Jump to content

I fear that many misunderstand the Prophet, concerning “refugees”.


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

So what?  Officially, the church said "don't do it."  Are you arguing that we should get back on track and have plural marriages again?  That's your position?  I suppose you make a good point -- the example of "everyone that signed off on" it should be followed. So how many wives are you proposing to add to your marriage?

I'm seriously saying, obey the law of the land.  If you don't like what it says, then work to change it.  But in the meantime the scriptures admonish you to obey the law of the land.  And I haven't heard one peep from the stand at General Conference about doing otherwise.  Not during my lifetime anyway.

That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying God's commands for us to follow the laws of the land have never given us permission to opt out if his other laws, especially when they're more important.

Law of the land is secondary to God's law.

Back when the Church required gathering to Utah immigration laws were not supreme.  Back when polygamy was commanded marriage laws were not supreme and now that SSM is legal they still aren't.   When the king made a law against prayer Daniel still prayed.  In countries where Christianity is illegal people still read the Bible.

Obedience to the law is a command.  UNLESS the law is evil or goes against God.

  • Like 4
Link to post
  • Replies 269
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Utah was settled by Mormons illegally immigrating into Mexico while fleeing the US legal system in order to practice polygamy.  There is some historical precedent in the First Presidency's statement. 

I have a friend with a husband in this position. He was brought here a toddler by his parents.  He's married to a U.S. citizen, has three little kids, and has been trying to become a legal citizen for

Just to clarify the Church's statement didn't say anything about immigration, just about refugees and to "respond appropriately and legally"

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

Yeah, I know, I have a rebellious streak in me when it comes to stupid, evil laws.  I have a problem with them and I tend to try to just ignore them rather than obey them.  Good laws that make sense are not something I have a problem with.  And I don't have enough time in my day t go out lobbying to change all of the stupid, evil laws that are on the books in this country, considering all of the other things I really need to try to get done.  Not obeying the stupid, evil laws in the world does prick my conscience though so I have a feeling I should probably just submit to them instead of just not obeying those stupid, evil laws.  I'm still working on how to handle it and I have been for many years now.

Some laws are good, but some laws are stupid/evil.  Crosswalk lights for example.  Sure they can be helpful at times, but when the way is clear and there is nobody around, like late at night when there is hardly anyone on the streets, those stupid things are just stupid annoyances and I have a very hard time just standing there waiting for the light to change to say I can then walk when I could have easily walked without any danger a few minutes ago!  And that goes for traffic lights, too!  Sometimes they are helpful but we shouldn't be subject to some stupid evil law that says we can't or shouldn't walk when there is no good reason to wait. And the fact that it is a "law" is no justification for that stupid, evil law.

I don't disagree with you.

But you pick one law and call it stupid/evil, but that's just your opinion.  Another person might, with justification as well, disagree.

I am not someone who as a pedestrian late at night would stop and stand at a completely empty street crossing and wait for the light to change.  I recall hearing a story of a General Authority (not sure of the name, but it might have been Joseph Fielding Smith or George Albert Smith) who one day accidentally ran a red light -- it was an empty street.  He was terribly chagrined about it, and circled around until he came to the light again and this time stopped for it.  Then went on.  I would have simply hoped there were no traffic cameras, or that no officer had been watching, and driven on.

At base, I am an extreme libertarian.  There should be no borders.  Governments should have very little power.  No taxes.  But in all practicality, that will not work. Until the Millennium comes, we need to be practical.

You say that laws prohibiting free travel between countries are evil.  In the ideal state, you are absolutely correct.  But we're far from that.  It works in some circumstances. Someone living in the European Union can travel to another European Union country and not even be questioned upon crossing the border.  But there are problems developing as a result of allowing free migration from outside the EU.  It's causing plenty of trouble.  I predict the time will soon come when they will need to crack down on it.  Some of the member countries have already started doing so.

  • Like 2
Link to post
33 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

The Church does not require an illegal to leave the US. 

What does this mean, anyway?  The Church is not an agency of the government.  I'd appreciate a CFR, by the way.  I do have access to Handbook 1, as it turns out, so you can refer me to that if that is where you're getting this from.  

19 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Not only doesn't require it but absolutely forbids it. And then uses private vehicles to transport the missionaries to and from their assigned mission fields in order to help them avoid detection and deportation. But don't tell @Stargazer ...

Don't tell me what? 😄

If the Church wants to violate immigration and customs laws, who am I to say they shouldn't?  I am sure they do it upon great need.  But I'd be interested to read where the Church absolutely forbids "it".

Laws are there for the good of all.  As @Ahab is fond of pointing out, not all laws are strictly speaking justifiable.  I break laws where it seems that they don't apply -- though I am nevertheless aware that I could be punished if caught.  I encourage everyone to obey the laws, however.  If only to avoid legal entanglements.

And not all of man's laws cover matters relating to God's commandments.  The proscription against driving past the speed limit, for example, if violated does not require repentance.  Because God didn't frame the law.  But you really should try to obey all laws, man's or God's.

 

Link to post
29 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying God's commands for us to follow the laws of the land have never given us permission to opt out if his other laws, especially when they're more important.

Law of the land is secondary to God's law.

Back when the Church required gathering to Utah immigration laws were not supreme.  Back when polygamy was commanded marriage laws were not supreme and now that SSM is legal they still aren't.   When the king made a law against prayer Daniel still prayed.  In countries where Christianity is illegal people still read the Bible.

Obedience to the law is a command.  UNLESS the law is evil or goes against God.

OK, then!  Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you.

You should have a word with @SeekingUnderstanding.  He seems to think that the laws that were in force at the time of the giving of D&C 58 should be the laws we obey now.  I guess any changes since then were invalid.

Link to post
26 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Not only doesn't require it but absolutely forbids it. And then uses private vehicles to transport the missionaries to and from their assigned mission fields in order to help them avoid detection and deportation. But don't tell @Stargazer ...

That must be a newer thing.  My wife served a mission as an illegal and she came and went on an airplane, but that was pre 9/11(1997-1998)  so maybe things weren't as strict back then.  My wife's sister got called to serve in mexico (2003) and wasn't able to legally come back after her mission (she came back anyway). My wife's brother went to his mission in the states by airplane I believe and his mission was post 9/11 so they were using public transportation then (2007-2008).

The church knew in their cases that they were not here legally. 

In my mission in Italy, (1994-1996) there was a missionary who was serving that was in Italy illegally.  He was the only missionary in our mission that wasn't endowed because he couldn't leave the country, but he served and the church knew he was illegal.

The church is quite clear where they stand.  Obey the law if you can, but if you can't, you can't and it isn't going to effect your membership in the church. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
16 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

If the Church wants to violate immigration and customs laws, who am I to say they shouldn't?  I am sure they do it upon great need.  But I'd be interested to read where the Church absolutely forbids "it".

You can check out the links I provided to Papa in an earlier post. One quote:

Quote

The LDS Church has changed its policies about mission calls for undocumented immigrants over time. Previously, they had to return to their country of origin for extended periods of time and then could serve. However, U.S. Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, inserted language into a 2005 agricultural bill that absolves religious organizations of criminal liability for allowing their undocumented members to perform volunteer service, including mission work.

Church leaders do make certain accommodations for undocumented missionaries, including calling them only to missions within the United States.

 

8 minutes ago, Danzo said:

That must be a newer thing. 

That's what the reporting says: 'The Church reportedly now requires all missionaries who are unlawfully in the United States to avoid public transportation'.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 1
Link to post
24 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

But you pick one law and call it stupid/evil, but that's just your opinion.  Another person might, with justification as well, disagree.

 

I do not know of anyone who actually knows about immigration who doesn't think major parts of it are stupid or evil.

The only people who support the currently law seem to be those that know the least about it.

We are talking about a law that gives essentially life sentences to infants based on actions of others, discourages marriage, encourages fornication, breaks apart families, encourages human trafficking and slavery.

I knew someone a few years ago who was the head of an INS office (as it was then called) and even he thought it was stupid.  I was once talking with him about it at a family wedding.  I pointed out to him (he was director of a regional office) that probably half of the people at the wedding were illegal. He just smiled and said he was off duty at the moment. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
13 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You can check out the links I provided to Papa in an earlier post.

That's what the reporting says.

I would take that article with a grain of salt, the stories it reports are probably true but I think that maybe the article might overly generalize based on anecdotes.

I think it may be safe to say that the church improvises as necessary to protect its members and missionaries (as it should).

Also the article in question was written in 2011,  I'll see if I can check with the missionaries here on the current practice in their mission. 

 

Edited by Danzo
  • Like 2
Link to post
34 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I break laws where it seems that they don't apply -- though I am nevertheless aware that I could be punished if caught.  I encourage everyone to obey the laws, however. 

That comes across as a double standard.  Everyone should obey the laws even if I don't at times when I don't think they should apply....or do you see that paraphrase as inaccurate in some fashion?

Edited by Calm
Link to post
18 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

How far back in time do you want to impose this artificial stasis? Paris, for example, used to be a Celtic town belonging to the Parisii people before it was taken over by the Franks in the fifth century. In the case of the US, I'm assuming you would pick a more recent time period, presumably after the colonisation of America and its war for independence?

Then you're not talking about refugees. International law, to which the US and my adopted nation are signatory, makes it clear that fleeing across an international border in order to escape war, violence, conflict or persecution is perfectly legal. The First Presidency statement is specifically about refugees.

No, I don't really buy into the silly argument about time. It seems silly to say, "Well, if you go back 1000 years that land was occupied by so and so."  I tend to accept that a nation exists and has existed for hundreds of years and it is clearly obvious that the country has a specific language and culture. 

Artificial stasis?  Are you of the belief that nations really don't have their own language, culture, etc.?  Just don't think we need to strain so hard to accept the obvious. 

Link to post
12 hours ago, Calm said:

So when my husband and I moved to Canada so he could get a better job as a university professor, should that move have been outlawed or otherwise prevented in your view?

Did your husband have a work permit? I think I stated that nations - particularly the USA - should facilitate work permits. If an individual has a work permit - I needed one to work in the UAE and in Qatar  and I obtained them - then there is not an issue of illegality. I think First World nations should have work permit processes that function well - both for the company and the foreign worker. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
13 hours ago, Calm said:

What if the host country has created a situation that promotes illegal immigration?

In an semiideal world this would probably be enough.

But what if such support fails due to corruption or incompetence or influence of other less beneficent governments more concerned with taking advantage or simply natural disaster or other conditions that the locals have no control over, do you think a country should resort to opening up their borders more generously and disadvantaging their own citizens somewhat to help refugees survive?

The process of First World Nations assisting Third World nations is not as easy as sending money to governments, etc.  It is highly complex and great strides have been made to identify some actions that assist people rather than have so much aid be the fount of corruption, abuse, etc. by those in power.  I expect that the world will continue to learn how to do it better and more effectively. 

I am aware of how the support of the past has not yielded the desired results. 

Link to post
12 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Artificial stasis?  Are you of the belief that nations really don't have their own language, culture, etc.?  Just don't think we need to strain so hard to accept the obvious. 

I spent a large part of my master's program studying the history of nations. I think you might be surprised how inaccurate the 'obvious' is. The nation-state is basically a 19th-century development, following events at the end of the 18th century. This point is non-controversial. And whilst European (and some Asian) nations have repeatedly tried to appear both unified and distinct in language, ethnicity and culture, this has literally never been the reality. If you're genuinely interested, when I get home tonight, I can provide a suggested reading list.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 1
Link to post
12 hours ago, Calm said:

What about more useful companies such as those that produce cars and trucks? Should they only be allowed to ship their vehicles in or should even that be illegal to prevent domination of any local vehicle producer?  Should there be no Fords allowed anywhere but the US?

 Do you support respect of patents across borders or do you think intellectual property ends at the border?  If you support international patents to avoid others producing products and then shipping at lower costs worldwide, how do you suggest a country develop local businesses dependent on such patents if such businesses are unlikely to have the resources at the beginning to pay for use of patents from other countries?

I am not a purist or absolutist. I don't think that all companies should be prevented from expanding into foreign markets. I just think that nations should have the right to study the impact of wide open doors to companies invading their nation. It is very difficult to find a local restaurant, run by locals, and serving traditional Qatari food in Qatar. Everything is brought in. If a nation wants that, then fine. However, if they don't, then I support their right to slow down the expansion of foreign brands in their country. 

Should you be able to buy a Honda or a Ford in every nation on earth? I guess it depends on the nation and what they want. I can understand China's desire to protect its own national brands and want a degree of protectionism. The problem is some nations - China for one - can by very protectionist and yet want to export to the world. That kind of one-sided deal does not work. 

All I am saying is that I think nations should be circumspect to what degree that allow foreign businesses into their country. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I don't disagree with you.

But you pick one law and call it stupid/evil, but that's just your opinion.  Another person might, with justification as well, disagree.

I am not someone who as a pedestrian late at night would stop and stand at a completely empty street crossing and wait for the light to change.  I recall hearing a story of a General Authority (not sure of the name, but it might have been Joseph Fielding Smith or George Albert Smith) who one day accidentally ran a red light -- it was an empty street.  He was terribly chagrined about it, and circled around until he came to the light again and this time stopped for it.  Then went on.  I would have simply hoped there were no traffic cameras, or that no officer had been watching, and driven on.

At base, I am an extreme libertarian.  There should be no borders.  Governments should have very little power.  No taxes.  But in all practicality, that will not work. Until the Millennium comes, we need to be practical.

You say that laws prohibiting free travel between countries are evil.  In the ideal state, you are absolutely correct.  But we're far from that.  It works in some circumstances. Someone living in the European Union can travel to another European Union country and not even be questioned upon crossing the border.  But there are problems developing as a result of allowing free migration from outside the EU.  It's causing plenty of trouble.  I predict the time will soon come when they will need to crack down on it.  Some of the member countries have already started doing so.

It's not "just" my opinion, but I pretty much agree with most of your post so I gave you a rep point.  We can't give partial rep points for people who partially agree with us.  What a wonderful world that would be.

Link to post
59 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

.  I expect that the world will continue to learn how to do it better and more effectively. 

And we say “just tough” to those suffering in those countries while the world learns to do it better?  Or do you have another solution?

  • Like 1
Link to post

 

 

4 hours ago, Danzo said:

That must be a newer thing.  My wife served a mission as an illegal and she came and went on an airplane, but that was pre 9/11(1997-1998)  so maybe things weren't as strict back then.

Yes, it is stricter. Even in the last year it has grown stricter though I am not aware of how the last few months have gone.  

We've found that it is better to put asylum seekers on a plane instead of a bus because there are fewer stops, less traveling through the night, less need for money/food etc and the plane tickets don't often cost much more than bus tickets. Last year at this time we could take asylum seekers to the airport, help them through the checkin desk with their ICE papers, get permission to escort them to the gate.  After awhile, even though they had legal travel papers many of them were not being allowed to go past check in or security.

Like I said, I don't know what is happening now (we had to shift how things were done between all of the churches and organizations) so hopefully it is better than it was, but I suspect there are still a lot of problems.

4 hours ago, Danzo said:

  My wife's sister got called to serve in mexico (2003) and wasn't able to legally come back after her mission (she came back anyway). My wife's brother went to his mission in the states by airplane I believe and his mission was post 9/11 so they were using public transportation then (2007-2008).

The church knew in their cases that they were not here legally. 

In my mission in Italy, (1994-1996) there was a missionary who was serving that was in Italy illegally.  He was the only missionary in our mission that wasn't endowed because he couldn't leave the country, but he served and the church knew he was illegal.

The church is quite clear where they stand.  Obey the law if you can, but if you can't, you can't and it isn't going to effect your membership in the church. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
16 hours ago, Ahab said:

No questions needed, at least not as a requirement for entering the country.  If someone has nefarious motives they could just lie, so what good purpose would any questions serve. 

Before entering a country?  Are they doing that now at the borders?  What would be the point of doing a medical exam at the border, or requiring someone to go get a physical and a written note from a doctor to say "Yeah, he's got some health problems, but nothing catchy".

Not necessary.  Just make sure they aren't carrying any drugs or bombs or weapons unless they have some piece of paper to say it's okay for them to have those drugs or bombs or weapons.

Oh, come on.  Are you Bob Smith or are you really Ferdinand Balboa?   You look like Ferdinand Balboa to me.  Are you carrying any drugs or bombs or weapons?  Turn around here and let me check.  Okay, nothing on you.  You can go in now.  Have a nice day!

No. Buses should encouraged. Less pollution and less traffic than a bunch of cars carrying one person at a time.

OK. Now I get it. Nicely played.

BTW, I have long maintained that if people here in the US were really concerned about Central American immigrants they would organize commercial bus caravans to bring them safely through Mexico. Rather than pay $5000-$7000 to coyotes, the refugees could easily buy a one-way ticket to El Paso for about $400 and still have a lot of money left over to get set up in the states, plus they would not get murdered, robbed, or raped along the way. Having lived two years in Central America, I lived with the poverty, I have no idea how folks there could save up that much money to make the trip. 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to post
8 hours ago, Danzo said:

I do not know of anyone who actually knows about immigration who doesn't think major parts of it are stupid or evil.

The only people who support the currently law seem to be those that know the least about it.

We are talking about a law that gives essentially life sentences to infants based on actions of others, discourages marriage, encourages fornication, breaks apart families, encourages human trafficking and slavery.

I knew someone a few years ago who was the head of an INS office (as it was then called) and even he thought it was stupid.  I was once talking with him about it at a family wedding.  I pointed out to him (he was director of a regional office) that probably half of the people at the wedding were illegal. He just smiled and said he was off duty at the moment. 

I'm pretty sure that during my time here on this board I've indicated that I don't necessarily agree with everything any government does.  Or every law that government passes.  And some of the denizens here have gone off the deep end when I've proposed opposition to the laws that they happened to have high regard for -- laws, too, that have done bad things to innocent people. But in order for a society to live in peace the rule of law must be observed.  

Almost every law, no matter how well-intended or well-drafted, contains within it the seeds of very unpleasant and sometimes even unjust things.  It's called "unintended consequences".  The problem with laws involving complicated matters is that many situations were not envisioned by the framers of that law, and thus when the various unexpected situations occur, the provisions of the law cause misapplication and even injustice.  Yet, the law says something and that something must be enforced.  It's much like a hammer.  If your only tool is a hammer, then sometimes you are forced to use it for things it really wasn't designed for.

In your list, you write of a law that "discourages marriage, encourages fornication, breaks apart families, encourages human trafficking and slavery."  Which law is that?  Seems like a pretty ambitious law.  Is this one particular law, or are you perhaps generalizing?  I understand how some of these can be caused by laws created for humanitarian reasons.  In close connection with the present conversation, we have "breaks apart families".  This has been a particular concern about immigration, of course.  But practically any law can do this.  If a mother and father jointly rob a bank, their family will be broken up because they will both be in separate prisons and their children will be with relatives or foster parents.  This is a bad thing, of course.  So, does this mean that, in order avoid "breaking up families" that we put mom, dad and the kids all in the same prison -- a special one for families?  Or do we throw up our hands in despair and just let them off if they promise to not do it again?

  • encourages human trafficking and slavery - I read an article this morning about how there is a serious problem in Pakistan because many young women have basically been "sold" by their parents to China to provide husbands there - since a consequence of the former "one child policy" has led to 34 million excess men who can't find wives -- but many of those sold to China have ended up in slave labor or prostitution.  Definitely a bad outcome.  I suppose they could pass a law forbidding this, but it turns out that much of this has been done with the cooperation of Pakistani government officials, who apparently get a "cut" of the fees.

I'd be interested to know what law "gives essentially life sentences to infants based on actions of others", though.  

Link to post
23 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I assume you're more familiar with the scriptures and with Church history than that question suggests, but if not, I'm happy for you to take up the matter with the prophets, who are the ones making such decisions.

Not quite the kind of response I had hoped for, brother.
 

I have a modest familiarity with the Articles of Faith, but not so much with scriptures and Church history. Thanks for the advice, though. I’ll ask President Nelson next time we have lunch together in the COB cafeteria....

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to post
47 minutes ago, rchorse said:

As the husband of a German immigrant who has since been naturalized as a US citizen and a current immigrant myself in Germany, I completely agree with this. What I had to do to get residency in Germany was very reasonable. I basically just had to fill out one form and document that I had a job and a place to live and that was it. The total cost was about 125 Euros.

The hoops we had to jump through to get my wife legal residency in the US were ridiculous. And this was when she was already there legally on a student visa at BYU. When we had our interviews with ICE, they were always surprised that we were able to complete everything without an immigration attorney. We both have masters degrees, and the process was still extremely confusing for us. A refugee or low-education immigrant from another country has basically no chance. It's very expensive, even if you do it all yourself. With attorney costs added in, it's just not possible. It cost us at least $3,000 doing it on our own without an attorney. Most immigrants would have a tough time even coming up with that, let alone paying an attorney.

I don't agree with illegal immigration, but I can understand why they do it. I think the best solution is to radically overhaul immigration laws to the point that it's easy and not too expensive for good people (including poor people) without a criminal history to immigrate. That is to me far better than just building a wall or letting people in illegally.

As the husband of a native British woman, I'm a current immigrant in the UK. It took a fair amount of paperwork and fees to get me into the UK as a legal immigrant.  It cost something on the order of $3000 to go through all the hoops, criminal history checks, and investigation to make sure that it was a legitimate marriage and not some subterfuge to get past immigration controls.  And it took about 7 months for them to go through all that.  Many years ago I considered the idea of immigrating to Australia, just because I thought I would like it there.  Upon checking, I discovered that they wouldn't let me come as a resident because they had enough people doing what I did for a living at the time.  They didn't want an unemployable Yank cluttering up the place.  Lots of countries try to control who comes in and how long they stay.

You do realize that the policy of the Merkel government has been basically "let them all come in", right?  It's no surprise you had so little resistance.

On the other hand, there are millions of people champing at the bit to get into the US.  And quite a few of those should not be let in due to criminality and other problems.  And as much as I sympathize with the folks who want to come to the US for the opportunities, the plain fact of the matter is that the US has decided that not all of them can come.  And if they come in illegally they may face consequences.  

And by the way, the US is not a dictatorship with Trump or Obama as the Supreme Leader. If the people of the US decide they want the immigration laws changed to "let them all in", all they have to do is elect enough agreeable congresspeople to get the laws changed.  Just because a few people are getting their knickers in a bunch that people who break laws have to face the consequences of doing so does not mean that the law is invalid and must be ignored.

  • Like 1
Link to post
17 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

And then there is Stephen Miller and, it must be said, his institutional enablers over the past three years.

What should we do when the laws of the land encourage us to forget the laws of God?  A great deal of the New Testament describes the conflicts between Jesus and the notion of love as the First and Great commandment upon which all other commandments ought to be based, and those who sought to replace morality based on "doing unto others as we would have them to us," with the notion that Legality Trumps Morality.  If a thing it legal, lawful (e.g. slavery, predatory lending, polluting the planet, or separating children from families, caging them, with no way of tracking them, and no concern for trauma inflicted) then liberal morality has nothing to say.  "It deters criminal activity."  Legality is all.  Remember, as James said, "If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God who gives to all men conservatively, and therefore what they have, they must have earned with my blessing, and if they don't have it, that is evidence enough that they don't deserve it."  Something like that.  If we ignore so much like this:

One of the things that permits people with the perspective to be self critical, to "remove the beam from our own eye" as a necessary prelude to seeing clearly is the presence of people and ideas and information that is different than what currently nests in our heads.  Part of what adds to joy and expansion of the mind and enlargement of the soul is the combination of variety and beauty that God put here for us to enjoy.  Pure knowledge greatly enlarges the soul without hypocrisy and without guile.  It follows that impure knowledge leads to contracted souls that display both hypocrisy and guile.  And where in the world can one go to observe that in our glorious Trumptopia?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Best thing I read today.

 

”Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and render unto God only that which Caesar in his wisdom will allow you to offer.”

.....Nah, I prefer the original.

  • Like 2
Link to post
10 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

No, I don't really buy into the silly argument about time. It seems silly to say, "Well, if you go back 1000 years that land was occupied by so and so."  I tend to accept that a nation exists and has existed for hundreds of years and it is clearly obvious that the country has a specific language and culture. 

Artificial stasis?  Are you of the belief that nations really don't have their own language, culture, etc.?  Just don't think we need to strain so hard to accept the obvious. 

I am sorry you do not buy into the “silly argument” that things change. Tell the dodo birds we said “hi”.

Link to post
53 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I'm pretty sure that during my time here on this board I've indicated that I don't necessarily agree with everything any government does.  Or every law that government passes.  And some of the denizens here have gone off the deep end when I've proposed opposition to the laws that they happened to have high regard for -- laws, too, that have done bad things to innocent people. But in order for a society to live in peace the rule of law must be observed.  

The rule of law has as often given oppression throughout history as it has peace.

  • Like 2
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...