 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
DavidVS
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 46 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Presbyterian - On the Journey to Rome |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 3rd, 2006 10:33 pm |
|
Keith Ellison is the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress. He left the Catholic faith and converted to Islam and has announced his intention to take the oath of office with his hand on the Koran instead of the Bible.
This is a free country, of course and Mr. Ellison is free to make his own decisions. But I'm curious what all of you think about Mr. Ellison's election to Congress. Mr. Ellison has abandoned the Catholic faith, Jesus, the Trinity and everything we believe in.
Could you vote for a Muslim for Congress? Could you vote for a Muslim for President of the United States?
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2037 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 3rd, 2006 10:56 pm |
|
Don’t you think it would depend on how moral he is (leaving aside his being an ex-Catholic) and who his opponent is?
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5312 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 3rd, 2006 11:13 pm |
|
DavidVS wrote: Could you vote for a Muslim for Congress? Could you vote for a Muslim for President of the United States?
I think I could vote for a mainstream, pro-life, conservative Muslim who supports family values before I could vote for a pro-abortion, racist Catholic who doesn't. I don't think religion has anything to do with it except as an indicator for a moral position.
Having said that, I can't imagine myself ever selecting a Muslim, but it doesn't mean it will never happen.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Talithacumi
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Eastern Ohio, USA |
| Posts: | 267 |
| First Name: | Cheri | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic - Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 4th, 2006 12:02 am |
|
cajunrick wrote: I think I could vote for a mainstream, pro-life, conservative Muslim who supports family values before I could vote for a pro-abortion, racist Catholic who doesn't. I don't think religion has anything to do with it except as an indicator for a moral position.
Having said that, I can't imagine myself ever selecting a Muslim, but it doesn't mean it will never happen.
Hm. Vote for a Muslim? Kind of a tough one, I think. I guess I would probably tend to agree with Rick on this one, but...
OK, I'm going to be honest, though this might stir up some flack, and I might sound prejudiced, I'm not sure... but, if by "religion" one means "a belief upheld or pursued with zeal and devotion", like it says in my dictionary, then I have to say that religion has a lot to do with it, as far as I'm concerned.
I can't say I would never vote for a Muslim. I'd need to read up on their beliefs just a little bit more first. But I have heard bits and pieces over the years. I do believe that I read somewhere that the founder of the religion, Muhammed, incorporated into his religion the belief that Infidels (those who would not accept Islam) should be forced into accepting Islam even at sword-point. Now, I have also heard that Islam is a basically peaceful religion. Well, it can't be both, so which is it?
If it is the former, sorry, but I would most certainly not vote for one who "pursued [that] belief with zeal and devotion." That would be as bad as - or worse than - voting for a Catholic (or anyone else, for that matter) who was pro-abortion. If, however, Islam is truly a peaceful religion and the person running for Congress upholds those peaceful beliefs, I might consider it.
JMJ
- Cheri
____________________
“We do not want a Church that will move with the world; we want a Church that will move the world.”
- G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
Luke12:48
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Southeast, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 120 |
| First Name: | Kate | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | cradle catholic, left for many years, returned June 2006 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 4th, 2006 12:07 am |
|
I'm more concerned with the whole idea of swearing on the Koran. Since when do we offer an option on swearing on the bible? If Mr. Ellison can't accept that this country is founded on christian principles, can we trust that he will uphold them? Why must we accept this? This reminds me of an email that was passed around a while ago....
PROUD TO BE AMERICAN
This says it all!
After hearing that the state of Florida changed its opinion and let a Muslim woman have her picture on her driver's license with her face covered this is an editorial written by an American citizen, published in a Tampa newspaper. He did quite a job; didn't he? Read on, please!
IMMIGRANTS, NOT AMERICANS, MUST ADAPT. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Americans. However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the "politically correct" crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others.
I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to America. Our population is almost entirely made up of descendants of immigrants. However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand. This idea of America being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Americans, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle. This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.
We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!
"In God We Trust" is our national motto. This is not some Christian, right wing, political slogan. We adopted this motto because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.
If Stars and Stripes offend you, or you don't like Uncle Sam, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. This is OUR COUNTRY, our land, and our lifestyle... Our First Amendment gives every! citizen the right to express his opinion and we allow you every opportunity to do so. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about our flag, our pledge, our national motto, or our way of life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great American freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.
AMEN
|
|
|
Talithacumi
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Eastern Ohio, USA |
| Posts: | 267 |
| First Name: | Cheri | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic - Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 4th, 2006 12:12 am |
|
Luke12:48 wrote: I'm more concerned with the whole idea of swearing on the Koran. Since when do we offer an option on swearing on the bible? If Mr. Ellison can't accept that this country is founded on christian principles, can we trust that he will uphold them? Why must we accept this? This reminds me of an email that was passed around a while ago....
PROUD TO BE AMERICAN
This says it all!...
Luke,
Amen, amen, and AMEN! I can't say it any better than the writer of that article. You're right... that says it all!
JMJ
- Cheri
____________________
“We do not want a Church that will move with the world; we want a Church that will move the world.”
- G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5312 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 4th, 2006 12:14 am |
|
Talithacumi wrote: cajunrick wrote: I think I could vote for a mainstream, pro-life, conservative Muslim who supports family values before I could vote for a pro-abortion, racist Catholic who doesn't. I don't think religion has anything to do with it except as an indicator for a moral position.
Having said that, I can't imagine myself ever selecting a Muslim, but it doesn't mean it will never happen.
Hm. Vote for a Muslim? Kind of a tough one, I think. I guess I would probably tend to agree with Rick on this one, but...
OK, I'm going to be honest, though this might stir up some flack, and I might sound prejudiced, I'm not sure... but, if by "religion" one means "a belief upheld or pursued with zeal and devotion", like it says in my dictionary, then I have to say that religion has a lot to do with it, as far as I'm concerned.
I can't say I would never vote for a Muslim. I'd need to read up on their beliefs just a little bit more first. But I have heard bits and pieces over the years. I do believe that I read somewhere that the founder of the religion, Muhammed, incorporated into his religion the belief that Infidels (those who would not accept Islam) should be forced into accepting Islam even at sword-point. Now, I have also heard that Islam is a basically peaceful religion. Well, it can't be both, so which is it?
If it is the former, sorry, but I would most certainly not vote for one who "pursued [that] belief with zeal and devotion." That would be as bad as - or worse than - voting for a Catholic (or anyone else, for that matter) who was pro-abortion. If, however, Islam is truly a peaceful religion and the person running for Congress upholds those peaceful beliefs, I might consider it.
That's exactly my point. Religion is important only in that it helps show who the person is. John Paul II, Ted Kennedy, and Adolph Hitler were all Catholic. I would certainly vote for John Paul II, but I can't imagine ever voting for a pro-abortion candidate like Ted Kennedy, and I would never vote for Adolph Hitler. It's not the fact of their Catholicism but the way they express and live their faith.
There are Muslims who practice a religion of peace and submission, and there are Muslims who are terrorists. It is not the fact of their belief in Islam, but the type of Islamic belief they hold that matters.
What's important is who the person is and the beliefs he or she holds, and religious belief is just one factor to help determine that candidate's positions.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5312 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 4th, 2006 12:22 am |
|
Luke12:48 wrote: I'm more concerned with the whole idea of swearing on the Koran. Since when do we offer an option on swearing on the bible?
Richard Nixon, a Quaker, did not swear on a bible. The Constitution says the president must swear or affirm; it says nothing about a hand on a book. That's traditional, but has no real meaning under the law.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution reads in part:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
It does not have to be done in any particular forum or format, and it does not include the phrase "so help me God" although most have added it.
So if the new president, representative, or judge wishes to put his hand on a bible, a copy of the Qu'ran, or the latest Stephen King novel, that's entirely up to him.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
JillD
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Visalia, California USA |
| Posts: | 754 |
| First Name: | Jill | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | heathen, EvFree, Messianic, LC-MS, Catholic 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 4th, 2006 12:53 am |
|
In my training as a notary, we were encouraged to use the generic form of receiving an oath, i.e. "I affirm that this is the truth" rather than "I swear that this is the truth" because if someone who was not a Christian or did not believe in God used the latter form, their oath would be meaningless to them and to the law.
It's the world we live in today. I'd prefer to live where one has the option of swearing by what he believes in and will live by than being forced to swear on something he does not believe in and will feel perfectly free to lie about it and do whatever he will afterward.
What if the Bible a Catholic had to swear on only had 66 books? (A bit tongue-in-cheek there...) Or what if we held office in Utah and had to swear on the Book of Mormon?
I just want the person to tell and live the truth, by whatever will make him feel that that's the oath he took.
____________________
"I praise you, for I am wondrously made. Wonderful are our works! My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret." Ps 139
"Guard me, O Lord, from the hands of the wicked; preserve me from violent men." Ps 140
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2037 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 4th, 2006 01:02 am |
|
If Mr. Ellison can't accept that this country is founded on christian principles, can we trust that he will uphold them? Why must we accept this?
Since when does “founded on Christian principles” mean that we should not accept our neighbor for what he is? We have our principles, to be sure, but those principles do not, or at least should not, insist that a person speak English if it is not required for the position or swear on a bible if he is not a Christian. Those are not the central issues.
What we have a right to expect of a candidate for political office is that he be qualified for the position and morally sound according to our own reckoning. We should vote for the candidate who best exemplifies this.
For Catholics, this is a point of doctrine. The bishops of the United States have invoked this doctrine more than once in recent years with regard to those faithless Catholic politicians who continue to reject the pro-life doctrine of the Church: Catholics have not just a right, but a duty, to vote for someone else if an opponent is even a little less immoral.
David
|
|
|
Luke12:48
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Southeast, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 120 |
| First Name: | Kate | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | cradle catholic, left for many years, returned June 2006 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 4th, 2006 01:18 am |
|
For some reason, it does not seem unusual that Nixon did not swear on a bible :-) but I never knew that. While it might be interesting to see who would swear on a Stephen King novel, I gues that is the point--where is the respect for American tradition? Traditionally, our politicians swear on a bible and because it is not poilitically correct, we toss that tradition? I do see the point made earlier about swearing on what has meaning for that individual but I wonder where is the public response to this or is it "oh well...."
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5312 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 4th, 2006 01:48 am |
|
Luke12:48 wrote: For some reason, it does not seem unusual that Nixon did not swear on a bible :-) but I never knew that. While it might be interesting to see who would swear on a Stephen King novel, I gues that is the point--where is the respect for American tradition? Traditionally, our politicians swear on a bible and because it is not poilitically correct, we toss that tradition? I do see the point made earlier about swearing on what has meaning for that individual but I wonder where is the public response to this or is it "oh well...."
Traditionally our politicians swear on a bible because it means something to them, not because it means something to us or to the country. It is a manner of personal choice, not government mandate.
Nixon's reason was that Quakers are opposed to swearing and to the use of a holy book for secular purposes. Some Christian religions are opposed to voting, or holding public office, or swearing allegiance to the flag. An observant orthodox Jew would never swear on a bible, or say "so help me God". It would be considered blasphemy. Seventh Day Adventists will not deduct charitable contributions. Adherents of many religions such as the Amish are not required to serve in the military even in times of war. Should we bar them from public office?
Muslims have great respect for the bible, which they consider inspired, but their greatest reverence is for the Qu'ran. Why shouldn't a Muslim who is validly elected to office not take his oath on his own sacred scripture? Bobby Jindal, the congressman from the First District of Louisiana and now a candidate for governor, is a first-generation Indian-American who was raised Ba'hai and converted to Catholic. If he had not converted, should he have been ineligible to run? (By Indian, I mean his parents are immigrants from India, not that he's Native American.)
When we say we have freedom of religion, it's supposed to mean we are free to exercise our own personal faith in our own personal manner, and we do not have the right to impose our beliefs on others, like the English kings imposed the Church of England on Catholic Acadians. If we force Muslim politicians to take their oath on a bible, aren't we imposing a belief on them? Or are we invalidating that oath by making it contingent on a symbol they don't consider sacred?
If we don't respect them enough to respect their beliefs, we should never have elected them. Every American citizen has the right to run for public office except convicted felons, TV actors and radio personalities. So unless a Muslim is a TV star or a convicted felon, he has the right to run, be elected, and take his oath in a manner that is meaningful to him.
If we require every American citizen to speak English, many of the old people in South Louisiana would have to renounce their citizenship. They are third or fourth or fifth generation Americans, but they speak only French. My grandparents spoke no English at all. They would never have run for public office, but they could have even if they spoke no English.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Luke12:48
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Southeast, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 120 |
| First Name: | Kate | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | cradle catholic, left for many years, returned June 2006 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 4th, 2006 01:56 am |
|
I did not limit myself only to political candidates but was speaking more generally. I see this latest example as just one more attack on American culture that just happens to come from a politician.
I don't think this is about us accepting the person but about them accepting our traditions, culture, language etc. American is a culture even if current immigrants do not wish to accept that. When my ancestors came to this country, signs were not printed in their native language. When they came here, they had to learn to adapt. They had the option of keeping the best traditions from their own country but still had to learn to function in this one. That does not happen today. Why do I as an American constantly get bombarded with a steam of Spanish everytime I call my bank or utility or medical insurance company or..... ?
David, why do you say a person should only speak English if the position requires it. Shouldn't living here require one to learn English? Maybe it can't be used as hiring criteria if the position does not require it but what about daily life?
All we seem to care about is what is politically correct. We can't risk offending (insert nationality or special interest group here) because (insert nice phrasing here). Never mind that an American might be offended by the lack of respect for American tradition, language, culture and belief. Every group with more than 2 people seems to want some special accomodation today but I guess this goes along with ridiculous jury awards, lack of work ethic, no sense of personal responsibility and so on...
While we're removing the 10 commandments from the courthouse walls, shall we also go through each and every law and remove anything that seems similar to anything in the commandments? My personal favorite is profiling--let's remove all statistics, probability and common sense from our law enforcement personnel. Let's search the blond, blue-eyed soccer mom (no, I am not any of these) and let the 20 something, middle-eastern male through so we don't offend him or any terrorists who might happen to fit that description.
Can you tell, this might have hit a nerve? I am not arguing a point of doctrine in that I agree that the moral candidate is the one we should vote for. I am saying that maybe I am not willing to turn the other cheek (I never did understand that as opposed to an eye for an eye anyway) I think American culture is under attack from every side and group with their own agenda and that we as a people don't take a stand often enough. Apathy reigns.
Maybe I am too judgemental or not charitable enough or there is some point of doctrine I am missing. I have a hard time believing I could ever see this differently or that I have any responsibility to see it differently but I am sure some here will disagree. If so, please don't just holler that I am anti-immigrant or anti-muslim or any other anti-whatever. I am not so much anti-anything as pro-American.
|
|
|
Luke12:48
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Southeast, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 120 |
| First Name: | Kate | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | cradle catholic, left for many years, returned June 2006 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 4th, 2006 02:21 am |
|
Rick,
As I said in my second post, I do see the point on swearing on whatever book has meaning for the individual. I give on this point--personal belief should trump tradition--it makes sense. I jumped on it too quickly as one more in a long line fo things bugging me and was also suprised that there is not more of a public response (from people who jump too quickly as well).
I was not implying that anyone should be unable to run for public office. Anyone willing to uphold the laws of this country should be able to run.
You do bring up a very interesting point on your grandparents. No one should be forced to learn anything but they obviously found some way of getting along for many years without knowing English. Why then do we not hear greetings in French every time we call our bank? Your grandparents didn't expect the rest of the country to adapt to them, did they?
Kate
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5312 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 4th, 2006 02:24 am |
|
Luke12:48 wrote: I don't think this is about us accepting the person but about them accepting our traditions, culture, language etc. American is a culture even if current immigrants do not wish to accept that. When my ancestors came to this country, signs were not printed in their native language. When they came here, they had to learn to adapt. They had the option of keeping the best traditions from their own country but still had to learn to function in this one. That does not happen today. Why do I as an American constantly get bombarded with a steam of Spanish everytime I call my bank or utility or medical insurance company or..... ?
Because it is commercially advantageous for them to do so. A bank which offers Spanish tellers will draw more customers from the Hispanic community, and will make more money. I do not agree with those who believe a business should be required to offer Spanish language assistance, but I certainly don't fault those that choose to do so.
Louisiana recently passed a law that bans smoking in restaurants. I am an ex-smoker now highly sensitive to smoke, but I opposed the ban. Why? I don't think a business owner should be forced to tell someone they can't smoke in his establishment. All I want is a sign on the door and a notice in advertising that non-smoking seating is not provided, and I'll choose to do business elsewhere. If you don't want your utility company to offer service in Spanish, tell them ... but don't force them.
Our immigrant parents learned English because it was advantageous for them to do so. The children of our Hispanic immigrants will learn English as well so that they can get a better job. But we should not force anyone to learn English against their will. As I said in another message, many older people in South Louisiana still speak only French, and if they want to do business somewhere, they have to look for a business that offers French-speaking assistance. That limits them. They probably can't shop where the lowest prices are offered, or they have to take their children with them to help.
Let the marketplace decide. If a restaurant wants to offer wait staff that speaks only Spanish, or French, or Indian, let them do it. They just won't get my business.
David, why do you say a person should only speak English if the position requires it. Shouldn't living here require one to learn English? Maybe it can't be used as hiring criteria if the position does not require it but what about daily life?
No one legally in America should be forced to do anything against their will except obey the law. If the job doesn't require them to communicate in English, there is no reason to legally force them to do so. An employer should certainly be allowed to require it so that he can effectively communicate with his employees, but let's face it, you don't have to be able to speak English to dig a ditch or build a house or fix a leaky pipe. But if you don't learn English, you will never fully assimilate into society, you'll never get the best job, you won't be able to watch most of the shows on television or read most newspapers. The person who refuses to learn English will be the one who suffers the most.
All we seem to care about is what is politically correct.
To me, it's not at all about political correctness. I couldn't care less whether we offend them. To me, it's about freedom. My ancestors were thrown out of Canada because they refused to swear allegiance to the English king, to join the Church of England, and to speak English. They came to America instead, where they had the freedom to be Catholic and to speak French. And we have those same freedoms today.
While we're removing the 10 commandments from the courthouse walls, shall we also go through each and every law and remove anything that seems similar to anything in the commandments? My personal favorite is profiling--let's remove all statistics, probability and common sense from our law enforcement personnel. Let's search the blond, blue-eyed soccer mom (no, I am not any of these) and let the 20 something, middle-eastern male through so we don't offend him or any terrorists who might happen to fit that description.
Here I am in total agreement. I see no reason to search the old lady with a walker, and I certainly support the posting of the Ten Commandments, at least until the Supreme Court rules that they have to disband because the Ten Commandments are posted on the Supreme Court building.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
DavidVS
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 46 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Presbyterian - On the Journey to Rome |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 4th, 2006 09:54 am |
|
David W. Emery wrote: [size=Don’t you think it would depend on how moral he is (leaving aside his being an ex-Catholic) and who his opponent is?
David]
I would certainly want to know the positions of both opponents and how closely they squared with my values.
Still, I am a bit more than curious about what kind of thinking process caused him to reject Christianity and embrace Islam, especially in this post 911 world.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2037 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 4th, 2006 09:58 am |
|
Luke12:48 wrote:David, why do you say a person should only [be required to] speak English if the position requires it. Shouldn't living here require one to learn English? Maybe it can't be used as hiring criteria if the position does not require it but what about daily life?
As I said above, and as Rick too has pointed out, this is not a central issue.
Both he and I live in areas that have a lot of non-English speakers, and I am married to a non-English speaker. I have never seen how language should be a barrier to citizenship. In Europe, language can vary from village to village; how could they survive without some consideration of their neighbor’s language and culture? The same should apply here.
That said, I do believe that immigrants should make some effort to learn English. Why? Not because English should be demanded of them, but as Rick says, because it is advantageous for them to do so. Unfortunately, loss of language is usually seen by a first generation immigrant as a loss of culture and heritage, and they are very sensitive to this. They are what they are.
On the other hand, learning English and being assimilated into the American culture have not been properly facilitated for immigrants. Public schooling in this country is notoriously poor, and while some attempts at assisting immigrants have been made, they have been wrong-headed and poorly implemented. The result is failure on both sides: the prevalent culture has failed to educate and assimilate just as much as the immigrant has failed to “become American.”
All we seem to care about is what is politically correct.
As with Rick, this is not even an issue with me. “Politically correct” mostly has to do with secular or cultural values, and this is far less important to me than my Christianity. I am much more concerned about Christian charity and justice than I am about secular conformity. And has it not occurred to you that patriotism and preservation of your own subculture is simply another manifestation, from an outsider’s point of view, of political correctness?
You speak further about the secularization of culture in this country, and I must agree with you here. But this is just the immigrant question in reverse. If I am to be allowed to display my Christianity in public, then the other person should be allowed to speak Spanish or French.
David
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2037 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 4th, 2006 10:04 am |
|
DavidVS wrote:I would certainly want to know the positions of both opponents and how closely they squared with my values.
Agreed. This is what every voter must do: study the candidates and the issues so as to know and understand what he must do in the voting booth. Voting “blind” is the epitome of imprudence.
David
|
|
|
beachmoss
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | Simpsonville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 281 |
| First Name: | Beth | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Catholic (raised Baptist) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 5th, 2006 12:43 am |
|
Pardon me, if this is a stupid question, but I see Luke and David referring to the "American culture." How do you define "American culture"?
I see the culture in America as a blending of many cultures from around the world. I would think that the "American culture" is that from the Native Americans; which, except for additions to our language, is not present in today's society.
I'm just curious how you define that term.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5312 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 5th, 2006 01:01 am |
|
beachmoss wrote: Pardon me, if this is a stupid question,
Stupid questions are not allowed here. Stupid questions are defined as those that aren't asked.
Any question, sincerely asked, is welcome here.Last edited on Tue Dec 5th, 2006 01:02 am by CajunRick
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Luke12:48
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Southeast, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 120 |
| First Name: | Kate | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | cradle catholic, left for many years, returned June 2006 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 5th, 2006 01:39 am |
|
Ok before this goes way too far, I need to clarify. I am not in any way shape or form saying that no other language "is allowed" Any person can speak any language they like. What I am objecting to is expectation that accomodations are made for those who choose not to learn English. In my opinion, we make it too easy for people to make that choice.
For profit companies are one thing but what about government services, monoploies, health care workers and police. I have worked in a health care situation where we dealt with a fair number of immigrants who became perturbed when we did not understand them. I live in the United States of America and it is not my responsibility to learn the language of every imiigrant or traveler. More recently, I worked in a position where people were purchasing items and would literally hand me their wallet or a wad of cash and hope that I would count it honestly because they had no comprhension of the costs and change. I would not travel in a country let alone live there without learning the basics--certain polite, customary and emergency phrases as well as how to make a simple purchase.
I had a teacher tell my son that he better work harder on learning Spanish because it was his responsibility to be able to communicate with the immigrants who can't speak English. (This was when he enetered a school in the middle of first grade and was 1 1/2 yrs behind the rest of his class who had been taught Spanish from day 1) I'm sorry but I don't buy that.
David, I will agree wholeheartedly that the system has failed most immigrants but then that should not be a shock because we have failed our own as well when it comes to education.
You say "[size=And has it not occurred to you that patriotism and preservation of your own subculture is simply another manifestation, from an outsider’s point of view, of political correctness?"
No, it honestly has not even as I sit here and try to figure out how it could be.]
I don't see patriotism as politically correct. In fact, it can be just the opposite. Being politically correct, (to me) is taking the least offensive path and not committing to anything or taking a stand on anything that might offend someone else. Patiotism is taking a stand and sooner or later will offend someone. It is about making the tough choices to support and defend your chosen way of life. I have never given a hoot about conformity of any type and never will.
I would agree that "christian charity and justice" should be my priorities but is there some inherent conflict with patriotism that I am missing?
I am sorry if I opened a proverbial can of worms here. I did not mean to imply that anyone has to learn English. To paraphrase with a twist, I may not agree with what you say but will defend with my life your right to say it ..in whatever language you choose. Just don't expect me to respond in anything other than English.
|
|
| | |
