|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 14 2019 13:50 KwarK wrote:
Fun fact, since you mentioned Wharton. Trump never attended the renowned Wharton MBA program, the one people assume when you say you went to Wharton. Trump transferred to UPenn to finish his undergraduate degree. That's what he means when he says he went to Wharton. He's saying it in the geographic sense. He likes to imply that he's an alumnus of the program but what he means is that he was briefly physically on the campus that the program is taught on.
This is a good chance to correct a widely misunderstood issue in defense of Trump.
Penn is unique in that one of the four undergrad schools is literally Wharton. Students apply for either Wharton, Nursing, Engineering, or the Arts and Sciences undergrad school. Wharton undergrad is the most prestigious undergrad business program in the country and renown for its difficulty to get into (average students there are like Harvard/Princeton level). So he is technically correct when he says he graduated from Wharton.
Having said that, iirc, he knew somebody at Penn who likely pulled some strings to get him in. There is no evidence his grades qualified him transfer there, that's for sure.
|
On April 15 2019 05:40 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 13:50 KwarK wrote:
Fun fact, since you mentioned Wharton. Trump never attended the renowned Wharton MBA program, the one people assume when you say you went to Wharton. Trump transferred to UPenn to finish his undergraduate degree. That's what he means when he says he went to Wharton. He's saying it in the geographic sense. He likes to imply that he's an alumnus of the program but what he means is that he was briefly physically on the campus that the program is taught on. This is a good chance to correct a widely misunderstood issue in defense of Trump. Penn is unique in that one of the four undergrad schools is literally Wharton. Students apply for either Wharton, Nursing, Engineering, or the Arts and Sciences undergrad school. Wharton undergrad is the most prestigious undergrad business program in the country and renown for its difficulty to get into (average students there are like Harvard/Princeton level). So he is technically correct when he says he graduated from Wharton. Having said that, iirc, he knew somebody at Penn who likely pulled some strings to get him in. There is no evidence his grades qualified him transfer there, that's for sure.
Kudos for choosing truth over partisan point scoring, but I have to wonder, between Trump and the Varsity Blues scandal if "Harvard/Princeton level" carries the same weight it did before.
For those that "earn" (likely did so with a pile of privilege) their way into these institutions it probably carries more value though.
|
On April 15 2019 05:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2019 02:20 Danglars wrote:On April 15 2019 01:20 ChristianS wrote:
You know, without even getting into GH’s claim that the conditions that cause so many people to seek asylum are our fault (I confess, I just don’t know enough central/South American history to comment), I’m sometimes a little amazed the religious right isn’t more motivated by a Good Samaritan-type moral imperative on immigration. I mean if the nature of the problem is “there are so many people in desperate suffering, not that far from our border, that we can’t muster the resources to process them all” then how does a (at least nominally) morally-rooted ideology not conclude “we have to help all these suffering people!” ?
Before people start dunking on the religious right, I’ll say that the religious right has sometimes demonstrated more moral concern for people more like them (iirc, wasn’t there some big political movement in the last couple years to help some Christian pastor get out of Iran’s prisons, even though Iran has had all kinds of political prisoners for years?). But I don’t see how that applies here? I mean, a good percentage of these immigrants are Christian (or at least Catholic, I know some Protestants insist Catholics aren’t Christians but still).
And it’s not like the religious right is incapable of caring about brown people. Seems like every time I talk to an evangelical they’re talking about some youth group trip to some poor Asian country to build a water filtration system and hand out bibles or something. Less anecdotally, one of the religious right’s big FP motivations is protecting Christian religious minorities that are being persecuted abroad, including in countries where those minorities would mostly be nonwhite.
So if morality is (at least rhetorically, if not actually) so central to the religious right’s ideology, how does the (im)morality of “let’s build a big wall to keep out all the suffering people so we won’t have to see/interact with them” not come up more? Christians do give much aid to organizations that feed the needy in their own countries and medical missions and much more than other demographics within the US. The problem is extending the parable of the Good Samaritan to governmental structures. Jesus didn’t command his disciples to lobby the Roman government for more state aid programs in Judea. The Good Samaritan didn’t sponsor legislation in his local council for more inns and aid workers. The problem is applying spiritual law to systematic problems. The message wasn’t to import the world to rich “holy lands” for salvation. That’s almost an earth-born salvation theology. I know friends that literally moved to central and South America to apply the Good Samaritan lessons, and people support them as well as others. So while I do know there’s a contradiction if members of the religious right don’t personally give their time and money, I know this isn’t about loving humanity into a rich Ark: Part 2. Most of the theological criticism only takes biblical lessons that favor their argument, and not others. How do you reconcile the first bold part with Christian politics toward gay marriage? The second seems to be equally a problem among the faithful.
I’d have to see the specific trouble you have, framed as precisely as you can. To give you one entry point, it’s tough to persuade Christians that something God called wickedness, degradation, and all that is something Christians should support by way of govt imprimatur.
I don’t want to derail too far into Biblical exegesis of state vs church vs individual, because I don’t think people enjoy reading scriptural references and quotes and religious discussion intruding on political discussion. I just thought ChristianS deserved a basic outline of a contrary position for expressing himself plainly and forthrightly.
|
On April 14 2019 15:31 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 15:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 14 2019 12:16 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 12:05 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 12:00 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:56 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 11:52 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:40 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 11:31 Introvert wrote:
We can argue about that later (like how that would just incentivize more of this). The first step, as they say, is recognizing that you have a problem (a "crisis" we might call it). Slow and steady. I don't acknowledge a crisis. Too few immigration judges and facilities is not an existential threat to the US. How has this crisis impacted your life? Because to me this feels like rather less of a crisis that the great KFC crisis the UK had last year. That certainly impacted the lives of far more people, and in a far more negative way. Lots of people wanting to seek asylum in the United States isn't a crisis, it's a big country bordering a country with a cartel violence problem, you'd expect a lot of asylum seekers. This is the kind of routine day to day administration shit that we have a government to deal with. If they're fucking up the handling of it that still doesn't mean it's a crisis, it's just piss poor administration. The opioid crisis is a crisis because it's one of the leading causes of death. People can name their classmates who died as a result of it. It's out of control. It's directly impacting the lives of Americans everywhere. The fact that the government didn't hire enough people to process asylum seekers is right there with KFC not buying enough chickens. They had a system in place and they fucked up the admin. Only the asylum thing isn't as bad. Expanding the definition of crisis to "[immediate] existential threat" is completely arbitrary. It's a crisis to those whose job it is to deal with it. How about their lives? They aren't " fucking up the handling of it," they are operationally incapable of handling it. You think that's solvable by more judges. If you won't take it from literally everyone involved (including the former head of DHS) then I guess you are hopeless. Just define it away! Meanwhile blame Trump while he's stopped at every turn by judges and the issue is ignored by the political party that controls a chamber of Congress. Well because a bunch of what he tries to do is, actually not doable legallly? Or overall popular with the whole country? Meh, these judges are creating new law out of thin air, but that's not even the point. To avoid calling the crisis what it is and then blaming Trump is ludicrous. As if Trump can declare "there shall be more immigration judges." Lots if Democrat are doing what Kwark, Plansix, et al do. Just deny the problem exists, and then blame Trump for the non-existent problem. He's not meant to declare that there be more. That's not how government works. He's meant to have a competent guy working below him who has a competent guy working below him who in turn has a team of competent people in strategic planning who liaise with the budget people and the relevant department heads. Government is complicated, but it's also their job. They're bad at their jobs. They need to be less bad at their jobs. You have got to spare me this garbage. With the resources they have they can't do the job that's required. Have not all the articles I've posted over the months displayed this? We have a DHS head from the last administration saying it, the NYT is acknowledging it, a few reporters at the WP have been describing it, and you are blaming administrative malfeasance. That's alternative facts, not what I'm saying. On April 14 2019 12:05 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 12:00 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:56 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 11:52 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:40 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 11:31 Introvert wrote:
We can argue about that later (like how that would just incentivize more of this). The first step, as they say, is recognizing that you have a problem (a "crisis" we might call it). Slow and steady. I don't acknowledge a crisis. Too few immigration judges and facilities is not an existential threat to the US. How has this crisis impacted your life? Because to me this feels like rather less of a crisis that the great KFC crisis the UK had last year. That certainly impacted the lives of far more people, and in a far more negative way. Lots of people wanting to seek asylum in the United States isn't a crisis, it's a big country bordering a country with a cartel violence problem, you'd expect a lot of asylum seekers. This is the kind of routine day to day administration shit that we have a government to deal with. If they're fucking up the handling of it that still doesn't mean it's a crisis, it's just piss poor administration. The opioid crisis is a crisis because it's one of the leading causes of death. People can name their classmates who died as a result of it. It's out of control. It's directly impacting the lives of Americans everywhere. The fact that the government didn't hire enough people to process asylum seekers is right there with KFC not buying enough chickens. They had a system in place and they fucked up the admin. Only the asylum thing isn't as bad. Expanding the definition of crisis to "[immediate] existential threat" is completely arbitrary. It's a crisis to those whose job it is to deal with it. How about their lives? They aren't " fucking up the handling of it," they are operationally incapable of handling it. You think that's solvable by more judges. If you won't take it from literally everyone involved (including the former head of DHS) then I guess you are hopeless. Just define it away! Meanwhile blame Trump while he's stopped at every turn by judges and the issue is ignored by the political party that controls a chamber of Congress. Well because a bunch of what he tries to do is, actually not doable legallly? Or overall popular with the whole country? Meh, these judges are creating new law out of thin air, but that's not even the point. To avoid calling the crisis what it is and then blaming Trump is ludicrous. As if Trump can declare "there shall be more immigration judges." Lots if Democrat are doing what Kwark, Plansix, et al do. Just deny the problem exists, and then blame Trump for the non-existent problem. Are we talking about the same crisis? The one that was an issue but Trump made a crisis and now it’s everyone Else’s fault for being critical of his stance? We're talking about the fact that almost 100k people are arriving at the border a month and the vast majority are families making asylum claims. This is not a situation the laws or these agencies were equipped to handle. The Democrat response, in so far as there is one, is to say that's not a crisis, or at least not a "real" crisis. I'm here posting from, not Breitbart, but the NYT, WP, and other places and we are still getting denialism. At the same time I'm told the Democrat party is very serious about immigration. Believable. Sooooo the net migration rate in the US is below 3 migrants per thousand people per year, down from around 6 in the early 2000. It’s been going down regularly since. sourceDoesn’t quite sound like an effing invasion if you ask me. The only thing to fix is to give means to the administration to do a faster job when it comes to asylum seekers. It’s funny, in France, Marine Le Pen also keep parotting that we are getting submerged by evil migrants (probably brown and muslim too) and that the borders are « open » (whatever the fuck that means) while our migration rate is historically low and that it hasn’t been as hard to settle in France since at least 70 years. But then again, the advantages to have a base that ain’t interested in facts to start with. The nature of the people crossing is entirely different. In the early 2000s it was mostly young single men. The numbers of those caught include many of these people who tried crossing multiple times and were caught. They were captured easily in small groups or alone, and could be deported quickly and easily as well. Today it's mostly family units making asylum claims at some point. They are also often sick and in need of medical attention. For the aforementioned reasons, they also have to be housed for longer. They also rarely get deported, so the percentage of people caught at the border being released internally is much higher. Neither the laws nor the facilities anticipated 100k such individuals arriving in a month. There is no precedent for this.
I don't know, maybe not abruptly stopping to give aid to these countries, and help stabilizing them would help more with reducing the amount of incoming distressed families ?
There were far, far, far more immigrants in the previous decades or centuries, and guess what ? It worked out. This crisis is manufactured from the beginning to the end. By removing funding to fledgling countries, more people come. By consciously not increasing the budget to process them, delays increase and you can say there is a crisis. When you say that, you can then try to shut lawful entry ports (or just make them so slow that it ends up..), leading people to try to enter illegally. Then you can show these increasing number of arrests ! Especially when you have implemented a very restrictive policy where you put everyone in jail instead of releasing those that pose no risk.
Bam ! Crisis !!!
Don't tell me it was not foreseeable, especially the consequences of what the Trump admin is doing abroad. America first mean having weaker countries around, less stable, thus more people emigrating. Rocket science ? The point with developing neighbouring countries is to have them richer, stabler, meaning their people don't come in your country, and they end up rich enough to buy your wares. (might make it a little bit more expensive to produce things there though, but there's always another "shithole country" to exploit, you usually try not to have those at your backdoor though.)
I'd like to add that the genesis of the present situation in most of those countries is the aftermath from the 2008 crisis, that was born in... ? the USA, since you were not able (and not willing, since republicans are about deregulation) to regulate banks and loans, and various weird financial products. Granted, the rest of the world also has blame since the situation was not pristine, however this is the position of the US. Anything that happens there has world implications since its economy and currency is so important. It ripples everywhere, always. You reap what you sow. Benefits, AND drawbacks.
|
On April 15 2019 06:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2019 05:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 15 2019 02:20 Danglars wrote:On April 15 2019 01:20 ChristianS wrote:
You know, without even getting into GH’s claim that the conditions that cause so many people to seek asylum are our fault (I confess, I just don’t know enough central/South American history to comment), I’m sometimes a little amazed the religious right isn’t more motivated by a Good Samaritan-type moral imperative on immigration. I mean if the nature of the problem is “there are so many people in desperate suffering, not that far from our border, that we can’t muster the resources to process them all” then how does a (at least nominally) morally-rooted ideology not conclude “we have to help all these suffering people!” ?
Before people start dunking on the religious right, I’ll say that the religious right has sometimes demonstrated more moral concern for people more like them (iirc, wasn’t there some big political movement in the last couple years to help some Christian pastor get out of Iran’s prisons, even though Iran has had all kinds of political prisoners for years?). But I don’t see how that applies here? I mean, a good percentage of these immigrants are Christian (or at least Catholic, I know some Protestants insist Catholics aren’t Christians but still).
And it’s not like the religious right is incapable of caring about brown people. Seems like every time I talk to an evangelical they’re talking about some youth group trip to some poor Asian country to build a water filtration system and hand out bibles or something. Less anecdotally, one of the religious right’s big FP motivations is protecting Christian religious minorities that are being persecuted abroad, including in countries where those minorities would mostly be nonwhite.
So if morality is (at least rhetorically, if not actually) so central to the religious right’s ideology, how does the (im)morality of “let’s build a big wall to keep out all the suffering people so we won’t have to see/interact with them” not come up more? Christians do give much aid to organizations that feed the needy in their own countries and medical missions and much more than other demographics within the US. The problem is extending the parable of the Good Samaritan to governmental structures. Jesus didn’t command his disciples to lobby the Roman government for more state aid programs in Judea. The Good Samaritan didn’t sponsor legislation in his local council for more inns and aid workers. The problem is applying spiritual law to systematic problems. The message wasn’t to import the world to rich “holy lands” for salvation. That’s almost an earth-born salvation theology. I know friends that literally moved to central and South America to apply the Good Samaritan lessons, and people support them as well as others. So while I do know there’s a contradiction if members of the religious right don’t personally give their time and money, I know this isn’t about loving humanity into a rich Ark: Part 2. Most of the theological criticism only takes biblical lessons that favor their argument, and not others. How do you reconcile the first bold part with Christian politics toward gay marriage? The second seems to be equally a problem among the faithful. I’d have to see the specific trouble you have, framed as precisely as you can. To give you one entry point, it’s tough to persuade Christians that something God called wickedness, degradation, and all that is something Christians should support by way of govt imprimatur. I don’t want to derail too far into Biblical exegesis of state vs church vs individual, because I don’t think people enjoy reading scriptural references and quotes and religious discussion intruding on political discussion. I just thought ChristianS deserved a basic outline of a contrary position for expressing himself plainly and forthrightly.
Fair enough and perhaps I'll take it up in PM because I'm not interested in "proving" anything, but just understanding how you personally reconcile the two.
I will say I think the difference in opposition to Viagra for adulterers by way of socialized healthcare costs compared to the characterization and opposition to gay marriage in reference to the state calls into question (and supports my point imo) the sincerity and selectivity of the faithful.
That's to say personal opposition outside of the political sphere seems reasonably consistent with your argument and Biblical literature. However, when interfering with the state's relationship with what they interpret as sinful behavior that consistency seems to break down.
This is why the reconciliation of "The problem is applying spiritual law to systematic problems." and the application of spiritual law to the system of state recognized relationships interests me.
|
On April 15 2019 06:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2019 06:39 Danglars wrote:On April 15 2019 05:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 15 2019 02:20 Danglars wrote:On April 15 2019 01:20 ChristianS wrote:
You know, without even getting into GH’s claim that the conditions that cause so many people to seek asylum are our fault (I confess, I just don’t know enough central/South American history to comment), I’m sometimes a little amazed the religious right isn’t more motivated by a Good Samaritan-type moral imperative on immigration. I mean if the nature of the problem is “there are so many people in desperate suffering, not that far from our border, that we can’t muster the resources to process them all” then how does a (at least nominally) morally-rooted ideology not conclude “we have to help all these suffering people!” ?
Before people start dunking on the religious right, I’ll say that the religious right has sometimes demonstrated more moral concern for people more like them (iirc, wasn’t there some big political movement in the last couple years to help some Christian pastor get out of Iran’s prisons, even though Iran has had all kinds of political prisoners for years?). But I don’t see how that applies here? I mean, a good percentage of these immigrants are Christian (or at least Catholic, I know some Protestants insist Catholics aren’t Christians but still).
And it’s not like the religious right is incapable of caring about brown people. Seems like every time I talk to an evangelical they’re talking about some youth group trip to some poor Asian country to build a water filtration system and hand out bibles or something. Less anecdotally, one of the religious right’s big FP motivations is protecting Christian religious minorities that are being persecuted abroad, including in countries where those minorities would mostly be nonwhite.
So if morality is (at least rhetorically, if not actually) so central to the religious right’s ideology, how does the (im)morality of “let’s build a big wall to keep out all the suffering people so we won’t have to see/interact with them” not come up more? Christians do give much aid to organizations that feed the needy in their own countries and medical missions and much more than other demographics within the US. The problem is extending the parable of the Good Samaritan to governmental structures. Jesus didn’t command his disciples to lobby the Roman government for more state aid programs in Judea. The Good Samaritan didn’t sponsor legislation in his local council for more inns and aid workers. The problem is applying spiritual law to systematic problems. The message wasn’t to import the world to rich “holy lands” for salvation. That’s almost an earth-born salvation theology. I know friends that literally moved to central and South America to apply the Good Samaritan lessons, and people support them as well as others. So while I do know there’s a contradiction if members of the religious right don’t personally give their time and money, I know this isn’t about loving humanity into a rich Ark: Part 2. Most of the theological criticism only takes biblical lessons that favor their argument, and not others. How do you reconcile the first bold part with Christian politics toward gay marriage? The second seems to be equally a problem among the faithful. I’d have to see the specific trouble you have, framed as precisely as you can. To give you one entry point, it’s tough to persuade Christians that something God called wickedness, degradation, and all that is something Christians should support by way of govt imprimatur. I don’t want to derail too far into Biblical exegesis of state vs church vs individual, because I don’t think people enjoy reading scriptural references and quotes and religious discussion intruding on political discussion. I just thought ChristianS deserved a basic outline of a contrary position for expressing himself plainly and forthrightly. Fair enough and perhaps I'll take it up in PM because I'm not interested in "proving" anything, but just understanding how you personally reconcile the two. I will say I think the difference in opposition to Viagra for adulterers by way of socialized healthcare costs compared to the characterization and opposition to gay marriage in reference to the state calls into question (and supports my point imo) the sincerity and selectivity of the faithful. That's to say personal opposition outside of the political sphere seems reasonably consistent with your argument and Biblical literature. However, when interfering with the state's relationship with what they interpret as sinful behavior that consistency seems to break down. This is why the reconciliation of "The problem is applying spiritual law to systematic problems." and the application of spiritual law to the system of state recognized relationships interests me.
The question is always more interesting when asked to a gay Christian. It's not hard for someone of faith to explain their prejudice. I had a fascinating discussion with a (now ex) American Christian the other day who explained how she mentally worked her way through her first stirrings of attraction to another woman.
First one I've spoken to who openly states she'd felt god's presence in her life and even felt like he spoke to her as well.
|
On April 15 2019 02:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2019 01:20 ChristianS wrote:
You know, without even getting into GH’s claim that the conditions that cause so many people to seek asylum are our fault (I confess, I just don’t know enough central/South American history to comment), I’m sometimes a little amazed the religious right isn’t more motivated by a Good Samaritan-type moral imperative on immigration. I mean if the nature of the problem is “there are so many people in desperate suffering, not that far from our border, that we can’t muster the resources to process them all” then how does a (at least nominally) morally-rooted ideology not conclude “we have to help all these suffering people!” ?
Before people start dunking on the religious right, I’ll say that the religious right has sometimes demonstrated more moral concern for people more like them (iirc, wasn’t there some big political movement in the last couple years to help some Christian pastor get out of Iran’s prisons, even though Iran has had all kinds of political prisoners for years?). But I don’t see how that applies here? I mean, a good percentage of these immigrants are Christian (or at least Catholic, I know some Protestants insist Catholics aren’t Christians but still).
And it’s not like the religious right is incapable of caring about brown people. Seems like every time I talk to an evangelical they’re talking about some youth group trip to some poor Asian country to build a water filtration system and hand out bibles or something. Less anecdotally, one of the religious right’s big FP motivations is protecting Christian religious minorities that are being persecuted abroad, including in countries where those minorities would mostly be nonwhite.
So if morality is (at least rhetorically, if not actually) so central to the religious right’s ideology, how does the (im)morality of “let’s build a big wall to keep out all the suffering people so we won’t have to see/interact with them” not come up more? Christians do give much aid to organizations that feed the needy in their own countries and medical missions and much more than other demographics within the US. The problem is extending the parable of the Good Samaritan to governmental structures. Jesus didn’t command his disciples to lobby the Roman government for more state aid programs in Judea. The Good Samaritan didn’t sponsor legislation in his local council for more inns and aid workers. The problem is applying spiritual law to systematic problems. The message wasn’t to import the world to rich “holy lands” for salvation. That’s almost an earth-born salvation theology. I know friends that literally moved to central and South America to apply the Good Samaritan lessons, and people support them as well as others. So while I do know there’s a contradiction if members of the religious right don’t personally give their time and money, I know this isn’t about loving humanity into a rich Ark: Part 2. Most of the theological criticism only takes biblical lessons that favor their argument, and not others.
I appreciate the response. I don’t post much because I don’t often have the time to write something I think is worth posting, and even when I do, I’m not sure I’ll have time to respond to anyone later. I think this is a discussion worth having, so I’ll keep responding for now, but I apologize if I don’t get a chance to carry on the replies at some point.
I’ve heard plenty of people accuse Christians of hypocrisy for not caring enough about this or that group, usually for opposing welfare or healthcare reform or some such, so I’ve heard the “private vs. public charity distinction” before and I think it’s valid. “You should help the less fortunate” is a good sentiment, but it doesn’t clarify the best means for helping them; there’s a big gap between “someone ought to help that person” and “the government ought to help that person.”
Doesn’t that distinction have its limits though? It’s not like a big government program to feed asylum seekers is what’s at stake here. I mean, imagine Lazarus comes into the rich man’s courtyard and says “Help me! I’ve traveled a hundred miles here with my family. In my former home, evil men threatened to kill us if my son didn’t join them in their evil acts.” The rich man shouts out “Guards! This man is not a legal resident here. Bind him, and send him back to his homeland; he has no right to be here.”
Do you think the rich man’s post-mortal fate will be any better than in the original parable? Do you think it will redeem him if he contributes $20 a month, or $200 a month, or $2000 a month to charities meant to help the less fortunate? Do you think it will redeem him if he says he feared Lazarus was a criminal? Or that Lazarus would raise unemployment? Or that Lazarus wouldn’t assimilate to the local culture? Or that Lazarus’s children and grandchildren would become citizens and vote against the policies the rich man supports?
After all, the religious right is not exactly slow to apply their faith to their opinions on government policy. The moral imperative on abortion motivates them plenty; few seem to pause much on the dilemma “well sure, I think this is right and that is wrong; but is it right to expect the government to enforce my belief?” I’ve lived in California long enough to have experienced the Prop 8 campaign first hand; their religious->political beliefs on right and wrong were similarly unimpeded by the public/private dilemma.
How, then, can they stay quiet when poor, suffering people are literally dying in the desert trying to enter the country, yet it is a crime to bring them food and water and aid? How can they talk of crime rates or unemployment or assimilation when terrified, desperate people are showing up on their doorstep, clearly in need?
|
America's not the first nation to find the Bible to be a book best read in edited format, and to skip the sections about charity and goodwill to one's neighbour.
A truly Christian nation couldn't build the sort of always-on mega rich economy that the USA has created. And that nation's religious movement definitely wouldn't find itself bankrolled by suspiciously wealthy, very much not-Christian men, and that nation's religious movement probably wouldn't vote very often due to the ridiculous amount of corruption in both parties.
Though that is an interesting question I've never put to the faithful: if you know both parties are corrupt, is the right thing to not vote at all? Or is the poison pill approach a valid religious perspective to take, where you boil it down to single issue voting and just go with whoever will do X (be it restricting abortions, abolishing gay marriage, whatever) religious issue that's close to your heart?
Certainly we're long past the point of claiming the two don't mix, given evangelical churches constantly preach that the congregation most vote for one person or the other.
|
On April 15 2019 10:07 iamthedave wrote:
America's not the first nation to find the Bible to be a book best read in edited format, and to skip the sections about charity and goodwill to one's neighbour.
A truly Christian nation couldn't build the sort of always-on mega rich economy that the USA has created. And that nation's religious movement definitely wouldn't find itself bankrolled by suspiciously wealthy, very much not-Christian men, and that nation's religious movement probably wouldn't vote very often due to the ridiculous amount of corruption in both parties.
Though that is an interesting question I've never put to the faithful: if you know both parties are corrupt, is the right thing to not vote at all? Or is the poison pill approach a valid religious perspective to take, where you boil it down to single issue voting and just go with whoever will do X (be it restricting abortions, abolishing gay marriage, whatever) religious issue that's close to your heart?
Certainly we're long past the point of claiming the two don't mix, given evangelical churches constantly preach that the congregation most vote for one person or the other.
This is part of why I think the “public vs. private charity” distinction is valid. Every time someone has tried to directly apply the principles of the Bible to governmental structure, it came out as, basically, some kind of communism. And they generally went pretty badly. The Bible isn’t primarily a political document, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone it doesn’t specify whether the legislature should be bicameral, or whether a socialist or capitalist or mixed economy would best serve the public good.
But it is a primarily a moral document, and it surprises me that doesn’t come up more on political questions that are fundamentally moral dilemmas. It’s not particularly surprising to me that xDaunt-like conservatives are fine sending asylum-seeking immigrants back to (in many cases) certain death, or at least misery, to keep unemployment down or protect cultural homogeneity or lower the crime rate or whatever end they think it serves. xDaunt has explicitly advocated for fucking over non-Americans if it will even slightly advantage Americans; his position is unabashedly immoral. (He insists it’s amoral; in fact it’s both, but that’s beside the point).
But it does surprise me that voters who are so insistent their positions are motivated by morality are so untroubled by it in this case. It’s easy to jump to “hypocrisy” as an explanation, but besides being an uncharitable interpretation, it doesn’t explain why they’re hypocrites here specifically. Religious people claim to care about a lot of issues specifically because of their religion, and many of them at least seem to be sincere. If their faith really does command something other than what they’re saying/doing here, why are they breaking from it here while following it elsewhere?
|
My evangelical church doesn't preach that I must vote for one party or the other. I would you wouldn't provide your view on a people whos nation you aren't even in with such conviction.
Religion in America especially protestant denominations are incredibly diverse and fractious. My church had a deep conversation about romney and obama which came to the conclusion that even if obama was a muslim he was closer to god then the heretic mitt romney. You would pay good money I believe to be a fly on the wall to that conversation dave.
The last election genuinely had people saying that they couldn't in good conscience vote for either candidate if that helps you. No one could really positively present a non-negative message for either candidate.
|
On April 15 2019 10:43 Sermokala wrote:
My evangelical church doesn't preach that I must vote for one party or the other. I would you wouldn't provide your view on a people whos nation you aren't even in with such conviction.
Religion in America especially protestant denominations are incredibly diverse and fractious. My church had a deep conversation about romney and obama which came to the conclusion that even if obama was a muslim he was closer to god then the heretic mitt romney. You would pay good money I believe to be a fly on the wall to that conversation dave.
The last election genuinely had people saying that they couldn't in good conscience vote for either candidate if that helps you. No one could really positively present a non-negative message for either candidate.
I agree. American churches are incredibly diverse and fractious. One not too far from me came down hard in favor of Obama. The debates were quite lively for anyone disagreeing.
For moral questions, it comes down to the least worst calculus. Trump made the grand bargain with evangelicals on abortion. Hillary was the first one to remove the “safe, legal, and rare” language to go further away from that moral stance.
The second question is whether even pagans are solid for leaving the religious alone. He or she might not take firm stands on religious issues, but s/he won’t fine and jail people that won’t bake cakes on religious grounds (or allege religion is an excuse for discrimination like Colorado’s commissioner). Even agnostics or atheists can score high on that metric.
|
Northern Ireland25875 Posts
On April 15 2019 06:43 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 15:31 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 15:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 14 2019 12:16 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 12:05 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 12:00 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:56 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 11:52 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:40 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 11:31 Introvert wrote:
We can argue about that later (like how that would just incentivize more of this). The first step, as they say, is recognizing that you have a problem (a "crisis" we might call it). Slow and steady. I don't acknowledge a crisis. Too few immigration judges and facilities is not an existential threat to the US. How has this crisis impacted your life? Because to me this feels like rather less of a crisis that the great KFC crisis the UK had last year. That certainly impacted the lives of far more people, and in a far more negative way. Lots of people wanting to seek asylum in the United States isn't a crisis, it's a big country bordering a country with a cartel violence problem, you'd expect a lot of asylum seekers. This is the kind of routine day to day administration shit that we have a government to deal with. If they're fucking up the handling of it that still doesn't mean it's a crisis, it's just piss poor administration. The opioid crisis is a crisis because it's one of the leading causes of death. People can name their classmates who died as a result of it. It's out of control. It's directly impacting the lives of Americans everywhere. The fact that the government didn't hire enough people to process asylum seekers is right there with KFC not buying enough chickens. They had a system in place and they fucked up the admin. Only the asylum thing isn't as bad. Expanding the definition of crisis to "[immediate] existential threat" is completely arbitrary. It's a crisis to those whose job it is to deal with it. How about their lives? They aren't " fucking up the handling of it," they are operationally incapable of handling it. You think that's solvable by more judges. If you won't take it from literally everyone involved (including the former head of DHS) then I guess you are hopeless. Just define it away! Meanwhile blame Trump while he's stopped at every turn by judges and the issue is ignored by the political party that controls a chamber of Congress. Well because a bunch of what he tries to do is, actually not doable legallly? Or overall popular with the whole country? Meh, these judges are creating new law out of thin air, but that's not even the point. To avoid calling the crisis what it is and then blaming Trump is ludicrous. As if Trump can declare "there shall be more immigration judges." Lots if Democrat are doing what Kwark, Plansix, et al do. Just deny the problem exists, and then blame Trump for the non-existent problem. He's not meant to declare that there be more. That's not how government works. He's meant to have a competent guy working below him who has a competent guy working below him who in turn has a team of competent people in strategic planning who liaise with the budget people and the relevant department heads. Government is complicated, but it's also their job. They're bad at their jobs. They need to be less bad at their jobs. You have got to spare me this garbage. With the resources they have they can't do the job that's required. Have not all the articles I've posted over the months displayed this? We have a DHS head from the last administration saying it, the NYT is acknowledging it, a few reporters at the WP have been describing it, and you are blaming administrative malfeasance. That's alternative facts, not what I'm saying. On April 14 2019 12:05 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 12:00 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:56 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 11:52 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:40 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 11:31 Introvert wrote:
We can argue about that later (like how that would just incentivize more of this). The first step, as they say, is recognizing that you have a problem (a "crisis" we might call it). Slow and steady. I don't acknowledge a crisis. Too few immigration judges and facilities is not an existential threat to the US. How has this crisis impacted your life? Because to me this feels like rather less of a crisis that the great KFC crisis the UK had last year. That certainly impacted the lives of far more people, and in a far more negative way. Lots of people wanting to seek asylum in the United States isn't a crisis, it's a big country bordering a country with a cartel violence problem, you'd expect a lot of asylum seekers. This is the kind of routine day to day administration shit that we have a government to deal with. If they're fucking up the handling of it that still doesn't mean it's a crisis, it's just piss poor administration. The opioid crisis is a crisis because it's one of the leading causes of death. People can name their classmates who died as a result of it. It's out of control. It's directly impacting the lives of Americans everywhere. The fact that the government didn't hire enough people to process asylum seekers is right there with KFC not buying enough chickens. They had a system in place and they fucked up the admin. Only the asylum thing isn't as bad. Expanding the definition of crisis to "[immediate] existential threat" is completely arbitrary. It's a crisis to those whose job it is to deal with it. How about their lives? They aren't " fucking up the handling of it," they are operationally incapable of handling it. You think that's solvable by more judges. If you won't take it from literally everyone involved (including the former head of DHS) then I guess you are hopeless. Just define it away! Meanwhile blame Trump while he's stopped at every turn by judges and the issue is ignored by the political party that controls a chamber of Congress. Well because a bunch of what he tries to do is, actually not doable legallly? Or overall popular with the whole country? Meh, these judges are creating new law out of thin air, but that's not even the point. To avoid calling the crisis what it is and then blaming Trump is ludicrous. As if Trump can declare "there shall be more immigration judges." Lots if Democrat are doing what Kwark, Plansix, et al do. Just deny the problem exists, and then blame Trump for the non-existent problem. Are we talking about the same crisis? The one that was an issue but Trump made a crisis and now it’s everyone Else’s fault for being critical of his stance? We're talking about the fact that almost 100k people are arriving at the border a month and the vast majority are families making asylum claims. This is not a situation the laws or these agencies were equipped to handle. The Democrat response, in so far as there is one, is to say that's not a crisis, or at least not a "real" crisis. I'm here posting from, not Breitbart, but the NYT, WP, and other places and we are still getting denialism. At the same time I'm told the Democrat party is very serious about immigration. Believable. Sooooo the net migration rate in the US is below 3 migrants per thousand people per year, down from around 6 in the early 2000. It’s been going down regularly since. sourceDoesn’t quite sound like an effing invasion if you ask me. The only thing to fix is to give means to the administration to do a faster job when it comes to asylum seekers. It’s funny, in France, Marine Le Pen also keep parotting that we are getting submerged by evil migrants (probably brown and muslim too) and that the borders are « open » (whatever the fuck that means) while our migration rate is historically low and that it hasn’t been as hard to settle in France since at least 70 years. But then again, the advantages to have a base that ain’t interested in facts to start with. The nature of the people crossing is entirely different. In the early 2000s it was mostly young single men. The numbers of those caught include many of these people who tried crossing multiple times and were caught. They were captured easily in small groups or alone, and could be deported quickly and easily as well. Today it's mostly family units making asylum claims at some point. They are also often sick and in need of medical attention. For the aforementioned reasons, they also have to be housed for longer. They also rarely get deported, so the percentage of people caught at the border being released internally is much higher. Neither the laws nor the facilities anticipated 100k such individuals arriving in a month. There is no precedent for this. I don't know, maybe not abruptly stopping to give aid to these countries, and help stabilizing them would help more with reducing the amount of incoming distressed families ? There were far, far, far more immigrants in the previous decades or centuries, and guess what ? It worked out. This crisis is manufactured from the beginning to the end. By removing funding to fledgling countries, more people come. By consciously not increasing the budget to process them, delays increase and you can say there is a crisis. When you say that, you can then try to shut lawful entry ports (or just make them so slow that it ends up..), leading people to try to enter illegally. Then you can show these increasing number of arrests ! Especially when you have implemented a very restrictive policy where you put everyone in jail instead of releasing those that pose no risk. Bam ! Crisis !!! Don't tell me it was not foreseeable, especially the consequences of what the Trump admin is doing abroad. America first mean having weaker countries around, less stable, thus more people emigrating. Rocket science ? The point with developing neighbouring countries is to have them richer, stabler, meaning their people don't come in your country, and they end up rich enough to buy your wares. (might make it a little bit more expensive to produce things there though, but there's always another "shithole country" to exploit, you usually try not to have those at your backdoor though.) I'd like to add that the genesis of the present situation in most of those countries is the aftermath from the 2008 crisis, that was born in... ? the USA, since you were not able (and not willing, since republicans are about deregulation) to regulate banks and loans, and various weird financial products. Granted, the rest of the world also has blame since the situation was not pristine, however this is the position of the US. Anything that happens there has world implications since its economy and currency is so important. It ripples everywhere, always. You reap what you sow. Benefits, AND drawbacks.
Aid basically doesn’t matter at all. Wider economic plans and investments do. Other structures do.
Basically any country America threw money at on the auspices of being equals, did fine.
Countries America did not treat as vague equals, not so much. You can rebuild Europe, or usher a Japan you’ve literally nuked, or Korea into being global powerhouses economically
You can’t do the same with Latin America or elsewhere.
America’s crowning successes outside its own borders, ever by a distance are successfully helping a Germany recover from LITERALLY being Nazis into what you see now, and Japan, an enemy that struck the States unprovoked become what it is now.
However its greatest successes when the States actually want to do something really illuminate their greatest failures, or where they don’t want to do something.
|
On April 15 2019 03:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2019 02:51 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 15 2019 02:20 Danglars wrote:On April 15 2019 01:20 ChristianS wrote:
You know, without even getting into GH’s claim that the conditions that cause so many people to seek asylum are our fault (I confess, I just don’t know enough central/South American history to comment), I’m sometimes a little amazed the religious right isn’t more motivated by a Good Samaritan-type moral imperative on immigration. I mean if the nature of the problem is “there are so many people in desperate suffering, not that far from our border, that we can’t muster the resources to process them all” then how does a (at least nominally) morally-rooted ideology not conclude “we have to help all these suffering people!” ?
Before people start dunking on the religious right, I’ll say that the religious right has sometimes demonstrated more moral concern for people more like them (iirc, wasn’t there some big political movement in the last couple years to help some Christian pastor get out of Iran’s prisons, even though Iran has had all kinds of political prisoners for years?). But I don’t see how that applies here? I mean, a good percentage of these immigrants are Christian (or at least Catholic, I know some Protestants insist Catholics aren’t Christians but still).
And it’s not like the religious right is incapable of caring about brown people. Seems like every time I talk to an evangelical they’re talking about some youth group trip to some poor Asian country to build a water filtration system and hand out bibles or something. Less anecdotally, one of the religious right’s big FP motivations is protecting Christian religious minorities that are being persecuted abroad, including in countries where those minorities would mostly be nonwhite.
So if morality is (at least rhetorically, if not actually) so central to the religious right’s ideology, how does the (im)morality of “let’s build a big wall to keep out all the suffering people so we won’t have to see/interact with them” not come up more? Jesus didn’t command his disciples to lobby the Roman government for more state aid programs in Judea. The Good Samaritan didn’t sponsor legislation in his local council for more inns and aid workers. He didn't have to have his disciples lobby other people, he himself lobbied everyone to do that very thing for all people. Oh yeah. All we need now is a state immigration policy segue.
Spoken like a true believer! Who really doesn't believe in it all that much.
|
|
|
On April 15 2019 11:36 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2019 03:30 Danglars wrote:On April 15 2019 02:51 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 15 2019 02:20 Danglars wrote:On April 15 2019 01:20 ChristianS wrote:
You know, without even getting into GH’s claim that the conditions that cause so many people to seek asylum are our fault (I confess, I just don’t know enough central/South American history to comment), I’m sometimes a little amazed the religious right isn’t more motivated by a Good Samaritan-type moral imperative on immigration. I mean if the nature of the problem is “there are so many people in desperate suffering, not that far from our border, that we can’t muster the resources to process them all” then how does a (at least nominally) morally-rooted ideology not conclude “we have to help all these suffering people!” ?
Before people start dunking on the religious right, I’ll say that the religious right has sometimes demonstrated more moral concern for people more like them (iirc, wasn’t there some big political movement in the last couple years to help some Christian pastor get out of Iran’s prisons, even though Iran has had all kinds of political prisoners for years?). But I don’t see how that applies here? I mean, a good percentage of these immigrants are Christian (or at least Catholic, I know some Protestants insist Catholics aren’t Christians but still).
And it’s not like the religious right is incapable of caring about brown people. Seems like every time I talk to an evangelical they’re talking about some youth group trip to some poor Asian country to build a water filtration system and hand out bibles or something. Less anecdotally, one of the religious right’s big FP motivations is protecting Christian religious minorities that are being persecuted abroad, including in countries where those minorities would mostly be nonwhite.
So if morality is (at least rhetorically, if not actually) so central to the religious right’s ideology, how does the (im)morality of “let’s build a big wall to keep out all the suffering people so we won’t have to see/interact with them” not come up more? Jesus didn’t command his disciples to lobby the Roman government for more state aid programs in Judea. The Good Samaritan didn’t sponsor legislation in his local council for more inns and aid workers. He didn't have to have his disciples lobby other people, he himself lobbied everyone to do that very thing for all people. Oh yeah. All we need now is a state immigration policy segue. Spoken like a true believer! Who really doesn't believe in it all that much.
Do you realy want to question the measure of one's faith based on your opinion of their religion?
|
United States24709 Posts
The quote was, "...he's trying to pit Americans against each other and make us less safe." It's ambiguous whether he means the societal friction makes us less safe as a whole, or sanctuary cities will be less safe directly as a result of additional illegal immigrants. Perhaps you shouldn't paraphrase him without a source and then conveniently select the interpretation that most conveniently fits into your partisan narrative.
Your follow up question, "why oppose the wall?", takes it as a given that the logical thing to do if you want to reduce the number of illegal immigrants in places like sanctuary cities is to build a wall, even though opponents of the wall have explained in gory detail why that makes no sense over and over again. Your claim that the opposition to the wall is to turn Texas blue is theoretical, but you can believe it without providing support if you wish.
Then you conflate illegal immigrant issues with homeless shelters... It's like you look at everything in the world from a particular perspective with a goal of disproving certain people, regardless of where the facts actually lie.
|
United States43135 Posts
The immigrants can’t vote. The idea that immigration is being used to import voters has never made sense.
|
The whole idea of putting illegals in sanctuary cities is a really good media/public opinion play. Illogical and meaningless upon inspection, but it is a favorable play in national politics.
|
Northern Ireland25875 Posts
On April 15 2019 12:08 Mohdoo wrote:
The whole idea of putting illegals in sanctuary cities is a really good media/public opinion play. Illogical and meaningless upon inspection, but it is a favorable play in national politics.
Is it? It could be, I don’t actually know at all, I haven’t seen any data and my own personal biases and intuition are all I have to go on.
If illegals are the problem and a national security issue yet you need to signal a border emergency, then putting them anywhere is a problem, even if broad support in those places is there. also it’s transparently partisan
Also no state is 100% red or blue, there are some Trump voters in sanctuary cities. Not that electorally they matter,
I presume they’ll be somewhat pissed that their immigration clampdown guy is even floating the idea.
|
On April 15 2019 11:39 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2019 11:36 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 15 2019 03:30 Danglars wrote:On April 15 2019 02:51 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 15 2019 02:20 Danglars wrote:On April 15 2019 01:20 ChristianS wrote:
You know, without even getting into GH’s claim that the conditions that cause so many people to seek asylum are our fault (I confess, I just don’t know enough central/South American history to comment), I’m sometimes a little amazed the religious right isn’t more motivated by a Good Samaritan-type moral imperative on immigration. I mean if the nature of the problem is “there are so many people in desperate suffering, not that far from our border, that we can’t muster the resources to process them all” then how does a (at least nominally) morally-rooted ideology not conclude “we have to help all these suffering people!” ?
Before people start dunking on the religious right, I’ll say that the religious right has sometimes demonstrated more moral concern for people more like them (iirc, wasn’t there some big political movement in the last couple years to help some Christian pastor get out of Iran’s prisons, even though Iran has had all kinds of political prisoners for years?). But I don’t see how that applies here? I mean, a good percentage of these immigrants are Christian (or at least Catholic, I know some Protestants insist Catholics aren’t Christians but still).
And it’s not like the religious right is incapable of caring about brown people. Seems like every time I talk to an evangelical they’re talking about some youth group trip to some poor Asian country to build a water filtration system and hand out bibles or something. Less anecdotally, one of the religious right’s big FP motivations is protecting Christian religious minorities that are being persecuted abroad, including in countries where those minorities would mostly be nonwhite.
So if morality is (at least rhetorically, if not actually) so central to the religious right’s ideology, how does the (im)morality of “let’s build a big wall to keep out all the suffering people so we won’t have to see/interact with them” not come up more? Jesus didn’t command his disciples to lobby the Roman government for more state aid programs in Judea. The Good Samaritan didn’t sponsor legislation in his local council for more inns and aid workers. He didn't have to have his disciples lobby other people, he himself lobbied everyone to do that very thing for all people. Oh yeah. All we need now is a state immigration policy segue. Spoken like a true believer! Who really doesn't believe in it all that much. Do you realy want to question the measure of one's faith based on your opinion of their religion?
My statement had as much to do with opinions about a religion as his statement about the good samaritan had to do with the teachings of Jesus.
Questioning faith is healthy, unquestioned faith amounts to dogma and is dangerous. The Christian church of all institutions has a pretty horrible record of preaching values/faith and then hurting people through actions outside of those very same values/faith.
People frequently like to take religion and repurpose the teaching to serve their purposes, such as in this case... the teachings of Jesus didn't preach border walls and child separation, that's not secret knowledge. His teachings did preach helping those who are hurting and in need of help...
When someone comes to our country seeking asylum, those are by definition those people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
