Church Statement on Religious Liberty


Guest Godless
 Share

Recommended Posts

Immigrants and refugees will vote for the party that seems the most welcoming, and the least nativist.  Right now that steers them a certain direction.  However, there are values voters on both sides of the aisle who believe that instituting a much more intelligent, efficient, and yes compassionate immigration system is just the moral and wise thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Immigrants and refugees will vote for the party that seems the most welcoming, and the least nativist.  Right now that steers them a certain direction.  However, there are values voters on both sides of the aisle who believe that instituting a much more intelligent, efficient, and yes compassionate immigration system is just the moral and wise thing to do.

 

Okay... let's talk about this "compassionate" thing.

 

So... how does America decide which type of immigration is compassionate?  A Syrian Refugee fleeing war... let's be compassionate.  Children of Darfur... nope, no compassion needed.  Children illegally crossing the southern border... yes, compassionate.  Starving Filipino children in Smokey Mountain... nope, not those.

 

It's really silly to think that blocking immigration is not compassionate.  There are a thousand and one ways to be compassionate.  Immigration doesn't have to be the way to show it.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless

First off, "Islamophobic" is a concocted, pathetic liberal/communist PC term to label or stereotype anyone who disagrees with or speaks out against radical Islam, and by extension, the liberal/communist agenda.  

 

No, it's a term that refers to the very real discrimination against ALL Muslims, including lifelong US citizens, that exists in this country.  No one on the left is going to try to argue that we aren't at war with radical Islam.  What we want people to understand, and what I believe the Church's statement is trying to say, is that we are not at war with the entire religion of Islam.  Many Americans, including some LDS, seem to have lost sight of that.

 

It has nothing to do with religion.  It has everything to do with terrorism and people whose whole agenda is the destruction of this country.

 

So we're going to establish an immigration/emigration ban against the second-largest religious group in the world, but it has nothing to do with religion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So we're going to establish an immigration/emigration ban against the second-largest religious group in the world, but it has nothing to do with religion?

 

 

Of course it has everything to do with religion.  ISIS, Al-Quada, <insert latest jihadist organization here>.. .is waging a religious war.  It's stupid to then go around and tell them... yeah, you think you're waging a religious war but we think you're not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay... let's talk about this "compassionate" thing.

 

So... how does America decide which type of immigration is compassionate?  A Syrian Refugee fleeing war... let's be compassionate.  Children of Darfur... nope, no compassion needed.  Children illegally crossing the southern border... yes, compassionate.  Starving Filipino children in Smokey Mountain... nope, not those.

 

It's really silly to think that blocking immigration is not compassionate.  There are a thousand and one ways to be compassionate.  Immigration doesn't have to be the way to show it.

 

I'd answer yes to all of them, with the proviso that part of the vetting is to make sure the adults understand and affirm America's creed of freedom and pluralism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No, it's a term that refers to the very real discrimination against ALL Muslims, including lifelong US citizens, that exists in this country.  No one on the left is going to try to argue that we aren't at war with radical Islam.  What we want people to understand, and what I believe the Church's statement is trying to say, is that we are not at war with the entire religion of Islam.  Many Americans, including some LDS, seem to have lost sight of that.

 

 

 

 

So we're going to establish an immigration/emigration ban against the second-largest religious group in the world, but it has nothing to do with religion?

 

 

No, it has everything to do with people within a religion whose avowed purpose is to maim, mutilate and kill anyone who disagrees with them, so you are right and wrong at the same time.  It is and isn't about religion.  Islam is a religion, but anarchy and terrorism are not.  This isn't any better than if a "Christian" murdered someone who worked at a child murder clinic because he thought that God would approve.  It has everything to do with keeping people out of the country who have a propensity to commit terroristic acts. 

 

I and other conservative prudential candidates do not call for the unilateral ban of all Muslims.  WE call for a stricter vetting process that digs extensively into the "refugee's" background.  If the potential refugee is a single male of military age, I would look very closely at his application.  I would find out what mosque he attended and investigate it to determine if the mullah preached anything radical.  I would attempt to find out if the refugee had military training.  I would require access to email and social media accounts, bank accounts, friends and associates, family, etc., anything and everything that would give evidence for or against his refugee status.

 

As for a religious test for refugees, there already is one in place by law.  What Obama said about the U.S. not having a religious test is a bare faced lie, among all his many, many other bare faced lies.  Under the provision governing asylum (section 1158 of Title 8, U.S. Code), an alien applying for admission "must establish that … religion [among other things] … was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant."

 

Moreover, to qualify for asylum in the United States, the applicant must be a “refugee” as defined by federal law. That definition (set forth in Section 1101(a)(42)(A) of Title , U.S. Code) also requires the executive branch to take account of the alien’s religion:

 

The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality … and who is unable or unwilling to return to … that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of … religion [among other things] …[.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

part of the vetting is to make sure the adults understand and affirm America's creed of freedom and pluralism.

The problem is figuring out who understands and affirms USmerica's creed of freedom and pluralism.

Some Christians (we included) have been accused (and not always without cause) of "lying for Jesus". Lying is not part of the Christian faith. However, Muhamet told his followers that it was perfectly justified to lie about being a Moslem to protect one's life, and to lie to advance the Islamic goal of conquering the world. Al-Taqiyya (deception)

is part of the faith of the Moslem.

So, how does one tell if the adult you are vetting is affirming pluralism or deceiving you about his intentions and tactics?

Then, too, children are just as likely to become "radicalized" as their parents. In "Palestine", the children of the refugees are even more willing to kill (and be killed) to drive the Israelis into the sea than their parents were.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd answer yes to all of them, with the proviso that part of the vetting is to make sure the adults understand and affirm America's creed of freedom and pluralism.

 

PC, resources are finite.  Open borders is going to bring America down.  The country will not be able to support 2 billion+ un-assimilated residents and expect it to maintain its quality of life.  Especially with the welfare state you love to have.  So, it will have to go down.  By virtue of capitalism, it is when you go down that the population can become manageable with people deciding to migrate somewhere else where it is more comfortable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

21 ¶Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Exodus 22:21

 

 

17 For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

 

 18 He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment.

 19 Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Deuteronomy 10

 

 

 

34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Leviticus 19

Any decision politically made, should be tempered with what I believe scripture tells us.

(Which if we are going by old testament standards, doesn't exclude genocide...but for some reason I don't think anyone really likes that idea either)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share