PDA

View Full Version : Interesting on immigration



sandsjames
07-16-2014, 01:02 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/15/politics/immigration-not-in-my-backyard/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Starting to notice the separation between Churches and anti-immigration protesters on several recent stories. Any chance this could curb the notion that the Church is in the pockets of the far right?

I'm just glad to read a story where the Church is staying away from the political side and looking at the humanitarian side. No matter how I feel on immigration, I'm glad the Church (and in more than just this story) is doing their part to help those in crisis and staying out of the argument on who should stay and who should go. A step in the right direction, IMO.

hustonj
07-16-2014, 01:49 PM
Maybe you missed the bit where the Pope talked about how we should accept all fo the refugees with open arms and without question?

sandsjames
07-16-2014, 01:54 PM
Maybe you missed the bit where the Pope talked about how we should accept all fo the refugees with open arms and without question?What? What does that have to do with any point I made? And why do you assume I missed it? What part of my statement leads you to that?

I'm talking about religious organizations within the U.S. Not the statement of a non-U.S. citizen. The pope has no interest in U.S. immigration law. Usually the American religious organizations are generalized as being far right. These recent statements do a good job of making the distinction between the religion side and the political side. It's a good thing that the Church (at least in a few cases) is avoiding the politics and worrying about the people in need.

hustonj
07-16-2014, 02:09 PM
What? What does that have to do with any point I made? And why do you assume I missed it? What part of my statement leads you to that?

This one:


I'm just glad to read a story where the Church is staying away from the political side and looking at the humanitarian side.

Back to your last post, now, though.


I'm talking about religious organizations within the U.S. Not the statement of a non-U.S. citizen. The pope has no interest in U.S. immigration law.

1) Not obvious from your prior statements. And I'm confused why the leader of one of the largest religuous organizations in our nation would not be considered to represent that organization.

2) Not obvious from your prior statements.

3) Obviously, you are mistaken. Since he has expressed an opinion, he has indicated that he has an interest. Whether he should have an interest in your opinion is a completely different question than whether he has taken an interest.

sandsjames
07-16-2014, 03:32 PM
This one: Did you read the article? It talks about the Presbeterian Church in Arizona...not the Catholic Church




Back to your last post, now, though.



1) Not obvious from your prior statements. And I'm confused why the leader of one of the largest religuous organizations in our nation would not be considered to represent that organization.I never said he didn't. It's just not related to the situation I'm talking about.


2) Not obvious from your prior statements. What's not obvious?


3) Obviously, you are mistaken. Since he has expressed an opinion, he has indicated that he has an interest. Whether he should have an interest in your opinion is a completely different question than whether he has taken an interest.He doesn't have an interest in the immigration laws of the U.S. What he has an interest in is taking care of humanitarian issues. And that's my point...that was made very clear...that it's good that the Church is separating the political issue of immigration from the humanitarian issue of those who are being brought here.

Why must you DEMAND that I make this about the Catholic Church?

Measure Man
07-16-2014, 04:24 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/15/politics/immigration-not-in-my-backyard/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Starting to notice the separation between Churches and anti-immigration protesters on several recent stories. Any chance this could curb the notion that the Church is in the pockets of the far right?

I'm just glad to read a story where the Church is staying away from the political side and looking at the humanitarian side. No matter how I feel on immigration, I'm glad the Church (and in more than just this story) is doing their part to help those in crisis and staying out of the argument on who should stay and who should go. A step in the right direction, IMO.

I agree with you that it's nice to see a church just taking care of people...

I don't think the notion is that all churches are in the pockets of the far right...I think when we associate the far right, we're generally talking about the "Evangelical Churches"...Southern Baptist, Pentecostal...

If someone tells me they are Lutheran, Presbyterian, Catholic, etc...I generally would not associate them with far right thinking. If they say they are Pentecostal, then yes, I'm more inclined to think so. When we see the Assembly of God taking in illegal immigrants with no motive other than to feed and care of them...then you might be on to something.

TJMAC77SP
07-16-2014, 05:20 PM
I agree with you that it's nice to see a church just taking care of people...

I don't think the notion is that all churches are in the pockets of the far right...I think when we associate the far right, we're generally talking about the "Evangelical Churches"...Southern Baptist, Pentecostal...

If someone tells me they are Lutheran, Presbyterian, Catholic, etc...I generally would not associate them with far right thinking. If they say they are Pentecostal, then yes, I'm more inclined to think so. When we see the Assembly of God taking in illegal immigrants with no motive other than to feed and care of them...then you might be on to something.

Any notion of churches being far right is born of their stances on abortion and same-sex marriage. It suites the current narrative for some.

The truth is that the churches of this country were the first welfare and health care systems for the poor and have always worked in their interest. This is not to say their methods were always above question but that is a different discussion.

sandsjames
07-16-2014, 05:26 PM
Any notion of churches being far right is born of their stances on abortion and same-sex marriage. It suites the current narrative for some.

The truth is that the churches of this country were the first welfare and health care systems for the poor and have always worked in their interest. This is not to say their methods were always above question but that is a different discussion.

Right...but usually they don't get publicity (in the past few years) for doing so.

Measure Man
07-16-2014, 05:46 PM
Any notion of churches being far right is born of their stances on abortion and same-sex marriage. It suites the current narrative for some.

...acceptance of gays in general
...teaching creationism in school
...prayer in school
...prayer in govt. meetings
...America as a Christian nation
...abstinence education
...stem cell research (tied to abortion)


The truth is that the churches of this country were the first welfare and health care systems for the poor and have always worked in their interest. This is not to say their methods were always above question but that is a different discussion.

I can agree with that.

sandsjames
07-16-2014, 06:22 PM
...acceptance of gays in general I'll give you this one..

...teaching creationism in school Yes, but just as another theory...

...prayer in school I think this one is in pretty isolated areas.

...prayer in govt. meetings This one seems to be both parties but, yes, moreso Conservatives.

...America as a Christian nation Not sure what this means. Does the fact that the majority of people identify as Christian and so will vote in favor of things that have a basis in Christianity? Probably.

...abstinence education As an alternative to other birth control methods taught. And some don't want any sex ed taught at all. I can see both sides. I almost wish it was taught as part of a biology class and not as a separate sex ed class and some of the complaints might diminish.

...stem cell research (tied to abortion) I think the opposition to stem cell research is more tied to being uneducated about the process and fear the slippery slope theories, though the abortion comparison is the basis for the argument.

All of the things you have pointed out are definitely identified with the far right, or "Christian right" for sure. I think this is a perfect example of why the two party system is a problem. It seems to me that Conservative and Liberal used to refer almost completely to fiscal issues. Only relatively recently has the social and fiscal been tied together.

And what's ironic about the whole thing is that, as mentioned, the church is designed so that it is a welfare provider yet the ones who argue against welfare are the Christian right.

I think that it's probably because our personal lives have been tied to our political views and they shouldn't be...examples:

I am personally against abortion...I think it's wrong. I also think that abortion should be legal. Does that make me liberal or conservative on the topic of abortion?

I personally don't like being around gays. It makes me uncomfortable. I would never hang out with a gay couple. I do, however, think gays should be allowed to marry if they wish and have the same freedoms as the rest of us (and, of course, think that government should play no part in marriage). Am I liberal or conservative on the topic of homosexuality?

I think that creationism and evolution can coexist in theory.

I'm for labor unions. I'm against handing out condoms at school. I'm for welfare and against continuing to pay welfare to those who just keep having kids.

I could go on and on but my question is this. What party do I affiliate with? What should I register as? There is no platform out there for someone who feels this way. A politician who feels as I do on these subjects would have three choices: 1)Keep personal beliefs to themselves 2)Push personal beliefs even though I know that my beliefs are the best for everyone or 3) state what I just told you and know that there is zero possibility of every getting elected and making a difference.

Measure Man
07-16-2014, 06:47 PM
I'll give you this one..
Yes, but just as another theory...
I think this one is in pretty isolated areas.
This one seems to be both parties but, yes, moreso Conservatives.
Not sure what this means. Does the fact that the majority of people identify as Christian and so will vote in favor of things that have a basis in Christianity? Probably.

There is a component of Conservative Christians that believe our country is founded as a Christian Nation...


As an alternative to other birth control methods taught.

No, there are many who believe it should be the only thing taught.


And some don't want any sex ed taught at all. I can see both sides. I almost wish it was taught as part of a biology class and not as a separate sex ed class and some of the complaints might diminish.

I took sex ed in high school...I thought it was a good class and I'm in favor of it. I don't think anyone has a problem including abstinence as part of the curriculum...but, the CC generally do not believe we should be teaching kids how to have sex.


I think the opposition to stem cell research is more tied to being uneducated about the process and fear the slippery slope theories, though the abortion comparison is the basis for the argument.

Yes, I think the core of the opposition is that human aborted embryos are sometimes used in the research.


All of the things you have pointed out are definitely identified with the far right, or "Christian right" for sure. I think this is a perfect example of why the two party system is a problem. It seems to me that Conservative and Liberal used to refer almost completely to fiscal issues. Only relatively recently has the social and fiscal been tied together.

I can't quote full history, but as far as I know... "liberal" is more of a social philosophy than a fiscal one. It's not the basis of liberalism to spend a lot of govt. money and grow the govt. That is sort of the tool used to accomplish their social aims.


And what's ironic about the whole thing is that, as mentioned, the church is designed so that it is a welfare provider yet the ones who argue against welfare are the Christian right.

To be fair, I think most conservatives are in favor of welfare, they just don't believe in the government providing it. They would be more inclined to support welfare through the churches and private donation, etc.


I think that it's probably because our personal lives have been tied to our political views and they shouldn't be...examples:

I am personally against abortion...I think it's wrong. I also think that abortion should be legal. Does that make me liberal or conservative on the topic of abortion?

I think that makes you a liberal. Being a liberal does not mean you personally like all these things...just that you think people should be free to make their own choices. It's pro-choice, not pro-abortion.


I personally don't like being around gays. It makes me uncomfortable. I would never hang out with a gay couple. I do, however, think gays should be allowed to marry if they wish and have the same freedoms as the rest of us (and, of course, think that government should play no part in marriage). Am I liberal or conservative on the topic of homosexuality?

Liberal again. Liberalism does not imply you personally like everyone...just that everyone should be free to do as they please.


I think that creationism and evolution can coexist in theory.

In theory, perhaps. One could concoct a theory where the hand of God guides the evolutionary process. Liberals shouldn't have a problem with kids being taught creationism. The issue comes up with teaching it as a science, in science class....because it is not science. Studying science is not about learning "facts" real or otherwise....it is about learning the scientific process of discovery....setting a hypothesis, gathering data, testing the hypothesis, rinse, repeat, etc. There is none of that in creationism, and there is no science to be learned from studying creationism...more from a "classic literature" perspective, I guess.

I have no problem with it being taught elsewhere...kids should be taught about the world around them, and that many people hold this view is important to learn something about it. I also have no problem with "Bible" classes...but the class should not take on the POV of the Bible being the true Word of God...but I think everyone should learn something about what's in there because so much of it is in our world.


I'm for labor unions.

Liberal again....or probably more of an economic philosophy there, but goes along generally with liberals today.


I'm against handing out condoms at school.

I think this is your first solid conservative viewpoint.


I'm for welfare and against continuing to pay welfare to those who just keep having kids.

I could go on and on but my question is this. What party do I affiliate with? What should I register as? There is no platform out there for someone who feels this way. A politician who feels as I do on these subjects would have three choices: 1)Keep personal beliefs to themselves 2)Push personal beliefs even though I know that my beliefs are the best for everyone or 3) state what I just told you and know that there is zero possibility of every getting elected and making a difference.

Yes...this is why I remain an independent., as well.

sandsjames
07-16-2014, 07:08 PM
I took sex ed in high school...I thought it was a good class and I'm in favor of it. I don't think anyone has a problem including abstinence as part of the curriculum...but, the CC generally do not believe we should be teaching kids how to have sex. I took it too. But when I took it, it wasn't about the things it is about today. They taught us the biology of women and men sexually. They dispelled some myths (getting pregnant from sitting on a toilet seat, etc). That was about it. It was education about sexual biology. There was no political biased involved at all. That's not the case today.




Yes, I think the core of the opposition is that human aborted embryos are sometimes used in the research. I could see an argument against aborting embryos for the purpose of research. I cannot see the argument in doing research on already aborted embryos.


I think that makes you a liberal. Being a liberal does not mean you personally like all these things...just that you think people should be free to make their own choices. It's pro-choice, not pro-abortion.



Liberal again. Liberalism does not imply you personally like everyone...just that everyone should be free to do as they please. Again, though, could you imagine the backlash that a liberal candidate would get if he said "I think abortion is wrong but you should be allowed to make your own choices"? Not once have I ever heard anyone on either side state it this way. It would be political death for both sides.




In theory, perhaps. One could concoct a theory where the hand of God guides the evolutionary process. Liberals shouldn't have a problem with kids being taught creationism. The issue comes up with teaching it as a science, in science class....because it is not science. But there is science involved. There are studies about the flood. There is a lot of scientific proof that if did happen. There are very valid scientific theories about the 10 plagues and how the sequence of those plagues is very possible. But those things couldn't be taught in a science class, even if the topic was presented strictly as researching a hypothosis.
Studying science is not about learning "facts" real or otherwise....it is about learning the scientific process of discovery....setting a hypothesis, gathering data, testing the hypothesis, rinse, repeat, etc. There is none of that in creationism, and there is no science to be learned from studying creationism...more from a "classic literature" perspective, I guess. There is a lot of that in creationism...a couple of which I talked about above. There is scientific evidence about the star of Bethlehem. There is evidence of earthquakes in the region of the temple at Jesus' crucifiction.


I think this is your first solid conservative viewpoint. And why do you think there is a discrepency about handing out condoms at school based on polical views? There are plenty of liberals who teach abstinence to their kids and don't want the appearance of the school encouraging sex, no matter how safe. There are plenty of conservatives who are quite happy to tell their kids "If you're gonna do it, be safe" who would be glad to have someone else provide the birth control. I think this is where the Christian right speaks the loudest in opposition.

My parents were (and are) very liberal. Yet if the school would have tried to give us free condoms they would have had a fit. I'm just confused as to how this became a party issue.

Measure Man
07-16-2014, 07:24 PM
I took it too. But when I took it, it wasn't about the things it is about today. They taught us the biology of women and men sexually. They dispelled some myths (getting pregnant from sitting on a toilet seat, etc). That was about it. It was education about sexual biology. There was no political biased involved at all. That's not the case today.

We learned about how to put on condoms...learned some "dating etiquette" through role playing scenarios, the different pressures on girls and boys, and other stuff, including the biology part of it. The most popular part of the class was every Friday, each student got to write down an anonymous question about anything at all...and the teacher would read them aloud and answer them as best she could.


I could see an argument against aborting embryos for the purpose of research. I cannot see the argument in doing research on already aborted embryos.

I think most everyone would agree that aborting embryos for the purpose of research would be horrible.


Again, though, could you imagine the backlash that a liberal candidate would get if he said "I think abortion is wrong but you should be allowed to make your own choices"? Not once have I ever heard anyone on either side state it this way. It would be political death for both sides.

I can't say. It seems I've heard this point of view before...maybe even from some moderate Republican candidates.

In fact, in the GOP Presidential primaries last time...I thought one of Romney's strongest moments came when they were talking about contraception...can't remember what other candidate was making an issue about it...but Romney simply snickered and said, "Think it's just fine...leave it alone"...I think he endeared himself to a lot of moderates with that...of course, he blew it in a lot of other ways, but that was one very strong moment for him, IMO.


But there is science involved. There are studies about the flood. There is a lot of scientific proof that if did happen. There are very valid scientific theories about the 10 plagues and how the sequence of those plagues is very possible.

I don't think so. I'm not familiar with the entire body of science on the topic...and I have no doubt you can link to some pages where some scientist goes into detail about rock formations in the Ephesus region, etc. But, I believe most of this is probably contrived evidence to support a pre-arrived at conclusion...

Collecting evidence that supports the conclusion you want, is the same as examining evidence to learn where it leads.


But those things couldn't be taught in a science class, even if the topic was presented strictly as researching a hypothosis. There is a lot of that in creationism...a couple of which I talked about above. There is scientific evidence about the star of Bethlehem. There is evidence of earthquakes in the region of the temple at Jesus' crucifiction.

ditto...


And why do you think there is a discrepency about handing out condoms at school based on polical views? There are plenty of liberals who teach abstinence to their kids and don't want the appearance of the school encouraging sex, no matter how safe. There are plenty of conservatives who are quite happy to tell their kids "If you're gonna do it, be safe" who would be glad to have someone else provide the birth control. I think this is where the Christian right speaks the loudest in opposition.

My parents were (and are) very liberal. Yet if the school would have tried to give us free condoms they would have had a fit. I'm just confused as to how this became a party issue.

Yeah...good question. Again, I think in this case it is the "far right" influence...who don't believe kids should be "encouraged" to have sex by making it easy on them. Heck, most catholics I know use birth control!

As for liberals...I don't think it's that the WANT kids to have sex, especially their own kids, it's more of managing the problem with practical solutions. They don't see the idea that "if we just make it hard for kids to have sex and don't teach them about it...they won't have sex" as a realistic plan.

sandsjames
07-16-2014, 07:53 PM
As for liberals...I don't think it's that the WANT kids to have sex, especially their own kids, it's more of managing the problem with practical solutions. They don't see the idea that "if we just make it hard for kids to have sex and don't teach them about it...they won't have sex" as a realistic plan.Still can't see how this could be a liberal/conservative thing at all. Can only really see it as a religion/non-religion thing.

Just to add, not that it matters, that I do believe strongly that not having sex is a very realistic plan. Worked for me and my siblings until we were on our own. However, we weren't told that sex was bad. We were told that if we got someone pregnant/got pregnant that we were on our own. "You want to play adult then you get to accept the consequences like an adult." Worked great, and never felt like my parents were depriving me of anything.

TJMAC77SP
07-16-2014, 07:59 PM
...acceptance of gays in general
...teaching creationism in school
...prayer in school
...prayer in govt. meetings
...America as a Christian nation
...abstinence education
...stem cell research (tied to abortion)

Sorry if my list wasn't inclusive enough. I do think some of your examples are a little disingenuous and not sure if you think abstinence education is wrong.

Measure Man
07-16-2014, 08:24 PM
Still can't see how this could be a liberal/conservative thing at all. Can only really see it as a religion/non-religion thing.

Okay...maybe we're getting confused on what we're talking about.

I think "condoms in schools" is generally an issue that liberals agree with, conservatives do not...democrats agree with, republicans do not.

Yes, it is a religious issue...and this is one example of a reason conservatives may be associated with churches.


Just to add, not that it matters, that I do believe strongly that not having sex is a very realistic plan. Worked for me and my siblings until we were on our own. However, we weren't told that sex was bad. We were told that if we got someone pregnant/got pregnant that we were on our own. "You want to play adult then you get to accept the consequences like an adult." Worked great, and never felt like my parents were depriving me of anything.

Sure. I think the condoms in school issue is facing the reality that not everyone has good parents teaching them lessons at home.


Sorry if my list wasn't inclusive enough.

Not a problems...just seemed framed that these were the only two issues that generated the notion.


I do think some of your examples are a little disingenuous

Disingenous how?


and not sure if you think abstinence education is wrong.

No, I wouldn't say it is wrong. Certainly not. In fact, I think I even stated that it should be taught.

I would say abstinence-only education is not very effective...that's the issue. Whether or not any "sex-ed" classes or lessons should be abstinence-only.

garhkal
07-16-2014, 08:49 PM
What i find interesting, is that the dept of health and human services is contracting through a Baptist church for security for many of the sites where these illegals are being held. The same church that has those "Brown shirts" who turned that Senator away last week.

sandsjames
07-16-2014, 09:00 PM
Okay...maybe we're getting confused on what we're talking about.

I think "condoms in schools" is generally an issue that liberals agree with, conservatives do not...democrats agree with, republicans do not. I'm not disagreeing...I just don't get why it is that way.


Sure. I think the condoms in school issue is facing the reality that not everyone has good parents teaching them lessons at home. Right...so instead of holding people responsible they have others take over the parenting. Doesn't make things better. It's a band aid for something that needs a cure.

Measure Man
07-16-2014, 09:21 PM
Right...so instead of holding people responsible they have others take over the parenting. Doesn't make things better. It's a band aid for something that needs a cure.

How do you hold them accountable, exactly?

If your kid gets pregnant, then you're responsible for the child? If they weren't good parents, they probable aren't going to be good grandparents, either.

Measure Man
07-16-2014, 09:22 PM
I'm not disagreeing...I just don't get why it is that way.

The sub-group happens to have more clout in one party.

sandsjames
07-16-2014, 09:28 PM
How do you hold them accountable, exactly?

If your kid gets pregnant, then you're responsible for the child? If they weren't good parents, they probable aren't going to be good grandparents, either.How you hold them responsible is you don't fund their family through the government.

Measure Man
07-16-2014, 09:36 PM
How you hold them responsible is you don't fund their family through the government.

I think that is a nice theory. It is based on the assumption that, "if we don't feed these children, the parents will go out and find a way to feed them."

While that is nice to believe, and may in fact be true for many or most...I do think we'll find though, especially with parents that have drug problems...is that the children will be undernourished, underclothed, kept in unsafe conditions, etc. I'm not sure we're prepared to deal with that any more than what already happens....and does that not just perpetuate larger problems that society has to deal with one way or another.

sandsjames
07-16-2014, 10:26 PM
I think that is a nice theory. It is based on the assumption that, "if we don't feed these children, the parents will go out and find a way to feed them."

While that is nice to believe, and may in fact be true for many or most...I do think we'll find though, especially with parents that have drug problems...is that the children will be undernourished, underclothed, kept in unsafe conditions, etc. I'm not sure we're prepared to deal with that any more than what already happens....and does that not just perpetuate larger problems that society has to deal with one way or another.
That's when you take the kids away from the parents.

The whole thing is not an easy situation. Either we keep using a temporary fix for a long term problem or we cause suffering for a short period of time to improve things in he future. It's definitely not a win/win situation.

Measure Man
07-16-2014, 10:36 PM
That's when you take the kids away from the parents.

...and have the govt. take care of them?


The whole thing is not an easy situation. Either we keep using a temporary fix for a long term problem or we cause suffering for a short period of time to improve things in he future. It's definitely not a win/win situation.

I agree, these are difficult issues...and they are not going to be solved with bumper sticker policies.

I'm not saying you are doing that...but, this reminds me of a conversation I had with a history professor about foreign policy.

When you think of being humane to a population, while try to do away with an evil regime...say, Cuba. Would it be more "humane" to simple take military action against a country, maybe kills some innoncents, devastate it and then help rebuild it...or to impose sanctions for 50+ years that effectively leaves all but the governing few in abject poverty for generations?

Surely going off topic here...but I don't get the whole Cuban sanction thing. After 50+ years, I think we can safely say the policy has failed. It has not overthrown the Castro regime...and not ignited the people to rise up against him....and in fact, he is one of the wealthiest men in the world. At this point, I suppose we are just waiting for him to die so we can say we never gave him the satisfaction? I dunno...what do we hope we will accomplish anymore? The only ones suffering from the embargo are the Cuban poor...and in my mind, you can not starve people into overthrowing their govt. Starving people are only concerned about finding a meal, not being political activists.

TJMAC77SP
07-16-2014, 10:55 PM
Okay...maybe we're getting confused on what we're talking about.

I think "condoms in schools" is generally an issue that liberals agree with, conservatives do not...democrats agree with, republicans do not.

Yes, it is a religious issue...and this is one example of a reason conservatives may be associated with churches.



Sure. I think the condoms in school issue is facing the reality that not everyone has good parents teaching them lessons at home.



Not a problems...just seemed framed that these were the only two issues that generated the notion.



Disingenous how?



No, I wouldn't say it is wrong. Certainly not. In fact, I think I even stated that it should be taught.

I would say abstinence-only education is not very effective...that's the issue. Whether or not any "sex-ed" classes or lessons should be abstinence-only.

Aside from my sarcasm..............

Disingenuous because many of the points you made are tied in with the two issues I stated. They seem to be listed as more negative aspects of Christian beliefs and behavior.

...acceptance of gays in general, stems cell research (tied to abortion). Doctrinal issues tied in with belief system

...teaching creationism in school (fairly small but vocal minority active in this issue)

...prayer in school (I think the more vocal are those opposed to prayer of any kind in school)

...prayer in govt. meetings (same goes for this crowd)

...America as a Christian nation

American was not created AS a Christian nation but it was formed by Christians and that belief system guided much of what they said, did and wrote about. Despite the best efforts to state otherwise every signer of the declaration of Independence declared an affiliation with a Christian church of one kind or another. It seems somewhat disingenuous to ignore that fact in light of the writings of some which presented intellectual desertions about the relationship between man, God and nature. I was born and raised a Catholic and in light of my not practicing any other religion I think it disingenuous to declare that I am not a Catholic because I am not a currently practicing one.

It seems an anathema to anti-Christian types (and yes that is exactly what they are…otherwise they would universally use the term religion in place of Christian) to think that this nation was formed by Christians. I for the life of me can never understand that logically flawed ignorance of history for the sake of an agenda.

...abstinence education (think this one was addressed. Seems the point was to include as a negative but it is good after all)

Measure Man
07-16-2014, 11:07 PM
Aside from my sarcasm..............

Disingenuous because many of the points you made are tied in with the two issues I stated. They seem to be listed as more negative aspects of Christian beliefs and behavior.

I don't think I presented any of them as negative. In fact, I would expect that the typical Evangelical Christian would look at each one and agree with them.

I mean, yes, I might personally oppose many of them, as I'm sure you know...but, that wasn't part of this discussion.


...acceptance of gays in general, stems cell research (tied to abortion). Doctrinal issues tied in with belief system

Well, yes. My point there was that you gave two canvassing issues...same-sex marriage and abortion. Same-sex marriage is the current "hot topic", but it is really a subset of their opposition to acceptance of homosexuality in a more general sense. However, having pretty much lost the debate on general acceptance of homosexuality, they are now focused on the more narrow topic of marriage, thinking they can still win that point.

...but yes, stem-cell research is completely part of the abortion topic...so that one does not count as a separate political activism.


...teaching creationism in school (fairly small but vocal minority active in this issue)

I don't know how small it is...but is definitely a pillar of Evangelical Christian political activism that is not under either abortion or homosexuality.


...prayer in school (I think the more vocal are those opposed to prayer of any kind in school)...only because this debate has been thoroughly decided.


...prayer in govt. meetings (same goes for this crowd)

mmmm...this one is still being lobbied about. I guess I would tend to agree that the "most vocal" tend to be the ones opposing the status quo...and at this point in time, status quo is still to have prayer in a lot of the meetings.


...America as a Christian nation

American was not created AS a Christian nation but it was formed by Christians and that belief system guided much of what they said, did and wrote about. Despite the best efforts to state otherwise every signer of the declaration of Independence declared an affiliation with a Christian church of one kind or another. It seems somewhat disingenuous to ignore that fact in light of the writings of some which presented intellectual desertions about the relationship between man, God and nature. I was born and raised a Catholic and in light of my not practicing any other religion I think it disingenuous to declare that I am not a Catholic because I am not a currently practicing one.

It seems an anathema to anti-Christian types (and yes that is exactly what they are…otherwise they would universally use the term religion in place of Christian) to think that this nation was formed by Christians. I for the life of me can never understand that logically flawed ignorance of history for the sake of an agenda.

Being founded by Christians, and being founded a Christian Nation are not the same thing.

While there is some debate as to the religious beliefs of some of the founders...it really isn't the point. Even if they were all 100% the most Christianist of Christians, they could still found a secular nation. Even if they got many of their ideas and principles from the Christian belief system...they could still found a secular nation.

That they did not mention God in the Constitution, I think is an important point that some of these people seem to overlook.


...abstinence education (think this one was addressed. Seems the point was to include as a negative but it is good after all)

Again, I didn't intend any of it to be presented "negatively"...just providing other examples of the political positions of Evangelical Christians beyond abortion and same-sex marriage.

None of this is really important.

Stalwart
07-17-2014, 12:07 AM
That's when you take the kids away from the parents.

I would not AT ALL disagree; but if you take the children away from the parents the government is still aying to support that child, just via the state system. What I did find as we navigated through the adoption process was a large number of children who were in state (foster) care who had been forcibly removed from their families and been in state custody for years but the state had not formally severed parental rights. It is sad knowing that there are literally thousands of families trying to adopt, and tens of thousands of children who need good homes and the bureaucracy of the system prevents putting the two together. I don't know why it was so difficult to break through the barrier to a domestic adoption, but eventually the frustration led us to pursue an international adoption.



After 50+ years, I think we can safely say the policy has failed. It has not overthrown the Castro regime...and not ignited the people to rise up against him....and in fact, he is one of the wealthiest men in the world. At this point, I suppose we are just waiting for him to die so we can say we never gave him the satisfaction?

I have talked to quite a few people who work foreign policy for Congress, that is pretty much the issue in a nutshell.


I dunno...what do we hope we will accomplish anymore? The only ones suffering from the embargo are the Cuban poor...and in my mind, you can not starve people into overthrowing their govt. Starving people are only concerned about finding a meal, not being political activists.

You can't starve people who in general are satisfied with their government into overthrowing their government. However, people who are highly dissatisfied when present with this situation could be predicted to revolt. In general, Cubans living in Cuba are satisfied with their government ... maybe not wholly embracing of it, but they are not looking to change things either.

TJMAC77SP
07-17-2014, 12:14 AM
..........None of this is really important.

So, we're done here?

Stalwart
07-17-2014, 12:26 AM
I would say abstinence-only education is not very effective...that's the issue. Whether or not any "sex-ed" classes or lessons should be abstinence-only.

It is about as effective as me telling a group of Sailors not to go out and drink too much. I can tell teenagers day in day out that the only 100% known way to not get pregnant, get a girl pregnant or contract an STD is abstinence but I know that a certain percentage of them are going to do it. Ignoring that they will is just burying my head in the sand.

For those Sailors: I can provide them a card to put in their wallet that gives them a free no-questions-asked cab ride home.

For teenagers: I can give them the facts, but also provide options for those who are going to go against the advice.

sandsjames
07-17-2014, 12:28 AM
...and have the govt. take care of them?As you would with any instances of child abuse/neglect. There's a difference between a struggling parent and an incompetent parent.



I agree, these are difficult issues...and they are not going to be solved with bumper sticker policies.

I'm not saying you are doing that...but, this reminds me of a conversation I had with a history professor about foreign policy.


When you think of being humane to a population, while try to do away with an evil regime...say, Cuba. Would it be more "humane" to simple take military action against a country, maybe kills some innoncents, devastate it and then help rebuild it...or to impose sanctions for 50+ years that effectively leaves all but the governing few in abject poverty for generations? Yep...the sanctions aren't working. And I'd equate sanctions on foreign countries to continued babying of incompetent people. Nuking Japan worked and the generations that followed are much better off. So "nuke" the bad parents and over a couple generations we can hope that there will be a deterrent to others benefiting those to follow.


Surely going off topic here...but I don't get the whole Cuban sanction thing. After 50+ years, I think we can safely say the policy has failed. It has not overthrown the Castro regime...and not ignited the people to rise up against him....and in fact, he is one of the wealthiest men in the world. At this point, I suppose we are just waiting for him to die so we can say we never gave him the satisfaction? I dunno...what do we hope we will accomplish anymore? The only ones suffering from the embargo are the Cuban poor...and in my mind, you can not starve people into overthrowing their govt. Starving people are only concerned about finding a meal, not being political activists.I agree completely. It's better to have innocents suffer for a short period of time with a light at the end of the tunnel than it is to be a huge part of generations of innocents suffering with no end in sight.

sandsjames
07-17-2014, 12:33 AM
It is about as effective as me telling a group of Sailors not to go out and drink too much. I can tell teenagers day in day out that the only 100% known way to not get pregnant, get a girl pregnant or contract an STD is abstinence but I know that a certain percentage of them are going to do it. Ignoring that they will is just burying my head in the sand. So it's better to provide those sailors with the booze they need to get drunk because they are going to do it anyway?


For those Sailors: I can provide them a card to put in their wallet that gives them a free no-questions-asked cab ride home. Or you can tell them to not do stupid shit and when they do you send them down the road. But I guess sometimes babying adults is the best way to go.


For teenagers: I can give them the facts, but also provide options for those who are going to go against the advice.I don't care either way, really. It's a parenting choice. If the parents don't care then they can provide the birth control. However, it's not up to the schools to be getting involved by handing out the birth control.

Measure Man
07-17-2014, 12:34 AM
Yep...the sanctions aren't working. And I'd equate sanctions on foreign countries to continued babying of incompetent people. Nuking Japan worked and the generations that followed are much better off. So "nuke" the bad parents and over a couple generations we can hope that there will be a deterrent to others benefiting those to follow.
I agree completely. It's better to have innocents suffer for a short period of time with a light at the end of the tunnel than it is to be a huge part of generations of innocents suffering with no end in sight.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, I'm not entirely convinced that the social "nuking" will be the deterrent we hope for...either way "nuking" would be difficult to watch.

The other unfortunate truth...is that kids that get "taken from their parents" and placed in the "system"...are often placed with other dysfunctional families who use foster parenting as a means to pay the bills, as well.

sandsjames
07-17-2014, 12:36 AM
I don't necessarily disagree with you, I'm not entirely convinced that the social "nuking" will be the deterrent we hope for...either way "nuking" would be difficult to watch.

The other unfortunate truth...is that kids that get "taken from their parents" and placed in the "system"...are often placed with other dysfunctional families who use foster parenting as a means to pay the bills, as well.I agree. That's why there needs to be more money and over watch put into the foster system. In most fostering cases, the government is just as neglectful as the parents they took the kids away from. Again, it may cost more up front, but we've got to look at the long run.

Stalwart
07-17-2014, 01:00 AM
So it's better to provide those sailors with the booze they need to get drunk because they are going to do it anyway?

Not at all. Edit: Nor would I provide a teenager a room or bed to have sex in, but I do know that a percentage (large or small) are going to do it.


Or you can tell them to not do stupid shit and when they do you send them down the road. But I guess sometimes babying adults is the best way to go.

Well, I do think there is a difference between telling them not to do it and providing them a means to do it. As well as providing them a way to lessen the impact of a potentially bad decision. Getting completely drunk is not a crime, but driving afterwards is ... so can I provide a way to alleviate that ... yes. Is it baby-sitting, maybe. Part of the logic is to keep the individual out of trouble (something I want to do), the other part (bigger part) is to try to prevent the 'worst case scenario' which in the case of drunk driving would be the Sailor killing an innocent bystander, possibly me or my family ... or you or yours -- the Sailor isn't the only one who lives with the consequences of a bad decision. In the case of teenage sex, I can hope beyond hope that we could end the rate of teenage pregnancy by convincing kids not to have sex until they could truly deal with the consequences of a pregnancy ... but I know that won't work either. If making some method of birth control an option prevents it, then there are two goods that come from it: we don't lessen the chances of that teenage girl of having a successful life and we don't introduce a child into a situation that statistically shows them to be at an instant disadvantage for the rest of their life.

Part of me thinks that the living with the consequences of her decision is appropriate, but she won't be the only one living with those consequences.


I don't care either way, really. It's a parenting choice. If the parents don't care then they can provide the birth control. However, it's not up to the schools to be getting involved by handing out the birth control.

I do get your point, My daughter is not quite 4 yet so I don't have that concern ... yet. How will I feel about a school giving her (or making available) a condom when she is 14 ... probably not great. How would I feel about her getting pregnant at 14 because she was not comfortable enough to ask my wife or I about it ... probably worse.

Stalwart
07-17-2014, 01:05 AM
In most fostering cases, the government is just as neglectful as the parents they took the kids away from.

I know some really good foster parents. One family I know over 20 years has fostered in the area of 40 kids for various lengths of times. I also know of some horror stories from some children's profiles that I have seen: kids removed from their families due to physical, psychological & sexual abuse only to get subject to the same in a foster home. I don't know if it is "most" ... but it is more common than I would have thought.

BT BT

I don't know enough to really comment authoritatively, but after our adoption experience I grew skeptical of many administrators in the foster system and their motivations to place kids with families. My suspicion: more kids in the system, more money for the system.

sandsjames
07-17-2014, 01:12 AM
I do get your point, My daughter is not quite 4 yet so I don't have that concern ... yet. How will I feel about a school giving her (or making available) a condom when she is 14 ... probably not great. How would I feel about her getting pregnant at 14 because she was not comfortable enough to ask my wife or I about it ... probably worse.How would you feel about raising her so that she doesn't feel the need to go out trying to gain attention from boys who just want to use her?

sandsjames
07-17-2014, 01:14 AM
I know some really good foster parents. One family I know over 20 years has fostered in the area of 40 kids for various lengths of times. I also know of some horror stories from some children's profiles that I have seen: kids removed from their families due to physical, psychological & sexual abuse only to get subject to the same in a foster home. I don't know if it is "most" ... but it is more common than I would have thought.

BT BT

I don't know enough to really comment authoritatively, but after our adoption experience I grew skeptical of many administrators in the foster system and their motivations to place kids with families. My suspicion: more kids in the system, more money for the system.

Of course there are good ones. They should ALL be good. That's why money needs to be spent to provide more services, training, and oversight.

Stalwart
07-17-2014, 01:16 AM
How would you feel about raising her so that she doesn't feel the need to go out trying to gain attention from boys who just want to use her?

That is the plan. I hope ... trust me ... I REALLY HOPE that it works.

To quote an old platoon sergeant of mine "no plan survives first contact with the enemy." Not that her teenage boyfriends will be the enemy ... well ... maybe.

Stalwart
07-17-2014, 01:20 AM
Of course there are good ones. They should ALL be good. That's why money needs to be spent to provide more services, training, and oversight.

Concur. I do also wish that those people who want to take a child PERMANENTLY into their home should not face the steel wall of bureaucracy that exists. It should not be easy, there has to be a system, background checks, certification etc. At the time we decided to adopt internationally, I had been in the military 19 years, I was used to mountains of paperwork, unresponsive admin offices, extensive background checks (have done 1 SSBI and 4 PRs now) and jumping through the proverbial hoop ... we got so fed up we went with something that in hindsight was more organized and straight forward.