If you know spanish, the relevant law is here:
http://info4.juridicas.unam.mx/ijure/fed/9/31.htm?s=

Criticism, discussion, and disputes over Biblical inerrancy, meaning, and relevance have been happening for centuries, continue to happen, and are encouraged by theologians, seminaries, and many churches.

I remember when I was in high school. A recruiter from a local Mennonite college (a very well-regarded college nationally) came by to talk about selecting a Christian college.

He explicitly said something like this: “Our Bible and religion courses will test your faith They will test your belief in God, or your belief in atheism. At the end, our goal is for you to have strengthened yourself, by developing a strong, reasoned, faith that is personal to you and has withstood testing — or to have revised your own faith, whatever it might be.”

This is not the language of unquestioning belief.

That article goes on to say that “the New Testament has given its adherents the impression that any and all critics are frauds bent on misleading the unwary” and cites as evidence Matt. 7:15: (“Be on your guard against false prophets; they come to you looking like sheep on the outside, but on the inside they are really like wild wolves”).

They are completely mistaking the point. I read that verse to be *encouraging* logical thinking. Evaluate what people are saying. Does it really make sense if someone says that it is our religious duty to launch a crusade against the middle east? Is that compatible with the teachings of the Bible? Are we basing our understanding of teachings on a sufficiently broad reading of the Bible so as to have made a well-reasoned, well-grounded decision?

I see it as a warning to avoid religious fanatics, and to do so *by questioning everything*.

And which faith would that be? Surely not Christianity!

Here’s a link which quotes extensively from the New Testament, which I think speaks for itself: http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/dovewing.htm#CRITICS

I am a Christian and an American. There have been an awful lot of bad things done in the name of both of these — just as you could find in the history of any long-standing country, religion, or place. That doesn’t mean it gets at what those entities are really about.

When you see people volunteering at a homeless shelter or volunteering to go to Vietnam during the war — as an aid worker — that’s what Christianity it all about.

At the same time, the separation between church in state in the American constitution is a good one and should be preserved. I usually don’t argue from this perspective, but when talking about “traditional” values it is hard to escape.

It is hard to connect Christians with the values you espouse when they spent much of the last two thousand years murdering and pillaging those who were different from them (and even those who were not so different).

The association of Christians with the perverse conservatives of this country only goes to show that most of them are incapable of even understanding the consequences of the tenets of their own religion.

I’m glad you are able to make the logical conclusion for yourself, but you are in the minority. Most people are not smart enough to make the connections themselves, and are easily manipulated by religious authorities with ulterior motives.

And finally, the Constitution explicitly prohibits the favoring of any religion in law or office. Because the founding fathers made the same observation about practitioners of religion as I have above. There is nothing more traditionally American than the Constitution itself.

Stick with the values, but don’t drag Christianity into it. It only gets ugly.

Healthcare is one of those where I think we need to make it simple and equal. Do we, for instance, refuse to treat ailments on someone that smokes today, as well as someone that gave it up 20 years ago? I think that refusing service based on behavior is too slippery a path to set upon.

Rather, revenue can be raised to pay for it other ways: for instance, taxes on tobacco products. Many states do that already, in fact.

But I wanted to stress that part, because not everyone does.

I agree with you that the “they take jobs Americans won’t” argument doesn’t make sense. I also agree that we need to have a rational immigration policy, not just wide-open immigration, for the protection both of the USA and the countries of origin of people. A mass wave of immigration would cause a crisis both places.

One problem we have is that our legal immigration system is so bad that it literally can take decades for even someone wealthy to work through it, let alone someone without the resources to pay a lawyer.

The people that are here illegally usually do wind up paying taxes, whether they be payroll taxes, or property taxes (perhaps indirectly if they are renters).

My complaint, though, mainly has to do with how we treat the people that are here illegally, and their families. It’s a tricky situation and our federal agents have shown too little compassion in too many cases.

Whilst I agree with the conclusion, you ignore the other side of the equation. Money spent by government is taken from people who earn it, or have it, by threat of force – this is a form of theft, democratic or otherwise.

Does “good healthcare to everyone” include those who choose to abuse their bodies? At what point do you draw a financial limit? What about folks who are plain lazy, and will free ride on whatever provision is made, is this fair on the hard working tax payers?

There are limits to government involvement. At some point the harm of taxation defeats the benefits of government spending. Clearly the soviet communists went too far. I’d argue much of Europe has gone too far in trying to get the state to do too much. America perhaps hasn’t gone far enough down this path, but it is a thorny road.

Are you implying that it’s allowed to torture “guilty” people? It’s not the guilt or innocence of the victim that makes torture wrong.

This remains to be seen, neither candidate has mentioned what will be cut and what will be added to their budgets due to the lovely “bailout.”

To start with, even if the children have dual citizenship, the US government can’t deport them because they are US citizens.

The right of citizenship based on parents’ nationality is called jus sanguinis. Some countries recognize it; some don’t, and laws may vary on whether or not both parents have to be citizens of the country. I couldn’t find what the scoop is in Mexico with some quick Googling.

So in some cases, say with Swiss parents, a child born in the US may automatically have dual citizenship. But that’s not always the case.

Terah tells of raids that happened in Indiana where one time the INS raided a place where both of an infant girl’s parents worked. The girl was still breastfeeding and at a babysitter — and the parents never showed up to pick her up that evening because the INS got them. It’s cruel.

You’re completely right that the US often deports people to the wrong country. That isn’t supposed to happen, but it does all too often.

Your example is complicated too. I’m sure the woman feels like she has little recourse from the abuse. And what a legal mess if there would be a divorce.

The really interesting thing I read was that pretty much everybody gets deported to Mexico… even if they’re, say, Honduran. So hey, not only are you separated from your kids, you’re dumped in what’s still a foreign country. I don’t get how that makes any sense at all.

There are other complications, too: I know of someone who is Mexican, and whose (American) husband is an abusive, unemployed alcoholic. They have two kids. Do *that* math… it’s ugly.

I would add to the anonymous question about deportation that this is common, and is a really bad situation. Any child born in the United States is an American citizen, usually regardless of the nationality of the parents. That means that American law prevents deporting that child, which is of course an American citizen and thus legally here. It also means that child would not be a legal resident of Mexico, since the child is an American citizen.

It is an incredibly unfortunate situation that happens all to often. It sometimes happens by the hundreds when the government conducts these mass raids. Church groups, community groups, and the like often have to step in and try to provide some sort of support for these abruptly orphaned children.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s one of the most despicable things our government does in the name of upholding the law. And it’s a prime example, in case we need any reminder, that upholding the letter of the law is not always the ethical choice.

Is this typical? Citation needed.