# A Pitting of the good Christians of the American Family Association **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 1, 2014, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578 "2014-08-01T15:36:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/161 "2014-08-05T03:37:10Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Not so, that has not been my point, others concentrate on the religious aspect or if we should strip the 501 status. But I do concentrate on where the heck this came from, and the fact that hate groups lied to get their way (and that republicans are listening to those groups) can not be detached from the big picture. > That really sounds like just finding a religious reason to shut up that not even a Quaker would go for, at the sight of hypocrisy and injustice one has to stand up to. I’m talking about the OP. Just saying that if you accuse Christians of being hypocrites, it helps if you aren’t being a hypocrite in the process. YMOV, because you agree with him politically. If you didn’t, you’d be making the same argument I am. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/162 "2014-08-05T04:00:01Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m talking about the OP. Just saying that if you accuse Christians of being hypocrites, it helps if you aren’t being a hypocrite in the process. YMOV, because you agree with him politically. If you didn’t, you’d be making the same argument I am. In the end the argument you are making is helping hate groups, just saying. [http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/21/us-news-ignores-racist-ties-and-history-of-nati/192755](http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/21/us-news-ignores-racist-ties-and-history-of-nati/192755) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/163 "2014-08-05T04:01:43Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > That’s not the context. The context is spiritual, not political/economic. > > **Galatians 3:27-29** > “27 **For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.** 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; **for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise**.” Virtually all the kids we are talking about are Christian too. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/164 "2014-08-05T04:42:31Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > The definition of “criminal” has nothing to do with age or background. > > [Criminal Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criminal) > \*1 : relating to, involving, or being a crime \ > 2 > : relating to crime or to the prosecution of suspects in a crime \ \ \* > > If you want to argue that we should assist such people in need, I can definitely agree. But the definition of “criminal” has nothing to do with age or background. The difficulty is that there is a technical definition and a colloquial definition. For the purposes of defining immigrants as illegal you rely on the technical definition under which the following statement holds 1. Anyone who breaks a law (such as an undocumented immigrant) is a criminal criminals Then there is the colloquial definition of criminal [(see definition 4](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criminal) which I notice you conveniently left out), and which is entirely based on morality. In fact (in spite of what Bricker might say) under this definition an act need not even break a law. “The amount they are charging for a soda at this concert is criminal!” Under this definition the following statement holds. 1. All criminals are bad people It is not the case that both statements are true for the same definition. But by shifting the understanding of what it means to be a criminal between the technical definition in the first statement and the colloquial understanding of the second statement you can by slight of hand Reach the following conclusion. 2. All undocumented immigrants are bad people The practice by those on the right of focusing on the word “illegal” is not out of a desire for technical correctness, but instead is clearly designed to promote this faulty line of reason in the listener. You will notice for example how those that call undocumented immigrants illegals fail to use that same term when referring to say Christian Missionaries in Saudi Arabia, or journalists in North Korea. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/165 "2014-08-05T04:53:51Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > That’s not the context. The context is spiritual, not political/economic. No shit. . ---
**Author:** ![sisu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@sisu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sisu)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/166 "2014-08-05T05:22:18Z")
Under the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (CRSR) it is only after they have been determined not to be genuine refugees that they become “illegal” aliens. A refugee has the right to be free from penalties pertaining to the illegality of their entry to or presence within a country, if it can be shown that they acted in good faith- that is, if the **refugee believes** that there was ample cause for their illegal entry/presence, i.e. to escape threats upon their life or freedom, and if they swiftly declare their presence. This right is protected in Article 31: "The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence. As has been said the use of the term illegal is designed to increase hatred/intolerance. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/167 "2014-08-05T05:37:16Z")
> [@sisu](#): > > … provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities… I heard that reported, but didn’t pause to wonder about it, that these kids were surrendering themselves immediately to whatever authority is at hand. Clearly, then, they are not like such persons as seek to evade detection long enough to get some work, make a few bucks for the people back home. For those people, getting caught and sent back is a bump in the road, part of the deal. For these kids, its a much more serious set of consequences if they are turned away, yet they declare themselves refugees _by their actions_, and more or less throw themselves on our mercy. Now, it is possible that the conditions are exaggerated, that the gang stresses they face are no more lethal than a dinner theater production of _West Side Story_. But the desperation of their risk taking testifies convincingly to the sincerity of their motive. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 9:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/168 "2014-08-05T09:44:52Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > The difficulty is that there is a technical definition and a colloquial definition. For the purposes of defining immigrants as illegal you rely on the technical definition under which the following statement holds > > 1. Anyone who breaks a law (such as an undocumented immigrant) is a criminal criminals > > Then there is the colloquial definition of criminal [(see definition 4](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criminal) which I notice you conveniently left out), and which is entirely based on morality. In fact (in spite of what Bricker might say) under this definition an act need not even break a law. “The amount they are charging for a soda at this concert is criminal!” Under this definition the following statement holds. > > 1. All criminals are bad people > It is not the case that both statements are true for the same definition. But by shifting the understanding of what it means to be a criminal between the technical definition in the first statement and the colloquial understanding of the second statement you can by slight of hand Reach the following conclusion. > > 2. All undocumented immigrants are bad people > The practice by those on the right of focusing on the word “illegal” is not out of a desire for technical correctness, but instead is clearly designed to promote this faulty line of reason in the listener. You will notice for example how those that call undocumented immigrants illegals fail to use that same term when referring to say Christian Missionaries in Saudi Arabia, or journalists in North Korea. Except that none of that confusion concerning “criminal” and it’s two definitions exists when using the phrase “illegal immigrant.” That statement is unambiguous: a person who violated the laws concerning immigration. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/169 "2014-08-05T09:51:02Z")
> [@sisu](#): > > Under the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (CRSR) it is only after they have been determined not to be genuine refugees that they become “illegal” aliens. > > A refugee has the right to be free from penalties pertaining to the illegality of their entry to or presence within a country, if it can be shown that they acted in good faith- that is, if the **refugee believes** that there was ample cause for their illegal entry/presence, i.e. to escape threats upon their life or freedom, and if they swiftly declare their presence. > > This right is protected in Article 31: > "The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence. > > As has been said the use of the term illegal is designed to increase hatred/intolerance. What, specifically, are these immigrants fleeing? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/170 "2014-08-05T11:00:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Er… this distinction IS my argument. Your argument is that members of the First Church Of I Don’t Wanna Go To Nam were excused (having shown sincerity of belief) without inquiry into whether they were actually following the stated tenets of a set of existing religious doctrines? 'Cause that’s not how I remember it. Now, if your argument is simply “public policy is based on unprincipled catering to whoever can pull enough strings”, fine. I’ve known this to be the case for some time, particularly where religious claims are concerned (as I recall, everything logically followed when I contemplated the irrationality of prison “religious accommodations” for people who wouldn’t be in prison in the first place if they’d followed the most elementary rules of their professed faith). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/171 "2014-08-05T11:26:58Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Your argument is that members of the First Church Of I Don’t Wanna Go To Nam were excused (having shown sincerity of belief) without inquiry into whether they were actually following the stated tenets of a set of existing religious doctrines? 'Cause that’s not how I remember it. What do you remember? Certainly some inquiry into sincerity of religious claims would allow looking at past conduct, and a finder of fact could certainly use a total lack of evidence as reason to deny a claim. But I think your memory is faulty. In _Gillette v. United States_, Gillette claimed exactly what you highlight above: a religious objection to the Vietnam War. > [@](#): > > …petitioner Gillette was convicted of wilful failure to report for induction into the armed forces. Gillette defended on the ground that he should have been ruled exempt from induction as a conscientious objector to war. In support of his unsuccessful request for classification as a conscientious objector, this petitioner had stated his willingness to participate in a war of national defense or a war sponsored by the United Nations as a peace-keeping measure, but declared his opposition to American military operations in Vietnam, which he characterized as “unjust.” Petitioner concluded that he could not in conscience enter and serve in the armed forces during the period of the Vietnam conflict. Gillette’s view of his duty to abstain from any involvement in a war seen as unjust is, in his words, “based on a humanist approach to religion,” and his personal decision concerning military service was guided by fundamental principles of conscience and deeply held views about the purpose and obligation of human existence. > . > . > . > . > …we conclude that it is supportable for Congress to have decided that the objector to all war—to all killing in war—has a claim that is distinct enough and intense enough to justify special status, while the objector to a particular war does not. > [@](#): > > Now, if your argument is simply “public policy is based on unprincipled catering to whoever can pull enough strings”, fine. I’ve known this to be the case for some time, particularly where religious claims are concerned (as I recall, everything logically followed when I contemplated the irrationality of prison “religious accommodations” for people who wouldn’t be in prison in the first place if they’d followed the most elementary rules of their professed faith). But we can certainly make room for the concept that, having been imprisoned, a person turns to religion anew (and sincerely) as a form of comfort. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/172 "2014-08-05T12:23:17Z")
> [@andros](#): > > QFT. > > Neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free man, neither male nor female…neither native nor immigrant. > > **Rufus** , my friend, I’m pretty sure I’ve said this before…but it’s probably been years and years. If more Christians were like you, I’d still be one. > > (I’ll see you at the opera tonight. I’ll hold your seat till you get there. After you get there you’re on your own.) Thanks, my friend. And now, on with the opera. Let joy be unconfined. Let there be dancing in the streets, drinking in the saloons, and necking in the parlor. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/173 "2014-08-05T14:53:14Z")
> [@Drunky\_Smurf](#): > > I agree. This is why we should forcibly move every human in the world to the USA. It’s what God wants. Wouldn’t it be easier to bring America to them? It is our destiny. Manifest, even. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/174 "2014-08-05T14:54:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Except that none of that confusion concerning “criminal” and it’s two definitions exists when using the phrase “illegal immigrant.” That statement is unambiguous: a person who violated the laws concerning immigration. It occurred to me during the night that “undocumented” has the virtue of _ **specifying** _ the nature of the illegality in question. Specificity is often a _good_ thing, no? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/175 "2014-08-05T15:01:51Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > It occurred to me during the night that “undocumented” has the virtue of _ **specifying** _ the nature of the illegality in question. > > Specificity is often a _good_ thing, no? That’s not exactly correct. The term is used to describe illegal immigrants even if they have been documented in some way – for example, a person subject to a deportation order has been documented by that order. If the term were applied only to persons without documentation, I could see it. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/176 "2014-08-05T15:28:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Except that none of that confusion concerning “criminal” and it’s two definitions exists when using the phrase “illegal immigrant.” That statement is unambiguous: a person who violated the laws concerning immigration. That just adds a step. 1. all illegal immigrants broke the law 2. all those who break the law are criminals 3. all criminals are immoral so 1. all undocumented immigrants are immoral Again I’m less bothered by the use of illegal immigrants than I am about just calling them Illegals, but the goal is still to imply that they are by nature immoral. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/177 "2014-08-05T16:06:26Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Let’s leave libertarians out of this. The “I” in that quote was a stand-in for “Christian”, although I am not a Christian, myself. IOW, there is nothing “Christian” about forcing other people to adhere to Christian beliefs. You do agree with that, don’t you? > > When someone comes here illegally, they’re an illegal immigrant. When someone robs a bank, we don’t say they made “an unauthorized withdrawal”. If you don’t want to bring libertarians into it, then don’t use their buzzwords. As was said earlier by myself and many others, the term “illegals” is used to stir up fear and hatred. Sometimes they’re called “illegal aliens” to drive home that “they’re not one of us”, perhaps to the point of being less than human. > [@Velocity](#): > > I have yet to hear someone present a convincing reason why they should be allowed to remain in the US. Because they had a high risk of dying in the crossfire of gang warfare in their countries of origin? Because it’s the American drug appetite that provides the fuel for the fires they are fleeing? [Let’s use Syrian refugees as a reference.](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26864485) Over a million have poured into Lebanon, a nation with much less wealth than the US. Over 600,000 into Jordan, over 500,000 into Turkey, over 200,000 into Iraq. Do people in these nations show up at the border and scream racial epithets at them? Do these nations have a political party that tries to stir up fear and hatred of these refugees? No. There’s a simple reason for that. They don’t have Teabaggers. These countries have much less room and much fewer resources than the US, but they’ve taken in these refugees without fucking whining about it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/178 "2014-08-05T16:07:02Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > That just adds a step. > > 1. all illegal immigrants broke the law > 2. all those who break the law are criminals > 3. all criminals are immoral > > so > > 1. all undocumented immigrants are immoral > > Again I’m less bothered by the use of illegal immigrants than I am about just calling them Illegals, but the goal is still to imply that they are by nature immoral. I agree with you that “illegals,” is not proper usage, but I don’t agree that “illegal immigrants,” has an impermissible inference attached to it. It’s true that there’s an automatic implication of immoral activity when we hear of a criminal act, but that’s because, in general (and contrary to an often-repeated refrain here at the SDMB) we do tend to associated following the law with morality and breaking the law with immorality. Still, there are plenty of individual instances where criminal acts are worn as badges of honor – being arrested for apartheid protests, for trespassing when the goal was to protest nuclear weapons, for unlawful assembly protesting Walmart labor conditions – all of these kinds of acts don’t suffer from quite the same infirmity. So I’d say the problem rests with the illegal immigrants, not those who use the phrase “illegal immigrants.” The conduct being described is clear; any moral repudiation is not achieved through trickery. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/179 "2014-08-05T16:17:51Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Because they had a high risk of dying in the crossfire of gang warfare in their countries of origin? Because it’s the American drug appetite that provides the fuel for the fires they are fleeing? > > [Let’s use Syrian refugees as a reference.](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26864485) > > Over a million have poured into Lebanon, a nation with much less wealth than the US. Over 600,000 into Jordan, over 500,000 into Turkey, over 200,000 into Iraq. Do people in these nations show up at the border and scream racial epithets at them? Do these nations have a political party that tries to stir up fear and hatred of these refugees? No. There’s a simple reason for that. They don’t have Teabaggers. These countries have much less room and much fewer resources than the US, but they’ve taken in these refugees without fucking whining about it. \*\*These \*\*are the people I was referring to. Not people who just want a better life in the US. > [@Velocity](#): > > some people who cross the border illegally are **human traffickers, drug smugglers, violent criminals, drug cartel members and the like. > I have yet to hear someone present a convincing reason why they should be allowed to remain in the US.** ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/180 "2014-08-05T16:22:01Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > \*\*These \*\*are the people I was referring to. Not people who just want a better life in the US. Fine, we agree that drug traffickers and murderers should be kept out. I don’t see anyone arguing on their behalf. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578.md?page=10)