of converting the natives, not "conquering" them (well, except in a spiritual sense). As far as "trade relations" is concerned, early Europeans were TOTALLY dependent on trade with the natives. And why bother writing treaties - meant to be (or appear to be) legally binding agreements between two parties as to how to "share" the land if you don't recognize the autonomy of the local government?

Little known and very contentious fact, a proclamation by King George in 16 something-or-other clearly stated that all territory West of the rocky mountains was to be the autonomous, totally independent territory of the indigenous population. European settlements were prohibited. This proclamation is one of many upheld by Canada's constitution. This would indicate that as early as the 17th century, indigenous sovereignty was recognized by the British government, largely due to public outcry in Europe over stories of genocide and abuse.

So maybe some of our ancestors weren't bent on conquest and destruction. It doesn't give me much satisfaction to think my forefathers were completely without compassion and human decency. There's a whole tribe of the progeny of early French traders and their native wives.

That said, American history had a totally different approach to the issue of indigenous rights, but most of that bloodbath occured *after* the US broke ties with their European homelands to set up their very own country.

[djm]

Sorry, Weeks, but you seem to have very conveniently forgotten the entire 16th century and the Spanish invasion of the new world. The spread of disease and decimation of the natives began in this time. The Europeans did not come hat in hand begging for a bit o land. They came with guns to fight and bully when they thought they could get away with it, and cheap trade and sale when it was to their advantage to do so.

This still has no bearing whatsoever to a few modern day people coming from what are often referred to as "third-world" countries to partake of the riches of the haves, and then fomenting social upheaval, violence and destruction when they get there.

djm

[fiddleronvermouth]

This still has no bearing whatsoever to a few modern day people coming from what are often referred to as "third-world" countries to partake of the riches of the haves, and then fomenting social upheaval, violence and destruction when they get there.

djm

Can you give me an example? Granted, the terrorists who have moved into your country are trying to foment social upheaval, violence and destruction, but that was their objective from the start. In my experience, the people who come here to partake of the riches we've amassed by robbing their own countries blind generally stick to that goal. (Whether or not they ever realize it is another matter - there are about 90 of them earning minimum wage in the sweatshop downstairs. I couldn't live on that kind of dough. Don't know about you.)

[fiddleronvermouth]

Oh yeah, and for the record, the native population of the west coast fought the Spaniards off relatively effortlessly (OK, so maybe they burned down 1/3 of the trees on Vancouver Island as a side-effect). The area west of the rockies was won by missionaries, politicians and judges.

[djm]

FoV, your guilt trip over the European conquest of North America has nothing to do with the discussion about a few Imams stirring up trouble. The Europeans came to NA en masse as representatives of, and with full sanction from, their respective countries. They were usually well armed and well equipped. They did not come to the native population, hat in hand, begging for landed immigrant status.

Those people from other countries who come here requesting to become members of our society are required to accept our laws and our culture - here, today, in the real world. They are welcome to bring some diversity as regards customs, music, religion, food, etc. but when anything they bring with them is in conflict with our laws then our laws must take precedence. That is what they agreed to when they requested and accepted landed immigrant status.

They are not coming here en masse as representatives of their governments with letters of marque granted by those governments to take over here. They come as individuals, and as individuals who wish to become law-abiding productive contributors to our society they are welcome.

djm

[Lorenzo]

The term "religion" can mean many things. It has to be defined before you can rest assured that all religions are either false or true. We see ample evidence that some religions are improved modified copycats of others. The oldest religion, in that case may be true while the rest are false.

Answers.com gives a fairly good comprhinsive analysis of the term. It's pretty long and can take a while to digest, but worth a read. Here's a couple samples that keep the wheels spinning...

• A code of behavior by which individuals may judge the personal and social consequences of their actions.
  
  Religions, although untrue in themselves, encode instructions useful for survival, that these ideas "mutate" periodically as they are passed on, and they spread or die out in accord with their effectiveness at improving chances for survival.

[Lorenzo]

I remember reading somewhere that when the Europeans arrived on the shores of America, they fell down on their knees and prayed, then rose up and preyed.

[s1m0n]

• A code of behavior by which individuals may judge the personal and social consequences of their actions.

OK, so what's "ethics"?