Pope Leo says faith and love for migrants are connected

[BCP1928]

Those of us who would like see more stringent and rigorous immigration and asylum requirements reject the notion that we have to do either.

Are you familiar with the concept called "Defensive Democracy"?

Defensive democracy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Numerous democratic countries actually have provisions on the books of that nature (examples outlined in the wiki).


It's a recognition of the reality that democracy can be used against itself, and aims to prevent that.

Or, in other terms, it's an acknowledgment of the possibility that people can "vote their way out of of democracy, and into some other type of system that doesn't provide voting as a mechanism to revert it back", and seeks to prevent that.



What I was referring to, is the fact that the people of San Fran had been dealing with the rising rent costs and pricing pressures that long pre-date the tech boom due to various population influxes.

It was only when an influx starting involving people who weren't necessarily "like-minded" that they started to take a serious issue with it.

The cultural influx of the 60's (Haight Ashbury/The Summer of Love/etc...) brought a lot of new people to the area (something like 80,000 people -- to a city that only had ~650,000 at the time)

In the early 70's, it became something of a "safe haven" for the gay community, and tens of thousands more moved there.

By mid-70's, the median rents in San Fran were upwards of 60% higher than the national median.

Nobody was petitioning local government to stop the influx of people (because the influx involved people who they saw as like-minded, and "fitting in with the overall vibe" of the city).


Compare that to the tech boom era
Around 71,000 net new residents were added over the decade.


So the migration for that wasn't anymore "striking" than the "counterculture/free love" migration in terms of the numbers...so the problem they had with seems like it was more cultural than logistical.


People are allowed to have a preference for what they want the social fabric of their community to be.

Sure, there is a certain amount of bigotry in all of us, and certainly we like it better when our immediate community reflects our personal values as much as possible. But that is why there are different communities.

What I am getting from you is something rather different. But San Francisco is probably not a good example for us to discuss, because I lived in San Francisco or an immediately adjacent community from before the "Summer of Love" until the mid '70s so it is unlikely we will agree about what happened there.

And yes, I understand defensive democracy. I think we just disagree about what values we should defend ourselves against. But that's why new citizens take an oath, which contains the values we must share.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Sure, there is a certain amount of bigotry in all of us, and certainly we like it better when our immediate community reflects our personal values as much as possible. But that is why there are different communities.

What I am getting from you is something rather different. But San Francisco is probably not a good example for us to discuss, because I lived in San Francisco or an immediately adjacent community from before the "Summer of Love" until the mid '70s so it is unlikely we will agree about what happened there.

And yes, I understand defensive democracy. I think we just disagree about what values we should defend ourselves against. But that's why new citizens take an oath, which contains the values we must share.

I would push back on that on two fronts.

1) "taking an oath to uphold the values we're all supposed to share" can be a "phone it in" type of thing where people say it, but actions don't really reflect it.

All of the GOP members of congress and the executive branch all take an oath to uphold said values. Yet, would I be correct in assuming you probably think that a lot of them violate/ignore that oath on a semi-regular basis?


2) Green card holders, refugees, asylum seekers, and undocumented immigrants do not take any sort of oath. And a group of folks don't need to be full fledged citizens to drastically reshape the culture of communities.

That's even doubly true in the increasing number of municipalities and states pushing to allow for non-citizens to vote in local and school board elections.

Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

Shifting cultures in neighborhoods is how you end up with things like this:

Detroit-area city OKs animal sacrifice for religious reasons

Residents of a Detroit-area community with a large Muslim population can sacrifice animals at home for religious reasons.The Hamtramck City Council explicitly a

wwmt.com

 

[BCP1928]

I would push back on that on two fronts.

1) "taking an oath to uphold the values we're all supposed to share" can be a "phone it in" type of thing where people say it, but actions don't really reflect it.

All of the GOP members of congress and the executive branch all take an oath to uphold said values. Yet, would I be correct in assuming you probably think that a lot of them violate/ignore that oath on a semi-regular basis?

Of course. But I was speaking of what we required of them culturally, and that's pretty much it. They have to obey the Constitution and the law of the land. Other than that, why should they not retain elements of their own culture as they wish, provided they do nothing illegal? They are also entitled to similar accomodation to their own culture, such as we give to others.

2) Green card holders, refugees, asylum seekers, and undocumented immigrants do not take any sort of oath. And a group of folks don't need to be full fledged citizens to drastically reshape the culture of communities.

That's even doubly true in the increasing number of municipalities and states pushing to allow for non-citizens to vote in local and school board elections.

Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

Shifting cultures in neighborhoods is how you end up with things like this:

Detroit-area city OKs animal sacrifice for religious reasons

Residents of a Detroit-area community with a large Muslim population can sacrifice animals at home for religious reasons.The Hamtramck City Council explicitly a

wwmt.com

That is actually a tribute to real American values and our committement to religious freedom. They want to butcher (with permit and inspection) and eat an animal for a feast of thanksgiving. Are your cultural values so delicate that you can't stand it that the animal in question is not a turkey?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Of course. But I was speaking of what we required of them culturally, and that's pretty much it. They have to obey the Constitution and the law of the land. Other than that, why should they not retain elements of their own culture as they wish, provided they do nothing illegal? They are also entitled to similar accomodation to their own culture, such as we give to others.

That is actually a tribute to real American values and our committement to religious freedom. They want to butcher (with permit and inspection) and eat an animal for a feast of thanksgiving. Are your cultural values so delicate that you can't stand it that the animal in question is not a turkey?

They're not "just butchering"...

Have you seen any videos of Halal or Kosher slaughtering before? They're not allowed to stun the animal first...it's quite a visual

Based on the article, it sounds like they originally didn't want to allow the practice, but eventually faced pressure from special interests and changing demographics.

Perhaps the long time residents may not be crazy about their kids playing in the backyard and looking over and seeing terrified goats getting their throats slit and convulsing on the ground.


Take for instance...
If you lived in a more progressive city/state, and was happy with the fact that there were local ordinances that stated that people can't shoot guns in their yards, and in a matter of 10 years there was an influx of people from conservative southern areas who moved to town, and then voted to change that law, and now there's people out there popping off rounds with their AR-15's 50 feet from your house while your kids were trying to play outside.

Would your stance be a laid back "well shucks, looks like the culture of the town changed, I guess we'll just have to make the best of it and realize that the make-up of the town has shifted, the law changed, so they're not technically breaking any laws"

Or would your reaction be more along the lines of "This is BS, if they wanted to shoot guns in their yards, then they should've stayed in Kentucky or Alabama"?

 

[BCP1928]

They're not "just butchering"...

Have you seen any videos of Halal or Kosher slaughtering before? They're not allowed to stun the animal first...it's quite a visual

Based on the article, it sounds like they originally didn't want to allow the practice, but eventually faced pressure from special interests and changing demographics.

Perhaps the long time residents may not be crazy about their kids playing in the backyard and looking over and seeing terrified goats getting their throats slit and convulsing on the ground.

I know what it looks like. I lived in a Muslim country for two years--all the meat is prepared that way. Jews do the same. It's just not as lurid as you make it sound.

Take for instance...
If you lived in a more progressive city/state, and was happy with the fact that there were local ordinances that stated that people can't shoot guns in their yards, and in a matter of 10 years there was an influx of people from conservative southern areas who moved to town, and then voted to change that law, and now there's people out there popping off rounds with their AR-15's 50 feet from your house while your kids were trying to play outside.

Would your stance be a laid back "well shucks, looks like the culture of the town changed, I guess we'll just have to make the best of it and realize that the make-up of the town has shifted, the law changed, so they're not technically breaking any laws"

Or would your reaction be more along the lines of "This is BS, if they wanted to shoot guns in their yards, then they should've stayed in Kentucky or Alabama"?

If they've got the votes to put through a law that would let them do anything like that then I would just have to suck it up,

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I know what it looks like. I lived in a Muslim country for two years--all the meat is prepared that way. Jews do the same. It's just not as lurid as you make it sound.

That's why I mentioned both Halal and Kosher slaughter in my post... they're very similar.

And it is practice that people would rightfully have some objections to their kids seeing while playing in the backyard on a random afternoon.

If they've got the votes to put through a law that would let them do anything like that then I would just have to suck it up,

That's never been the progressive position on anything...sorry, but it hasn't.

The California Prop 8 situation would be evidence that it's never been the progressive position to just "lay down and take it" when they don't have the votes to get their way.

Progressives are still pushing activism on 70/30 issues that they're on the losing end of.


When people are on the winning end of pure direct democracy, it's "Democracy is sacred, nothing is more important"
When people are on the losing end of pure direct democracy, it's time to trot out the "2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner" expression.

 

[BCP1928]

That's why I mentioned both Halal and Kosher slaughter in my post... they're very similar.

And it is practice that people would rightfully have some objections to their kids seeing while playing in the backyard on a random afternoon.

I don't know where you've seen this done, but that's not the way the Muslim religion requires it to be done and I expect the permit conditions wouldn't allow it.

That's never been the progressive position on anything...sorry, but it hasn't.

It's my position. You aren't talking to a Progressive now.

The California Prop 8 situation would be evidence that it's never been the progressive position to just "lay down and take it" when they don't have the votes to get their way.

Progressives are still pushing activism on 70/30 issues that they're on the losing end of.


When people are on the winning end of pure direct democracy, it's "Democracy is sacred, nothing is more important"
When people are on the losing end of pure direct democracy, it's time to trot out the "2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner" expression.

That doesn't make much sense. I don't know what your point is, but you make an impression, an impression of a person who is resentful that his values aren't being accorded as much respect as other peoples' and it's not fair because your values are the 'real true American values' and theirs are not. Or something like that.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't know where you've seen this done, but that's not the way the Muslim religion requires it to be done and I expect the permit conditions wouldn't allow it.

I don't know where you've seen this done, but that's not the way the Muslim religion requires it to be done and I expect the permit conditions wouldn't allow it.

I mean, do you want me to post a video or two? It's not a pleasant thing to watch.

It's even less pleasant when you realize that they think it means they're "putting their sins" on that animal, and killing it for something they did...

"Some living thing has to suffer and pay the price for the naughty thoughts I've had, but it's not gonna be me" is borderline sociopathic.

That doesn't make much sense. I don't know what your point is, but you make an impression, an impression of a person who is resentful that his values aren't being accorded as much respect as other peoples' and it's not fair because your values are the 'real true American values' and theirs are not. Or something like that.

My values would actually lean more towards the left-libertarian quadrant of this graph

Are my values more in-line with the American ideal than that of someone who prefers an authoritarian or theocratic power structure, but simply moved here because "that's where the jobs are"? I'd say yes.

 

[RileyG]

Easy for him to say when he's surrounded by guards in his city state.

Yes, uhhh...

Remember when Pope John Paul II was shot and nearly died? (He later forgave his would be assassin) We have security all throughout the world....just an observation is all.

 

[RileyG]

"No Christian can regard the poor simply as a societal problem; they are part of our 'family,'" Leo writes. "They are "'one of us.'"

This is the part of the Christian ethos and fundamental command that MAGA cannot seem to hear.

Now how best to deal with “the poor”, the vulnerable, those seeking asylum and a life with hope, is a great challenge that requires collaboration and honest effort. Fixing broken social systems, immigration policy and procedures is a massive task. But it cannot even be started if the poor are not seen as one of us.

Amen, well said, sir!

 

[BCP1928]

I mean, do you want me to post a video or two? It's not a pleasant thing to watch.

I have watched it. Properly done it is considered the most humane way of slaughtering an animal.

It's even less pleasant when you realize that they think it means they're "putting their sins" on that animal, and killing it for something they did...

"Some living thing has to suffer and pay the price for the naughty thoughts I've had, but it's not gonna be me" is borderline sociopathic.



My values would actually lean more towards the left-libertarian quadrant of this graph

View attachment 371549

Are my values more in-line with the American ideal than that of someone who prefers an authoritarian or theocratic power structure, but simply moved here because "that's where the jobs are"? I'd say yes.

The values you seem most concerned about seem mostly to do with sex, not politics, but given the current political situation, if you are fearful of those who prefer authoritarian or theocratic government, then your own fellow citizens are your greatest danger.