Cardinal Mahony compares Arizona immigration bill to Nazism, Communism [CWN]

[livnlern]

Does it seem to anybody ironic that the state of Arizona recently legalized concealed carry without a permit? So you now need identity papers to walk around, but not to add a gun to your walking around.

To me this says that the people of Arizona don’t feel safe. They probably don’t feel like the authorities are watching out for them so they’re willing to take things into their own hands. I’m not saying whether this is right or wrong.
Have you been to Arizona? I’ve been through a lot of the state and many parts of it are pretty remote, especially in the southern part. I can see where the illegals can slip right in across the border. I’m sorry that they’re poor and that their government does such a bad job of handling their economy but people here have to be able to protect what is theirs.

 

[gakroeger]

To me this says that the people of Arizona don’t feel safe. They probably don’t feel like the authorities are watching out for them so they’re willing to take things into their own hands. I’m not saying whether this is right or wrong.
Have you been to Arizona? I’ve been through a lot of the state and many parts of it are pretty remote, especially in the southern part. I can see where the illegals can slip right in across the border. I’m sorry that they’re poor and that their government does such a bad job of handling their economy but people here have to be able to protect what is theirs.

I think livnlern hit the nail on the head. Sorry situation; because the federal government has shirked their responsibility of law enforcement of immigration laws (supposedly because of humanitarian reasons) law abiding citizens and law makers of Arizona must now over reach in law making to compensate for the lax enforcement by the feds. There should be a lesson here. If laws are not going to be enforced they should be eliminated or replaced. Now what needs to happen is we replace those in the federal government that allowed this situation to occur in the first place. Lest anyone think I am pointing only to democrats, McCain should be one of the first to go.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles has offered strong criticism …(blah,blah)

Consider the source. That speaks for itself.

 

[Lujack]

First off all it made no determination about the fetus as life or no life. But that does not matter—because govt cannot regulate there! Start a new thread my friend, we can debate all day long.

The Church holds that it is self-evident that the fetus is alive. If we belief that it is self-evident that the fetus is alive, we must therefore demand for the fetus to be recognized as a life. What if the ruling applied to infants and not babies?

No, it said that the govt cannot use its police power to address the problem in certain cases. Govt can do other things if it desires and the Court developed that in Casey.

So if someone was killing infants, would you take the same line?

A catholic does not, but a catholic, that is also an American citizen values the policy of limited govt.

You would put limited government on a higher plane than the death of infants?

Fine, be legal pro-life—it is a reasonable position to have—but the counterargument exists.

This poster is not responding any longer to this as it if off topic.

Regards, God Bless

Not for Catholics it doesn’t. And it is interesting that only a few posts ago, you were insisting that it was on topic, and now you’re backing away.

 

[Lujack]

Consider the source. That speaks for itself.

I was taught growing up that no matter how much you disliked a priest, you always maintained respect for the collar. Maybe that sounds silly today, but its still important.

 

[mlund]

This is a matter of Prudential Judgment, not Intrinsic Evil - as defined by the CCC.

Our bishops have the responsibility to enforce Catholic teaching son Intrinsic Evil as it pertains to Catholic lawmakers and other citizens under U.S. law. That is why they have the right - nay - the moral imperative to castigate the likes of Nancy Pelosi and any other “Catholic” politician who enables the taking of innocent human life in the womb.

The same onus and authority does not exist for issues like immigration and border enforcement unless the illegal aliens are being subjected to an intrinsic evil like torture-as-punishment or execution.

The two issues are, theologically, apples and oranges.

So, with all due respect, the good Cardinal is making a bunch of meaningless noise about an issue that he lacks the experience to speak to with authority in the arena of prudential judgments. Perhaps if he were better informed his conscience would compel him to address the heart of the problem - the systemic corruption in Mexico that the unenforced border and illegal alien crisis continues to subsidize and expand. Arguments against forcing illegal aliens that don’t qualify for Sanctuary back into line with those who abide the legal method of applying for citizenship rest on either racist ideology (such as spouted by La Raza) or what Caritas in Veritate calls “Sentiment” - a poor substitute for true Charity devoid of responsible exercise of Reason.

• Marty Lund

 

[LittleSoldier]

Explain the rationale, then. Because the reason you can’t is very simple:

1. To be a Catholic, you must accept the principle that life begins at conception, and that an abortion is the same as the killing of an infant.
2. It would be grossly immoral to support making abortion legal, if you accept the Catholic premise that life begins at conception, which you must in order to be Catholic.
3. Therefore, a Catholic must oppose legal abortion.

Nobody has claimed that the Catholic Church has the authority to order the American government around, but it does have the authority to tell Catholic citizens of the United States what the moral course of action is.

 

[LittleSoldier]

But that is what the Church is trying to do when it says as a Catholic you have to vote always against a pro-choice politician. The voters vote in the govt officials. The Church thinks it can hijack the sacraments in order to tell American Catholics----who are also American citizens------how to vote. This is especially a problem with a two-party system.

The Church is out of line…out of its jurisdiction of authority.

You obviously don’t understand the role of the Church.

Would you please list the sacraments the Church “thinks” it can “hijack in order to tell American Catholics…how to vote?”

And no, this is not off-topic. The role of the Church in the political arena is very much on-topic.

A Catholic can *never *put her membership in the Church aside and become *only *an American citizen. A Catholic is alway a Catholic. And I feel immensely blessed to be one and will *never *refuse to obey the teachings of the Church Jesus founded.

If you put a gun to my head and told me that I had to choose being an “American” citizen over being a Catholic, I would tell you I am a Catholic and to go ahead and shoot me. I honestly don’t think you comprehend the importance of the faith Catholics have.

 

[Worthy5]

So if someone was killing infants, would you take the same line?

Lujack you just cannot stop. We are not talking about infants but the early fetus.

You would put limited government on a higher plane than the death of infants?

The price of a free society. In this society the govt does not get to make every decision. And the death of thee early fetus is on the woman—not on this poster.

Not for Catholics it doesn’t.

You right abortion is not------but what govt role should be is up for debate. You seemed determine to ignore the fact that this is a democratic-republic based on limited powers, not a Theocracy.

And it is interesting that only a few posts ago, you were insisting that it was on topic, and now you’re backing away.

Really, Lujack is that the best you have—silly statements. This thread is on immigration not abortion—but yes it does touch on the Church’s lack on authority on issues of American law. But this is just Mahoney’s opinion, and he certainly can have one.

You want to debate abortion then go to the thread on it—be happy to meet you there.

 

[Worthy5]

LittleSoldier;6557945]You obviously don’t understand the role of the Church.

Would you please list the sacraments the Church “thinks” it can “hijack in order to tell American Catholics…how to vote?”

And no, this is not off-topic. The role of the Church in the political arena is very much on-topic.

A Catholic can *never *put her membership in the Church aside and become *only *an American citizen. A Catholic is alway a Catholic. And I feel immensely blessed to be one and will *never *refuse to obey the teachings of the Church Jesus founded.

If you put a gun to my head and told me that I had to choose being an “American” citizen over being a Catholic, I would tell you I am a Catholic and to go ahead and shoot me. I honestly don’t think you comprehend the importance of the faith Catholics have.

Littlesolider…there is nothing in the " faith" that speaks to how a citizen decides to vote on the role of govt. That is the point. The Church has no authority in this area. (the funding issue aside). A bishop cannot deny a sacrament Christ instituted because of how someone voted or that a politician decides to support a limited govt.

 

[pnewton]

Consider the source. That speaks for itself.

This is the very definition of an ad hominem fallacy; looking only at the source instead of the argument.

 

[Elizabeth502]

This is the very definition of an ad hominem fallacy; looking only at the source instead of the argument.

Um, No. The definition of an ad hominem attack is simply to attack the person. Rather, mine was to consider (wondering if you know what that word “consider” means ) the source. Consider the Source means put it in context: evaluate the words according to the (in this case, extremely poor) history and theology of the person uttering the words. In context, his words “speak for themselves,” given his other words, his many actions and inactions.

 

[pnewton]

Um, No.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument toward the person” or “argument against the person”), is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.

I guess I am just more interested in the topic than the person.

 

[Elizabeth502]

And I’m “more interested” in posters and clergy who use the English language accurately, not inaccurately repeating “definitions” applied in the worng context.

Your “definition” did not, and does not, apply to my post. That being true, I am “interested” in the repetition of Mahoney’s odd view of liturgy, theology, history, and social “justice,” confirming his previous world views. It is just one more way he shows how incomplete his knowledge is in all four areas.

(You’re actually not much interested in discussing content, but in deflecting topic to an ad hominem attack against me, but moving right along…)

This is the same clergyman who oversees the abuses in liturgies such as seen at the recent L.A. religious conference. He has a unique and extreme view of many things. His hyperbolic language which is the subject of the thread is just one of many examples of how he leads emotionally rather than intellectually and spiritually. I attack not the man but his behavior and his words, which are the subject of this thread.

He may be a nice guy; he may be quite well-meaning, but he’s misguided, to say the least. He’s not a credible leader because his actions and his words, over time, are consistently controversial and lack authoritative credibility. His words/actions are the subject of his thread.

 

[pnewton]

You’re actually not much interested in discussing content, but in deflecting topic to an ad hominem attack against me, but moving right along.

Not in the least. My interest is in the immigration issue. You note that I also posted the actual section of the law. I wonder how others would feel if they had to carry identification papers with them or be arrested and detain until we can identify ourselves. That is one element of a totalitarian state, though not exclusive issue.

I understand your point that Cardinal Mahony is also a topic, though not one I am interested in. He is often bashed here. I am no fan of the things that happen in the Diocese of Los Angeles, but I am not comfortable joining in on that part. I am sorry you felt I put you on the defensive. I did not intend to.

 

[AnotherVoice]

Not in the least. My interest is in the immigration issue. You note that I also posted the actual section of the law. I wonder how others would feel if they had to carry identification papers with them or be arrested and detain until we can identify ourselves. That is one element of a totalitarian state, though not exclusive issue.

When I travel outside of the United States I carry my passport with me at all times; I don’t view the countries I visit as totalitarian states even when I am asked to produce identification. I certainly don’t call the lawmakers of those countries Nazis or Communists, they are protecting their borders.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

“Papers, please?” is not a question that ought to be asked on American soil for people who are just traveling. Then, there is one more important point: it is de facto racial profiling. I can guarantee that white-skinned Lujack, speaking with a Northeastern accent, will never be asked for identification under this law.

I saw a Hispanic-American Congressman speaking on TV the other day, he said the same thing - how this is racial profiling, and America shouldn’t engage in racial profiling. My take on the situation, as a first generation immigrant with an extremely heavy accent, is this: although I really enjoy the freedom of living in America and how I’m being left alone by the authorities, I have no problem showing my papers, and I’m more than willing to put up with the inconvenience of any “foreign accent profiling”, or receiving scrutiny on the basis of my Hispanic sounding last name, as long as I’m being treated with respect and courtesy. I felt the same after 9/11. I remember how I enjoyed the simplicity of air travel before 9/11, and how it all changed drastically after the terror attacks. I don’t say it was a pleasure having to show up 3-4 hours before takeoff, for an international travel, and having everything I packed, including my underwear, inspected, but I understood it was necessary. The Security Officers were courteous, and I tried to be as courteous as I could, as well, thus making the most out of an otherwise unpleasant situation for all of us involved. Similarly, if I happen to travel to Arizona (one of my favorite states, with New Mexico), and the Police will stop me, I will not feel offended in the least bit, as long as I am being treated with courtesy. In view of the fact that Arizona is being overrun with illegal aliens, many of whom (17%) have a criminal record, and in view of the recent murder of a rancher in Southeastern Arizona by an illegal alien, I understand that Arizonans need to protect themselves. Since my last name sounds Hispanic, and I speak with an unmistakably foreign accent, I’m a good candidate for “profiling”, and I will not feel offended if that happens. Just treat me with respect, and courtesy, and you will get the same in return.

 

[gakroeger]

I saw a Hispanic-American Congressman speaking on TV the other day, he said the same thing - how this is racial profiling, and America shouldn’t engage in racial profiling. My take on the situation, as a first generation immigrant with an extremely heavy accent, is this: although I really enjoy the freedom of living in America and how I’m being left alone by the authorities, I have no problem showing my papers, and I’m more than willing to put up with the inconvenience of any “foreign accent profiling”, or receiving scrutiny on the basis of my Hispanic sounding last name, as long as I’m being treated with respect and courtesy. I felt the same after 9/11. I remember how I enjoyed the simplicity of air travel before 9/11, and how it all changed drastically after the terror attacks. I don’t say it was a pleasure having to show up 3-4 hours before takeoff, for an international travel, and having everything I packed, including my underwear, inspected, but I understood it was necessary. The Security Officers were courteous, and I tried to be as courteous as I could, as well, thus making the most out of an otherwise unpleasant situation for all of us involved. Similarly, if I happen to travel to Arizona (one of my favorite states, with New Mexico), and the Police will stop me, I will not feel offended in the least bit, as long as I am being treated with courtesy. In view of the fact that Arizona is being overrun with illegal aliens, many of whom (17%) have a criminal record, and in view of the recent murder of a rancher in Southeastern Arizona by an illegal alien, I understand that Arizonans need to protect themselves. Since my last name sounds Hispanic, and I speak with an unmistakably foreign accent, I’m a good candidate for “profiling”, and I will not feel offended if that happens. Just treat me with respect, and courtesy, and you will get the same in return.

God Bless you for your testimony, it is so contrary to the mis-information that the far left portray

 

[LittleSoldier]

Littlesolider…there is nothing in the " faith" that speaks to how a citizen decides to vote on the role of govt. That is the point. The Church has no authority in this area. (the funding issue aside). A bishop cannot deny a sacrament Christ instituted because of how someone voted or that a politician decides to support a limited govt.

Does this mean you can’t provide the list of Sacraments that I requested? I’m asking you (again) to provide a list.

Will you also provide a list of the Sacraments that the Christ instituted?

The Church does have authority! I don’t know why I can’t get through to you. Your opinion on this doesn’t matter. If you don’t like it, it doesn’t make any difference. It is never appropriate or acceptable for a Catholic to vote for a “pro-choice” candidate. The Church teaches that all the rights that human beings deserve are based on the right-to-life.

Freedom of speech means nothing to a dead child.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Hi to everyone. I’m making a general announcement in the threads I am participating in. My health has deteriorated to the point where I can no longer participate in the forums.

I apologize for leaving any questions asked of me and points presented to me unanswered.

I do have one request: Please pray for the safety of all unborn children.

Thanks, guys. It’s been wonderful being here and I’ve enjoyed it, learned much, and my faith has been strengthened.

May God bring us all peace…

christina