Supreme Court: The Wall Can Go Foward...

[Sparko]

Great. Worrying about something often leads you to actually work the problem.

Let us know when you get to that point.

[Teallaura]

The Bible tells us to see the log in our own eyes, not in the eyes of others. What you are doing here is contrary to what the Bible teaches.

No, the passage teaches us to deal with our own issues first THEN help others with theirs.

[Sparko]

The Bible tells us to see the log in our own eyes, not in the eyes of others. What you are doing here is contrary to what the Bible teaches.

The purpose of the saying is to take care of your own problems before you worry about someone else's. Hint, hint.

[rogue06]

Why do you keep raising that issue? This is about whether this plan is moronic. Which it clearly is.

Regarding your comments. Imagine how horrible it must be back home, if you're willing to take those risks. I suspect that orphans living in these countries, things don't end well. But hey, straw-man.

Are you incapable of or just unwilling to understand?

If someone is legitimately fearing for their life to the point that they need to flee the country then when they crossed the border into Mexico they achieved their goal.

There they were being offered sanctuary. There they were still in a culture that was like their own and where everyone spoke the same language they spoke. There, if the situation at home changed, it would be incredibly easy to return -- if they wanted to.

But they rejected all that. They flatly rejected the offer of sanctuary -- which supposedly was their goal.

Instead they choose to continue on trekking through hostile, dangerous territories for thousands of miles after having already achieved their stated purpose. They subjected themselves and any children with them through many unnecessary hardships and dangers, if sanctuary and safety were, as they claimed, their goal.

That raises some very legitimate questions about their true motives since they clearly turned their nose up at what they said was all they wanted.

If you are still having trouble understanding any of this may I suggest reading slowly and maybe try doing so with comprehension

[Teallaura]

Are you incapable of or just unwilling to understand?

If someone is legitimately fearing for their life to the point that they need to flee the country then when they crossed the border into Mexico they achieved their goal.

There they were being offered sanctuary. There they were still in a culture that was like their own and where everyone spoke the same language they spoke. There, if the situation at home changed, it would be incredibly easy to return -- if they wanted to.

But they rejected all that. They flatly rejected the offer of sanctuary -- which supposedly was their goal.

Instead they choose to continue on trekking through hostile, dangerous territories for thousands of miles after having already achieved their stated purpose. They subjected themselves and any children with them through many unnecessary hardships and dangers, if sanctuary and safety were, as they claimed, their goal.

That raises some very legitimate questions about their true motives since they clearly turned their nose up at what they said was all they wanted.

If you are still having trouble understanding any of this may I suggest reading slowly and maybe try doing so with comprehension

No, no, Rogue - you have to put the main point in the first sentence - he can't read past that.

[Zara]

Are you incapable of or just unwilling to understand?

If someone is legitimately fearing for their life to the point that they need to flee the country then when they crossed the border into Mexico they achieved their goal.

This is fine. Them having to stay IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY to ask for asylum, is moronic.

However, it is not clear that some countries, Guatemala in particular, are capable of providing a safe place for someone to seek asylum. The country is extremely unstable.

[Teallaura]

This is fine. Them having to stay IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY to ask for asylum, is moronic.

However, it is not clear that some countries, Guatemala in particular, are capable of providing a safe place for someone to seek asylum. The country is extremely unstable.

No, this assertion is moronic. The majority of asylum seekers are NOT in immediate danger of life or limb and can safely apply in their own countries. Those that truly can't are a tiny minority (consulates and embassies CAN offer protection so yeah, tiny minority that would actually have to worry about the embassy being staked out) - and virtually none of the Guatemalans crossing the border would qualify as refugees.

[Sparko]

This is fine. Them having to stay IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY to ask for asylum, is moronic.

However, it is not clear that some countries, Guatemala in particular, are capable of providing a safe place for someone to seek asylum. The country is extremely unstable.

You seem to keep forgetting they are staying in their own country waiting for the caravans to build up. The caravans only come once or twice a year. So if they can sit there that long waiting for a caravan (even longer to save up the money to go on the caravan) then they can just as easily sit there waiting for their asylum application to be processed locally.

[rogue06]

This is fine. Them having to stay IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY to ask for asylum, is moronic.

However, it is not clear that some countries, Guatemala in particular, are capable of providing a safe place for someone to seek asylum. The country is extremely unstable.

I'm specifically talking about Mexico. You know, the country they have to pass through in order to reach the U.S.

They were the ones offering sanctuary to those claiming to be fleeing for their lives. They were the ones who had that offer flatly snubbed.

[Zara]

No, this assertion is moronic. The majority of asylum seekers are NOT in immediate danger of life or limb and can safely apply in their own countries. Those that truly can't are a tiny minority (consulates and embassies CAN offer protection so yeah, tiny minority that would actually have to worry about the embassy being staked out) - and virtually none of the Guatemalans crossing the border would qualify as refugees.

Have you seen me use the word genuine a number of times ? Why do you ignore that to continue to post your dumb comments about other types of migrants - this wasn't about them. I don't think the US should have open boarders. I made that clear a number of times. But you keep falling into your own strawman of what I say, because of your assumptions.

You're showing your self to be a real smarty.

[Mountain Man]

The Bible tells us to see the log in our own eyes, not in the eyes of others. What you are doing here is contrary to what the Bible teaches.

Jesus used the illustration to call out hypocrisy. The way you're interpreting it paradoxically suggests that Jesus was being hypocritical.

And this is why you really should stay in the car.

[Cow Poke]

Jesus used the illustration to call out hypocrisy. The way you're interpreting it paradoxically suggests that Jesus was being hypocritical.

And this is why you really should stay in the car.

I always love it when an atheist/agnostic tries to be speerchul or theolungical.

[Charles]

No, the passage teaches us to deal with our own issues first THEN help others with theirs.

Naeh... That is not quite right in my opinion. Here is what it says:

There is, obviously, a point made about how we should consider others' "issues" in the text. If I allow the text to talk to me as an individual, I am obviously told that I am the one who has most issues. I am also told that whatever issues I may point to that others deal with are minor compared to mine. So, it is not only telling me when to deal with my issues and when to deal with the issues others might have. It is also telling me a very important thing about how I should view theirs as minor in comparrison to my own.

There is a general sense of not judging and also not bragging in Matthew which is pointed out very clearly in Matthews 6:1:

The texts adress the reader as "you". If I am reading this as something actually said to me, then I am the "you" talked to. I am the one with the plank in my eye. I am the one who is not to brag. If I am reading "you" as "the others" the text is contradictory at best, completely ripped of the beauty and strong moral points it contains if I read it as adressed to me. If I read this as something that adresses me, it might change me for the better. The message of this is so very, very strong that I think it is very often missed not because it is complex but because it is so hard to deal with what it says to me and to every individual reading it as a text that adresses him/her.

Christian philosopher Soren Kierkegaard made the point that we (perhaps I should be writing "I") often tend to find al kinds of subjective excuses for ourselves but tend to be more objective when passing judgment on others. If I did something wrong I will quickly excuse myself. I am ususally a good person and in this context there was something that caused me to do what I would ususally not do. I am somehow finding excuses. If others do something wrong I will tend to just point out that it is objectively wrong, plain and simple, and I will not be looking for any excuses. Soren Kierkegaard makes the point I should do this the other way around. I should not be making excuses for myself. I should be making excuses for the others (within fair constraints of course and not meaning I cannot try to help or point out that something is wrong. Doing so can be helpful).

[Zara]

I'm specifically talking about Mexico. You know, the country they have to pass through in order to reach the U.S.

They were the ones offering sanctuary to those claiming to be fleeing for their lives. They were the ones who had that offer flatly snubbed.

People aren't allowed to get through to Mexico - Trump signed some kind of deal with Guatemala under the threat of sanctions or whatever. Guatemala is not a safe country for genuine refugees to seek asylum - or for that matter, pretty much anyone to even live.

[Sparko]

People aren't allowed to get through to Mexico - Trump signed some kind of deal with Guatemala under the threat of sanctions or whatever. Guatemala is not a safe country for genuine refugees to seek asylum - or for that matter, pretty much anyone to even live.

Again, where do you think they stay while they are waiting months or years to join a caravan?