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

[Sam]

Helping refugees isn't merely or strictly a "Christian principle" and I have to believe y'all know that. But it is a Christian principle, and a core principle at that.

So what does it say of a Christian who refuses to hold his Christian representatives accountable for such a deep and aggressive violation of it?

--Sam

It is not a Christian principle to force others to live by Christian principles, is it?

[Bill the Cat]

Refusing to be gaslit, at least some of us know perfectly well the hell that would rain down as comments in this forum were the US government to announce that it would use taxpayer dollars to subsidize elective abortions in the country.

The abdication of moral expectation from government representatives here was sudden, sectarian, and shameful.

--Sam

For you to equate the murder of the unborn with refugees shows what little footing you have to stand on. You would side with actual murderers of the innocent over an objection on who should care for refugees. Pathetic at its core.

[Bill the Cat]

Helping refugees isn't merely or strictly a "Christian principle" and I have to believe y'all know that. But it is a Christian principle, and a core principle at that.

So what does it say of a Christian who refuses to hold his Christian representatives accountable for such a deep and aggressive violation of it?

--Sam

It says we don't force people to pay for refugees who aren't Christians. Don't forget that this is not a Christian nation.

[Sam]

For you to equate the murder of the unborn with refugees shows what little footing you have to stand on. You would side with actual murderers of the innocent over an objection on who should care for refugees. Pathetic at its core.

Now I can explain my position on abortion in great detail and have pretty full confidence in my reasoning that separates the two.

But y'all? The folks who argue that human life is of such importance that it needs to be protected from conception, even at significant cost to the State? Where does this dismissal of care for refugees stand? How can their suffering, lives and well-being be less important?

--Sam

[Sam]

It says we don't force people to pay for refugees who aren't Christians. Don't forget that this is not a Christian nation.

I'm going parse that sentence such that "who aren't Christians" applies to taxpayers, not refugees. I think that's what you meant, though the syntax is confusing.

But I'll just go right back to abortion or same-sex marriage or really any number of things that conservatives want to use state power for. If the idea is that this is a "Christian principle" and not an ethical imperative -- something that remains true regardless of creed -- that's just ... wrong. Evil, almost, for it treats preventable suffering and death as without inherent value.

If the idea is that the State should get behind some principles that have some grounding in Christian orthodoxy (e.g., abortion bans) but not others (e.g., refugee admissions), then it's just a hypocrisy.

To put an end cap on this fallacious line of reasoning: USA has significant moral, economic, and political interest in not only admitting refugees but setting a high standard for refugee admissions for the world. To define resettlement as only a matter of Christian morality is fallacious. And the folks here who have argued against, say, same-sex marriage on Christian grounds but fail to apply their faith to a much greater matter of need have a classic plank/mote problem that needs attention.

--Sam

[Bill the Cat]

Now I can explain my position on abortion in great detail and have pretty full confidence in my reasoning that separates the two.

But y'all? The folks who argue that human life is of such importance that it needs to be protected from conception, even at significant cost to the State? Where does this dismissal of care for refugees stand? How can their suffering, lives and well-being be less important?

--Sam

Again, actual life and death getting equated with "well-being"?

[Bill the Cat]

I'm going parse that sentence such that "who aren't Christians" applies to taxpayers, not refugees. I think that's what you meant, though the syntax is confusing.

But I'll just go right back to abortion or same-sex marriage or really any number of things that conservatives want to use state power for. If the idea is that this is a "Christian principle" and not an ethical imperative -- something that remains true regardless of creed -- that's just ... wrong. Evil, almost, for it treats preventable suffering and death as without inherent value.

If the idea is that the State should get behind some principles that have some grounding in Christian orthodoxy (e.g., abortion bans) but not others (e.g., refugee admissions), then it's just a hypocrisy.

To put an end cap on this fallacious line of reasoning: USA has significant moral, economic, and political interest in not only admitting refugees but setting a high standard for refugee admissions for the world. To define resettlement as only a matter of Christian morality is fallacious. And the folks here who have argued against, say, same-sex marriage on Christian grounds but fail to apply their faith to a much greater matter of need have a classic plank/mote problem that needs attention.

--Sam

Are you racking up fallacy points or something? This screed is impressive in the amount of irrelivant tripe and utter nonsense.

[Sam]

Again, actual life and death getting equated with "well-being"?

I understand that the current trend of movement conservatism is to care about State involvement in "life" before birth (well, excepting maternal/pre-natal coverage) and not so much well-being after the fact. Regardless, a great many refugees actually do die in camps, while waiting for resettlement, from chronic medical issues that aren't treated, from preventable communicable diseases, from lack of maternal care, etc.

People are dying while they wait to be resettled and will continue to die, only now in greater number.

--Sam

[Bill the Cat]

I understand that the current trend of movement conservatism is to care about State involvement in "life" before birth (well, excepting maternal/pre-natal coverage) and not so much well-being after the fact. Regardless, a great many refugees actually do die in camps, while waiting for resettlement, from chronic medical issues that aren't treated, from preventable communicable diseases, from lack of maternal care, etc.

People are dying while they wait to be resettled and will continue to die, only now in greater number.

--Sam

Are you personally offering to sponsor them?

[Sam]

Are you personally offering to sponsor them?

I would be incredibly honored to do so, yes. In my state, however, we resettle refugees in their own apartments in cities with high opportunities for employment and strong public transport systems. This has been shown to dramatically benefit refugees' transition.

--Sam

[Bill the Cat]

I would be incredibly honored to do so, yes. In my state, however, we resettle refugees in their own apartments in cities with high opportunities for employment and strong public transport systems. This has been shown to dramatically benefit refugees' transition.

--Sam

Meaning you like the theory, but actually aren't doing anything.

[Sam]

Meaning you like the theory, but actually aren't doing anything.

This isn't the quality of argument you want to bring to the table.

It's petty (because it's not like any of you would tolerate someone arguing for public abortion services by demanding "Are YOU willing to take in all these kids?!"), it's ignorant (because you don't have any idea what support I provide to local, state, and national refugee organizations), and it's irrelevant to the question at hand.

It's a snarky, snide way to avoid a deeply important issue in the Christian community -- and resorted to right after I had to point out that, yes, refugee resettlement is a matter of life or death.

The standard for charitable debate and Christian thought is higher than that.

--Sam

[Bill the Cat]

This isn't the quality of argument you want to bring to the table.

It's petty (because it's not like any of you would tolerate someone arguing for public abortion services by demanding "Are YOU willing to take in all these kids?!"), it's ignorant (because you don't have any idea what support I provide to local, state, and national refugee organizations), and it's irrelevant to the question at hand.

It's a snarky, snide way to avoid a deeply important issue in the Christian community -- and resorted to right after I had to point out that, yes, refugee resettlement is a matter of life or death.

The standard for charitable debate and Christian thought is higher than that.

--Sam

Again, you compare 1.2 million intentionally murdered unborn with a few dozen sick refugees dying. You have no moral equivalency there. And until you address that gross fallacy, you have no room to lecture anyone.

[Leonhard]

I agree the life of the unborn being denied is a greater evil. That doesn't make other evils okay though.

[Bill the Cat]

I agree the life of the unborn being denied is a greater evil. That doesn't make other evils okay though.

But do we legislate based on what we Christians consider evil?