Get Ready to Call Your Representative and Senator on Monday 2/26

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheLittleLady
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
Can you give an example of a Catholic teaching that is negotiable? And if so, what sort of negotiations might be allowed for that teaching?
Click to expand...
An example of a negotiable teaching:
You must attend Mass on Sunday under pain of mortal sin.
Depending on how sick you are, you are allowed to miss Mass.
Another:
It is a mortal sin to kill a person.
But if that is the only way you can negotiate to defend yourself and your family, it would not be a sin.
Another
It is a sin to lie.
But if that is the only way to save a young Jewish girl from the Nazi soldier, you can negotiate a mental reservation to save her life and to get around the problem of lying.
Another:
Honor your father and your mother.
But if your father and your mother are presenting obstacles to your practicing your Catholic faith, then you are allowed to disobey their wishes in this regard.
 
I doubt a perceived lack of Moses or Jesus has anything to do with it since you say 50% of Latinos arriving are joining Protestant communities.
 
Loud-living-dogma said:
Certain things in Catholic teaching are non-negotiables. Abortion, euthanasia are 2 timely examples. Immigration is more nuanced. It has a lot of different variables and things to consider. It’s a prudential judgment, not a non-negotiable.
Click to expand...
Assuming we have that leeway our judgements should still be made within the confines of Christian mortality. How does that morality allow you to make the decision to be opposed to DACA?
 
Arkansan said:
It’s not semantics. People speaking of “punishment” are trying to make the issue about the morality of the DACA recipients, rather than their legal rights.

Why would we need positive justification for not making someone a citizen? They have no right to be here, much less to citizenship, under our incredibly generous laws. That’s justification enough.
Click to expand...
Laws should be based on morals. It is not good enough to be ok with regulations simply because they exist. That someone finds themselves with no path to citizenship in the only country they have ever known is not justification to ignore Christian morality in order to fulfill administrative procedures.

If you can provide a link between our moral obligation as Christians and a reason to deport dreamers, I’m interested to hear it; if you cannot, I’m never going to buy into the idea that we should not change rules that are cruel so it would probably be best to forgo responding to each other on this topic.
 
I’m wondering why they aren’t as incensed over gay “marriage” advocates forcing Christian bakers to service them or abortion.
 
You’ve not made any argument, at all, for why they should be made citizens.

I could just as well ask you why you don’t give me your house? After all, property laws should be based on morals, so it’s not good enough to be ok with the way property is distributed simply because it’s the way it is.

If you can understand why that argument is ridiculous, then you should be able to understand why the one you’ve been advancing is. States have a right to regulate which foreigners can live in their territory. Unless you can explain why they would have a right to be here, then we don’t owe them any special justification for subjecting them to the same law that applies to everyone else.
 
Once Upon a Time, there was a continent of many nations.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Many immigrants started arriving. These immigrants had no respect for the laws of these nations on that continent. And soon these immigrants grew in number. They brought powerful weapons with them. More powerful than the people of the nations had on the continent.

Soon the nations of the continent where defeated. Those that survived were told where they could live. The immigrants called these places reservations, and they claimed for themselves those nation’s homelands for themselves.

The immigrants claimed what part of the continent they wanted for themselves, then formed their own nation, large and mighty. And that great nation penned a Constitution in the name of Human Rights and dignity for all.

About 250 years later, immigrants came to the large and mighty nation just as that nation’s immigrants did.

But somehow the goalposts got moved. And the smoke of hypocrisy entered the great nation.

" And the last time I walked in the swamp
I sat upon a Cypress stump
I listened close and I heard the ghost
Of Osceola cry"
From a song named Seminole Wind.
 
Last edited:
philipl said:
The bible is very clear on how to handle people that break the law. Hence the term illegals.
Click to expand...
It is? I know what Jesus did when confronted with the stoning of a woman for breaking the law. So can we put our rocks down?
 
SuperLuigi said:
I’m wondering why they aren’t as incensed over gay “marriage” advocates forcing Christian bakers to service them or abortion.
Click to expand...
I would say the reason is because those topics have zilch to do with this topic. Being angry about those here would make no more sense than bringing up whether Ford or Chevy makes the better truck (the answer is Ford).

Some of the posters here have also posted on these topics, on the appropriate thread.
 
These are all examples of moral teachings that are non-negotiable. You cite instances where the teaching does not apply, and such situations do not negate the teaching. One could just as easily cite a mother whose life is saved in a procedure in which the child is lost. The law of double effect does not negate or make negotiable the immorality of abortion.

There is a basic problem with simplistic slogans and lists. They serve a purpose, but they are not all their is.
 
We need legislation that includes the following…
Okay to stay, work, and go to school with a pathway to citizenship in 20 years.
Increased border protection including fences and walls where appropriate.
An end to chain migration especially involving those who did not come here legally in the beginning.

The bishops should help facilitate more than “just let people in”. They should stress that contries have a right to control their borders and make laws on immigration and that the entirety of this should be discussed.
 
Conquered nations are instructional but their mistakes are not to be emulated.
 
Loud-living-dogma said:
That is sad for them. Are we really pretending they know nothing of their native land? We can be sympathetic all we want, doesn’t change the law and the basic rule of law that makes our country great.

Do you think whoever wants to immigrate to the US should be allowed, with no limits? Because isn’t it sad that they can’t all come here? 😂

TTFN
Click to expand...
I noticed you seem to express very hardened views, not only in this thread but in just about every thread you post. I am sure being the child of first generation immigrants to this country brought with it some hardships. Sometimes people feel that because they suffered, others should suffer, too. I would encourage you to remember the Dreamers are our brothers and sisters.
 
Last edited:
If these bishops are asking catholic to call their Senators and Reps, then it is political. If they were asking me to toss another $10 bucks into the plate so the church could feed those people, then its moral.
 
Use of an analogy or thought experiment is a tool of critical thinking, not a fallacy, though I love that link and will use it in the future.

Oh, and the people under discussion are pretty much feeding themselves and paying taxes. We might have to toss some money to the various governments to make up the difference if they were all gone.
 
Last edited:
Arkansan said:
You’ve not made any argument, at all, for why they should be made citizens.

I could just as well ask you why you don’t give me your house? After all, property laws should be based on morals, so it’s not good enough to be ok with the way property is distributed simply because it’s the way it is.

If you can understand why that argument is ridiculous, then you should be able to understand why the one you’ve been advancing is. States have a right to regulate which foreigners can live in their territory. Unless you can explain why they would have a right to be here, then we don’t owe them any special justification for subjecting them to the same law that applies to everyone else.
Click to expand...
Property laws are based on morals which is why we have some laws that protect private property and some laws that redistribute property, primarily through taxation, in order to meet the needs of the whole (like protective services).

Absolutely, states have the right to regulate immigration. The reason for extending rights to dreamers is because they don’t have another home. They were brought here as minors, have little to no ties to their country of origin, have ties here (both familial and economic), and no path to citizenship here. They are very stuck. We have the opportunity to extend the legal umbrella, to provide mercy and a measure of safety for a group of people who are not criminals and yet are being harmed. DACA doesn’t deny the rights of others; “not being deported” isn’t a commodity where because you don’t deport one person you have to deport another. A path to citizenship (which the current DACA bill doesn’t provide) doesn’t stop us from providing citizenship to others. Additionally, there is good evidence that dreamers are a benefit to our economy and will be an even better asset if given even a stay on the threat of deportation.

Extending mercy and protecting families are Christian values that directly apply to this situation. It isn’t about “owing” someone anything, do saints do good in the world because the suffering are owed something? No, they see suffering and they work to alleviate it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top