I hate to say it, but God has some baggage and might be an irredeemable concept. And biblical stories / teachings, unfortunately, are too subtle and have been too grossly interpreted & proselytized to even be referred to without violent reaction in certain circles.
There is a concept that I tend to believe in though, or a version of it, called common grace, where secular concepts could be crafted that contain at least some of the potency of biblical teachings but without all of the religious hindrances…
I feel this is the way forward to, as you put it, the best option for the world: the crafting of secular concepts / ideologies more and more pronounced with grace.
Kind of takes a note from Paul. In order to convert, he knew he had to “put on the clothes” of those he was converting, and speak to them in the way that they spoke…
I'm sure you do. At heart we don't disagree- at least not about what your thread really concerns. What's an atheist, morally? It's somebody who believes Daddy is evil because he had to put the dog to sleep, and they never got over it. In other words, they tend to favor simple, emotive answers. Whether this is the libertarian answer of "If we all leave each other alone, everything will sort itself out" or the progressive answer of "Everybody has a duty to make sure nobody else is hurting", it's going to stop on a superficial level. That sort of moral thinking, where everything is simple and obvious, isn't good for much and we could do with less of it. So yes, there isn't enough theism influencing moral policy.
Theism just isn't going to give you what you want though, at least not Christian theism. If you boil the Christian message down to a platitude, then it [i]would seem as though[/i] you're correct- Christians should give everything to everybody who needs something and let God deal with the consequences. But you can't escape that this has *never* been the case. Over and over, without exception that I can think of, Christian societies have believed that people get by through their own hard work, that tithing 10% is sufficient and everything beyond that is a personal choice for charity, that charity is primarily a local affair, and that our primary responsibility to people other other nations is to teach them right from wrong so they can get their own affairs in order. Sooner or later you reach a point where you have to accept that either every Christian nation did Christianity wrong, or else your own interpretation of the Christian message is missing something.
Hence the title of the tread. Not enough theism. Not enough, in the history so far as we know it. Is it even possible? Maybe not. If nothing else my “rant” was more or less against opposing theism, as a moral “poison” as someone called it above, when in fact we have never seen the kind of compassion Jesus demanded. The poison, the problem, is in the history rather than in the principles set by Jesus of compassion, not only when it is convenient, but to the point that it is inconvenient. Christians that call refugees “weapons”, in my opinion, are the reason why we have no evidence of Christian hard principles in action in history.
Look, if I was interpreting the above through a Lutheran interpretation then maybe I would understand the easiness of a Christian observing misery while sipping on gin and juice, because they would accept the suffering of others as mandated by God. On theological grounds I disagree with that interpretation. It is entirely possible that it is my interpretation that is at fault and that indeed Christian history, which as you point out lacks compassion, is the exemplar of what Christianity ought to be rather than merely what it is, but it just doesn’t seem to me like that is the case. We all have seen those wristbands that ask: “WWJD?”. Now I ask you, in the case of the Haitian immigration and efforts by others to stop it, WWJD? What would Jesus say? What do Christians imagine Him as doing or saying?
No I challenged your caricature of atheism. [NB note spelling of caricature]
I said nothing whatsoever about theism. I mentioned religion. But that is not the same as theism, as you will agree.
Consider. There would be no “atheism” if there were no theism. Atheism is a response to theism, but in it’s purest form, where theism was reduced to only a posit theoretical position atheism would only be an amused “that’s a daft suggestion”.
You can choose to believe in what you like. So why not pretend to yourself that God is everything you want it (or him or her) to be and just believe in that?
Alternatively you can only hold to be true that which can shown to be true. This would, of course mean rejecting god. But at least you would have some peace and self respect.
Please do answer this question, but do it by referring to the atheist holy scriptures which contain moral commandments all atheists must read and abide by… oh wait… we don’t have any. Which completely invalidates the rest of what you said. I have the opposite experience - theists seek easy answers (scripture, 10 commandments, ‘tell me what to do’ type of thinking), atheists have to put actual thought into their ethics.
He'd probably tell you to give your money to Haiti, pack up your shit, and go down there and DO something if it means so much to you, since you asked. And plenty of people do, and as it turns out, these people tend to be motivated by religion far more often than they are motivated by anything else. There's ways to have a compassionate people without engaging in suicidal statecraft that will doom them all.
If you were compassionate, you'd leave your door unlocked so that strangers who need things could come in, go through your fridge, shit in your closet, and take what they want. No? Do you have a personal justification for why you get to have things when other people don't have things? Why would a state be any different?
I much rather do onto others as as I would like others to do onto me. I work, but I was afforded the opportunity to work. Immigration isn’t a weapon when people come over prepared to work. I rather see a Mexican who asks me if he can clean my car than an American who sleeps on a bench next to a cup.
Of course WWJD? is meant as an ideal, a standard. Doesn’t mean that we must always do like Jesus but that He is the standard and Christians actions judged by this either move towards the ideal or away from the standard.
Because you can imagine a Mexican who wants to work hard and an American that does not says zero about immigration a whole, and I don’t know when we started talking about the U.S. anyway. If your argument is that allowing all these supposedly decent, hardworking people into the the country (and by ‘the country,’ I of course mean the Dominican Republic) would be good for the economy, that’s pretty different than the argument you made immediately before where you said essentially damn the economic consequences we should do it because compassion compells us. Honestly I find that sort of dichotomy a lot among folks on your side of immigration issues.
The Mexican came about because i thought you asked about what I do in my own life. And I disagree with your opinion that it says nothing. At the center of the immigration debate is the speculation about what the immigrant will do and how it affects the native workforce. My little picture speaks about this. Is my experience universal? No, but legislation proposed by Obama, for example, rests a lot on merit. Not only so but current immigration law discriminates against those that will be a burden for the state. Loopholes exists and many that come over become dependent on government assistance programs but the discussion is that this does not invalidate the basic premise that this country benefits from the immigration of productive persons.
Globalization certainly is changing the discussion as well.
But returning to the Dominican Republic case, the economic argument holds less truth because the DR is a source of immigration itself. The same dangers taken by Africans trying to get to Lampedusa others in the DR took to get to Mayaguez, a port from which to gain access into the American mainland after a domestic flight over to an American city. It seems I’ll informed to talk about immigration from Haiti as destroying the DR; by the narrative of their feet Dominicans think that their best future lies elsewhere and this has been going on long before the earthquake in Haiti. So it just shows how desperate the situation is in the Hispaniola as a whole. The Dominican economy was better in comparison to the Haitian economy, I think, but it is not and was not the main reason Haitians crossed over. Like others in Nicaragua, Guatemala and other countries, passing into Mexico was not the ultimate goal.
But the economy of the DR is not strong and so those that claim that it needs to be protected from immigration have a point. You have to understand that I am not denying the rationalizations that can be used. But I’m saying that there should be more, for a Christian, than the economic consideration because, as seen in the bible, what is “right” may not be the best economic move. The Abolition of slavery made no economic sense, but it made sense in heaven. Those Christians that oppose the Haitian immigration might “save” the DR (although I question if indeed the country faces an existential threat here in this case) but might not be saved on the Last Day. But what do I know?
As for your slide comment about “folks on your side”, let me ask you fella, are you indigenous to the U.S.? No. Most came through an invasion of “America” that wiped out “native” people. The Natives themselves came through migratory waves from the “Canadian” territory, having passed through the straits in Alaska from what is Asia. This little summary is to argue that migration is natural. We all seek conditions favorable for ourselves and our children. When the conditions are so bad as they are in Haiti the alternative is suffering. But the tendency of the many is to burn the bridge that they themselves used to cross and call illegal what they did. The Sacred History of the Bible deals with immigrants and the narrative fits the hopes and struggles of the Haitian people, who at this point, merely seek a promised land in the midst of rubble. Those that Jesus calls “blessed” others that worry about their country call “weapons”.
Ok, well all through this thread to this point you've been saying the economic reality of the situation doesn't matter, and we should ignore that for favor of being compassionate. And I don't know why we'd use the word 'speculation' for a situation that has enormous amounts of data around it. What percentage of Mexican immigrants (since I guess we're talking about Mexicans now for no reason) become gainfully employed? What's their crime rate compared to the population as a whole? Their rate of going on welfare? I don't think we need to resort to imagination for the impact, do we?
As it obviously should be. The whole point of immigration law is to keep people out who will be a burden on the State. We already generate enough people on our own like that. If we have a method in place to decide which people get to come to a country and which ones wouldn’t, why wouldn’t we choose the ones who are likely to be productive? You seem to be coming at it from the perspective that the point of immigration is to provide some sort of public service to the foreigners desiring to immigrate here (since we’re apparently talking about here now). It isn’t.
Yes, this country benefits by definition from the immigration of productive persons, which is why immigration policies everywhere (not just the U.S.) function to ensure that the people who immigrate are such persons.
And what do you think the long term consequences are of not making the best economic move?
So you'll go on this long speech about how we ought to allow in millions of destitute strangers from far away lands because it's the right thing to do, then unironically demoan what happened to the Native Americans? Do you [i]not[/i] see a connection there?
Yes, and what naturally happens to the indigenous people as a result of that migration? Fuck natural- I don't want to go out the way the Native Americans did. What business does an argument for what's [i]natural[/i] have in the midst of an argument for what's [i]Christian[/i], anyway?
Yes, which is why we keep legions of starving foreigners out of our country when they have nothing to offer. If you feel bad for them, then [i]be charitable.[/i] There's no reason they have to come here, or the Dominican Republic, or anywhere else.
The first half of the old testament deals with immigrants. The rest of it deals with a settled people and the trials they suffer as foreign nations continually try to conquer and corrupt them. Ultimately their lands are settled, their customs overthrown, and they are scattered to the winds.
Unfortunately, just because the Haitians are right, doesn’t make everybody else wrong. The Haitians are absolutely morally correct to try and seek an escape, a new land for a better future for their children. The nations they seek to do this in are absolutely morally correct for saying “No” in order to protect the safety and security of their own children. That is the true horrible situation of things, and an adult understanding of ethics requires understanding this. When you say the economic concerns shouldn’t matter, you are EXACTLY saying that the welfare of the host nations citizens shouldn’t matter, because in the end, that’s what the economic question concerns. By brushing that all away, you’re creating a simple solution for yourself- a pleasant image of Hatians, eyes full of hope, crossing an imaginary line and being embraced by their new neighbors…and then just cutting off the narrative there, leaving it to other people, who you will no doubt condemn, to handle whatever happens the day after that. The consequences of that momentary pleasent image. You are conflating compassion with naivety.
True, and yet there seems to be no clue as to what is the “correct” (I mean intended by god) way to behave morally.
Irreligious persons, in my experience, seem to be the most morally aware. Whereas the religious do not follow moral codes that I can agree with, mostly.
For example, gay marriage, gender and race equality, and peace-loving moral codes seem to be less common in religious people than in secular people.
The urge to impose moral law seems to be religious. I regard that as amoral.
But the point I am making is that I am not speaker “as an atheist”, per se.
I do not know what people think atheists are supposed to say and think. That would be missing the point. The only thing you can say for sure about atheists is the they don’t believe in god.
lev said-----------You might as well ask, what is a cyclist morally; or what is a decorator morally?
Atheism is not a code or system of belief. Atheism is a flag that denotes a person who does not follow a god.
And as cyclists and decorators are moral, so too are atheists - in a variety of ways only related negatively to being an “atheist”.
[/quote]
turtle said
the problem --------belief in god is equated with morality…that is what a lot of the god people think…
[/quote]
lev said
True, and yet there seems to be no clue as to what is the “correct” (I mean intended by god) way to behave morally.
Irreligious persons, in my experience, seem to be the most morally aware. Whereas the religious do not follow moral codes that I can agree with, mostly.
For example, gay marriage, gender and race equality, and peace-loving moral codes seem to be less common in religious people than in secular people.
The urge to impose moral law seems to be religious. I regard that as amoral.
But the point I am making is that I am not speaker “as an atheist”, per se.
I do not know what people think atheists are supposed to say and think. That would be missing the point. The only thing you can say for sure about atheists is the they don’t believe in god.
[/quote]
turtle said—
some of the things you are saying i agree with…there are serious problems judging someone by a label…such as atheist or religious people…there is massive misunderstanding of what jesus means…to me he represents treating people kindly and gently…i don’t think jesus is a god…he was a guy trying to correct injustice…theist and atheist can agree with that part of it…but the problem comes when you have a person god and you know what that god wants…no one knows anything about a god…we aren’t that smart
Never said that “X doesn’t matter”, but that “X” alone should not be the only consideration especially for a Christian. Calling immigration a “weapon” against a country (in this case the DR) shows a lack of compassion, and this came from a Christian blogger. “Speculation” is the correct word to use when trying to figure what a person, or group or persons endowed with free will, will do in a future situation based on the information we have on past situations. It is informed, and even reasonable, but nonetheless a contemplation on things that have yet to occur and about which we cannot be 100% sure that they will occur or not. Leah Barkoukis (2014) wrote a piece, a rather conservative piece, that the unemployment rate for illegal immigrants in the US may be lower than the nation’s black citizens. Valeria Perasso (2011) wrote that almost seven (68% of the 55,000 total) in every 10 foreign prisoners in US jails are Mexicans. That forms close to 2.4% of the total 2.3 million prisoner population as of 2008 (Pierre Thomas for ABC). Is that enough statistics for your taste? Fine. Now all conclusions about what immigrants are likely to do in the future still represents an educated speculation.
Now, this is about the DR case. I only touched on Mexican immigration because you brought up what I would do, and since I am not in the DR, I brought up Mexican immigration as a place-holder. With that in mind then, will immigration laws be fair and compassionate when the lawmakers consider, in anteprima, immigrants as weapons being used against the country? Immigration should be judged from an economic angle (which is very complex) but also balanced by a moral angle. In my opinion Christians have an even higher requirement to provide this moral balance. Even if the economic effects should never be ignored, they should not be the only guide or standard as to what is right.
No. Let me go back. What I take issue with is the apparent callousness by which a Christian posted an article that labelled Haitian immigrants as a weapon and then, as part of his comment to this article, accentuated how we need to follow Jesus. That is, at the very least, inconsistent. As a Christian, I hold such men to a higher standard set by Jesus. I ask them “WWJD?”. At the very least Jesus would not consider the poor as weapons. Are they an economic risk? Sure. But actions on Haitian immigration, from a Christian perspective, should be balanced by compassion. If someone wants to preach to me about Jesus while placing a child (anchor babies when it was legal back in 2003 and before) into a stateless void, which is part of the DR immigration policy, (huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/0 … 06336.html), without much ado, then I seriously would question the moral standard they say to follow.
I believe that what they are doing in the DR goes beyond what other countries, such as the US, would normally do. It is certainly an abnormal situation. The situation in Haiti was deplorable for a long time but the earthquake in 2010, I think, left that country in a desperate situation.
Well, are they greater than the “long-term” consequences of not doing what is right? (Luke 16: 19-31).
I am going to insist on keeping you in track here. The argument is not to allow millions of destitute from far away lands, etc, but that calling the destitute, whatever their number, “weapons” for the destruction of the country is not befitting of someone who would otherwise ask “WWJD?” And as for the Native Americans, as I already mentioned, it is hypocritical to be a nation of people that took advantage of unfettered immigration and then deny others what benefitted you so much. The malice some see in other immigrants might be a projection of what they themselves are capable (Americans killed and dispossessed native Americans so they fear that others will do this to them). What would have happened if they had asked themselves “WWJD?”?
No. Of course. They should suffer and die, quietly, waiting for us to determine what “charity” we can spare. Is THAT what YOU would do if you were in their place? Is that what you want for your family? Isn’t the Haitian your Christian brother? No. In my opinion, the DR, like other countries, like the US, should present the desperate with a tangible process by which they might gain an opportunity to immigrate, that they may believe that the present should be endured because the future boon is attainable. Otherwise, I don’t expect them to hold fast to their empty plates and wait for charity.
That is an odd way to put it, but I will refrain from making this an issue.
What you say here is balanced and mature and you know that I agree with this. I already commented above about what should be done. But this is not what is being done or proposed. Nor will it be heard as long as the Haitian people are seen solely as a criminal or as a “weapon” from which to protect themselves. “Charity” here in the moral realm rather than the economic realm is needed. A little bit of the Golden Rule. No kidding, a bit more theism, a bit more of “WWJD?” and no one more than a Christian should know this.
Balance, Ucci, that is all I am saying. If by a pleasant image of the Haitians I delude myself, then by an image of the Dominican nation as a target you delude yourself. No one is forgetting about what happens after anyone crosses the border. I’m just saying that Haitians should be afforded a future. Calling Haitian immigration a weapon misses the cause of immigration and shows no compassion. Economic factors are important but should never be the only consideration. If anyone should know this better it is the Christian and yet in the OP I noted that this was not the case. I hope that if a Christian has to vote on this issue that they have in mind not just their future, their interest, but think of the Haitian’s interests and their future. In short a bit of compassion along with the economic trepidation. Why? Because maybe that is closer to what Jesus would do.
On a case by case basis it can certainly be true though. Immigration can be a great economic weapon. If the Australian aborigines weren't beneath notice altogether, you could say it was used to great effect against them.
That wouldn't surprise me, though of course there's room for it to be lower than the black average and still substantially higher than the national average.
Eh. 7 in 10 foreign prisoners is a junk statistic, if we don't know what percentage of foreigners in the U.S. are Mexican to begin with, I suspect it's very close to 7 in 10 anyway, and if I'm right that would just mean they're on par with the average. 2.4% of the prison population is useful, it can be compared to other races, and to the percentage of the US population are Mexican immigrants.
Fair and compassionate to [i]whom[/i]? Have YOU considered whether or not Haitian immigration is being used as a weapon against the Dominican Republican in your evaluation of the situation? If your not, would your reccomended policy be fair and compassionate to the people of the DR?
I can agree with that. Accepting refugees from a tyrannical situation like genocide or something makes sense to me, provided the host nation is accepting them on their own free will and within the bounds of what they have decided their economy can support. Other nations telling them what they must do doesn't sit right with me. What I object to is immigration as carte blanche economic levelling- "This nation is poor, you are not poor, therefore you are obligated to accept the poverty stricken from that nation until you're both equally broke" type of scenarios.
But that may well be the reality of the situation! Haiti and the DR don't have a friendly history.
You could be right. I'm not well up on the situation, and I've no interest in 'educating' myself on it through the likes of the Huffington Post. The earthquake is certainly an extreme situation, but natural disasters are precisely the types of things people participate in a State in order to help each other deal with, and Haiti should be able to deal with it. It's not the same as the State turning on it's own people and giving them no choice but to flee.
I see that as a purely practical matter that could be true or false, and I go back to my point about naivety. Immigrants absolutely can be economic weapons, there’s nothing immoral about pointing out that such is the case, if there’s good reason to think so. Now, maybe the person who said that is just being an asshole because they hate Haitians, that’s a possibility too, I really don’t know.
That’s preposterous. The Native Americans had no ‘unfettered immigration’ policy- they simply didn’t have a sophisticated enough understanding of property and state to have an opinion on it one way or the other, and once they finally grasped the situation clearly, they did everything they could with their stone age weapons and economy to repell us. Insofar as they did understand things like that, the wars they fought with each other over territory should tell you all you need to know. And anyway, even in some fantasy world where the Indians welcomed us with open arms as opposed to being too weak to do anything about it, the end result was their near extinction. Is it really hypocritical to learn from somebody else’s mistake?
I don’t know, maybe they would have stayed in Britain accepted the King of England as the head of Christendom, and let him re-write ther faith according to his personal needs? That doesn’t seem right either. There’s just no pure answers oftentimes when you look at things above the individual level.
Is that all you think of the Haitians? That they have to squat there in their rubble until somebody else decides to save them? Why is there even such a place, or such a people, if that’s all they can manage? If the place really is such a shithole that all they can do now is die until another nation saves them, then they ought not merey emmigrate, they ought to allow the DR or some other nation to acquire them and the territory occupied by that failed state along with it provided anybody wants it.
[/quote]
They were, and then an earthquake happened. If the Haitian people as a whole can’t take care of themselves, if this disaster really did wipe them out to that extent, then there shouldn’t be a Haiti anymore, because there could be another earthquake next year. A situation where a ‘state’ limps along unable to take care of it’s basic needs, and skims off it’s excess, unwanted population to it’s neighbors every time it has an economic downturn isn’t good for anybody, and the neighbors enabling that isn’t good for anybody in the long term. Compassion is exploited- the function of “Alright if things get tough we can just pressure the unemployed and homeless people to leave for the DR or the US” will just become a part of business as usual for Haiti, and then there’s no incentive for that state to do anything to help it’s own poor.
Regarding the people I am personally acquainted with, I have seen no evidence that suggests the ones who have religious beliefs are any kinder or generous towards others than the non religious ones are.
I think that the immigration of Haitians is not being objectively evaluated. As you mentioned, these “countries” have a history of aggression and revenge. But again, look at it from a Jesus’ perspective. The argument against Haitian immigration, because it is a weapon, is a “valid” argument against Dominican immigration into Puerto Rico. I have yet to see the destruction of Puerto Rico as a “Estado Libre Associado”. In my opinion, when the immigration debate resorts to the identification of possible immigrants as weapons then the nature of the debate is altered from a 50/50, “I come to this table with an open mind”, to a 90/10 bias, prejudice, of which he wishes to inform the people at the table. Having a bias is not the worst of it, but, in the case I pointed out, this negative bias is found on an assumed Christian. That bias is inconsistent with Jesus’ teachings.
I don’t grant the article that much credit. It declares something which has no evidence. It makes no sense for a group of people, looking to escape a difficult situation to also hold the intention of destroying the nation in which they plan to rebuild their lives… That this is a weapon wielded by France against DR is a conspiracy theory, not a given fact. I don’t believe, furthermore, that illegal immigration is an existential threat to average Dominican citizens. Like in the US, illegal Haitian immigrants are sought to perform underpaid work, hard labor, in “bateys”.
Conditions for Dominicans are not great already, but I can tell you that many who are declaring this immigration doomsday do so from the comfort of a being outside the DR. The immigration debate should include an understanding that many illegals Haitians are modern day indentured workers, and so, rather than seeing them as weapons, to see them as victims, exploited workers. What I want to add here is that a Haitian picking up sugar cane is not equal to the destruction of the Dominican Republic.
Do you have any examples of this happening? Of this as a phenomenon? If a poor person moves next to me that does not mean that I’ll now be poor. What determines your economic status is much more complicated than that, at least as I understand it. I guess NYC lies in ruins and is as poor as PR, DR, Jamaica, India, etc. Miami is as broke as the Havana. The argument is based on fears rather than facts. There is no such thing as a “Nation” or a “People”. There are economic divisions that cannot be ignored. The threat of Haitian immigration is not equally felt. To the sugar cane plantation owners, Haitian immigration is a tool. But for those already struggling, Haitians come across as another group competing for scarce opportunity.
That said, I agree with the notion that the immigration debate should take into account the host nation. That the host nation and not others are to decide what is best for themselves and when to draw the line. But the nation should listen to reason. If your argument to deny citizenship to children born of illegal immigrants is that these children are “weapons” then you are paying closer attention to your fears than to your reason.
Then immigration is not a weapon; weapons are weapons. When an immigrant has a weapon we call them an invader.
Well, at the very least, I think that if they had asked themselves WWJD? we wouldn’t have had the Wounded Knee Massacre.
As I already mentioned “nations” are not homogeneous. The name hides stratifications within the society. Is compassion exploited? Sometimes, but the alternative is not to divest oneself of all compassion and all humanity. And if you are a Christian (or someone that follows Socrates) isn’t it better to suffer a wrong than to inflict a wrong?