Rob wrote:
Irish were so not "the right kind" that there were Irish born signers of the Declaration of Independence.
You're truly displaying quash-calibers of deliberate ignorance, Rob, and it doesn't suit you (or anyone, quash very much included). What you say is true, but - again- as others have
repeatedly stated, less than a half-century after that signing there was a
massive amount of anti-Irish sentiment afoot that persisted for a century or more after that, to the point that
songs were written about it. Frankly, Rob, your account only further proves my point: even when talking
solely about a
single nationality (and a "white" one at that), attitudes concerning what is "acceptable" and "American" have experienced not one, but two
major shifts since the country's founding, and you can bet your life it won't be the last, especially so long as "nativist" attitudes continue to persist.
Zen wrote:
By this, I take it that you ask whether being homosexual excludes your from being "Western" and/or "American"? Of course not. Now you are just being facetious
How so? We're a "Christian nation", aren't we (and just one part of an entire, wider "civilization" based on it at that)? And the Bible's not exactly ambiguous when it comes to homosexuality; so even if we aren't going full Wahhabi on them (though some Christians think we should), why should we "accept" their lifestyle in any notable capacity, as doing so obviously further corrodes the already-imperiled moral and social bedrock upon which all of "the West" was founded?
Quote:
To be clear, culture is does not eminate from nurture but rather from nature.
Who knew that all those white couples who adopt foreign-born babies and raise them as their own are embarking on such a fool's errand, since they'll inevitably grow up to be terrorists anyway?

Quote:
1. It had to compromise and basically plaster itself thinly over pre-existing spiritual beliefs.
...precisely the sort of compromise, as it happens, that folks like yourself absolutely refuse to so much as
consider when it comes to dealings with foreigners who wish to integrate (of course, plenty of them aren't even religious or particularly attached to their native culture to begin with, though they get automatically lumped in with the rest anyway). Though on a deeper level it's even more amusing to hear all the high talk about the untouchable, elevating purity of European Christianity even as you acknowledge, albeit incompletely (though we're coming to that) how unrecognizably bastardized it willingly became.

Quote:
"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."
I'm sure that (and
chivalry besides!) meant
worlds to the countless millions of people that Europeans over the centuries have subjugated, displaced, enslaved and/or annihilated, oftentimes
literally in the name of Christ!

On this front quite a few of our sainted ancestors seemed quite content to stick to the Old Testament when it comes to divinely-inspired attitudes towards "undesirable" neighbors; more tragically, too few of their progeny (that is, anything less than every last one of them) seem willing to do better.
Quote:
Peter Sutherland and his ilk, are interested in replacement, containment, subjugation and "mixing" of only one race. Can you guess what that race is?
Everything I can find offhand about this guy puts him squarely in the same category as that
alarming UN document Rob linked to (and apparently didn't read) - he thinks immigration is a positive and necessary force for "advanced" economies, and advocates for it. Feel free to disagree with him, as there are are as many caveats baked into this issue as any other, but the "advocation of genocide" is a pants-wetting fever dream of your own making.
Quote:
I only wish that they were random. Sadly, they are not.
Spare me, you and the rest of the nativists only post them, ad nauseam, when you don't have an actual response to a point someone else has made. Same goes for the brain-dead GIFs.
Quote:
I would gladly help a person of any race, colour or creed.
With one caveat;
[b]Not at the expense of someone else.[/i]
By "someone else" of course, you mean "yourself and people sufficiently similar to yourself." Christ, who famously never had to sacrifice anything for the benefit of vastly varied people he would never meet, would definitely approve.

By the by, while we're on the topic of the all-important, Western Culture-defining Golden Rule, let's look it up, at, say, Luke 6:31. While we're there, why not head back just a couple of verses, to, maybe, 27:
But I say to you who are listening, continue to love your enemies, to do good to those hating you, to bless those cursing you, to pray for those who are insulting you. To him that strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also; and from him that takes away your outer garment, do not withhold even the undergarment. Give to everyone asking you, and from the one taking your things away do not ask them back.And why not jump ahead a few, to, perhaps, 37:
Moreover, stop judging, and you will by no means be judged; and stop condemning, and you will by no means be condemned. Keep on releasing and you will be released. Practice giving, and people will give to you. They will pour into your laps a fine measure, pressed down, shaken together and overflowing. For with the measure that you are measuring out, they will measure out to you in return.Oh, and for another bit of recommended reading (since nativists like you pride yourselves on embodying the Good Book so completely), take a gander at Acts 10. Verses 34 and 45 are particular favorites of mine.