@RandalRauserWhat really gets me is being ostensibly prolife while wanting to block refugees with legit asylum claims…
Since Rauser is Canadian, I assume he's bitching about Canadian immigration policy.
Speaking for myself, I'm all for a generous referee policy with regard to persecuted Christians. There is, though, no obligation to import Muslim timebombs into the country, who game the system under the ruse of "refugees" with "asylum" claims.
…defending the right of angry, paranoid men to have AR-15s…
That's a clueless objection. There's a general right to self-defense. Private gun-ownership is a necessary means to exercise that right.
It's not a right that singles out "angry, paranoid men". Rather, a general right, whether freedom of speech, driving a car, private property, &c., is an indiscriminate group right. It carries the potential for abuse by particular individuals, but the right isn't conditional on an unpredictable outcome. Some people abuse the right to drive a car (e.g. drunk drivers), but that's not known in advance. Defending the general right to drive a car isn't specifically and intentionally defending the right of drunk drivers. Constitutional rights and civil rights are coarse-grained. There are tradeoffs in a free and open society.
…shrugging your shoulders at the unfolding disaster of human-induced climate change…
Even assuming it's induced by humans, is it disastrous if Canadians enjoy longer summers and shorter warmer winters?
And since developing countries refuse to cut back on carbon emissions, even though they are the primary polluters, any green police is unenforceable, and will simply wreck western economies.
…fighting public healthcare, etc…
The question is what's economically feasible–as well as whether medical decision-makers are accountable to patients.
Also, Rauser's green policies would destroy the prosperity required to support public healthcare.
"defending the right of angry, paranoid men to have AR-15s"
ReplyDelete1. What about defending the right of good men who put their lives on the line to protect others to have AR-15s? Consider the Sutherland Springs church shooting where a former NRA firearms instructor named Stephen Willeford fatally shot the "angry" perpetrator. Consider the West Freeway Church of Christ shootings where Jack Wilson fatally shot the "angry" perpetrator before things got worse.
2. It's not as if banning guns will necessarily stop "angry, paranoid men". We've seen that in nations where firearms are banned. Take the mass shootings in Germany just a couple of days ago despite the fact that guns are banned in Germany. Take the Christchurch, New Zealand shootings despite the fact that guns are banned in New Zealand. Take Anders Behring Breivik in Norway where guns are likewise banned.
3. Unless he's a dual citizen, I don't know why a Canadian like Rauser should have a relevant opinion about what happens with the second amendment. Anyway the second amendment allows citizens to keep and bear arms. Arms don't necessarily need to be guns, per se, but would Rauser even be willing to allow knives and pepper spray as self-defense weapons? At least to my knowledge, Canada doesn't allow people to carry knives or pepper spray. At least not all of Canada.
"fighting public healthcare"
Suppose we were in charge of the gov't. Suppose we could do the following. We could get rid of every personal computer in every household across the nation, but we'd give everyone a free personal computer in its place. The catch is the free computer we'll give to everyone is an older computer. An outdated computer. It works, just not as well as modern computers, but well enough to get basic things done like emailing, going online, word processing, and the like.
However, here are the benefits. It would save tons of money in the long run. We could use this money for other things we want to improve in our country. It'd conserve electricity for the nation as a whole. This would be a "greener" policy overall. It'd make it easier for software developers, technicians, and related personnel to fix every computer because every computer would be the same type of computer. The gov't could even become the biggest employer of technicians to fix computers since that'd make the most sense since they're gov't issued computers. As a result everyone's tech problems will be able to be more easily monitored by the gov't. And so on.
Oh, but instead of computers and technicians, it's really medical care and medical professionals (e.g. physicians, PAs, nurses). How's that sound?
Hawk,
ReplyDelete"Take the Christchurch, New Zealand shootings despite the fact that guns are banned in New Zealand."
While I agree with you generally, I do think you might want to check your facts. While New Zealand did ban rifles of the nature of the one used by the mosque shooter, there is still legal ownership of guns (although they do require registration). Not all other types of guns are legal. I'm fairly certain no handguns are allowed. So while NZ has more restrictions, let's keep in mind that there are restrictions in the USA, for example, automatic weapons are much more carefully controlled when they are even allowed.
In short, don't automatically believe everything you hear or read without verification.
Thanks, OKRickety. If that’s the case, I appreciate the correction.
DeleteStill, I think the underlying point stands even if one of the examples doesn’t completely work. And, as you note, guns are still quite difficult to acquire in NZ, even if they aren’t 100% banned.
Steve,
ReplyDelete“ Speaking for myself, I'm all for a generous referee policy with regard to persecuted Christians. There is, though, no obligation to import Muslim timebombs into the country, who game the system under the ruse of "refugees" with "asylum" claims.”
I understand the concern here, and (from an Australian context) would think this is ideal.
My concern, though, is whether this is consistent with the graciousness required to be afforded to “aliens” in the Bible. Do you think hospitality to “aliens” in the Bible is limited to your idea?
Of course, I'm not Steve, but I hope you don't mind if I take a crack at this? For what it's worth, if anything:
DeleteAs is obvious, Australia is a secular nation rather than (say) the church. That means Australia has certain considerations to consider when welcoming strangers or aliens that Christians do not necessarily have.
I presume welcoming immigrants would have to be counterbalanced with Australia's own principles and priorities as a sovereign nation. Such as protecting and defending its own citizens. Such as ensuring its own way of life isn't threatened, undermined, or overturned.
However, if, say, importing Muslims to Australia means Australia will gradually become a place where sharia law is accepted, then wouldn't that run counter to Australian principles and priorities in regard to ensuring Australia is a democratic nation and its citizens safe and sound within its borders?
Of course, I'm not suggesting Australia should never welcome immigrants or refugees. But not all immigrants or refugees are alike. Some contribute to the welfare of Australia as a whole, while others detract from it. So I would think Australia needs to have reasonable ways to separate the wheat from the chaff.
To put it another way, Christians should welcome strangers, ceteris paribus. However, the problem is things aren't always equal!
DeleteNot all strangers are equal. Some strangers are sincere seekers, while other strangers intend to harm Christians. Even as Christians, I don't see a biblical duty to welcome strangers into your home or church who will exploit you over and over again. We're meant to be hospitable, but there's no virtue in being a dupe.
Likewise, not all Christians are equal. A single Christian doesn't have the same obligations as a Christian with dependents. A single Christian is able to do things that a married Christian with children can't do. A female Christian is able to do things a male Christian can't do and vice versa (e.g. a female Christian might be able to evangelize female strippers but that would quite likely be too spiritually hazardous for most male Christians to do). Likewise some Christians may be able to welcome strangers, while others may not be able to welcome strangers, but that doesn't necessarily mean the Christian who can't welcome strangers isn't doing what's right.
And so on and so forth.
AMC,
DeleteDepends in part on what aliens expect. Do they expect a welfare state–free for the coming? What Scripture has to say about the host country's duty to aliens is highly qualified:
https://cis.org/Report/Use-and-Abuse-Bible-Immigration-Debate
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/what-does-bible-teach-on-immigration/