No, I’m not Bill Maher
The other day I criticized Catholic church leaders for their long-standing, radical, open-borders policies.
Some are now calling me “anti-Catholic” and likening me to left-wing Christian-hater Bill Maher.
Oh, for heaven’s sake.
I was raised Catholic. I benefited immensely from my Catholic high school education. I have deep respect for many Catholic leaders and intellectual leading lights. I continue to be inspired by Catholic pro-life activists.
But yes, I oppose the US Conference of Bishops’ unrelenting push for illegal alien amnesty and the Vatican’s subsidizing of illegal alien shelters for southern border-crossers, and the continued vocal opposition from Catholic officials to overdue immigration enforcement measures.
And no, I’m not a bigot for calling attention to their sovereignty-undermining agenda.
Despite the arguments I’m hearing from some Catholic conservatives that the Pope did not send an open-borders message during his visit this week (see Matthew Balan), pro-amnesty Catholic leaders are not backing down and they interpreted his remarks as an endorsement of their anti-enforcement, sanctuary-promoting activism:
…some members of the Catholic hierarchy said they were shocked that on the same day that Benedict and President Bush affirmed in a joint statement the need for a policy that treats immigrants humanely and protects their families, federal agents were conducting raids at five chicken plants. They arrested more than 300 immigrants accused of being illegal workers.
The timing was coincidental, immigration officials said, and it was not clear whether the pope had known about the arrests when he met with Mr. Bush.
But the raids surprised some American Catholic leaders, who are often on the forefront of advocacy for immigrant rights.
“I was stunned,” said Cardinal Roger Mahony, the archbishop of Los Angeles, the nation’s largest Roman Catholic diocese and one with many Hispanics. “I just feel these raids are totally negative. I thought it was very inappropriate to do it in such a blatant way when the pope was coming, when he has been so outspoken in defending the rights of immigrants.”
The American bishops have been consistently outspoken in favor of legislation to give legal status to illegal immigrants and expand legal avenues for immigrants to bring their family members from abroad.
They and other Catholic activists were among the most visible supporters of a broad bill, supported by Mr. Bush but not enacted by Congress last year, which included a path to legal status for 12 million illegal immigrants.
They took Benedict’s statements last week as affirmation of their work. For while the immigration theme has been overshadowed during Benedict’s trip by his denunciations of the sexual abuse scandal in the church, it was the second issue after the abuse cases that he addressed on the plane from Rome, when he responded to reporters’ questions that were submitted in advance and picked by the Vatican.
The separation of families “is truly dangerous for the social, moral and human fabric” of Latin and Central American families, the pope told reporters aboard his plane. “The fundamental solution is that there should no longer be a need to emigrate, that there are enough jobs in the homeland, a sufficient social fabric,” he said. Short of that, families should be protected, not destroyed, he said. “As much as it can be done it should be done,” the pontiff said…
…The pope also dwelled on the negative impact of family separation. Several bishops took that as a direct reference to the impact of previous immigration raids and deportations, in which illegal immigrant parents were separated from spouses and children who were United States citizens or legal immigrants.
Look. “Keeping illegal immigrant families together” is not the paramount constitutional duty of our government. There is nothing stopping illegal alien deportation fugitives, for example, from keeping their families together and taking them all back home if and when the law finally catches up with them.
Speaking of compassion for families torn apart, I still haven’t heard anything from Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony about Jamiel Shaw’s murder and the permanent separation Shaw’s family suffered at the hands of the illegal alien gang member who murdered their young son, have you?
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Rhymes With Right
- Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Pope Benedict Speaks Up For Immigrants, Legal And “Illegal”
- Jules Crittenden » MYOHB*
- Catholics Play the “Discrimination” Card
- BILL MAHER AND HIS POPE REMARKS | DequalsS.com
- No, Malkin is not Maher | The Anchoress
- Michelle Malkin does it again « Becoming Hinged
- CitizenCaucus.org» illegal immigration news » No, I’m not Bill Maher
- The Irate Irishman » Get Off Michelle’s A**
- Michelle Malkin » The WSJ’s open-borders obsessive compulsives
- catholicnews.org
- Now that this “memo” has gone « The Old Right Daily
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Immigration
Right Pundits
» Joe Lieberman: Fort Hood Shooter Is ‘Home-Grown Terrorist’Legal Insurrection
» Bruni de la Motte for Health Care CzarRiehl World View
» Obama: No Military Death Shall Go UnexploitedLegal Insurrection
» In The End: No Public Option, No Abortions, No Pelosi, No ReidThe Other McCain
» Paralysis by analysisThe Powers That Be
» Obama: ‘Don’t Jump to Conclusions’ About Ft. Hood; Immediately Jumps to ConclusionsLegal Insurrection
» NY Times Names Names
No, Liberals obsess that peoples motivations are only economic or classed based. Kinda like the argument that the Pope is motivated by collection plates. Anyone who has more than a superficial knowledge about this Pope, knows what a crock that argument is. Conservatives accept that “enforcing the law” CAN be motivated by compassion.
Ignatius not unless you wanna move to a REALLY red state.
Who said illegal immigration is a good thing? Illegal immigration is a political issue, one for politics and jurisprudence to deal with. Immigrants are a moral issue. My point is only that criticisms saying “the Pope has no authority to speak on a political issue” are misguided because this isn’t only a political issue. So, when the pope talks about “the need for a coordinated policy regarding immigration, especially the humane treatment of immigrants and the well-being of their families,” that isn’t a political statement, but rather a moral one with implications for whatever the political solution needs to be. So when Catholics write on here that this is a sign of the Church drifting too far to the left, that the pope shouldn’t talk politics, etc., they’re overlooking the fact that for the Pope and the upper clergy, this is a moral issue first, and Catholics should work for a solution to the political issue only after being clear on the moral one.
At least we are thinking and talking about this subject. Even if someone gets off
topic now and then, we are not reacting with knee jerk emotion like the other side. I feel that everyone is giving this thought, especially with the kitten analogy. I did have a “crazy cat lady” friend, for real. We finally had to get the
humane society out here and a few of her more feral outside cats are still on the
loose. The press heard about the case and immediately started trying to make
her out to be a hoarder. We set them straight. Her good intentions got out of
control. Yes. Same with our borders and perhaps same with some of the churches that aid and harbor illegals. How do you start saying no, when you let
the situation go on for far too long? Where do you draw the line at too many?
I would like to think that the churches and the politicians are struggling with
this very argument but I do not actually believe they are. The pols, however,
and a lot of pro illegal groups are encouraging this situation because they
believe it will get them votes. You can really see pandering of this sort in the
Southwestern states. A lot of the pro illegals are trying to build a political base for themselves. If you don’t believe me and you cannot speak Spanish,
find someone who can and go to one of their rallies and let your friend translate the hogwash and lies that are being spewed.
After mass told my priest to check out this thread. He said that we will probably have words later if it is what he thinks it is.
Anyone who has more than a superficial knowledge of MM knows that summing up her criticism of the Catholic churchs open borders position in this fashion is absurd. Bordering on dishonest.
flenser
Your problem is the the Catholic Church’s position, via the Pope, does not call for open borders.
Or my Bishop for that matter.
Great pic Harris, is it from Stuff on My Cat? Very, very appropriate.
I don’t know. I just googled “a lot of cats” and it was the first one.
A) They are not immigrants, a word which implies they came here via some lawful process.
B) Illegal “immigration” and illegal “immigrants” are most assuredly a moral issue. Why sort of person thinks criminal behavior is detached from morality?
If the comments I’m seeing here actually reflect the thinking of many Catholics, and are not simply the usual widespread liberal mobying, then it’s clear that Catholics need to go back to the drawing board and starting thinking for real about the moral issues involved.
The same can be said for open-borders zealots of all sorts. It’s just that it’s mostly Catholics who ground their view in morality. The other open borders factions make their thirst for power and wealth very clear.
If this discussion were to be generate light instead of heat it should focus on the moral aspect of illegal “imigration”. I invite the Catholics on this thread to post on that topic.
I’m aware of what the Pope said.
I’m aware of the policy of the Catholic Church in America, which is not what the Pope said.
I’m aware that the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church in America.
None of these things are my “problem”, except in the sense that I have to try to deal with the mess which open borders policy, as advocated by the Catholic Church in America among others, is causing.
This is going to be my last post for now. I will again try and sum up my argument.
The Pope is not calling for open borders. The Pope is not calling for any blanket amnesties. The characterization by the AP article and the inference of MM’s blog leaves that impression. This Pope is not motivated by “butts in the pew” if you think he is, investigate why he chose his name. That will say it all. The Pope does not hate America, he sees America as an example for the world to follow and may well be the Beacon that shines the light of Christianity into the future (again related to why he chose his name).
MM should get a knowledgeable Catholic to either guest blog here or link to another blog to explain the Holy Father’s position. Comment sections are not really set up to do this. My suggestion would be Jimmy Atkins who has a popular Catholic blog. Both sites would benefit from the traffic. This person could also explain why it is that the Pope’s ability to reign in the American Bishop’s is limited.
If I do not make it back, thank you all for your spirited debate. I really enjoyed myself.
OK, I think I have identified where I have a problem with what the Pope is saying, and it stems from one word. As an English major I understand that subtleties in the language can actually change the entire idea behind a word; not the meaning of the word, but the meaning of the idea. The one word the Pope has used unwaveringly is immigrant. This conjures up images of the Statue of Liberty, huddled masses, etc.
For me I think of my African friends who came here from less-affluent regions of the world to seek an education and a better life. They tell stories of taking long English as a second language courses and waiting, hoping for a chance to have their applications approved to enable them to come here. They are immigrants.
When that word is applied to people who crossed a nation’s border knowing it was illegal it smears the definition. The illegal immigrants who completely disregard our laws are equated to those who have waited their turn and actively attempt to assimilate.
For me, the Pope seems to be portraying illegal immigrants in the same light as legal immigrants. The South used to call slavery their “Peculiar Institution”. Simply using a clever euphemism does not change what it actually is.
Last one i promise. Or he could actually mean legal immigrants.
flenser,
You posted that while I was trying to read the Pope’s real words, but his constant referring to illegal immigrants as immigrants changes the meaning of his request dramatically. It takes the illegal part out…
Why would there be a problem with legal immigrants?
not being Catholic or religious of any kind I could care less what the Pope or the Dalai Lama or any other religious leader has to say about my country the USA. Separation of church and state remember, now Pope go to Mexico have them fix their inhuman policies towards their people and leave this country, the most giving, most helpful, most liberating country in the history of the world, alone.
See ya bye!
And any of you religious right wingers here don’t like what i say, remember the USA is run by the government not some archaic religion, that includes all religions.
You are really disappointing me, Mendol. You bring down the level of the debate when you insist on a preposterous reading of the record.
Amidst all the moral failings of the world and of America, how could you possibly claim that America’s behavior toward its legal immigrants would get on the short list of the Pope’s concerns for some rhetorical finger-wagging at us?
Others have repeatedly made this obvious point. You ignore it, because you are behaving as an aggressive advocate and apologist for the Church and not as an honest partner in an open discussion.
The argument should not be with the Pope and what he had said. It should be with the individual Cardinals, Bishops, Monsigniors and priests, their diosces and parishes that are the ones supporting this Illegal Immigration situation. They are operating them on their own, of their own volition and separate from Vatican Law or Dictate.
They assist in clouding the definitions between LEGAL and ILLEAGL immigration, and help to make it appear that those of us that are against ILLEGAL immigration are against ALL immigration period.
I agree with what Mchelle said in this posting.
However, the Cardinals, Priests et-al in this country are incredibly Liberal when it comes to this issue, and will remain as such. They were through all 12 years of my personal education, 1-12th grades, and remain so today.
You will never get a Priest, bishop etc., to ever admit to turning anyone away who asks for help…be they legal or illegally in this country. They are not doing so to weaken our borders, to turn this into a new Mexican State, and to think that they are only interested in allowing people to immigrate to this country in order to fill pews and collection baskets has got to be one fo the most idiotic things I have ever heard.
There have been posters here in the last couple of days who, while they complained about Maher’s lies and biggoted outburst, themselves made statements which were not much different if at all…only worded differently.
I do recommend that any “lapsed” Catholic set aside their own personal hurts and bigotries, and those that are not Catholic…don’t speak of that which you do not know and only pick up in sound bites and from the MSM…which has had a vendetta against Catholicism for as long as I can remember.
The Catholic Church and Her representatives will always be on the side of those they feel are oppressed, poor and taken advantage of. they are not interested in how the people got here, only with how they are treated and being cared for once they ARE here.
I, personally do not agree with it at all. As most of you know me, I am fervently anti-ILLEGAL Immigration. However, asking a Priest to turn away someone who comes to the Rectory claiming to be poor, tired and hungry based on their status as an alien is like asking the sun not to rise in the East.
No, I mean can you prove their motivation?
This goes back to a point somebody made in defense of the Pope, that there is no proof that the Pope’s comments were motivated by his desire to fill pews.
Bill Maher, perhaps doesn’t appreciate Christianity, but he can say whatever he wants and he does, which you do as well. The Catholic Church, like all other organizations needs money to function. Even though we cannot get an accurate amount of how much money they have, I’m sure it could always use more. So their flock is a majority of Latin Americans and therefore, while we are being infiltrated and reduced to being under a government who thinks it is a good idea to have illegals gain access to our basic social services, which by the way our government gives away to those who don’t desire to work anyway(Welfare Reform). Though, The Catholic Church is quite unusual. As a Catholic myself this is probably blasphemy, but I will roll with it. In Angola, the Catholic Church is taken back land that it once owned and evicting those who resided there for decades.
So in our country they are telling those in our government that it is ok for those illegals to take over our land and in Angola, it’s telling the government to give back the land and forcing the evictions of thousands of people. Hypocrisy. Yea, Just a little bit.
Had to come back for a sec.
Pope’s own words from the Papal message on the “Day of Migrants and Refugees”
“Understandably, as I urge Catholics to excel in the spirit of solidarity towards newcomers among them, I also invite the immigrants to recognize the duty to honor the countries which receive them and to respect the laws, culture, and traditions of the people who have welcomed them. Only in this way will social harmony prevail.”
hhhmmmmm
Mendol,
First, he does use the ambiguous term immigrants. Does he mean illegal immigrants?
Then he asks those immigrants to obey the laws, culture, and traditions of the people who have welcomed them. Well, if they are illegal immigrants they have broken his first request by default.
I still think kittens is a more effective euphemism than immigrants.
Everybody loves kittens.
The thing is, they are not poor, tired, or hungry. Not in Latin America, and not when they come here. Vast numbers of our illegal immigrants are quite well off. This peculiar image many people have of starving masses coming across the border looking for food is simply insane.
I don’t claim to know what motivates these priests and bishops. Most likely it is their liberal faith rather than their Christan one. But at the end of the day – who cares what their motivation is? It’s their actions which are wrong, not whatever peculiar thoughts are in their heads.
Mendol said;
This is the longest goodbye on record. Don’t they need you back at DU?
Term immigrants in this message includes “undocumented migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, those displaced by continuing violent conflicts in many parts of the world, and the victims — mostly women and children — of the terrible crime of human trafficking.”
DU?
Mendol said:
Uh huh. I know only one side of the immigration debate that prefers to be ambiguous in regards to legal/illegal immigrants.
Everyone I am aware of that is against illegal immigration makes it a point of differentiating between legal and illegal immigrants. If Benedict isn’t aware of the connotations of the relevant terminology, then he should stay out of it.
No, Michelle Malkin isn’t anti-Catholic, and no, she doesn’t need a Catholic blogger sidekick, either.
I am working on a paper I want to present over the summer. Have been Alt-Tabbing back and forth. I really need to get some work done though.
I don’t know much about Catholicism since it isn’t very big here in Georgia, but I feel that the church wouldn’t turn away someone even if they knew they were an unwanted kitten.
Mendol, I am doing the same thing. I hate final papers…
Maybe I could pay someone…nevermind.
Mendol, I know that it is hard to leave, because you believe that your support here is crucial to your church.
Actually, I don’t think the church will be harmed by your necessity to leave us for a while.
Buh-bye, now.
Mendol, you have said nothing so far to make me think you are a Catholic, let alone a conservative Catholic.
But then, your preferred MO is to avoid any actual discussion of issues.
Do you really think the Pope feels that America does NOT treat it’s legal immigrants well? Even for you, that’s a bit much.
Mendol
In other words, what are often called “illegal immigrants”. Want to shoot yourself in the other foot now?
flenser
OK. I am a Catholic and I am a Conservative. I am also a dedicated Republican. There I have said something to make you believe. I have responded to you on numerous occasions, I just don’t say things you like.
THis is off topic a bit, but an illegal alien and his co-conspiritor (with Tuberculosis at that) murdered a mother in Houston during a car jacking because she would nto give up her keys since her 4 month old baby was inside. Both men were recently arrested on other matters. I wonder if the Pope will say a few words about that tragedy? Or all the other countless ones that just keep happening and it is becoming obvious that illegals do commit more crimes pr capita than many Americans. Here is the link:
Sorry, LINK: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5713748.html
flenser, take the blinders off, was responding to Harris. Who is (no doubt) reading the speech I was referring too.
You don’t say anything, so it’s hard for me to judge if I like it or not.
If the quality of your thinking here reflects what will be in your paper, don’t expect good grades.
Why not share your thoughts on illegal immigration? That would be conducive to a real discussion, unlike your current game playing.
How does that alter the fact that the “immigrants” in question included “undocumented migrants”?
Another question for you to ignore.
fensor,
I refer you to. post 148. Try and keep up lil fella.
Mendol has been quite clear on his personal opinion on unwanted kittens. I think post #148 illustrates that quite succinctly.
fensor,
I now refer you to post 215. I mean really, get back on the porch if need be.
Oops, beat me to it.
As I see this petty debate unfold I can’t help but laugh because the three of you have the same opinion about illegal immigration and you are arguing over the world immigrant.
Ignatious Reilly said, “I am angry at what the Pope said!”
Mendol is saying, “The AP article misrepresented the Pope’s words.”
flenser says, “Stop protecting the Pope!”
Harris says, “Stop goofing off and write that Shakespeare paper…”
And our problem is that the Federal Government does not call for open borders either, yet through their statements and inaction it is clear that our Federal government has a definite open-borders policy regardless.
Read Michelle’s posts, she lays out the case very succinctly.
If the AP or any other news outlet misquoted or misrepresented the Pope’s statements then show us their correction or show us a statement from the Pope or Vatican correcting the record. Better yet, demonstrate how the Pope has ordered his Churches to end their advocacy of illegal immigration and the undermining of American national sovereignty.
OK, I am getting tired of some here calling legit critisism of the CAtholic Church bigotted. What Bill Maher did was call the Pope a Natzi, that is not factual, that is wrong, though he has the right to say it. What some are doing on these posts are legitimatelly critisizing actual wrongs done by the catholic church, a completely different thing all together. It is nothing against catholics, but the church has messed up quite a few things in the last few decades, including the pedophilia scandals and now butting into the US sovereignty and laws. WE have every right to open our mouths or write about that. I for one will not coddle the CAtholic Church or any other church or institution just because they are correct on some other issues, such as abortion.
Well, this is a first, but I have to find myself agreeing with O’Reilly.
I also have to say that I don’t believe the Pope knows what a hornet’s nest the Cardinals and Bishops let him step into on the illegal issue. The Vatican has traditionally had a “hands-off” policy towards the American Catholic church, due to the anti-Papist sentiments which were prevalent in the early days of the Church in America, and of which we still see obvious signs today. In addition, I believe there are socialist vipers in the Vatican who just love to stir the pot, and the Pope is often there innocent victim. This Pope, in particular, being a scholarly intellectual who doesn’t necessarily pay attention to politics, is a sitting duck not only for them, but for the the Council of Catholic Bishops (which I’ve always considered a subsidiary of the Democratic Party) and scurrilous Cardinals including, but not limited to, Mahoney.
It’s a shame, really. Benedict speaks and writes eloquently of faith, reason and the evils of moral equivalency, and yet American clergy designated as the successors of the apostles choose to indulge in moral equivalency by encouraging and supporting those who break our laws. It really doesn’t matter whether they are doing it to increase the census of their parishes; it’s perceived as such by many — including devout Catholics.
My post above was not referring to the conversation betwen Mendol, HArris, etc., I am not getting involved in that one, it would take me too long to catch up on where this all started on a beatiful Sunday afternoon.
My church just removed the organ and began using a Mariachi band instead. Jesus wept.
RealImmigrantChick,
You can get in on it, too, if you like. I am not Catholic and I don’t care what the Pope says. Maybe I am naive about how much influence he actually has. I do, however, think I am going to start dressing like him. Those hats are sweet.
And how does he keep his robe so white?
I think it is time to create a picture of Catholic Rage boy. I think you’ll be able to use it frequently at the hyper-sensitive Catholics.
Funny how the people here AND on HotAir call ME bigoted for pointing out issues I have with both their doctrine and their political positions. But these people were the ones hating on the ‘evangelicals’ with reckless abandon.
Non-Catholics don’t think the Pope is infallible (politically or religiously). That doesn’t make a person a BIGOT, it makes them a NON-CATHOLIC.
The problem is that Catholics are homers to the core. Most Catholics are not content to be saved by Christ. They want to consider any dissension as ‘blasphemy’ (sort of like the Muslims who want sharia and riot over cartoons).
I wonder if there were offensive cartoons of the Pope – not a religious figure to MOST of the world – would the reaction be the same? I bet Catholics would go ballistic. They would say how awful it was.
But if Huckabee says he is a ‘Christian leader’ (since he’s not Catholic), that is an OUTRAGE to people on this board who are now outraged at any disagreement with the Catholic Church or the Pope.
I think I see why most Catholics are Democrats. The Catholic doctrine emphasizes the collective group nature of the monolithic government like structure of the Vatican (socialism). Whereas Republicans emphasize personal responsibility that the Protestants find in salvation through belief in the Bible instead of belief in people.
Catholics are as easily offended as blacks, and they are getting as sensitive as CAIR too. But they throw stones whenever they want from my observations on the comments on this board.
I pray that your faith in Christ will grant you peace. But it seems that your faith in Catholicism prevent that from happening.
As a Catholic I say take away every church tax free status that knowingly and willingly harbor illegal aliens.
And where is the Popes statement admonishing them? I didn’t notice one.
That is what I call an inauspicious beginning, but greetings to you, anyway! {grin}
Wow, Thacker, I missed all the outrage! Where was that?
Is saying how bad something is considered going ballistic? Awesome.
Hey, I heard the Catholics dropped a nuke after this. Or maybe it was an anti-Klan rally, I can’t tell.
Oh, yeah! I forgot about that woman that was hiding in that church a year or so ago so she wouldn’t be deported. Sorry, I’m a little slow on the up-take.
Yeah, that was messed up.
This is one of the reasons why I call myself a Christian, but don’t belong to any particular branch of it — I don’t want to have to fall under the beliefs of that particular pastor or priest.
The CC is wrong on this. My mother and her husband had to get their citizenship legally. Why should we make an exception for illegals that are breaking the law here?
Myself, I am a full-spectrum religious bigot! {grin}
I am pretty het up right now at the Catholic Church’s support for illegal immigration.
I am livid at the substantial element on the evangelical right that helped John McAmnesty to get the GOP nomination because their anti-Moron bigotry had them in such a fever.
AND, I am more than a little suspicious of the decades that many American Jews have spent making immigration such a moral absolute that it has been impossible to manage it with any good sense.
(If anybody knows any good religions, I’ve been kinda shopping around.)
I see Thacker has found his way to the party.
I’m not a Catholic either but I do care what the Pope says as it may influence the opinions of some Catholics and negatively affects the effort to preserve and repair America’s sovereign integrity. Otherwise I couldn’t care less.
Thanks Harris. If you find out about the robes, let me know. I used to go to a CAtholic Church, but I never got a chance to ask that question. AS soon as I saw a huge banner with “We support Gay and Lesbian Pride Week” on that church and several other Catholic Churches in Los Angeles, I decided that was not the Biblical church I was looking for (among other reasons). I think I am going to go get a tan now, so everyone enjoy posting.
When that woman wouldn’t come out, why didn’t the Feds go get her?
They probably didn’t want to deal with the firestorm that would ensue. Why does law enforcement get some people by force but waits out others?
RealImmigrantChick,
Send pics.
Of that banner, I can’t believe that!
I really hold my tongue because I know that the rose colored Catholic glasses they give out at mass keep people from being able to think for themselves. I assure you I could be much MORE critical of their teachings but I choose not to out of RESPECT.
But regardless of the respect I show, Catholics will still be offended at any questioning of their ideas. I have issues with many Protestants as well as Catholics. In my mind the only thing infallible in Christianity is the Bible (even with inconsistencies within it that I am well aware of).
I’m strongly considering joining an Orthodox Church. But the Bible says that the BODY is the Temple. So I am always in Church, and the Church is always in me. The main reason I enjoy going to church is to give money. My faith is as strong in Christ as it ever will be. But I feel the need to financially support the Church to help other people get their faith in Christ stronger.
I don’t miss Church, but I do miss tithing. Tithing always makes me feel good even when I don’t have any money. God rocks!
Is misspelling my handle the latest example of your cleverness? You really are childish. As for post 148 -
That is slippey and evasive. Even Bush, McCain, and Kennedy pretend to be in favor of securing the border. The sticking point is how many fall under “deport as many as we can” and how many fall under “we can debate how to reform out laws if we even need to”. John McCain can and does say things just like this.
I’ve seen too many people who make the same noises you do, who when pressed for details are basically amnesty fans.
Just thought you might want to actually read the statement you are so up in arms about. Maybe you can see where AP claimed the Pope “hinted” and wear it has “apparent reflections”
FINAL HOLY SEE – US JOINT STATEMENT
Oval Office of the White House
Wednesday, 16 April 2008
At the end of the private meeting between the Holy Father Benedict XVI and U.S. President George W. Bush, the Holy See and the Office of the President of the United States of America released a joint declaration:
President Bush, on behalf of all Americans, welcomed the Holy Father, wished him a happy birthday, and thanked him for the spiritual and moral guidance, which he offers to the whole human family. The President wished the Pope every success in his Apostolic Journey and in his address at the United Nations, and expressed appreciation for the Pope’s upcoming visit to “Ground Zero” in New York.
During their meeting, the Holy Father and the President discussed a number of topics of common interest to the Holy See and the United States of America, including moral and religious considerations to which both parties are committed: the respect of the dignity of the human person; the defense and promotion of life, matrimony and the family; the education of future generations; human rights and religious freedom; sustainable development and the struggle against poverty and pandemics, especially in Africa. In regard to the latter, the Holy Father welcomed the United States’ substantial financial contributions in this area. The two reaffirmed their total rejection of terrorism as well as the manipulation of religion to justify immoral and violent acts against innocents. They further touched on the need to confront terrorism with appropriate means that respect the human person and his or her rights.
The Holy Father and the President devoted considerable time in their discussions to the Middle East, in particular resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict in line with the vision of two states living side-by-side in peace and security, their mutual support for the sovereignty and independence of Lebanon, and their common concern for the situation in Iraq and particularly the precarious state of Christian communities there and elsewhere in the region. The Holy Father and the President expressed hope for an end to violence and for a prompt and comprehensive solution to the crises which afflict the region.
The Holy Father and the President also considered the situation in Latin America with reference, among other matters, to immigrants, and the need for a coordinated policy regarding immigration, especially their humane treatment and the well being of their families.
Press me for details then.
This reminds me of what I was thinking when Mendol was speaking so passionately about the inviolability of the citizenship rights of anchor babies.
Why is it that the left can break all the laws it wants — break then en mass — celebrate their breaking them. But when conservatives would like to undo an injustice like a fraudulent citizenship claim (similar to a sham marriage), then suddenly the law is sacred and inviolable, even if agreed to be wrong?
(Not meaning to imply that Mendol belongs on the left even though grievously in error in this particular discussion.)
Apart from the fact that the substantive part of your response (I now refer you to post 215) is gibberish, I see you are being stupid, rude, and evasive again.
According to you;
Also according to you, “immigrants’ includes “undocumented migrants”.
Which means that your earlier claim that the Pope meant only legal immigrants was incorrect.
Not that this bothers you, I’m sure.
The question of Anchor Babies is probably going to be settled by the Supreme Court. Mainly because of the cowardice of our current Congress on these issues.
Wow, I seem to have stumbled into the PG version of the Daily Kos. Bye.
OK…..I must confess that I don’t know a lot about Catholicism since I was raised as a deep south protestant. The main issue, as explained to me by the people in my church responsible for my personal enlightenment at the time, seemed to be the dogma of placing of Catholic authority figures as gateways to God and salvation. While I’ve seen a lot of protestants succumb to televangelists in similar fashion, I’ve never seen anything like the media attention paid to the Pope and his visit. So I’m inclined to think that the above-mentioned dogma is still in full and unrelenting force as far as practising Catholics are concerned.
There’s another point I’d like to make. Religion is already intertwined with government. Religious thinking from both the right and the left has a huge influence over policy both foreign and domestic. Religion even influences atheists and agnostics by giving them a windmill to tilt against. Bill Maher doesn’t just rant against the Catholics. He also has plenty to say about the fundamentalist protestants who had considerable influence in the election of G.W. Bush as president. He is an equal-opportunity religious and political gadfly.
Comparing Michelle Malkin to Bill Maher is like comparing apples to oranges in my opinion. It seems to me that Ms. Malkin’s positions encourage a more open discourse than Mr. Maher’s. Bill Maher is an atheist. And from what I’ve seen will not countenance the idea that faith is of ANY use in this modern world.
flenser,
Never acknowledge someone’s misspellin’s, unless thays talkin’ ’bout how smart they are.
Mendol’s post 148 exhibited a nice example of base-coverage. I have to accuse you of leaving off the rest of that post because you saw it, too.
Also, you are on the wrong blog to be demanding that someone think the exact same way you do. I don’t like force, and I don’t like lock-step.
flen(lil pup)ser,
Nope was referring to whom the Pope was talking about in the speech when he said immigrants need to respect the laws of the countries they are going to. The definition is from the same speech moron.
Do I need to repost your uncivil posts that allow me to be completely comfortable treating you like the idiot you are?
I think it’s pretty clear that Mendol is on the left. His style of discourse combined with his actual positions (those few which can be gleaned) make that obvious.
Because they are lefties. Whatever advances their cause is good, whatever retards it is bad.
I don’t know what happened to my earlier post about my volunteer work in the Atlanta Archdiocese which opened my eyes to what i believe supports Mrs. Malkin’s arguement that she is not anti-catholic as it would make me an anti-catholic catholic. But, I must side with law and order as all christians are ordered to do so by the words of Jesus himself “Give unto Caesar…” so lets not act like it’s just an insult to our religion anytime someone asks a valid question about it. We are not 10 we are members of a faith well over 1,000 years old so lets look at these positions and why his holiness made it a point to support the catholic fringe groups when there has already been a decision made on the level of the National Archdiocese that violating Immigration Laws and helping others do that is not the right thing to do. There is a battle for the soul of the Catholic Church in America, His Holiness has chosen to align himself with the wrong group. If this means I must leave my faith then so be it.
Why LEBANON? Because the Catholics complained about Israel from the first Israeli bullet during that conflict when Hezbollah attacked and kidnapped Israeli soldiers. The Vatican NEVER takes the side of Israel and don’t think they should defend themselves. I could provide links.
I think part of the problem with that pope burning link is the way Catholics revere the Pope. To me it looks more like idolization than anything. I am not bashing, just observing the relentless praise the pope gets instead of CHRIST. So Muslim haters will focus on the pope for demonstrations thinking that it represents Christians (to me it doesn’t).
But I have also said before that I don’t think it shows much faith for the pope to be in a bullet proof vehicle with tons of security. Jesus had none of that. Everyone told Him to stay out of Jerusalem, but He went anyway because of his faith that God’s will would be done. To me, even though I understand the threats and whatnot, it doesn’t show me courage of faith to the man closest to God. Again, not bashing, just observing. But these observations keep me from believing that I ‘need’ to join the Catholic Church for salvation in Christ.
The anchor baby issue is a very legitimate and sensitive issue; Mendol was right to say it should be considered separately from the ‘illegal border-crossing’ issue.
What I see happening is an absence of trolls. Since no punching bag is here, Mendol has been selected as the target, even though none of his posts have been indicative of an ‘open-borders’ viewpoint. Interesting.
Men(atlly retarded)dol
Yes, you moron, it is from the same speech. And the definition makes it clear that the pope is including illegal immigrants as just palin “immigrants”. What part of this is unclear to you?
I’d be entertained if you were to repost a post of mine showing me to be an idiot.
You know, sort of like the way you posted the Pope saying the exact opposite of what you think he said. Something like that would make me look really stoopid. As stoopid as you.
No, because Lebanon is the last Christian country where Christianity began. The indigenous Catholics there are being slaughtered by the peace loving islamist. You know them, don’t you?
Mendol,
I don’t suppose that a “co-ordinated” policy would be anything like the “comprehensive” approach of McCain/Kennedy [sarcasm].
But I expect that you are going to try to tell me that the Pope just wants us to “coordinate” our policy with Mexico, which has been orchestrating the invasion from their side for a good while. Actually, the administration seems already to be in good synch with Mexico on this. Of course, we could agree on some more comfortable transportation for the invaders.
On American immigration, I say again, STFU, Pope.
Mendol,
I don’t suppose that a “co-ordinated” policy would be anything like the “comprehensive” approach of McCain/Kennedy [sarcasm].
But I expect that you are going to try to tell me that the Pope just wants us to “coordinate” our policy with Mexico, which has been orchestrating the invasion from their side for a good while. Actually, the administration seems already to be in good synch with Mexico on this. Of course, we could agree on some more comfortable transportation for the invaders.
On American immigration, I say again, butt out, Pope.
I will try again. In a Papal Message on the day the Church prays for immigrants the Pope said that immigrants need to respect the laws of the country they are going to. He defined what immigrants he was discussing by INCLUDING undocumented migrant workers. The time I said that rather than infer that the Pope meant illegal aliens when he referred to immigrants was a different speech. The poster “assumed” that he meant illegal immigrants, I mearly posited that maybe IN THAT SPEECH he was referring to legal immigrants.
Man, with a little bullet-proof glass, Jesus might still be alive to day.
Ignatius,
I guess it can mean anything you want it too. Try and remember that this was a joint statement and would have to be approved by both the Vatican AND the President.
You problem is that that statement is consistent with the Pope’s message that has never included “open borders.” Do I deny the Pope would like to see us have more liberal laws on immigration? No, I don’t, but that does not correlate to “open borders” as the title of the origional post by MM says it does.
Thacker Agency,
Look, the Pope is wearing an ALL-White robe! How do you explain that?
I can put on a white T-shirt and in five minutes it will have some smudge or stain on it. He rides in the Pope-Mobile (which would be awesomer if it was a tractor) and never gets dirty. What more proof of Divinity do you need?
OK….There’s more smoke than light here. It’s a beautiful afternoon so it’s time to fire up the Harley and clear my head. Have fun people….
Harris
Mendol’s inabilty to read his own posts, let alone those of other people, is going a long towards his being treated as a troll. That is pure troll behavior, after all.
They are seperate issues, though closely related. The answer provided to the ‘anchor baby’ question has the potential to negate the ‘deport as many as possible’ statement which Mendol made. After all, every illegal can claim to have been born here.
And every ‘anchor baby’ gets to bring in their entire extended familiy, who get to bring in THEIR entire extended family, which makes ’securing the border’ meaningless.
That post was on the previous thread, Mike. I took particular notice of it.
I am in North Carolina, and I had a tale to relate about a Mexican immigrant saying on the local radio that they were going to take back this stolen land.
If I recall, you were hit by the Atlanta priest with this same “stolen land” argument.
I remember this because it really illustrates how absurd these reconquista claims are that are now heard on the media and parroted by priests. For those who flunked geography, GA and NC, which are now being “reconquered,” are quite some distance from the modest [sarcasm]ambitions shown in the Absolut ad.
flenser,
Wow, you are really stretching the Troll or Liberal angle. Maybe I meant “deport as many as possible” because nobody is disillusioned enough to think that we can get them all anytime in the near future. I would think you would have enough common sense to know that anyone who claimed they were born here would have to have a little thing called a “Birth Certificate.”
No, if you are born here you have a birth certificate. Sure, there are anecdotal stories of wilderness babies, but I don’t buy them.
Here’s the thing: To support the sovereign state argument you also should support the right to citizenship if someone is born here. Look at France; they have people who are born in France and then in turn have children in France, yet the French don’t consider them citizens. Securing the borders and returning those not born here to their native habitat would remove a significant portion of the burden.
Of course the issue that deserves more contemplation is the issue of illegal parents staying with their American-borne children. I do stand by the argument that anyone born on American soil should be considered an American.
Nonsense. That’s like being “shocked” that on the same day the President issued a statement condemning abuse of inmates in federal prison, the government arrested 20 people and sent them to federal prison.
One simply does not follow from the other.
“Defending the rights of immigrants”?
So immigrants have a right not to be arrested? Golly, I didn’t know that.
Um, what? So latino families get more legal protection than the rest of us?
So if a white man with a wife and kids gets sent to prison, thereby separating the family, somehow that isn’t “truly dangerous for the social, moral, and human fabric”?
Now you’re getting it.
And considering that we already have de-facto open-borders, and that the Pope is advocating even more liberal policies, doesn’t it follow that he’s advocating for us to open our borders even further, especially given the context of the many ongoing open-borders activities of the Catholic Church, which he leads?
I will try again.
By definition, the “undocumented migrant workers” have nothing but contempt for the law. To say that they need to “respect the laws of the country they are going to” is meaningless double-speak. If they respected the laws of the country they were going to, they would not go there.
If they respected basic concepts of justice and morality they would not go there either.
Is there ANY degree of liberalization in our already absurdly liberal immigration laws which you would consider to constitute open borders?
I see some people here claiming that you are not an open borders defender. But you walk, talk, and quack like one. So far I’m seeing all the open borders canards (don’t break up the family, etc) and nothing to suggest that you are in favor of America regaining control of it’s borders.
Just my observation here, but to propose the Pope was referring to legal immigration is naieve at best. The US is the most generous country in the world when it comes to legal immigration, bar none. Why would the Pope express any concern for legal immigration when we lead the world in this area?
In addition, a substantial number of the Catholic heirarchy in the US are open borders zealots. They are the people upon whom the Pope relies as his eyes and ears in the US. From Mahoney on down, these leaders have been very vocal and critical of the US policy toward illegals. The comments on “breaking up families” are practically verbatim talking points from the sermons and speeches given by the Mahoney crowd on the highly publicized cases where one falimy member was deported and others remained.
As to “butts in the seats”, that rather crass paraphrasing of what was actually said was not attributable my Michelle to the Pope, but to the clergy here in the US. And like it or not, it is a motive. The more Catholics one adds to their flock, the greater the revenue in the diocese. To ignore that as a possible motivation in promoting open borders is akin to ignoring the beneficiary on a $1 million life insurance policy as a possible suspect in the untimely demise of the insured.
Sorry to say, that the Church itself is not immune from acting out of pecuniary gain. Money is a powerful motivator, especially in times of financial need. The Church has expressed that the lawsuit settlements have put a strain on its financial condition.
when we look at possible motives, we always look for what the person has to gain out of a particular outcome. A surge in Catholic membership would undeniably lead to an increase in contributions from its growing base. that is a fact. Whether that is the driving motive of the Pope’s is the great uncertainty. But Based on our association with Mahoney and his crew, I believe it is much more likely than not that part of THEIRmotivation is financial.
Granted, it is speculation at this point, but I very much doubt whether any of them will come out and directly admit to a monetary motivation. But it is speculation that passes the test of reason and logical analysis, and speculation that is based on the kind of facts that present a convincing and compelling case for the truth of the assertion.
I guess I am just not reading the same posts.
Harris said;
No. Sovereign states have the right to decide who is and who is not a citizen. That’s sort of what makes them “sovereign states”.
Why should they be considered American? I have not seen the argument.
The 14th AMdt language “subject to the juristiction thereof” was inserted precisely to prevent the notion that all persons who happened to be born in the US had US citizenship.
Never said I agreed with the Pope’s position on more liberal immigration laws, again you are inferring more than I said. The Pope has stated that we have a right to secure our borders. He says that all nations do.
More liberal laws might include quest workers programs (I would exclude anyone that was caught here illegally), it might mean special consideration for Mexican Immigrants (again same rule applies). These are just a few I would be willing to see debated. I will reserve my judgment on the wisdom of these laws until then. Then again I would reserve the debate until AFTER we have secured our border and we have gotten as many illegals out of the country as is reasonably possible possible.
Man, my editing skills are seriously going downhill right now.
flenser,
As I said earlier, that question will probably need to be settled by the Supreme Court due to the lack of courage by our legislators.
Or you are just not reading. But I gather your own position on immigration is not dissimilar to Mendols.
Jim M
Mendol has already walked back from that, although in such a way that you’d be hard pressed to see it. He is now conceding (with great ill-grace) that the Pope was referring to illegals.