How do you feel about immigration?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,664]

1 minute ago, Dozer FBG said:

LOL!!

You in way over your head here, Nancy!

You’d better stay playing bridge with the rest of the women…

LOL! Such a puzzy…

 

That’s the best you got? If you’re gonna be in my fan club you’re gonna have to pick up your game. 

[Dozer FBG 246]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

That’s the best you got? If you’re gonna be in my fan club you’re gonna have to pick up your game. 

Does your husband know about your OnlyFans page?

[The Real timschochet 2,955]

28 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

In case you never get around to those Freakonomics podcasts, one of the data points they make is that immigrants themselves are net negatives on the economy.  Their children, and their children's children, are a positive, moreso than the original generation was a negative.  So the net result is an economic positive, but it takes 3 generations to get there.  They are currently discussing (I haven't quite finished) how the Feds unduly benefit from leaving the bulk of the integration cost for the first generation on the states, but gladly collect those sweet tax dollars later.

This seems to conflict with your consistent assertion that immigrants are a positive to the economy.  At least, my interpretation of your assertion is that you believe they are a positive from the get go.

Not from the get go everywhere. But definitely the first generation. I’ve read several studies on this; it’s not something I just pulled out of my hat. But Freakanomics may have something contradictory to present. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,664]

1 hour ago, Dozer FBG said:

Does your husband know about your OnlyFans page?

You have some work to do. Get back to me when you think you might be ready.  

[SUXBNME 1,340]

It's a great song 

[RLLD 3,455]

Foreign terrorists targeting US 'increasingly concerning': FBI director

When the attack comes, it will more than likely be due to the Biden open border policy.....and the focking DOJ better not protect him or Mayorkas....they BOTH should go to jail for what they will have allowed.

[edjr 5,569]

 

[The Real timschochet 2,955]

55 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Foreign terrorists targeting US 'increasingly concerning': FBI director

When the attack comes, it will more than likely be due to the Biden open border policy.....and the focking DOJ better not protect him or Mayorkas....they BOTH should go to jail for what they will have allowed.

What total crap. The dudes who committed 9/11 were all illegal immigrants as I recall, coming over our northern border. Were you ready to prosecute Bush after it happened? 
 

This concern about terrorism in connection to the border, just like the concern about crime in connection to the border , are nothing more than excuses designed to cover up the fact that the main concern about undocumented immigrants coming from our southern border is that they have brown skin. 

[RLLD 3,455]

3 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

What total crap. The dudes who committed 9/11 were all illegal immigrants as I recall, coming over our northern border. Were you ready to prosecute Bush after it happened? 
 

This concern about terrorism in connection to the border, just like the concern about crime in connection to the border , are nothing more than excuses designed to cover up the fact that the main concern about undocumented immigrants coming from our southern border is that they have brown skin. 

9/11 is the past.  Radicals crossing the border today is what this is about.

We know people on the watch list are making it in, we only know about the ones they caught.  Now these groups are a growing threat.... and if it can be proven they crossed a border that the Democrats left open to try  and get more future voters...then those who failed to uphold our laws need to go to jail for it. 

[The Real timschochet 2,955]

17 minutes ago, RLLD said:

9/11 is the past.  Radicals crossing the border today is what this is about.

We know people on the watch list are making it in, we only know about the ones they caught.  Now these groups are a growing threat.... and if it can be proven they crossed a border that the Democrats left open to try  and get more future voters...then those who failed to uphold our laws need to go to jail for it. 

Then prosecute Republicans, they’re the main reason for the current influx by refusing to address climate change, refusing to help Latin America, refusing to deal with this country’s labor shortage. Prosecute Trump for his disastrous reaction to Covid. All of these factors are way more important to this issue than anything Biden or the Democrats did or didn’t do. 
 

But again terrorism and border policy aren’t connected. At all. 

[listen2me 23 1,546]

3 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Then prosecute Republicans, they’re the main reason for the current influx by refusing to address climate change, refusing to help Latin America, refusing to deal with this country’s labor shortage. Prosecute Trump for his disastrous reaction to Covid. All of these factors are way more important to this issue than anything Biden or the Democrats did or didn’t do. 
 

But again terrorism and border policy aren’t connected. At all. 

Lol

[RLLD 3,455]

5 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Then prosecute Republicans, they’re the main reason for the current influx by refusing to address climate change, refusing to help Latin America, refusing to deal with this country’s labor shortage. Prosecute Trump for his disastrous reaction to Covid. All of these factors are way more important to this issue than anything Biden or the Democrats did or didn’t do. 
 

But again terrorism and border policy aren’t connected. At all. 

Incorrect.   They are coming here because Democrats implemented slavery.....using your logic....

But hey, dont take MY word for this....

Let's just accept that Joe Biden now wants to act since people are so p!ssed at what he has done   

[jerryskids 5,212]

4 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

Then prosecute Republicans, they’re the main reason for the current influx by refusing to address climate change, refusing to help Latin America, refusing to deal with this country’s labor shortage. Prosecute Trump for his disastrous reaction to Covid. All of these factors are way more important to this issue than anything Biden or the Democrats did or didn’t do. 
 

But again terrorism and border policy aren’t connected. At all. 

So much wrong in this post... and the moment you blame climate change, you establish yourself as an unserious poster.

Did you ever listen to that Freakonomics pod series?  The third part is about Canada, quite interesting.  Canada is something of a harbinger of what's to come from us -- I admit that I never quite internalized the labor shortage you often mention, but the issue is that they (and we) have committed to their people a humongous amount of free stuff in the way of entitlements, health care, etc., and they need people to pay that bill.  I'd rather, I dunno, re-introduce the importance of family to our culture as a solution, but that's just me.

Anyway, back to Canada -- they let in a lot more immigrants than we do (legally), but the difference is that their system has much more of an education/economy focus, vs. ours which is primarily family-focused based on loopholes in the 1965 immigration act.  So in Canada, if you can show you contribute to the economy, or practice medicine, come on in$#@!  But claim you have family there but nothing to contribute... good luck with that.

[Maximum Overkill 652]

 

[jerryskids 5,212]

I heard someone yesterday say that Biden is allowing illegal immigrants to flood the border as an attempt to lower wages and as such help lower inflation.  I'd like to think that isn't true, as it would be quite... Machiavellian?  But I'll admit, the seeming willingness to let them in and let them stay has always been a headscratcher to me, as I just didn't understand the reasoning.  This at least would be a reason.   

[Ron_Artest 682]

28 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I heard someone yesterday say that Biden is allowing illegal immigrants to flood the border as an attempt to lower wages and as such help lower inflation.  I'd like to think that isn't true, as it would be quite... Machiavellian?  But I'll admit, the seeming willingness to let them in and let them stay has always been a headscratcher to me, as I just didn't understand the reasoning.  This at least would be a reason.   

Hogwash.

There are a few main reasons why Biden is letting in a large number of immigrants.  First and foremost they are there and want to come in, and Biden believes in the idea of America and our long history of supporting immigration.  Politically he doesn't want to make any draconian measures for fear of disappointing his base.  Rather he tried to go through Congress to help but trump blocked it, forcing him to either let the flow continue or to take drastic steps to shut everything down, being subject to litigation by his own base.

It's not some nefarious act to bring in voters or workers, it's political weakness.

[The Real timschochet 2,955]

On 4/10/2024 at 12:17 PM, jerryskids said:

So much wrong in this post... and the moment you blame climate change, you establish yourself as an unserious poster.

Did you ever listen to that Freakonomics pod series?  The third part is about Canada, quite interesting.  Canada is something of a harbinger of what's to come from us -- I admit that I never quite internalized the labor shortage you often mention, but the issue is that they (and we) have committed to their people a humongous amount of free stuff in the way of entitlements, health care, etc., and they need people to pay that bill.  I'd rather, I dunno, re-introduce the importance of family to our culture as a solution, but that's just me.

Anyway, back to Canada -- they let in a lot more immigrants than we do (legally), but the difference is that their system has much more of an education/economy focus, vs. ours which is primarily family-focused based on loopholes in the 1965 immigration act.  So in Canada, if you can show you contribute to the economy, or practice medicine, come on in$#@!  But claim you have family there but nothing to contribute... good luck with that.

This is a very depressing response. Especially when you claim that bringing up climate change makes “an unserious poster.” There is no more serious issue that we face, and it’s the main driving force for migration from Latin America to here. 

[jerryskids 5,212]

1 hour ago, Ron_Artest said:

Hogwash.

There are a few main reasons why Biden is letting in a large number of immigrants.  First and foremost they are there and want to come in, and Biden believes in the idea of America and our long history of supporting immigration.  Politically he doesn't want to make any draconian measures for fear of disappointing his base.  Rather he tried to go through Congress to help but trump blocked it, forcing him to either let the flow continue or to take drastic steps to shut everything down, being subject to litigation by his own base.

It's not some nefarious act to bring in voters or workers, it's political weakness.

Hogwash.

We have a long history of supporting controlled immigration of white protestants from Britain and Germany.  In the early 1900s we started letting in Poles, Italians (both Catholics) and Jews, and people didn't like it so they change the rules.  Listen to that podcast I recommended if you want to learn the history.

[jerryskids 5,212]

59 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

This is a very depressing response. Especially when you claim that bringing up climate change makes “an unserious poster.” There is no more serious issue that we face, and it’s the main driving force for migration from Latin America to here. 

Sorry, you aren't a serious poster.  The main driving force for migration from Latin America to here is that Joe Biden put a big "Come in, we're Open!" sign on the door.  

Climate change is a catch-all devil that climate cultists use to blame everything on.

But I'll humor you for a post or two:  please provide a specific climate phenomenon going on in Latin America that can be directly attributed to climate change and is driving the migration.  Pro tip:  not el nino or la nina.

[Ron_Artest 682]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

Hogwash.

We have a long history of supporting controlled immigration of white protestants from Britain and Germany.  In the early 1900s we started letting in Poles, Italians (both Catholics) and Jews, and people didn't like it so they change the rules.  Listen to that podcast I recommended if you want to learn the history.

I listened to that podcast before you mentioned it here.  What struck me the most about that podcast was the level of disdain people had for immigrants during the world wars, especially Asians, and the parallels to today with the rhetoric of the Latinos poisoning our blood.

Anyways your reply doesn't address anything I said about how Biden is trying to to play this politically.

[jerryskids 5,212]

1 minute ago, Ron_Artest said:

I listened to that podcast before you mentioned it here.  What struck me the most about that podcast was the level of disdain people had for immigrants during the world wars, especially Asians, and the parallels to today with the rhetoric of the Latinos poisoning our blood.

Anyways your reply doesn't address anything I said about how Biden is trying to to play this politically.

True, I didn't want to dilute my message.

I tried to communicate that I really don't believe that is the motivation.  I understand at a certain level that there are people who think it is a good idea to just let everyone in, but I can't wrap my arms around the justification.  

[Hardcore troubadour 12,664]

1 hour ago, Ron_Artest said:

Hogwash.

There are a few main reasons why Biden is letting in a large number of immigrants.  First and foremost they are there and want to come in, and Biden believes in the idea of America and our long history of supporting immigration.  Politically he doesn't want to make any draconian measures for fear of disappointing his base.  Rather he tried to go through Congress to help but trump blocked it, forcing him to either let the flow continue or to take drastic steps to shut everything down, being subject to litigation by his own base.

It's not some nefarious act to bring in voters or workers, it's political weakness.

Buy they will be counted in the census. Are you denying there isn’t a political advantage to that, considering where the bulk of them are going? 

[The Real timschochet 2,955]

7 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Sorry, you aren't a serious poster.  The main driving force for migration from Latin America to here is that Joe Biden put a big "Come in, we're Open!" sign on the door.  

Climate change is a catch-all devil that climate cultists use to blame everything on.

But I'll humor you for a post or two:  please provide a specific climate phenomenon going on in Latin America that can be directly attributed to climate change and is driving the migration.  Pro tip:  not el nino or la nina.

Where to even start? 
 

https://www.caf.com/en/currently/news/2023/12/climate-change-worsens-the-migration-crisis-in-latin-america-and-the-caribbean/#:~:text=By 2050%2C the most pessimistic,Caribbean%2C according to the WMO.
 

https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2023/12/08/cf-how-climate-shocks-are-linked-to-cross-border-migration-in-latin-america-and-the-caribbean
 

https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/983921522304806221/pdf/124724-BRI-PUBLIC-NEWSERIES-Groundswell-note-PN3.pdf
 

This has nothing to do with Biden’s supposed “open door” policy which doesn’t even exist anyhow. 99% of the folks coming here pay no attention to Biden whatsoever, could tell you nothing about him and don’t care. They’re completely disinterested. They’re coming for reasons that have NOTHING to do with our polices at the border. 
And no matter what we do more are coming because the main issues are not being confronted. 

[The Real timschochet 2,955]

When you read those articles you might want to pay special attention to the effects of climate change on corn and bean production, the two main crops in much of Latin America. 

In basic terms what’s happening is the changing weather patterns are creating crop shortages which drives rural people into the big cities: internal migration. This creates shortages and poverty and leads to external migration. We’re only getting a very small portion of the influx so far. But it’s going to explode. 

[Fireballer 2,385]

6 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

When you read those articles you might want to pay special attention to the effects of climate change on corn and bean production, the two main crops in much of Latin America. 

In basic terms what’s happening is the changing weather patterns are creating crop shortages which drives rural people into the big cities: internal migration. This creates shortages and poverty and leads to external migration. We’re only getting a very small portion of the influx so far. But it’s going to explode. 

What is occurring with the internal migration patterns of US citizens? Our rural people are impacted also, no?

[The Real timschochet 2,955]

8 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

What is occurring with the internal migration patterns of US citizens? Our rural people are impacted also, no?

Much more slowly. 

[jerryskids 5,212]

17 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Where to even start? 
 

https://www.caf.com/en/currently/news/2023/12/climate-change-worsens-the-migration-crisis-in-latin-america-and-the-caribbean/#:~:text=By 2050%2C the most pessimistic,Caribbean%2C according to the WMO.
 

https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2023/12/08/cf-how-climate-shocks-are-linked-to-cross-border-migration-in-latin-america-and-the-caribbean
 

https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/983921522304806221/pdf/124724-BRI-PUBLIC-NEWSERIES-Groundswell-note-PN3.pdf
 

This has nothing to do with Biden’s supposed “open door” policy which doesn’t even exist anyhow. 99% of the folks coming here pay no attention to Biden whatsoever, could tell you nothing about him and don’t care. They’re completely disinterested. They’re coming for reasons that have NOTHING to do with our polices at the border. 
And no matter what we do more are coming because the main issues are not being confronted. 

It has everything to do with Biden's policies, or the perception of them in Latin America.  Your own references state that most of the migration is internal; this external flood is new.

Anyway, back to your references, thanks.  The first is a fluff piece by a Climate Cult committee.  The second one is interesting; it links to a more scientific report which correlates migration to natural disasters.  It doesn't actually describe the disasters (on my quick scan anyway, could have missed id), but taking it at face value, there appears to be a correlation between such disasters and migration.  Which is not surprising.  You and the report authors, being in the Climate Cult, blame all adverse weather events on your devil, and I won't convince you otherwise, so I'll leave you to it and let you believe that climate change is the reason millions of people are flooding our border.

 

[listen2me 23 1,546]

15 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

When you read those articles you might want to pay special attention to the effects of climate change on corn and bean production, the two main crops in much of Latin America. 

In basic terms what’s happening is the changing weather patterns are creating crop shortages which drives rural people into the big cities: internal migration. This creates shortages and poverty and leads to external migration. We’re only getting a very small portion of the influx so far. But it’s going to explode. 

So in time what you are saying is us Americans will flood Canada as climate change sets in?  

[listen2me 23 1,546]

A lot of these illegals are surly farmers who no longer can grow corn.  Its clear as day!

[listen2me 23 1,546]

Its all messicans who were farmers. 

Nevermind all the people from random countries that show up at the door.  

[The Real timschochet 2,955]

53 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

It has everything to do with Biden's policies, or the perception of them in Latin America.  Your own references state that most of the migration is internal; this external flood is new.

Anyway, back to your references, thanks.  The first is a fluff piece by a Climate Cult committee.  The second one is interesting; it links to a more scientific report which correlates migration to natural disasters.  It doesn't actually describe the disasters (on my quick scan anyway, could have missed id), but taking it at face value, there appears to be a correlation between such disasters and migration.  Which is not surprising.  You and the report authors, being in the Climate Cult, blame all adverse weather events on your devil, and I won't convince you otherwise, so I'll leave you to it and let you believe that climate change is the reason millions of people are flooding our border.

 

There is no climate cult. And the rest of your post is just as wrong. 

[The Real timschochet 2,955]

53 minutes ago, listen2me 23 said:

So in time what you are saying is us Americans will flood Canada as climate change sets in?  

It’s so ironic that I’m the one called unserious in this thread. 

[Fireballer 2,385]

13 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

It’s so ironic that I’m the one called unserious in this thread. 

Why wouldn’t we flee to Canada?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,664]

1 hour ago, listen2me 23 said:

A lot of these illegals are surly farmers who no longer can grow corn.  Its clear as day!

They are so thin when they get here. Famished. Tattered clothes. No shoes. Outdated smart phones. 

[The Real timschochet 2,955]

5 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

Why wouldn’t we flee to Canada?

Because we are a wealthy nation. Wealthy nations can sustain economic problems. Poverty stricken nations can’t. 
So basic. I can’t believe you even asked the question. 

[jerryskids 5,212]

19 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

There is no climate cult. And the rest of your post is just as wrong. 

There absolutely is a climate cult.  I'm not saying everyone who believes in climate change is in it; heck, I think we have been pretty crappy stewards of this earth.  Then again, I believe in natural gas as a stopgap as we up our nuclear energy game, but then again I want to actually address the issue.

You see Tim, people need a religion, some higher purpose to believe in.  As belief in God wanes, many of those folks are flocking to Gaia and the climate.

This is a very interesting read.

Quote

Traditional religion is having a tough time in parts of the world. Majorities in most European countries have told Gallup pollsters in the last few years that religion does not “occupy an important place” in their lives. Across Europe, Judeo-Christian church attendance is down, as is adherence to religious prohibitions such as those against out-of-wedlock births. And while Americans remain, on average, much more devout than Europeans, there are demographic and regional pockets in this country that resemble Europe in their religious beliefs and practices.

The rejection of traditional religion in these quarters has created a vacuum unlikely to go unfilled; human nature seems to demand a search for order and meaning, and nowadays there is no shortage of options on the menu of belief. Some searchers syncretize Judeo-Christian theology with Eastern or New Age spiritualism. Others seek through science the ultimate answers of our origins, or dream of high-tech transcendence by merging with machines — either approach depending not on rationalism alone but on a faith in the goodness of what rationalism can offer.

For some individuals and societies, the role of religion seems increasingly to be filled by environmentalism. It has become “the religion of choice for urban atheists,” according to Michael Crichton, the late science fiction writer (and climate change skeptic). In a widely quoted 2003 speech, Crichton outlined the ways that environmentalism “remaps” Judeo-Christian beliefs:

There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

In parts of northern Europe, this new faith is now the mainstream. “Denmark and Sweden float along like small, content, durable dinghies of secular life, where most people are nonreligious and don’t worship Jesus or Vishnu, don’t revere sacred texts, don’t pray, and don’t give much credence to the essential dogmas of the world’s great faiths,” observes Phil Zuckerman in his 2008 book Society without God. Instead, he writes, these places have become “clean and green.” This new faith has very concrete policy implications; the countries where it has the most purchase tend also to have instituted policies that climate activists endorse. To better understand the future of climate policy, we must understand where “ecotheology” has come from and where it is likely to lead.

 

From Theology to Ecotheology

The German zoologist Ernst Haeckel coined the word “ecology” in the nineteenth century to describe the study of “all those complex mutual relationships” in nature that “Darwin has shown are the conditions of the struggle for existence.” Of course, mankind has been closely studying nature since the dawn of time. Stone Age religion aided mankind’s first ecological investigation of natural reality, serving as an essential guide for understanding and ordering the environment; it was through story and myth that prehistoric man interpreted the natural world and made sense of it. Survival required knowing how to relate to food species like bison and fish, dangerous predators like bears, and powerful geological forces like volcanoes — and the rise of agriculture required expertise in the seasonal cycles upon which the sustenance of civilization depends.

Our uniquely Western approach to the natural world was shaped fundamentally by Athens and Jerusalem. The ancient Greeks began a systematic philosophical observation of flora and fauna; from their work grew the long study of natural history. Meanwhile, the Judeo-Christian teachings about the natural world begin with the beginning: there is but one God, which means that there is a knowable order to nature; He created man in His image, which gives man an elevated place in that order; and He gave man mastery over the natural world:

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. [Genesis 1:28-29]

In his seminal essay “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis,” published in Science magazine in 1967, historian Lynn Townsend White, Jr. argues that those Biblical precepts made Christianity, “especially in its Western form,” the “most anthropocentric religion the world has seen.” In stark contrast to pagan animism, Christianity posited “a dualism of man and nature” and “insisted that it is God’s will that man exploit nature for his proper ends.” Whereas older pagan creeds gave a cyclical account of time, Christianity presumed a teleological direction to history, and with it the possibility of progress. This belief in progress was inherent in modern science, which, wedded to technology, made possible the Industrial Revolution. Thus was the power to control nature achieved by a civilization that had inherited the license to exploit it.

To White, this was not a positive historical development. Writing just a few years after the publication of Rachel Carson’s eco-blockbuster Silent Spring, White shared in the concern over techno-industrial culture’s destruction of nature. Whatever benefit scientific and technological innovation had brought mankind was eclipsed by the “out of control” extraction and processing powers of industrial life and the mechanical degradation of the earth. Christianity, writes White, “bears a huge burden of guilt” for the destruction of the environment.

White believed that science and technology could not solve the ecological problems they had created; our anthropocentric Christian heritage is too deeply ingrained. “Despite Copernicus, all the cosmos rotates around our little globe. Despite Darwin, we are not, in our hearts, part of the natural process. We are superior to nature, contemptuous of it, willing to use it for our slightest whim.” But White was not entirely without hope. Even though “no new set of basic values” will “displace those of Christianity,” perhaps Christianity itself can be reconceived. “Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious.” And so White suggests as a model Saint Francis, “the greatest spiritual revolutionary in Western history.” Francis should have been burned as a heretic, White writes, for trying “to substitute the idea of the equality of all creatures, including man, for the idea of man’s limitless rule of creation.” Even though Francis failed to turn Christianity toward his vision of radical humility, White argued that something similar to that vision is necessary to save the world in our time.

White’s essay caused a splash, to say the least, becoming the basis for countless conferences, symposia, and debates. One of the most serious critiques of White’s thesis appears in theologian Richard John Neuhaus’s 1971 book In Defense of People, a broad indictment of the rise of the mellifluous “theology of ecology.” Neuhaus argues that our framework of human rights is built upon the Christian understanding of man’s relationship to nature. Overturning the latter, as White hoped would happen, will bring the former crashing down. And Neuhaus makes the case that White misunderstands his own nominee for an ecological patron saint:

What is underemphasized by White and others, and what was so impressive in Francis, is the unremitting focus on the glory of the Creator. Francis’ line of accountability drove straight to the Father and not to Mother Nature. Francis was accountable for nature but to God. Francis is almost everyone’s favorite saint and the gentle compassion of his encompassing vision is, viewed selectively, susceptible to almost any argument or mood…. It was not the claims of creation but the claims of the Creator that seized Francis.

Other Christian writers joined Neuhaus in condemning the eco-movement’s attempt to subvert or supplant their religion. “We too want to clean up pollution in nature,” Christianity Today demurred, “but not by polluting men’s souls with a revived paganism.” The Jesuit magazine America called environmentalism “an American heresy.” The theologian Thomas Sieger Derr lamented “an expressed preference for the preservation of nonhuman nature against human needs wherever it is necessary to choose.” (Stephen R. Fox recounts these responses in his 1981 book John Muir and His Legacy: The American Conservation Movement.)

...

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/environmentalism-as-religion

There is more in the link; I won't paste the entire thing.

[double tour 82]

7 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Because we are a wealthy nation. Wealthy nations can sustain economic problems. Poverty stricken nations can’t. 
So basic. I can’t believe you even asked the question. 

Illegals should be deported and the border should be locked down by the military. 

[The Real timschochet 2,955]

2 minutes ago, double tour said:

Illegals should be deported and the border should be locked down by the military. 

Non thinking response. 

[double tour 82]

9 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Non thinking response. 

No need to put too much thought into intelligent solutions. Your small mind thinking destroys countries. You vote for death and destruction through illegal onslaught. 

 

[Fireballer 2,385]

30 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Because we are a wealthy nation. Wealthy nations can sustain economic problems. Poverty stricken nations can’t. 
So basic. I can’t believe you even asked the question. 

 So if we just give their governments money, will they stay there?