fate

Would you apply the same standard to abortion? Same-sex marriage? Divorce

Are there politicians who's positions on these issues are largely driven by their personal morality formed by their religion?
Yes.
Do they also use their personal morality to define policies on treatment of the poor and disadvantaged?
Not so much.
Then, all of a sudden their personal morality to be their brothers keeper doesn't affect how they view the governments role in this.,.. Because nothing was specifically said about government having the same moral duty as every human.

sass

Given the context, are you now saying that we in Europe have a moral responsibility to provide food, shelter, education and the opportunities to have a career and start a business ?? So we're not just talking about keeping them alive it seems. Funny how all of those things look an awful lot like the kind of things that come with permanent settlement in the West. Careers and businesses eh

Everyone, not just Europe, has a moral duty to help. (I've already said that) A certain amount of that can be immigration, especially in nations with a demographic problem. (aging populations)
Refugee camps are only a temporary solution. They become festering pools in which extremism breeds. The Palestinian experience I think clearly demonstrates that a people stuck without a country create more problems than just the cost of keeping them alive.
If you go back and read you'll see where i conceded that Europe had probably reached a limit, at least for now. And that other nations have a capacity to contribute more than they have.
But i don't see the damage to Europe's economy or culture that you perceive. Not long term. The impact, even in a few years, won't be anywhere as great as you fear. But we'll have to wait and see ...
I fear, that the potential that permanent refugee camps become permanent recruiting grounds for ISIS or whatever extremists come forward in the next two decades.
The harsher the treatment of refugees, the narrower the terms of the aid given, the greater the possibility that today's refugees become tomorrows terrorists.

There's absolutely no precedent for mass voluntary returns out of all the other mass migrations into Europe, and that's really not surprising. Why the hell would you want to return to Nigeria or Somalia

The example of gave you was Mexicans leaving the US to go back to Mexico. Perhaps the gap between life in New York and life back in Mexico isn't as great as the nations you've chosen. But nevertheless, Mexicans are returning home in great numbers...

I'm not saying that the answer is not unlimited immigration from disadvantaged places.
The answer is development in the host nations.
Just as the answer in Syria and Iraq, is finding peace and then helping them rebuild... No one's really willing to pay the price for that though are they Sass?
I'm not an optimist about any of this. I just think that the greater the level of generosity, the more likely that refugees can be contributing members of a society and not a drag on welfare. Trapping them in permanent refugee camps also makes them permanent welfare cases... A permanent cost.

And in the end I despair that the migrant problem due to climate damage is the real future we face...

rickyp wrote:fate

Would you apply the same standard to abortion? Same-sex marriage? Divorce

Are there politicians who's positions on these issues are largely driven by their personal morality formed by their religion?
Yes.
Do they also use their personal morality to define policies on treatment of the poor and disadvantaged?
Not so much.
Then, all of a sudden their personal morality to be their brothers keeper doesn't affect how they view the governments role in this.,.. Because nothing was specifically said about government having the same moral duty as every human.

Answer Fate's question.

Bbauska

Answer Fate's question.

Fates question is a non-sequitur.
My personal belief is not the question.

The question is how is that certain politicians select which moral lessons from their religion will guide their political actions. And which they will conveniently ignore. And find a loophole to rationalize the contradictions.


As for me, I believe in the ethic of reciprocity. It works in helping guide any decision.

rickyp wrote:fate

Would you apply the same standard to abortion? Same-sex marriage? Divorce

Are there politicians who's positions on these issues are largely driven by their personal morality formed by their religion?
Yes.
Do they also use their personal morality to define policies on treatment of the poor and disadvantaged?
Not so much.
Then, all of a sudden their personal morality to be their brothers keeper doesn't affect how they view the governments role in this.,.. Because nothing was specifically said about government having the same moral duty as every human.

Epic fail.

1. When politicians cite Scripture to support their positions on marriage, folks who agree with you scream "separation between Church and State." Yet, if they agree with you re treatment of the poor, you're fine with that. Be consistent.

2. You show the same lack of knowledge re the Bible as the President does. There is one place in the Bible where the phrase "my brother's keeper" appears. I don't think it's one you would want to cite as normative.

rickyp wrote:Bbauska

Answer Fate's question.

Fates question is a non-sequitur.
My personal belief is not the question.

The question is how is that certain politicians select which moral lessons from their religion will guide their political actions. And which they will conveniently ignore. And find a loophole to rationalize the contradictions.


As for me, I believe in the ethic of reciprocity. It works in helping guide any decision.

So then I shall not answer any question you have. Just trying to learn about you. Thank you for the lesson in your non-lesson.

I don't think this thread really benefits from theological analysis guys...

Sassenach wrote:I don't think this thread really benefits from theological analysis guys...

To quote the prophet, Ric Ocasek, "I'm not the one."

Sassenach wrote:I don't think this thread really benefits from theological analysis guys...

I think the start of theological analysis from RickyP was reprehensible. Fate's question and RickyP's non-answer is not theological analysis. I believe it was a questioning of RickyP's bias, and validated by RickyP's non-answer.

RickyP's move to the theological shows me a lack of solid argument in the logical.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Sassenach wrote:I don't think this thread really benefits from theological analysis guys...

To quote the prophet, Ric Ocasek, "I'm not the one."

No. But as I recall you were the one to bring up how awful it was for Kasich to invoke his beliefs to justify his positions.

Whether or not Kasich's positions are scripturally sound according to your (somewhat strict) interpretation is not the question either. I don't really care if his positions (or those of Cruz, who seems just as close to Dominionist rhetoric as any other candidate) are biblical or not. Personally I think it comes down to the positions themselves. But I am not religious so a religious "test" for policy - or a religious "test" for a policy claimed to being inspired being actually biblically sourced - strikes me as silly and manipulable.

Anyway, should we now move on to which GOP candidate is most ardent about blocking a Supreme Court nominee who hasn't even been named yet?

Give it a rest, all of you.

Anyway, let's get back on topic...

If you go back and read you'll see where i conceded that Europe had probably reached a limit, at least for now.

So Ricky concedes that there's a limit to the number of migrants Europe can absorb and also that we may very well have already reached that limit. This is all well and good of course, but he also refuses to countenance Europe taking any meaningful steps to prevent a further influx. Can you clear this up for me Ricky ?

sass

So Ricky concedes that there's a limit to the number of migrants Europe can absorb and also that we may very well have already reached that limit. This is all well and good of course, but he also refuses to countenance Europe taking any meaningful steps to prevent a further influx. Can you clear this up for me Ricky ?[/quote
Here's what I wrote before...what was unclear?

The ultimate solution is to find a way for them to return home.... Should Europe send in a million strong army to occupy Syria and most of Iraq? For how long? How much would that cost?
But until the solution that allows them to go home arrives, the alternatives seem to be helping them, or keeping them out forcibly and watching while they die. You for that?

I take it from the exchange that followed that you think refugee camps in Turkey are a solution.. But as I said, refugee camps are only a temporary solution and can be breeding grounds for extremists and terrorists.
If you reread, you'll see that i said more of the burden must be taken up by country's like Australia, Canada, the US and Japan.
Over time, as Europe assimilates the first wave, they'll have to take more to relieve the pressure in refugee camps and give the inhabitants dome hope of a life...
You can't build a wall and hermetically secure the borders of massive nations. Even Trump can't.
You can't realistically imprison refugees in camps permanently.
If the regions that migrants and refugees are coming from don't improve, then they will keep coming hang the risks. Economic refugees from Central America take ridiculous risks to get to the US. And the risks being taken to get across the Mediterranean are just as deadly. If all that happens is they get deported, they'll keep trying again and again.
If there does appear to be normalization or economic opportunity in the regions the migrants and refugees are coming from, then and only then will the risk appear less likely.
(I'm just repeating myself Sass...)
The moral imperative must be to help. As much as possible.

Fate

Epic fail.

I suppose...


Deuteronomy 10:18-19

(Sorry Sass...)

rickyp wrote:Fate

Epic fail.

I suppose...


Deuteronomy 10:18-19

(Sorry Sass...)

Oh bother. You were after something to prove that being my "brother's keeper" is normative. You came up with that?

Well, let's look at your verses:

(Deut. 10:18-19) He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing.
19 Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.

In context, Deuteronomy is about the Mosaic Law. In fact, "Deuteronomy" means "second law" as in "the second giving of the law." It is an explanation of the Mosaic law.

Now, these verses exhort Jews to be kind and generous in light of the Exodus.

Do you believe in the Exodus? If not, this seems kind of meaningless, doesn't it?

Do you believe the Mosaic law should be American law?

Oh, and finally . . context is a clarifying thing:

(Deut. 10:17-19) For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe.
18 He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing.
19 Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.

So, really, in context, it is a declaration of the greatness and kindness of God and an exhortation to care for strangers in light of His care for Israel.

As soon as America = Israel, you've got a great point.

The only place, of course, that "my brother's keeper" appears in Scripture is after Cain murdered Abel. It's not really a great premise for the welfare state.

But, go on you crazy socialist!

http://www.politico.eu/article/eu-migra ... l-tension/

Everything is starting to fall apart. Austria and the Balkan countries form a cabal which specifically excludes Germany and Greece to try and agree on a strategy of kettling all the migrants in Greece. Greece recalls her ambassador to Austria. Belgium closes its border with France. Hungary calls a referendum on the issue of mandatory migrant quotas, which the Germans are attempting to push through. Everybody is now flagrantly acting in their own interests and a unified approach seems impossible.

Meanwhile, the total number of arrivals in Greece for 2016 has already topped 100000. Last year that figure wasn't reached until June...