The pursuit of knowledge and truth, through God, through science, through civil and engaging debate

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Reply to topic
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 1: Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:03 pm
Reply
Would Jesus Support Republican or Democratic Values More?

Like this post
I would argue that the Democratic policies focus on the well-being of the poor and the oppressed. As such, I believe Jesus would be more in favor of Democratic values than that of the Republicans which focus more on guns and military while being entirely calloused to the plight of the poor and tend toward discrimination of others not like them.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 2: Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:42 pm
Reply

Like this post
Those are straw-man, gross generalizations and exaggerations of Republican positions. Especially the "while being entirely callous to the plight of the poor" remark. Yes, if the Republican truly do not care about the poor, Jesus would be against that. But is it really the case? Please substantiate your charge here.

Do Democrats, for instance, and you, care about the effect that unfettered immigration has to the American poor? Say, in Appalachia?

Does everyone in the caravan have a job lined up when they arrive? If not, after they are caught and released, they will probably go on public assistance, putting strains on the social safety net. At the expense of Americans who rely on those services.


Last edited by Elijah John on Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:16 pm; edited 1 time in total

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 3: Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:47 pm
Reply

Like this post
Also, it may be helpful if we define what exactly we mean when we say "Democrat" and "Republican" values.

And on a personal note, it may be worthwhile to understand that I am not a registered Republican ("unenrolled" in my state, aka "independent). So I do not agree with Republicans on everything And I actually agree with Democrats on some things.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 4: Thu Nov 08, 2018 9:17 pm
Reply

Like this post
Elijah John wrote:

Those are straw-man, gross generalizations and exaggerations of Republican positions. Especially the "while being entirely callous to the plight of the poor" remark. Yes, if the Republican truly do not care about the poor, Jesus would be against that. But is it really the case? Please substantiate your charge here.

Republicans tend to wish to take away the social safety nets and view the poor as lazy rather than in need. If you believe opposite, then what are some things that the republicans are doing to actually help the poor?

Elijah John wrote:
Do Democrats, for instance, and you, care about the effect that unfettered immigration has to the American poor? Say, in Appalachia?

Does everyone in the caravan have a job lined up when they arrive? If not, after they are caught and released, they will probably go on public assistance, putting strains on the social safety net. At the expense of Americans who rely on those services.

I'm not sure immigration has hurt our own poor at all. It doesn't put the strain on them, it puts the strain on the rest of us.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 5: Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:02 am
Reply

Like this post
ElCodeMonkey wrote:

Elijah John wrote:

Those are straw-man, gross generalizations and exaggerations of Republican positions. Especially the "while being entirely callous to the plight of the poor" remark. Yes, if the Republican truly do not care about the poor, Jesus would be against that. But is it really the case? Please substantiate your charge here.

Republicans tend to wish to take away the social safety nets and view the poor as lazy rather than in need. If you believe opposite, then what are some things that the republicans are doing to actually help the poor?

Elijah John wrote:
Do Democrats, for instance, and you, care about the effect that unfettered immigration has to the American poor? Say, in Appalachia?

Does everyone in the caravan have a job lined up when they arrive? If not, after they are caught and released, they will probably go on public assistance, putting strains on the social safety net. At the expense of Americans who rely on those services.

I'm not sure immigration has hurt our own poor at all. It doesn't put the strain on them, it puts the strain on the rest of us.


Which Republicans are you referring to? Those you know, or officials? I have never heard a Republican office holder refer to those in need as "lazy". And that is certainly not the position of most Republican office holders. Not even President Trump.

And I do not know of any Replublican official with any credibility who is advocating for the elimination of food stamps (which NIXON, a Replublican instituted, by the way) Medicaide, unemployment compensation etc.

Regarding immigration, notice I said unfettererd immigration. I.e., wide open borders. If we grant citizenship to every member of the approaching caravan, for example, and they do not have jobs lined up how does their going on public assistance not put a strain on the system? And if the system is strained, then there is less for Amercans who really need it. Isn 't that obvious?

And how much does it cost the American taxpayer to process all of those "applicants"? To hear their cases, to screen them for disease? To quarantine, in some cases. To track 'em down if they do not show up for their hearings? To reject gang members, like MS 13. To screen for "other than Central Americans" potential terrorist cells.

Do liberals and the migrants even care about those considerations? Do you?

Also, if we grant all or most of the caravan applicants legal status, where does it end, ECM? How would that not be an incentive for more and more caravans to knock on our door, the border? To crash it in some cases.

As far as we know, most of the migrants are not fleeing political persecution, but rather are econimic refugees. And economic status has never been grounds to gain aslyum status in the USA.

Now if yoiu want to argue that Jesus would take the positon of "let em all in" I won't argue. But neither of us believe that Jesus is "God", nor do either of us believe he was perfect.

Perhaps the focus of our debate shold include "what's best for our country", (The USA) as opposed to "what would Jesus do".

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 6: Fri Nov 09, 2018 4:46 pm
Reply

Like this post
Elijah John wrote:
Which Republicans are you referring to? Those you know, or officials? I have never heard a Republican office holder refer to those in need as "lazy". And that is certainly not the position of most Republican office holders. Not even President Trump.

I'm finding that it will be difficult to prove a generalities. It's not like there are statistics on how many republicans hate the poor. I can only find anecdotes. Just because Senator Orrin Hatch said "I have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help people who won’t help themselves, won’t lift a finger and expect the federal government to do everything,” doesn't mean he speaks for the whole party. So I'm not sure where to go from there to "prove" that "Republicans" don't care for the poor. I can link to the propaganda which tells me such things like http://prospect.org/article/trump-launches-aggressive-poverty-disinformation-campaign. It claims "The Trump administration wants you to believe that just 3 percent of the U.S. population is poor ... to justify harsh new restrictions on government assistance programs." So if this is to be believed, they are cutting government assistance while claiming the war on poverty is "largely over and a success" and that the poor aren't that many. I would doubt that it is lying about the cut to spending nor the quote, but it is possible that the measure being used, being different, could have some debatable content. Maybe they're right. Maybe the poor aren't that many. So which part of this would we like to debate? Do you believe the poor are few and we can look into that or do you debate that there are really cuts or perhaps that there is another means by which the Republican party is sponsoring different and better efforts?

Elijah John wrote:
And I do not know of any Replublican official with any credibility who is advocating for the elimination of food stamps (which NIXON, a Replublican instituted, by the way) Medicaide, unemployment compensation etc.

According to https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/25/trumps-gop-is-looking-to-deeply-cut-food-stamps-hitting-his-voters-hard/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fcba573c1d77, "House Republicans on Thursday passed legislation that would require Americans ages 18 through 59 to either work part time or spend 20 hours a week in workforce training to receive food stamps. On the same day, the White House unveiled a proposal to consolidate the public safety net — including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — under a revamped health department. The program, The Washington Post's Amy Goldstein and Caitlin Dewey write, “has an explicit aim of building standardized requirements that people must work or prepare for jobs to qualify for government help." Now, I can't fathom why they'd be putting these restrictions on it unless they think they're simply "not trying" or "being lazy" or "need encouragement to work" etc. If these people can't find jobs (which might be a very good reason for being poor maybe?) then they can no longer get support. So... not particularly helpful for the poor if they're poor because they CAN'T get a job.

Elijah John wrote:
Regarding immigration, notice I said unfettererd immigration. I.e., wide open borders. If we grant citizenship to every member of the approaching caravan, for example, and they do not have jobs lined up how does their going on public assistance not put a strain on the system? And if the system is strained, then there is less for Amercans who really need it. Isn 't that obvious?

Are Democrats advocating for unfettered immigration? And how many are looking to immigrate? And what is the spending amount that would make it less for everyone else? And how many find jobs despite having none lined up? These are a lot of suppositions which, at this point, don't sound very justified. Obviously if we had an influx of 100 million people all trying to get in at once with no jobs there might be a problem. But is that what's happening? I haven't looked at the statistics yet, but maybe we should wait on this topic.

Elijah John wrote:
And how much does it cost the American taxpayer to process all of those "applicants"? To hear their cases, to screen them for disease? To quarantine, in some cases. To track 'em down if they do not show up for their hearings? To reject gang members, like MS 13. To screen for "other than Central Americans" potential terrorist cells.

Do liberals and the migrants even care about those considerations? Do you?

The left is more concerned with the well-being of refugees. You know, the poor. How they go about it is certainly to be discussed and maybe they've got terrible ideas on how to do it for all I know, but it's the fact that they're concerned with the poor while the right is focusing on safety from terrorists instead. Now, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but is it justified? We can probably table immigration reform strategies for after we're done with the poor.

Elijah John wrote:
Now if yoiu want to argue that Jesus would take the positon of "let em all in" I won't argue. But neither of us believe that Jesus is "God", nor do either of us believe he was perfect.

Perhaps the focus of our debate shold include "what's best for our country", (The USA) as opposed to "what would Jesus do".

Well, if we agree that Christianity is following the teachings of Jesus, and Jesus would agree that we should do what's best for our country, then I could agree to that. I'm not sure he would feel that way though. I think Jesus would not be as concerned about borders and would want to help all people as much as possible. Now, if he said "let them all in," I'm sure he would be aware that this might have harmful consequences to people, not just our country. So I'll believe he would be perfectly fine with rationalizing and not blindly allowing everyone in. We'll leave out the magic powers for now Smile. "What is best for our country" is too generic in that it allows for us to defeat poverty within our borders while growing even richer since that's what's best for us, and leaving the poor outside our country poor. Jesus would not be okay with that.

Jesus' main desires in a political party would be:
1. Helping the Poor
2. Kindness and Tolerance to People
3. Freedom from Oppression
4. Preventing Global Catastrophe
5. Minimizing any kind of pain and suffering
6. Health and Wellness

That said, we can focus on the poor for now and determine which party cares more for the poor (even at the expense of another value and/or doing it unsuccessfully) and then move on. Any others you would add? So even if the Democrats are making terrible ideas for the poor that might harm other things, it's still a focus for the poor. If Republicans do the tradeoff and sooner want something else instead of helping the poor (which could be 100% valid to do depending on circumstances) then we'd say the left cares more for the poor than the right. Agreeable?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 7: Sat Nov 10, 2018 12:50 pm
Reply

Like this post
ElCodeMonkey wrote:

Elijah John wrote:
Which Republicans are you referring to? Those you know, or officials? I have never heard a Republican office holder refer to those in need as "lazy". And that is certainly not the position of most Republican office holders. Not even President Trump.

I'm finding that it will be difficult to prove a generalities. It's not like there are statistics on how many republicans hate the poor. I can only find anecdotes.


Then perhaps we should refrain from anectdotal evidence.

ElCodeMonkey wrote:

Just because Senator Orrin Hatch said "I have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help people who won’t help themselves, won’t lift a finger and expect the federal government to do everything,” doesn't mean he speaks for the whole party.


That's right. It doesn't mean he does. But I think we agree that is a troubling statement. And it is unlikely that it represents the majority who rely on government help. And it overlooks the reality of the working poor in this country.

ElCodeMonkey wrote:

So I'm not sure where to go from there to "prove" that "Republicans" don't care for the poor. I can link to the propaganda which tells me such things like http://prospect.org/article/trump-launches-aggressive-poverty-disinformation-campaign. It claims "The Trump administration wants you to believe that just 3 percent of the U.S. population is poor ... to justify harsh new restrictions on government assistance programs." So if this is to be believed, they are cutting government assistance while claiming the war on poverty is "largely over and a success" and that the poor aren't that many. I would doubt that it is lying about the cut to spending nor the quote, but it is possible that the measure being used, being different, could have some debatable content. Maybe they're right. Maybe the poor aren't that many. So which part of this would we like to debate?


I hope that is inaccurate. If so, that position ignores the reality of the poor in America. And if so, I doubt that sentiment comes from Trump, but rather from his bean counters, and folks like Paul Ryan, a numbers guy. I think Trump is a populist and despite being a billionaire, is sympathetic to the plight of the "little guy". Those are the people who got him elected in the first place. If he doesn't stand up for them, then I think his re-election chances diminish, despite the merit of some of his other positions and policies.

ElCodeMonkey wrote:

Do you believe the poor are few and we can look into that or do you debate that there are really cuts or perhaps that there is another means by which the Republican party is sponsoring different and better efforts?


No, I think they poor in this country are more numerous than many people realize. Republican solutions seem to consist of variations of "trickle down". Rising tide lifting all boats. Improved economy, lowering taxes and cutting regulations to allow business to thrive in the hopes of creating a pool of better and more numerous jobs. I'm not convinced that solution is enough. So I doubt very much that most Republicans would support the elimination of the social safety net.

ElCodeMonkey wrote:

According to https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/25/trumps-gop-is-looking-to-deeply-cut-food-stamps-hitting-his-voters-hard/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fcba573c1d77, "House Republicans on Thursday passed legislation that would require Americans ages 18 through 59 to either work part time or spend 20 hours a week in workforce training to receive food stamps. On the same day, the White House unveiled a proposal to consolidate the public safety net — including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — under a revamped health department. The program, The Washington Post's Amy Goldstein and Caitlin Dewey write, “has an explicit aim of building standardized requirements that people must work or prepare for jobs to qualify for government help." Now, I can't fathom why they'd be putting these restrictions on it unless they think they're simply "not trying" or "being lazy" or "need encouragement to work" etc. If these people can't find jobs (which might be a very good reason for being poor maybe?) then they can no longer get support. So... not particularly helpful for the poor if they're poor because they CAN'T get a job.


Hopefully, those requirements include help in training. And in finding the suitable jobs. OK, I will conceded the point. Though I think you overstate it a bit, Republicans could (and need to) do a better job of helping those in need, and they do have a real perception problem in that regard. And Trump better not ignore this if he hopes to be re-elected.

Shall we move on?

ElCodeMonkey wrote:

Elijah John wrote:
Regarding immigration, notice I said unfettererd immigration. I.e., wide open borders. If we grant citizenship to every member of the approaching caravan, for example, and they do not have jobs lined up how does their going on public assistance not put a strain on the system? And if the system is strained, then there is less for Amercans who really need it. Isn 't that obvious?

Are Democrats advocating for unfettered immigration?


When Republican objections to admitting caravans of migrants are met with chants of "racist, racist" from the Left, then yes, I would say that Democrats and Leftists are for unfettered immigration. When Obama mocks the concerns of half the country with statements like "they're afraid of a little ole caravan" he trivializes the very real and practical concerns we have., Like screening them, taxpayer expense of processing them, health concerns, economic concerns, depressing wages, and yes, increased crime and so on. So yes, when the former President says things like that, the Left in this country IS for unfettered immigration. Or is at least soft on illegal immigration. And they hold out incentives. Like in-state tuition, driver's licenses, economic and medical government aide, sanctuary cites, etc. etc.

Again, it is counter intuitive to believe that unemployed immigrants who will have to go on public assistance will not put a strain on the social saftety net, at the expense of Americans who really need help. The numerous poor, you mentioned in your post above.

Also, cheap labor depresses wages. Again, hurting the working poor.

Where does it end, ECM? How many more "migrants" do we need in this country? Serious, not a rhetorical question.

Do you and the Democrats favor an orderly, admission process? Like application at ports of entry, or the US embassy in their home countries?

Also, when I hear Democrats advocating for sanctuary cities, opposing the end to the visa lottery system and chain migration, and advocating for the abolition of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, then yes, I would say the Dems favor unfettered immigration.


ElCodeMonkey wrote:

And how many are looking to immigrate? And what is the spending amount that would make it less for everyone else? And how many find jobs despite having none lined up? These are a lot of suppositions which, at this point, don't sound very justified. Obviously if we had an influx of 100 million people all trying to get in at once with no jobs there might be a problem. But is that what's happening? I haven't looked at the statistics yet, but maybe we should wait on this topic.


OK so you're saying we should stop at 100 million. That's where it will end? Do you have a number short of that? The "suppositions" I am making are justified, by common sense. Statistics can be used (and often are) to obfuscate plain reality. And statistics can be used on both sides of any given issue. Remarkable how that works. So, shall we steer clear of the numbers game and stick instead to logic? I think that will save a lot of time and confusion.

But yes, I don't have exact statistics either. Except I heard there are many more illegal immigrants in the US than was previously supposed. 20 million thereabouts now.

Would you accept the idea of a person's house/home as a good metaphor? Does just anyone have a "right" to crash your door and gain access to your house? OR is it up to you who you invite in? How does illegal immigration benefit the US? Shouldn't that be a consideration?

These caravans are attempting to crash the door of the US and barge their way into our "house".

[quote="ElCodeMonkey"]
Elijah John wrote:
And how much does it cost the American taxpayer to process all of those "applicants"? To hear their cases, to screen them for disease? To quarantine, in some cases. To track 'em down if they do not show up for their hearings? To reject gang members, like MS 13. To screen for "other than Central Americans" potential terrorist cells.

Do liberals and the migrants even care about those considerations? Do you?


ElCodeMonkey wrote:

The left is more concerned with the well-being of refugees. You know, the poor. How they go about it is certainly to be discussed and maybe they've got terrible ideas on how to do it for all I know, but it's the fact that they're concerned with the poor while the right is focusing on safety from terrorists instead. Now, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but is it justified? We can probably table immigration reform strategies for after we're done with the poor.


You said it. The Left is more concerned with the well-being of refugees. I would add, even at the expense of American citizens. They seem to favor their interests above our own.

We're done with that particular aspect. But "poor" illegal immigrants should not be conflated with the American poor.

Regarding the American poor, yes, the GOP has perception problems, at the very least. And could do a better job on helping those in need.

ElCodeMonkey wrote:

Elijah John wrote:
Now if yoiu want to argue that Jesus would take the positon of "let em all in" I won't argue. But neither of us believe that Jesus is "God", nor do either of us believe he was perfect.

Perhaps the focus of our debate shold include "what's best for our country", (The USA) as opposed to "what would Jesus do".


Well, if we agree that Christianity is following the teachings of Jesus, and Jesus would agree that we should do what's best for our country, then I could agree to that. I'm not sure he would feel that way though. I think Jesus would not be as concerned about borders and would want to help all people as much as possible. Now, if he said "let them all in," I'm sure he would be aware that this might have harmful consequences to people, not just our country. So I'll believe he would be perfectly fine with rationalizing and not blindly allowing everyone in. We'll leave out the magic powers for now Smile. "What is best for our country" is too generic in that it allows for us to defeat poverty within our borders while growing even richer since that's what's best for us, and leaving the poor outside our country poor. Jesus would not be okay with that.

Jesus' main desires in a political party would be:
1. Helping the Poor
2. Kindness and Tolerance to People
3. Freedom from Oppression
4. Preventing Global Catastrophe
5. Minimizing any kind of pain and suffering
6. Health and Wellness

That said, we can focus on the poor for now and determine which party cares more for the poor (even at the expense of another value and/or doing it unsuccessfully) and then move on. Any others you would add? So even if the Democrats are making terrible ideas for the poor that might harm other things, it's still a focus for the poor. If Republicans do the tradeoff and sooner want something else instead of helping the poor (which could be 100% valid to do depending on circumstances) then we'd say the left cares more for the poor than the right. Agreeable?


I would say the Left cares more about poverty in a theoretical global sense, and not so much about the American poor. It's policies of welcoming massive influx of impoverished migrants is detrimental to the poor citizens of this country.

Again, on this matter, I think you're right. Jesus would favor the policies of the left. But I would not agree that Jesus wants what's best for any particular county, including our own.

Shall we more on to cultural issues? Do a reset and outline our respective agendas and objectives for the rest of the debate? Then we could go from one topic to another.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 8: Sat Nov 10, 2018 4:00 pm
Reply

Like this post
Elijah John wrote:
Shall we more on to cultural issues? Do a reset and outline our respective agendas and objectives for the rest of the debate? Then we could go from one topic to another.

I'm not too up on the desires of the Left on immigration at this point in time, but I would certainly agree that we can't simply open the flood gates. At least, not without some kind of plan that would make it work.

That said, I think we might currently be in agreement for the most part and can discuss immigration on some other level. How would you like to proceed?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 9: Mon Nov 12, 2018 12:50 pm
Reply

Like this post
ElCodeMonkey wrote:

Elijah John wrote:
Shall we more on to cultural issues? Do a reset and outline our respective agendas and objectives for the rest of the debate? Then we could go from one topic to another.

I'm not too up on the desires of the Left on immigration at this point in time, but I would certainly agree that we can't simply open the flood gates. At least, not without some kind of plan that would make it work.

That said, I think we might currently be in agreement for the most part and can discuss immigration on some other level. How would you like to proceed?


Well, maybe a recap before we proceed.

I think we agree the Republicans would do well to show more concern for the poor. Especially if Trump wants to win re-election. He better not neglect the industrial Midwest, states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio where he pulled off unexpected wins. Pennsylvania as well. And George W Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative". I think conservatives would do well to show just a bit more of that. Though I would disagree that they are completely callous in this regard.

And I think we agree that on this matter, Jesus would probably side more with the Democrats (or Bernie Sanders for that matter Wink) and not so much with the Republicans.

And on immigration, I agree that Jesus would probably favor the "right of human beings to migrate" as the RCC puts it. I think Jesus would favor an orderly, legal process though. ("Render unto Caesar"and all that.)

But all this begs the question, would Jesus' positions be good for the USA? Or any other country in particular?

OK, we could move on to the cultural questions. Where would Jesus come down on:

-free speech
-abortion
-homosexual marraige
-transgender identity issues,
-respect for law and order...etc.

And we could also refocus on your original suggstion. Trump. Is he good for the USA?Personality? Policy?

And race relations.

And finally, we could cover civility in politics. (they could learn a thing or two from the way this site is run, right? Wink)

Thoughts?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 10: Mon Nov 12, 2018 3:31 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 9 by Elijah John]

I'm down with all of that. Since I started with the poor, which question/topic would you like to do next? Feel free to present your case on it. If it's "Trump", then I think we'll need to discuss moral character that Jesus represents (rather than stances on topics that we'll discuss later) and how much error in moral fiber one can have before being rejected by Jesus as a presidential candidate Smile. I'm not particularly sure how to grade those, but I'm fine with seeing where it leads if you want to present an argument.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version