LA prelate ‘deeply concerned’ about Trump on immigration

[Paganus]

Archbishop Gomez steps into the debate on immigrants, refugees underlying the importance of finding merciful solutions and a way forward. “Our system has been broken for so long, our politicians have failed to act for so long, that the people we are now punishing have become our neighbors,” Gomez writes.

cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2016/12/09/la-prelate-deeply-concerned-trump-immigration/

That’s a valid political opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion

We should definitely discuss this issue in greater detail after all the people who are in our country illegally have been deported.

 

[gracepoole]

Yes i do understand that, right.

Some people think the word ‘guys’ is offensive and go on through the same false morality to shame people into not using it.

Others think the term “traditional marriage” is offensive.

Others think the term “Right to Life” is offensive because it denotes others are against life and so insist on anti-Abortion.

Some people think that the word ‘mankind’ is offensive or

calling Caitlen Jenna ‘he’ is offensive, or

saying America is a land of opportunity is offensive or

even saying “all lives matter” is offensive.

What about Washington Redskins, Fireman, negroes, Afro-Americans, coloured people, people of colour, (God help us), Chinamen, Paddies, Limeys etc etc.

I even had a militant Feminist Theology teacher who was offended by the masculine use of the word “He” for God. She was also offended about using the term New Testament because she taught it was an insult to the Jews.

I don’t live my life based on others idea of offence. I come out strongly against those who try to force language on others. That way has shown itself to be utterly devoid of reason where offence is used as a weapon against others culture and sincere traditions.

youtube.com/watch?v=KerMG9x-Zu8

youtube.com/watch?v=Sw5bKqUGc3A

listverse.com/2015/08/25/10-most-absurd-things-to-ban-on-politically-correct-college-campuses/

You pulled out one example, the worst you could think of and put it onto me.

That was not only wrong but a false equivalence and hence not a logical argument as the above plethora of examples demonstrate.

Each case is different. You can’t pull out the worst example you can think of and say “oh you must approve of and routinely think this way then”.

Now that is offensive.

This doesn’t in any way explain why the prohibition against the n-word should be thought of as “coherent” and not “devoid of reason” any more than a prohibition against “illegal” when used as a noun. I appreciate that you’re now acknowledging that “each case is different.” If this is so, you might want to backtrack on your rant against the “religion of political correctness,” since it in part has identified words like the n-word as offensive. You might also want to refrain from making large generalizations like “I don’t live my life based on others idea of offence [sic]. I come out strongly against those who try to force language on others.” If this is so with no exceptions, you’ve contradicted yourself when it comes to “the worst example” rolleyes.

 

[ProVobis]

Before yes, but they are clearly not being assimilated now. Assimilation is no longer even an objective.

Ok, fair enough. But it seems that now assimilation takes 1-2 generations, if at all. It’s okay to have one Mass in English and one Mass in Spanish but the way it’s set up there’s no real exchange between the two groups. That’s only part of it, though. Not that it’s a bad idea, but schools are teaching Spanish and that creates a little bit of a problem for many, if not most, Anglophones who must have everything in English.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Ok, fair enough. But it seems that now assimilation takes 1-2 generations, if at all. It’s okay to have one Mass in English and one Mass in Spanish but the way it’s set up there’s no real exchange between the two groups. That’s only part of it, though. Not that it’s a bad idea, but schools are teaching Spanish and that creates a little bit of a problem for many, if not most, Anglophones who must have everything in English.

Our parish is bilingual, and in addition to the Spanish mass and the English mass, once or twice a year we have a bilingual mass, which I really enjoy. Some of the prayers are in Spanish and some are in English. The pastor’s homily is delivered with each paragraph spoken first in one language, and then repeated in the other language. Then at the fall festival, the Hispanic community makes the food and everyone joins in.

 

[Ender]

This doesn’t in any way explain why the prohibition against the n-word should be thought of as “coherent” and not “devoid of reason” any more than a prohibition against “illegal” when used as a noun.

The difference is that the former is understood by society at large to be a grave insult, while the latter is simply a word of which you personally disapprove. Why should others frame their comments to suit your preferences rather than their own?

You might also want to refrain from making large generalizations like “I don’t live my life based on others idea of offence [sic]. I come out strongly against those who try to force language on others.” If this is so with no exceptions, you’ve contradicted yourself when it comes to “the worst example” rolleyes.

I think it’s pretty clear that while he is willing to accept the reasonable standards of polite society he is unwilling to kowtow to yours.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

Today’s state manufactured morality is through state dictate taking food off others to give to anyone fitting a criteria as determined by bureaucratic committee forever and a day and castigating all who disagree as immoral people.

A great trouble with Catholicism today is that many can’t tell the difference.

They should.

If you think this is true, can you show where any of our bishops have approached social justice this way.

Again.

 

[pnewton]

The term illegal isn’t applied to only an ethic group or only a religious group. It is applied to people who violate our law by entering and remaining in our country illegally. Using the word illegal is in no way dehumanizing. What is your basis for making such an accusation?

My basis for that is that it is a summation of a person into one adjective that applies to one action that he had committed. Think if we described everyone by one word adjectives representative of one component of their life. How many posters here would be just known as liars, thieves, adulterers, self-abusers, etc? Now if you think they are “illegals” because they go around constantly breaking the law, that would be consistent, but I believe inaccurate. Again, remaining in our country is not a crime. You may not agree this is right, but it is true. That is why deportation is a civil process.

Once again, have you seen any bishop use this type of characterization? I haven’t. Do you think there might be a reason for this?

And yes Jesus did say things that were offensive about the poor. He said things that were offensive in his time about how one should esteem the poor. That was offensive.

Please refresh my memory.

 

[pnewton]

Ok, fair enough. But it seems that now assimilation takes 1-2 generations, if at all. It’s okay to have one Mass in English and one Mass in Spanish but the way it’s set up there’s no real exchange between the two groups.

I believe it has always been that way. Our priest told us this week about how his Lithuanian grandmother spoke very little English and attended Mass in Lithuanian. I was at a parish a few years ago that still had a Mass in Czech.

 

[philipl]

Charity can cost. Maintaining one’s lifestyle is not the goal of Man.

Finally a liberal is honest. What liberal want is to lower the lifestyle of everyone until all are equal. That is except the liberals, they are special and deserve more.

 

[pnewton]

Finally a liberal is honest. What liberal want is to lower the lifestyle of everyone until all are equal. That is except the liberals, they are special and deserve more.

Your reasoning is faulty. I am no more a liberal than you. Labeling is easy. Assuming is easy. Reason takes work.

I am a Catholic. I stand by what our bishops are teaching on immigration.

I do not view labor as a problem nor protectionism as an answer. Rather, labor is a resource that lead so prosperity.

 

[PseuTonym]

labor is a resource that leads to prosperity.

Are you including the labor of people who smuggle others across borders? How about the labor of people who create fraudulent identification? How about the labor of people who inform employers that there is an opportunity to hire people who, as employees, will have an incentive to refrain from reporting violations of law that they witness in their place of employment?

 

[SuperLuigi]

This doesn’t in any way explain why the prohibition against the n-word should be thought of as “coherent” and not “devoid of reason” any more than a prohibition against “illegal” when used as a noun. I appreciate that you’re now acknowledging that “each case is different.” If this is so, you might want to backtrack on your rant against the “religion of political correctness,” since it in part has identified words like the n-word as offensive. You might also want to refrain from making large generalizations like “I don’t live my life based on others idea of offence [sic]. I come out strongly against those who try to force language on others.” If this is so with no exceptions, you’ve contradicted yourself when it comes to “the worst example” rolleyes.

Political correctness is clearly becoming a religion for some. As LIBERAL commentator Ethan Klein recently noted “some of this stuff is approaching Heaven’s Gate territory”.

Also, it would do well for folks (especially those in academia) to understand clearly that political correctness is an old Soviet policy designed to silence political dissent. To apply that to America today means no dissent against the GOP Congress or incoming President Trump would be allowed and violations are punishable.

Political correctness cannot be used in conjunction with the First Amendment. It is impossible from a political science POV.

However, most people I think tend to confuse political correctness with being nice and charitable.

The reason why the n-word is not acceptable is because the market no longer tolerates it and really doesn’t tolerant any kind of overtly racist language.

 

[pnewton]

Are you including the labor of people who smuggle others across borders? How about the labor of people who create fraudulent identification?

Of course not. That is silliness. The context I used was clear I meant labor, as in what is needed, along with capital and resources, to produce goods, something the United States used to excel at.

 

[exnihilo]

My basis for that is that it is a summation of a person into one adjective that applies to one action that he had committed. Think if we described everyone by one word adjectives representative of one component of their life. How many posters here would be just known as liars, thieves, adulterers, self-abusers, etc? Now if you think they are “illegals” because they go around constantly breaking the law, that would be consistent, but I believe inaccurate. Again, remaining in our country is not a crime. You may not agree this is right, but it is true. That is why deportation is a civil process.

Once again, have you seen any bishop use this type of characterization? I haven’t. Do you think there might be a reason for this?

Please refresh my memory.

So you are advocating getting rid of the word thief and murderer? No one is saying illegal is the summation of a person. They are using the term to describe their being illegally in the country. Whether it is a criminal offense or civil doesn’t make it legal hence the term illegal.

I haven’t heard of a bishop using the term. But there could be lots of reasons for that. If the reason is because we can pick and chose what laws to follow then we’ve got serious problems.

 

[pnewton]

So you are advocating getting rid of the word thief and murderer? …I haven’t heard of a bishop using the term. But there could be lots of reasons for that.

You asked, I answered.

I am an “illegal.” I have violated traffic laws this very week. I bet there are hundreds of millions of “illegals” maybe 90% of Americans. As you said, we can’t pick and choose what laws to follow.

 

[ProVobis]

Your reasoning is faulty. I am no more a liberal than you. Labeling is easy. Assuming is easy. Reason takes work.

I am a Catholic. I stand by what our bishops are teaching on immigration.

I do not view labor as a problem nor protectionism as an answer. Rather, labor is a resource that lead so prosperity.

I agree on all three counts.

 

[pnewton]

I agree on all three counts.

I am kind of shocked. I have never been called a liberal any where but here, and that has happened only a few times, each time for standing with the Church.

 

[abucs]

This doesn’t in any way explain why the prohibition against the n-word should be thought of as “coherent” and not “devoid of reason” any more than a prohibition against “illegal” when used as a noun. I appreciate that you’re now acknowledging that “each case is different.” If this is so, you might want to backtrack on your rant against the “religion of political correctness,” since it in part has identified words like the n-word as offensive. You might also want to refrain from making large generalizations like “I don’t live my life based on others idea of offence [sic]. I come out strongly against those who try to force language on others.” If this is so with no exceptions, you’ve contradicted yourself when it comes to “the worst example” rolleyes.

Grace you are totally devoid of logic here so there can be no talking to you.

You’ve obviously been caught out doing the wrong thing and it hurts you. That’s life.

I would ask you to stop creating false equivalences and putting the worst of your thoughts on other people without any evidence but that just appears to be the morals you have accepted. It’s your choice i guess.

Do not emotionally paint an illogical generalised picture of how you see the world and myself and then expect me to participate in it. You are making no sense at all.

Your logic is all over the place in your attempt to paint me a certain way.

Either start being logical instead of emotional or our conversation comes to an end.

 

[philipl]

Your reasoning is faulty. I am no more a liberal than you. Labeling is easy. Assuming is easy. Reason takes work.

I am a Catholic. I stand by what our bishops are teaching on immigration.

I do not view labor as a problem nor protectionism as an answer. Rather, labor is a resource that lead so prosperity.

So we are to accept without question what the bishops tell us to accept? Labor is a problem if you are artificially creating a large supply than demand. So no, inflating the supply doesn’t lead to prosperity. You want open borders, fine, end the welfare state.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So we are to accept without question what the bishops tell us to accept? .

When it comes to specific solutions to world problems, we do not have an obligation to accept what they propose as the best possible solution. But when it comes to general teaching about right and wrong, we do have an obligation, at least to try very hard to see things the way they do.