Steve: Numbers of faux claims: check out https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/80-percent-of-asylum-cases-at-southwest-border-arent-legitimate-dhs-chief-says
I also office with an attorney who does immigration law full time. She would verify, even if based on anecdotal evidence.
Now it probably is the case that that many of those seeking asylum think they should get asylum because they perceive (and perhaps correctly) that life is not good for them in the country where they are from. But that (life is not good) is not a basis for being granted asylum. I'm not intending to bad mouth immigrants, even unlawful ones, in saying this. Hey, they would rather live in the US (or Canada) because life would be much better for them here than where they come from. I suspect I would be of the same mind in their shoes.
My guess is that many Americans are unaware of what constitutes a right to asylum and what doesn't. And I wouldn't be surprised if that unawareness is itself the cause of much argument. It seems to me that the fundamental argument in this country is whether the US government should allow whoever wants to enter the country to enter (minus perhaps terrorists and certain levels of criminals) -- that is, a de facto open border -- or whether the US government should regulate (by limitation) the actual numbers of immigrants (asylum seekers and non-asylum seekers) that are allowed entry. If the government does regulate (limit), some who want to come to the US, even for understandable and "good" reasons, will not be permitted (or perhaps permitted by years down the road).
Ken: I think the more focused question is whether the CRCNA should, if it is, pitch an open border policy. The CRCNA has been public in affirming the need for "border security" but hasn't defined what that means. Further, the recurring and oft-repeated mantras from the CRCNA are two-fold: (1) we must "welcome the stranger," and (2) "immigrants are a blessing and not a burden."
These two mantras, combined with DoJustice articles, OSJ recommended books, and other CRCNA proclamations (e.g., a recent OSJ political action alert encouraged opposition to any increased border security funding in the upcoming federal budget). So much of what the CRCNA says "around the question" would cause many reasonable observers to conclude the CRCNA did support "open borders," even if it didn't directly say so. After all, how can your "welcome the stranger" (proposed as a biblical mandate) while not allowing them entrance into the United States? And if indeed, the singular thing we say about immigrants (legal or not) is that they are "a blessing and not a burden" then why would we want to exclude anyone? And why would you lobby your members to oppose an increase in border security funding in the upcoming federal budget?
There is an old but still valid saying: Government sponsored lotteries are just a sneaky tax on stupidity.
The good news is that any individual person can opt out of the tax. The bad news is that government sponsored lotteries are also a form of public education, and the lessons taught, as explained in part by this article, are not good at all but rather destructive.
Thank you for the valuable contribution Dan. Nuts and bolts considerations for local churches are, I believe, under-rated, until at least things threaten to collapse for failure to attend to nuts and bolts considerations.
A local church is a number of things, but one of them is an organization of multiple people. And any organization, churches not excluded, benefit from geeky work. I appreciate yours. :-)
Lou. I don't think I'm kidding myself at all. I think you are wrong about the motivation. Sponsoring the two Hmong families we sponsored advanced no anti-communist agenda that my church had or knew about. We were asked to sponsor Hmong refugee families. We said yes.
What has changed between then and now is that "processing" refugee families has become big business (even if big non-profit business). This reflects the general trend toward centralization (e.g., federalized home loan market which buys mortgages at subsidized rates from local banks and non-bank brokers).
Would my church sponsor a refugee family again if asked? I'd guess yes. Do I expect it will be asked to? Nope.
Now, if you ask whether my church would take in a refugee family that was here unlawfully (refugee by their own declaration only), that would be a different question, just as it would have been different had the Hmong families been smuggled here.
Border security is simply a foundational prerequisite to any system of immigration law excepting that of "open borders" ( that is, no regulation of immigration).
In the Reagan years, a fairly extensive amnesty was granted to unlawful immigrants in a promised two-step plan to then "secure the border." Sadly, step two just never happened (and we've been dealing with the dysfunctionality resulting from that in the decades since).
One of the biggest barriers to progress on this is evidenced by California's newly elected Governor Gavin Newsom, whose very recent announcement declared that his state would be open to all. Newsom is an "open borders" guy and not afraid to say it. Germany was that too not so long ago (but since has abandoned that perspective). Many more are also "open borders" advocates but are unwilling to simply say that. Instead, they argue about how a wall might not be the smart way to solve the problem, or that ICE should be abolished because it has been so mean, and then do nothing to secure the border (which is a de facto open border policy).
It is not Trumpian to say that if a nation doesn't regulate entrance to its geographical territory, it is, by definition, not a nation. Germany could do that only so long. If Newsom has the power to open California's border to all (which he may not), he could do that only so long without threatening California's existence as a political sub-entity (a state within a federalist nation).
Yes, it is complicated. Which is why repeating simple mantras like "welcome the stranger" and "immigrants are a blessing and not a burden" are less than constructive. Indeed, repeating mantras like that only increase the political polarization.
My local church did just that, Dan, in the late 1970's for two post-Vietnam war refugee families. This is the tradition of CRCers and CRC churches.
Where we (in the CRC) have departed since then is in two ways: (1) these days we focus much more on the political instead of the personal, trying, it would seem, to make government our proxy; (2) when we do things directly, we tend these days to do it with our own more centralized organizations instead of with our local churches or individual families within a local church.
Thanks for the answers Laura. Let me push back on them a bit.
If the "bi" of bisexual has any meaning, even if less than a 50-50 meaning so to speak, you still claim as your reason that bisexuals should be required to marry heterosexually because they should not have the burden of telling a same sex person which whom they have "fallen in love" that they can reciprocate but have to find a heterosexual person to fall in love with instead. So how is that burden greater than that of a heterosexual person who "falls in love" with someone of the opposite sex but who isn't "eligible," (whether because that person is biologically related, or already married, or hasn't reciprocated in "falling in love," etc). In fact, lots of hetereosexual people "fall in love" but can't act on it (some wanting to marry all their lives but never being able). Assuming the injustice of relative burden is meaningful, I'm not understanding how that injustice is at all unique for bi-sexual people as opposed to some heterosexual people.
As to the "monogamy question," while you may not know of people saying they knew at ages 5, 8 or 10, there may well exist (high schools are full of "two-timers," evidencing those inclinations at early ages), but even if not, there are adult people who declare they have a irresistible desire to marry -- or just have sexually imtimate lives -- with more than one spouse (or partner). And I've seen "Christian married couples" who describe themselves as "needing" an open marriage (not polyamorous but in many respects the same). Isn't is burdensome to all of these people for the church to deny them the polyamorous or open relationship they say they want and need?
I realize you, and perhaps A1B, may just want to talk about some things and not others, but those CRCers who believe scripture speaks rather clearly about prohibiting gay marriage also think it critically important what justification is used by gay marriage advocates. If the, or a, key pro-gay marriage argument is "burden," then we believe there can be no constraint at all on human sexual behavior. To add another example/category, people who have a bestiality fettish (and there are lots of those too even if they might rarely "come out of the closet") are also clearly burdened by cultural/religious constraints against their inclination. The list could go on.
How would you or A1B respond to these concerns? They aren't slippery slope concerns but rather concerns that the gate is swung completely open if the, or a, key argument is about unjust burden.
Laura: Again, I appreciate the replies, but it seems to me you aren't quite meeting my objections.
Your prior response based its argument on the injustice of burden, including in the case of bisexuals who may be simply burdened with the reduction of a numeric field from which they can choose their mates. In your most recent answer you say the burden for LGBTers is different because "I know I would live my life very differently if I lived with the idea that I might meet someone someday, vs being told I never could." Well, bi-sexuals, even those "less than 50/50," might meet a heterosexual mate someday, not? In that way they are no different than heterosexuals, except perhaps numerically. The bottom line is you are confirming you are relying on an "injustice of burden" argument.
And when gay marriage advocates (A1B and others) make an injustice of burden argument, they themselves, not the other side, open the door for comparison to polyamory, swinging, bestiality and the like, because the injustice of burden argument applies to those who favor those other practices.
In other words, I'm suggesting that gay marriage advocates (A1B and others) need to drop the injustice of burden argument if they don't want to invite the other side to legitimately compare to polyamory, swinging, bestiality and the like. The comparison is argumentatively appropriate so a posited injustice of burden argument.
To say this another way: You ask, "Why is same sex marriage the issue that 'opens the gate' to all other issues?" The answer is because same sex advocates use arguments that in fact "opens the gate" to all other issues. Again, same sex advocates need to drop arguments like the "burden argument" if they don't want to "open that gate."
To draw that out, if same sex marriage advocates would defend their position based only on scriptural exegesis, then a counter argument that says "what about polyamory, swinging and bestiality" would in fact be argumentatively "out of order." It doesn't mean there wouldn't still be an argument to be had, but the argument would be based on scriptural exegesis, not on relative burden.
I think I understand why same sex marriage advocates might choose to posit a multiplicity of arguments for their position. They probably think it is more effective if you posit more arguments. After all, who knows which arguments will be convincing to whom? But the downside of positing some of those arguments is that the argument in fact "opens the gate."
Hey, if A1B can convince me that gay marriage is consistent with what scripture has to say about marriage, A1B will in fact persuade me to come over to its side on this. But if A1B attempts to convince me that gay marriage should not be prohibited (by the church) because of the injustice of burden thereby imposed on LGBT persons, then I will bring up questions about polyamory, swinging, bestiality and the like because those are practices that would also be defended by the "injustice of the burden" argument.
OK Laura, I think our ability to converse about this has come to an end. From my perspective, you want to make an argument based on unjust burden but without then having to defend the logical consequences of that argument, those consequences being that using that argument opens the gates to approving other sexual practices.
I do find it ironic that you conclude that "polyamory, swinging, bestiality and the like" are not "part of a person's born identity," and that "born identity" is a pre-requisite for approving non-heterosexual marriage/sex. I suspect the "scientific conclusions" about the genetic predisposition for these other sexual inclinations are right around the corner; and certainly, there are no definitive studies I know of that say they are not.
I also find it puzzling that you repeat the claim that if bisexuals are prohibited from marrying they have been subjected to "forced celibacy." Relatively speaking, they simply aren't, at least if they are "50/50" bisexual. Indeed, if they are, heterosexuals are burdened by the disadvantage because they only have half the options compared to bisexuals.
Thanks for the conversation, even if we have made little progress. I've read quite a number of books and articles attempting to explain why sex sex marriage is consistent with scripture. I'm frankly quite unpersuaded. I was trying to explain, however, how using an additional argument (that of unjust burden) opens the door to responses SSM advocates don't like to deal with. It would seem that SSM advocates will continue to push the unjust burden argument, in which case they will met by the not-inappropriate argument that other sexual practices would also be justified by the unjust burden argument.
Posted in: Immigration Justice Requires Border Security
Steve: Numbers of faux claims: check out https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/80-percent-of-asylum-cases-at-southwest-border-arent-legitimate-dhs-chief-says
I also office with an attorney who does immigration law full time. She would verify, even if based on anecdotal evidence.
Now it probably is the case that that many of those seeking asylum think they should get asylum because they perceive (and perhaps correctly) that life is not good for them in the country where they are from. But that (life is not good) is not a basis for being granted asylum. I'm not intending to bad mouth immigrants, even unlawful ones, in saying this. Hey, they would rather live in the US (or Canada) because life would be much better for them here than where they come from. I suspect I would be of the same mind in their shoes.
My guess is that many Americans are unaware of what constitutes a right to asylum and what doesn't. And I wouldn't be surprised if that unawareness is itself the cause of much argument. It seems to me that the fundamental argument in this country is whether the US government should allow whoever wants to enter the country to enter (minus perhaps terrorists and certain levels of criminals) -- that is, a de facto open border -- or whether the US government should regulate (by limitation) the actual numbers of immigrants (asylum seekers and non-asylum seekers) that are allowed entry. If the government does regulate (limit), some who want to come to the US, even for understandable and "good" reasons, will not be permitted (or perhaps permitted by years down the road).
Posted in: Immigration Justice Requires Border Security
Ken: I think the more focused question is whether the CRCNA should, if it is, pitch an open border policy. The CRCNA has been public in affirming the need for "border security" but hasn't defined what that means. Further, the recurring and oft-repeated mantras from the CRCNA are two-fold: (1) we must "welcome the stranger," and (2) "immigrants are a blessing and not a burden."
These two mantras, combined with DoJustice articles, OSJ recommended books, and other CRCNA proclamations (e.g., a recent OSJ political action alert encouraged opposition to any increased border security funding in the upcoming federal budget). So much of what the CRCNA says "around the question" would cause many reasonable observers to conclude the CRCNA did support "open borders," even if it didn't directly say so. After all, how can your "welcome the stranger" (proposed as a biblical mandate) while not allowing them entrance into the United States? And if indeed, the singular thing we say about immigrants (legal or not) is that they are "a blessing and not a burden" then why would we want to exclude anyone? And why would you lobby your members to oppose an increase in border security funding in the upcoming federal budget?
Posted in: Since When Does Winning $1.6 Billion Mean You’ve Made It?
There is an old but still valid saying: Government sponsored lotteries are just a sneaky tax on stupidity.
The good news is that any individual person can opt out of the tax. The bad news is that government sponsored lotteries are also a form of public education, and the lessons taught, as explained in part by this article, are not good at all but rather destructive.
Posted in: Assessing Congregational Volunteer Capacity: A Few factors and Limits
Thank you for the valuable contribution Dan. Nuts and bolts considerations for local churches are, I believe, under-rated, until at least things threaten to collapse for failure to attend to nuts and bolts considerations.
A local church is a number of things, but one of them is an organization of multiple people. And any organization, churches not excluded, benefit from geeky work. I appreciate yours. :-)
Posted in: Immigration Justice Requires Border Security
Lou. I don't think I'm kidding myself at all. I think you are wrong about the motivation. Sponsoring the two Hmong families we sponsored advanced no anti-communist agenda that my church had or knew about. We were asked to sponsor Hmong refugee families. We said yes.
What has changed between then and now is that "processing" refugee families has become big business (even if big non-profit business). This reflects the general trend toward centralization (e.g., federalized home loan market which buys mortgages at subsidized rates from local banks and non-bank brokers).
Would my church sponsor a refugee family again if asked? I'd guess yes. Do I expect it will be asked to? Nope.
Now, if you ask whether my church would take in a refugee family that was here unlawfully (refugee by their own declaration only), that would be a different question, just as it would have been different had the Hmong families been smuggled here.
Posted in: "How Could We Say 'No?'" Gateway CRC Responds to Need for Homeless Shelter
I absolutely love this approach to "dealing with the homeless." Kudos to Gateway CRC (and 5 and 2 Ministries).
Can you imagine how much the world would change if more churches did this? This is Micah 6:8 in raw action.
Posted in: Immigration Justice Requires Border Security
Border security is simply a foundational prerequisite to any system of immigration law excepting that of "open borders" ( that is, no regulation of immigration).
In the Reagan years, a fairly extensive amnesty was granted to unlawful immigrants in a promised two-step plan to then "secure the border." Sadly, step two just never happened (and we've been dealing with the dysfunctionality resulting from that in the decades since).
One of the biggest barriers to progress on this is evidenced by California's newly elected Governor Gavin Newsom, whose very recent announcement declared that his state would be open to all. Newsom is an "open borders" guy and not afraid to say it. Germany was that too not so long ago (but since has abandoned that perspective). Many more are also "open borders" advocates but are unwilling to simply say that. Instead, they argue about how a wall might not be the smart way to solve the problem, or that ICE should be abolished because it has been so mean, and then do nothing to secure the border (which is a de facto open border policy).
It is not Trumpian to say that if a nation doesn't regulate entrance to its geographical territory, it is, by definition, not a nation. Germany could do that only so long. If Newsom has the power to open California's border to all (which he may not), he could do that only so long without threatening California's existence as a political sub-entity (a state within a federalist nation).
Yes, it is complicated. Which is why repeating simple mantras like "welcome the stranger" and "immigrants are a blessing and not a burden" are less than constructive. Indeed, repeating mantras like that only increase the political polarization.
Posted in: Immigration Justice Requires Border Security
My local church did just that, Dan, in the late 1970's for two post-Vietnam war refugee families. This is the tradition of CRCers and CRC churches.
Where we (in the CRC) have departed since then is in two ways: (1) these days we focus much more on the political instead of the personal, trying, it would seem, to make government our proxy; (2) when we do things directly, we tend these days to do it with our own more centralized organizations instead of with our local churches or individual families within a local church.
I favor the more distant CRC tradition on this.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Thanks for the answers Laura. Let me push back on them a bit.
If the "bi" of bisexual has any meaning, even if less than a 50-50 meaning so to speak, you still claim as your reason that bisexuals should be required to marry heterosexually because they should not have the burden of telling a same sex person which whom they have "fallen in love" that they can reciprocate but have to find a heterosexual person to fall in love with instead. So how is that burden greater than that of a heterosexual person who "falls in love" with someone of the opposite sex but who isn't "eligible," (whether because that person is biologically related, or already married, or hasn't reciprocated in "falling in love," etc). In fact, lots of hetereosexual people "fall in love" but can't act on it (some wanting to marry all their lives but never being able). Assuming the injustice of relative burden is meaningful, I'm not understanding how that injustice is at all unique for bi-sexual people as opposed to some heterosexual people.
As to the "monogamy question," while you may not know of people saying they knew at ages 5, 8 or 10, there may well exist (high schools are full of "two-timers," evidencing those inclinations at early ages), but even if not, there are adult people who declare they have a irresistible desire to marry -- or just have sexually imtimate lives -- with more than one spouse (or partner). And I've seen "Christian married couples" who describe themselves as "needing" an open marriage (not polyamorous but in many respects the same). Isn't is burdensome to all of these people for the church to deny them the polyamorous or open relationship they say they want and need?
I realize you, and perhaps A1B, may just want to talk about some things and not others, but those CRCers who believe scripture speaks rather clearly about prohibiting gay marriage also think it critically important what justification is used by gay marriage advocates. If the, or a, key pro-gay marriage argument is "burden," then we believe there can be no constraint at all on human sexual behavior. To add another example/category, people who have a bestiality fettish (and there are lots of those too even if they might rarely "come out of the closet") are also clearly burdened by cultural/religious constraints against their inclination. The list could go on.
How would you or A1B respond to these concerns? They aren't slippery slope concerns but rather concerns that the gate is swung completely open if the, or a, key argument is about unjust burden.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Laura: Again, I appreciate the replies, but it seems to me you aren't quite meeting my objections.
Your prior response based its argument on the injustice of burden, including in the case of bisexuals who may be simply burdened with the reduction of a numeric field from which they can choose their mates. In your most recent answer you say the burden for LGBTers is different because "I know I would live my life very differently if I lived with the idea that I might meet someone someday, vs being told I never could." Well, bi-sexuals, even those "less than 50/50," might meet a heterosexual mate someday, not? In that way they are no different than heterosexuals, except perhaps numerically. The bottom line is you are confirming you are relying on an "injustice of burden" argument.
And when gay marriage advocates (A1B and others) make an injustice of burden argument, they themselves, not the other side, open the door for comparison to polyamory, swinging, bestiality and the like, because the injustice of burden argument applies to those who favor those other practices.
In other words, I'm suggesting that gay marriage advocates (A1B and others) need to drop the injustice of burden argument if they don't want to invite the other side to legitimately compare to polyamory, swinging, bestiality and the like. The comparison is argumentatively appropriate so a posited injustice of burden argument.
To say this another way: You ask, "Why is same sex marriage the issue that 'opens the gate' to all other issues?" The answer is because same sex advocates use arguments that in fact "opens the gate" to all other issues. Again, same sex advocates need to drop arguments like the "burden argument" if they don't want to "open that gate."
To draw that out, if same sex marriage advocates would defend their position based only on scriptural exegesis, then a counter argument that says "what about polyamory, swinging and bestiality" would in fact be argumentatively "out of order." It doesn't mean there wouldn't still be an argument to be had, but the argument would be based on scriptural exegesis, not on relative burden.
I think I understand why same sex marriage advocates might choose to posit a multiplicity of arguments for their position. They probably think it is more effective if you posit more arguments. After all, who knows which arguments will be convincing to whom? But the downside of positing some of those arguments is that the argument in fact "opens the gate."
Hey, if A1B can convince me that gay marriage is consistent with what scripture has to say about marriage, A1B will in fact persuade me to come over to its side on this. But if A1B attempts to convince me that gay marriage should not be prohibited (by the church) because of the injustice of burden thereby imposed on LGBT persons, then I will bring up questions about polyamory, swinging, bestiality and the like because those are practices that would also be defended by the "injustice of the burden" argument.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Thanks Joseph. The "B" I was referring to was not "Side B" but the "B" in LGBT.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
OK Laura, I think our ability to converse about this has come to an end. From my perspective, you want to make an argument based on unjust burden but without then having to defend the logical consequences of that argument, those consequences being that using that argument opens the gates to approving other sexual practices.
I do find it ironic that you conclude that "polyamory, swinging, bestiality and the like" are not "part of a person's born identity," and that "born identity" is a pre-requisite for approving non-heterosexual marriage/sex. I suspect the "scientific conclusions" about the genetic predisposition for these other sexual inclinations are right around the corner; and certainly, there are no definitive studies I know of that say they are not.
I also find it puzzling that you repeat the claim that if bisexuals are prohibited from marrying they have been subjected to "forced celibacy." Relatively speaking, they simply aren't, at least if they are "50/50" bisexual. Indeed, if they are, heterosexuals are burdened by the disadvantage because they only have half the options compared to bisexuals.
Thanks for the conversation, even if we have made little progress. I've read quite a number of books and articles attempting to explain why sex sex marriage is consistent with scripture. I'm frankly quite unpersuaded. I was trying to explain, however, how using an additional argument (that of unjust burden) opens the door to responses SSM advocates don't like to deal with. It would seem that SSM advocates will continue to push the unjust burden argument, in which case they will met by the not-inappropriate argument that other sexual practices would also be justified by the unjust burden argument.