Justify This Rwanda Thing From A Non-Religious Angle

[fiveleaves]

Not interested in party politics, but want to hear want the non religious think. Is there any ethical argument or morality in secularism or humanism that could justify this proposal?
I know what the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks and for the record I agree with him. Dont bring God into it I want to hear the secular and humanist arguments

[fiveleaves]

Tora- Yes my question was aimed at atheists and also those with secular and humanist outlooks. You dont have to be religious to have morals is exactly what I am getting at

[naomi24]

Fiveleaves, no I don’t agree with Dave - but I did ask you a question. Would you answer it please?

[webbo3]

To those who say its no safe.

https://www.unhcr.org/uk/news/press/2019/11/5ddbd69b4/third-group-refugees-evacuated-rwanda-libya-unhcr-support.html

[Mozz71]

Fiveleaves, I don't think any sane person would agree with Davebro on that one.

[Old_Geezer]

Common sense attempts to solve a multifaceted problem doesn't need justifying. Attempts to smear it with nonsense in order to retain the problem, does.

[fiveleaves]

Naomi, I did, morals do come into it. See my reply to Tora for my own position.

[bobbinwales]

fiveleaves... these people are coming from a safe country (France) and are for some reasons risking there lives making a dangerous crossing, maybe because they've been spun a tale of free accomadation and jobs or money.

Anything that might discourage them and stop the trade in traficking has to be a good thing, no?

Unless your happy seeing many drown on route as happen's now

[HongKongphooey]

I understand we have to take a certain amount of immigrants, the sheer numbers that are coming across on boats is colossal and our health service, education and housing on our island nation cant cope. (A new housing estate a few roads away has social housing and the majority housed there are Polish, African nations, Phillipino not UK families.) If they are asylum seekers why don't they stop at the 1st safe country they enter? Because they want all the things UK citizens get access to. Having said that I don't think sending asylum seekers to Rwanda will work, and smacks of desperation by Priti Patel. Either the chosen few will abscond and disappear before they are sent or there will be so many legal challenges it will never happen.

[davebro]

//Fiveleaves, I don't think any sane person would agree with Davebro on that one.//

Not too sure about that! Seems like NJ was proposing something similar.

[Mozz71]

//Not too sure about that! Seems like NJ was proposing something similar.//

Doesn't change my opinion. I seriously wonder about the marbles of anyone who'd rather let people die before helping them somehow.

[naomi24]

Fiveleaves, I read you response to TTT and it gives me the impression that you see nothing wrong with thousands of people entering a country illegally for the sole purpose of improving their lot in life, and think those who do it should meet no resistance, but instead receive an altruistic welcome. If that’s so I suggest you examine your morals, fiveleaves, because from where I’m sitting they’re well and truly on the wonk.

[davebro]

//I seriously wonder about the marbles of anyone who'd rather let people die before helping them somehow.//

In French - pour encourage les autres!

[davebro]

//Common sense attempts to solve a multifaceted problem doesn't need justifying. //

It doesn't need to be multifaceted. Stop them crossing the channel - single solution.

[fiveleaves]

Naomi, I was stating my morals from my Christian. You are reading a lot of other stuff into what I said, but fine if that's your opinion.
I dont agree with you about your economic migrants claims, but you probably expect me to say that. Your posts tell me a lot about you. We are not likely to agree on very much, but that's life.

[Atheist]

fiveleaves 17:35.
The golden rule is not a uniquely christian idea, it's very ancient and comes from the innate values that human beings have acquired from many thousands of years of evolution.
Humans have offspring which are born early and only thrive if their parents devote much time to protection and teaching; because of this we find that little creatures with cute faces, big eyes, dependent imploring faces, are attractive (so we feel affection for puppies, baby seals, kittens etc). Not everyone is seduced by this, and so we also have other chracteristics such as 'look after number one', our tribe is the one we have to support at all costs, and so on. We are complex and have urges which pull in different directions. It's all evident here on AB.

[nailit]

I certainly wouldnt wish them death.

[Atheist]

How odd. I find myself more on the side of fiveleaves than some of the others here, despite my nickname. He/she has been more polite/reasonable in his/her posts than some.

[davebro]

//I certainly wouldn't wish them death.//

No one would - but that's what they are risking & the risk needs to brought home to them in no uncertain terms. The alternative is to accept them, care for them until they can find useful employment & be happy with the overcrowding and cultural changes to our country that will result.

[fiveleaves]

Atheist, I wish others thread on this were as sensible and reasonable as you.
I am not seeing much evidence of the innate nature of humans honed by thousands of years of evolution being displayed here.
I am aware that variations of the Golden Rule crop up in other religions and philosophies. Good

[Mozz71]

Dave, it's "encourager".

I'm sure many a totalitarian regime has tried to justify their actions with such a turn of phrase before.