Our kids SS numbers

[MichelleandCraig 1]

I agree with both of you. I don't condone Illegal Immigration. It's as easy as that..for me, that's all that needs to be said.

I get your point..for some, there IS no legal way. Totally understand..and now you understand what I was saying..then, they just shouldn't come. That doesn't mean they WON'T, just that they shouldn't.

And the statute of liberty saying is nice..I like it too..but I don't think it meant, so come here illegally, and we'll support you. Know what I mean? M.

[sparkofcreation 0]

I agree with both of you. I don't condone Illegal Immigration. It's as easy as that..for me, that's all that needs to be said.

I get your point..for some, there IS no legal way. Totally understand..and now you understand what I was saying..then, they just shouldn't come. That doesn't mean they WON'T, just that they shouldn't.

And the statute of liberty saying is nice..I like it too..but I don't think it meant, so come here illegally, and we'll support you. Know what I mean? M.

I agree with you.

My position is basically this: as far as what Ionescu said about "why do we have to take on the world's problems?," I do believe that everyone *should* be able to come here *legally*. We set that statue up as our national motto, our symbol, the way the world sees us, and I hate that we don't stand by it. I know it's not practical and I know there are good reasons for a lot of our immigration policies, but I think a lot of them are not so good.

*However*, since not everyone *can* come here legally, they *shouldn't*. There are plenty of laws, immigration and otherwise, that I think are rubbish, but I still think that breaking them is not the answer. I think we should work out why people break them, and how we could make them not want to break them, and how we could deter them from breaking them*, and we also evaluate whether all of our laws still make sense or whether some should be changed.** Those are questions that can help to solve the problem. But too many people only see as far as "they shouldn't do that" and don't evaluate the situation any further. That's what drives me insane. Of course they *shouldn't*, but they *do*, so we need to address the root of the problem instead of hoping people will magically come to agree with us that they shouldn't come illegally.

*Two slightly different issues: you make me not want to speed by timing the lights so that if you drive at the speed limit, you never hit a green light (but if you speed, the light will still be red when you get to it--some streets around here are like this, and I love it); you deter me by making me afraid I'll get a ticket ... but deterrence is less powerful: if my child needed medical attention, all the tickets in the world wouldn't stop me from speeding to the nearest hospital. But building a hospital in my neighborhood might.

**For example, in New Jersey, I used to live near a freeway that had limited-access, wide, flat lanes, wide shoulders, wide medians, no sharp curves, no debri on the road, good repair, etc. The speed limit was 65. With today's cars, there was no need for the speed limit to be 65. Out here, a road in a similar condition would have a 75 speed limit. Which is why people out here don't speed as much as people there: because 75 is reasonable for a road in that condition, whereas 65 no longer is because of advances in road-building and car manufacture. This does not make speeding right, and I support measures to enforce speed laws; but still, I think the law should be re-evaluated.

[MichelleandCraig 1]

I do very much agree with most of what you're saying. You are making good, intelligent points and I'm right with you on a majority of it. The only sticking point I have left...is...

It would be nice if we could help EVERYONE....I agree. I HATE to see ANYONE suffering..and most people do..but I simply cannot stand it. I will turn channels on the television, I will cry, I will look away(not that that helps..I still know it's there) but I hate to see people needy, sick, hurting etc. That said...it's not even reasonable for you, me, or anyone to think that if we 'let' in anyone who wanted to come, that the United States would be what it is today. I'm not saying half of the world would flock in or anything, but the country would be absolutely overrun(and when I say overrun I don't mean that in a demeaning sense at all...like..these people wouldn't be equal to us or something...everyone is equal IMO or at least until they prove themselves to be unfit human beings)but....if we over a not so long period of time got an influx of millions and millions of people...the country could just not handle it. One very small example...Americans..many...are out of work now. How would we employ millions more people? I know that them being here could also CREATE more jobs, but I don't think it would be proportional in any sense. That's just one example. I think you know what I mean. Craig and I have talked about this many times, and we're in agreement that if we basically just had an 'open borders' policy(even having to go thru legalities to get here, etc) that it just wouldn't work. ..but thanks for not being rude in your post. People should be able to talk about any topic like this. M.

edited for bad spelling: not that I caught it all anyway!

Edited May 13, 2006 by MichelleandCraig

[chocolaterie 0]

I haven't heard of this requirement in school, but I think it should be an elective like learning any other culture. Just like most languages are (except of course if you live in a country with more than one official language).

As for the whole religion issue, when I was in high school (granted i grew up in Canada), I had friends who would bring their bibles to school and read during lunch, there was no fuss at all. I also had muslim friends, who would pray to allah out loud. Point is, the problem is with people and their sensitivity. If we all grew up and respected each other's differences we wouldn't have such problems. You never see a creationist and an evolutionist fight. WHY? because they know a true believer in either subject can not possibly reach a compromise. But for most people, it would be nice if we could live somewhere in the middle. I agree with gimy, but not with her wording. I grew up buddhist, my best friend tried to convert me to christianity, now I'm content with where I am. I do not believe the bible is true, because someone wrote it down. And humankind is flawed. But I do believe some type of force that is greater than us exists. Whatever it is, I feel it would be more complex than anything we could ever imagine or understand.

[MichelleandCraig 1]

I haven't heard of this requirement in school, but I think it should be an elective like learning any other culture. Just like most languages are (except of course if you live in a country with more than one official language).

As for the whole religion issue, when I was in high school (granted i grew up in Canada), I had friends who would bring their bibles to school and read during lunch, there was no fuss at all. I also had muslim friends, who would pray to allah out loud. Point is, the problem is with people and their sensitivity. If we all grew up and respected each other's differences we wouldn't have such problems. You never see a creationist and an evolutionist fight. WHY? because they know a true believer in either subject can not possibly reach a compromise. But for most people, it would be nice if we could live somewhere in the middle. I agree with gimy, but not with her wording. I grew up buddhist, my best friend tried to convert me to christianity, now I'm content with where I am. I do not believe the bible is true, because someone wrote it down. And humankind is flawed. But I do believe some type of force that is greater than us exists. Whatever it is, I feel it would be more complex than anything we could ever imagine or understand.

Excellent post. If you read the entire thread(and I think you did) you know that I do not share your views. But what you wrote above which I've bolded, is exactly the way I think. FINE..think what you like. Just don't shove your views down MY throat, and I'll show you the same respect. GREAT post. M.

Edited to add: the only point I don't agree on is that many many people can't meet in the middle, for exactly the reasons you've stated. For those who believe in God, and the Bible, there IS no compromise. For those who believe otherwise, they could possibly believe in a higher power of some other sort(or not) and thusly, compromise. But I know what you were getting at. M.

Edited May 13, 2006 by MichelleandCraig

[gwenneh 7]

As an English Literature graduate who focussed on literature of the pre-Renaissance and Renaissance era, I find that the Bible changed too much at the whim of Kings and Popes to really, truly be 100% believable. I've had to use several different versions of the Bible and I found that as they got *older*, they certainly got a lot more interesting-and a lot further from the standard version I grew up on. It's a book, passed down at points in an oral tradition and not in writing at all-whether or not you choose to believe the core truths behind it is fine by me, but the book itself...written by man. Completely and utterly fallible. Just compare a translation of the Vulgate Latin version to the Folger version (my personal favourite, as the people who edited it over and over left their notes and interpretations in the margins!) to the Wycliffe version to the King James version and see what happens. The Scriptures are incredibly fluid and if you watch the politics of the eras in which these were written, the changes that happen in the text reflect the person in power. And all of those versions stemmed out of only one of the myriad of Latin versions-the Vulgate, which in turn was different from the original sources *it* came from: the Codex Alexandrius, Codex Sinaiticus, and the Codex Vaticanus (which in turn came from other sources, and so on and so on). The Bible is, in fact, a giant game of Telephone played throughout centuries. The evolution of the Bible is a tree with many branches.

That's not to say that one shouldn't live by the underlying message in the Bible. Just understand that this message has changed at the hands of the powerful (relating to my own studies, particularly King James-some of the changes he made to it were fairly major) and at the whim of any Pope who wanted to change Canon Law to suit themselves. I don't think the Bible is inherently wrong, but a lot of people fail to understand the history of the book itself and how it has evolved from a translation of the Hebrew and Greek to a powerful political tool to its current form.

I'm not opposed to teaching Bible literature courses in school, in my case they were necessary to understand the non-secular literature I was reading. Heck, make it required, and maybe the average student will get more for their money when it comes to understanding Chaucer and Shakespeare. But even the priest who led my bible study when I was younger didn't lead it by the text directly and was the first person to bring up the problem of versions and translations, something I came into contact with when working on my Senior thesis fifteen years later.

Okay, it's early, I'm rambling, I hope I didn't offend any Bible pushers. I respect the book just as much as anyone else and had to study it quite a bit myself, but I do think a clear and unbiased history of where the texts came from and how they changed is necessary to understanding it and what those texts really mean.

[MichelleandCraig 1]

You stated your views very reasonably, and thus didn't offend me in the least. Your post was an interesting read. M.

[gwenneh 7]

You'd be suprised how little semantic changes can have such an effect...for example, King James took particular liberties with sections regarding rulership and governance because he was so insecure in his own reign, supporting his speeches on the Divine Right Of Kings-his version of the bible re-words and reinforces Divine Right as a concept, much more so than the prior versions (I compared it in classes specifically to the Folger version). The rules King James set down for the translation of the Bible were very specific on what liberties the translators could and could not take with the texts.

And he was just one ruler who revised the Bible. Just one. Before him there were more kings (and Queens), and Popes, and any abbot in charge of a room full of monks busily scribing the pages prior to the invention of the printing press....

EDITED TO ADD:

I'm tired, and all references to the Folger bible in my last post should read the GENEVA Bible. And anyone interested in the Bible should go and read that version!

Edited May 13, 2006 by Gwen666

[MichelleandCraig 1]

Right. I find what you say very interesting, and I'm always amazed by the knowledge of things people on this site possess. You know much more than I do about some of this, and I am very much a Christian. I will always be; nothing will alter my views(and I'm fully aware you're not trying to!) on that. I don't however attend church right now, but I do believe. Most of my beliefs are from the 18 years I lived with my parents attending church twice a week and reading the bible. Craig is also very intelligent about these things, and we have had some rather nice discussions about it, as he has with my parents. I find it interesting that a lot of Christians, myself included, use the King James version of the Bible. Now, how did this topic become about religion??? M.

edited to say: rereading that...what was my point in posting??? sorry, I'm finally getting tired here! I think the original point I was going to make, was what I said about being amazed at the knowledge of people on the site about various topics...

Edited May 13, 2006 by MichelleandCraig

[gwenneh 7]

Not trying to change anyone's views, just broaden some horizons! It's a lot easier to understand a modern interpretation of the Bible and the messages it contains if one has read an earlier version. Reading some translations and some Latin and understanding where the words on the page come from made a BIG difference in how I read and understood the modern Bible.

There's a fantastic article in Christianity Today on this very subject, addressing the political nature of the King James version of the Bible.

[MichelleandCraig 1]

Thanks, I'll have a look see after I get up today. Too tired for anything too deep at the mo'

Craig used to listen to a man called Fruchtenbaum(think that's proper spelling, but not sure) on tape when he was younger. He said he learned a lot from them as the man went VERY slowly and interpreted the words from their original latin meanings as he went along. He said most people wouldn't be interested..that it would have been tedious and boring to listen to for a majority(he figured) but that's what changed a lot of HIS views on the Bible. ttyl. M.

[gwenneh 7]

The Geneva Bible is also online, in original format....with all of the footnotes. I think perhaps my love of Terry Pratchett novels is what draws me to this version! At any rate, it's worth a glance. The footnotes, diagrams, and cross references teach and explain things (and this is part of what King James didn't like about it, why he had his version written!) and there's even pictures!

Okay, I'm done hijacking this thread.

[MichelleandCraig 1]

You weren't the only hijacker...

[Artegal 1]

As an English Literature graduate who focussed on literature of the pre-Renaissance and Renaissance era, I find that the Bible changed too much at the whim of Kings and Popes to really, truly be 100% believable. I've had to use several different versions of the Bible and I found that as they got *older*, they certainly got a lot more interesting-and a lot further from the standard version I grew up on. It's a book, passed down at points in an oral tradition and not in writing at all-whether or not you choose to believe the core truths behind it is fine by me, but the book itself...written by man. Completely and utterly fallible. Just compare a translation of the Vulgate Latin version to the Folger version (my personal favourite, as the people who edited it over and over left their notes and interpretations in the margins!) to the Wycliffe version to the King James version and see what happens. The Scriptures are incredibly fluid and if you watch the politics of the eras in which these were written, the changes that happen in the text reflect the person in power. And all of those versions stemmed out of only one of the myriad of Latin versions-the Vulgate, which in turn was different from the original sources *it* came from: the Codex Alexandrius, Codex Sinaiticus, and the Codex Vaticanus (which in turn came from other sources, and so on and so on). The Bible is, in fact, a giant game of Telephone played throughout centuries. The evolution of the Bible is a tree with many branches.

That's not to say that one shouldn't live by the underlying message in the Bible. Just understand that this message has changed at the hands of the powerful (relating to my own studies, particularly King James-some of the changes he made to it were fairly major) and at the whim of any Pope who wanted to change Canon Law to suit themselves. I don't think the Bible is inherently wrong, but a lot of people fail to understand the history of the book itself and how it has evolved from a translation of the Hebrew and Greek to a powerful political tool to its current form.

I'm not opposed to teaching Bible literature courses in school, in my case they were necessary to understand the non-secular literature I was reading. Heck, make it required, and maybe the average student will get more for their money when it comes to understanding Chaucer and Shakespeare. But even the priest who led my bible study when I was younger didn't lead it by the text directly and was the first person to bring up the problem of versions and translations, something I came into contact with when working on my Senior thesis fifteen years later.

Okay, it's early, I'm rambling, I hope I didn't offend any Bible pushers. I respect the book just as much as anyone else and had to study it quite a bit myself, but I do think a clear and unbiased history of where the texts came from and how they changed is necessary to understanding it and what those texts really mean.

As a fellow English Graduate (composition and rhetoric). I totally hear and agree with what you are saying. I wished I had had a complete understanding of the bible as a work of literature particularly the latin version. I definitely would have understood a lot easier my British/English, and American Colonial Lit courses. Spenser, Hopkins, and Taylor poetry in addition to the two bards you mentioned.

PBS had a series recently about all the left out books in the official Catholic Church approved versions of the Bible.

I am pleased that now my state in the Bible Belt of all places is now allowing the Bible to be taught as an elective as literature. The class, "History and Literature of the Old and New Testament," will be taught with the Bible as the text. The bill does not require that schools teach the course, or that students take it. --Georgia Public Broadcasting/NPR.

[Jaylen Brit 0]

Good topic - went a bit wobbly in the middle with some poo-flinging but seems to have settled now

The illegal thing / stealing of SS numbers - thats pretty much out there in the criminal world for anyone - not just illegals. Stolen SS numbers are available for sale almost as easily as stolen credit card numbers (any corner in Venice Beach, you can find THOSE for sale, with a warning about them being time sensitive - and no I never bought any myself - but I stayed in VB long enough to get to know the locals).

I tottaly get the point made that many illegals come to the US illegally because they have NO legal recourse to do so (some because they cant get a visa due to their long criminal history at home, some because they have no REASON to enter the US permanently - eg, no fiancee, no job offer etc etc)

The problem isn't that they COME - its that the US makes it too easy for them to STAY.

IMO, of course