Tell me what you think Jesus would have said in the fictional exchange above if you had asked that question of him at that exact moment in time.LeafByNiggle:
This really isn’t all that complicated, so I’ll try again: Are we to offer sanctuary to literally everyone who comes to the US and asks for it? How hard is it to answer such a simple question?
And again, no answer, and it ought to be obvious why. Either a yes or a no pretty much destroys your position, so even though it’s a simple, basic question you recognize you cannot answer it.
Neither can you adequately answer what you think Jesus would have said if you asked him that question after his “sheep and goats” parable. But the real reason I will not answer it is that whatever the answer, it does not in any way refute the claim that the decision to welcome those in need is a moral decision, not just a practical one. (Unless you are claiming that the sheep and goats parable was really one of practicality and not morality? Is that your contention? Jesus was telling parables with no moral implications?)LeafByNiggle:
And again, no answer, and it ought to be obvious why. Either a yes or a no pretty much destroys your position, so even though it’s a simple, basic question you recognize you cannot answer it.
Matthew 26:11. While the verse does not instruct us to relax the preferential option for the poor simply because we cannot end poverty, the verse reveals the primary importance of worshiping God. If we had no programs for the poor then shame on us. But we do have such programs. How much is enough? That is the question.
Since you refuse to answer, I’ll address the implications of saying either yes or no, which ought to explain your unwillingness to do so.
I agree. And I do not pretend to know the answer either. But whatever the answer, the choice involves morality. That was my only contention.
Guilty as charged. I do not pretend to be more moral than you.
This is of course where we disagree. By admitting that at some point enough is enough you recognize that there are practical considerations that in fact limit what can be done, and while we may seriously disagree about the real world implications of this or that policy, the disagreement is over our estimations of what will or won’t happen if they are or are not implemented.o_mlly:
I agree. And I do not pretend to know the answer either. But whatever the answer, the choice involves morality. That was my only contention.
So clearly there’s a process that (supposedly) allows some to come in - not the all-or-nothing idea that you propose.
Where do you draw the line? You just said everybody-or-nobody, so do you think nobody should be allowed to enter?
I’m glad not everybody is making such excuses. If they did, we’d have no charities or even Catholic parishes!
This immediately came to my mind: Ebenezer Scrooge to the Charity Collectors (<span class="book">A Christmas Carol</span>, Stave One, December 1843)
You seem quite knowledgeable about immigration, so I’d like to ask you to provide a number: Of all of the people legally applying for asylum at the border, how many are making the cut?
I would have to ask farmers and ranchers for specific numbers, but let’s get at least enough in to cover the harvest. fortune.com/2017/08/08/immigration-worker-shortage-rotting-crops/
Walling off people with no humanitarian assistance people in need, (whether on a publicly funded or individual level), is immoral. To me, the most logical step would be to divert funds from border militarization and use them instead for lawyers and social workers who can help them through the maze of applying for asylum (very much legal) or working permission.
I agree there are practical considerations - and moral ones too. You can’t discount the moral component without casting Jesus’s parable as dealing exclusively with practical considerations. You don’t think that, do you?
Once again, putting up straw man arguments does not help you. Please stop. I did not propose “all-or-nothing” as a position. If you are serious about this thread, desist from high school debating tactics.
Of all the people legally applying for asylum at the border, how many should the U.S. accept? What is your cutoff point? That is the question.
I see. Your number is not based on the immigrants needs but yours. The number of human beings you would allow is that number needed to insure yours are fed and housed. Does not sound all that Christian to me but OK, at least it’s a number. Now, twice that number are lining up at the border waiting for nightfall to come across. What do you do?
I continue to rely on our Bishops to rightly determine what is moral and what is not. We have no religion if we cannot rely on that, a right given to them by way of Jesus Christ himself within the great commission.
Tranquilo. You didn’t say all-or-nothing. Ender did. So I showed him/her your quote.
And I answered by telling you that this decision should be made based on exact numbers of the labor shortage resulting from immigration crackdowns during the past 2-3 presidential administrations. The affected industries would have to provide the exact numbers.
Mine? Labor shortages affect the national economy. Filling said shortages benefits both that and the people seeking work.
No, I absolutely did not say everybody-or-nobody. What I said was all or some. Either we let everyone in without restriction or we have restrictions, which let some in but not others.
I am very careful about what I say; would that you were so careful in how you read my comments. You have not responded to anything I’ve actually written. What you have done is ascribe to me some of the blackest assumptions you can make. You would find that impossible to do if you cited my actual words, because then it would be obvious that what I’ve said and what you imply I have said bear no relation at all.
If it is so obviously immoral then why do you refuse to answer the question about whether we should grant asylum to everyone who applies without restriction? Why are you so reluctant to answer this most basic of immigration questions?
Name one moral consideration in determining whether the wall should or should not be built. I think what you will find is that the disagreements will not be over moral concerns but over predictions of what is or is not likely to occur. Differing with others about the projected consequences is not a moral debate.
And that’s a fine position to take if you know nothing about an issue, or haven’t given it any thought. Otherwise it is an abdication of your own responsibility. When bishops give their opinions, especially about political issues, we have no obligation to assent to them. I have been trying for years to get someone to explain even one moral choice involved in determining whether we should or should not implement any specific immigration policy.
Like faith, I have confidence that the Church has seen a few things and would know what is a moral subject or is not. I’ve given this thought and I believe they are correct.
Yet again a simple question is asked, and evaded. Perhaps you should reconsider your position in light of the inability of anyone at all to identify even one moral choice involved in solving our immigration problems. I think you will find that the only thing that will come from this is not a judgment about the morality of a specific act, but an uncharitable judgment about the people who support it. That is, what is being judged are people, not proposals, and it is precisely people that we are forbidden to judge. We may judge actions, but we may not judge intentions, which is unfortunately what’s going on here.
If it is built instead of offering sanctuary to those the wall is to keep out. That was the subject of Jesus’ parable (offering welcome to the stranger) and therefore a moral subject.LeafByNiggle:
Name one moral consideration in determining whether the wall should or should not be built.