American Politics

[xi0]

There are still opportunities in their home country or neighboring countries.

Says who?

 

[SharkBait]

Says who?

There has to be, why else would the parents illegally send off their children to other countries, but the parents stay. The parents are still doing something there to earn money and to still live. The same should be true for refugees.

 

[xi0]

There has to be, why else would the parents illegally send off their children to other countries, but the parents stay. The parents are still doing something there to earn money and to still live. The same should be true for refugees.

How would a child classified as a "refugee" have parents that had no problem taking care of them in their home country? How can you even assume they have parents? Do you even know what being a refugee entails?

 

[SharkBait]

How would a child classified as a "refugee" have parents that had no problem taking care of them in their home country? How can you even assume they have parents? Do you even know what being a refugee entails?

I see the refugee crisis on the evening news every week. The refugees do have parents as you see the parents traveling with kids or at least pleading border agents to just take their children, or camps of refugee children in housing in these refugee camps but no parents around.

The refugees dont appear to be starving and still have clothes on their back so they still have some sort of stability in their home country.

Also I wonder about the elderly, disabled, and the pregnant. We never see them coming over so someone has to be taking care of them enough so that they remain healthy and etc. It's concerning.

 

[xi0]

Well, I guess it's been established that you don't care about refugees or refugee children. How so very "city upon a hill" of you. I supposed they're all just duping the system to benefit their already hardy and enriched lives. Not like getting here is a matter of life or death for some of them or anything...

 

[kkck]

America was founded on the pursuit of religious freedom for christian values and to be the city upon the hill, if a president is not a believer in God then we cant be a city upon a hill and thus people wont vote for such a candidate.

You are literally suggesting religious freedom unless you have another religion or set of believe. As far as I can tell you are either mocking the whole thing outright or just trying to induce an aneurysm on someone.

 

[SharkBait]

You are literally suggesting religious freedom unless you have another religion or set of believe. As far as I can tell you are either mocking the whole thing outright or just trying to induce an aneurysm on someone.

What do you mean? There were laws that kicked Catholic Priests out of cities. This was a Christian nation to have religious freedom from England.

 

[xi0]

You are literally suggesting religious freedom unless you have another religion or set of believe. As far as I can tell you are either mocking the whole thing outright or just trying to induce an aneurysm on someone.

No, you'd be surprised how many people in this country live by this misconception...or at least do their best to pretend to.

 

[Dragoon]

America was founded on the pursuit of religious freedom for christian values and to be the city upon the hill, if a president is not a believer in God then we cant be a city upon a hill and thus people wont vote for such a candidate.

I am of the mind that someone here is outright trolling...

And to point out quite the hypocrisy, tho the theme changes (from religious freedom to political freedom) these people are looking for safety from danger whether from their own government or terrorists. Why then are the people who came here from england entitled more so than the people of the present (syrian, latinos etc...) to arriving here? The people who came here searching religious freedom came to a country that wasn't theirs and settled down as if they owned it. The vast majority of the people coming here are only here to escape said dangers not destroy/take over another country and calling it "freedom" while simultaneously claiming they were being oppressed. Now don't take this to mean that I believe it would be right to blindly allow anyone in since realistically it is not possible nor safe to do so but don't pretend that the catholics who came here were poor innocents. (In a perfect world maybe we could help everyone but clearly this world is anything but)

Edit: To try and be fair I'll amend my comment and say that I don't believe that all the people coming here searching for religious freedom from england actually intended to mess with the natives and mostly wanted to live a peaceful life but the end result remains and so does my comment about how they can possibly have more rights to come here and not this generations current refugees.

 

[xi0]

What do you mean? There were laws that kicked Catholic Priests out of cities. This was a Christian nation to have religious freedom from England.

Nowhere was said religion specified. Whether you were a Catholic, a Protestant or a...nothing at all. The founders/framers were deists. In that they believed in a natural god, not one revealed by supernatural revelation. Which means there was nothing biblical about their belief. You'll see no bible scripture in the Constitution. A majority of people coming here being Christian doesn't make it a Christian nation.

The quote you seem to love so much was made by Winthrop and used by Presidents in famous speeches, but quoting scripture in a speech says nothing about the laws of the country. Maybe American Exceptionalism, but not law.

 

[SharkBait]

Nowhere was said religion specified. Whether you were a Catholic, a Protestant or a...nothing at all. The founders/framers were deists. In that they believed in a natural god, not one revealed by supernatural revelation. Which means there was nothing biblical about their belief. You'll see no bible scripture in the Constitution. A majority of people coming here being Christian doesn't make it a Christian nation.

The quote you seem to love so much was made by Winthrop and used by Presidents in famous speeches, but quoting scripture in a speech says nothing about the laws of the country. Maybe American Exceptionalism, but not law.

Do you really not think that they were not affected or influenced by biblical teachings in framing the basis of the laws that govern our land? I find it hard to believe especially when religion was a vital and central parts of the lives of colonial Americans.

 

[xi0]

Do you really not think that they were not affected or influenced by biblical teachings in framing the basis of the laws that govern our land? I find it hard to believe especially when religion was a vital and central parts of the lives of colonial Americans.

On the contrary, they most definitely were. But were those biblical teachings actually Christian? Let's go with the idea that some of them were. Was murder, rape, and theft typically allowed of anyone who happened to not be Christian or lived in a non-Christian society? Is the golden rule only followed by Christians? The answer to both of these are no. So does that make these values/laws Christian? This is more of a philosophical/theological topic than a political one, so I'll just leave it there for now.

So of course, they were affected by the Bible, it's why they left Europe in the first place. It's why the founders became Deists. Rejecting supernatural revelation and biblical inerrancy. Religious freedom was established here and nowhere else. Is religious freedom a Christian value or law? What about the First Amendment? I'd say they most certainly aren't. You'll see neither exemplified in the Bible.

 

[M3J]

Rubio just has to win Florida then everything will be alright.

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 9, 2016, Original Post Date: Mar 9, 2016 ---

But Im not proposing we rob them of the right to live, they still can live in their home country or an assortment of other countries. They just cant live here in America until its proven that they arent an economic and security liability. Since we in America embrace family values, it is better for the children to remain with their parents in their family structure as it leads to wholesome development. There are still opportunities in their home country or neighboring countries.

The people in these areas have made the same questionable or bad lifestyle decision as those in Michigan and such, once the key industry (furniture making) left the area many of these job opportunities left leaving people unemployed for years. One could imagine that people could easily move. Same for people in the big steel, manufacturing, and car making industries up north that all closed shop yet people still live there struggling to get by.

You essentially are when you are against giving them asylum. The main reason they are sent to the US is so they can have a safer life. Why would they want to leave their home country if their lives are safe or good? Unwanted babies who aren't aborted are far more of economic and security liabilities because their bad upbringing can make them angry and turn them into criminals or bad people. Your ignorance is astounding. If there were still opportunities in their home country or neighboring countries, there wouldn't be as many refugees and immigrants, and the US would be a much smaller country. But again, I highly doubt you have a right to say anything unless you're a Native American. America was founded on white settlers killing Native Americans and taking their lands, so it's pretty ironic when Americans cry about immigrants doing the same. Would be great if pro-lifers stopped pretending they care about lives when they in actuality don't. They'd rather let refugee children starve to death or be killed by the bad people in their country.

No, "we in America" don't embrace family values anymore. There are many people who have been divorced and many who get married and divorce a lot, even when they have children. The whole family value claim is bullshit now, even though decades ago husbands or wives left their family without warning as well.

What questionable or bad lifestyle decision? Seems like you don't know anything about the real world or how it works, and your mindset is pretty poisonous. I don't get how you think it's easy for people to move, but I hope it's just me misunderstanding you. Otherwise that's another proof at your lack of understanding of the real world, where you keep calling everyone lazy or making bad lifestyle decision. Interestingly, I wonder if you'd agree with some people who think homosexuality is a bad or disgusting lifestyle choice.

I should reiterate that I see nothing wrong with homosexuality.

Do you really not think that they were not affected or influenced by biblical teachings in framing the basis of the laws that govern our land? I find it hard to believe especially when religion was a vital and central parts of the lives of colonial Americans.

Quick, tell us what religions were in colonial America before 1776.

Either way, a president who is an atheist is far better for the country than a theist president. Running the country based on the president's religious belief is wrong and dumb, especially since religions like Christianity are illogical with outdated beliefs. I don't know why you support having a Christian president when such presidents support banning same sex marriage. Then again, I still doubt whether you really do support same sex marriage.

 

[Dragoon]

You essentially are when you are against giving them asylum. The main reason they are sent to the US is so they can have a safer life. Why would they want to leave their home country if their lives are safe or good? Unwanted babies who aren't aborted are far more of economic and security liabilities because their bad upbringing can make them angry and turn them into criminals or bad people. Your ignorance is astounding. If there were still opportunities in their home country or neighboring countries, there wouldn't be as many refugees and immigrants, and the US would be a much smaller country. But again, I highly doubt you have a right to say anything unless you're a Native American. America was founded on white settlers killing Native Americans and taking their lands, so it's pretty ironic when Americans cry about immigrants doing the same. Would be great if pro-lifers stopped pretending they care about lives when they in actuality don't. They'd rather let refugee children starve to death or be killed by the bad people in their country.

No, "we in America" don't embrace family values anymore. There are many people who have been divorced and many who get married and divorce a lot, even when they have children. The whole family value claim is bullshit now, even though decades ago husbands or wives left their family without warning as well.

What questionable or bad lifestyle decision? Seems like you don't know anything about the real world or how it works, and your mindset is pretty poisonous. I don't get how you think it's easy for people to move, but I hope it's just me misunderstanding you. Otherwise that's another proof at your lack of understanding of the real world, where you keep calling everyone lazy or making bad lifestyle decision. Interestingly, I wonder if you'd agree with some people who think homosexuality is a bad or disgusting lifestyle choice.

I should reiterate that I see nothing wrong with homosexuality.

Quick, tell us what religions were in colonial America before 1776.

Either way, a president who is an atheist is far better for the country than a theist president. Running the country based on the president's religious belief is wrong and dumb, especially since religions like Christianity are illogical with outdated beliefs. I don't know why you support having a Christian president when such presidents support banning same sex marriage. Then again, I still doubt whether you really do support same sex marriage.

Marriage is overrated.

And tho I don't believe in any religion or gods, I don't see why it's bad for someone to be religious. Just make sure to be able to differentiate fiction from reality and don't believe everything blindly.

 

[xi0]

Either way, a president who is an atheist is far better for the country than a theist president. Running the country based on the president's religious belief is wrong and dumb, especially since religions like Christianity are illogical with outdated beliefs. I don't know why you support having a Christian president when such presidents support banning same sex marriage. Then again, I still doubt whether you really do support same sex marriage.

By and large they don't. They might run their campaigns on the premise of a religious belief, but like I said, it's just lip service. If a president truly lived only by Christian values and laws, this country would be a terrible place to live.

And tho I don't believe in any religion or gods but I don't see why it's bad for someone to be religious. Just make sure to be able to differentiate fiction from reality and don't believe everything blindly.

Actions not words. I wouldn't care if it doesn't have an effect on governance.

 

[SharkBait]

Is religious freedom a Christian value or law? What about the First Amendment? I'd say they most certainly aren't. You'll see neither exemplified in the Bible.

The bible teaches tolerance and acceptance of others while stressing going out and making disciples out of all men. So people are free to practice whatever their religion is, but that they also ought to be open to be converted. So religious freedom is a Christian value. America teaches justice and opportunity for all while promising people basic freedoms which is basically teaching the teachings of the bible.

Why would they want to leave their home country if their lives are safe or good?

I dont understand the point of this statement. People legally move from country to country? Do they need a reason? Work, education, or just wanting to relocate. So Im confused at what you were trying to get at.

If there were still opportunities in their home country or neighboring countries, there wouldn't be as many refugees and immigrants, and the US would be a much smaller country.

If America was given more military budget instead of cut funds then there would be less refugees because terrorist muslim entities and countries harboring them would be destroyed. Refugees don't want to come to America, they want to stay in their own country where they have made a name for themself or raised a family. The parents stay because there are opportunities still there.

No, "we in America" don't embrace family values anymore. There are many people who have been divorced and many who get married and divorce a lot, even when they have children. The whole family value claim is bullshit now, even though decades ago husbands or wives left their family without warning as well.

Family values are still a key part of the American dialogue.

Interestingly, I wonder if you'd agree with some people who think homosexuality is a bad or disgusting lifestyle choice.

I should reiterate that I see nothing wrong with homosexuality.

Why would sexual leaning be a bad lifestyle choice. I can not see any argument in which homosexuality could be argued as a bad lifestyle choice.

Either way, a president who is an atheist is far better for the country than a theist president. Running the country based on the president's religious belief is wrong and dumb, especially since religions like Christianity are illogical with outdated beliefs. I don't know why you support having a Christian president when such presidents support banning same sex marriage. Then again, I still doubt whether you really do support same sex marriage.

How would an atheist be better than a theist president? An atheist has no morals or values other than their own. With no higher being or religious text offering advice and enlightenment, an atheist would be making some pretty immoral decisions. Since an atheist only concern in life is returning back to the ground from whence they came, they dont have to practice things like being kind, respectful, or loving to one another since there is no higher power or even group of believers to keep track of of them. An atheist would just do whatever makes the feel good screwing others, taking advantage of friends and family, and just being all "out there." An atheist has no way of knowing right and wrong, immoral and moral. Our country would be sent to ruin. An atheist running the country is a scary thought.

 

[xi0]

The bible teaches tolerance and acceptance of others while stressing going out and making disciples out of all men. So people are free to practice whatever their religion is, but that they also ought to be open to be converted. So religious freedom is a Christian value. America teaches justice and opportunity for all while promising people basic freedoms which is basically teaching the teachings of the bible.

If someone asserts the notion that the Bible teaches tolerance and acceptance of others than you've either not actually read it, you lack reading comprehension, or are cherrypicking what you like and ignoring what you dislike. Being Christian means you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, that the Bible is incapable of being incorrect.

Who the hell are you to say that someone ought be open to be converted? How can anyone who suggests that they have religious conviction live their life open to being converted? That runs completely contrary to the premise of religion and faith itself.

 

[SharkBait]

Who the hell are you to say that someone ought be open to be converted? How can anyone who suggests that they have religious conviction live their life open to being converted? That runs completely contrary to the premise of religion and faith itself.

A religion can only grow and live by being spread and accepted by others. I would think any person would be willing to be open minded when approached by religious followers and make a logical decision to follow or not follow.

 

[xi0]

How would an atheist be better than a theist president? An atheist has no morals or values other than their own. With no higher being or religious text offering advice and enlightenment, an atheist would be making some pretty immoral decisions. Since an atheist only concern in life is returning back to the ground from whence they came, they dont have to practice things like being kind, respectful, or loving to one another since there is no higher power or even group of believers to keep track of of them. An atheist would just do whatever makes the feel good screwing others, taking advantage of friends and family, and just being all "out there." Our country would be sent to ruin. An atheist running the country is a scary thought.

I don't think you understand what moral thinking is or why we humans have an affinity for it if you assume that any atheist is immoral. Moral thought is not exclusive to religious thought. We know this because it is rooted in sociology, psychology, and neurology. Being kind, respectful, or loving one another is not exclusive nor does it need to be mandated by religion in order for it to be followed. If someone is an atheist their penalty for such things isn't mandated by a being that is unknowable and unfalsifiable, it is what they get back in return for doing so. Half of the Ten Commandments were not invented by Moses or his God. Being respectful to your parents, forbidding murder, theft, perjury, and adultery are not unique values. Many people who believed such things before and after Moses supposedly met with God never needed audience with him or an godly authority to know these were "wrong". To assert otherwise is to be in complete denial of human nature. The other half of the Ten Commandments aren't really laws at all, since you can't be convicted of thought-crime here in the US. We do not live in a fascist nation. In fact, one could argue that it's humanity's covetous nature that fuels capitalism itself.

If an atheist's only concern in life is returning back to the ground, then why do they exist at all? Why do they not all commit suicide the moment they come to their "revelation"? What you say makes no sense and is very close-minded for someone who insists on others being open-minded to conversion. Maybe you should also be in denial of your own inborn nature, just because most Christians and members of the Republican party believe it is "immoral" as well. I'm sure you're aware of what the Bible and Christians say about homosexuality, no? Somehow I think you'll find yourself in quite the hypocritical bind if you ponder it long enough.

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 10, 2016, Original Post Date: Mar 10, 2016 ---

A religion can only grow and live by being spread and accepted by others. I would think any person would be willing to be open minded when approached by religious followers and make a logical decision to follow or not follow.

Why should that be of any concern to an individual?

And what do you think the mandated penalty of such a logical decision is if they refuse? I think you'll find it isn't something we condone here in the US.

 

[Dragoon]

I don't think you understand what moral thinking is or why we humans have an affinity for it if you assume that any atheist is immoral. Moral thought is not exclusive to religious thought. We know this because it is rooted in sociology, psychology, and neurology. Being kind, respectful, or loving one another is not exclusive nor does it need to be mandated by religion in order for it to be followed. If someone is an atheist their penalty for such things isn't mandated by a being that is unknowable and unfalsifiable, it is what they get back in return for doing so. Half of the Ten Commandments were not invented by Moses or his God. Being respectful to your parents, forbidding murder, theft, perjury, and adultery are not unique values. Many people who believed such things before and after Moses supposedly met with God never needed audience with him or an godly authority to know these were "wrong". To assert otherwise is to be in complete denial of human nature. The other half of the Ten Commandments aren't really laws at all, since you can't be convicted of thought-crime here in the US. We do not live in a fascist nation. In fact, one could argue that it's humanity's covetous nature that fuels capitalism itself.

If an atheist's only concern in life is returning back to the ground, then why do they exist at all? Why do they not all commit suicide the moment they come to their "revelation"? What you say makes no sense and is very close-minded for someone who insists on others being open-minded to conversion. Maybe you should also be in denial of your own inborn nature, just because most Christians and members of the Republican party believe it is "immoral" as well. Somehow I think you'll find yourself in a hypocritical bind if you ponder it long enough.

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 10, 2016, Original Post Date: Mar 10, 2016 ---

Why should that be of any concern to an individual?

And what do you think the mandated penalty of such a logical decision is if they refuse? I think you'll find it isn't something we condone here in the US.

Heh. You said everything I wanted to but infinitely more eloquently.