America's 'soul' at risk over immigration, Archbishop Gomez warns

[Elizabeth502]

They guide based on a ‘spiritual correctness.’

I beg to differ on how well-thought some of their statements are, relative to the Church’s entire social justice doctrine (spiritual correctness). (See my recent post on previous page.)

 

[Ridgerunner]

A valid reason to be for immigration is the Gospels, and the guidance from the men of the Church, in my opinion. They aren’t politically motivated. They guide based on a ‘spiritual correctness.’

And they provide exactly what remedies, what programs? Truth is, they provide none. I don’t think many Americans oppose immigration as such; even greater immigration. The problems arise in the specific proposals or the paralysis (and defiance of law) arising from the fact that there are no widely acceptable proposals.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Unacceptable? Romney was pretty close to the kind of person you describe above. But he didn’t win. An unbending radical won. So what is Obama really willing to give up as regards abortion and homosexual “marriage” and oppression of the Church? When has he ever given the least persuasive indication that he would? When did he “put abortion on the table” with the Repubs?

Back in the “bipartisan” talks about Obamacare, he was very clear that he wouldn’t give an inch on anything at all…not even additions to his program. Why should anybody think the man would yield on things of greater import?

It’s not about who won, it’s about who lost and why. The republicans did not give on any issue in the interest of attracting a larger bloc of voters, and they were supported, or not, along party lines.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And they provide exactly what remedies, what programs? Truth is, they provide none. I don’t think many Americans oppose immigration as such; even greater immigration. The problems arise in the specific proposals or the paralysis (and defiance of law) arising from the fact that there are no widely acceptable proposals.

The proposals for lesser issues does not equate to the greater issues, so the remedies of the lesser issues could have been modified, but those views on those issues stood in the way because of the lack of a willingness to negotiate for the sake of the greater issues. That affirms the suspicions that the greater issues were used for the sake of maintaining the lesser issues. We’ve got to quit pointing fingers at the two sides, and demand more of those that will represent the issues we hold more important, and give on those issues we call the ‘lesser’ issues.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s not about who won, it’s about who lost and why. The republicans did not give on any issue in the interest of attracting a larger bloc of voters, and they were supported, or not, along party lines.

I think the clear consensus of opinion is that Romney lost because not all conservatives got out and voted for him. Had they done so in the same numbers as they did for Bush, the numbers indicate he would have won.

Now, one could wag one’s finger at those who did not get out and vote for him as being “unbending”. And that might be right. A lot of the Ron Paul types probably didn’t, but because they were “unbending” in ways having nothing to do with abortion or immigration. That way of thinking was mightily encouraged by the Democrats. We saw that on here, even. But I don’t think anybody really knows the breakdown.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The proposals for lesser issues does not equate to the greater issues, so the remedies of the lesser issues could have been modified, but those views on those issues stood in the way because of the lack of a willingness to negotiate for the sake of the greater issues. That affirms the suspicions that the greater issues were used for the sake of maintaining the lesser issues. We’ve got to quit pointing fingers at the two sides, and demand more of those that will represent the issues we hold more important, and give on those issues we call the ‘lesser’ issues.

I will never cease to point my finger at a party that actively promotes abortion and the degradation of marriage by equating it with sexual perversion. Nor will I cease pointing my finger at a party that forces Church institutions to provide contraceptive and abortifacient coverage against conscience, including orders of nuns whom this pagan government is forcing to provide those things for themselves or pay ruinous fines.

At some point, we really do need to face the realities and stop equating minor fussing points with massive evils in order to make the evils look like minor fussing points in a high school debate. The present parties are nowhere near equivalent in promoting evil, and one has to be self-blinding not to see it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I think the clear consensus of opinion is that Romney lost because not all conservatives got out and voted for him. Had they done so in the same numbers as they did for Bush, the numbers indicate he would have won.

Now, one could wag one’s finger at those who did not get out and vote for him as being “unbending”. And that might be right. A lot of the Ron Paul types probably didn’t, but because they were “unbending” in ways having nothing to do with abortion or immigration. That way of thinking was mightily encouraged by the Democrats. We saw that on here, even. But I don’t think anybody really knows the breakdown.

What reasons did people sit it out, or refuse to support the candidate?

Nobody does really know the breakdown. Since the election some republicans have identified some of the problems and have been immediately dismissed, cast aside, and spoken of being as republican in name only. Again, this shows the other issues were not something some were not willing to give on.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I will never cease to point my finger at a party that actively promotes abortion and the degradation of marriage by equating it with sexual perversion. Nor will I cease pointing my finger at a party that forces Church institutions to provide contraceptive and abortifacient coverage against conscience, including orders of nuns whom this pagan government is forcing to provide those things for themselves or pay ruinous fines.

At some point, we really do need to face the realities and stop equating minor fussing points with massive evils in order to make the evils look like minor fussing points in a high school debate. The present parties are nowhere near equivalent in promoting evil, and one has to be self-blinding not to see it.

We can continue pointing a finger, but we cannot overlook possible solutions. We know the ‘minor fussing points’ is something the majority, whether partially or in whole, also had concerns with. It seems that the ‘minor fussing points’ is something we could have supported in a way that it would have been in the interest of the non-negotiable issues, if indeed they were truly ‘minor fussing points.’

 

[twoshoes]

That has gotten to be one of the least logical arguments I have seen. It is akin to, “Black people run prostitution and dope. If you ever hired a black person you created this condition.”

Your analogy has conpletely escaped me. How does you statement " Black people run prostitution and dope" any way have to do with girls and women being sold into sex trade by people who deal in human trafficking. Or people in the country illegally being force into slave labor by growers with only profit in mind who do they complain to. Please expand on this logic.

If you hire an illegal at below minimum wage you have not only taken a person who is in the low wage market out of competition you have also broken the law why hire at minium wage when you can get a body cheaper. You also encourage others to follow into the country because of the demand for this low wage. and you have increased demand for that job making sure that job will never rise above minimum wage.

 

[pnewton]

Your analogy has conpletely escaped me…

As did your logic.

 

[Ridgerunner]

What reasons did people sit it out, or refuse to support the candidate?

Nobody does really know the breakdown. Since the election some republicans have identified some of the problems and have been immediately dismissed, cast aside, and spoken of being as republican in name only. Again, this shows the other issues were not something some were not willing to give on.

I said I don’t think anybody knows for sure why a lot of conservatives did not vote last time. I simply remarked that there was certainly a “Ron Paul or nothing” movement among some Repubs. There were even Paul supporters on here who opined that if Paul wasn’t nominated, they would sit it out, believing it would get so bad under Obama that people would finally elect a “true” conservative as they saw one. Such people did not think Romney was sufficiently conservative to suit them. Not a wise attitude in my opinion, and I’m sure you saw me here on CAF saying so. But a lot of Paul people could not be moved by anything. You know that. Ron Paul was Romney’s “Ross Perot”.

I don’t know which commentators were dismissed, cast aside, etc, or for what. All I know is that the conservative vote did not turn out in full, and that’s well established. There was a lot of speculation about the “reasons” before that became clear.

 

[Ridgerunner]

We can continue pointing a finger, but we cannot overlook possible solutions. We know the ‘minor fussing points’ is something the majority, whether partially or in whole, also had concerns with. It seems that the ‘minor fussing points’ is something we could have supported in a way that it would have been in the interest of the non-negotiable issues, if indeed they were truly ‘minor fussing points.’

The solution to evil in power is to extricate it from power.

I will agree that “minor fussing points” (the Paul points…abolishing the Fed, gold standard, etc, along with some others) likely made the result what it was. But those were not points the Dems feared in the least or would have given a nickel to compromise. In fact, they encouraged people like the Paul supporters (and some others) to rebel and either not vote or vote Paul or whomever. You did some of that yourself, speaking often in favor of not voting if one did not think Romney sufficiently reliable; too “squishy”, etc. A smart strategy for Democrats. Hard to know whether such encouragement by Democrats confirmed any in their resolve, but it seems to have been intended to have that effect.

And when did Obama ever say he would give on abortion and the profanation of marriage if Repubs would give in on higher taxes or amnesty or “cap and trade” or any of his other plans for this country? Truth is, he never made any kind of offer like that, and he never will.

Obama’s message to this country is the one he delivered at Notre Dame: “Abortion is off the table, now what of my other programs can we work together on?”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The solution to evil in power is to extricate it from power.

I will agree that “minor fussing points” (the Paul points…abolishing the Fed, gold standard, etc, along with some others) likely made the result what it was. But those were not points the Dems feared in the least or would have given a nickel to compromise. In fact, they encouraged people like the Paul supporters (and some others) to rebel and either not vote or vote Paul or whomever. You did some of that yourself, speaking often in favor of not voting if one did not think Romney sufficiently reliable; too “squishy”, etc. A smart strategy for Democrats. Hard to know whether such encouragement by Democrats confirmed any in their resolve, but it seems to have been intended to have that effect.

And nothing changes…

The lesser issues were upheld and the major issues continued.

 

[Ridgerunner]

And nothing changes…

The lesser issues were upheld and the major issues continued.

Among some few, that’s correct. Some preferred to help Obama, believing it would cause such widespread repugnance that their whole worldview would ultimately be adopted.

Bad thinking, and I said so, repeatedly, at the time. And I said it as well regarding those who wouldn’t vote against Obama on the ostensible grounds that they didn’t think Romney sufficiently reliable to oppose abortion despite his words and his utter dependence on a prolife base. And I believe it still. Both that and the “gold standard or nothing” reasoning put abortion and the degradation of marriage back in power. And no caviling about “compromising” with Obama will change that responsibility or the falseness of the “let’s compromise” message.

Obama offers no compromise on abortion and homosexual “marriage”. Never has, never will.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Both that and the “gold standard or nothing” reasoning put abortion and the degradation of marriage back in power.

That’s right. Catholics are implicated in the results.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Among some few, that’s correct. Some preferred to help Obama, believing it would cause such widespread repugnance that their whole worldview would ultimately be adopted.

Bad thinking, and I said so, repeatedly, at the time. And I said it as well regarding those who wouldn’t vote against Obama on the ostensible grounds that they didn’t think Romney sufficiently reliable to oppose abortion despite his words and his utter dependence on a prolife base. And I believe it still. Both that and the “gold standard or nothing” reasoning put abortion and the degradation of marriage back in power. And no caviling about “compromising” with Obama will change that responsibility or the falseness of the “let’s compromise” message.

Obama offers no compromise on abortion and homosexual “marriage”. Never has, never will.

I understand, and still think that compromise could have been on the other side in the interest of those important issues. The lack of compromise was interpreted as a great importance on all issues. It was not a one sided affair, and never is in politics.

With all that being said, ‘I believe the republicans will take different views of issues like immigration.’ Sadly, there are some discussing moderation on other issues that we call important issues; more important than any other issue. These differences show political maneuvering over conviction, in my opinion. Again, it’s not one sided, all politicians do it. It should become obvious at some point in time.

We know the outcome of the election, and the numbers that voted which way. We can stand on all issues and see it repeated, or we can find middle ground on the lesser issues, in the interest of the important issues and see if the numbers remain the same.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That’s right. Catholics are implicated in the results.

Catholics are also implicated by standing firm on the lesser issues.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

A valid reason to be for immigration is the Gospels, and the guidance from the men of the Church, in my opinion. They aren’t politically motivated. They guide based on a ‘spiritual correctness.’

Can we stop with “I’m for immigration because of the Gospels” meme that pervades this topic?

I’m for immigration because of the Gospels, common sense, and the principles our country was founded on.

What I am not for is unfettered immigration, undocumented immigratiobn, corporations taking advantages of unskilled labor, corporations and workers skirting tax laws, plans that bloat an already unmanageable national debt, open borders, and increased threats to national security and sovereignty.

You can be pro-immigration and pro-Gospel message and not for the things I listed.

I find it interesting as well that on the one hand we are told that Christ’s message must shine forth on issues like immigration, while at the same time being told by many on this board and in society that not everyone in the country is Christian, that we are a secular nation, and as such we cannot impose Christian values into our legal system or the way we govern.

Not only is that untrue, that’s exactly what using the Gospels to justify a position like immigration is doing.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Can we stop with “I’m for immigration because of the Gospels” meme that pervades this topic?

I’m for immigration because of the Gospels, common sense, and the principles our country was founded on.

What I am not for is unfettered immigration, undocumented immigratiobn, corporations taking advantages of unskilled labor, corporations and workers skirting tax laws, plans that bloat an already unmanageable national debt, open borders, and increased threats to national security and sovereignty.

You can be pro-immigration and pro-Gospel message and not for the things I listed.

I find it interesting as well that on the one hand we are told that Christ’s message must shine forth on issues like immigration, while at the same time being told by many on this board and in society that not everyone in the country is Christian, that we are a secular nation, and as such we cannot impose Christian values into our legal system or the way we govern.

Not only is that untrue, that’s exactly what using the Gospels to justify a position like immigration is doing.

I disagree and everything I have said is truly what I believe. That’s why I agree with the Archbishop, and other men of the Church that have spoken for immigration reform. I try to apply the Gospels to every aspect of my life in this world, and will continue to do so.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

I disagree and everything I have said is truly what I believe. That’s why I agree with the Archbishop, and other men of the Church that have spoken for immigration reform. I try to apply the Gospels to every aspect of my life in this world, and will continue to do so.

That’s great. Without anys specifics, we can say whatever we want and never be called to account for the details.

I too try to apply the Gospels to every aspect of my life, and will continue to do so. And we can both say so, since to claim so without specifics is to make the statement unchallengeable.

I suspect most people on this website try to do the same, and yet, they disagree on how to handle this issue and many others.