BaptistLife.Com Forums.

As always, there are two sides to every story. The students who wanted to wear the American flag T-shirts were doing it deliberately as a provocation to antagonize the Latino kids. It's the same thing as inner city gangs adopting professional sports team colors and logos so they can "represent" and claim free speech protection when schools tell them they can't wear their colors. It was a one day prohibition to prevent inciting already existing racial tension. The motives of those who planned to wear those shirts obviously had nothing to do with patriotism nor "Judaeo-Christian Principles."

That's always a good right wing line, that immigrants from other countries want to turn America into their country and bend it to their culture. There's not a jot or tittle of evidence or proof of that. They live in a place where they're free to celebrate who they are. And a good percentage of our military volunteers are either immigrants themselves or the children of immigrants and they demonstrate their loyalty to this country in many ways. Getting mad at them because they're not interested in adopting WASP culture demonstrates a lack of understanding of some basic American principles. Our constitution provides for the free exercise of religion, so there's no grounds for pressuring immigrants, or native Americans for that matter, to "unite around Judaeo-Christian principles." Some of the principles written into the constitution and into the foundational fabric of the country didn't come from "Judaeo-Christian principles" but were secular in nature, having their origin in the European Enlightenment.

The six or seven missing votes were probably accounted for by three ambassadors being in the rest room when the votes were cast, and three or four others having gone home already for the holidays.

Interesting that he's willing to defund TSA and the Homeland Security Department as part of his effort to get the five billion American taxpayers' dollars that Mexico reneged on.

That graph showing numbers of applicants and grantees and percentage approved is interesting. But I think a lot of it can be laid to the credit or blame of the courts, which keep telling him he's not at Burger King.

When "the sin of Sodom" is explicitly spelled out in the Bible, it turns out not to involve sex particularly, gay or otherwise. Yet some of the same people who object to letting Biblical principles inform our political stances on welcoming of foreigners and treatment of the disadvantaged want their reading of Genesis and Jude to inform our political stances on treatment of gender minorities. Interesting.

Nobody on here, at least nowadays. And I don't recall the names.

Cinco de Mayo is not a Mexican national holiday. It is more like Washington Admission Day (which is Nov. 11 so a lot of people get it as a paid holiday). It is locally celebrated in Guadalajara. But it is a bigger deal in the USA (among Anglo beerdrinkers and beer-and-tortilla-chip advertisers mostly) than in Mexico. FWIW.

I think that's the question, "How many illegals make it a problem?" According to the Trump administration's own Department of Homeland Security, illegal crossings have declined substantially since the early part of the Obama administration, and continue to remain low, well below previous "tolerable" thresholds according to previous administrations (back to Reagan at least). Is the goal to prevent every single illegal crossing? Not happening. Is it a crisis now? No, at least not according to the information that has been provided by Trump's own department of homeland security. The idea that the country is being overrun by "terrorists" in "the thousands" from Central America and Mexico is a lie. But this conversation and discussion isn't about "illegals." No one that I observe is advocating for open borders or amnesty for everyone who manages to cross the border regardless of how, that's another Trump lie. This conversation is about global refugees who are, under existing US law, able to enter the country and stay until their request for asylum has either been approved or denied.

As I said before, the analogy of having someone homeless come into your house is a false one. This is a democratic republic, a nation "of, by and for" its people. It's not just your house, it's the people's house collectively. Laws are made and passed by those elected who represent the will of the people and current laws allow for individuals to come to the US and remain in the country while applying for asylum as refugees. Refugees do not always have the luxury of being able to assemble all of their papers and documents and get visas before they flee, in most cases for their lives. So they do not always have the luxury of presenting themselves at a border crossing and asking for permission to enter without documents. Trumps actions and executive orders are going against the will of the people as reflected in current immigration laws, and in the court rulings that have put a stop to his bigoted, ridiculous executive orders.

What number is too many? Jordan, a county with 10 million people, a GDP of just under $100 billion, has taken in about 1.5 million Syrians. Refugees are, for the most part, limited by geography. Any Syrians who came to the US seeking asylum would have to find a way to get here. I doubt we'd ever have to consider more than the 60,000 proposed by Clinton. I know an Orthodox church in Pennsylvania that worked to bring 10 families here, getting them out of ISIS controlled territory. They don't cost the government a dime, the church raised the money to support them, helped them find housing and jobs to earn a living. Shouldn't be a problem if the economy is booming like Trump says it is.

Your use of the term "stupid" is inappropriate. My contention that this is a sanctity of life issue is based on fact. Refugees, in most instances, are in mortal danger when they flee. What number of abortions is low enough to be acceptable to pro-lifers? Or are unborn Americans simply worth more in the value of life than Syrian or Honduran refugees?