without commenting on the truth of the statement (I don't know, I've never talked to american programmer's unions), in the US, unions have traditionally backed anti union sentiment, for example, chinese exclusionary acts in the late 19th and early 20th century.
It's rather parochial and essentialist to imagine that American labor unions are inherently anti-immigration. This country was founded by immigrants after all, and certainly more recent immigrants can bring in new innovations that can improve our current flawed institutions. Perhaps the next generation of labor unions can do better. To imagine that there is a "context of America" that is fixed and unchanging is to both deny the many cultural contributions that immigrants have brought to this country, and to deny that this country's context is perpetually changing.
True, it is a bit unfair to be prejudiced that way. But you know the famous saying: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". I haven't forgotten how Avalon and Peru and Excelsior came to be. And when I tried, it was brought home to me again why I shouldn't.
There is a rich irony in your evocation. As a former resident of that neighborhood, and as someone from that continent once denied, I can see that times can change. Perhaps this country has. And even labor unions, too.
Even a cursory glance at contemporary tech movements show that they are largely culturally progressive in nature. Anything from the TWC reveals that they fit in with the general leftist Bay Area political milieu:
If you think any of these groups are going to produce something that can be turned into a nativist movement, then you don't seem to have a clear idea about the state of modern politics.
Well, I think you'll find from my previous arguments that immutability of the tenet is crucial. If it is an essential part of the belief system, only good can come from stating it to be so.
The hesitance indicates to me a desire to tack into shifting winds: useful, perhaps, to you who only has goals accidentally coincident to mine, but deleterious to me. But that's overly judgmental, perhaps you simply haven't had the time.
The schism is fixable. I will wait, acting only to preserve the trenches as they are. But until then it remains a schism.
Certainly no priest starts a sermon to his flock with "Since God exists". But this is not a church. I'm not a parishioner. And your creed have aimed to harm me in the past. It will take more.
Perhaps an imperfect allusion, given that most Abrahamic religious services involve recitation of prayers and affirmations that restate basic principles about the identity and nature of God.
When has a modern day labor union operating in the tech industry harmed you in the past?
Haha, quite so, quite so. Having been raised an atheist, my memories of my Catholic School recitations are imperfect but you are clearly correct.
The modern day / ancient day distinction is akin to the difference between the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and The Kingdom of God: it is obvious to adherents and invisible to those without.
Creating distinctions temporally does me no benefit. What has been can be once again. What was done to my great-grandparents can be done to me. The entities that did these things can revert to their atavistic forms. Except, except, except if they fix their forms forward. Something I will gladly accept.
Not just Catholics; the Shahada is a core prayer to Muslims, and I'd imagine most fundamental Jewish prayers affirm the oneness of G-d as well.
Given that the FLDS is an excommunicated body that is infamous for continuing disavowed practices, it shouldn't be too difficult to distinguish between them even among Gentiles (there's an HBO show based on them).
> Except, except, except if they fix their forms forward
Except, labor unions, like nearly any other social organization (even churches!) have changed and modernized over the past century. Your insistence that those present and visible changes are false is bordering on irrational zealotry. It drains both energy and meaning out of a debate and clearly you want to persist in your indefensible concern trolling. Sous vide? Sola fide.
