Originally posted by Cow Poke
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Separating immigrant families and imprisoning children
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Charles View PostOr perhaps I am protecting Christianity from those who like to call themselves Christian but in doing so actually misuse the title...
I agree with those who claim that the actions of evangelicals in this case has caused a such a great deal of harm to their credibility that it is hard to imagine how anyone from the outside could have done greater harm to them.
I am not a Christian but I still don't like to see it being used for justifying the unjust.
Let's start with that. Which of the posters said what, exactly, to back up your hysteria?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostCharles, Christianity has done just fine for 2,000 years without your [cough / sputter] "protection".
In your wildest dreams, Charles. In your dreams.
So, how bout making the case (not just irrational emotional false accusations) that anybody here is using their Christianity to "justify" "imprisoning children"?
Let's start with that. Which of the posters said what, exactly, to back up your hysteria?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Charles View PostI like that you insist that this must be about Trump vs. Obama or a question about me or other persons. The moral issue... Well, it seems you don't want to worry about that though it should be the main point for a Christian who cannot just assume that everything is OK if Obama did the same.That fact that you talk about the use of children seems a little inhuman in and of itself. I have not made statements about whether boarders should be open so again you imply something that is false.I have already said it is a practice I condemn no matter who did it. What more could you ask for? I did not post in here when Obama was a president. I am not going to spend more time on your this person versus that person game. I will not allow you to derail it even more from the moral issue. You have, however, been very good at showing that you insist on this focus, since the moral focus is one that you cannot really hold any high ground in.
Please tell me why you guys think Jesus is so concerned with what Obama did and how that allows you to take away focus from any moral issue you are confronted with. Because you constantly argue as if that is the case.Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 07-05-2018, 12:53 PM."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by Charles View PostI have never claimed they use it to justify imprisoning children
but to justify separating children from their parents.
How a Christian can support that under these conditions is beyond me.
You're avoiding the issue, Charles....
Here was my challenge....
So, how bout making the case (not just irrational emotional false accusations) that anybody here is using their Christianity to "justify" "imprisoning children"?
And, since we both apparently believe that "imprisoning the children" was just a steaming load of horsie poo on Starlight's part, let's change it to your terms....
Show where any poster was "using their Christianity" to justify... exactly what?
What is it to which you are so strenuously and emotionally objecting?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Charles View PostI have never claimed they use it to justify imprisoning children but to justify separating children from their parents. How a Christian can support that under these conditions is beyond me.
1) It is not good for a country to let just anyone cross its borders. There are limited resources. There are enemies of this country that would like to destroy. There are Felons that would like to get away from whatever government they are fleeing. There are Drug Cartel members that would like to ply their trade here. There are people making money off of trafficking adults and children through relatively lax borders.
2) It is not good for children to be incarcerated with parents in a criminal sense. If the parents (either real or traffickers posing as parents) deserve incarceration, the children should NOT be in jail with them. This is the law now, a good law in principle, unless the system can't properly track and maintain care for the children that are in this case victims of the law breaking parents.
3) The border security has been lax in the past. This is, in fact, tacitly supported by our government up to this point. Those 'illegals' do a lot of work in this country at very low cost. They make more than they could at home, businesses like farming,restaurants, and construction can do a lot more work for a lot less money. So the bottom line is a relatively porous border is helpful to the economy and businesses that need people that will work very hard for very little money (by American standards).
4) the lax security allowed for #3 above also lets in a large number of the sorts of folks mentioned in #1 above. So with the extra cheap labor also come druggies and murderers etc. This creates a lot of problems especially in the border states. But also in the major cities that are gang infested.
So on the good side, DT's administration wants to tighten up the borders to reduce #4, the influx of felons and druggies and gang members, and also to help reduce the potential for terrorists to find an easy foothold here.
But on the very bad side DT's ineptitude and lack of respect for people with actual knowledge about how all this works and general unwillingness to listen to or take advice, or even create an atmosphere where such advice can even be given, just marched off half cocked and tried to plug the holes without thinking about the fallout. And so the Good law in #2 takes effect as the bull in a china shop policy of incarcerating ANYONE that lands here illegally interacts with DT's turn them back at any cost policies at the legal entry points.
With the bottom line being that the poorest of the poor, desperate peoples of the world seeking asylum in the country whose reputation is the last bastion of freedom and the protector of the poor and downcast (just read the bronze plaque emblazoned poem "Colossus" on the pedestal on the Statue of Liberty) now throws them in prison and tears their children from their arms and more and more often loses the connection between them!
But the Christians supporting the policy are looking at some of the abuses of previous administrations (Republican and Democrat) that have created the porous borders and in effect letting their desire to fix those problems blind them to the impact DT's shoot from the hip responses on this special set of people that Christ himself warns us most sternly against offending.
They are just forgetting their responsibility to the poor in the process of trying not to let certain sorts of liberal philosophies that don't even recognize the good elements I pointed out above as 'good' from getting the upper hand.
It is a real problem trying to balance these issues in today's polarized, "the other side is always a true demon" sort of political world.
JimLast edited by oxmixmudd; 07-05-2018, 01:19 PM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostI have a hard time with it too ... but that is not to necessarily impune those Christians that do. Here are some of the issues:
1) It is not good for a country to let just anyone cross its borders. There are limited resources. There are enemies of this country that would like to destroy. There are Felons that would like to get away from whatever government they are fleeing. There are Drug Cartel members that would like to ply their trade here. There are people making money off of trafficking adults and children through relatively lax borders.
2) It is not good for children to be incarcerated with parents in a criminal sense. If the parents (either real or traffickers posing as parents) deserve incarceration, the children should NOT be in jail with them. This is the law now, a good law in principle, unless the system can't properly track and maintain care for the children that are in this case victims of the law breaking parents.
3) The border security has been lax in the past. This is, in fact, tacitly supported by our government up to this point. Those 'illegals' do a lot of work in this country at very low cost. They make more than they could at home, businesses like farming,restaurants, and construction can do a lot more work for a lot less money. So the bottom line is a relatively porous border is helpful to the economy and businesses that need people that will work very hard for very little money (by American standards).
4) the lax security allowed for #3 above also lets in a large number of the sorts of folks mentioned in #1 above. So with the extra cheap labor also come druggies and murderers etc. This creates a lot of problems especially in the border states. But also in the major cities that are gang infested.
So on the good side, DT's administration wants to tighten up the borders to reduce #4, the influx of felons and druggies and gang members, and also to help reduce the potential for terrorists to find an easy foothold here.
But on the very bad side DT's ineptitude and lack of respect for people with actual knowledge about how all this works and general unwillingness to listen to or take advice, or even create an atmosphere where such advice can even be given, just marched off half cocked and tried to plug the holes without thinking about the fallout. And so the Good law in #2 takes effect as the bull in a china shop policy of incarcerating ANYONE that lands here illegally interacts with DT's turn them back at any cost policies at the legal entry points.
With the bottom line being that the poorest of the poor, desperate peoples of the world seeking asylum in the country whose reputation is the last bastion of freedom and the protector of the poor and downcast (just read the bronze plaque emblazoned poem "Colossus" on the pedestal on the Statue of Liberty) now throws them in prison and tears their children from their arms and more and more often loses the connection between them!
But the Christians supporting the policy are looking at some of the abuses of previous administrations (Republican and Democrat) that have created the porous borders and in effect letting their desire to fix those problems blind them to the impact DT's shoot from the hip responses on this special set of people that Christ himself warns us most sternly against offending.
They are just forgetting their responsibility to the poor in the process of trying not to let certain sorts of liberal philosophies that don't even recognize the good elements I pointed out above as
'good' from getting the upper hand. It is a real problem trying to balance these issues in today's polarized, "the other side is always a true demon" sort of political world.
JimThe first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostBut that's the thread title, Charles! Maybe Starlight really overran the runway on that?
Is there NEVER a need to separate a child from their parents, Charles?
Under WHAT conditions?
You're avoiding the issue, Charles....
Here was my challenge....
So, how bout making the case (not just irrational emotional false accusations) that anybody here is using their Christianity to "justify" "imprisoning children"?
And, since we both apparently believe that "imprisoning the children" was just a steaming load of horsie poo on Starlight's part, let's change it to your terms....
Show where any poster was "using their Christianity" to justify... exactly what?
What is it to which you are so strenuously and emotionally objecting?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Charles View PostTake a look at this: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post553653 (it is this thread, yes,)
2) It would be a whole lot better if you would use the quote function, because it APPEARS you are indicating this post....
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostI think anybody pursuing this line of argument needs to first show where in Bible it says we should turn a blind eye to lawbreakers, because that's the crux of the matter. None of this is happening in a vacuum, and these people are suffering the consequences of their lawlessness. The Bible says that even one who steals to satisfy a need should pay restitution if caught, even to the point of losing everything he owns.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...31&version=ESV
Assuming this is the post you intended, please feel free to make your case.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostJim, I'm pretty much in agreement with your whole schpiel, but I don't think it's helpful to repeat the "now throws them in prison and tears their children from their arms" rhetoric. That really, to me, dehumanizes the good people who work the border, many of whom are parents themselves, and don't take pleasure in enforcing whatever policies they are sworn to enforce, and don't necessarily do it with malice or contempt.
And I still think it is just wrong to take asylum seekers and treat them like criminals first. The best way to avoid that is don't turn people away at the legal entry points if they ask for asylum. And find some way to protect their entry into those legal access points. Give them the chance to present their case. But let them know they will be safe during the process and that they don't need to try to sneak in. That may not be possible if the Mexican side does not provide protection on their end. But that is another reason not to prosecute them first. If they will be accosted by cartel members or Mexican authorities trying to get through the legal ports, the only thing they have available is stealth entry. So take that into account. IF you've got someone that's obviously a bad dude, prosecute him up front like we are. But if it's obviously a desperate family fleeing almost certain death, give them a break.
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostGood point. But if you look at the context, I am speaking of the country itself, which is in large part its laws and policies. So I think I was being fair to the individual workers who may (or may not) have issues of conscience under the DT adminstration's policies. At some point, the reality is there is a line that is crossed and the workers themselves must take a stand or they become culpable. "I was just following orders" won't fly in a true moral crises. Are we there yet - perhaps not. But we have children that have been taken from their parents and not returned even though the parents have been deported. Reports so far don't show anything purposefully or systemically horrific in the care of the children (if one discounts the shock of the forced separation itself), but as the numbers grow and the resources for proper care dwindle, its gonna happen. Then what?
If it were, indeed, a physical "tearing the child out of the parents' arms", I suspect there'd be a much bigger outcry from the immigration and border people who were required to do that.
And I still think it is just wrong to take asylum seekers and treat them like criminals first.
The best way to avoid that is don't turn people away at the legal entry points if they ask for asylum. And find some way to protect their entry into those legal access points. Give them the chance to present their case. But let them know they will be safe during the process and that they don't need to try to sneak in. That may not be possible if the Mexican side does not provide protection on their end. But that is another reason not to prosecute them first. If they will be accosted by cartel members or Mexican authorities trying to get through the legal ports, the only thing they have available is stealth entry. So take that into account. IF you've got someone that's obviously a bad dude, prosecute him up front like we are. But if it's obviously a desperate family fleeing almost certain death, give them a break.
JimThe first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostYes, Obama separated families at the border, too
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/pol...213525764.html
Besides which the argument being presented that "Obama was just as bad as Trump, so there" (stamped foot) is childish...apart from being innaccurate.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostI agree, Tazz is wrong here. The religious right never did hold a high moral ground so they couldn't have lost it. They just continually expose the farce of their personal faith, that's all.
But, I think we struck a nerve Jim, don't you?:
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostBut, I think we struck a nerve Jim, don't you?:...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
I HATE what's going on on the border. What I hate just as much is the fact that BOTH sides seem to be more interested in making it a campaign issue than actually solving the problem. And YOU, sir, are using this issue to justify your bigotry against Christians.
It seems that 3,000 children have been separated but, with typically monumental incompetence, it is still trying to figure out exactly which ones had parents taken away and who belongs to whom. It would be funny if it weren't so terribly traumatic for the frightened children, who may never recover, and their distraught mothers.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by carpedm9587, Today, 09:17 AM
|
12 responses
64 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Terraceth
Today, 02:46 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Today, 07:25 AM
|
76 responses
311 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Slave4Christ
Today, 09:04 PM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 03:45 PM
|
25 responses
149 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 03:38 PM
|
||
Started by Sparko, Yesterday, 03:19 PM
|
21 responses
128 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by EvoUK
Today, 01:46 AM
|
||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 07:58 AM
|
26 responses
139 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 06:24 PM
|
Comment