P
pnewton
Guest
At times he says this and at times he shows that there are higher principles, like when he plucked wheat on the Sabbath and healed on the Sabbath, like when he used the example of King David and the shewbread.
- Status
I
IrishSFV
Guest
I
IrishSFV
Guest
What about the Indian Spring?? Are you talking about the Arab Spring? What does that have to do with what I was talking about?
B
Brother_Art
Guest
Indian Spring, Arab Spring, whatever. You like to pick on the group you know is less likely to retaliate; in this case, Mexicans. You won’t budge an inch against someone from the Middle-East because they might be a Muslim in which case, you will be up against one of the two major religions, and obviously, you don’t want that! You need a reality check, Brother. Be a man.
K
KSU
Guest
Originally Posted by YourAverageJoe
"If I have my National Patriot glasses on, I see a certain way, I think certain way, I see my neighbor a certain way,
“If I have my Christ glasses on, I see a certain way, I think a certain way, I see my neighbor a certain way…nations built by human hands come and go,… but Christ is forever…”
What a terrible thing it must be for an American to live with the belief that his patriotism conflicts with his faith; a belief that a person can’t act like a good American and a good Catholic at the same time!What kind of people teach our children such abhorrent beliefs? What have our bishops been doing the last forty years to ensure that such an immoral system of education could never corrupt the young souls in their charge? Are there such far more important issues for the bishops to busy themselves with that the Catholic education of our youth can be neglected?
Most parents can’t home school, and, apparently, the days when parents could trust that schools wouldn’t politically propagandize their children are long gone. I remember the old (mostly Slavic) Sisters who taught Civics telling us how the teachers in the USSR would drive political wedges between the faith and the nationalism of their students. Never did I dream it could happen here.
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
ABSOLUTE AND FINAL WARNING
Either start posting with charity, converse with respect like adults, or the thread will be closed and some here might not be here much longer.
Either start posting with charity, converse with respect like adults, or the thread will be closed and some here might not be here much longer.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Brother Art,
I think you jumped the gun on that, Brother Art - and your comments were really out of line.
I do not think anyone knows what you mean by “Indian Spirng” - the closest I can think of is “Indian Summer” but, that just does not apply here. The correct term that was pointed out is “Arab Spring” as when oppressed Arabs in several countries rose up (and in the cse of Syria and Iran are still rising up) and overthrew their oppressive governments.
My guess is that because of the distance from the Middle East, most of these people - whatever their religion - will need to complete the paper-work to work on getting over here (like all of the 19 terrorists who decided to kill 3,000 innocent people on 9/11/01) or, like we just found out that Mansour Arbabsiar (terrorist just arrested today for foiled plot to kill Saudi Ambassador) was a Naturalized US Citizen with dual citizenship to Iran! I guess there is more to this than just filling out paper-work!
In my opinion, I really think you should consider apologizing to IrishSFV for your uncalled for remark.
God bless
I think you jumped the gun on that, Brother Art - and your comments were really out of line.
I do not think anyone knows what you mean by “Indian Spirng” - the closest I can think of is “Indian Summer” but, that just does not apply here. The correct term that was pointed out is “Arab Spring” as when oppressed Arabs in several countries rose up (and in the cse of Syria and Iran are still rising up) and overthrew their oppressive governments.
My guess is that because of the distance from the Middle East, most of these people - whatever their religion - will need to complete the paper-work to work on getting over here (like all of the 19 terrorists who decided to kill 3,000 innocent people on 9/11/01) or, like we just found out that Mansour Arbabsiar (terrorist just arrested today for foiled plot to kill Saudi Ambassador) was a Naturalized US Citizen with dual citizenship to Iran! I guess there is more to this than just filling out paper-work!
In my opinion, I really think you should consider apologizing to IrishSFV for your uncalled for remark.
God bless
I
IrishSFV
Guest
Hmm…I must have missed that post.
Anyway, I’m not some bored guy looking to scapegoat people or whatever he was insinuating, I reside in L.A., a ‘sanctuary city’.
I see this everyday. I live it.
Still don’t get the Muslim connection though, sorry.
Anyway, I’m not some bored guy looking to scapegoat people or whatever he was insinuating, I reside in L.A., a ‘sanctuary city’.
I see this everyday. I live it.
Still don’t get the Muslim connection though, sorry.
E
Ender
Guest
This would seem to imply that the debate is between those with higher principles and those without them, but this isn’t the case. There are valid competing claims; in many cases what benefits one group harms another. There is no perfect solution where everyone gets what is best and what he wants and it is a mistake to suggest that the claims of one group are morally principled while those of another group are base. That the bishops have lent some credence to this view has not helped the dialogue.
Ender
T
tafan
Guest
Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Both posts 502 and 503 are true, well stated, and do not contradict each other. 
I.m.o. one of the significant obstacles to the resolution of the illegal immigration problem is the divisive moral language (labels) that are both assumed and spoken, particularly against those who seek sincere solutions within a moral framework. When our Church leaders speak in official documents (Pope, bishops) they reinforce the general principles which must guide those solutions. It is simply not true that they have ever said Catholics should, let alone must, support a particular solution as opposed to another solution. Rather, any genuinely just solution must include certain principles which have been articulated in those broad documents. Even less have they said that illegal immigration is an intrinsic good, and that all opposition to any aspect of it is an intrinsic evil. But to hear some Catholics, one would think that this is what Church leaders have said.
Illegal immigration affects other aspects of social justice which the bishops in Faithful Citizenship also articulate as principles; thus, a “solution” which violates other principles of social justice is a morally compromised solution. That is where discerning Catholic citizens have to apply practical judgment to the moral sphere.
I.m.o. one of the significant obstacles to the resolution of the illegal immigration problem is the divisive moral language (labels) that are both assumed and spoken, particularly against those who seek sincere solutions within a moral framework. When our Church leaders speak in official documents (Pope, bishops) they reinforce the general principles which must guide those solutions. It is simply not true that they have ever said Catholics should, let alone must, support a particular solution as opposed to another solution. Rather, any genuinely just solution must include certain principles which have been articulated in those broad documents. Even less have they said that illegal immigration is an intrinsic good, and that all opposition to any aspect of it is an intrinsic evil. But to hear some Catholics, one would think that this is what Church leaders have said.
Illegal immigration affects other aspects of social justice which the bishops in Faithful Citizenship also articulate as principles; thus, a “solution” which violates other principles of social justice is a morally compromised solution. That is where discerning Catholic citizens have to apply practical judgment to the moral sphere.
E
Ender
Guest
This point needs constant repetition: the Church gives guidelines, not road maps. The laity has to work out the detailed solutions within the framework the Church provides.
That this is true can be seen from a careful reading of what the Church and the bishops have said because even though individual bishops voice support for specific solutions they are careful not to say that we have a moral obligation to agree with them. It may be implied but it is never claimed for the simple reason that it isn’t true.
I can’t say I disagree with this but I am reluctant to say I know what a just solution looks like. I can recognize effective solutions from ineffective ones but the justness of a law is not determined by the effectiveness of the outcome it produces. Within the broad outline that a solution not violate basic principles I’m not sure I can tell which solutions are just and which are not.
Ender
W
Wardog
Guest
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Well I’m not pretending to know that in advance, either!
Given the millions of undocumented immigrants already here, versus the number of legal immigrants here, and given the various industries which are significantly populated by illegal immigrants, neither perfect justice nor retroactive justice (in an absolute sense) is possible. All that is realistic is to consider what is more just and less just, comparatively, given that many segments of society are affected by it.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Either document this statement, or don’t expect others to accept it.
Now that illegal immigrants have been leaving Alabama agriculture by the thousands, we will see, both if the industry does reach out to legal workers, and if that outreach produces a response or not.
One element that I believe should be an aspect of immigration reform is a special legal category of agricultural workers, with protections such as legal labor groups have.
T
tafan
Guest
The bishops have given very precise statements about the need for immigration reform and some of the items that are needed in that reform. Is that a binding teaching, not they have not claimed that. Are they acting within their realm of teachers of the church to give these statements? yes they are. Do we have an obligation of Catholics to give them due consideration, yes we do.
It seems that the folks on one side of the argument want to pretend our immigration laws are fair and do not need reform, despite all evidence that they are not working. And when the Bishop’s speak up on that need, they go to far to the side that the bishops are over stepping their bounds.
“Yet at the same time she (the Church) cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper”
This may be a general principal, but I see little evidence that those who oppose any immigration reform are paying attention.
It seems that the folks on one side of the argument want to pretend our immigration laws are fair and do not need reform, despite all evidence that they are not working. And when the Bishop’s speak up on that need, they go to far to the side that the bishops are over stepping their bounds.
“Yet at the same time she (the Church) cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper”
This may be a general principal, but I see little evidence that those who oppose any immigration reform are paying attention.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
I have affirmed that.
Who here has denied that?
Who? Are you accusing me of doing that? Because if so, you have failed to understand any of my posts on this issue, including my advocacy for reform. (I do not consider “sanctuary cities” as reform, but rather cooperation with non-reform. I also do not consider opposition to e-verify as evidence of support for genuine reform.)
T
tafan
Guest
Elizabeth, in general, one side says : we just need to enforce our laws and refers to the other side as supporting illegal immigration; when what is really supported is immigration reform. I rarely see constructive ideas for change of immigration laws from the “build a fence” crowd (of which I agree with on almost every other political issue). So the Bishops are a rational voice, among not very many rational voices (please note the moderators call to civility as evidence).
Yet claims are made that they are overstepping their bounds, etc. Ok, we get it: the Church has no definitive teaching on what immigration laws should be. Everyone admits this. Now, lets move on.
Who here has denied thatt that the Bishops’ opinions should be given due consideration? There are posters, who in the past have explicitly stated they would not read document “Strangers no more”. I have seen little discussion (I know you are an exception to this) to the phrase in the catechism “The more prosperous nations are obliged, **to the extent they are **able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin” Right now, the law supports almost no legal means of immigration for a Mexican worker in search for a means of livelihood. Since I have a hard time believing we are not able to do so to some extent, it seems our laws are unjust.
The obvious evidence of millions of undocumented workers shows that our laws don’t work. Lets move on, how should the laws be changed; in accordance to actual social justice teachings of the church. Instead of argueing what the Bishops have a right to say and do not have a right to say; lets talk about their specific proposals.
Yet claims are made that they are overstepping their bounds, etc. Ok, we get it: the Church has no definitive teaching on what immigration laws should be. Everyone admits this. Now, lets move on.
Who here has denied thatt that the Bishops’ opinions should be given due consideration? There are posters, who in the past have explicitly stated they would not read document “Strangers no more”. I have seen little discussion (I know you are an exception to this) to the phrase in the catechism “The more prosperous nations are obliged, **to the extent they are **able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin” Right now, the law supports almost no legal means of immigration for a Mexican worker in search for a means of livelihood. Since I have a hard time believing we are not able to do so to some extent, it seems our laws are unjust.
The obvious evidence of millions of undocumented workers shows that our laws don’t work. Lets move on, how should the laws be changed; in accordance to actual social justice teachings of the church. Instead of argueing what the Bishops have a right to say and do not have a right to say; lets talk about their specific proposals.
W
Wardog
Guest
I can’t document it, but consider this.
- An illegal alien can accept less than minimum wage, with no recourse. An American cannot accept less than minimum wage, and if this is what the employer offers, then can go to the state labor bureau and file a complaint.
- An illegal alien may accept a low wage to work in the field, either a piece price or set wage, say $10 per hour. They accept the lower lifestyle, and again have no recourse for redress. An American may reject the job at $10 per hour, but accept $20 per hour. Of course he has to pay income tax to the state and federal government, where the illegal alien does not.
- The employer does not have to pay any benefits, or unemployment to illegal aliens; this is another reason why they prefer to use illegal aliens instead of Americans. Americans have laws protecting them; illegal aliens to not. These laws cost employers money.
You have to document for me that Americans are lazy, when I believe we are amongst the most productive workforce in the world.
What you can expect to see in Alabama is an increase in costs as the employers have to pay the Americans more than they did the illegal aliens.
What I don’t understand is why people support the concept of paying slave wages to people just because they are illegal aliens. This is what you are saying with your statement that illegal aliens fill jobs that lazy Americans won’t do.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Aren’t you a little confused? You’re the one who claimed that Americans wouldn’t/couldn’t do jobs now held by illegal immigrants. I was not the one who said or implied that!
Actually, there have been some studies of this possibility, at least as it relates to California (I believe), with the results showing that produce would increase in price by $1 per unit sold. I don’t have the stats on that, but that was reported recently as something that was actually calculated.
Who is “you?” I have made no such statement. It seems that you are confused regarding whom you are addressing, and/or to whom you are responding.
- Status