I was recently reading a post on Vanishing American's blog. One of the commenters said: "Also, the people on VA's site are against ALL immigration. We don't want refugees, legal immigrants, or illegal immigrants. Maybe some O-Visa people here and there, but that's it."
I had to stop and think about that. Am I someone who is against all immigration? Am I a racist or a xenophobic, spoiled, rich, American who wants not to have to share the blessings and advantages of living in this country, as was the implication in my reading of that comment?
I find that I must disagree. I do appreciate VA's intelligent observations on immigration and assimilation, but for myself, I am not against all immigration. I think and believe that every individual is inherently worthy of my consideration because we are all made in the image of God. I do not want to speak for VA or her commenters, which is why I am posting this on my own blog rather than as a reply on hers.
I think those who value and wish to preserve the history, heritage and ideals of America should be welcome. But why should I welcome someone, who is not willing to live those ideals in order to change their own country, into mine?
There is also the culture barrier. Someone who is used to having to pay bribes (for example) to get government assistance in a matter, will bring the assumption that bribes are necessary here. It will not even occur to them that it is not the case, or that it is a citizen's responsibility to expose anyone who would take bribes. This places a temptation before our law enforcement community, who, after all, are just people.
What about those for whom violence is a daily and familiar occurrence? Those who find it acceptable to kill a family member for honor are not likely to go out on a limb to uphold a legal system that does not allow such behavior.
Those who come here illegally plunge themselves and their children into a never-ending cycle of victimization and criminal activity. There is no way for them to participate as fully functioning members of a self-governed society.
That is why those individuals who suffer from political persecution have been welcomed in the past. Because they have made the attempt to change their system and suffered for it. We then have a reason to believe that they understand, or at least have the ability to understand the burdens of citizenship in a self governed country. Refugees and illegals have not shown this drive towards freedom, nor can we expect them to.
That is the danger brought by immigrants. That is how they destabilize our system. This is particularly relevant in light of the arrest of the governor of Illinois yesterday. As Americans, we know that law enforcement does not work in a vacuum. It works, only when citizens participate. It also requires that citizens risk persecution to assure that law enforcement is functioning as it should. Someone in Chicago is paying a price for turning that man in to law enforcement to protect the rest of us. The higher up the corruption goes, the higher the price that must be paid to restore the system. That's the sacrifice required of American citizens.
I think, that, in large part, is also why we hear so many people basing their arguments these days on the "fairness" of an action. It is because we, as Americans, have been conditioned from an early age to question authority and to want to make things "fair" for everyone. I think that the citizenship issues behind that urge to require "fairness" from the world in general have been lost over time.
I think, that for myself, I am going to start being very careful about using the word "fair" in reference to political issues. I think I am going to concentrate instead on the idea of doing what's right. Right and fair are not equivalent. I think there is a connotation of sacrifice in the phrase"doing what's right" that is completely missing from fair. In fact, it is not fair that an individual often has to suffer for doing the right thing.
Those who are simply being persecuted because that's how their system works or who just want a job that pays enough to support their family are not fit citizens for a country that relies upon it's citizenry for regulation. If folks want to come here, they need to take up the duties of an American citizen, not just the benefits.
Perhaps, if we, as a nation, cannot quell our suicidal tendencies to embrace destruction in this manner, refugees should be offered a place of safety for a limited time during which they are required to learn and exercise the responsibilities of citizenship here. Then send them back home to fix their own countries. I have no doubt that their countries of origin will cry "foul" and say it's not "fair" of us to interfere in their sovereignty in that way. Our response should be, no, it's not fair, but it is the right thing to do. If you cannot make your country a safe enough place for your people to want to stay there, then we will help your people to accomplish that goal. Even if the adults don't get it, I'll bet their children would and in 10-20 years, we would see fewer refugees.
"Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt."~Exodus 20:21
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
46 comments:
...but for myself, I am not against all immigration.
I tend to agree more with VA on this one. In my opinion we need a moratorium on immigration for at least ten years (maybe more). ...
I certainly don't think everyone commenting over at VA's blog is opposed to all immigration, but for myself, I think we need to completely stop it indefinitely. It has gotten totally out of hand, and we have huge problems as a result that we cannot get under control without a complete end to the influx.
Mom, I think your idea that we could shelter people for a while and then send them back where they came from is unrealistic. How would you get them to go? Why would they want to go? They would want to stay here, just like all the foreign students who come here to study and then promptly apply to stay permanently. Nobody wants to return home, wherever that may be, after living in the US for several years. I am afraid it is just wishful thinking.
Gentlemen,
I can agree with you that we need to round up the illegals we have and send them back. We need to make it clear through legislation and strict, consistent, enforcement that illegals will have no place here.
However, Mr. Morris, while I appreciate and believe that Americans are unique and wonderful, when there are folks in other countries who have demonstrated to their own detriment and that of their families that they are Americans in spirit, I don't have a problem with welcoming them.
Dr. D. You think it's unrealistic to set up refugee communities to teach the basics of American citizenship to folks and send them back to their countries of origin, but you don't think it's unrealistic to say we could close down all immigration?
The "how" of sending them back to their countries of origin is a problem, but not an insurmountable one.
Then there is the demographic problem. Europe is conquered already due to their plummeting birth rates, if "America Alone" is to be believed. Terry, I know you've heard and refuted this argument before-that we need the illegals just to keep our demographics strong. I have a different take on that argument.
Gentlemen, I believe we are in the last stages of a battle for the world. A battle between Islam and everyone else. I think that those of us in the world who are of like mind, loving freedom and willing to embrace wholeheartedly the responsibility that goes along with it, need to 'hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.' Yes, we need to preserve our heritage and revive it, but time is running out. It may be too late already.
We need to get immigration under control, but not in such a way that we are cutting off our nose to spite our face.
My apologies, Dr. D.
I assumed you were a man(and a gentleman as well), although it has just occurred to me that I have no idea if that is so.
If it is not, kindly correct my brash assumption.
Your assumption is quite correct, Mom, so no need to apologize there. I don't have a spiffy avatar like Terry Morris has, but maybe I should get one just to avoid confusion on such details.
On the immigration matter, I am not saying that I don't like you idea of training people to go improve their own governments. What I am saying is that, with our open society, we will never be able to prevent them from just blending into American society in general if we let them into the country at all. We see this all the time with the countless numbers of people who overstay student visas, and other similar entry permits and the US government simply has no idea where they are. Once they are inside the US, we loose track of people. Keeping them outside the US is the only way to avoid having the run loose anywhere and everywhere in the US.
To be the devil's advocate for a moment, what you were proposing could be viewed, as training people to go overthrow their own governments. I'm sure we would not couch it in those terms, but if we teach them a better way, and teach them to demand it, then when they return to some banana republic, I think that is how the local dictator will see them. He will not look kindly on the "help" we have provided by training an insurrection for his country. I suspect our own State Department might even frown on this idea, saying it could make their job more difficult. Not that its not a good idea, but it does have some down sides to it.
Dr. D. I am aware of the sovereignty issues. "I have no doubt that their countries of origin will cry "foul" and say it's not "fair" of us to interfere in their sovereignty in that way. Our response should be, no, it's not fair, but it is the right thing to do. If you cannot make your country a safe enough place for your people to want to stay there, then we will help your people to accomplish that goal."
I think that when a country has large enough numbers of people fleeing that their repatriation with citizenship training becomes a threat to the current government, it means that said government has abrogated it's implied responsibility to it's citizens.
Of course that's a very American viewpoint. As I recall posting somewhere else, children were considered to be the property of the state until England defined them as property of their parents. Of course wives were designated as the property of their husbands at that time too. I suspect that this idea that a government "owes" a duty to it's citizens is a bit new and radical in other countries.
As for how we would keep track of them, well , if our new president - elect keeps his campaign promises, Gitmo should soon be empty-lol (I know, bad idea, fraught with "concentration camp" possibilities. Although, that might discourage illegals too-it's not the image I would prefer for my own country.)
No, Mom, I think you are mistaken. It is not the place of the USA to foment trouble in other countries any more than it is our business invading other countries.
If those people really want to improve their countries, they have to want it enough to do it for themselves. That is the only way it is legitimate. That is how the US came into being, and that is why the US revolution is respected.
Just imagine (try to imagine!) that Norway had decided that the British colonies in North America were not being treated properly, and had taken it upon itself (Norway) to train Colonist for an insurrection against England. How do you think that would have gone down in history? Norway would have been looked upon as a trouble maker for sure, and the chances are strong that the revolution would have failed because it would have come from the outside, rather than from within.
True reform for the countries of Latin America, and elsewhere, will not happen until those people decide that they demand it. As long as they see the opportunity to simply escape to America and make things easy by that means, they will always choose the easy way out.
Dr. D.
You said"It is not the place of the USA to foment trouble in other countries any more than it is our business invading other countries."
I think you are confused. Our actions would be a reaction to the influx of folks whose governments aren't meeting their needs. In order for us to be fomenting trouble, we would have to be instigating the problem. I am not proposing that we go into other countries, kidnap their citizens and re-educate them by force or start citizenship groups or something of that sort in those countries to disenchant satisfied citizens. I am saying that once those who are dissatisfied enough to flee their country of origin have become our challenge to deal with, we have the freedom to deal with them in whatever way we think will best solve the problem. (One is assuming that such ways will be what is allowed by the laws of our creator.)
I may not have the right to tell my neighbor how to raise his children, but I am well within my rights to instruct them however I please(within the law)when they come onto my property.
Carry on, Mom. I don't want to argue with you.
I hope I haven't offended you Dr. D. I do appreciate your comments.
It's not anything like a workable plan, I'm just thinking out loud as it were.
I was at a picnic once, as a teenager, and the parents decided I was their personal day care center without asking my parent or me. I taught all their children how to make acorn cap whistles. ;)
Mom,
In an America clearly dominated by liberalism what exactly is it about American exceptionalism that you're expecting may be transmitted to these chosen immigrants?
It may be too late as you seem inclined to believe, but then again it may not. Neither of us can know the day or the hour.
Terry,
That is one of the more troublesome problems. I am at a loss to come up with a way to justify teaching others, when our own public school system insists on turning out children who are unaware that we are a republic rather than a democracy and don't know or care about what the difference is as long as they get theirs.
I don't know if it is too late. I am seeing so many alarming trends intersecting with one another at this point in history that I am truly concerned.
I do know that I am willing to do what I can to see that "wrong shall fail and right prevail" whenever I have a say in the outcome.
I'm already smarting from several situations of late where I have stubbornly refused to concede my principles in the face of heavy criticism. It's not much fun, but I can sleep at night. Prayers are always appreciated.
(btw, I have contacted my national level legislators on the "In Loco Parentis" matter as it appears the judicial route is not being addressed. Wish me luck and I'll keep you posted.)
Mom,
Here is a WND story that relates to your entry.
Thank you for the link Terry. I had seen the story. I notice that there were no plans mentioned to test those already here and repatriate those whose DNA doesn't match.
Furthermore, I notice that the word "repatriate" sounds so much nicer than the word "deport" to my American sensibilities.
Does it sound less harsh to you as well? Perhaps we should make a point of referring to deportation as repatriation from now on.
Mom, why are you offended at talking about deporting those who have defrauded us? Should we not rather first punish these malefactors who have lied to us and imposed upon us, and then deport them without a moment's second thought? Why should we shrink from that? They have not dealt fairly and honestly with us. They have been crooked and dishonest from the beginning. These are not people we want in American society. Let us not flinch from our duty to uphold what is right for the good of society. I am only slightly short of saying, "Off with their heads!"
I? Offended at using the word deported? Perish the thought. I am not offended, merely suggesting that two can play the spin game.
Then I don't understand your previous comment. Would you explain, please? (Blogger does not recognize me this afternoon.) -- Dr.D
Dr. D.,
She's not offended by the term or the action it describes, she just recognizes that others are so she's suggesting that "Perhaps we should make a point of referring to deportation as repatriation from now on".
Terry, if that is the case, that sounds like the PC virus to me. That is saying that we cannot call something what it is because it is offensive to someone's delicate sensibilities. Hog wash!
That is all the more reason whey we need to be very blunt and demand DEPORTATION. People need to come to grips with the problem that we are facing and quite trying to sweep it under the rug.
Dr. D,
I'm not disagreeing with you, nor do I want to give the impression I'm disagreeing with you. I'm simply pointing out, in answer to your question to Mom, that she recognizes the reality of the situation in America at this point; that she's merely suggesting that perhaps we should replace one word for another, one idea for another, in dealing with this issue.
I'm not saying she is right, I'm simply defending her assertion that she is not personally offended by the term, which I think she is not.
Terry,
Thank you for holding down the fort. Yes, that is what I meant. I'm not saying it's right, just noticing the difference in how the two terms sound to American ears.
Sometimes it is difficult to convey sarcasm in writing.
Just found this site, and thought I might contibute my two cents, as it were.
In all the debate over the issue, no one seems to have asked the question where the harm would be in admitting fewer immigrants. Politicians across the spectrum, from George Bush to Ted Kennedy splutter indignantly at the suggestion that immigration should be reduced, but they can't articulate why, except to make sweeping, outlandish predictions of econimic collpase if we don't have a surplus of low skill, low productivity labor. (As for economic collapse, my own opinion on why we are on the verge of one is that it has a lot to do with lending money to people who are unable to pay it back, a great number of them being those same low skill, low productivity immigrants.)
But back to my point. Think about it: what is the real harm in letting fewer people in? If it turns out to be a mistake, it is one that is corrected very easily by relaxing the quotas. But if letting too many immigrants in, legal or otherwise, is a mistake, which I believe it is, we're stuck. We can't round the immigrants up at some future date and tell them "hey, we let you in by mistake. You gotta go home."
Every year, we let in 2 million immigrants, about half of them illegal. This is because our political elites have decided that is what they want. Make no mistake, what is happening is being done to us on purpose. Ask yourself why that would be, and you may find that you arrive at an answer that makes you very uncomfortable with not only this issue, but the direction we are lead in other matters as well.
Sgt. Joe,
Welcome to the blog.
I think your numbers on immigration are low, but other than that, you raise some good questions.
In that vein, I have been asking myself for the last few years what I would have been doing over the last several decades if I had been the King of Saudi Arabia.
I think:
-The goal of Islam is to conquer the world for Allah.
-Saudi Arabia is, according to some of the reading I have done, one of three current contenders for heading up the next caliphate.
- Wasabisim, the more radical (some would say the more correct) form of Islam, is promulgated in Saudi Arabia and that government supports and exports it worldwide.
-Saudi Arabia controls OPEC.
-OPEC controls the price of oil.
-Gas has gone to $4.00/gallon and back to under $2.00/gallon during this latest election cycle.
-There are questions about whether or not our president elect is eligible to sit as president and the MSM remains silent.(Pravda is apparently reporting on this, but the American MSM won't touch it.)
-Our president-elect spent his formative years in a public school in a Muslim country. (Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man," ~ Francis Xavier)
-There is a sudden push to make all financial institutions shar'ia compliant.
One wonders why one should look for armed forces to present the greatest threat, when economic warfare is so much harder to detect and resist. You refer to the "elites " in our country knowing what they want. I'm not so sure they are that clever or long sighted.
I think we may have just seen the cracking of an economic whip wielded by someone who has had several decades to think about and plan their goals and the methods by which they can be brought to fruition. Great Britain has already been brought to heel through economic warfare. (See I.O.U.S.A. )
I think we are next. I think the immigration we need to restrict the most is going to be the most encouraged in political and MSM circles except for those very few with foresight and character.
Maybe that puts me squarely in tin-foil hat territory. I hope I'm only seeing shadows where there are none. Reassure me gentlemen. Tell me something that makes this all silly.
Sorry, Mom. I think things are much worse than what either you or Joe have described. I suggest that you did your foxhole a bit deeper.
Call Me Mom,
I agree with a lot of your posts. My wife's family comes from Spain on one side and Ireland on the other and she is one of the strongest defenders of our Constitution. She is also a tireless advocate for secure borders. The people who came here legally tend to respect the country and our traditions more, in my opinion.
Dr. D,
That's not reassuring.
DR,
Thanks. I visit your blog often and often agree with many of your posts as well. I do my best to appreciate the more Catholic oriented posts even though I am not a Catholic.
Non-PC person that I am, I am wondering if your wife is a horsewoman.(Besides, I've spent a fair amount of time around horses myself and it's always good to know when fellow equestriennes are around.
Call Me Mom,
That is very kind of you to say, we have many non Catholic readers; I am glad to count you among them.
Both my wife and I have raised horses. My wife is definitely a horse person. Though currently we live in a small city so we don't currently own any.
"There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man." ~Winston Churchill
It's a while since I've been riding or driving myself.
Great Quote! I used to work quite a bit with harness horses, but it has been about 12 years. Truly majestic creatures.
It's about the same time frame for me. I used to drive for a carriage service. It was the best job ever. (Although it could get chilly in winter and too hot in summer, but that's WI.)
Sgt. Joe Friday,
As I was following a thread at Gates of Vienna,(linked from Mr. Morris' site, thank you Terry.) I was tempted to speculate that perhaps the reason politicians are so eager to encourage immigration is to assure the continued increase in our number of taxpayers. That way the unrealistic revenue projections of Congress will never need to be revised and the economy won't collapse.
What do you think about that as a reason for the continued refusal to properly fund ICE or to address the problems of illegal immigration effectively?
Actually that would also have the potential to set up a base population of folks who won't oppose the government on anything as they could be deported if they do. Taxpayers who have no effective voice under the law - a dictators dream.
Sometimes I worry about myself when bits start coming together like that. It makes me feel slightly evil to even be able to consider such a possibility as reality and slightly sick as well, knowing that there are some who would.
Now I have to ask for reassurance that I'm just seeing shadows where none exist again.
I think I'll go and have a look through the book of Psalms to reassure myself.
Dear Mom,
You said, "Now I have to ask for reassurance that I'm just seeing shadows where none exist again."
I'm sorry, I think the shadows you see are because you only partially see the light. It is much worse than you seem to see.
It is not taxpayers that they want. It is voters that will always vote for them, voters who will replace those who have brains and might vote them out of office. They want to replace the native population with a foreign population that will see it to their advantage to keep in power the system that brought them (the new people) into the country. Our government has turned against us, the native population, and they are giving away our country to anyone who wants it. The government is treating the USA as though it was their own little fiefdom to be divided up and given away. They have completely forgotten that their duty and obligation is to serve and protect this nation. Now they see themselves as "citizens of the world," not as "citizens of the USA." There is a major difference!
We will not get our country back until we throw the scoundrels out. Until we pull our heads out of the sand and recognize that the government is against us, rather than for us, we are going down, down, down.
I am not aware of any Biblical parallel to our current situation. To be sure there were evil rulers in Israel, but I cannot think of any who wanted to deliberately replace the nation with outsiders like what we have happening here. That said, turning the the Bible is always in order.
"We will not get our country back until we throw the scoundrels out. "
All righty then.
Dr. D., You suggest we start by throwing the scoundrels out.
What's our plan here? How do we identify the scoundrels? How do we pass that info on to the American voting population in a way that will effect the change we need and how do we change our current system to make it easier to identify such folks in the future?
Furthermore, how do we insulate those who choose to serve as legislators and etc. from the temptations and coercions to which they will, as legislators, be subjected?
I know some folks who might make good legislators who refuse to serve for those reasons. They don't want their families exposed to the constant public scrutiny that goes along with those positions. Or they are unwilling to risk their families' safety and futures on the whims of random crazies or pressures that might be brought to bear by large corporations. How do we insulate those who serve from such threats? Or is that part of the test of character?
Maybe I am only seeing the light partially, (By which , I think you mean to imply, that in your opinion, I am waking up to an unpleasant reality), but once seen, I want a plan of action.
I shall have to think about it.
Sorry, That last one was me. I'm trying out this openid thing and, apparently, it's not quite where I want it to be yet.
Dear Mom,
I don't begin to profess to have all the answers. But I do have a few ideas.
The scoundrels in power would be just about every office holder in the US today, with a very few exceptions. Yes, I know that they are not all corrupt. But ever of the ones that are not corrupt, are they strong enough to do the things that required to turn things around? If the answer is "no" which it almost always is, then they need to be replaced by someone who will do things differently. Vote to replace all the incumbents.
You asked (partly), "How do we pass that info on to the American voting population in a way that will effect the change we need?" I think we have to get people to THINK AGAIN, and I realize that is a very tall order, but it is the only way I can see to do it. We have to get them to think and to realize that if something is too good to be true is most certainly is. If a politician is promising you a free lunch, the only way he can possibly deliver it is by stealing it from someone else and that is wrong. Therefore we must not elect such a politician and must get rid of him if he is in office.
You asked, "how do we insulate those who choose to serve as legislators and etc. from the temptations and coercions to which they will, as legislators, be subjected?" A major part of the insulation would come from term limits, very strict, very narrow term limits. I'm thinking of single term type limits, so that a man is elected to the legislature, serves his term, and then goes home. Couple this with laws forbidding him from accepting a new position with any company that benefited from legislation while he was in office and I think we might have the necessary insulation. Politics would not attract the same sort of people that it does today, and I think that would be a wonderful thing!
These are certainly not all of the answers, but I think that they are some of the things we need.
New reader here. I agree with most of what you're saying, but recommend you think about this part a little more:
"...we hear so many people basing their arguments these days on ... "fairness" "...because we, as Americans, have been conditioned from an early age to question authority and to want to make things "fair" for everyone."
Perhaps. Here's the real reason, in my view. Organized groups pushing maximum immigration (and other things you probably don't like) have recognized that "fairness" is an important selling point for the general public. The accusation of being unfair makes people shut up pretty quickly. So yes, Americans do want to be fair. But it's important to understand that their sense of fairness is being systematically and cynically exploited.
Similar point about the moral high ground: do we really need to justify stopping immigration? Should people who want to close the borders be on the defensive end of the argument? I don't think so. Here's an analogy: Even though you are a generous person, you probably do not leave the door of your home open with the understanding that people may come in, set up housekeeping, take what they want, trash the place, and assert that you didn't even own it to begin with. And you, even as a generous and compassionate Christian, probably do not feel the need to justify locking your door or calling the police in case someone breaks it down. How is controlling access to your country any different?
In any case, thanks for the nice blog.
-- CookieMonster
Hello Cookie Monster and welcome to the blog.
You said: "The accusation of being unfair makes people shut up pretty quickly."
It does and that's an underlying problem everywhere. It's a fairly successful manipulation technique and there aren't enough people who are willing/able to recognize that, refute it and stand up for their principles or even theri opinions.
I agree that there is nothing wrong with protecting what we have.
oops *their*
CookieMonster makes a good point with the analogy, but the place where I think it breaks down for most people (unfortunately), is that they do not see their country in the same light as they see their own home. Invading their home is personal; invading their country is relatively impersonal because most Americans today have very little attachment to America. We have come to a very sad state of affairs in that regard.
I think this is caused in large part by the atomization of society. We don't see ourselves as a whole, as a group any longer. Instead we are think of ourselves simply as isolated individuals for the most part. Thus, if I protect my home, but they invade the town, they are really not damaging me (or so the thinking goes) so much as they are damaging all the other folks that I don't really care about. I am not united to the rest of my neighbors like I would have been a generation ago.
To a great extent, the atomization is the result of the transient nature of our society. Americans have moved around more than any other people on the face of the earth. I know that this is true of me personally, and it is true for us as a nation as well. It has been enormously destructive to the sense of community that once united us but now no longer exists.
Thanks for the welcome and the additional discussion. If I may, I'll take some issue with the following part of Dr.D's analysis:
"I think this is caused in large part by the atomization of society. We don't see ourselves as a whole, as a group any longer. Instead we are think of ourselves simply as isolated individuals for the most part."
Yes. But we miss something important if we see the situation only as a result of atomization and isolation. Atomization and isolation seem like things that "just happened" -- things that are unwilled. Understandable, maybe, but certainly not controlled or controllable. Sort of like the weather.
But you know that there are people and organizations actively pushing the idea that we should be "citizens of the world," rather than owners of the nation we live in. People who are willing what is happening and who are accomplishing it.
The distinction may not seem like much, but I think it is crucial for us -- for how we think and react. It determines whether we look at the situation as a phenomenon to be analyzed and endured, or one where someone is stealing our lunch and we need to act appropriately.
Best to you.
CookieMonster
I would certainly agree that there are those who are taking advantage of our isolation in order to push their "citizen of the world" agenda. But, I'll bite, CookieMonster. How do I, as an individual, do anything different to stop them? I am not disagreeing with anything you have said, but I don't think you have spelled out your solution as yet. Please do so.
The only thing I would suggest people do is consciously resist and question political correctness and encourage others to do the same. They should do this in whatever way is appropriate for themselves. That means in a way that will not cause them loss of jobs, social standing, or family. It will be different for each person.
(For example, if someone tells you it is the Christian thing to do to allow unrestricted immigration, you might tell them, in a friendly way, that you don't understand your Christian duty that way, at all.)
The Marxian "long march through the institutions," whose results we are experiencing, did not take place overnight. Correcting it is not going to happen overnight. But it is not going to happen at all if people do not assert their own cultural and individual rights. That starts with freedom of thought, inquiry, and expression.
Have courage. Take heart. Be proud of your cultural legacy.
CookieMonster
I think that CookieMonster has touched on a critical point in the example regarding a challenge to Christian duty. I think, however, that the proposed answer is insufficient. To simply answer politely that we see things differently does not change anyone's mind. I think we have to be prepared to spell out, in detail, exactly why we think as we do and we have to insist that they hear us out. They brought it up, after all, so they must hear the explanation. Anything less lets them off too easy, and lets any third party think that perhaps they were right. All involved need to hear our reasons stated very, very clearly and strongly. This takes courage and conviction, but this is what is required of us these days.
On a somewhat related (but also somewhat tangential) subject, the PC police often use sweeping generalities and I think I have found a tool that can be of some use against them. On another site I was chastised for being rude and arrogant (really for being un-PC) in a private message from one of the site monitors. I wrote back to him and said that I would consider his charges if he gave me specifics, but that I was not going to listen to generalities. I have not heard back from him.
Speaking up, and speaking up vigorously, is a matter of prime importance for us individually and as a nation. If we do not, we are lost. But these are simply the steps that we, as individuals need to be taking to protect our liberties from all the encroachments of government, including open borders and government sponsored introduction of aliens into our nation (for example the resettlement of Somalis in the upper midwest).
I agree. Now where did that cookie go?
CookieMonster
Dr. D. said:
"Thus, if I protect my home, but they invade the town, they are really not damaging me..."
This is a huge point. Neighborhoods are no longer the cohesive units they once were. My in-laws live in an old neighborhood. They know their neighbor's names and do favors for each other regularly. They are careful of each other.
My husband an I have not experienced this anywhere we have lived and we will be celebrating our 20th anniversary this spring.
I think the value of neighbors has been lost, or perhaps people are less forgiving and more scared now than they used to be.
Cookie Monster said: "That means in a way that will not cause them loss of jobs, social standing, or family."
I am increasingly unsatisfied with the "safe" route. Maybe that's because I don't have much in the way of social standing or jobs. My family is the kind that will stick to you even if they don't agree with you(Praise God and may it continue to be so.)
The longer I am alive, the more I realize that I only have one life. While I may temper my opinions out of kindness or compassion,(or momentary weakness) that is about the only reason I would do so. If you are not willing to risk for your opinions, you need to re-examine why you have them.
That is not to say you must shove them down people's throats at every opportunity, but there should not be any reason to hold them back when it is appropriate to air them. Your boss does not own you, he/she is only purchasing your time and talents. If your peers would not associate with you if they knew your opinions, you need different peers.
Post a Comment