Reply With Quote
Islamophobes' definition/perception of Islam is the exact definition/perception Rupert Murdoch and the Zionists and Neocons want them to have.
Mesmerized the simple minded
Propaganda leaves us blinded
I have no problem debating about anything, really, as long as we're dealing with rationality and facts, not 'my hunch is', or 'they're all rapists and criminals', or 'My cousin once got shot by xxxx'...Nothing honestly makes my blood boil more in the immigration debate when a likely descendent of immigrant who fled some hole situation in Europe takes up a hard anti-immigration position, oblivious to the fact that if people like him ran immigration policy in the days when Great-Grandpappy and Great-Granny O'Fallon sailed the seas on the way to the New World, they would've been told to "go back" and left to die by potato famine or being put up against the wall by some dictator.
but it's diffffffferrrrrrrrrent now!!!!!
Not really. Well, maybe different in the fact that the modern immigrants from Latin countries are considerably less violent than 20th century immigrants.
I certainly expressed and continue to express my disdain for people that not only are massively uneducated, but proud of that fact. I really have no patience for fools.
Islamophobes' definition/perception of Islam is the exact definition/perception Rupert Murdoch and the Zionists and Neocons want them to have.
Mesmerized the simple minded
Propaganda leaves us blinded
Your problem still is that you think the US is under some sort of moralistic obligation to hit a quota. It's not.
Last edited by Spurtacular; 03-17-2019 at 01:29 AM.
I never suggested we need a "quota," but I do believe in the US's role as a "Land of Opportunity" centered on Christian morality (even though I'm not believer, but charity is CENTRAL to Christianity). To me, a Bible thumper who wants to build walls (figuratively, speaking. I'd be for a ing moat filled with sharks as our southern border if the byzantine immigration process was made easier, as it was in the Ellis Island era) is a hypocrite. Chris's deflection to laws of the land passages in scripture is directly overruled by Jesus commanding his followers to be charitable to the poor and even criminal.
Start fixing this ed up world by dumping the internet. OR....getting rid of all the garbage on it. Keep educationed stuff, sports, that kind of thing. Get rid of places people can spread harmful bull .
Mods must report anyone talking off topic about anything that can be harmful to anyone.
The most cultured man...speaks.
It's funny how you make arguments about how corrupt Christians are relative to Muslims when it suits you. You (left in general) makes arguments of separation of church and state when it suits you, but then preach about how something governmental is our Christian duty. But leaving that aside, if you want to explore the moralistic obligation from a Christian perspective, then fair enough. So, I don't mean that as an aspersion, rather than that I'm noting the convenience of it all.
You want more immigration; that's your right to have that opinion. But we do allow the most immigrants of any country, so I really don't know why you're so bent out of shape on that front, anyways. And again, that's even after the uncounted illegal immigration. And if the process is f'd up, it's because illegals (that Democrats roll out the welcome mat for) are over extending our resources and making it so that legal immigration isn't getting the proper attention.
Take this place for an example look at how people act while in hiding. Nobody acts like that in public.
I didn't know you were a hardcore fascist; but I'm not surprised.
I mean, does Spurt (I'm assuming he's Christian) enjoy when New Atheists like Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and their hordes of followers demonize Christianity? Spurt probably thinks I'm the type of liberal that defends critiques against Islam but stays silent when liberals take aim at Christianity. Fact is, I've debated New Atheists more times than I can count, and they probably have a worse understanding of Christianity's history and nuances than conservatives do of Islam. My blood similarly boils when I read New Atheists, in their self-assured arrogant way, with "I in Love Science!" avatars, talk about how Christianity set progress back 400 years, lynched Galileo, and caused every war in the history of mankind. The truth is a lot more interesting than that.
Not familiar with all of them. But I don't hate Hitchens. Much of what he said was insightful and amusing. Sure, he was quite the prick in his own right; but he spoke truth to power about as much as anyone.
Leaving aside your butthurt comment about Christian views on Islam, I'm hardly surprised. To call oneself an atheist is about the most ridiculous position a person can take. Of course their views on other matters are going to be reflective of that personality trait of pretentiousness.
Where did I label Christians as corrupt? I'm simply saying that someone who professes to be a devout Christian isn't living in accordance with the religion's core tenants if they're attending alt-right rallies and chanting "Build that Wall!" Also, nowhere did I state that I want concepts of Christian charity to become law, just that it's my personal belief we try to live up to the "Christian Nation" label we've given ourselves.
They're anti-christians; atheism and their professed adoration of science supposedly at odds with Christianity is just their facade. The fact is that Christianity is not at odds with science. Unless counting some fringe sects; but that is cherry picking; and honestly who cares how they practice their religion if they're not intruding on other people's rights.
I do understand that modern medicine (science) has made great leaps and bounds over the last two centuries. Why did it take so long? Could religion (ins utions) have been a hindrance? Sure....
What butthurt comment? I'm not butthurt about anything. What draws me into any debate, where it's a sports or political debate, is when someone offers up a shaky argument not supported by facts and/or logic. It's not logical to demonize an entire group/religion based on the actions of a few, as you did with Muslims/Islam. I'll go to bat for Christians the same way when a y atheist who thinks he's the smartest guy in the room because he read Carl Sagan one time goes after Christians/Christianity with similar self-assured ignorance.
Christians don't believe in the rule of law? They do believe in unfairness (towards legal immigrants)? I think your interpretation of Christianity is very convenient.
If that rule of law conflicts with a commandment from God, the rule of man is to be ignored. Would Jesus deny entry into the US to a desperate man looking to better to his life? I highly, highly doubt it.
I think your positions are largely based in reason and compassion if not always reality. You're ultimately not the dime a dozen liberal who is scourging this planet.
Jesus said to give to Ceasar what is his and to Christ what is his. There is no commandment on immigration. Why? Because Jesus would never pretend that shades of gray are not a reality in this world. People try to make Jesus into some simpleton like that. But what I can say is that Christ did advocate for having one's house in order. So, if that helps you get on whatever right track....
Your garden variety anti-religious Internet atheist gets his science understanding from pop-sci sites, like I in Love Science. Their knowledge of history is even more laughable, thinking we'd all be a space faring species right now if not for them ebil Christians. Good read:
https://strangenotions.com/gods-philosophers/
Most evidence suggests that Christianity replacing Paganism actually accelerated philosophical and scientific understanding. Pagan Germans were the group who burnt Rome to the ground, and who saved any and all texts they could, were the monks who were caretakers of those libraries:
https://www.cracked.com/article_2018...-believes.htmlAside from the fact that, as we've already explained, most people in the Middle Ages did not think the Earth was flat, the church wasn't responsible for killing science -- to the contrary, it was largely responsible for saving it.
After the barbarians invaded Europe and Rome went the way of the dinosaurs, the Catholic church was the last remaining aspect of Roman culture in Western Europe. The church went about setting up monasteries across Europe, and along with the monks came the monks' massive libraries. Monks were just about the only educated people in the early Middle Ages, and pretty much everything we know about this entire time period was written by them.
Even all those guys recognize there are utilitarian aspects to religion, which doesn't mean they're necessarily worth it on the whole (but, on the other hand, if somebody is getting better through those utilitarian aspects, then great stuff).
Specifically on what we're discussing, the addition of dogma/theology on any conflict it's almost always a sure fire way to escalate it. Even in the mildest, non-violent form, religion has a fanatical component attached to it (which is empirically provable, since the whole construction rests on faith).
It's your own biases that prevent you from being next level. You basically said any form of faith is irrational.
Yes, shades of gray meaning there's no simplistic objective right or wrong answer. As I said, if you want to argue that the uptick in crime isn't worth bettering the lives of the immigrants who do not commit those crimes, then that's a valid position. Similarly, I don't believe the accidental killing of one innocent person in a bombing run that results in 100 terrorist deaths is "worth it." Utilitarianism can be a tricky moral philosophy. In regards to immigration, though, I simply don't agree with sending someone back to a situation in which they most likely won't survive if we have the resources to help them.
The world would be better, imo. But it's an interesting moral quandary you present nonetheless.
You're speaking of asylum vs. regular immigration. Our asylum laws are set up to not allow that. If you're arguing they aren't being followed, that's one thing. But even asylum is something that does get abused, or people try to abuse it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions