NYT - Trump Administration Considers a Drastic Cut in Refugees Allowed to Enter

[Sam]

As government policy? No.

This continues to be an obvious red herring. The government policy relates to how many refugees can be admitted per year. Y'all are trying to treat it like a policy limiting individual actions, like how many beers can be bought on Sunday.

That would require a system of free movement, which the government doesn't allow. So the "as a government policy" line doesn't remotely work.

--Sam

[Sparko]

My view is that Scripture turns us toward justice and the prohibitions against homosexual activity in Hebrew Scriptures are part of purity codes to separate Israelites from their pagan neighbors. I think this is reflected in Paul's writings, as well. Others disagree. I also think that the government lacks any ethical foundation to prohibit these unions outside of a strict religious code. Conversely, the call to care for and welcome vulnerable refugees needs no explicit religious law -- it is a matter of universal morality, such that no one could reasonably argue against the principle.

But those who disagree put themselves into a place where they cannot then turn around and shrug off the much more prevalent issue of care for the poor, the vulnerable, and the alien. It's they who have built an iron box around the Law yet want to disregard it as immaterial to their political behavior.

--Sam

So you want to pick and choose your moral laws from the OT?

What about the passages where God has the Israelites kill every alien man, woman and child and take their land and possessions? That seems pretty parallel with the verses you are quoting about welcoming aliens. Why don't we just invade Mexico and take everything after killing them all? That sounds biblical and it is talking about aliens and alien lands.

[Sam]

No, I don't. The only relevant example is Galilee and Egypt, which wasn't "another land".

Work with the facts at hand, Sam.

Galilee and Egypt were, in fact, two different lands. One being a place in Judea, one being, well, Egypt.

Christ was a refugee who could not stay in His own land for fear of death. He was able to emigrate and find safety in a different land. It's shameful to try and parse that out in such a way that refugees in similar danger can be excluded.

--Sam

[Sam]

This quite clearly does not address what I wrote.

So you want to pick and choose your moral laws from the OT?

What about the passages where God has the Israelites kill every alien man, woman and child and take their land and possessions? That seems pretty parallel with the verses you are quoting about welcoming aliens. Why don't we just invade Mexico and take everything after killing them all? That sounds biblical and it is talking about aliens and alien lands.

[Sparko]

This quite clearly does not address what I wrote.

Nice dodge. Try again.

Why should we be obligated to welcome all aliens because God told the Israelites to do so (note he also had conditions, not just welcome anyone), but we should not just invade the aliens and kill them all like the Hebrews were told to do?

[Sam]

Nice dodge. Try again.

Why should we be obligated to welcome all aliens because God told the Israelites to do so (note he also had conditions, not just welcome anyone), but we should not just invade the aliens and kill them all like the Hebrews were told to do?

Have you really lost this much of your faith if you're going to mimic a lazy atheist's charge against Christian principles? Do you really want to argue, as a Christian, that the command to love and welcome the weak and desperate is on par with the conquest of Caanan?

--Sam

[Sparko]

Have you really lost this much of your faith if you're going to mimic a lazy atheist's charge against Christian principles? Do you really want to argue, as a Christian, that the command to love and welcome the weak and desperate is on par with the conquest of Caanan?

--Sam

Stop dodging. If you want to hold us to certain old testament rules given to Israelites regarding aliens, why not all of them? It is a legitimate question.

The aliens that were welcomed had to meet certain criteria, and they were not welcomed en masse. But as individuals, who would LEGALLY be in the land of the Israelites. They had to conform to the Israelites religion and culture. If a mass of aliens tried to come in they would be considered invaders and driven out or killed. You know this.

And the Israelites didn't put up with enemies around them either. They would conquer them and kill them. But you want to ignore all that and only accept a salad bar version, where you pick the verses you like and try to hold our nose to them, while ignoring those you don't like.

[seer]

My view is that Scripture turns us toward justice and the prohibitions against homosexual activity in Hebrew Scriptures are part of purity codes to separate Israelites from their pagan neighbors. I think this is reflected in Paul's writings, as well. Others disagree. I also think that the government lacks any ethical foundation to prohibit these unions outside of a strict religious code. Conversely, the call to care for and welcome vulnerable refugees needs no explicit religious law -- it is a matter of universal morality, such that no one could reasonably argue against the principle.

But those who disagree put themselves into a place where they cannot then turn around and shrug off the much more prevalent issue of care for the poor, the vulnerable, and the alien. It's they who have built an iron box around the Law yet want to disregard it as immaterial to their political behavior.

--Sam

So all you are doing Sam is selectively choosing passages that you agree with. There were only about 22 behaviors in the OT that incurred the death penalty. Homosexuality was one of them, treating the stranger badly was not. So according to God homosexual behavior was a much more egregious offence than not treating the alien well. Which did not even call for a penalty. They are not even in the same ball park, according to God.

[Esther]

Do you really want to argue, as a Christian, that the command to love and welcome the weak and desperate is on par with the conquest of Caanan?

--Sam

I do not know all the details involved in the separation of church and state, but only enough to know that there should be a separation. As far as the refugees are concerned, charity should start at home (the needs of the legal inhabitants of the country should come first). An illegal alien is one that is not legally allowed in a country and therefore guilty of a crime. Much like a burglar breaking into someone's home, just on a larger scale. As Christians we render unto God what is God's and unto our government what is theirs.

[Sam]

I do not know all the details involved in the separation of church and state, but only enough to know that there should be a separation. As far as the refugees are concerned, charity should start at home (the needs of the legal inhabitants of the country should come first). An illegal alien is one that is not legally allowed in a country and therefore guilty of a crime. Much like a burglar breaking into someone's home, just on a larger scale. As Christians we render unto God what is God's and unto our government what is theirs.

Hello and welcome, Ester,

I'm not aware of any Scriptural or moral directive that tells us charity should start at home; it very often does, of course, and people are good to pursue local charity. But nothing in Scripture or Christian belief tells us to satisfy the needs of our "own" before giving aid to "the other". Indeed, we see them combined in Scripture as a unified group.

Illegal immigration isn't really an issue here, since we're talking about the refugee program run by USCIS; these are refugees from countries and regions who apply for resettlement, go through various screening processes and interviews, and are placed in USA through organizations that partner with USCIS.

Where illegal immigration involves a crime, it's not in residency: it's not a crime to reside in USA without documentation. Illegal border crossing is a crime but it's typically a misdemeanor offense, like jaywalking in most places. It was, in fact, a civil infraction before a white supremacist successfully led a movement to change it into a criminal offense.

--Sam

[KingsGambit]

So you want to pick and choose your moral laws from the OT?

What about the passages where God has the Israelites kill every alien man, woman and child and take their land and possessions? That seems pretty parallel with the verses you are quoting about welcoming aliens. Why don't we just invade Mexico and take everything after killing them all? That sounds biblical and it is talking about aliens and alien lands.

I think I ultimately agree more with you than Sam here but this isn't a good analogy because God instructed the Israelites to kill Canaanites on specific occasions. There was no blanket rule that all foreigners had to be killed at all time, the way the Levitical laws were blanket laws.

I do think that the US has an obligation to allow refugees from Central American countries because its military has destablilized the region in the course of unsuccessfully fighting the War on Drugs, though.

[KingsGambit]

Hello and welcome, Ester,

I'm not aware of any Scriptural or moral directive that tells us charity should start at home; it very often does, of course, and people are good to pursue local charity.

It's not an exact parallel but I think that sort of principle can be deduced from 1 Timothy 5:8.

[oxmixmudd]

I think I ultimately agree more with you than Sam here but this isn't a good analogy because God instructed the Israelites to kill Canaanites on specific occasions. There was no blanket rule that all foreigners had to be killed at all time, the way the Levitical laws were blanket laws.

I do think that the US has an obligation to allow refugees from Central American countries because its military has destablilized the region in the course of unsuccessfully fighting the War on Drugs, though.

I don't think it too hard to understand the difference between the two commands, and to deduce that any commands to kill the Canaanites have little if any application at all to us in the present day.

Jim

[Sam]

I think I ultimately agree more with you than Sam here but this isn't a good analogy because God instructed the Israelites to kill Canaanites on specific occasions. There was no blanket rule that all foreigners had to be killed at all time, the way the Levitical laws were blanket laws.

I do think that the US has an obligation to allow refugees from Central American countries because its military has destablilized the region in the course of unsuccessfully fighting the War on Drugs, though.

It would be difficult to point to region with high refugee rates that the US didn't have a hand in destabilizing. The Syrian refugee crisis, for instance, probably would not happened without the Iraq War.

--Sam

[Sam]

It's not an exact parallel but I think that sort of principle can be deduced from 1 Timothy 5:8.

But I don't think people use the term "charity" in that way, referring to relatives or close kin. What Ester is talking about seems along the lines of "We should take care of our homeless veterans before spending money on illegal aliens". It's a false dichotomy, in any sense, but the charity in question is referring to citizens and residents, not kin.

--Sam