Jump to content

'What would dead church leaders think? Short-sighted reasoning


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A nation securing its own borders and enacting orderly immigration policy 

😂😂😂

Orderly immigration policy?  You can't be serious.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t think the church does care that much if a nation enforces its laws?

How about laws that safeguard the free exercise of religion? You don’t think the Church cares if those are enforced?

What about laws against murder, robbery, theft, rape, assault, embezzlement, arson, vandalism? You think the Church is indifferent about those as well? Don’t you think the Church wants a safe environment for its members — and for others — in which to live, work and worship? 
 

How about traffic laws that make it safe to drive on streets and highways or to be a pedestrian in a busy city? The Church doesn’t care about those either?
 

Your placement of a question mark at the end of a declarative sentence struck me as odd. But if it means you’re not sure of your statement, I can see some sense to it, because your assertion doesn’t seem very well thought out to me. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

😂😂😂

Orderly immigration policy?  You can't be serious.

Quite serious. 
 

Orderly immigration policy includes documentation of persons coming into  a country, screening to inhibit the inflow of criminals, issuance of visas or work permits, and applications for those seeking refuge or asylum. It’s quite standard in the countries of the world. I couldn’t even drive across the border into Canada a few years ago without showing a passport and stating my reason for entering the country. 
 

For those seeking citizenship, it includes a formal application process and procedures for naturalization. 
 

And by the way, where the Church has not clearly identified a matter as being a moral issue, you need to be more careful to avoid insinuating immorality on the part of other Church members who hold a political opinion that contrasts with yours. That is altogether improper. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Our immigration policies limit the poor and needy, separate families, and discourage people from taking the legal path.  All these contradict Church teachings.  I don't really care what the Church has said officially about it.  They have a PR dept for a reason, I don't.

And our so called orderly policies cost thousands of dollars, often require an attorney, take years to complete, and provide undue hardship on thousands.  Illegal immigration is the fault of bad law, not bad immigrants.

So yes, I'm not for open borders but I'll call our policies immoral and counter gospel principles until they make it easier for families to stay together, the poor to gain legal residency, and reduce wait times to a reasonable time .


I agree there is a great deal about our immigration system that is in urgent need of fixing. The separation of families at the border, egregious as it is, is not the worst part about it. The worst, in my view, is the trafficking of children and the sexual assaults and organized crime fostered by the unchecked flow of undocumented persons across the border.

But if you’re not for open borders, then, by definition, you have to be for orderly and lawful immigration. Don’t mock me for saying I am. 
 

And I will continue to call out you or anybody else who impugns the morality of a fellow Church member over a political issue where morality is not a clearly defined element of disagreement. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Quite serious. 
 

Orderly immigration policy includes documentation of persons coming into  a country, screening to inhibit the inflow of criminals, issuance of visas or work permits, and applications for those seeking refuge or asylum. It’s quite standard in the countries of the world. I couldn’t even drive across the border into Canada a few years ago without showing a passport and stating my reason for entering the country. 

 

Some of it is orderly with security etc and sort of standard around the world. Some of it is very messy.

In the US there are legal terms for different ways of coming in.  Not all of those terms are the same in other countries or have the same rules.

I don't know all of the labels.

•You have people coming in for work (h1b1?) or school.

•People just coming to live.

----------

•Illegal aliens sneaking in and here illegally.

•Refugees who do not choose to come here, but are chosen and they or family members are the most vulnerable of refugees.  They have been forced to leave their country or it is a danger to stay there.

• People who have worked with the military and are given the choice to come because of it

• Unaccompanied minors

• Asylum seekers - those who have to leave their country because it was a danger to them like with the refugees, but they come on their own and ask for asylum.  Then they need to go through security etc and pass it or be deported.

And here is where it gets messy.  Most refugees were once another countries illegals, asylum seekers, unaccompanied minors etc.  They could not stay in their country so they fled to other countries.  Then we or other countries etc chose them to be our refugees. 

 

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 


 

For those seeking citizenship, it includes a formal application process and procedures for naturalization. 
 

And by the way, where the Church has not clearly identified a matter as being a moral issue, you need to be more careful to avoid insinuating immorality on the part of other Church members who hold a political opinion that contrasts with yours. That is altogether improper. 

I can't say anything about the church saying what is a moral matter when it concerns all of these people, but I can say that the church does support all of the people below the line to some extent monetarily in various ways.  The church definitely has rules and order, but the compassion is great.

Edited by Rain
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In the minds of thugs and anarchists, perhaps. 

And some historians…(just using this to show a historian’s interest, not either supporting or rejecting the analysis or interested in current usage as I think it being attached to the tv crime series is likely a huge influence on the most common middle class  mind set attached to it these days just as once it was attached to the Western mythos)…

https://time.com/5846321/nixon-trump-law-and-order-history/

also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_order

Wallace and Nixon were apparently the first politicians who adopted the phrase for the more recent version, but has been used a long time so makes sense historians are interested.

Quote

Previously, other politicians had used the term "law and order," although their use of the term was much less systematic and frequent than that of Wallace, Nixon, or Reagan. Political demand for "law and order" has been made much earlier before, by John Adams in the 1780s and 1790s.[5] It was a political slogan in Kentucky around 1900 after the assassination of Governor William Goebel.[6] The term was once used by Barry Goldwater in his run for president in 1964.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_order

Again, I am ignoring the bias here, obviously left, and not interested in discussing the rest of the article, just posting for the fun fact of the mythology behind the phrase…

Quote

But for most Americans of the Nixon era, "law and order" was saturated with the mythology of the Old West. Hollywood made at least five Western films with that very title, most with the same tried-and-true plot: a lawman reluctantly takes up his badge one last time to clear out the ruffians who have been terrorizing the decent folks of Dodge or Tombstone.

Ronald Reagan starred in the 1953 film of that name. Thirteen years later, he revived the role of the new sheriff in town to win the California governorship, running as a citizen-politician who could restore law and order in the wake of the Watts riots and the disorders at Berkeley.

https://www.npr.org/2016/07/28/487560886/is-trumps-call-for-law-and-order-a-coded-racial-message

The NPR does make a good point IMO that this interpretation of the phrase and the “dog whistle” quality of it only works if one is aware of the history….which means those not intending that interpretation end up stepping in manure (the negative connotations attached) unknowingly. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Rain said:

•Illegal aliens sneaking in and here illegally.

Using approximate round numbers and general estimates there are 11 million illegals in a country of 330 million.   That's 1/33 people.

That's a crazy amount of the people around us.  It makes any idea of total deportation completely foolish.

1/33.  That's one child in EVERY average school class.  10 people in every US LDS ward (taking a mid point in ward sizes).  That's nearly 100,000 in Utah.

We either come up with a way to get them legal status or accept illegals are here to stay and aren't going anywhere.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Calm said:

And some historians…(just using this to show a historian’s interest, not either supporting or rejecting the analysis or interested in current usage as I think it being attached to the tv crime series is likely a huge influence on the most common middle class  mind set attached to it these days just as once it was attached to the Western mythos)…

https://time.com/5846321/nixon-trump-law-and-order-history/

also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_order

Wallace and Nixon were apparently the first politicians who adopted the phrase for the more recent version, but has been used a long time so makes sense historians are interested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_order

Again, I am ignoring the bias here, obviously left, and not interested in discussing the rest of the article, just posting for the fun fact of the mythology behind the phrase…

https://www.npr.org/2016/07/28/487560886/is-trumps-call-for-law-and-order-a-coded-racial-message

The NPR does make a good point IMO that this interpretation of the phrase and the “dog whistle” quality of it only works if one is aware of the history….which means those not intending that interpretation end up stepping in manure (the negative connotations attached) unknowingly. 

To be honest, when I wrote “lawful and orderly immigration,” I wasn’t thinking of the buzz phrase “law and order.” It never even entered my mind until I saw the Nehor’s post. 
 

So it did not influence my word selection, even if I had viewed “law and order” as having a “dark history” or a negative connotation, which I don’t. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But if you’re not for open borders, then, by definition, you have to be for orderly and lawful immigration. Don’t mock me for saying I am. 

And I will continue to call out you or anybody else who impugns the morality of a fellow Church member over a political issue where morality is not a clearly defined element of disagreement. 

I'm not mocking you.  But you can be pro border security and anti our current corrupted system.  I am.  Supporting current immorral laws only because they're the law and the only law we've got seems unreasoned.

This is not an attack on you or any conservative member (of which I include myself), and I didn't mean it that way.

But our system as currently regulated and administered is morally wrong based on gospel principles.  And I stand by that.  We need to treat even illegals like brothers and sisters in the gospel and keep them united as families, able to support themselves, and progress.

 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm not mocking you.  But you can be pro border security and anti our current corrupted system. I am.

Oh, I am too! And I believe it has gotten alarmingly worse over the last six months! It had started to improve before then, though it was still a mess. Lax border security has exacerbated it. 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Oh, I am too! And I believe it has gotten alarmingly worse over the last six months! It had started to improve before then, though it was still a mess. Lax border security has exacerbated it. 

Neither administration did anything of substance to help immigrants or fix the system.  The only difference is who used the bigger sledgehammer.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...