L
lynx
Guest
Who am I convincing of what? That if the church stayed out of politics we’d have a more secular nation? That seems pretty obvious to me, no convincing necessary
But maybe you mean something else. . .
Cardinal Mahony compares Arizona immigration bill to Nazism, Communism [CWN]
- Status
But maybe you mean something else. . .
P
presidentjlh
Guest
Well, yes, we must treat illegal immigrants humanely and justly, but we should not just excuse them of their acts.
The Church also calls on us to obey the just laws of our respective nations. The law concerning immigration is just in that you need to go through a certain procedure in order to immigrate here. We must maintain security.
Do we need to reform the immigration process? Undoubtedly. But should we just let illegal immigrants continue to come here illegally? No.
If anything, illegal immigration is more inhumane than the deportation of illegal immigrants. Most illegal immigrants are smuggled here in terrible conditions. They then go to work and are paid below minimum wage. If anything, it is inhumane to have them remain here illegally.
And, no, amnesty will not solve the problem, because there will still be illegal immigration.
G
gakroeger
Guest
For responding to the wrong post, I seem to have hit the right target.
This sound like a personal opinion not base on fact. Do you have any incidents or cases where the party or any member of it demonized any of the people or races you mention? This sounds very much like the mantras sold to the masses by those attempting to poison the well.
As to my claim that certain politicians are attempting to control elections by coercing the poor, vulnerable, and illegal aliens the evidence is overwhelming (ACORN)
So, if I read you correctly; because one was born in the U.S. and has supported the growth and prosperity of the U.S. all of their working lives, they should submit to government forced redistribution of wealth?
I agree that those of us who have been blessed with citizenship in the U.S. and the opportunity to earn a good life have a MORAL responsibility to share their good fortune and God will be the judge of this. But I am deathly afraid and opposed to ANY government dictated redistribution of wealth, especially an immoral government such as we seem to be stuck with currently.
M
momor
Guest
This thread is going off track. Does Cardinal Mahoney make valid points or not?
G
gakroeger
Guest
This what we are discussing.
M
momor
Guest
No, it’s becoming a polarized discussion about politics.
G
gakroeger
Guest
Sorry but the topic is very much a political one…
M
momor
Guest
Yes it is, however political discussion does not have to become polarized. Sometimes people are so wedded to their political party that they will reject good solutions if they come from the ‘other side’. Debating ideas and solutions is much more productive if party affiliations are checked at the door. I think some people are biased enough that they didn’t even bother to read the blog, just rejected the cardinal’s ideas out of hand because he is known to be liberal.
G
gakroeger
Guest
You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to attempt supressing discussion.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Comparing the people of Az to Nazis or Communists is immoderate and unseemly, coming from a Cardinal of the Church.
Regardless, I take it Cdl Mahoney has not considered the possibility that “immigration reform” would likely benefit a number of illegals now, but would probably end up limiting immigration in the long run; perhaps terminating it.
It’s one thing for people, largely from South of the border, to come here and (largely because of births here) eventually become “legal”, or simply work illegally. I, for one, don’t have too much problem with that.
A problem I see with it all is the likelihood that “political correctness” will impose itself on any real organized “reform”. Current illegality gives a tremendous advantage to those who can just walk across the border. If, say, a given number of people was to be admitted to the U.S., given green cards and a path to citizenship, it would probably end the de facto “Hispanic preference” that is the result of the “benign neglect” of the past. How could, say, Mexicans retain any kind of preference over, say, Yemenis, if the system was truly organized. Native born Americans or naturalized citizens pretty well put up with the Hispanic influx. An Islamic influx even remotely equalling it would not be tolerated, including by Hispanics who are already here. Hispanics are not really all that “alien”, and the do assimilate. Others in this world are far more alien to this culture, and more resistant to assimilation.
If the Cardinal wants to see the American people totally revolt against immigration at all, he could not encourage it more effectively by widening it and truly putting it under the control of government bureaucrats.
Regardless, I take it Cdl Mahoney has not considered the possibility that “immigration reform” would likely benefit a number of illegals now, but would probably end up limiting immigration in the long run; perhaps terminating it.
It’s one thing for people, largely from South of the border, to come here and (largely because of births here) eventually become “legal”, or simply work illegally. I, for one, don’t have too much problem with that.
A problem I see with it all is the likelihood that “political correctness” will impose itself on any real organized “reform”. Current illegality gives a tremendous advantage to those who can just walk across the border. If, say, a given number of people was to be admitted to the U.S., given green cards and a path to citizenship, it would probably end the de facto “Hispanic preference” that is the result of the “benign neglect” of the past. How could, say, Mexicans retain any kind of preference over, say, Yemenis, if the system was truly organized. Native born Americans or naturalized citizens pretty well put up with the Hispanic influx. An Islamic influx even remotely equalling it would not be tolerated, including by Hispanics who are already here. Hispanics are not really all that “alien”, and the do assimilate. Others in this world are far more alien to this culture, and more resistant to assimilation.
If the Cardinal wants to see the American people totally revolt against immigration at all, he could not encourage it more effectively by widening it and truly putting it under the control of government bureaucrats.
G
gakroeger
Guest
I tend to agree with this poster. Like I said in an earlier post, I think the bishop is truly thinking as a humanitarian, however, I think the comparison to Nazis or Communists was unfortunate.
M
momor
Guest
If I thought I was doing that I never would have said it.
G
garysibio
Guest
I disagree. The church has a duty to be involved in political discussion. Having said that, I believe that Cardinal Mahoney is very wrong about this.
W
Worthy5
Guest
No, it really should just focus on reaching Catholics to live moral lives at an individual level, preserving and defining the doctrine and administering the sacraments. The more it becomes a part of the political fray the more people attack the Church as opposed to listening to its message. The Church should not make itself so contemporary by being part of the politics. Human society is what it is and so is the nature of its civil law—the Church’s role is to be an advisor to society but without being overly officious. It will gain even more respect that way.
P
psr13
Guest
Plenty of people come here legally still. My husband’s entire family (nine siblings) came here from the Philippines. No, they did not all come here at the same time, either. Yes, it cost some money and took some time, but it was done legally.
A
AnotherVoice
Guest
I believe that the church should be in this debate in a very well thought out fashion. Unfortunately, I don’t feel the Cardinals comments were well thought out. He clearly does not like the bill which is being passed into law, so he resorts to blasting it with names. However, in his blog post he never addresses what he wants; other than to say he wants something more “forward looking”. Anyone can criticize and that certainly is his right but the illegal entry of people into this country is a real problem that needs to be dealt with realistically. People with concrete ideas and perspectives sensitive to all sides of the issue are needed; name callers may be seated.
D
Dee_Dee_King
Guest
no where in the catechism does it say we must support illegal immigration. catholics may disagree with the cardinal without being nazis or communist.
i probably don’t agree with the cardinal on many subjects.
i probably don’t agree with the cardinal on many subjects.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I beg to differ. “Gaining respect” is not nearly as important as presenting Truth to everyone. Everyone, not just Catholics, should be living moral lives. It’s a responsibility of the Church to show how they can do so.
Catholics are not only given the right to not adhere to immoral laws and policies - they have the responsibility to do what they can to overturn those laws and change those policies. The Church should *always *be involved in political actions. The Church teaches Truth and not just to Catholics. Do you really expect the Church founded by Jesus to turn a blind eye to immoral laws, atrocities, lack of respect for human life?
“Human society is what it is…” I don’t think you mean that human society can’t change. It can change, and for the better, by paying heed to what the Church states is Truth. The Church has that authority ("And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. [Matthew 16:19, Douay-Rheims]). She should point society in the right direction.
It is her responsibility.
Unfortunately some Catholics, who are representing the Church as successors to the Apostles, make inappropriate remarks. This is bound to happen, as they are human beings and therefore fallible.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Please refer only to yourself. Others here may feel that poster’s comment is useful and appropriate to this discussion.
L
livnlern
Guest
I wouldn’t expect the Church to turn a blind eye to immoral laws, etc. But it doesn’t have the responsibility to “do what it can to overturn those laws and change those policies.” This way of thinking is what got the Church involved in social justice programs and led to its contributions to groups like Acorn. It has no business advising the American people to open our borders to any and all who want to come across. Our economy is in a huge knot as it is. How can we pay for the education, healthcare, and other social services for a mass of illegal immigrants? We can’t even take care of our own without drowning in debt.
- Status