I’m as terrified as you are at the prospect.

The congressional buildings were used for church services initially because, at the time, there were no churches yet built in D.C.

Also, the fact of the services shows that though the US was founded by Deists, their broad view of religion is precisely what made it easy for them to support all forms of religion current at the time. The secularism at the heart of the Republic is precisely what has allowed us to flourish as a religious people and nation.

The founding fathers were very much deists. Considering most of them were Masons. This doesn’t mean they were Christians, or not, it merely means that they believe in a Supreme Creator with no specificity given to any one religion.

I’d argue that the large buildings being used as churches were probably more a matter of convenience than blurring of the separation of church and state.

For one who refers to “history” all the time I would remind you that for the first 100 years of its existence, the chambers of Congress were used as a formally authorized Church, beginning with Congressional authorization on 4 Dec 1800 when the seat of govt was first moved from Phila and NYC to DC. Services were held in the House chamber every Sunday presided over alternatively by the Chaplin of the House and Senate interspersed with guest clergy. Up to 2000 elected officials and townspeople people packed the House floor and gallery every Sunday and, considering the pop of DC in those days, was a considerable percentage of the population of DC. Services were also held on Sunday mornings at the Treasury Dept. as well. Both Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams were prominent regular attendees when President. So much for “Separation of Church and State.” I could go on, but you get the picture. This nation’s govt may not have been formulated with an official state religion in mind, but it was clearly formulated from Judeo-Christian principles by, in the main, Christian politicians who were fervent believers.

The reason you and I can agree that “immigrant” means “first generation immigrant” is precisely because following generations INTEGRATE. I don’t think you appreciate how unique this is in the world. As I pointed out previously, Europe in particular is having a horrible, horrible time with its non-Western immigrants. There, third and fourth generation immigrants are still not assimilated, don’t speak the language, and they all live on welfare. That’s why I make the distinction between first generation immigrants and other generation immigrants.

The great thing about the US is that the economic necessity/benefit of learning English is so great, immigrants don’t have to be told to learn English. If you watch Spanish language TV in the US (gee, what are the chances?), you’ll see that have the ads are for English language learning programs. Why would this be if they had no interest in learning English?

As for my immigrant colleagues in the technical field: You’re making a big mistake if you think learning how to program is the same thing as being “educated”. Ha ha! If only. As for my Russian friends, they all landed in the US cold, with zero understanding of English. They all speak it very well now, regardless of their educational level back in Russia.

And, oddly, no, there are few, if any, Chicagoans who attack the Polish immigrant community. I lived there for 20 years, and never heard a peep about it. Since I don’t think you can match my experience on this issue, well, dot dot dot.

I consider immigrants to be the first generation folks who arrive in country. There’s no such thing as second and third generation immigrants because they are born here. Therfore they can’t emigrate to some place they already are.

And regarding Chicago Pollacks, I wager if you look around, there’s plenty of people pissed about the Polish immigration problem in Chicago. You hear about Latinos because it’s less of a regional issue and more of a national issue.