Yes, we did hear it. And that is why the question of what the book that he is quoting is all about is relevant.
If he feels it is relevant to justify hateful practices with a bible quote, then it is more than fair game to challenge the assertion that the bible describes a religion based on hate.
If that’s what christians want to go for, and accept that their religion is a justification for hatred, then that’s a change that they can make, but they need to stop virtue signalling by talking about being a “Good Christian man”, as what they are defining as a good christian is a terrible human.
Eh. We’re not a theocracy, and thank goodness for that. Feel free to encourage that if you think it’s useful. I’ve said all I care to on the subject, at least in this thread.
Right, we are not a theocracy, which is why criticism should be levied at the Attorney General of the United States of America using a bible quote to justify his actions, rather than at posters on a message board who point out the bible isn’t meant to be used that way.
The ones who are encouraging the theocracy are the ones who are using it to justify their hate.
The funny thing is really seeing that you did not read the thread then. It was Sessions who pulled the religion card and he got many to point out how off base he was, as shown in post #9.
My apologies for the error, and thanks for the correction. The confinement these children face, however, is real, even if their confinement does not consist of metal bars; everything else in my post, as far as I know, is accurate, and my question remains.
Is separating toddlers from their parents in a way that will likely cause permanent psychological damage, housing these children in repurposed Walmarts and desert tent prisons, a morally defensible response to illegal immigration? Is it a morally defensible way to pressure political opponents into capitulation? Is it a morally defensible way to terrorize parents into following the law?
I think the answer to all three questions is a “What the fuck? NO!”
Happy fucking Father’s Day, a day when my government tears children away from their fathers.
Do you think that because some pictures out there are not of the children being currently detained, that that means that the children are not being kept in cages?
It is sometimes the case that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, but not necessarily when the evidence is being intentionally prevented from getting out.
Yeah, there is no need to go for out of date images, the real ones are not with cages, but it is practically a jail anyhow. At least there was entertainment then and now, I guess…
One has to wonder still what happened to kids like ones being taken away from breast feeding mothers.
Even if the conditions were the best we could manage, and the caregivers the most human and intelligent people we have…it would still be traumatic and hurtful. Even Mother Theresa isn’t Mom.
I think they’re panicking. The whole purpose is deterrence, to stop or at least stanch the flow from Central America, a flow that is likely to get worse as the situation gets worse, and the least bit of humane tolerance will only give hope to the desperate.
And maybe there is no “good solution”. But there has to be a better one.
This isn’t an R or D issue: It’s a basic moral issue. Everybody should be asking their congressional representatives one question: Are you for or against breaking up families? Against it they can stay; for it, they can apply for unemployment in their home state. Also, it would probably save the gov’t (you and me) a whole lot of money to house families together at one facility. Using these kids as a lever to get money to build THE WALL is outrageous.
I truly believe that those for this have convinced themselves that these are really non-people. They don’t speak our language, they don’t look like us, they don’t truly feel things like we do. And so we (gov’t) can do whatever they want with them, because they really aren’t people like us
He wasn’t allowed to take pictures, but Senator Merkley reported that he saw hundreds of children in chain-link enclosures that I think can reasonably be described as “cages”.
We’re not a theocracy. We just have a substantial number of people, including the white house and major figures on the christian right, reaching to the bible to try to explain why this is somehow okay. And if a person’s read of the bible is “yeah, Jesus would be fine with this”, then they’re probably either lying to you to make a political point, or Andrea Yates 2.0. Asking the people who try to excuse their fucking hideous political views with their holy book to actually read their holy book is not unreasonable.
Yeah, no middle ground whatsoever between waving them in, and breaking up families. You’ve lost contact with logic as well as morality.
It would certainly be a good deal less inhumane, in a “not as completely goddamn horrible, though still pretty nasty” way, to lock up 4-5 families in a cage, where the kids aren’t denied the presence of their parents and the emotional succor that provides them, than to take away the kids and lock 20 of them up in a cage.
As the article indicates, the idea here is to scare relatives already here illegally from coming forward to claim the kids, or catch them and deport them when they do come forward.
Screw the kids, the important thing is to deport wetbacks, even if it means keeping kids incarcerated.
When the Dems regain control of things, we’re gonna need the equivalent of the Nuremberg trials. May everyone associated with these policies die of old age in prison.