Kids In Cages...

[Cow Poke]

Actually that happened in 2008 when we elected the "American Idol" president.

Who knew he would end up being seen by the current Democrat field as a right wing extremist?

[rogue06]

Why does everything have to be about ME?

Now, you know that isn't true.




Only the bad stuff is about you.

[rogue06]

Who knew he would end up being seen by the current Democrat field as a right wing extremist?

That's gotta be bittersweet for him

[Adrift]

Interesting points given by Sam Kim in Christianity Today in the article Are We Morally Distressed by What is Taking Place on Our Border?:

Jesus was a baby born in the Middle East who became a refugee in Africa because of the rage of a mad king. As a migrant who took shelter in a foreign country, he understood the ambivalence of living in the shadows. I can’t think of a better way of lifting Jesus high than saving refugees who are in peril.

The analogy is a bit strained. Both Palestine and Egypt were Roman provinces. It'd be like someone moving from Puerto Rico to New York, which they're legally allowed to do.

No matter where we lean politically or how we’ve been informed, the majority of those coming to the southern border today are women and children legally seeking asylum and protection from violence.

I'd like to see some numbers on this. My brother who is in the Border Patrol claims that the majority who cross illegally are NOT seeking asylum, and the majority of those who do, have no legal claim. It's just something they've been told to say in the hopes that they'll get to stick around and get lost in the system.

A recent study by Lifeway Research reveals that the Bible only influences one in ten evangelicals on immigration (10 percent), and at 0.2 percent the local church’s influence in the matter is five times less than that. The study concludes that the secular media, at 16 percent, has more influence on evangelicals on the issue of immigration than the Bible and the local church combined! American evangelicals appear to be more heavily influenced by a cultural and pagan view of immigration than one that is biblical.

Strange that the author decided to focus in on "evangelical" Christians. Undoubtedly, most Americans, regardless of religious or non-religious background, will admit that the secular media has a heavier influence than the Bible when it comes to matters of national interest.

Christian apologist Os Guinness asserts that when we look at evangelicalism today, we find the world and the spirit of the age are more dominant than the Word and Spirit of God. The church in the United States is strong numerically, but weak spiritually, because it is worldly. Churches in America are both in the world and of the world; and, as a result, is in a condition of profound cultural captivity.

Os Guinness is a strange apologist for the article writer to quote seeing as Guinness seemed sympathetic to Trump's ban on certain Muslim nations, and has previously stated that he believes that Europe, who condemns the US' policies on immigration, is only just now struggling with the issues that follow open borders that the US has had to contend with for 200 years, and has mostly gotten right.

[Cow Poke]

That's gotta be bittersweet for him

He's gotta feel vindicated that he was a "centrist", after all, but, yeah.... that his peeps have turned on him so.... that's just RACIST!!!

[Teallaura]

Asylum remains something a country of good conscience will consider. I am surprised a Christian would make such a sweeping statement. Perhaps the parable of the Good Samaritan should be reviewed?

Meh...

If I don't take the personal attacks too seriously - then it would be silly/inconsistent of me to take the personal kudos all that seriously. It's a forum. People say stuff.

Just teasin'.

[Teallaura]

Asylum remains something a country of good conscience will consider. I am surprised a Christian would make such a sweeping statement. Perhaps the parable of the Good Samaritan should be reviewed?

I'd recommend blaming it ALL on the multiquote feature.


Psst...I've never actually used that feature myself...

We know.

[carpedm9587]

Actually that happened in 2008 when we elected the "American Idol" president.

I don't recall Obama ever being on "American Idol" or any other reality TV show.

The same cannot be said of the trolling buffoon currently occupying that office.

[carpedm9587]

Who knew he would end up being seen by the current Democrat field as a right wing extremist?

No hyperbole there...

[Charles]

The analogy is a bit strained. Both Palestine and Egypt were Roman provinces. It'd be like someone moving from Puerto Rico to New York, which they're legally allowed to do.

And what is your point in pointing to that? I would guess we should treat refugees and the least of these based on their needs and not on their nation? I don't remember any talking about "the least of these unless they are from China, a muslim country or other places that it suits you to dislike."

I'd like to see some numbers on this. My brother who is in the Border Patrol claims that the majority who cross illegally are NOT seeking asylum, and the majority of those who do, have no legal claim. It's just something they've been told to say in the hopes that they'll get to stick around and get lost in the system.

I think you missed what he talked about. He says: "the majority of those coming to the southern border today are women and children legally seeking asylum and protection from violence." You do not adress those. I would like to see the numbers as well, but what what you talk about would be other numbers than the ones he is talking about.

Strange that the author decided to focus in on "evangelical" Christians. Undoubtedly, most Americans, regardless of religious or non-religious background, will admit that the secular media has a heavier influence than the Bible when it comes to matters of national interest.

I certainly hope you are wrong about that. I will agree that we get our information from the media. How we evaluate what is morally right or wrong when it comes to putting kids in cages or other absurdities is hopefully mainly determined by our values and not by whatever the media tend to focus on. Of course media will influence our values as well but the main source should be somehting much stronger if you don't want to be guided by whatever popular trend or idea that might come around at any given point in time.

Os Guinness is a strange apologist for the article writer to quote seeing as Guinness seemed sympathetic to Trump's ban on certain Muslim nations, and has previously stated that he believes that Europe, who condemns the US' policies on immigration, is only just now struggling with the issues that follow open borders that the US has had to contend with for 200 years, and has mostly gotten right.

And by pointing to that you seemingly seem to think that you do not need to adress his point because you can point to an area in which he was wrong? If that is not what you believe then why did you focus on the person instead of his point made in a diffenrent context?

[Adrift]

And what is your point in pointing to that? I would guess we should treat refugees and the least of these based on their needs and not on their nation? I don't remember any talking about "the least of these unless they are from China, a muslim country or other places that it suits you to dislike."

The point in pointing that out, as I said, is to show that the analogy is strained. It wasn't illegal for Jesus' family to move from location A to location B. And of course, they didn't stay at location B, they went back to location A. This isn't really like the border issue. The border issue sees hundreds of thousands of people moving from location A to location B illegally, with no intention of going back to location A. Matthew 25 is a great bit of scripture. It's good to know that an Agnostic has such reverence for it. Perhaps it'll motivate you to investigate Christ's words and take them seriously enough to follow him. Till you take Jesus seriously, using his words as a bludgeon against Christians to make them concede your argument seems unwise. As much as Christians would love to alleviate every need everywhere in the world, we can't, and we won't. While I'm personally sympathetic to the concept of open borders, there are practical reason why nations don't have them, and why most nations have much stricter laws on immigration than the US does. We would LOVE to do all we can for "the least of these," but Christ understood this call in practical terms. He didn't mean Christians to completely bankrupt themselves today so that they weren't a help to anyone tomorrow. He wasn't calling for open borders. Nor was he calling for people to help every person who claimed asylum whether they actually needed it or not. Christ tells his followers to be as gentle as doves, but also wise as serpents. And, while I notice you won't tell us what nation you originate from so we can see how much your people do for "the least of these", Americans do more than their fair share. This nation DOES grant asylum seekers entry into the nation. We currently grant over 20,000 asylum seekers entry into the nation a year! America is also one of the greatest givers of humanitarian and foreign aid in the world. And Christians in America are one of the greatest private givers.

I think you missed what he talked about. He says: "the majority of those coming to the southern border today are women and children legally seeking asylum and protection from violence." You do not adress those. I would like to see the numbers as well, but what what you talk about would be other numbers than the ones he is talking about.

I did address that. I said that my brother who is in the Border Patrol claims that this is wrong. The majority of those coming to the southern border are NOT seeking asylum, and that most of those who do seek asylum do not remotely qualify. They're told to ask for asylum because they think it will tie up the courts, take forever to process, and allow them illegal entry when they never arrive for their court date.

I certainly hope you are wrong about that.

It seems convenient that you're all rah-rah over Biblical influence when you think it might align with your own worldview, but join arguments against it when not.

I will agree that we get our information from the media. How we evaluate what is morally right or wrong when it comes to putting kids in cages or other absurdities is hopefully mainly determined by our values and not by whatever the media tend to focus on. Of course media will influence our values as well but the main source should be somehting much stronger if you don't want to be guided by whatever popular trend or idea that might come around at any given point in time.

I never said that the media has the greatest influence on Christians when it comes to matters of national interest, I said that it likely has a greater influence than the Bible. All manner of factors will drive one's opinions about topics that involve matters of national interest, and in this case, the Bible simply has very little to say to Christians on the subject, specifically the subject of allowing non-citizens to move illegally across national borders. The Old Testament had very strict rules about how foreigners might enter the nation and become citizens, and what is expected of them once they become citizens, but that was under a divine theocracy, and we obviously don't expect the same sorts of rules to apply to foreigners in a secular nation. That Americans offer the charity, aid, and refuge for as many people as we do comes down to a complex rationalization between our environment, ethics, resources, and the like. Seeing children in cages is heartbreaking, of course. No one except the coldest person wants to see that, but there is a back story there. There is a method behind the apparent madness. Americans aren't just locking up children because they hate foreigners. That's an emotional argument that ignores the greater context, which includes the fact that "chain-link enclosures inside border facilities where migrants have been temporarily housed, separated by sex and age — were built and used by the Obama administration."¹ And that's not to blame Obama. Obama's administration seemed to also have good reason to separate by sex and age. While I don't think it's incumbent on the government to bend to political talking points where each side attempts to win victories through rhetoric like "kids in cages," I think it'd be a dandy idea to give illegal immigrants a more comfortable setting while they await either trial for asylum or deportation. But first, let's move pass the emotional arguments, and see things for what they really are.

All of this as far as my original reply is neither here nor there though. What I wanted to know is why Christian Evangelicals were signaled out in this article? Roman Catholics make up the greatest number of Christian members by denomination. Are we to believe that the Bible has a greater influence than the secular media on the topic of illegal immigration to Roman Catholics? That seems unlikely. So why are Evangelicals pointed out as though they ought to be the exception? Greater still are the Religious None's (those who are unaffiliated with any particular religion) who outnumber even Roman Catholics. Surely secular media has a greater influence than the Bible on them. If I had to guess, the reason the Lifeway Research study was used was as a transparent guilt trip to suggest that Evangelicals aren't living up to their Bibles, even though the Bible has little to say on matters as politically complicated as open borders and illegal immigration. It's easier to hit Evangelical Christians because they're a soft target, even though they arguably do more for the needy than any other demographic in the US.

And by pointing to that you seemingly seem to think that you do not need to adress his point because you can point to an area in which he was wrong? If that is not what you believe then why did you focus on the person instead of his point made in a diffenrent context?

I point it out because even Os Guinness realizes that the issue is far more complicated than his out of context soundbite. I can completely agree with Os Guinness' assessment and also suggest that it has little to do with the topic at hand.

[NorrinRadd]

It's always funny when infidels suddenly think the U.S. should be a theonomy -- but only partially, of course.

How about this: We'll give you your loosey-goosey "asylum" laws if you'll agree that adultery, fornication, and homosexuality will all be prosecuted as felonies?

[Sparko]

Rep. Mark Green: AOC is all wrong about border facility conditions – I know because I went to the same place

At the beginning of July New York Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and several others visited Customs and Border Protection facilities in El Paso Sector, and reported what they supposedly witnessed to the entire nation.

When I saw the reports, I was deeply disturbed and decided to come to see these facilities for myself. I visited them on July 29.

What I saw could not have been more different. It’s time to set the record straight.

On our visits, we saw garages and kitchens converted into storage spaces and clinics. We walked through supply rooms—the CBP’s version of Costco—stacked with everything from toothbrushes and underwear to Kool-Aid and Nutri-Grain bars.

We heard from agents at CBP facilities on how they had to quickly increase contracts for trash pickup and cleaning from a few times a week to daily. We saw charts documenting when each individual was last offered a shower or food. And we saw medical facilities where those with certain transmittable diseases were quickly quarantined and cared for.

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s most sensational claim was that “Officers were keeping women in cells w/ no water & had told them to drink out of toilets.”

There are in fact three lies in that one sentence alone. We toured that same facility and visited the exact cell she claimed where this was happening.

As an emergency room doctor who served as a Special Operations flight surgeon in Iraq and Afghanistan, these claims were particularly concerning to me. I’ve taken the oath to do no harm—and I’ve cared for everyone from newborn babies to our warriors in the Greatest Generation.

If what Rep. Ocasio-Cortez said was true, we would need to take action immediately. Nevertheless, that was not the case.

First, the cell doors are not locked—the women could come in and out as needed—to see the medic, to grab a snack, etc. Second, there was a sink with potable water in each cell. And third, no one was drinking water out of toilets, but instead from the potable water in the sink near the toilet.

I spoke to the CBP officer who was there when the woman described to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez that she was getting water from the bathroom. The woman had a thick Guatemalan accent and used the Spanish word for bathroom—not toilet.

These are the same sources of water that our Border Patrol agents drink out of. And several members of our congressional delegation tasted the water—it tasted fine (and certainly better than our lead-infused water in Cannon House Office Building).

We also toured an ICE detention center. There, individuals were well cared for—in fact, the menu for the hot meals was the same as our soldiers at Fort Bliss across town.

Not only has Democratic leadership in Congress failed to provide our border officials what they need, but they have also tied their hands. And now, the most extreme members of the Democratic Party, partnered with a malicious fake news industry, are demonizing them at every turn.

Despite being greatly strained and underfunded, these facilities underwent routine inspections and consistently exceeded standards. And despite being pulled from their primary mission of securing our border to now prioritizing the humanitarian mission of caring for the migrants, the men and women of CBP, ICE, and other law enforcement agencies put themselves in harm’s way every day to keep America safe.

And, every morning, they put on their uniform to do the best job they can with what they have. They should be commended—not demonized.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/aoc-...rep-mark-green

[Charles]

The point in pointing that out, as I said, is to show that the analogy is strained. It wasn't illegal for Jesus' family to move from location A to location B. And of course, they didn't stay at location B, they went back to location A. This isn't really like the border issue. The border issue sees hundreds of thousands of people moving from location A to location B illegally, with no intention of going back to location A. Matthew 25 is a great bit of scripture. It's good to know that an Agnostic has such reverence for it. Perhaps it'll motivate you to investigate Christ's words and take them seriously enough to follow him. Till you take Jesus seriously, using his words as a bludgeon against Christians to make them concede your argument seems unwise.

What Jesus said does not depend on whether I believe him or not. Claiming I don't take him seriously is a rather judgmental claim to make and I wonder what you base it on. Could it be that you don't want my statements to apply?

As much as Christians would love to alleviate every need everywhere in the world, we can't, and we won't. While I'm personally sympathetic to the concept of open borders, there are practical reason why nations don't have them, and why most nations have much stricter laws on immigration than the US does. We would LOVE to do all we can for "the least of these," but Christ understood this call in practical terms. He didn't mean Christians to completely bankrupt themselves today so that they weren't a help to anyone tomorrow. He wasn't calling for open borders. Nor was he calling for people to help every person who claimed asylum whether they actually needed it or not. Christ tells his followers to be as gentle as doves, but also wise as serpents. And, while I notice you won't tell us what nation you originate from so we can see how much your people do for "the least of these", Americans do more than their fair share. This nation DOES grant asylum seekers entry into the nation. We currently grant over 20,000 asylum seekers entry into the nation a year! America is also one of the greatest givers of humanitarian and foreign aid in the world. And Christians in America are one of the greatest private givers.

This is where I lose track of the straw men. Where did I suggest Christians should help all people, that borders should be open and so on? It is simply not there. I am deeply opposed to the treatment of children separated from their parents and many other moral wrongs committed at the borders these days. However, I have not claimed Christians should bankrupt themselves or made those other statements that it seems you "refute". And, finally, the bragging is not to my taste and does not solve the problems of all the wrongs being done currently. Not only in actual treatment but alse in dehumanizing.

It seems convenient that you're all rah-rah over Biblical influence when you think it might align with your own worldview, but join arguments against it when not.

I am asking for integrity. I am asking why those who claim to believe those statements do not act accordingly. Since I am focused on Evangelicals it is a rather obvious question to ask. When it comes to me, I don't claim to be a Christian so I don't see why I should be obliged to agree on everything or why that would be consistent. Can you explain why?

[Adrift]

What Jesus said does not depend on whether I believe him or not. Claiming I don't take him seriously is a rather judgmental claim to make and I wonder what you base it on. Could it be that you don't want my statements to apply?

No it's based on the fact that you're a self-described Agnostic. If you took Jesus seriously at his word this wouldn't be the case.

This is where I lose track of the straw men. Where did I suggest Christians should help all people, that borders should be open and so on? It is simply not there. I am deeply opposed to the treatment of children separated from their parents and many other moral wrongs committed at the borders these days. However, I have not claimed Christians should bankrupt themselves or made those other statements that it seems you "refute". And, finally, the bragging is not to my taste and does not solve the problems of all the wrongs being done currently. Not only in actual treatment but alse in dehumanizing.

But that was not a strawman. You made a blanket statement that Christians should be responding to Jesus' words about "doing unto the least of these" regardless of where they come from (refugee, Muslim, Chinese, etc.). But forgetting for a moment that Jesus' words about "the least of these" was specifically in reference to fellow followers of Christ (see Social-science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels by Bruce J. Malina, Richard L. Rohrbaugh, pg. 126), Christian Americans already DO help refugees. Likely with measures far greater than your own nation of origin. And while you may have moral misgivings for why children are separated from adults, there are practical reasons for doing so. People at Customs and Border Protection facilities aren't evily wringing their hands and maniacally laughing through thick mustaches devising new ways to torture incoming immigrants. Should there be a national dialog about children being separated from adults at the border? Absolutely, but first let's knock out the emotional argumentation that doesn't even attempt to understand the practical rationale behind the measures.

I am asking for integrity. I am asking why those who claim to believe those statements do not act accordingly. Since I am focused on Evangelicals it is a rather obvious question to ask. When it comes to me, I don't claim to be a Christian so I don't see why I should be obliged to agree on everything or why that would be consistent. Can you explain why?

All you're doing is displaying your own lack of integrity. "I will champion the Bible when it aligns with my worldview, I will denigrate it when it does not." Or even worse "You have a standard that I know you all have to live up to, but I don't, so you can't judge me!" No, that's not how things work. Here's the deal. As long as you remain a non-Christian I will not judge you for not living up to the Bible's standards. As Paul says, "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?...God will judge those outside." Likewise, there's no reason to expect Christians to live up to your standards when 1.) you don't practice what you preach 2.) you don't even have an understanding of the Bible you're preaching, and 3.) the preaching your doing isn't even applicable, since Christians ARE selflessly taking in strangers, and caring for the poor and needy.