Rwanda!

[hermeneutika]

What does the panel think? Is the Archbish right? i wont rant either way!!

[Kendall K. Down]

On 18/04/2022 10:57, hermeneutika wrote:

> What does the panel think? Is the Archbish right? i wont rant either way!!

Australia only really got a handle on its immigration problem when they
did two things: no one who tried to sneak into the country could ever
ever ever be considered for legal migration; and anyone who tried to
sneak in was sent to a third country and kept in fairly unpleasant
conditions until he/she was willing to return to his country of origin.

I would not personally wish to be sent to Rwanda, but on the other hand,
neither would I attempt to enter a country illegally - which is the
point we need to bear in mind. These people are attempting to enter
Britain illegally - and someone who does something illegal is defined as
a criminal.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

P.S. Someone asked the stupid question, "Would you send Jesus to Rwanda?"

Jesus would not have attempted to do anything illegal (unless it was a
moral imperative, such as healing on the Sabbath day), so the question
does not arise.

The person who asked the rather fatuous question asserted that Jesus was
a refugee. Nonsense. Jesus and His parents simply moved from one part of
the Roman empire to another in an age when there were no passports and
no visa requirements. They did nothing illegal.

[Adam Funk]

You seem to be assuming that laws inherently have moral value. Was the
"White Australia policy" right? The people who hid Anne Frank were
lawbreakers; those who turned her in were obedient.

As Christians, we should oppose borders.


--
Morality is doing what's right regardless of what you're
told. Obedience is doing what you're told regardless of what is
right. (attributed to H. L. Mencken)

[Kendall K. Down]

On 19/04/2022 19:28, Adam Funk wrote:

> You seem to be assuming that laws inherently have moral value. Was the
> "White Australia policy" right? The people who hid Anne Frank were
> lawbreakers; those who turned her in were obedient.

Your attitude to law seems strange on two counts. The first is that we
live in a democracy, not a tyranny. That means that our lawmakers should
be assumed to be representing the will of the majority. I know that
sometimes they don't; I know that sometimes they make bad laws; but the
presumption should always be to the contrary. What is more, the ballot
box and persuasion is the correct way to overthrow bad laws.

The second is the oft-repeated Biblical injunctions for obedience to the
civil authority - look up "magistrate" in your KJV concordance or
on-line Bible.

The only time we have the right to disobey laws is when those laws
conflict with our duty towards God. Comparing deporting illegal
immigrants to Anne Frank is ridiculous. Anne Frank had done nothing
wrong and faced cruel death; illegal immigrants are - what's the word? -
illegal and they do not face death in Rwanda.

The White Australia Policy is similar. Whether or not you think it was a
good idea, the fact is that there is no God-given right for Chinese
people (the primary target of the policy) to live in Australia. Obeying
or disobeying that policy did not conflict with our duty to God and
could only be justified on other grounds.

> As Christians, we should oppose borders.

Perhaps you would care to provide a clear Scriptural reference to
support your claim? Perhaps it's that often overlooked bit in the Sermon
on the Mount where Jesus said, "Ye have heard that it hath been said by
them of old time, 'Ye shall have borders' but I say unto you, Abolish
all borders, let any old riff-raff into thy country, paedophiles and
drug traffickers have the right to unrestricted travel". I seem to
recall that it is an addendum to Matthew - Matthew 29 or something?

[Adam Funk]

On 2022-04-20, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 19/04/2022 19:28, Adam Funk wrote:
>
>> You seem to be assuming that laws inherently have moral value. Was the
>> "White Australia policy" right? The people who hid Anne Frank were
>> lawbreakers; those who turned her in were obedient.
>
> Your attitude to law seems strange on two counts. The first is that we
> live in a democracy, not a tyranny. That means that our lawmakers should
> be assumed to be representing the will of the majority. I know that
> sometimes they don't; I know that sometimes they make bad laws; but the
> presumption should always be to the contrary. What is more, the ballot
> box and persuasion is the correct way to overthrow bad laws.

A majority doesn't have the right to oppress a minority, though, and
we Christians should always oppose racism.

> The second is the oft-repeated Biblical injunctions for obedience to the
> civil authority - look up "magistrate" in your KJV concordance or
> on-line Bible.
>
> The only time we have the right to disobey laws is when those laws
> conflict with our duty towards God. Comparing deporting illegal
> immigrants to Anne Frank is ridiculous. Anne Frank had done nothing
> wrong and faced cruel death; illegal immigrants are - what's the word? -
> illegal and they do not face death in Rwanda.
>
> The White Australia Policy is similar. Whether or not you think it was a
> good idea, the fact is that there is no God-given right for Chinese
> people (the primary target of the policy) to live in Australia. Obeying
> or disobeying that policy did not conflict with our duty to God and
> could only be justified on other grounds.
>
>> As Christians, we should oppose borders.
>
> Perhaps you would care to provide a clear Scriptural reference to
> support your claim? Perhaps it's that often overlooked bit in the Sermon
> on the Mount where Jesus said, "Ye have heard that it hath been said by
> them of old time, 'Ye shall have borders' but I say unto you, Abolish
> all borders, let any old riff-raff into thy country, paedophiles and
> drug traffickers have the right to unrestricted travel". I seem to
> recall that it is an addendum to Matthew - Matthew 29 or something?

Do you think it is appropriate for a Christian to characterize all
foreigners that way? Does it include white middle-class ones like me
too?

People have a natural right to move where they want except when there
is a valid reason to prevent it (e.g., serving a sentence following a
legitimate condition, or controlling the spread of a pandemic).


--
Well, I just said that Jesus and I were both Jewish and that neither
of us ever had a job, we never had a home, we never married and we
traveled around the countryside irritating people.
--- Kinky Friedman

[Kendall K. Down]

On 05/05/2022 13:58, Adam Funk wrote:

> A majority doesn't have the right to oppress a minority, though, and
> we Christians should always oppose racism.

You see to have a very broad view of "oppression". The majority - or the
government acting on behalf of the majority - has decided that certain
drugs should be controlled or banned. There is a minority which
disagrees with that, but they are not being "oppressed", even though
they are not allowed to do something they want to do.

Yes, Christians should oppose racism, but again, some people have either
a ridiculously broad view of racism[1] or a very one-sided view of
racism.[2]

>>> As Christians, we should oppose borders.

>> Perhaps you would care to provide a clear Scriptural reference to
>> support your claim? Perhaps it's that often overlooked bit in the Sermon
>> on the Mount where Jesus said, "Ye have heard that it hath been said by
>> them of old time, 'Ye shall have borders' but I say unto you, Abolish
>> all borders, let any old riff-raff into thy country, paedophiles and
>> drug traffickers have the right to unrestricted travel". I seem to
>> recall that it is an addendum to Matthew - Matthew 29 or something?

> Do you think it is appropriate for a Christian to characterize all
> foreigners that way? Does it include white middle-class ones like me
> too?

So in other words, there is no Scriptural authority for your claim that
Christians should oppose borders. Borders are used to control the entry
of goods as well as people, to limit the authority of governments and so
on. For example, given the recent decision of the Spanish to prohibit
Brits from driving on their British licenses, I am very glad that there
is a border between us so that I can continue to drive. I am also glad
that there is a border to prevent American genetically modified wheat
coming into our food chain.

> People have a natural right to move where they want except when there
> is a valid reason to prevent it (e.g., serving a sentence following a
> legitimate condition, or controlling the spread of a pandemic).

Who says that people have a natural right to move around? And if you
want to control the spread of a pandemic, how are you going to do that
without borders?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 05/05/2022 20:29, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> Yes, Christians should oppose racism, but again, some people have either
> a ridiculously broad view of racism[1] or a very one-sided view of
> racism.[2]

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

Note 1: For example, the West Indian gentleman who is taking a council
to court after it imposed a noise order on him and his friends, who have
been gathering in a public square to play checkers. Apparently if you
are West Indian you cannot play checkers without drinking, shouting, and
banging things around, to the annoyance of everyone nearby. He complains
that the noise abatement order is racist. It isn't.

Note 2: There is a wide-spread view that only white people can be
racist. That most definitely is not so; West Indians are terribly racist
towards Africans and Indians and Pakistanis are racist towards West
Indians. Both lots can be racist towards white people.

[Adam Funk]

I don't disagree with either of those.


--
'...and Tom [Snyder] turns to him and says, "so Alice [Cooper], is it
true you kill chickens on stage?" That was the opening question, and
Alice looks at him real serious and goes, "Oh no, no no. That's
Colonel Sanders. Colonel Sanders kills chickens."'

[Adam Funk]

I thought it was obvious I was talking only about restricting the
movement of innocent people in normal times, not about administrative
boundaries themselves.


--
Thinking about her this morning, lying in bed, and trying to get my
thoughts on the right track, I reached into the drawer of the bedstand,
and found the Gideons' Bible, and I was going for the Psalms, friend, honest
I was, but I found the Song of Solomon instead. --- Garrison Keillor

[Kendall K. Down]

On 09/05/2022 13:42, Adam Funk wrote:

> I thought it was obvious I was talking only about restricting the
> movement of innocent people in normal times, not about administrative
> boundaries themselves.

It wasn't, but even your muted version is incorrect. The movement of
innocent people can be and is restricted on many occasions. There is an
accident on the motorway and the police close it down for what seems to
me an excessive period of time. There is a fire or a crime scene and the
emergency services put up tape to keep the public out (innocent public,
if you wish to be emotive).

When I used to travel down to Cardiff regularly I would pass an
attractive area of moorland south of Builth Wells to which the public
are forbidden access (it's a military firing range). And so on.

[Adam Funk]

I already covered that sort of thing.

The point is that *general* restrictions on movement are bogus because
they are accidents of history. There's no restriction between England
& Wales because the English invaded Wales. None between England &
Scotland because of a genealogical accident.

One of the more contentious ones now is between the US & Mexico, which
is used by Trump & others to stoke up racism for political gain. Let's
look at the history of that border.

Hispanic people (in the US and Mexico, at least) are genetically
mostly native American (with some Spanish ancestry), so they were
there first before white Americans started painting their borders on
the map and then unilaterally moving them around.

White Americans moved into parts of Mexico (with slaves) and continued
to immigrate illegally after 1830, then carried out a violent
revolution against the Mexican government --- in fact, one of the
Anglos' grievances was that Mexico was abolishing slavery. Texas was
admitted to the US in 1845 as a slave state, and in 1861 seceded from
the union in order to maintain slavery.

So there is absolutely no morally legitimate basis for expecting
Hispanic people to respect the current border between the USA and
Mexico.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 18/05/2022 12:04, Adam Funk wrote:

> So there is absolutely no morally legitimate basis for expecting
> Hispanic people to respect the current border between the USA and
> Mexico.

But your argument cuts both ways. If there is no reason for Hispanic
people to recognise the present border, there was no reason for
non-Hispanic people to recognise the previous border. According to your
ideas, they were right to resist the attempts by the Mexican government
to enforce that border. Long live the Alamo! Champions of freedom
(according to Adam).

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

P.S. I note your snide comment about the English invading Wales. Perhaps
that is why you are so opposed to borders - you are an illegal immigrant
from Saxony or somewhere, who has appropriated Welsh land.

[Mike Davis]

On 19/05/2022 19:27, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 18/05/2022 12:04, Adam Funk wrote:
>
>> So there is absolutely no morally legitimate basis for expecting
>> Hispanic people to respect the current border between the USA and
>> Mexico.
>
> But your argument cuts both ways. If there is no reason for Hispanic
> people to recognise the present border, there was no reason for
> non-Hispanic people to recognise the previous border. According to your
> ideas, they were right to resist the attempts by the Mexican government
> to enforce that border. Long live the Alamo! Champions of freedom
> (according to Adam).

Mind you, for much of the border the Rio Grande is a pretty good division!

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 19/05/2022 22:23, Mike Davis wrote:

> Mind you, for much of the border the Rio Grande is a pretty good division!

It is a clear division, but I believe Mexicans swim it on a regular basis.

When we were in America a couple of years back, we drove for hours
through arid country with nary a stream or rivulet to be seen. Then as
we approached Socorro we came to a sign saying "Rio Grande" and I
thought, "Yeah, yeah, another dry watercourse." We were surprised at the
amount of water flowing under the bridge

[Adam Funk]

On 2022-05-19, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 18/05/2022 12:04, Adam Funk wrote:
>
>> So there is absolutely no morally legitimate basis for expecting
>> Hispanic people to respect the current border between the USA and
>> Mexico.
>
> But your argument cuts both ways. If there is no reason for Hispanic
> people to recognise the present border, there was no reason for
> non-Hispanic people to recognise the previous border. According to your
> ideas, they were right to resist the attempts by the Mexican government
> to enforce that border. Long live the Alamo! Champions of freedom
> (according to Adam).

I don't think there was anything wrong with people moving into Mexican
Texas on its own --- their treatment of the natives and slavery are
different matters.

> P.S. I note your snide comment about the English invading Wales. Perhaps
> that is why you are so opposed to borders - you are an illegal immigrant
> from Saxony or somewhere, who has appropriated Welsh land.

I'm not sure why you think that was snide --- I certainly do NOT
condone the appalling way the English treated Wales for hundreds of
years.


--
The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we
concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this
great power. ---Nikola Tesla

[Kendall K. Down]

On 21/05/2022 15:48, Adam Funk wrote:

> I don't think there was anything wrong with people moving into Mexican
> Texas on its own --- their treatment of the natives and slavery are
> different matters.

So what do you think was the solution? Should the Mexicans have welcomed
them, slaves and all - borders are illicit, you see - or should the
Mexicans have done a better job of maintaining their borders?

> I'm not sure why you think that was snide --- I certainly do NOT
> condone the appalling way the English treated Wales for hundreds of
> years.

So do you think we Welsh should have done a better job of policing our
borders?

[Adam Funk]

On 2022-05-21, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 21/05/2022 15:48, Adam Funk wrote:
>
>> I don't think there was anything wrong with people moving into Mexican
>> Texas on its own --- their treatment of the natives and slavery are
>> different matters.
>
> So what do you think was the solution? Should the Mexicans have welcomed
> them, slaves and all - borders are illicit, you see - or should the
> Mexicans have done a better job of maintaining their borders?

The morally right outcome would have been liberation of the slaves,
incarceration of the slave-owners, and live-and-let-live for everyone
else.

>> I'm not sure why you think that was snide --- I certainly do NOT
>> condone the appalling way the English treated Wales for hundreds of
>> years.
>
> So do you think we Welsh should have done a better job of policing our
> borders?

The problem wasn't English immigration (in numbers of people) but
conquest.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 30/05/2022 19:41, Adam Funk wrote:

> The morally right outcome would have been liberation of the slaves,
> incarceration of the slave-owners, and live-and-let-live for everyone
> else.

In some dream utopia, no doubt. The real world tends not to be ideal -
hence the need for borders.

>> So do you think we Welsh should have done a better job of policing our
>> borders?

> The problem wasn't English immigration (in numbers of people) but
> conquest.

Which wouldn't have happened if there had been strong borders to keep
Hengist and Horsa out.