Would it be a sin for me to lobby against the Church's tax exempt status

[fkjuliano]

The United States, like every other creation of man, will perish. We should not be too concerned about it, lest we wish to perish with it. Our primary missions are to love God and love our neighbors, many of whom happen to be Mexican. As much as I love English, I would give up speaking it forever if it kept a single Spanish-speaking baby from starving to death. Any Catholic who would not needs to read the gospel again.

Further, you have foreclosed the argument that keeping Mexicans out is a form of loving the people here in the US, because you said that cost-benefit analysis is not applicable. In other words, even if it doesn’t materially hurt us, it is not worth helping the Mexicans because we compromise some national identity as white, English speaking folks.

The words of a true Christian.

 

[fkjuliano]

Before offering arguments about Americans having some sacred right to the land, we should remember that the entire Southwest, from California to Texas and everything in between, was once recognized as part of Mexico, including by the United States. That vast area was taken by force under the rather un-Christian pretext of Manifest Destiny, which action was condemned by none other than Abraham Lincoln. Who is to say that having half of its land area annexed by a stronger neighbor did not inexorably alter Mexico’s fate as a nation? Is it just possible that if it had not been for this grievous loss, today the illegal immigrants would be Americans?

That is why Mexican immigrants must be treated not only with the compassion that is ordinarily required of Christians, but with a special respect derived from the knowledge that they were deprived of their national heritage by the very United States in which they now seek a living.

As our Spanish-speaking friends say: “La verdad le duela a quien le duela.”

 

[rodomonte]

The United States, like every other creation of man, will perish. We should not be too concerned about it, lest we wish to perish with it. Our primary missions are to love God and love our neighbors, many of whom happen to be Mexican. As much as I love English, I would give up speaking it forever if it kept a single Spanish-speaking baby from starving to death. Any Catholic who would not needs to read the gospel again.

Further, you have foreclosed the argument that keeping Mexicans out is a form of loving the people here in the US, because you said that cost-benefit analysis is not applicable. In other words, even if it doesn’t materially hurt us, it is not worth helping the Mexicans because we compromise some national identity as white, English speaking folks.

Ah yes, the religious argument for surrendering our country to an invading force of millions of third-world peasants with a different culture and language. They now come before us demanding “social justice.” There is a little doctrine in the law called, “unclean hands.” One cannot demand justice while at the same time breaking the law to put you into the position where you can make these demands. If they weren’t here illegally, they would not be in a position to demand citizenship. And we must add to that all the other laws that are broken, identity theft, fraud, conspiracy to avoid income tax and social security tax, when they go to work here. But Congress will ignore this principle, because Congress has no principles.

When I attended a Jesuit university many years ago, patriotism was a virtue. Men in my class joined Army ROTC and were sent to Vietnam where some were killed. The word “patriotism” has disappeared from the Church’s lexicon. We were taught to obey civil authority, which illegals do not.

We are not called to be communists, which is what you are advocating. Thirteen American citizens are killed every day by illegal aliens, not to mention all those killed in drug-related violence due to the 80% of illegal drugs that come from Mexico. Would you not build a border fence to prevent these deaths?

You obviously don’t believe the United States has any moral right to exist as a sovereign nation, because if it did, it would have the moral right to stop this invasion. If we don’t have the moral right to exist as a nation, we shouldn’t have armed forces. Better Red than dead. I somehow don’t see the Bishops saying the United States has no right to exist as a sovereign nation, but that is implicit in what they are advocating vis-a-vis CIR.

I have no problem helping Mexicans. Let’s do it in their own country. The poor will always be with us.

You are right that America will perish, and illegal immigration will be one of the main causes. Keeping Mexicans out is a requirement of the US Constitution as well as the unenforced immigration laws. Your signature line, “We were born for battle,” is most apt, because it will come down to this. We won’t go quietly into the darkness.

 

[Holly3278]

Personally, I don’t know whether or not it would be a sin to do so but in my opinion, it would definitely be imprudent to do so. I would never do such a thing even if I had explicit knowledge that the Church or a clergy member was endorsing a certain political candidate. We should be working to protect the Church, not attack it. The Church needs and can use all the money that it can get.

 

[Langdell]

This would be because of the Bishops lobbying for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, which I believe is a political issue, not a moral issue.

I think it would be a sin regardless of why you were doing it. My reasoning is that we are not supposed to publicly oppose the authority of our bishops. The bishops must believe that the Church should be tax-exempt, because otherwise they would cause the Church to start paying taxes. If one disagrees with this view held by the bishops, one should keep one’s dissent a matter of thought only (not action), and keep it private and not create scandal or confuse the faithful.

(This is a bit of an oversimplification, because “the Church” is not itself a tax-exempt organization, and because each of us should look to the guidance of the bishops in whose jurisdiction we are.)

.

 

[camerong]

Ah yes, the religious argument for surrendering our country to an invading force of millions of third-world peasants with a different culture and language. They now come before us demanding “social justice.” There is a little doctrine in the law called, “unclean hands.” One cannot demand justice while at the same time breaking the law to put you into the position where you can make these demands. If they weren’t here illegally, they would not be in a position to demand citizenship. And we must add to that all the other laws that are broken, identity theft, fraud, conspiracy to avoid income tax and social security tax, when they go to work here. But Congress will ignore this principle, because Congress has no principles.

When I attended a Jesuit university many years ago, patriotism was a virtue. Men in my class joined Army ROTC and were sent to Vietnam where some were killed. The word “patriotism” has disappeared from the Church’s lexicon. We were taught to obey civil authority, which illegals do not.

We are not called to be communists, which is what you are advocating. Thirteen American citizens are killed every day by illegal aliens, not to mention all those killed in drug-related violence due to the 80% of illegal drugs that come from Mexico. Would you not build a border fence to prevent these deaths?

You obviously don’t believe the United States has any moral right to exist as a sovereign nation, because if it did, it would have the moral right to stop this invasion. If we don’t have the moral right to exist as a nation, we shouldn’t have armed forces. Better Red than dead. I somehow don’t see the Bishops saying the United States has no right to exist as a sovereign nation, but that is implicit in what they are advocating vis-a-vis CIR.

I have no problem helping Mexicans. Let’s do it in their own country. The poor will always be with us.

You are right that America will perish, and illegal immigration will be one of the main causes. Keeping Mexicans out is a requirement of the US Constitution as well as the unenforced immigration laws. Your signature line, “We were born for battle,” is most apt, because it will come down to this. We won’t go quietly into the darkness.

Unclean hands is a defense when the party demanding the relief has committed some kind of wrong related to the relief sought. Here, the party asking for relief is the Catholic Bishops, and does not have unclean hands (at least related to this issue).

I have some experience working in this area of law, and I have never encountered anyone with such any experience in immigration law who does not agree the system needs massive overhaul.

You treat the bishop plan as some kind of Armageddon. Let me ask, what, specifically, do you disagree with about the plan? A handy breakdown can be found at justiceforimmigrants.org/documents/catholic-bishops-call-for-comprehensive-immigration-reform.pdf

 

[camerong]

Before offering arguments about Americans having some sacred right to the land, we should remember that the entire Southwest, from California to Texas and everything in between, was once recognized as part of Mexico, including by the United States. That vast area was taken by force under the rather un-Christian pretext of Manifest Destiny, which action was condemned by none other than Abraham Lincoln. Who is to say that having half of its land area annexed by a stronger neighbor did not inexorably alter Mexico’s fate as a nation? Is it just possible that if it had not been for this grievous loss, today the illegal immigrants would be Americans?

That is why Mexican immigrants must be treated not only with the compassion that is ordinarily required of Christians, but with a special respect derived from the knowledge that they were deprived of their national heritage by the very United States in which they now seek a living.

For those who think this is a good idea, I would point to the teachings of Nelson Mandela and the very successful Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We do not deserve dignity because of past wrongs, but because we are human beings.

As our Spanish-speaking friends say: “La verdad le duela a quien le duela.”

While I disagree fervently with the OP, I also disagree with this. Its regrettable for Mexicans that other countries came in and took the much more resource-rich lands that now are the United States. But this kind of inter-generational debt is total bunk, to put it bluntly. If we have a right to keep people out, it shouldn’t matter where they are from. I am not arguing that Mexicans or anyone else “deserve” to be here–I’m arguing that we, as fortunate people, are morally obligated to take what measures we can to help our neighbors, or, at the very least, to overhaul a terribly, terribly failed and arbitrary immigration system.

 

[rodomonte]

Before offering arguments about Americans having some sacred right to the land, we should remember that the entire Southwest, from California to Texas and everything in between, was once recognized as part of Mexico, including by the United States. That vast area was taken by force under the rather un-Christian pretext of Manifest Destiny, which action was condemned by none other than Abraham Lincoln. Who is to say that having half of its land area annexed by a stronger neighbor did not inexorably alter Mexico’s fate as a nation? Is it just possible that if it had not been for this grievous loss, today the illegal immigrants would be Americans?

That is why Mexican immigrants must be treated not only with the compassion that is ordinarily required of Christians, but with a special respect derived from the knowledge that they were deprived of their national heritage by the very United States in which they now seek a living.

As our Spanish-speaking friends say: “La verdad le duela a quien le duela.”

The ridiculous 150 years ago this was our land argument. We don’t claim “sacred” right to these 7 states, only a legal right, which gives us the moral right to prevent this illegal invasion. We won that war, but we have lost the peace. Mexico and Mexicans are seeking to regain domination over those lands they lost long ago. Do you have any idea what the geo-political map of the world looked like in 1848? Do you want the entire world to turn back the clock, or only the southwest part of the US. That pretty much invalidates your agrument.

More likely, they would be Japanese, because we would have lost WWII in the Pacific without the strategic benefits of New Mexico and California.

Mexicans were not deprived of their national heiritage. Their national heiritage includes losing the Mexican-American War with succeeding generations having to bear the effects of that loss, as do the losers of all wars in history. American has poured billions of dollars into Mexico since then, but it is still a corrupt third-world country. In fact, I think Mexico is a third-world country because it is so corrupt. We bombed the heck out of Germany and Japan during WWII, and look at them today.

We owe illegals no special consideration because their ancestors lost a war a century and a half ago. Another psyops passive-agressive tactic.

 

[rodomonte]

Unclean hands is a defense when the party demanding the relief has committed some kind of wrong related to the relief sought. Here, the party asking for relief is the Catholic Bishops, and does not have unclean hands (at least related to this issue).

I have some experience working in this area of law, and I have never encountered anyone with such any experience in immigration law who does not agree the system needs massive overhaul.

You treat the bishop plan as some kind of Armageddon. Let me ask, what, specifically, do you disagree with about the plan? A handy breakdown can be found at justiceforimmigrants.org/documents/catholic-bishops-call-for-comprehensive-immigration-reform.pdf

Are you serious. It is the Bishops asking for relief? They are proxies for the illegals seeking the relief. How did you miss that.

I am sure lawyers would like another massive change in the law and the potential for 20 million new clients. There would also have to be another massive federal agency to process these 20 million applications.

I think my position was clear in my last post. If the United States has the right to be a sovereign nation, then it has the right to stop this invasion. This is the fundamental question that must be answered before we can proceed. You did not answer it yet. I am sure the Bishops will not state that the United States has no right to be a sovereign nation, although that is implicit in their approach to CIR.

I do not accept the need for CIR, so the Bishops plan is irrevelant to me. We only need a secure border fence along the entire border, as well as enforcement of existing immigration laws.

End of discussion.

 

[fkjuliano]

The ridiculous 150 years ago this was our land argument. We don’t claim “sacred” right to these 7 states, only a legal right, which gives us the moral right to prevent this illegal invasion. We won that war, but we have lost the peace. Mexico and Mexicans are seeking to regain domination over those lands they lost long ago. Do you have any idea what the geo-political map of the world looked like in 1848? Do you want the entire world to turn back the clock, or only the southwest part of the US. That pretty much invalidates your agrument.

More likely, they would be Japanese, because we would have lost WWII in the Pacific without the strategic benefits of New Mexico and California.

Mexicans were not deprived of their national heiritage. Their national heiritage includes losing the Mexican-American War with succeeding generations having to bear the effects of that loss, as do the losers of all wars in history. American has poured billions of dollars into Mexico since then, but it is still a corrupt third-world country. In fact, I think Mexico is a third-world country because it is so corrupt. We bombed the heck out of Germany and Japan during WWII, and look at them today.

We owe illegals no special consideration because their ancestors lost a war a century and a half ago. Another psyops passive-agressive tactic.

I don’t deny that you make valid points. But let’s remember how this discussion started: with the proposition that a religious organization, and not any religious organization, but the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, should be forced to give up a large portion of its revenues in the form of taxes, essentially as punishment for taking the position that illegal immigrants are entitled to human rights, not that they should have full equality and citizenship, mind you, but simply that their human rights should be recognized.

 

[camerong]

Are you serious. It is the Bishops asking for relief? They are proxies for the illegals seeking the relief. How did you miss that.

I am sure lawyers would like another massive change in the law and the potential for 20 million new clients. There would also have to be another massive federal agency to process these 20 million applications.

I think my position was clear in my last post. If the United States has the right to be a sovereign nation, then it has the right to stop this invasion. This is the fundamental question that must be answered before we can proceed. You did not answer it yet. I am sure the Bishops will not state that the United States has no right to be a sovereign nation, although that is implicit in their approach to CIR.

I do not accept the need for CIR, so the Bishops plan is irrevelant to me. We only need a secure border fence along the entire border, as well as enforcement of existing immigration laws.

End of discussion.

The USCCB has never disputed that the US is a sovereign nation and has the right to protect its borders. That inevitably part of every statement on the issue.

As you have now made clear, you don’t know anything about the USCCB plan for immigration reform, except for what it is called. What if it called for a giant fence? Really you have no idea… for the truth of the matter, a giant fence and better enforcement of immigration laws are completely in keeping with the USCCB’s plan. Instead of petitioning the government to revoke the tax status of the Church, perhaps you could instead petition your local bishop to include your changes. Surely such a strategy would have a greater chance of success than petitioning to change the income tax ramifications of millions of Americans.

 

[Lypher]

This would be because of the Bishops lobbying for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, which I believe is a political issue, not a moral issue.

I understand you thinking from the perspective of the Nation, but the Church encompasses the entire Universe. The Church does not think in terms of borders, but of human suffering.

On a political front I agree that something needs to happen to prevent so many from coming, however they are coming because we have employment and we have employment because we have vacancies, and we have vacancies because we have killed 57 million Americans that could be working and paying taxes right now.

In 20 years when my generation is lying in beds and needing our bedpans changed we will be begging Mexicans to come and do so, but unfortunately our great NGO’s such as Planned Parenthood has successfully implemented contraception in Mexico and their birthrates are falling…soon, very soon the US will fall below 2.1 births per couple and then we will need to bring in Muslims like the Europeans have had to do since they have faithfully contracepted and aborted the Christian Children…

Immigration reform starts at home…So yes I think you need to be careful on how you lobby…is it for a SELFISH reason? Do you like cheap fruit, but don’t want to buy a child a band-aid or teach her the Alphabet while both his parents are bent over picking tomato’s or cotton?

I guess it depends on your definition of charity…

 

[rodomonte]

I understand you thinking from the perspective of the Nation, but the Church encompasses the entire Universe. The Church does not think in terms of borders, but of human suffering.

On a political front I agree that something needs to happen to prevent so many from coming, however they are coming because we have employment and we have employment because we have vacancies, and we have vacancies because we have killed 57 million Americans that could be working and paying taxes right now.

In 20 years when my generation is lying in beds and needing our bedpans changed we will be begging Mexicans to come and do so, but unfortunately our great NGO’s such as Planned Parenthood has successfully implemented contraception in Mexico and their birthrates are falling…soon, very soon the US will fall below 2.1 births per couple and then we will need to bring in Muslims like the Europeans have had to do since they have faithfully contracepted and aborted the Christian Children…

Immigration reform starts at home…So yes I think you need to be careful on how you lobby…is it for a SELFISH reason? Do you like cheap fruit, but don’t want to buy a child a band-aid or teach her the Alphabet while both his parents are bent over picking tomato’s or cotton?

I guess it depends on your definition of charity…

There are enough people in the United States who could use some charity that we don’t need to import any more. Well, we don’t import them, they sneak into our country and force us to accomodate them. There is plenty of human suffering done by citizens. I know because I have been in homeless shelters and group homes for the disabled.

Actually, the Church primarily thinks in terms of the Church. Illegal alien Hispanics may fill some pews, but the main advantage the Church gets is more Hispanic priests.

We have employment vacancies because we have employers who violate the law. If large businesses were all required to use E-Verify, many illegals would self-deport. With 20 million illegals here, a significant number are required simply to provide infrastructure, food etc. for the others. Maybe 20%?

I agree we need some immigrant labor, but it must be done in an orderly fashion. Open borders is not the answer. There are already 57 guest worker programs in place. The problem is the government runs them. We don’t need to make them citizens with voting rights to use them as guest workers. People who come here illegally then violate other laws don’t deserve to be given a path to citizenship. We don’t owe these people anything in charity. They owe us much in justice.

We already have the $8 head of lettuce. We just pay that for it in other ways that subsidize illegals.

An incredible 45% of the illegals apprehended trying to enter are criminals and are wanted in either the US or Mexico, or have been deported before.

I have been advised above that lobbying against the Church’s tax exemption would be inappropriate, so I won’t.

 

[rodomonte]

I don’t deny that you make valid points. But let’s remember how this discussion started: with the proposition that a religious organization, and not any religious organization, but the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, should be forced to give up a large portion of its revenues in the form of taxes, essentially as punishment for taking the position that illegal immigrants are entitled to human rights, not that they should have full equality and citizenship, mind you, but simply that their human rights should be recognized.

I was corrected early in this thread about the Church’s tax exemption. The Church is allowed to lobby for particular issues, but not for particular candidates. I stand corrected, so this is no longer an issue for me.

You are incorrect, however, when you say the Church does not take the position that illegal immigrants should have full equality and citizenship. I have just visited the web site of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and it states unequivocally that this is indeed the Church’s position. I am as shocked as you must be by this position. There is no moral imperative to grant illegal immigrants citizenship. I am 100% opposed to this. Even worse is the method used to determine qualification, which includes attestation, the forgiveness of “minor” crimes like fraud, and the promise to not arrest or deport illegals who don’t qualify for a path to citizenship. There is also no reference to securing the border. My Church is leaving me.

 

[SunnaB16]

On the other hand, there is a reasonable position that, I believe, a Catholic could take that the Church should relinguish her tax exampt status in order to speak more boldly on the moral and political issues of the day.

Couldn`t agree with you more!

ive been saying the same thing for ages, but all the average Catholic thinks about is how much cash we can get from "The Government" (ultimately, of course, the taxpayer) for schools and hospitals etc. No one seems to care that theres the payback: were falling more and more under the thumb of "The State". These days, CS Lewiss words: “When you sup with the Devil, use a long spoon.” are more relevant than ever.

Father Corapi has the right idea: he pays tax on everything, and says what he has to say; and no one can do anything about it!

 

[choose_to_love]

Re: tax exemption and speaking on political issues and candidates. On the other side of the coin, so to speak, IMO, there should be no restriction on charities endorsing particular political candidates. What is the logical connection between providing a charitable service that the government would otherwise have to perform - - which is the basis for the tax exemption - - and political speech? There is none that I can see.

Historically in this country, IIRC, there has nearly always been a charitable exception or a similar concept, and the restriction on political speech is a recent development. I think it dates to the 50’s or early 60’s, and again IIRC, LBJ was the main proponent - - I think he was getting hammered in sermons by Texas preachers.

Now, it may not be practically a good idea for a church to take a stance on a particular candidate, and in that sense the restriction in some ways protects the church from itself. I am generally woefully ingnorant about parish and diocesan finances, but I agree, if the exemption could be foregone in favor of unfettered speech under the existing IRS regulations, that would be a good thing.

I also think that any diocese or parish that doesn’t have at least some preliminary contingency plans for what to do if the exemption is lost or changed, given the current and potential future political climate, is really underprepared.

 

[Lypher]

The Church’s position doesn’t conflict with my political views, it conflicts with my moral views. We have a moral right to a soverign country with defined borders which allows controlled immigration of thousands every year. If CIR is passed, there will soon be more Mexicans in the US than in Mexico. We are not required to give our country away, but that is exactly what is happening. Render unto Ceasar.

After the sex abuse scandal, my faith in the wisdom of the Heirarchy has dropped significantly.

Why do you think we have a morale right for a soverign country with defined borders? History has shown that countries come and countries go and I am not aware of anywhere that a countries right to exists is determined by some morale right? Maybe I misunderstood what you are trying to state?

God Bless You… Please Pray for me.

 

[rodomonte]

Why do you think we have a morale right for a soverign country with defined borders? History has shown that countries come and countries go and I am not aware of anywhere that a countries right to exists is determined by some morale right? Maybe I misunderstood what you are trying to state?

God Bless You… Please Pray for me.

I see where you are coming from. I don’t believe a particular country has a moral right to come into existence, but once it has, and there are internationally recognized boundaries, it becomes a sovereign nation with the right to enforce its borders. Mexico recognizes the boundaries of the United States, and vice versa, as a matter of international law. That gives the United States the moral authority to enforce these mutually recognized borders.

The whole purpose of internationally recognized borders is to prevent anarchy and to delineate which government has responsibility to administer which land. This is about property rights on an international scale. You do believe in property rights, don’t you. The alternative would be communism.

As far as requiring us to be charitable towards illegals, we are called to charity, but not to a specific person or group of people. Furthermore, we have no obligation in charity to anyone who has not fulfilled their obligations in justice to us.

Please pray for our country.

 

[Lypher]

I see where you are coming from. I don’t believe a particular country has a moral right to come into existence, but once it has, and there are internationally recognized boundaries, it becomes a sovereign nation with the right to enforce its borders. Mexico recognizes the boundaries of the United States, and vice versa, as a matter of international law. That gives the United States the moral authority to enforce these mutually recognized borders…

I see what you are trying to say and I agree with what you mean, kind of. In other words on a strictly argumentative level morals really depend on the measure. Liberals and Conservatives have fundamentally different morals even living in the same defined space. That being said If, and I agree with you that the United States has enforced these borders since we Captured Mexico City. I disagree on your summation that Mexico recognizes these borders from a moral standpoint. Legally probably, morally I would bet that answer would be no. To me it is kind of like believing that a women would accept the moral correctness of a rape after it has occurred because the rapist was bigger, stronger and not charged? That is really another topic of moral justice of nations considering national treasures and borders stolen in wars and just how far back is OK. Maybe another thread? However I do agree that the United States now has a legal responsibility to patrol this border in some fashion, until such time as it changes, either through agreement or force of arms (I pray not). I hope you understand why I disagree with Mexico being forced to accept the “Moral” correctness of our invasion?

The whole purpose of internationally recognized borders is to prevent anarchy and to delineate which government has responsibility to administer which land. This is about property rights on an international scale. You do believe in property rights, don’t you. The alternative would be communism…

I would slightly disagree with the above statement. Yes borders can prevent anarchy, at least on one side. Haiti and the Dominican Republic being examples. I do not think you would argue that Haiti has any real form of government would you? That being said I prefer to look at borders like walls. They are used to keep people out, and to keep people in, either by mutual agreement or by force. They also change constantly depending on who has the biggest army and who is willing to use it. As far as property rights go. I would say that I would love to someday live in a country were I had property rights. However if you believe that you own your property… try and not pay your landlord his rent (taxes) and see who really owns your property? Can you put money (Your Property) in a bank and have keep all of it? We do NOT live in a democracy and I think I could successfully argue that we are no longer a Capitalist country, we look much more like a National Socialist country… I don’t really like it, but when you consider the Auto Industry, Banking, Health Care, Education, we are FAR along that road. And owning property if you have no control is NOT freedom. I would rather be able to freely move across borders without a BY-YOUR-LEAVE then own a car that I can’t drive because I have not paid the landlord his road taxes. By the way you can no longer freely travel the world… As Thomas Jefferson said, “A society that trades its freedom for security, should not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” We are trading our freedom for security like you would not believe and we are allowing Uncle Sam to put shackles on us to protect us.

As far as requiring us to be charitable towards illegals, we are called to charity, but not to a specific person or group of people. Furthermore, we have no obligation in charity to anyone who has not fulfilled their obligations in justice to us…

Again I would disagree somewhat… we are told to specifically aid anybody that asks for our robes, and we are asked to take care of all those that are in need. I would agree that race, religion, sex or National origin should have nothing to do with Christian Charity.

That being said I am aware that the National government cannot feed the world and give our money to the bankers at the same time as well as give health care to all the undeserving Americans that don’t want to work.

My last paragraph was definitely written from the perspective of an American Taxpayer and NOT a Christian practicing TOTAL instructions as handed down by Christ. I am a sinner and just cannot do what he asked, the eye of that needle is just too small for me, but I will not deny that he asked us to give up everything and follow him… I won’t, because I am not willing to sacrifice my family like Abraham was willing to do. I AM not that charitable, but nonetheless we are called to go that far.

Your last sentence seemed to say that unless others comply with our demands we do not have to have to keep Christian values. I won’t disagree that it is not painful, but I think we are supposed to turn the other check, so even though I won’t do it we are supposed to be charitable even when those we are helping have hurt society. Similar to the Soup lines for the alcoholics and drug addicts that our Church constantly has open. These sinners have NOT helped our society and in fact have hurt it, and yet we help them. Are they Americans yes but that is not why the Church helps them. This is not the American Catholic Church… it is the CATHOLIC church… Universal Church.

Well I have enjoyed the posts with you so far, Thank You and … God Bless you… .Please Pray for both of us…

 

[rodomonte]

I see what you are trying to say and I agree with what you mean, kind of. In other words on a strictly argumentative level morals really depend on the measure. Liberals and Conservatives have fundamentally different morals even living in the same defined space. That being said If, and I agree with you that the United States has enforced these borders since we Captured Mexico City. I disagree on your summation that Mexico recognizes these borders from a moral standpoint. Legally probably, morally I would bet that answer would be no. To me it is kind of like believing that a women would accept the moral correctness of a rape after it has occurred because the rapist was bigger, stronger and not charged? That is really another topic of moral justice of nations considering national treasures and borders stolen in wars and just how far back is OK. Maybe another thread? However I do agree that the United States now has a legal responsibility to patrol this border in some fashion, until such time as it changes, either through agreement or force of arms (I pray not). I hope you understand why I disagree with Mexico being forced to accept the “Moral” correctness of our invasion?

I would slightly disagree with the above statement. Yes borders can prevent anarchy, at least on one side. Haiti and the Dominican Republic being examples. I do not think you would argue that Haiti has any real form of government would you? That being said I prefer to look at borders like walls. They are used to keep people out, and to keep people in, either by mutual agreement or by force. They also change constantly depending on who has the biggest army and who is willing to use it. As far as property rights go. I would say that I would love to someday live in a country were I had property rights. However if you believe that you own your property… try and not pay your landlord his rent (taxes) and see who really owns your property? Can you put money (Your Property) in a bank and have keep all of it? We do NOT live in a democracy and I think I could successfully argue that we are no longer a Capitalist country, we look much more like a National Socialist country… I don’t really like it, but when you consider the Auto Industry, Banking, Health Care, Education, we are FAR along that road. And owning property if you have no control is NOT freedom. I would rather be able to freely move across borders without a BY-YOUR-LEAVE then own a car that I can’t drive because I have not paid the landlord his road taxes. By the way you can no longer freely travel the world… As Thomas Jefferson said, “A society that trades its freedom for security, should not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” We are trading our freedom for security like you would not believe and we are allowing Uncle Sam to put shackles on us to protect us.

Again I would disagree somewhat… we are told to specifically aid anybody that asks for our robes, and we are asked to take care of all those that are in need. I would agree that race, religion, sex or National origin should have nothing to do with Christian Charity.

That being said I am aware that the National government cannot feed the world and give our money to the bankers at the same time as well as give health care to all the undeserving Americans that don’t want to work.

My last paragraph was definitely written from the perspective of an American Taxpayer and NOT a Christian practicing TOTAL instructions as handed down by Christ. I am a sinner and just cannot do what he asked, the eye of that needle is just too small for me, but I will not deny that he asked us to give up everything and follow him… I won’t, because I am not willing to sacrifice my family like Abraham was willing to do. I AM not that charitable, but nonetheless we are called to go that far.

Your last sentence seemed to say that unless others comply with our demands we do not have to have to keep Christian values. I won’t disagree that it is not painful, but I think we are supposed to turn the other check, so even though I won’t do it we are supposed to be charitable even when those we are helping have hurt society. Similar to the Soup lines for the alcoholics and drug addicts that our Church constantly has open. These sinners have NOT helped our society and in fact have hurt it, and yet we help them. Are they Americans yes but that is not why the Church helps them. This is not the American Catholic Church… it is the CATHOLIC church… Universal Church.

Well I have enjoyed the posts with you so far, Thank You and … God Bless you… .Please Pray for both of us…

Well, I think I have exhausted anything I might say on this topic. I really need to quit spending so much time online and watching TV, and get a life.

Nice communicating with you, however.