In the couple of weeks before Christmas and on Christmas itself, I noticed 4 interesting topics filling my social media.
The first was the outrage over the song "Mary Did You Know". I've always thought that there is some value in exploring the humanity of Jesus, especially His youth and how his parents dealt with Him. I think that this particular song is a valid and interesting way to explore that. Clearly Mary knew that Jesus was unique and that He was born for a higher purpose. Yet, is it so unrealistic the think that what she knew and felt might have been influenced by the fact that she raised Him. Is it wrong to assume that Mary couldn't have predicted the specifics of Jesus' life and ministry? I guess in our new "woke" world, it's wrong for a man to write and sing a song like this. Of all of the things to get bent out of shape over, this one just doesn't see worth the effort.
The second thing is the predictable yearly insistence that Jesus was a refugee. This has been dealt with over and over but it keeps coming back. Let's be clear. Jesus' family was in Bethlehem because of a census taken in order to increase taxes (some how the increase tax parallel never gets made). They were forced to temporarily leave their home by the government along with literally everyone else. They were faced with a temporary situation where there were more people in town for the census than there were available places to lodge. So far, this doesn't make them refugees. Then, years later, they leave one Roman province for another Roman province because Jesus life is threatened by Herod. Once Herod dies, they go back home. In only the most shallow and superficial ways can this be twisted into support for leftist political policies on immigration. http://www.wwutt.com/2019/12/was-jesus-refugee.html
I saw a number of my self righteous, progressive friends sharing an article that supports their decision not to embrace that Santa part of Christmas. I've always seen this as a decision that each Christian family should make for themselves, with little or no reason to make that decision public. Apparently, I was wrong. According to a piece at "Motherwise", this is a big deal. It's all pretty judgemental, but couched in passive aggressive, "non judgemental" language. Look, any time you tell your kids that their friends parents are "lying" you're being judgemental. I'm willing bet, that these folks aren't 100% honest with their kids either. I guess what got me thinking was the need or people to tout their virtue by bragging about a decision that should be private and individual all over social media.
Finally, on Christmas morning we woke up the the news that an old hotel turned into housing for the homeless has caught fire and was destroyed. We were greeted with please for people to donate clothes, shoes, diapers, etc quickly. As my family and I were searching the internet to find out where we could go buy diapers on Christmas, and what specifically they needed, we found out that they had been overwhelmed by the amount of donated items and that they were asking people to stop bringing stuff. What a great story of individuals responding to a tragedy in an overwhelmingly generous fashion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
49 comments:
So yes, in that one time., Jesus was literally a refugee fleeing to save his life. No one is saying he was a refugee his entire life. Just that one time. But that one time, he WAS a refugee. Literally. Much the same as Guatemalans or Mexicans fleeing home to come to the u.s. seeking safety. What's the difference?
Beyond that, Jesus quite clearly makes the case metaphorically that what you do for the least of these you do for him. The least of these include those refugees fleeing for a better life or to save their lives. Thus in a very real metaphorical sense, Jesus a refugee in that manner. What is your case against considering him a refugee?
The first problem y'all have is that the folx who are using this to advance a partisan political agenda, aren't making the fine distinction you are but saying that they were "homeless refugees" when they went to Bethlehem.
"a person who has been forced to leave their country..."
Unfortunately, the first phrase of the definition of refugee doesn't agree with your hunch. However, even if they were technically refugees at that one particular point, it's still not analogous to the current immigration situation and it's simply a ploy to twist one aspect of Jesus life into support for a partisan political position.
If y'all are consistent, then if you oppose conservative Christians using Jesus to support partisan politics, then y'all wouldn't do the same thing.
Not that contradictions bother you, but you realize that "real metaphorical" is a contradiction.
The case against considering Him a refugee is simply that He doesn't meet the definition of a refugee as I pointed out above.
However, where the comparison really breaks down is that Jesus' family's move was temporary and they fully intended to move back.
I guess the real question could be. If God is sovereign, and if God (through prophets) foretold this situation, wouldn't that make the entire series of movements part of God's design?
The point of my pointing this out isn't to re argue the "Was Jesus a refugee" question. This has been amply addressed and re arguing this here is pointless. The point of including it in the post was to point out the hypocrisy of the same progressives who were huge fans of CT when it got on conservative Christians for mixing Christianity and politics, yet doing exactly that within the span of a couple of weeks.
C: "it's still not analogous to the current immigration situation and it's simply a ploy to twist one aspect of Jesus life into support"
1. First of all, it's no Ploy. We, those who are concerned about immigrants and refugees, are deadly serious about our concern. We know these refugees and immigrants. We know the pain and trauma they've suffered. We are their families and in some cases, we are them.
There is no "ploy," and how dare you even suggest that? Who the hell do you think you are?
Let me introduce you to my friend, Luis. His life was threatened for daring to report actual news. He and his family had to escape to save their lives. Who the hell are you to call their legitimate concerns a ploy? What the hell is wrong with you?
Perhaps, are you ignorant of people like Luis? If so, fine... apologize for your ignorance and open your ears and your eyes and repent. Now, you do know about him and his family. And he is just one of untold thousands who are seeking refuge, just as my ancestors once found refuge here in this nation. Back before we had draconian and heartless and irrational laws.
That's the first point. It is just stupidly false to suggest it's some kind of partisan ploy to be concerned about immigrants. Don't be stupid or partisan.
2. Why is Jesus and his family seeking safety in a different location not analogous to folks from other nations seeking refuge here? Seeking refuge from danger is seeking refuge from danger. Are the scenarios and the circumstances different? Sure. But Jesus and his family were escaping the threat of death. Just like many of our refugees today.
I'm serious. In what possible way is it not analogous?
1. I’m not doubting the sincerity of your commitment. I am saying that manipulating part of the story of Jesus to serve a political agenda is indeed a ploy. Either using Jesus to further a political agenda is right or it’s wrong. But if it’s right, it’s right for either political side. Of course, I could ask you to prove that Jesus was a refugee.
2. It’s not analogous because they weren’t moving from country to country. They weren’t immigrating. They didn’t plan to stay forever. There weren’t restrictions on them crossing from one province to another. They weren’t violating any laws.
Ok, prove that Jesus was a refugee.
Good Lord. He was seeking Refuge from a threat. What is the word for people who are seeking Refuge from a threat..? Wait, I know! Refugee.
Hint. It's there in the word.
Come on. Correctly identifying Jesus as a refugee and the refugees who are seeking safety sharing that common trait is not a ploy. It's reality.
Now feel free to disagree about how to handle refugees and how best to do Justice by those seeking liberty and safety, if you want. But it is a stupidly false claim to call it a partisan ploy.
Origin and meaning of the word refugee which, interesting ly for me, comes from The huguenots Who we're forced to seek Refuge. That is, my family you had to flee religious zealots in France to seek safety elsewhere.
And yes, while the definition today largely revolves around people moving to a new country seeking Refuge, the word itself does not insist upon that. Indeed, you can read about people fleeing a wildfire and read about them being called refugees, even within their own state.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/origin-and-meaning-of-refugee
Oh, now you jump on the nonstandard definition bandwagon.
I guess the demands for proof only count when you make them,
I guess you’ve chosen to ignore or misrepresent what I’ve said regarding the partisan plot aspect of this.
Your ability to not answer questions, not address the example I gave you, not prove your claims, and misrepresent what I’ve actually said is quite impressive over the last two threads.
FYI, setting up a manger scene with the main characters in chain link enclosures is definitely a partisan ploy, and it’s aimed at the wrong president.
But, you just keep being you.
I’m just being Danlike and going with the modern English dictionary definition. Interesting how that’s just one more standard you’ll abandon when it suits you.
[rolls eyes]
From Merriam Webster (dictionary people, you know)...
refugee noun
ref·u·gee | \ ˌre-fyu̇-ˈjē
\
Legal Definition of refugee
: an individual seeking refuge or asylum
especially : an individual who has left his or her native country and is unwilling or unable to return to it because of persecution
Kids Definition of refugee
: a person who flees for safety (as from war) usually to a foreign country
======
I'm sorry, but are you taking the position that IF someone is seeking refuge from harm BUT it's within their own nation (or empire, as in the case of Rome), it's no big deal and they are NOT refugees seeking safety? Are you ONLY concerned with refugees if it's from nation to nation?
Also, while both Bethlehem in Judea/Israel and Egypt were under the thumb of the Roman empire, both ARE and WERE distinct nations/countries, if I'm not mistaken. If I AM mistaken, then it still doesn't matter. The POINT of concern for immigrants and refugees that GOD COMMANDS his followers to hold is for their safety and good... the point is not "be kind to immigrants and refugees UNLESS they're seeking refuge in their own country, then piss on them and lock 'em up!"
Come on, why do you all argue against moral positions like this with ridiculous arguments like this? You're an embarrassment to your family and your children's children.
Oh damn, that whole foreign country thing strikes again.
The fact that you’ll go to these lengths to avoid providing proof that Jesus was a refugee is amusing. FYI, proof would include proof that the events happened, not just providing definitions.
It’s amazing how hard you’ll cling to this narrative. You’re willing to demand that God has rules, and against history.
Of course you can’t have this conversation without more misrepresentation.
I’m taking the position that twisting the Biblical narrative in order to advance a partisan political narrative is mishandling scripture. I’m taking the position that being consistent in how you treat scripture is a good thing.
I’m taking the position that all of a sudden you acknowledge that God does have rules is you finally having the courage to stop equivocating.
I’m taking the position that your avoiding questions, and examples, and continued misrepresentation is just your way of trying to exert control.
Even granting the possibility that there is a COMMAND that requires Cristians to offer some level of succor to immigrants. That is a far cry from using the nativity story of Jesus as an attempt to enact a specific partisan political agenda. Unless your now suggesting that this new COMMAND is binding on our secular government, you’ve got problems.
’m taking the position that twisting the Biblical narrative in order to advance a partisan political narrative is mishandling scripture. I’m taking the position that being consistent in how you treat scripture is a good thing.
I have not twisted the Biblical narrative. Point of fact. Has not happened. Jesus LITERALLY (in the Bible) left ONE country to flee to ANOTHER country to seek refuge. He was fleeing from danger seeking refuge. LITERALLY a refugee. That is literally what the Bible says (not using that word, but that definition).
The Bible repeatedly throughout the whole biblical narrative counsels that God's ways include providing refuge for those in need, particularly immigrants, foreigners in a strange nation. This is not a twisting of the biblical narrative, it's an honoring of it.
To suggest that God is NOT concerned about people's treatment of immigrants and refugees, THAT would be a mishandling of scripture.
In what POSSIBLE way am I mishandling scripture? Because I don't "interpret" it as modern "conservatives" and "biblical inerrantists..."? [Vomit.]
It's NOT a "partisan" position that we should not mistreat immigrants and that we should welcome refugees... or at least it shouldn't be a partisan position. There certainly are still conservatives who have not sold their soul to Trump who support the idea of being welcoming to refugees.
You can't support anything you're saying, Craig. Stop it.
Re: "command on secular gov't..."
I'm talking to conservatives who take the Bible as a rulings book. EXCEPT that you don't go along with the rules that don't align with modern Trumpist "conservatism" and "evangelicalism..." so i'm appealing to the rules that you say that the Bible has.
I personally think we should welcome people seeking refuge from threats to their lives because I believe in human rights, NOT because I believe in the Bible as a rulings book. I support welcoming refugees and immigrants because I believe that people should not be selfish douchebags. The Biblical authors and God as consistently represented in the Bible agrees with that notion, but that is not why I'm suggesting we change our policies.
So, your assertion that there is a COMMAND is simply a cynical attempt to assert a position that you don’t actually believe in order to score political points.
Again, your hubris and narcissism betray you. You either assume that I’m talking specifically snd only about you, or that you somehow represent most or all of progressives. The fact is that despite your strange combination or hubris and cowardice, there are multiple people who claim (with you) the title of progressive christian, who are using the nativity story to advocate for partisan political agendas.
The fact that you don’t have the courage or whatever to criticize your side for misusing scripture to advance a partisan political agenda, isn’t helpful.
It’s simply amusing to see you so desperately trying anything no matter how much it conflicts with your previous assertions.
Anything to avoid proving your claims, answering questions, or dealing with examples,
If this appropriation of the nativity story was intended to inspire Christians to personal action, to churches to engage in direct ministry, and ONG’s to work to alleviate the problems that drive immigrants, I’d have less problem with it.
Where I have problems is the appropriation of the nativity part of the story (not the flight to Egypt), and the use of it to advocate for either specific government policy or a partisan political agenda. But maybe that’s too nuanced.
Wow! The same old same old!
First, I'm willing to concede that in the strictest understanding of the word, Jesus, Mary and Joseph (JMJ) were seeking refuge from Herod. But that still doesn't justify Dan's position regarding illegal immigration, particularly protecting refugees. Let's look at th his Luis character:
1. We have only Dan's word that he's even a real person, and from his telling of Luis' woes, we're to satisfy ourselves that we now know about him and his family.
2. If Dan's tale is true, then the plight of Luis has been verified by that department of the US government that handles asylum claims and has been granted legitimate refugee status. If this is indeed the case, then there is no problem any "conservative" or "Trump supporter" has with Luis and his family being here. His presence, in other words, being legal, proves this nation and its government is willing to provide refuge for the truly...that is, verifiably...endangered.
3. The legitimacy of the Luis story...assuming it is indeed legitimate...does not legitimize Dan's position on immigration, his moronic demonizing of our laws regulating entry across our sovereign borders, nor the exploiting of the JMJ story to rationalize any of it.
If there were no legal restrictions barring JMJ from crossing borders between nations, cities or principalities, that does not mean that our regulations are in any way irrational, unwise, xenophobic or draconian. Indeed, they are likely the result of considering the real dangers of having no such regulations that go back that far in history. And of course, God's "demand" that we...or ancient Israel...treat the refugee or sojourner well doesn't include tolerating the breaking of laws concerning their entry and welcome into one's nation. Dan's position, and the exploitation of the JMJ story to rationalize it, requires that no concern for a host nation's citizens be considered when assessing an asylum speaker's claim. Just let him in to live as he pleases and trust that his tale of woe is true, and damn the consequences.
I’ll be honest. I didn’t read Dan’s little tale for a couple of reasons.
1. The chances that he’s provided enough information to accurately asses the situation is low.
2. I gave him a situation in the last thread and asked him to provide a plausible explanation for what happened and he ignored the request.
3. I have no problem with legitimate refugees who go through the process and are admitted to the country.
Dan is a big fan of stories and hypotheticals when he thinks they help him or confirm his prejudices, When stories or hypotheticals don’t do that he ignores them.
As I pointed out, the hypocrisy of them actually using the nativity narrative as the example, then shifting to the Egypt part when caught is dishonest. Further, by transiting from one Roman province to another, they weren’t breaking any laws. But laws are meant to be ignored when it’s politically expedient.
Craig, I ignored your "example" (really, you just offering some words with no links to verification or indication of who this was or the details) because it was irrelevant.
Science is not an exact science. People survive falling off cliffs, off buildings, out of airplanes, even! Are you suggesting that in each one, God intervened and softened the landing supernaturally?
Or is the reality that people survive such things for a variety of reasons and we just don't know?
By all means, CITE THE DATA if you have a story of a person miraculously growing a hand back or comes back to life after having been cremated or some other inexplicable situation. I guarantee you I will be amazed and appreciate the story. Even better: Cite the data that God authoritatively made a miracle happen... I would LOVE to hear such a story.
The reality is...
1. This world contains all sorts of mysteries and things we can't explain. Doesn't mean God intervened... doesn't mean that God didn't intervene... I'm fine with living with mysteries and the unknown.
2. Generally speaking, the data shows that when people (especially "Christian healers") speak of "miraculous healings" they are generally part of a con OR just don't know all the details and are ascribing a "miracle" to "God" when it's really just an unknown. And I'm fine with that. See point 1.
But the reality is there are numerous documented stories of the very real threats that refugees have experienced and have come here to try to escape from. If you are a reasonably well-read person, you should know about them. You don't need my examples of people I know personally. These stories truly happen.
And OF COURSE, we should be welcoming to refugees seeking safety because otherwise, you're just a threat to humanity.
Marshal... requires that no concern for a host nation's citizens be considered when assessing an asylum speaker's claim. Just let him in to live as he pleases and trust that his tale of woe is true, and damn the consequences.
1. No one is advocating that no vetting take place. I/we are fine with vetting people to make sure that they are not dangerous people making up a story to perpetrate harm here.
2. re: "concern for a host nation's citizens..." However, IF someone has NO red flags suggesting they are escaped criminals seeking to do harm and the story seems to check out, OF COURSE, we should support refugees and not live in fear that maybe perhaps possibly they might potentially cause harm to my own people. We MUST abandon the fear of strangers and support people seeking refuge IF we are going to be decent human beings supportive of human rights.
And for inerrantists, then you have the additional commands from God to welcome the stranger and just not be a dick.
Don't be a dick, fellas.
Re: my story of a refugee versus your miracle story...
The thing is, if you have immigrants and refugees in your community and you interact with them to any degree at all, you know that these stories are exceedingly common. If you read the news to any degree at all, you know these stories are true and common. This is objectively documented and something that we can know happens in the real world.
On the other hand, we have no documented stories of Miracles caused by God happening. Nothing verifiable or provable. Not one.
Now, if you have such a documented story, please share. The world would like to know. I would like to know. But you don't.
Do you recognize the difference between the two stories?
Also, that I questioned you and your personal claims of Miracles happening caused by Supernatural intervention by God, that does not mean I'm questioning God or putting God to the test. I'm questioning you and asking you to support your claim if you can. If you can't, I ask that you admit it. This is just reasonable
Re my example. Essentially your response is that you’re too lazy to do any of the basic research and it’s easier to imply that I’m lying.
That’s fine. I’m guessing that if I spoon feed you the newspaper stories and information from the deputy who watched, you’ll come up with another excuse to rationalize not responding.
I’ll tell you this. I know the person very well. I personally spoke to the Drs, the first responders, and various law enforcement. I’ve had extensive training in fall protection and the effects of a fall on the human body.
But you don’t need any of that to respond with an alternative explanation. I’ve given you enough to allow you to look at the data (as if data is anything but an excuse for you to dodge or change the subject) and come up with an explanation.
So either accept that I’ve gotten the details from participants and eyewitnesses, man up and call me a liar, or give me an explanation.
It’s fascinating that you expect us to blindly accept your immigrant story as fact, while providing absolutely nothing. Just accept it because you aid it. Yet, your innate double standards cause you to immediately doubt my account even though every bit of it has come from first hand sources. Here’s the difference. The information on fall survivability given that weight and the height of the fall is out there. It’s just math. I think you are afraid to do the research, because you know that the probability of survival is zero and then you’ll have to confront the possibility that you’re wrong.
Re: " imply I'm lying..."
Of course, the reality is that I'm not implying that you are lying. Impossible sounding things regularly happen. People fall from airplanes and survive. Seems impossible and yet it happens. And deputies observe something like this happen, no doubt. They attest that it actually happened. I'm not saying it doesn't happen.
I'm saying you have no data to support your claim that God supernaturally intervened. That's all. I'm not saying anything outstanding, just pointing out a fact. You observe something like somebody falling off a cliff and want to say that God supernaturally intervened. I'm fine with that, as long as you clear that's your hunch and nothing you can prove.
Google suicide attempt st croix county may 2018
That’ll give you some information.
I'm sure it won't go anywhere, but I'll ask another question. Are you suggesting that anytime that something happens that seems unexplainable that God intervened? Or sometimes is it the devil intervening? How about aliens? After all, there have been law enforcement officers and educated people observes UFOs. Does that mean UFOs must exist?
Myself, I am fine with it like knowledge in that we can't explain everything. I don't know how someone can fall from an airplane and live, but I do know what happens. They God intervene? I have no data to prove that. If you want to believe that, that's fine. It's just an opinion and not a fact. When law enforcement officers have seen UFOs and they say that's what it was do you insist that we must believe them as facts? Or are you fine with saying that's what they think happened but we don't know that there were actual UFOs?
I’ll also note that I’ve worked with well over a hundred immigrant/refugee families who have nothing but positive experience dealing with the US on their journeys. But I haven’t mentioned them because of your double standards for n terms of demanding proof, without providing proof.
“I'm sure it won't go anywhere, but I'll ask another question. Are you suggesting that anytime that something happens that seems unexplainable that God intervened? Or sometimes is it the devil intervening? How about aliens? After all, there have been law enforcement officers and educated people observes UFOs. Does that mean UFOs must exist?”
No,
It’s possible.
No.
No.
I see what you’re doing. Instead of offering an explanation that explains the result through physical or natural means, you’re just blowing smoke. Between that and the “I can’t explain it, but it’s not a miracle.” trope, I’m just getting bored with your lack of substance.
Once again, you’ll get your wish. You’ll dodge and avoid whatever you like, and your comments will continue to get posted. I’m done with any more significant response because I’m tired of your double standards and your willingness to contradict yourself to try to make rhetorical points.
If you can’t provide the level of proof you demand of others, if it’s always other people’s fault, just maybe you’d be better off to spend some time in introspection, rather than wasting my time with your fanciful stories.
Re: your work with immigrants. I have no doubt that some immigrants have a good experience. I know some for whom that has been the case. It was true for my ancestors, Once Upon a Time. And, just because some immigrants have a positive experience, that does not mean that all immigrants and refugees have a good experience.
Answer me straight Craig. This is important, so just answer directly.
Do you acknowledge the reality that some people face life and death situations in their native countries? And that they are desperate enough to leave that nation and come to other nations, like the US, seeking safety and refuge? Do you acknowledge that this is a real world reality?
If you acknowledge that reality, and good God, I hope you do, then do you think it's ever acceptable to reject them as refugees and send them back to where their lives were threatened?
If so, do you recognize how awful that makes you? When you fail to welcome the least of these, Jesus said, you fail to welcome me. I pray that you would not lock Jesus' children up in cages and send him back to his death.
(contd)
I’m sure it won’t go anywhere, but if you could not misrepresent my reasons for choosing not to invest significant time responding to any further comments, that’d be great.
About your wish that I would explain the scientific facts surrounding a story I have no documentation on in a field that I am not qualified to explain, do you really find that strange? I have no data on your story? I am not a doctor nor scientist. I do not know how people survive falling from Alvin airplane. I do not know how people survive falling off of a cliff. I do not know how people survive in a wide variety of extraordinary circumstances. Do you want me to explain something that I do not know? How is that rational? But I do get your point. Refugees can just go back to hell and die as far as you're concerned. And when you fail to welcome the least of these you fail to welcome Jesus. I get that.
“Do you acknowledge the reality that some people face life and death situations in their native countries? And that they are desperate enough to leave that nation and come to other nations, like the US, seeking safety and refuge? Do you acknowledge that this is a real world reality?”
It’s a stupid and patronizing question, but the answer is yes.
The most memorable was the guy who left his homeland when the local AQ (you know the religion of peace that you’ve been so complimentary of in the past), put out a fatwa on him for talking about Christianity.
In response to your “Is it ever acceptable...”, my answer is that I’m sure that there are times when it could be acceptable to choose not to grant asylum in the US, and it’s conceivable that there are circumstances when it would be acceptable to send them home.
For example. If the threat they faced has been eliminated, it would seem appropriate to send them back because the reason they left doesn’t exist any more.
So, when you pronounce me “awful” do you not understand that you are being judgements? Do you not understand that it’s wrong to judge people and more wrong to judge people that you don’t know?
But your embrace of double standards probably blinds you to that.
I accidentally deleted your other comment, feel free to re post.
I apologize for accidentally deleting your comment as always.
"Craig, I ignored your "example" (really, you just offering some words with no links to verification or indication of who this was or the details) because it was irrelevant."
There are no links, or any other means by which we can verify your Luis story, and thus it is irrelevant.
"The thing is, if you have immigrants and refugees in your community and you interact with them to any degree at all, you know that these stories are exceedingly common."
It's not whether or not such stories are common. It's which ones are true. Just as common are proven stories of deception, adults using children to whom they are unrelated in order to be allowed to remain in the country. What's also incredibly common, as well as proven, are those who crossed illegally and once caught claim they are refugees, thereby further cluttering the system which results in legitimate refugees held back while vetting the line jumper.
"1. No one is advocating that no vetting take place. I/we are fine with vetting people to make sure that they are not dangerous people making up a story to perpetrate harm here."
This is the usual lip service you pay when trying to assert that there's something wrong with our laws and procedures regulating entry into our country. Indeed, your every word more than suggests that we take the word of the illegal and let him in first, then verify the story. This is backwards and allows for illegals to disappear into the population...the very thing we need to prevent.
"However, IF someone has NO red flags suggesting they are escaped criminals seeking to do harm and the story seems to check out, OF COURSE, we should support refugees..."
And this is what our current laws and procedures regulating entry now do, yet you pretend they are unjust, draconian and whatever other disparaging terms you like to use as if there is something sinister behind the desire to protect our own.
"We MUST abandon the fear of strangers and support people seeking refuge IF we are going to be decent human beings supportive of human rights."
This suggests fears are unjustified despite the many confirmed reports of harm caused by putting aliens first. We know dangerous people have been protected by sanctuary city policies and harm has befallen US citizens, legal and illegal aliens as a result.
But more than that, it is dishonest to suggest that it is rank fear in the first place that motivates those who oppose your open borders mindset. Rather, it is common sense and the duty of a nation's government to protect ITS people, not the people of other countries. You demand that our government subordinate that duty to its people to a perceived obligation compelled by YOUR peculiar understanding of YOUR religion. And then you dare call us dicks for not walking in lockstep with it. How gracious!
What's more, as I said, God's desire that we treat the stranger well does not require us to pretend our laws regulating entry are in any way unjust or draconian, just because they might result in some people still suffering. No law accounts for every variation of every scenario and no law need be changed just because it can't. The whine that there's a problem with our laws demands that the whiner prove it could be done a better way, rather than simply ignoring the existing law because the whining has begun.
To herd this back toward the topic. If you’re going to use the story of Jesus’ family going to Egypt as justification for US immigration law, then you kind of have to use the whole story. In other words, when the threat was gone Joseph went home. If you have any interest in consistency then eliminating the threat, eliminates the need for asylum.
"do you think it's ever acceptable to reject them as refugees and send them back to where their lives were threatened?"
Absolutely. It's acceptable when their claim cannot be verified. It's not like those who are tasked with determining these things aren't accomplished enough yet might still send a truly threatened person home because the claim can't be verified. Again, you seem to suggest that there is never any reason that's acceptable simply because the claimant might suffer. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way, and it shouldn't. Keep in mind, the first priority is always what's best for OUR citizens. If only you and your family and friends were victimized by illegals, I still would find it acceptable to sometimes reject a claim that might be legitimate if it can't be verified as such. But the fact is, you don't freakin' care about who might suffer as a result of accepting every claim as true no matter what. That's worse than simply being a dick!
By the way, I meant to point out an irony, since Dan loves irony. Dan loves to pretend we don't understand his words, yet once again we see Dan failing to "get it". I refer to the comment regarding the "ploy" Craig mentioned. There was no mistaking that he was referring to the use of the JMJ story to justify open borders and/or looser refugee regulation. He was clearly, obviously and unambiguously NOT referring to the concern for refugees. Don't ever again whine that you're not understood. Take greater pains to make sure you're understandable.
If you’re going to use the story of Jesus’ family going to Egypt as justification for US immigration law, then you kind of have to use the whole story.
I, for one, do not advocate creating policy based solely on religious beliefs or interpretations of ancient texts.
I support policies that are founded upon notion of human rights.
One human right is the right to self determination. IF one thinks that it's unsafe or not viable to remain in Arizona, THEN one should have the liberty to move to Ohio.
IF one finds it unsafe or unviable to live in El Regadio, Nicaragua... and indeed, anywhere in Nicaragua, THEN one should be able to determine to move to some place safer/more preferable.
IF there is no reason to oppose someone moving to your city/state/nation, THEN that person should be free to move there.
You know, self determination. Human rights.
It's pretty easy (in a "let them eat cake" sort of way that the privileged class has often found easy) to say to people who are struggling in Somalia or Haiti, "Just make the best of your situation where you are..." BUT, if it was OUR family living in a place with no jobs and no way to sustain one's family... or in a place that was fundamentally unsafe due to your religion or gender or orientation, etc, THEN it begins to make sense that, of course, we should be free to move someplace with better prospects. It's just a rational, human rights sort of position.
Thus, it's also a Golden Rule sort of rule that is true nearly universally across humanity. Human rights belong to humans, or should.
The story of Jesus poor family (Jesus was literally born into poverty/lower class conditions) DOES testify to the threats facing the poor. The poor are generally more likely to end up needing refuge, due to oppression, climate change, debilitating poverty scenarios. It IS reasonable to identify that story as one that speaks to the need for support of human rights.
Thus, those who cite Jesus' story in support of human rights - BECAUSE human rights should belong to all people - do so correctly.
Do some of them conflate Jesus' sometime homeless, sometimes poor, sometimes refugee status ALL to the nativity story? I'm sure it happens. People are often not as biblically literate as they should be. Just as happens all the time with conservatives who oppose gay folk marrying "because the Bible tells them so..." EVEN THOUGH "the Bible" nor God tell them any such thing.
But that they get the details mixed up (and while I'm sure that happens, I don't know personally know of any progressives who don't know the details) does not change the reality: It is basic human decency to support refugees seeking a better, safer life. It is a matter of human rights, AS JESUS' story illustrates in various ways.
If some progressive types get the details wrong, they don't get the gist of the story wrong: God would have us do unto others as we'd do unto ourselves.
Do you disagree?
Dan,
If you’re going to misrepresent what I’ve asked you to do that’s fine. But you have enough data to do what I’ve asked you to do.
With the data I’ve given you, you can calculate the amount of force on landing. You can look up the percentage chances of survival. Given this bits of data, you should be able to provide an explanation that accounts for the observed results. The fact that your misrepresenting and making excuses certainly doesn’t help you.
So, you appear to be saying that the reality of the elimination of the threat doesn’t matter as much as people’s feelings. You’re literally suggesting that we ignore reality when making decisions about immigration status. You’re also conflating moving within a sovereign country and moving from country to country.
The real questions is are you advocating that this alleged right to self determination has any limits at all?
There at the end, you’re literally arguing that the details don’t matter, as long as they get the “gist” of the story right. Apparently you’re suggesting that the “gist” of the story is simply about economic status and immigration. Let’s see proof of that.
As to do unto others. How about this. We mirror the immigration laws of the country the immigrants are from, when we examine their status? Wouldn’t that be literally be treating immigrants from country x exactly like country x treats immigrants?
Art,
That’s another great reason and an excellent catch on the whole “gets it” problem, he clearly just made up his version of what I said and argued against the made up version. The other thing Dan either doesn’t get, or chooses to misrepresent, is that we’ve both clearly said that accepting refugees facing immanent specific danger is completely appropriate. As usual it’s easier to make shit up, than acknowledge what we’ve literally said.
Clearly, it’s literally statistically impossible that you and I always can’t understand Dan. It’s just mathematically impossible, yet he trots it out constantly.
I still think that this whole demand for data, proof, evidence, or whatever is much more of a way to divert the conversation into an area where he’s never going to accept anything that’s offered. But, it puts the onus on us and off of him, which seems to be the point.
For example, I asked him to address a situation and provide an alternative explanation. First, he simply ignored it until he was forced to come up with an excuse for not addressing it. Second, he’s misrepresented what I’ve asked for.
Now, the question is why not bring any of this up at the time? The most likely explanation is that he hoped he’d be able to divert the conversation from what I’d asked, to his demands for other things.
I just see very little point in investing significant amounts of time with his bs.
We mirror the immigration laws of the country the immigrants are from, when we examine their status? Wouldn’t that be literally be treating immigrants from country x exactly like country x treats immigrants?
Good God in heaven, what is wrong with you?
So, IF another nation executes their Christian citizens, THEN it is okay for us to also execute those Christians from that nation because "do unto others..."?? What sort of sick re-interpretation of that passage is that? How unholy!
The phrase goes DO unto others as YOU would have them do unto YOU.
If you were escaping another nation because of threats to your children's lives, what would YOU want citizens in that nation do unto you? Send you back? Put your children in cages?
Of course, you wouldn't.
Our current policy fails the very most basic of Golden Rule applications. And again, this is important NOT because it is found in the Bible (or nearly every other religious tradition and sacred books), but because of human rights.
Are there limits I support to immigration? Sure. For instance:
1. If the applicant is likely to cause harm here (i.e., they have a history of rape or murder)
2. If the nation/area physically can't support more people. For instance, I would support rules that say a person can't move to Arizona IF Arizona can't support more people/there's not enough water to support more people, for instance... and that would be a valid limitation if the person wanting to move there was from Texas or Guatemala.
So, I support reasonable environmental limits.
3. If the person seeking to move is wealthy and is safe/secure where they live and just want to move on a whim... that person would certainly have a lower priority than the person seeking to move for reasons of safety and security.
I'm sure there might be others, but generally, as a matter of human rights and in honor of the right of self determination, I'm loathe to impose unreasonable limits.
And, at the very least, if someone's life is threatened somewhere else, then it is reasonable for them to be granted refugee status in a safe nation of their choosing. Additionally, if someone is economically deprived in another nation (a desert region with too few job options), that would be a no-brainer to say, yes, of course such a person should have the right to self determination to seek to improve their lives.
Do you disagree? If so, what of the Golden Rule, for you personally? You don't care at the gov't level?
Marshal... It's acceptable when their claim cannot be verified.
So, let them eat cake. Marie Antoinette would have loved you.
"So, you're from a poor country and you're poor and you have no way of verifying the threat against you? Well then, go back. When you get shot and your daughters are raped, take photos and bring them back with you so you can verify it next time. What? You have no camera? Just use your phone, dummy! What? You have no phone? Then use your daughters! She won't need it while she's all tied up (literally), anyway..."
The poor and marginalized have always been abused and molested and taken advantage of and their very nature as a poor and marginalized person makes them unable to prove their abuses and oppressions and thus, the oppression goes on.
And on that final day, you'll say, "When, Lord? When did I see you a refugee and turn you away? When did I send your daughter back to be raped and your sons to be killed? You weren't one of those shifty and lying refugees from shithole nations, were you..."?
And the Lord will say, Depart from me, you vile cowards and snakes. For what you did not do for the least of these my brothers and sisters, you did not do to me.
Man, that's some heavy karma you're sending your own way.
Still, all they have to do is eat that cake and they'll be cool.
And you can just keep drinking your kool aid and sleep in the peace of the privileged and ignorant.
Keep in mind, the first priority is always what's best for OUR citizens.
Fucking selfish, privileged, candy-assed coward. To hell with that sort of blind cowardice and white privilege.
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink,
I was a stranger and you invited me in,
I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?
When did we see you a stranger and invite you in,
or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,
I was a stranger and you did not invite me in,
I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty
or a stranger
or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Craig: The other thing Dan either doesn’t get, or chooses to misrepresent, is that we’ve both clearly said that accepting refugees facing immanent specific danger is completely appropriate.
Marshal: It's acceptable [to deport refugees] when their claim cannot be verified.
This is the problem. To be open IN THEORY to the idea of welcoming refugees is one thing. BUT to place limits on who can be accepted as refugees (only those with the wealth, wherewithal or good fortune to be able to prove it) is to send the least of these to their deaths.
Thus, I'm specifically and literally NOT misrepresenting your ideas. I'm talking about the failings of your "let them eat cake" approach to "support" for refugees, the poor and the least of these.
It's as if you think Jesus' story goes like this:
Damned: "But Lord, when did you need to be welcomed and we did not welcome you?!"
Jesus: "When you failed to welcome the poor stranger... but NOT those who couldn't prove their poverty or desperation... I'm TOTALLY cool with deporting them sick bastards back to their shit hole countries... No, I'm only talking about the DESERVING poor..."
Damned: "Ah, but we are okay with helping the deserving poor and did that... we just turned away those who couldn't prove their desperation and poverty..."
Jesus: "Oh. Okay then, come on in, boys, God's pleased with that sorta halfhearted commitment to the poor..."
Marshal... "There are no links, or any other means by which we can verify your Luis story, and thus it is irrelevant."
Come on. Can't you all admit the reality that it would be a helluva lot easier to find reliable stories about the reality of refugees seeking safety from their home nation than it would be to find reliable stories about people having their arms grow back by God's magic touch?
Apples and oranges.
I’m just going to point out that the American political left has spent a big chunk of the last two days defending a country that kills Christians.
Beyond that I’ve explained why I’m not engaging in detail..
"I, for one, do not advocate creating policy based solely on religious beliefs or interpretations of ancient texts."
Then you go on to list a litany of Biblical verses with the intention of shaming us toward supporting the policies you advocate.
"I support policies that are founded upon notion of human rights."
Whose notion? Based on what? I have no problem basing any policy proposal on Scripture, admitting Scripture influences my proposals, knowing that what I advocate has universal benefit, if not appeal. I can argue it without Scripture. You clearly can't as you went on to cite Scripture for that purpose. But clearly not everyone in the world abides or believes in human rights. If they did, there would be no refugees.
"One human right is the right to self determination."
Allowing that such a thing exists, it doesn't oblige another to insure that right is realized, especially at the expense of other people. It's like happiness. There is no right to it in this country. There is only the right to pursue it. There are all manner of laws, codes, regulations, restrictions and prohibitions in law that stand as barriers in the pursuit of happiness, and "self-determination" falls under that concept the pursuit of happiness. There is no obligation on the part of our people or our government to insure one's "determination".
"IF there is no reason to oppose someone moving to your city/state/nation, THEN that person should be free to move there."
First of all, you can't conflate "city" or "state" (as we use the term "state" in the USA) with "nation". They are not the same at all. You well know this and as such doing so is disingenuous. Secondly, as the desire pertains to another country, one is free to the extent of the limitations imposed by that other country's laws, regulations and customs.
"It's pretty easy (in a "let them eat cake" sort of way that the privileged class has often found easy) to say to people who are struggling in Somalia or Haiti, "Just make the best of your situation where you are...""
Neither of us have said anything remotely similar to this. Nice straw man.
"The story of Jesus poor family (Jesus was literally born into poverty/lower class conditions) DOES testify to the threats facing the poor."
There's absolutely nothing in Scripture that suggests Jesus, Mary and Joseph were poor. A serious, prayerful student of Scripture would know this. Thus, those who cite Jesus' story in support of open borders do so incorrectly. Indeed, such people do so deceitfully.
"Just as happens all the time with conservatives who oppose gay folk marrying "because the Bible tells them so..." EVEN THOUGH "the Bible" nor God tell them any such thing."
No conservative says "the Bible tells me" homosexuals can't marry. We say (because it's a fact) the Bible tells us that God regards homosexual behavior as an abomination worthy of death without any mention of a scenario or context in it wouldn't be and as such there's no way He'd bless, condone or approve of a homosexual union of any kind. As you've had this explained to you countless times, you should stop bearing false witness against conservatives on this issue.
"It is basic human decency to support refugees seeking a better, safer life."
And it's been our custom and policy in this country for a long time. So there's no complaint on your part except that you don't require any proof that the claims of refugees are true.
"It is a matter of human rights, AS JESUS' story illustrates in various ways."
The only human right threatened in the Christmas story is Jesus' right to life. As you advocate for abortion, I'm surprised you care about that.
"If you were escaping another nation because of threats to your children's lives, what would YOU want citizens in that nation do unto you? Send you back? Put your children in cages?"
The citizens aren't in charge of such things. Representatives of the citizens' government are. That's a distinction clearly lost on you, but the duty of the representatives are to do their jobs according to the laws, regulations and procedures laid out for them to abide. So no, I wouldn't want them to send me back, but if they're doing their job as instructed, and it calls for them to send me back, that's what they're charged with doing and I'd be obliged to abide. And if they deal with the same deceptions our immigration people face all the time, separating my children from me were I to have entered without following their laws would be a legitimate action I'd also have to abide...for the sake of the children. I know you don't get this, but that's how things work and it's all good.
"Our current policy fails the very most basic of Golden Rule applications."
Our current policy isn't meant for that purpose. It's meant to serve the interests of the people of THIS country, not of any other. If you want our government to treat all the people of the world in this way, then you should never balk at the notion of our sending troops to war against oppressive regimes that drive their people to attempt illegal crossings of our sovereign border. The vast majority of refugees have no desire to leave their country in the first place.
"1. If the applicant is likely to cause harm here (i.e., they have a history of rape or murder)"
Which is almost impossible to ascertain in many cases. But you'd demand that regardless of having no means to guarantee an applicant is not a criminal, we must let them in and hope for the best. That's moronic.
"2. If the nation/area physically can't support more people."
Typical. You, who has no desire to increase your wealth, pays no mind to whether or not a nation is financially unable to support more people. In your twisted mind, and since it ain't coming out of YOUR pocket, we've got money to burn. And financially is a far more legitimate and tangible measure of feasibility as it includes all that money might buy were it in ample supply...water included.
"3. If the person seeking to move is wealthy and is safe/secure where they live and just want to move on a whim... that person would certainly have a lower priority than the person seeking to move for reasons of safety and security."
So all who might be a benefit to this country by their presence and assimilation must take a back seat to all who may never be more than a burden. Got it. You're freakin' brilliant.
"I'm sure there might be others, but generally, as a matter of human rights and in honor of the right of self determination, I'm loathe to impose unreasonable limits."
You're loathful because in practice you'd impose no limits whatsoever.
"And, at the very least, if someone's life is threatened somewhere else, then it is reasonable for them to be granted refugee status in a safe nation of their choosing."
That's not reasonable at all, and international principle agrees. It's only reasonable that a refugee seek asylum in the first nation it comes to after leaving his place of origin that will grant him asylum, thus relieving the refugee of the danger from which he flees. Thus, no one south of Mexico should EVER get to our border to seek asylum, because Mexico has more lenient asylum laws than do we. By your goofy logic, the beggar gets to be the chooser of the quality of charity offered him. You're an idiot. But then, what do YOU care? YOU'RE not gonna pay for it.
"The poor and marginalized have always been abused and molested and taken advantage of and their very nature as a poor and marginalized person makes them unable to prove their abuses and oppressions and thus, the oppression goes on."
"“It’s not that conditions have changed much in these countries, but that they figured out that asylum was a way to get in the door. Clearly, the lenient policies that enable people to get into the United States just by claiming a fear of return – the ‘credible fear’ standard – is attracting more and more people every year,” said immigration policy expert Jessica M. Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies.
“They know they can make this claim and will be allowed in with no consequences, and can disappear into the larger illegal population, and may or may not show up for their immigration proceedings,” she added.
She and others believe the standard for claiming asylum is poor, especially when put up against the statistic that just 3-5 percent of the claims are officially granted at hearings.
In 2016, for example, over 10,000 claims were made from Honduran immigrants. Just 670 were approved. Over 17,000 El Salvadoran claims were sought and 753 were granted. And over 11,000 came from Guatemalans and under 700 were granted, according to the statistics.
“Something is wrong if we are approving 80 percent of the new arrivals for entry under the current ‘credible fear’ standard, but so few of them actually are approved. That suggests that the credible fear standard is way too low and out of sync with the legal standards for asylum itself,” said Vaughan.
Officials note that claims can be handled other ways before going to court. For those who cross the border illegally then make an asylum claim, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency explains the process this way: “The immigration judge then decides whether the individual is eligible for asylum. If found eligible, the immigration judge will order asylum to be granted. If found ineligible for asylum, the immigration judge will determine whether the individual is eligible for any other forms of relief from removal. If found ineligible for other forms of relief, the immigration judge will order the individual to be removed from the United States. The immigration judge’s decision can be appealed by either party.”
Most of the surge came under former President Obama and it overwhelmed immigration courts. The open door under Obama may have encouraged the increase, said Vaughan.
“It was utterly dysfunctional, as if by design. It would be one thing if we had such an orderly process and such respect for the law that people came in, made their claims, were adjudicated promptly, and went right home if denied -- then we wouldn’t have to detain people. But the reality is that many do not even file a formal application after we let them in on ‘credible fear’ and if they do, they often don’t show up for their hearing, and if they do and they are denied, they hide instead of show up for removal. This is a farce that clogs up the asylum system and denies swift protection to the deserving applicants and their families,” she said.
So rather than pretend anyone is showing disregard for legitimate suffering, the reality is that aliens are playing the system. More rigid vetting is required, not a loosening of the process. Those truly in need are those who are suffering and at the hands of the Dan Trabues of the country who think they're helping by demanding that which will be, and has been, a burden to others.
"Man, that's some heavy karma you're sending your own way."
Nothing compared to that coming your way for the dead at the hands of illegals and those who protect their illegal existence. Nothing compared to the VERY LEAST OF THESE that die with your approval and support in the abortion mills. So if you're going to dare mount a high horse, I suggest something more than a Shetland pony.
"F**king selfish, privileged, candy-assed coward. To hell with that sort of blind cowardice and white privilege."
There's that "embracing grace" again! I'm really not understanding that concept at all! In the meantime, I'm quite certain the American population is quite diverse...and that's just counting the legal citizens. So I don't know where the mythical "white privilege" has any relevance here. What's more, I don't see where cowardice is indicated by a defense of the rule of law and all those who are threatened due to the actions of others that conflict with the law.
Your perversion of Scripture to defend your anti-American policies and law-breaking belies your claim that you aren't looking to impose religion to enact public policy. It also does nothing to provoke in me any review of my position, given my position is far more aligned with Christian doctrine than is yours, for it provides for those in need while also obeying the laws of the land as we are obliged to do as Christians. But again, I just love being lectured by a "Christian" that supports abortion and sexual immorality...and law-breaking, apparently.
"Thus, I'm specifically and literally NOT misrepresenting your ideas."
That's totally true. Rather, you're straight out lying about our ideas. Because you embrace grace.
Post a Comment