Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
WHY did they vote on it? If we don't know exactly who we are bringing to the US, why are we doing it? There is a major difference between being charitable and being charitable to a fault. Bringing people in who wish us harm, and are willing to do it, is charitable to a fault. Why is it so bad that we need to step back and take a good, hard look at who we are bringing into the country? Would you rent a home to someone you don't know anything about? Take on a roommate you don't know anything about? Why is it so bad that American citizens want to know who our government is bringing into the country?
Sure, there's a screening process in place. Numerous reports say it is ineffective. Why not put a temporary stop to it so we can be sure we're not importing the next group of people who will attack us? Yes, some may be inconvenienced, or even suffer. But, why should American citizens suffer because our government brought in a group of terrorists?
I don't know what is so hard about this topic? I am not making an argument for or against on this issue.
Can we agree that mainstream conservatives are against taking in refugees and mainstream liberals are for taking in refugees?
WHY did they vote on it? If we don't know exactly who we are bringing to the US, why are we doing it? There is a major difference between being charitable and being charitable to a fault. Bringing people in who wish us harm, and are willing to do it, is charitable to a fault. Why is it so bad that we need to step back and take a good, hard look at who we are bringing into the country? Would you rent a home to someone you don't know anything about? Take on a roommate you don't know anything about? Why is it so bad that American citizens want to know who our government is bringing into the country?
Sure, there's a screening process in place. Numerous reports say it is ineffective. Why not put a temporary stop to it so we can be sure we're not importing the next group of people who will attack us? Yes, some may be inconvenienced, or even suffer. But, why should American citizens suffer because our government brought in a group of terrorists?
Because the terrorists will come here as tourists, why go through all the hoops in the refugee program, a fake passport can be bought online for a few hundred dollars, they can come whenever they want.
Because the terrorists will come here as tourists, why go through all the hoops in the refugee program, a fake passport can be bought online for a few hundred dollars, they can come whenever they want.
If they can get a free ride here, why spend the money?
I don't know what is so hard about this topic? I am not making an argument for or against on this issue.
Can we agree that mainstream conservatives are against taking in refugees and mainstream liberals are for taking in refugees?
No judging here.
The difficulty in this topic revolves around the rhetoric. Conservatives are NOT against having refugees come here. Conservatives ARE against bringing terrorists or others who wish to do this country harm.
No judgment necessary. There are plenty who will be more than happy to do that for you.
I can also dig up a few evangelicals here and there who supported gay rights. Doesn't mean mainstream evangelicals actually supported gay rights.
Again, you can't use a few exceptions and try to pass them off as the mainstream.
They are not few exceptions, they are many. The teaching is Jesus Christ and the views of the GOP politicians are not in line with this issue.
Matthew 25 is a powerful passage
‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in
If they can get a free ride here, why spend the money?
ISIS has no shortage of money. If they want to come here and start killing Americans, they would have already done it. Their goal is a caliphate in the Levant, the goal of the refugee is far different.
They are not few exceptions, they are many. The teaching is Jesus Christ and the views of the GOP politicians are not in line with this issue.
Matthew 25 is a powerful passage
‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in
No doubt one can find a passage in the Bible to support their stance. I'm not entirely sure of your stance on the Bible, or religion as a whole, so I will speak in general terms. You can't say religion is a farce in one breath and use it to justify your stance in another.
No doubt one can find a passage in the Bible to support their stance. I'm not entirely sure of your stance on the Bible, so I will speak in general terms. You can't say religion is a farce in one breath and use it to justify your stance in another.
It is not about me, this is a central teaching of Jesus Christ, which evangelicals do not ignore.
For the record, I am Christian and appreciate GOP supporting many Christian views, but they are wrong on this one.
It is good they (the evangelicals) put their faith ahead of partisan politics, and I wish the politicians would listen, but apparently that is too much to ask for.
It is not about me, this is a central teaching if Christ, which evangelicals do not ignore.
For the record, I am Christian and appreciate GOP supporting many Christian views, but they are wrong on this one.
It is good they put their faith ahead of partisan politics, and I wish the pelicans would listen, but apparently that is too much to ask for.
But, with the capitalized "Me", is this passage referring to God, or is it referring to people in general? I'm no biblical scholar, and the Bible is obviously open to interpretation.
Can we agree that conservatives are generally against taking in refugees while liberals are generally for taking in refugees from the violence in the Middle East?
Obviously, I'm not saying all conservatives or all liberals. I'm talking in general sense here. I understand that some conservatives are for taking in refugees and some liberals are against taking in refugees.
I just want to get this on record just in case in the future people want to revise history.
Put it in the record. We have enough problems in the US without bringing in more.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ISIS has no shortage of money. If they want to come here and start killing Americans, they would have already done it. Their goal is a caliphate in the Levant, the goal of the refugee is far different.
