A Pitting of the good Christians of the American Family Association

[Czarcasm]

@John_Mace

As I noted earlier, the quotes in the OP don’t seem to be referring to the children recently crossing the border, but to adults here illegally. Maybe this group wants to ship the kids back and maybe they don’t-- I think reasonable people can disagree about that policy. There certainly is moral hazard, at minimum, of keeping them here.

The OP Claims to be a Christian, and yet he’s not being very Christian wrt judging others. I seem to remember Jesus saying something along those lines. Judge not… casting the first stone…

I’m an atheist. Any rules against me pointing out the seeming hypocrisy?

[GIGObuster]

@John_Mace

As I noted earlier, the quotes in the OP don’t seem to be referring to the children recently crossing the border, but to adults here illegally. Maybe this group wants to ship the kids back and maybe they don’t-- I think reasonable people can disagree about that policy. There certainly is moral hazard, at minimum, of keeping them here.

As I noticed later, I linked to the article and it is clear that other nativist hate group was involved in misrepresenting information, an e-mail alert was used by many on their group to contact prejudiced powerful people and the ones that just follow partisanship to pressure congress to drop the vote of the bill that dealt with the humanitarian crisis in the border.

And then to add more onerous changes to it and to vote also for another draconian bill regarding all illegals (deport them all!).

They succeeded by using a lie.

@John_Mace

The OP Claims to be a Christian, and yet he’s not being very Christian wrt judging others. I seem to remember Jesus saying something along those lines. Judge not… casting the first stone…

Defending hate groups is something I would think a Christian would not do, but that is just me.

[kaylasdad99]

@Velocity

It’s a good question. Ideally this would be done on a case-by-case process of evaluation, but when we’re talking millions of illegal immigrants, that could be a logistical and procedural nightmare.

Agreed.

If only someone had the authority to appropriate sufficient funds to do it properly…

[elucidator]

…Judge not… casting the first stone…

The parable has another interpretation. The woman taken in adultery committed an act many of us would disapprove, but very few would think worthy of a death sentence, a particularly gruesome death sentence. But it was The Law! The Lord was confronted with a legalistic maneuver, an attempt to get him to renounce The Law, but he turned the tables on them.

The lesson puts mercy above the Law. And it was something the people already knew, because all he had to do was remind them.

[kaylasdad99]

@GIGObuster

And then to add more onerous changes to it and to vote also for another draconian bill regarding all illegals (deport them all!).

God DAMMIT, GIGObuster, quit normalizing that horrible usage! :mad:

[GIGObuster]

@kaylasdad99

God DAMMIT, GIGObuster, quit normalizing that horrible usage! :mad:

Ok, sorry, kaylasdad99. I will try not to do that anymore. I will have to say also that I have to thank you for all your efforts here in this thread.

[elucidator]

How about the “unwelcome”? Or maybe the “teeming refused”?

[Miller]

@Bricker

Fascinating.

Now returning to the issue of accuracy, have you seen people using inaccurate claims in service of their kindly and generous impulses?

Have you corrected the factual claims?

Have you any particular interest in fighting ignorance? Or would you just prefer to fight the ignorance offered up in support of goals you disfavor?

It’s interesting that you seized on the justification of the action as being “correct,” and bypassed the idea of the action itself being correct altogether.

[Bricker]

@Miller

It’s interesting that you seized on the justification of the action as being “correct,” and bypassed the idea of the action itself being correct altogether.

Yes, it’s fascinating.

[elucidator]

@Miller

It’s interesting that you seized on the justification of the action as being “correct,” and bypassed the idea of the action itself being correct altogether.

Woulda been a good ‘un, you can bet on that! My man Bricker is a justifyin’ mothafu…(Shut your mouth!)…But I’m talking about Bricker!?..(Then we can dig it!)…

[Steve_MB]

@Bricker

The government is perfectly able to determine whether a particular claimant is sincere – that is, if they are telling the truth about what they believe.

This is not the same as determining if their belief is legitimate Christianity, since the government is generally forbidden from expressing an opinion on the accuracy of a religious matter of faith.

Do you see the distinction?

Indeed. One of the differences is that being able to tell whether the claimant’s assertions are a sincere declaration of belief is not particularly helpful (a tax protestor’s sincere wish to avoid paying or a draft protestor’s sincere wish to stay home is not sufficient to excuse them), while being able to tell whether a claimant’s assertion reflects an actual established religious following is essential (public policy as codified into legislation makes some allowances to people with an actual belief system, but not to people who have cobbled together an ad hoc Potemkin village version thereof).

So, do you have an example of a distinction that bolsters your argument, rather than undercutting it like this one?

[Bricker]

@Steve_MB

Indeed. One of the differences is that being able to tell whether the claimant’s assertions are a sincere declaration of belief is not particularly helpful (a tax protestor’s sincere wish to avoid paying or a draft protestor’s sincere wish to stay home is not sufficient to excuse them), while being able to tell whether a claimant’s assertion reflects an actual established religious following is essential (public policy as codified into legislation makes some allowances to people with an actual belief system, but not to people who have cobbled together an ad hoc Potemkin village version thereof).

So, do you have an example of a distinction that bolsters your argument, rather than undercutting it like this one?

Er… this distinction IS my argument.

As applied to the AFA, it seems pretty clear their claims are well within the admittedly broad reach of the Christian experience. Indeed, stack them next to Westboro Baptist and they look positively saintly.

[John_Mace]

@GIGObuster

Defending hate groups is something I would think a Christian would not do, but that is just me.

False dichotomy. RTF needn’t defend anyone, but if he’s a Christian, he should not be judging them either. Not from a religious standpoint.

[elucidator]

Well, heck, John, doesn’t mean you can’t give them a scolding! Sure, cracking open their heads with rocks is right out!, but still…

[GIGObuster]

@John_Mace

False dichotomy.

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.

@John_Mace

RTF needn’t defend anyone, but if he’s a Christian, he should not be judging them either. Not from a religious standpoint.

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.

[Bricker]

@John_Mace

False dichotomy. RTF needn’t defend anyone, but if he’s a Christian, he should not be judging them either. Not from a religious standpoint.

Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? Do you not know that we will judge angels? (1 Cor 6:2-3)

“If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath so that the Law of Moses will not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made an entire man well on the Sabbath? Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” (Luke 7:24)

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? Do you not know that we will judge angels? (1 Cor 6:2-3)

“If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath so that the Law of Moses will not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made an entire man well on the Sabbath? Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” (Luke 7:24)

And platitudes like that made in a context to avoid dealing with the lying and hypocrisy of hate groups is one of the reasons why I stopped being so religious.

(There was a time I was an atheist, but I have mellowed out and I’m now mostly a Deist with agnostic leanings.)

[sisu]

@Bricker

What are the key factors that distinguish an immigrant from a refugee?

All refugees are immigrants but not all immigrants are refugees.

Refugees are escaping immediate harm (war, persecution, natural disasters etc) that is what makes them a separate category.

[andros]

@RTFirefly

Who said anything about immigration?
*
When wilt thou save the people, O God of mercy, when?
The people, Lord, the people, not thrones and crowns, but men?*

What do we, as Christians, have to do with nations? Other than to use our presence in one or another of them as a means of seeking justice for all persons?

It seems that some of my allegedly fellow Christians are using national boundaries as an excuse to say, “fuck those children.”

Tell me, do you see them advocating some more creative and loving alternative than just turning these kids away at the border, or sending them back to whatever circumstances impelled them to take the risks they did to get here? Because I’m not seeing it.

I’m certainly open to one if they’ve got one. But I’m not hearing a hint of that.

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.)

[Velocity]

@andros

QFT.

Neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free man, neither male nor female…neither native nor immigrant.

That’s not the context. The context is spiritual, not political/economic.

Galatians 3:27-29
“27For 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.”