Christian Leaders To Jeff Sessions: The Bible Does Not Justify Separating Families

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: BlueAjah

Why aren't the refugee children in the US Foster Care system then?

Why are we putting the kids in question in the equivalent of prison or concentration camps?

At least they aren't in cages anymore.

Though I think it would be highly effective propaganda to take pictures of kids in cages and circulate them throughout central America.

Hmm hmm.

I'm in favor of finding solutions, not of supporting more propaganda, myself.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The Bible also says this:

‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 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.’ 44 “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?’ 45 “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.’

The speaker was allegedly Jesus Christ.

I’m not even going to try to square that circle.

a reply to: TheRedneck

What? So if I claim the speed limit needs to be changed, I can be written a ticket for speeding? What kind of warped multidimensional logic is this?

I have never suggested otherwise. Speeding while thinking think the speed limit law is unjust is not you following the law.

Why would they defend something they believe is unconstitutional?

That's a job for the Supreme Court. Until it's not law, it is law, and the AG's job is to enforce and defend existing law, not re-interpret it to fit his agenda. Undermining existing law is not enforcing or defending the law.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Cat got your tongue?

a reply to: Willtell

It's not about religion it's about the moral sense. You either have it or you don't.

Pffft... if you’re talking morality.. why do so many of these illegal immigrants get better quality of life than the homeless and destitute who are already citizens of the country. Where is the morality in helping feed your neighbor when your own children are starving ?

a reply to: Sheye

We could feed and house them all if we spent a little less building bombs.
But people wouldn't like that it is too socialist for many here.

originally posted by: Sheye
a reply to: Willtell

It's not about religion it's about the moral sense. You either have it or you don't.

Pffft... if you’re talking morality.. why do so many of these illegal immigrants get better quality of life than the homeless and destitute who are already citizens of the country. Where is the morality in helping feed your neighbor when your own children are starving ?

In their own countries, they aren't their brothers keepers.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Cat got your tongue?

Like I said, I don’t use bible passages to justify anything. A passage can be used in support of a claim just as one can be used to refute it.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Sheye

We could feed and house them all if we spent a little less building bombs.
But people wouldn't like that it is too socialist for many here.

How long do we feed and house them?

Why should my tax dollars go towards people who violate national sovereignty?


Does the UK have an open border policy? If not, why?

How about we deport all politicians who conspire to destabilize the US from within?

originally posted by: Mandroid7
How about we deport all politicians who conspire to destabilize the US from within?

Can't. We'd have no more politi-. . . . .


Ahhh.

I see what you did there.

a reply to: DBCowboy

No but we attempt to look after refugees coming over.
I don't mind that seeing it is our governments which caused their trouble in the first place.
The better question is why should your tax dollars help bomb people whom get displaced then attempt to go where it is safe...the west.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I often wonder what percent of taxes would lead to world peace. It has to be the only thing holding us back, Peolosi told me so.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

What law or laws are you accusing me of rejecting?

I am not accusing you of anything. I am reading your posts, not writing them. That's you.

Your posts seem to indicate you do not believe Jeff Sessions has the right to freedom of religion. Did I misunderstand you?

Happy to, but Dominionist Christians like Jeff Session won't stay out of individuals' lives, nor will they stop trying to legislate their religious stances into law and they insist on interpreting and enforcing existing law to their Christian lean, even if by doing so exemplifies the hypocrisy of their stance, which it always does.

You apparently do not understand how religion works; perhaps that is the source of the confusion. Under freedom of religion, we are free to believe whatever we wish. As citizens, we are free to vote based on whatever we wish. Therefore, it is not possible to keep religious perspectives out of political discussions. We do, however, have the 1st Amendment, which forbids the government from establishing a national religion nor restricting free exercise of a religion as a counterbalance to that.

In other words, if the Bible says that eating prunes on Saturday is a sin, and if enough people believe that eating prunes on Saturday is wrong and should be illegal, they can get a law passed that forbids eating prunes on Saturday. Law enforcement can then enforce the law and stop people from eating prunes on Saturday. They cannot get a law passed that says people must follow the Bible about eating prunes; the law itself must be secular. Those who want to eat prunes on Saturday can challenge the law based on other protections, and the Supreme Court, assuming it gets that far, has the final word as to whether eating prunes on Saturday is a protected right of the people that cannot be legislated away. It does not matter where the idea that eating prunes on Saturday is wrong came from.

If the Supreme Court strikes the law down, a law enforcement officer cannot still arrest someone for eating prunes on Saturday just because he believes it is wrong. He is legally required to allow people to eat prunes on Saturday, regardless of what he believes. He can still complain about all these terrible people who eat prunes on Saturday, but he cannot use his legal position to enforce the struck down law, even if he believes it is just.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Sheye

We could feed and house them all if we spent a little less building bombs.
But people wouldn't like that it is too socialist for many here.

I don’t think Canada is spending money building bombs.. or putting much into their military or vets for that matter.Yet they still manage to increasingly put us further into debt with handouts for illegals while ignoring the struggling legal citizen, many of whom are vets. That is simply not fair.

This is the kind of foul barbarian Trump is in relation to this issue. He won’t even take responsibility for his own actions. He says he did this because the Democrats made a law that it has to be done.

Of course, that's a bald face lie

LINK

This is not true. There is no law that requires immigrant families to be separated. The decision to charge everyone crossing the border with illegal entry — and the decision to charge asylum seekers in criminal court rather than waiting to see if they qualify for asylum — are both decisions the Trump administration has made.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xtrozero

What else is he saying?

Oh, that's right ... he's trying to trade the lives of Dreamers for his damned ridiculous wall.

Why the half-truths, Zero?

There is always give and take in Government. Seems it was OK for Obama to throw 100s of billions in a failure attempt for a stimulus package, but to secure the borders... now that is stupid. The dems were handed DACA on a platter and they still want it all with zero give. They don't want Trump to say I fixed DACA in 2020, don't you know?

1. Secure the borders
2. Take care of DACA
3. Figure out what to do with the illegals already here
4. Fix our immigration system
5. Establish a worker vise program

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes, he wants his wall. So what? According to the election results, so do a lot of other people. Congress had plenty of time to codify DACA before the election; why didn't they?

Include me as one of those other people who want a wall. Every discussion like this just makes me want it more.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The Bible also says this:

‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 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.’ 44 “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?’ 45 “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.’

The speaker was allegedly Jesus Christ.

I’m not even going to try to square that circle.

Of course not.

The verses you cited instruct us to obey the government.

The verses I cited instruct us that how we treat the least among us is vitally important to Jesus.

/shrug

a reply to: Xtrozero

I figure;

Secure the borders then grant amnesty.

Granting amnesty before securing the borders is just accepting an open border policy.