I'm honestly not sure I understand you. Could you explain more? Separation of church and state? Am I an idiot for asking what Jesus would do?
I really, really, really, really, really, really don't get this. Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, the Redeemer, would refuse shelter to ten thousand refugees? Fleeing death and destruction, homeless, hungry, cold, Christ the Redeemer would turn his back on them? Thousands of them?? I... you... this just leaves me speechless. He who spoke of the good Samaritan? He who spoke on the Mount of Olives? He who was born in a manger because Mary and Joseph, themselves refugees, were refused shelter elsewhere? He who could have easily protected himself from Judas, but did not, so that he could redeem all, dying on the cross? He whose entire existence was to sacrifice his own life, that others may live? What possible interpretation of the Gospel could possibly lead you to this conclusion? Please help me understand.
He wasn't an elected official with crime and employment statistics. Also, he could do magic and predict the future.
I'm with you. It's really horrifying. One group is distorting religion to justify hatred, and we have other groups distorting, or really ignoring, their own faith to justify fear. And hey, yes, I am afraid of extremism. But most of the terrorists operating in the so-called west have been comfortably established as citizens or visa holders. I'm more worried about extremist belgian citizens, literally, than I am about Syrian refugees.
I didn't say he would refuse, I said he probably wouldn't oppose such measures. These people are not fleeing a war zone - they are in Turkey. What's the harm in waiting? Besides, Jesus said a lot of things and I have my own secular opinions. Do these refugees have any secular opinions? What is horrifying about employing prudence in decision making? Besides, Europe has its own problems that are separate from the U.S. I don't fear Belgians because to my knowledge there were no Belgians involved in U.S. terrorist attacks like 9/11.
Come on, let's at least be intellectually honest here. They don't self-define as Belgian citizens. They could not care less about the country that provides them with a passport. They self-identify as Muslims. So if you want to refer to them, you should refer to what motivates them to do what they do. And trust me, it's not their Belgian passport.
They aren't desperate Syrians fleeing the carnage of their homeland. That's my point. They are set up, entrenched. Not avoiding the religious topic, but I am speaking practically. I would worry more about radicalized established Europeans than new Syrian refugees who just want a chance at a warm meal and a roof. I'm being intellectually honest, even if you don't like my opinion.
Were you not the same person that said my opinion about American affairs didn't matter if I didn't live in the US?
Oh, the war on Saturnalia again, huh? Look if I say "Io Saturnalia" the least you can manage is a "Hail Caesar."
They are not "established Europeans". Even disregarding the religious motivation, which is really at the core here quite obviously, unless one chooses to not mention it for some odd reason, because it is really what drives them - they are not "established Europeans". They are either 1st generation or 2nd generation immigrants who have chosen not to integrate into society in any meaningful way at all (again, driven by their religious and cultural background - let's face it, the only ones who act like that are Muslim immigrants). Don't try to make it sound like they are some kind of monocle-wearing, Oxford-educated English aristocrats ("established Europeans") who suddenly tried to put on a suicide vest. That's what I mean by not being intellectually honest.
This doesn't make sense. Just try to imagine Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God who watches over us all, watching people (who claim to be his followers) who have ample resources to aid ten thousand refugees refuse to do so. His response is "well, that's not personally what I would do, but hey, I don't exactly oppose such measures. [shrug]" Seriously? You're talking about Jesus Christ as if he's some non-committal dude on the sideline who has no hard take on the morality of giving or refusing aid to thousands of needy people. He's God, dude. What's a secular opinion? Honest question. My guess is that you mean you don't agree with everything in the bible, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. The entire premise of my posts in this thread is the attempt to answer the question "what would Jesus do?" If you think it's an unimportant question, then the premise is moot. Fine. However, if you identify as Christian, and believe that Christ is a role model, then the question is very much relevant. To reply that Jesus would not necessarily refuse to help, but not oppose other people doing so is a weak answer. I think it would be perfectly self-consistent for a contemporary American conservative on the more libertarian/fiscal conservative side to choose one's own safety/enrichment over the well being of others. However, if you call yourself Christian, and believe that entails trying to be Christ like, then refusing aid to ten thousand refugees fleeing war and destruction is hypocritical.
Like I said, Jesus said lots of things. I don't know any verses off the top of my head regarding prudence but I am sure he wouldn't oppose planning things out. Maybe that's what he would do: a cost analysis. And so what, I am hypocritical. What are you, a 5 year old?
IMO if Jesus exercised rational self-interest into cost analysis the way we do, he never would have gotten on that cross. In all seriousness, I respect you saying that. I re-read my posts and my tone has been reasonable and I have tried to put forth my arguments logically. Have I hit a nerve?
Talkin Blues...what a great, great song. And yeah, Marley wasn't a big fan of christianity, that had me scartching my head, too.
I'm just saying I don't consult a two thousand year old book as my primary source when forming an opinion on such matters. What worries me is that there could be a few within the 10,000 who do consult such books as their primary and only source.
It doesn't really matter what Jesus would have done in many cases. We have a seperation between church and state. Further, the interests of the government is to protect their citizens. Further many Westerners are nominally Christian or athiest. Many Muslims in Europe have gone out of their way to not acculturate. It isn't like in the United States. I would love nothing better than to see the secularization of Muslims in large measure, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. Syrians are more apt to understand the separation of church and state than many other Muslims but there are still risks associated. At least I am seeing more Muslims express displeasure with extremist Islam. Clinton and others can attempt to label it as something else, but it is extremist Islam.
