#refugeeswelcome

Dictionary.com
verb. (intransitive) to leave one place or country, esp one’s native country, in order to settle in another Compare immigrate. emigratory, adjective. C18: from Latin Ä?mÄ«grÄ?re, from mÄ«grÄ?re to depart, migrate. Word Origin and History for emigrate Expand.

european to america
syrian to europe
still looks same to me

last statement i make on native american, half breed at work[half Cherokee his dad cherokee] both say this country was invaded by europeans

back to syrian crisis if you want to get picky the western nations caused this mess by destabilizeing exisiting governments hopeing for a certian outcome didnt go so well
western nations should help fix this mess
but when you look at what happens with cultural differences on a large scale,of witch i saw many examples posted here,if not properly controlled ,the results dont look good

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

Yes, which is why I don’t downplay Muslim conquest, the murderous and depraved actions of the Prophet Muhammed or the doctrine of Islam.

[/quote]

And yet you want the gates flung open to thousands who follow that doctrine.[/quote]

Yes I do, like I support Christian refugees despite Christian doctrine, the history of the crusades, the inquisition and the history of pogroms and which hunts. I can disagree with Islam and yet not support anti Muslim bigotry against individuals.

Just like I don’t place collective guilt on white people for the Holocaust, slavery, Apartheid or segregation.

I wouldn’t of stopped white American immigration to Europe in the 20’s under the fear they would come to establish segregation and start lynching blacks and Asians.

Consistency is valuable.
[/quote]

So is the ability to think logically.

Events from hundreds of years ago vs. things currently happening?

Using tiny subgroups as representatives of a much, much larger group?

Please.

It’s a good thing you do strength training, having to carry that agenda around everywhere you go.

[/quote]

The holocaust was hundreds of years ago? And Christians in Africa were carrying out ethnic cleansing against other tribes in the 90’s, we let African christians immigrate to Europe, they didn’t all start massacring muslims in London.

We let Spaniards immigrate, they didn’t come to topple governments and create Francoesque fascist regimes throughout Europe. We let Christian Ugandans settle here, they didn’t start killing gays or trying to establish the death penalty for gays like what was happening in Uganda.

We in civilised society can distinguish between ideology and individual people. The vast majority of 1.6 billion muslims don’t adhere to Wahhabi literalism. To pretend otherwise is to lower yourself to base, crude bigotry.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]cavemansam wrote:

last statement i make on native american, half breed at work[half Cherokee his dad cherokee] both say this country was invaded by europeans

[/quote]

Your co-worker needs to understand that his ancestors “invaded” the land they live in now and likely displaced other tribes…kinda like what the Europeans did. The evidence is there.

Cherokees, with their Iroquoian language, likely emigrated from the Great Lakes area and “invaded” the lands in present day Georgia, Tennessee and the Carolinas. [/quote]

So what, why do you feel the need to preface every European crime with a “but the Natives did similar stuff” ? Also considering Europeans were at a much higher rate of cultural and technological advancement, do you not think the civilised Christians ought to of behaved better, not as soon as the first foot touched ground, started enslaving and massacring Natives?

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

every European crime

[/quote]

“Crime?”

If child sacrifice in the pursuit of protein isn’t a crime how could what the Europeans did be criminal?
[/quote]

Ouch.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

See…folks like you tend to apply amoralism everywhere they can and the distant past is especially a swell place to toot your horn in this regard. This is a dangerous path to take because, of course, the past and the present merge. If one can implicitly rationalize that child sacrifice was necessary and appropriate in the past because the adults “needed the protein” then it’s very simple to progress to the present with examples such as abortion is necessary because “she’s just not ready for a family yet” and the concept of good and evil eventually becomes…ummm…let me think of a good adjective…thinking…thinking…hey! let’s go with “anachronistic!”

Folks like me see evil as being a real entity – past and present – and its influences on human civilization are profound and not simplistically reducible to just the search for calories and such.[/quote]

I can’t believe I have to explain this in detail, but the Aztec “protein issue” refers to the captured enemy warriors, not children. There is pretty strong speculation that this is the reason why the Tlaxcala were allowed to retain a small independent fiefdom surrounded on all sides by the Aztec empire, with whom they were in a constant state of war. Free source of protein.

Incidentally, the Tlaxcala immediately became loyal allies to Cortes provided tens of thousands of warriors to accompany his expedition force. Not surprising at all.

As far as child sacrifice is concerned, dig deeper into a “consecrated” area of any archaeological site and you will such find gruesome, stomach churning stuff. Whether it’s a vibrant mercantile city such as Tyre or Carthage, a maritime superpower such as Minoan Crete or even remote Germanic tribes in Scandinavia…

Human history is pretty much a string of horrible stuff and regardless what you say society’s morals and customs mutate with time.

I’m sure you’ve read in a certain book an apocryphal story about some guy named Abraham and his son Isaac - many authoritative rabbis in interpreting the story concur with the archaeological findings that such practice was widespread among Semitic peoples.

I know better that the start a discussion about the Bible here, but morals change, for better of for worse - otherwise you would be able to apply all biblical references to treatment of slaves in your daily life.

I remember the issue about 5th century Christians in Syria/Palestine being brought up before on this forum, but during the monastic craze the Christians behaved akin to the modern Taliban - rampaging mobs killed, among others, people who washed regularly as personal hygiene was considered idolatrous.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ahhhh…moral relativism. Yes, let’s revisit that topic once again.[/quote]

There is a difference between crude moral relativism and a sound contextual analysis.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
And if one is going to mention the story of Abraham and Isaac he might be careful to include the simple fact that Isaac did not die at the hands of his father. He was not sacrificed. So don’t use an example or a sacrifice did not occur to explain away all the sacrifices that did. That would surely counter the point you were trying to make. Basic logic, my friend.[/quote]

Isaac didn’t die, through divine intervention. That’s why the story survived, because it was exceptional. Which demonstrates that the darker outcome was common practice.

As rabbi Hertz framed it: “in that age, it was astounding that Abraham’s God should have interposed to prevent the sacrifice, not that He should have asked for it.”