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

[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.

"a few dozen"

I really don't know how to argue against such a cavalier, factually-deprived, ... dismissive attitude toward people who will not only die but will suffer greatly while dying. It's evil.

I've addressed abortion - I've addressed it numerous times and have always argued that the government should do what it constitutionally can do (including stricter bans on abortion after 20 weeks) to reduce the number of elective abortions performed and provide adequate care for the children afterward. In that, I am much more consistent in my ethos than many here who have argued against measures that we know will reduce abortions because they valued the freedom of not suffering a tax to pay for contraceptives or more EITC money than they value reducing abortion.

But even if that weren't true, it would not excuse this.

--Sam

[Leonhard]

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

Not in all cases, and its not always wise to make laws. Take for instance the case of prostitution. St. Thomas Aquinas argued that it would cause more evil than good if a law was created to ban prostitution and punish those who engaged in the trade.

A discussion about whether the government or the people, should help refugees is not a discussion about Christian morals. Its a discussion about whether it's wiser to let people to these things, or whether the government should do it.

[Teallaura]

FYI: the program ended - immigrants can still apply for humanitarian relief, and it's usually granted.

[Mountain Man]

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.

Yes, that's quite a different matter than whether or not the government should be in the refugee business.

[Mountain Man]

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

Let's try it from this angle:

I'm going to assume like any good Christian that you tithe 10% of your gross income to your church. Now, what does it say about you as a Christian if you fail to compel your Christian representative to institute a law requiring all citizens to give a 10% tithe to their local church?

Yes, I think as Christians that we (as in you and I) should help those in need as commanded by scripture. No, I do not think it is necessarily in the best interest of our government to do so. This position is not contradictory, nor is it an abdication of my Christian duty.

[Sam]

Yes, that's quite a different matter than whether or not the government should be in the refugee business.

"Whether or not the government should be in the 'business' of deciding who and how many can enter and reside in the USA" is, I admit, a fairly novel approach to the argument.

Or perhaps you meant "There exists no moral or ethical component to the question of whether the government conducts its business of deciding who and how many can enter and reside in the USA".

In either case, it is not one that I think you'd make if you gave what you're saying sufficient thought.

--Sam

[Bill the Cat]

"a few dozen"

It's hyperbole, Sam. A rhetorical device to show the ocean of difference beteeen the number of babies murdered versus the number of refugees who die.

I really don't know how to argue against such a cavalier, factually-deprived, ... dismissive attitude toward people who will not only die but will suffer greatly while dying. It's evil.

It's like focusing on progeria instead of diabetes. You are focused on a rarity in comparison. Ig's tragic, but there are MUCH bigger issues a Christian should consider when they support a political entity.

I've addressed abortion - I've addressed it numerous times and have always argued that the government should do what it constitutionally can do (including stricter bans on abortion after 20 weeks)

The Constitution does not address abortion. And your position is anti-Christian and biologically ignorant. There is no difference from an organism standpoint between the 20 week old and the 19 week old. And there is no difference to God on whether or not the 19 week old is just as alive as the babe in a cradle.

to reduce the number of elective abortions performed and provide adequate care for the children afterward. In that, I am much more consistent in my ethos than many here who have argued against measures that we know will reduce abortions because they valued the freedom of not suffering a tax to pay for contraceptives or more EITC money than they value reducing abortion.

Again, forcing people to pay for others' personal decisions, Christian or not. This is nothing different from government provided drug needles...

Ask the atheists here whether they want to be forced to pay for my Christian decisions...

But even if that weren't true, it would not excuse this.

This is not a theocracy.

[Sam]

It's hyperbole, Sam. A rhetorical device to show the ocean of difference beteeen the number of babies murdered versus the number of refugees who die.



It's like focusing on progeria instead of diabetes. You are focused on a rarity in comparison. Ig's tragic, but there are MUCH bigger issues a Christian should consider when they support a political entity.


The Constitution does not address abortion. And your position is anti-Christian and biologically ignorant. There is no difference from an organism standpoint between the 20 week old and the 19 week old. And there is no difference to God on whether or not the 19 week old is just as alive as the babe in a cradle.




Again, forcing people to pay for others' personal decisions, Christian or not. This is nothing different from government provided drug needles...

Ask the atheists here whether they want to be forced to pay for my Christian decisions...



This is not a theocracy.

I understand hyperbole. I also understand when it's used callously and in a grotesquely inappropriate manner.

We disagree on the constitutionality of an abortion ban. We can argue about it, but you would have to acknowledge that I'm standing on the side of legal precedent. There is not one anti-Christian component of my argument, no more than arguing that the First Amendment protects profanity, though profanity is a sin. There is no similar argument about the government's ability to admit refugees.

"Forcing people to pay for others' personal decisions" is a tax matter. As some have said on this very thread, to Caesar's what is Caesar's. That you would define a tax levied against you as immoral or unacceptable but disregard the decision to reduce refugee admissions, even knowing that thousands to tens of thousands of deaths every year would result, demonstrates a deep rot and an inversion of Christ's teaching.

--Sam

[Bill the Cat]

I understand hyperbole. I also understand when it's used callously and in a grotesquely inappropriate manner.

Obviously not. Your opinion does not a fact make.

We disagree on the constitutionality of an abortion ban. We can argue about it, but you would have to acknowledge that I'm standing on the side of legal precedent.

So was Dredd Scott. Both were wrong. One has been fixed. The other remains.

There is not one anti-Christian component of my argument, no more than arguing that the First Amendment protects profanity, though profanity is a sin.

Not even close to the same thing. Your SUPPORT for pre-20 week abortion law is anti-Christian.

There is no similar argument about the government's ability to admit refugees.

Yet you bring scripture in to the legal realm. That's your problem. As you've continually ignored, this is NOT a theocracy. Period.

"Forcing people to pay for others' personal decisions" is a tax matter.

Then make a tax argument, not a scriptural one.

As some have said on this very thread, to Caesar's what is Caesar's.

Exactly. Even the Lord knew to make a secular argument to a secular problem. Go ye therefore and do the same.

That you would define a tax levied against you as immoral or unacceptable but disregard the decision to reduce refugee admissions, even knowing that thousands to tens of thousands of deaths every year would result, demonstrates a deep rot and an inversion of Christ's teaching.

Your moral posturing won't work. The Lord NEVER told us to force authorities to bend to our morality. We can disagree from a moral standpoint, but forcing our morals on others is the most anti-Christian behavior we can make...

[Sam]

Obviously not. Your opinion does not a fact make.



So was Dredd Scott. Both were wrong. One has been fixed. The other remains.



Not even close to the same thing. Your SUPPORT for pre-20 week abortion law is anti-Christian.



Yet you bring scripture in to the legal realm. That's your problem. As you've continually ignored, this is NOT a theocracy. Period.


Then make a tax argument, not a scriptural one.



Exactly. Even the Lord knew to make a secular argument to a secular problem. Go ye therefore and do the same.



Your moral posturing won't work. The Lord NEVER told us to force authorities to bend to our morality. We can disagree from a moral standpoint, but forcing our morals on others is the most anti-Christian behavior we can make...

I don't support a "pre-20 week abortion law". I recognize that the Constitution prohibits banning abortion from conception and agree with the logic of -Roe- and -Casey- that, while the government can pass reasonable restrictions to abortion, it cannot ban it outright. That's supporting a restriction on government to make a law, not supporting a law.

This is as much supporting abortion as you or anyone else supporting a restriction on the government to ban blasphemy makes you a blasphemy supporter.

The rest has been addressed, at length, already. You're merely throwing chaff, at this point.

--Sam

[Bill the Cat]

I don't support a "pre-20 week abortion law". I recognize that the Constitution prohibits banning abortion from conception and agree with the logic of -Roe- and -Casey- that, while the government can pass reasonable restrictions to abortion, it cannot ban it outright.

You'd be wrong. Tge "right to privacy" was invented in RvW. It had nothing to do with the Constitution. Denying that is ignorance of RvW.

That's supporting a restriction on government to make a law, not supporting a law.

Exactly. And supporting the Government's ability to control its refugee policy is not supporting the policy itself. **mic drop**

Thanks for playing.

[Sam]

You'd be wrong. Tge "right to privacy" was invented in RvW. It had nothing to do with the Constitution. Denying that is ignorance of RvW.

Not to be rude but arguing that -Roe- didn't find a constitutional right to an abortion is what would demonstrate ignorance of the ruling.

Exactly. And supporting the Government's ability to control its refugee policy is not supporting the policy itself. **mic drop**

Thanks for playing.

Might want to pick up that mic. The contention never once was a question of whether the government has the ability to control its refugee policy. We all agree it does. What we're discussing -- or avoiding discussing, as the case may be -- is whether a government policy to actively restrict refugee resettlement to or near zero (as opposed to a law banning an individual action protected by the Constitution), is moral or supportable. And whether ostensibly Christian lawmakers and executive branch officials should be actively preventing refugees from entering USA.

The lengths being traveled to avoid addressing a plainly immoral policy is utterly depressing and infuriating.

--Sam

[Bill the Cat]

Not to be rude but arguing that -Roe- didn't find a constitutional right to an abortion is what would demonstrate ignorance of the ruling.




Might want to pick up that mic. The contention never once was a question of whether the government has the ability to control its refugee policy. We all agree it does. What we're discussing -- or avoiding discussing, as the case may be -- is whether a government policy to actively restrict refugee resettlement to or near zero (as opposed to a law banning an individual action protected by the Constitution), is moral or supportable. And whether ostensibly Christian lawmakers and executive branch officials should be actively preventing refugees from entering USA.

The lengths being traveled to avoid addressing a plainly immoral policy is utterly depressing and infuriating.

--Sam

Their job is not to legislate by Christian morals. Their job is to manage a secular government. You simply refuse to get that simple point. And all of your moral posturing is amounting to absolutely bupkis. Laws must have secular reasoning due to the separation of church and state. No matter how bad we think that is immoral, it is the fact of this nation.

[Sam]

Their job is not to legislate by Christian morals. Their job is to manage a secular government. You simply refuse to get that simple point. And all of your moral posturing is amounting to absolutely bupkis. Laws must have secular reasoning due to the separation of church and state. No matter how bad we think that is immoral, it is the fact of this nation.

I've addressed the point several times, in fact: refugee resettlement is not merely or strictly a matter of Christian ethics. It is an ethical imperative, an international obligation, and a social, economic, and political asset.

There are myriad secular advantages to not only resettling refugees but setting a high standard in refugee resettlement ... and this isn't the first time I've pointed that out.

But you, as a Christian, have an even higher standard to meet: these people are actively perpetuating actions that are anti-Christian, though they themselves profess to be Christian. They're not just allowing the choice to resettle refugees or to not resettle refugees, they are preventing anyone from resettling refugees past a shrinking few and possibly soon zero.

And you have nothing to say to them about that?

--Sam

[Bill the Cat]

I've addressed the point several times, in fact: refugee resettlement is not merely or strictly a matter of Christian ethics. It is an ethical imperative, an international obligation, and a social, economic, and political asset.

No it isn't. It is an economic and social decision that the government must weigh for the best of the nation first. We aee under no international obligation to be the world's charity worker. Sorry if you think that is callous, but a secular government is under no obligation to satisfy your whining.

There are myriad secular advantages to not only resettling refugees but setting a high standard in refugee resettlement ... and this isn't the first time I've pointed that out.

And there are a myriad of reasons to deny them. A secular government must weigh the good and bad for each position, and ultimately side with the good.of their own people first. That YOU consider their decision immoral is not their problem.

But you, as a Christian, have an even higher standard to meet: these people are actively perpetuating actions that are anti-Christian, though they themselves profess to be Christian.

This is again irrelivant. This is a SECULAR NATION!!!!

They're not just allowing the choice to resettle refugees or to not resettle refugees, they are preventing anyone from resettling refugees past a shrinking few and possibly soon zero.

which is their right to do, and has sufficient secular reasons for doing so. You just refuse to see any other side than what you are blinded by.

And you have nothing to say to them about that?

--Sam

No. They have made the decision based on their secular reasoning and have crafted policy based on that. We can't save the entire world. I can live with the consequences of that. I can't help that you can't.