Pacifism is deeply embedded in the Western psyche? Where? I’ve known maybe one in my entire life. The Left gives it a little lip service, until it sees a cause.

The only serious example I can see is Francis of Assisi. Catholics of both left and right talk of him like he’s a superhero.

And how does a literal reading of the NT induce pacifism?

I don’t think everyone is my brother. But I do think we should allow in more immigrants to do the work most Americans are too lazy to do. Does anyone here want to pay 7 dollars for a head of lettuce? I sure don’t.

Mr. Sleighback does not read very carefully. I did not say pacifism is deeply embedded in the Western psyche, I said the idea of a moral duty to welcome immigrants is deeply embedded in the Western psyche.

As for how a literal reading of the NT induces pacifism, I guess Mr. Sleighback hasn’t read the NT very carefully either, since, as everyone knows, it’s filled with statements which, if read literally, that is, if taken baldly by themselves without being put in context, can induce pacifism and have often done so. “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you …. to him who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also. And of him who take away your goods do not ask them again…. Judge not, and you will not be judged.” (Luke 6:27-37.) These and other similar well-known statements in the New Testament, taken literally, would mean that if a foreign country invades your country and conquers half it, you should hand over to him the other half of your country as well. It would mean that if a gang of desperadoes threaten to invade your house and kill your family, you should let them do so. If means that if a person has committed armed robbery or rape, he should not be tried and punished, because Jesus tells us to “judge not.”

Now, obviously, even your average liberal Christian would not go that far; he would make exceptions. But, being a liberal, the only exceptions he can make from liberalism are unprincipled exceptions. His explicit understanding of man’s moral duties remains fixed on that literal level.

If one wants to get a glimpse of what our future as a nation full of unassimilable immigrants look no further than Theodore Dalrymple’s article in the Autumn, 2002 City Journal (www.city-journal.org) entitled “Barbarians at the Gates of Paris”. Because France has refused to assimilate its immigrants from Africa (or more likely, they have refused to assimilate) she is now faced with a large population of unemployable young men who run the public housing disctricts (Les Zones) that surround many of her larger cities. At the moment, few here are talking about this issue for fear of being labled racist, so I believe little will happen to alter this disconcerting trend. But it is scary.

Interestingly, I don’t think most who call themselves “pacifists” really know what that means. For example, even Gandhi said that it’s acceptable, and you should, defend your family.

On the other hand, there are other religious groups, Amish, Quakers, where that might not be the case.

All to say, I’m not sure that you can claim that somebody who seeks to practise “pacifism” is liberal. Instead, there are some who mistakenly call themselves pacifists, without fully understanding what they’re saying.

Interesting thought though, linking liberalism to pacifism to open borders.

Respectfully,

As a footnote to the original post, it appears that anti-militarism played a decisive role in the decline of Constantinople well before its final fall in the 15th century. According to the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, http://48.1911encyclopedia.org/R/RO/ROMAN_EMPIRE_LATER.htm, in the 11th century the Eastern empire adopted “a fatal anti-military policy, which is largely responsible for the conquests of a new enemy, the Seljuk Turks… . The senate was filled with men of the lower classes, and the military budget was ruthlessly cut down. This policy reduced the army and stopped the supply of officers, since there was no longer hope of a profitable career. The emperor thought to meet dangers from external enemies by diplomacy. The successes of the Seljuks … at length awoke the government from its dream of security. The general Romanus Diogenes was proclaimed emperor. He had to create an army and to train it; he did not spare himself, but it was too late. He was defeated and captured by Alp Arslan on the decisive field of Manzikert (1071)… . The east and centre of Asia Minor were thus lost… . The provinces which escaped the Seljuk occupation were thoroughly disorganized, a prey to foreign and native adventurers and usurpers.

“Thus in the ‘seventies of the 11th century the Empire seemed through incompetence and frivolity to have been brought to the verge of dissolution.”

The expensive-lettuce argument is based in part on the hypothesis that lettuce would be $7.00 without immigrants. Before the 1960’s, when we had almost no immigration, lettuce was not expensive.

The argument is also based on the mistaken premise that natives would refuse to pick lettuce. Natives picked lettuce before the 1960’s, and many still do. There is no evidence that natives refuse to do what some call dirty jobs. The evidence is all to the contrary. Recall the mining disasters that plague the mining industry. These jobs are often low paid, always extremely dangerous, and occupied almost exclusively by natives. Most people would rather pick lettuce than work in mines. Recall also the policemen and firemen who were slaughtered in the World Trade Centers on September 11, 2001. Few immigrants occupied those jobs. The examples are endless.

The argument also assumes that having cheap lettuce is more important than having a country. I don’t want to pay twenty billion dollars (at least) for an aircraft carrier and its complement of aircraft, but that seems to be the market price of our country.

Let me suggest that persons curious about the validity of arguments in favor of immigration seek out additional Websites that can answer their questions. One site is Project USA at http://www.projectusa.org/index.html. There are links to other sites.

Mr. Auster’s historical information is astounding. It is frightening that few Americans (particularly Christian Americans) know about those events. Instead of teaching the Koran after 911, our schools should have been teaching Mr. Auster’s information.

Another interesting thing is that the conquest of Asia Minor in the 11th century by the Seljuk Turks (who were succeeded later by the Ottoman Turks) represented the first time since the Islamic conquests of the 7th century that Muslims had penetrated Asia Minor. In their initial conquests, the Muslims had come north out of the Arabian peninsula, taken Palestine and Syria, headed west into North Africa and Spain, and east into what is now Iraq, but never into Asia Minor, whose eastern borders the earlier Byzantine emperors had successfully protected from Muslim penetration. Moreover, for some time prior to the emergence of the Seljuk Turks, the power of Islam had been waning. So, helped by the folly of the Byzantines, the Seljuks gave Islam a whole new lease on life, leading ultimately to the Muslim conquest of southeastern Europe and Constantinople.