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

originally posted by: testingtesting


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.

We could take those bombs and bomb the crap out of their home country then rebuild it...problem fixed.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
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

In rough order of your questions:

He's willing to trade the lives of people for a really ridiculous idea? So what? To me that speaks volumes about the man.

If you assume that every person who voted for Trump also supports the wall, you might say that. Sadly, most Americans did not vote for Trump, ergo by your logic, most Americans do not want the wall.

Sure, I'll remember that you're in favor of a ridiculous idea that will cost billions and make little difference.

You betcha.

a reply to: DBCowboy

The powers that be must not have realized how many willing participants were already within our borders.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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

Sessions cited them, just to be precise. They are clearly “biblical”. But Just as easily as he was able to justify something with the bible, you were able to refute it with the Bible.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

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

Then we will have to agree to disagree. I personally do not wish a society where thought is illegal, but it appears you do.

At least you are honest about your beliefs. Kudos for that.

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.

No, it is the Supreme Court's job to make the final determination as to constitutionality. Each individual has the right to decide for themselves if they believe it is constitutional or not until the matter is settled.

I do not think defense from someone who believes in the prosecution would be a good thing anyway.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

I thought you were more of an ends justifying the means kind of guy?

I'd take it even further by accompanying the photos with rumors of white supremicist gangs harvesting the kidneys of illegal immigrant's children.

originally posted by: Gryphon66


If you assume that every person who voted for Trump also supports the wall, you might say that. Sadly, most Americans did not vote for Trump, ergo by your logic, most Americans do not want the wall.

Sure, I'll remember that you're in favor of a ridiculous idea that will cost billions and make little difference.

You betcha.

Were you in favor of the stimulus package that gave green companies 10s of billions and they didn't make it to the end of Obama 8 years?

Ya Trump is crazy, crazy as in he is working his way though his campaign promises one at a time... that is such a strange thought with professional politicians. He says here are my promises and one of them is the wall, and the people voted him in to complete his promises...What part of all this do you not understand?

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

I thought you were more of an ends justifying the means kind of guy?

I'd take it even further by accompanying the photos with rumors of white supremicist gangs harvesting the kidneys of illegal immigrant's children.

Why would you think that? And why would it be relevant?

You're in favor of more lies being injected into the situation?

Okay. Noted.

i pray that no one believes jeffs incorrect remarks.

very far off base when he said that

a reply to: Willtell

"Christian Leaders" are important to you now?

a reply to: Xtrozero

In general, I was in favor of the stimulus packages, much of which initiated under GW Bush.

In a free market, companies fail. That's capitalism.

You and others regularly remind us that Trump isn't a politician, right?

The matter of Trump's promises in relation to his actions would make an interesting debate.

Spare me the silly ad hominem Zero.

a reply to: Gryphon66

In a free market, companies fail. That's capitalism.

i like the sound of that but it goes against your stance to force people to do stuff.

Have you ever heard of the non aggression principle? it is good stuff

a reply to: Gryphon66

He's willing to trade the lives of people for a really ridiculous idea? So what? To me that speaks volumes about the man.

He wasn't the one who wrote the Constitution with the separation of powers. Neither was he in charge when Congress refused to codify DACA. Now he has the issue of an unconstitutional Executive Order that many are (or at least claim to be) in favor of, and has actually saved DACA for the time being. Had he done nothing, the case was about to reach the Supreme Court and likely be struck down. That would mean that Trump would have no choice but to enforce the law without regards to DACA.

But he is the one who actually wants to stop the problems this thread is about. People who break the law must be punished or there is no law. In the case of illegal immigration, that means the adults must go to a detention facility until their case can be adjudicated. Since they brought children, those children then have to go... somewhere... Do we put them in detention with their parents? What if there's no relatives to take them in? Foster care? Do we have enough foster homes?

There is no easy answer because our immigration system is overwhelmed. A large part of that is that there is little to no effective border control. A wall would at least establish a barrier to illegal entry and might make it possible that we could better handle situations like this.

If you assume that every person who voted for Trump also supports the wall, you might say that.

I do not. Neither should you assume that those who voted against Trump also voted against the wall.

However, since Trump was elected, and one of his major platform planks was the wall, I feel it is safe to assume that a substantial number of people support the wall as well.

I'll remember that you're in favor of a ridiculous idea that will cost billions and make little difference.

*shrug* I'm not in the habit of changing positions on a whim anyway. Knock yerself out.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Wow, that's a lot of fluff that has no relationship to the discussion at hand. Separation of powers, really?

(I find it comical that you want to imply that Trump is in favor of Constitutional limits on his power, as an aside.)

Hmmm ... so if he's defending the essence of a prior Executive Order as you say (and why would he do so if it's unconstitutional as you seem to claim) why wouldn't he issue an EO in line with the Constitution and move on?

That's more his style, right? Getting things done? Rather than randoming the lives of a million or so people for his pet project?

Your claim was that votes for Trump were votes for the wall. Right there above in plain sight.

So much for you not reversing your positions, eh?

a reply to: TheRedneck

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

YOU
Then we will have to agree to disagree. I personally do not wish a society where thought is illegal, but it appears you do.

What in my above sentence gives you the idea that I'm for thought policing? I think we need to agree to disagree that your reality is the same as my reality. Clearly we are not communicating.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
I think we need to agree to disagree that your'e reality is the same as my reality.

No offense, that may be a streeetch....

EDIT:

a reply to: Gryphon66

Wow, that's a lot of fluff that has no relationship to the discussion at hand. Separation of powers, really?

The discussion at hand, based on the OP, is about how the OP has apparently discovered value in religious discussions, since they can be used against Trump/Sessions. If I remember correctly (and I do) Jesus Himself was tempted in the wilderness with quoted verses out of proper context.

That aside, you seem to be more intent on discussing the actual situation with children of illegal immigrants, which I agree is a much more interesting subject. As a matter of fact, I have agreed with many of your posts on this subject, just been too busy with detractors to say so.

But I do not agree that Separation of Powers is "fluff" in any discussion that affects the actions of the government. I consider it an inherently critical part of the discussion.

Hmmm ... so if he's defending the essence of a prior Executive Order as you say (and why would he do so if it's unconstitutional as you seem to claim) why wouldn't he issue an EO in line with the Constitution and move on?

Because the very issuance of an EO that is in contradiction of rather than detailing implementation of laws is itself the unconstitutional part. the President cannot make law; he can, by Executive Order, make policy to assist in implementation of law, but there is already a law, passed by a Democratic Congress incidentally, that says the DACA recipients must be deported. He cannot override Congress.

Your claim was that votes for Trump were votes for the wall. Right there above in plain sight.

My claim, again, was that because Trump used the wall as a major plank in his platform and won, there was a substantial number of others who agreed. I did not use the word "majority." I have reneged on no position.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

What in my above sentence gives you the idea that I'm for thought policing?

Did you not indicate that thinking a law is unjust is as much a violation of law as physical violation?

I think we need to agree to disagree that your reality is the same as my reality. Clearly we are not communicating.

Reality is reality; neither you nor I have our own reality.

However, we may be miscommunicating. Would you like to clarify your position? how is opposing a law the same as violating it?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Gryphon66

You and others regularly remind us that Trump isn't a politician, right?

The matter of Trump's promises in relation to his actions would make an interesting debate.

I said he is not a PROFESSIONAL politician, big difference there. A professional politician make a life long career out of it, and so they talk a lot, but do little to not upset their future political career to span 30 to 40+ years. Trump doesn't care about hi political career and so will do what he thinks is right no matter what.

Once again the wall is nothing more than a political move to prevent Trump from gaining attraction in 2020. If his ideas are so God awful why not give them to him and let him die a quick political death in 2020? EVERYTHING he does is attacked by the left as bad..so it doesn't matter with the wall or the 100s of other things he does including breathing that the left will always fight.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Interesting interpretation.

The OP noted that Christian leaders had responded to AG Sessions ... the rest is your interpretation.

I'm just going with the flow of the conversation, Redneck.

I agree that the Separation of Powers is not fluff. It is, in my opinion, totally extraneous in this discussion, however. "Fluff" was my overall critique of your post that you're responding to.

The President cannot make law, given. You argued that Trump is trying to help the Dreamers, which is the essence of Obama's EO. Is that correct? Further, Trump has claimed that "he will end DACA" on several occasions so ...

DACA was institued by Obama EO, not Congressional legislation.

I"m not sure how your assertion that Trump is at heart trying to help the Dreamers is valid.

New York Times (first reference I came upon)