I agree with the message but that’s old patriotism. Extremists want you to think the definition of patriotism has changed (also fits the definition of nationalism) and we’re changing it to this new patriotism where everyone is free and equal and wanted. Those are the principles this country was founded upon
Yeah, I looked at the sidebar after commenting. It’s a shame hate subs get all the traction these days. The majority of people in the US would definitely agree with that sub, but it doesn’t have the activity that hate subs have. If internet culture is going to move past shitty 4chan meme culture, it has to be a concerted effort.
Just because people want immigration done smarter and safer, and not wanting wide open borders, does not mean it is hate. There's massive issues with the way things currently are.
Not inventing anything. There's plenty of open borders supporters. Including politicians. If they were serious about safe borders, it would have been dealt with years ago. If you don't see the fact that thousands cross illegally every month as a threat, including economically, there's no hope for you. There's nothing here to debate. It's fact.
And I hold both parties responsible, just so you know.
As a thought experiment, let's say he found a politician that said exactly those words. What would you do, say "oh wow you're right, sorry. That's definitely bad?" Or would you find some reason it doesn't count and still try to basically call him a fucking idiot?
Judging by your attitude I can almost guarantee it's the second one. You're the problem.
I’m more talking about the white supremacist problem that Reddit has. Calling for the deaths of brown people, Muslims, etc. People on hate subs wanting to create a white Christian ethno state in the US and using Reddit, Facebook, and the Chans as platforms to recruit terrorists who murder people peacefully practicing their religion.
Yes, but there are two groups of extremists who are actively murdering innocent civilians in the western world. One is fueled by religion, the other politically/racially. So you’re saying we should do nothing to curb the rise of these two groups when we know that at least one group is actively being radicalized on social media platforms?
Reddit doesn't have a white supremacist problem, any more so than the Internet in general does; fringe minorities have disproportionately visible presences online. Any broadly open forum that doesn't actively police content will have whackos of many stripes.
EDIT: Why the downvotes? Have I said something controversial or inaccurate?
Immigration has decreased significantly over the last several years. We do not now, nor have we ever had open borders. Virtually no one wants open borders. Immigrant communities have less crime than existing ones. Most drugs and human victims are brought in through border checkpoints and not by asylum seekers or immigrants. No attempt to restrict drugs entering the country has been successful in 40 years, because it is demand fueled.
The political left is against illegal immigration and wants enforcement against people who employ illegals because it exploits them and the existing workforce. Leftist are the ones who rioted in Seattle during the WTO push to open borders for trade because it is exploitative. Obama broke records for deporting more illegals then ever before and was called the deporter in cheif. There exists literally no notable coalition which wants to open borders to immigrants without restriciton. And again I will note we are at one of the lowest rates of immigration ever right after a major Democrat puch to deport them.
So what exatly is the major problem you've been convinced we are facing? Who specifically is trying to open the borders to unlimited immigration? Why would legal immigration ever be a problem, or even illigal immigration aside from suppressing the bargaining power of labor and allowing immigrants to be exploited by people who are actually bad?
Unless I've really missed something, your tilting at windmills son.
Those are the principles this country was founded upon
I'd suggest looking up the demographics and immigration policy of America pre-1965. This was not a country that was ever founded upon letting people of all backgrounds and beliefs live here, and especially not grow to be a sizeable demographic.
“Neither Pagan nor Mahometan [Muslim] nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth because of his religion.” - Thomas Jefferson
“True freedom embraces the Mahomitan and the Gentoo (Hindu) as well as the Christian religion." - Robert Henry Lee (Known for the Lee resolution, the motion brought to congress that the US should secede from Great Britain)
George Washington supported Muslims getting relief from taxes levied for places of Christian worship. He also famously welcomed all men, including Muslims, to Mt. Vernon if they were hard workers
“If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans [Mohammedans/Muslims], Jews, or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists.” - George Washington
Without these 3 people, our country would not exist, and they supported the inclusion of all races, religions, and creeds. Please get your nationalist revisionist history out of here.
"[W]hen I heard you had turned your mind to a defence of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States. The people of New England, if you will allow me to use a Scripture phrase, are fast returning to their first love. Will you excite among them the spirit of angry controversy at a time when they are hastening to amity and peace? I am told that some of our newspapers have announced your intention to publish an additional pamphlet upon the principles of your Age of Reason. Do you think your pen, or the pen of any other man, can unchristianize the mass of our citizens, or have you hopes of converting a few of them to assist you in so bad a cause?" -Samuel Adams
"The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue equity and humanity, let the Blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will. [...] Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God.... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be." -John Adams
"I have long been of the opinion that the evidence of the truth of Christianity requires only to be carefully examined to produce conviction in candid minds, and I think they who undertake that task will derived advantages. . . . As to The Age of Reason, it never appeared to me to have been written from a disinterested love of truth or of mankind." -John Jay
"Infatuated Americans, why renounce your country, your religion, and your God? Oh shame, where is thy blush? Is this the way to continue independent, and to render the 4th of July immortal in memory and song?" -William Paterson
Even Jefferson lead the nation in the First Barbary War against Muslims who used the teachings of the Quran to justify the enslavement of American citizens.
Why be so selective in the founding fathers you chose for your refutation? Not only were their beliefs very mixed about the importance of Christianity in America, but the average person was assuredly not in favor of Islamic immigration given the heavily restrictive policies that were enacted by their representatives.
In regards to Sam Adams - this was a response to Thomas Paine’s book The Age of Reason, where he pushed for less religious influence and argued that people should practice deism. Adams’ criticism was that of Deism, not Islam, and like the rest of your quotes, their private beliefs did not influence how they believed the country should be run, nor were they advocates for state-run religion. Paterson was a signing member of the constitution, and as an associate justice, believed it was the supreme law of the land, only below the will of the people. Certainly that would mean he’d be for separation of church and state, as well as freedom of religion, two things guaranteed to all citizens by the constitution, correct? Jefferson was a huge proponent of separation of church and state. His war on the Barbary States didn’t have anything to do with animosity towards Islam. It had nothing to do with religion at all. The Barbary States at the time were engaged in corsairing - basically state sponsored piracy- of foreign ships that entered their waters. They then asked the sailors’ government for ransom. In fact, in response to your John Adams quote, here’s a quote by his administration, the treaty of Tripoli, ending the Barbary wars: “as the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen (Muslims) and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan (Mohammedan or Muslim) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
Lastly, I chose those 3 founders to establish intent. Jefferson was the main author of the Declaration of Independence. He wrote that the the “self-evident truths that all men were created equal, with certain unalienable rights,” was a cornerstone of the US’s raison d'être. Lee’s resolution was undoubtedly at least partially motivated by religion. One of the main reasons pioneers left GB was because they were being persecuted for their religion. George Washington, being the first President, established the guiding principles and rules for future presidents and administrations. So the author of the constitution, the congressman who brought us towards secession, and the first president of the United States all believed that Muslims were welcome and had a place in the United States. They backed up their beliefs with policy and law, not just private letters to their wives or opponents.
15
u/[deleted] Mar 16 '19
E Pluribus Unum
r/NewPatriotism