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
In my fictional government I would make it like in the movie Starship Troopers (first saw that movie in Basic Training of all places in Ft. Benning GA while stuck in the holding area before we actually started our 16 weeks) where one “earned” the right to citizenship not by birthright but by completing service to ones country.
flensor,
Principles, I don’t want to see another Shamnesty bill that “promises” to deal with the situation later on down the road.
Also flenser,
I watched this thread over the past few hours as you took Mendol’s posts, interpreted them negatively, then began acting rudely because you thought he did not agree with you, just as you are currently attempting to do with me. You seem to desire everyone on this site to get into formation and march along to your drum, but things don’t always work out like that.
Here, would you like me to spell out my opinions on illegal immigration for you? Now you won’t have to infer or assume:
Illegal immigrants are a burden on our society, no matter how many yards they mow or roofs they shingle.
They should be stopped at the border or Mexico should be fined for each one we catch.
We can’t deport them all, today. Give us a few years.
They should fix their own country.
The Mexican government knows that as long as the disgruntled and downtrodden can leave for America there will be no Mexican Revolution, in Mexico at least.
I am willing to share my country with someone who was born here just like I was.
There, hope that helps.
AlaskaGrizzly,
I am in Columbus…
Where in Alaska? I worked in Whittier for a while.
I lived in Anchorage for 12 years, currently reside in Phoenix, AZ.
Then you know where Whittier is, right? I spent some time in Wasilla, too.
Harris
That is more of an asserion than an argument.
Interesting comparision. Those people were invited to France as guest workers, while our problem is people who legally speaking SHOULD be deported.
Of course France has the right to boot out the guest workers any time it wishes. They don’t do so because they have allowed the problem to grow and fester, just as we are doing now.
The chickens are coming home to roost in the sense that France is paralyzed by liberalism. The US is not far behind them in succumbing to that illness.
I would look at the Constitution. Citizens are those people born in America and subject to the juristiction therof. This (at the time) excluded all Indians. It excluded all children born to embassy staff of foreign nations. It excluded children born to illegal aliens.
You can read much more on this matter here.
flensor,
I will apologize right now. My wife (a College English Prof.) just told me I was unclear. When a poster said that the Pope (talking about the Joint Statement) was saying immigrants he really meant illegal immigrant. I merely quipped that maybe in that statement, he meant what he said when he said immigrant.
The time I said the Pope was referring to immigrants respecting the law, someone asked me what the Pope meant by immigrants in that speech (a different statement), I referred to the text of the speech were the Pope defined what he meant in that statement concerning immigrants. I have never conceded that the Joint Statement by the Pope and President was referring to “illegals.” Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Maybe I am completely wrong on this, but in my experience the vast majority of illegal Mexican immigrants has been working-age males. This experience was in New Orleans and Lake Charles, LA after Katrina and Rita, south Georgia cotton gins, and various construction jobs. I recall many of the men complaining of a lack of Mexican women. To imply that the majority of the illegal immigrants are women with children born in this country seems far from accurate.
I noticed this statement and I thought it shouldn’t go unanswered:
Selling the works of art in the Vatican wouldn’t accomplish anything. The short term benefit of keeping a few small churches from going under would be vastly outweighed by the long term losses of thousands if not millions of people who WON’T be able to view those beautiful art works and therefore WON’T be so inspired by them that they discover their faith in God.
Simple enough; whether or not at least one of their parents is an American citizen. What’s wrong with that?
I don’t see why.
Harris
I did not “interpet” Mendols posts negatively. I pointed out instances were he was incorrect, instances where he was evasive, and instances where he made liberal arguments. He even condeded many of my points, albiet with his usual childish taunts mixed in.
Stop crying because people express opinions you don’t like. And keep your emotions to yourself.
Were you born here to illegal immigrants? If not, I don’t see that there is any analogy.
If so, you need to leave.
Do these morons ever learn?
The lastest asinine post is from one Jim M.,
babbling about “pecuniary gain”.
a few words: Together in Mission - Los Angeles Archdiocese
Look it up
Also because France would probably lose.
Michelle,
I am a practicing Catholic and agree with you on illegal immigration and don’t think that you are anti-Catholic, but your statement in the original post was a cheap shot.
flenser,
I have argued that the AP article and MM mis characterized the Pope’s position on immigration by saying he advocates “open borders.” I still stand by that assertion and you have done nothing to prove me wrong. I have zero problem with people criticizing the Pope on his actual stances, Catholic or not, I do however take issue with misrepresenting them.
You however, have accused me of being stupid, a closet liberal and even that I am not a Catholic. All with nothing more than your own biased opinions because I don’t condemn the Pope for something I don’t believe he promotes.
I don’t post on blogs very often so I am a little slow on the draw, but you leave me no alternative other than to consider you a Troll and ignore you.
No misunderstanding. I understand you clearly. In spite of, or perhaps because of, your legalistic parsing of your every word.
Nice. I was just kidding about that moby stuff. As I’m sure you were with all that “moron” and “idiot” garbage.
Given that we understand each other, perhaps we could actually have a real discussion of immigration. You know, one in which you don’t spend all your time explaining what you don’t believe, or what you think the Pope believes or said. One where you actually say something, make arguments, offer evidence, make a case.
I think that I heard that we allows more legal immigrants into our country than ALL other countries combined! (?) If that is the truth then the Pope could not possibly be referring to the rights of legal US immigrants.
Harris…about the all white robe and the fact that your whites don’t stay clean…
when someone is doing everything for you and you are not in the “real world”,
your clothes simply don’t get dirty.
Mendol..just finished reading your later posts. Very interesting.
JRoberts, first of all I’m not a seminarian; I’m getting an M.A. in Theology because I’m interested in it.
On comments by you and Mendol, who still don’t quite get it that Pope Benedict has been a lousy Pope so far:
1) He IS talking about illegal immigration when he talks about the need for the most generous country in the world to show “compassion” for illegals and not build a fence. He is telling us not to enforce our laws.
2) When he speaks of “multilateralism,” he is saying that the U.S. does not have the moral authority to lead; what a jerk after WWII, the liberation of Kuwait; the overthrow of Saddam, etc. Since the end of the Soviet Union, socialists have been lamenting that capitalism won and that the U.S.A. is the “only superpower.” When clueless Pope Benedict states that he wants more “multilateralism,” in essence he is stating he misses the Soviet Union and socialism.
3) Something you or Mendol have failed to explain: Why has the Pope not mentioned once on this bash America tour a)abortion b) Hollywood c) pornography d) Islamic terrorism (besides making excuses for terrorist (they are exploited by America; thus we deserve it) e) Terry Schiavo and euthanasia, etc. He cluelessly forgets his CHIEF mission: the salvation of souls. Has Pope Benedict ever mentioned hell once in his papacy? All he seems to care about is love. He seems like a girly-Pope.
4) He probably is the worst administrator we have had in a Pope for the last 200 years. The guy cannot get rid of the liberals and left-wingers in the Church. He probably doesn’t even want to. He never attaches any consequences. The fact that he doesn’t mention the issues above and still lets pro-abortion congressmen (while bashing those who are anti-abortion by bashing the other things conservatives stand for) means that he is boosting the Democratic party.
5) Finally, he ironically does seem to have Nazi-like tendencies: a distrust of free markets and the United States; the idea that the state can solve inequalities, instead of charities; the arrogant European idea that the elite ( for example, the U.N. Human Rights council, with Cuba, Sudan, others) can solve the world problems. Also, Nazi-like, he does seem to have a soft-spot for dictators, if they are anti-U.S.
Enough is enough. Thank God that conservatives, such as Michelle Malkin, have finally broken the taboo and have started criticizing Pope Benedict for overstepping his bounds and his mission (which is saving individual souls; for example how does “global warming” or “immigration” have anything to do with this?). Many Catholics, like myself, are grateful to Michelle for this. Maybe the Vatican will finally get a clue.
Okay…HOW were the Pope’s statements mischaracterized?
Show us precisely how his statements were mischaracterized. Did they quote him out of context? “Paraphrase” his words in a way that made them mean something else?
What, specifically, did they do to mischaracterize his words?
Mendol
You have indeed done that.
You have this weird liberal-college-student belief that all you need to do is make an assertion, and that the onus is then on other people to “prove you wrong” in some very exacting sense which you yourself will sit in judgement on.
In which case, I assert the exact opposite, and defy YOU to prove ME wrong.
You have worked long and hard to demonstrate your liberalness and your stupidity. And done nothing at all to indicate that you are Catholic.
Hold on to that thought, and build on it.
As opposed to the stream of invective you have been directing at me all through the thread, while stubbornly refusing to actually debate the issue at hand?
Wow, I didn’t realize how emotional I was getting. Thanks for pointing that out.
Are you kidding me? You actually cannot debate your points without being churlish? You cannot consider differing viewpoints? Are your ideas so fragile that any deviance from what you consider right must be stamped out and people told to leave?
I advocate stopping illegal immigration at the border to alleviate and circumvent this problem of anchor babies before it happens. I desire to remove the incentives for illegals to come here in the first place.
But, this is the greatest and most powerful country in the world, and if you happen to be lucky enough to be born here I have no problem with you being a part of it.
Sorry for the delay, lost my connection for a bit…
The ONLY people responsible for “separating” families are those here illegally who choose to do so by their OWN decisions when they are to be deported (like that happens a lot).
The Pope has NO standing when it comes to the defense of our country. Unless of course the Vatican wishes to fund ALL expenses incurred because of illegal immigration.
You what US to prove YOU wrong?
Why should we have to do that? Isn’t the onus on you to prove that you’re RIGHT?
Timor dei initium sapiente…. as I read my Catechism… very enlightening, some of our bishops should reread it.
Gabe,
Why has the Pope not mentioned once on this bash America tour a)abortion b) Hollywood c) pornography d) Islamic terrorism (besides making excuses for terrorist (they are exploited by America; thus we deserve it) e) Terry Schiavo and euthanasia, etc.
You might want to read ALL the statements the Pope has made. That list would get a lot shorter.
He probably is the worst administrator we have had in a Pope for the last 200 years. The guy cannot get rid of the liberals and left-wingers in the Church.
Most if not all those Liberals were appointed by John Paul II. Apparently you have no idea of what power the Pope has over other Bishops and the Priests that serve them. His authority is as a Pastor, not a CEO.
TXRose,
I was joking about his robes…it must take Divine Intervention to keep them that white.
Greenfairie, Mendol, MikeOK an others sympathetic to open borders should consider the money-quote from my comment @ #48:
The truth is compassion to strangers, ie immigrants, breaking up families etc. However, the US is not guilty of “lack of compassion” Collin Powell is from an immigrant family that rose to a couple of the highest powers in this country - DOS and JCS.
Breaking up families? The blame rests on Mexico for the first breakup in causing some to leave their family in search of relief.
The issue of anchor babies is a tough one that is self-inflicted - call it unintended consequences. However, since we are generally agreed that families shouldn’t be broken up, they should be sent back with their illegal & lawbreaking care-providers. When those anchor babies come to adulthood, they are welcome to return, establish themselves and then petition the govt thru the normal immigration process to bring their family members over, provided they can assure us that all financial burdens will be assumed by the petitioner and not our social services.
In no case, should our sovereignty be usurped and borders ignored in the name of compassion.
As for the assertion that God’s laws trump Man’s laws, this is only applicable to personal faith. IOW, when the State tells you to renounce your faith, you are obligated to disobey that command. However, be prepared to lose your life in order to save your soul. See the stories of Daniel, Mordecai, Stephan, Peter & Paul among others, and of course the ultimate sacrifice, Jesus. By comparison, disobeying Man’s law over borders is downright immoral.
Ironically, the render unto Caesar isn’t just about taxes - it’s about submitting to an occupying force that established a rule of law over the Jews. Think about it, just as Jeremiad Wright’s hero Cone (BLT) rejects a god that isn’t on the side of the “oppressed” Black, the Pharisees rejected Jesus as Messiah, because he wasn’t on their side in throwing off the rule of Rome.
The theological trap (Matt 22:15-22) that the Jewish religious leaders set was to accuse Jesus of disobeying Caesar & inciting insurrection on one hand and “Uncle Tom-ing” on the other. Likewise, the issue of compassion for immigrants is a emotional & immoral trap - accusing us of heartlessness on one hand on one hand and on the other and encouraging law-breaking yet bankrupting us if carried to logical conclusion. Jesus’ example for the proper place of faith within the Church would preserve our laws to the fullest, while seeking to reform it and encourage Mexico to clean up its act by due process.
corona,
I have yet to see any positive contribution by you on this thread. Making blanket assertions and accusation without any objective support is not exactly productive.
Neither is going negative on people who have managed to ignore your drooling rhetoric up until this point. The only matter you have cleared up on this thread is the limited degree of your mental acuity and total lack of class.
Folks like yourself give the rest of us Catholics a bad name.
Where and when has he mentioned these in this tour of America?
This is why I think it is awfully premature for Catholics to dub John Paul “the great.” He was okay and better than Paul VI and John XXIII, but that ain’t saying much. He certainly is NOT great by any stretch of the imagination when compared to previous Popes.
The Pope approves who becomes bishops and cardinals. If Benedict were doing his job, for example, liberal Wuerl would not have been made archbishop of Washington and given us that atrocious mass at Nationals’ stadium.
I live in the Diocese of Arlington, and thank God it is conservative. But I still find that there is this taboo among conservative Catholics to criticize the Pope when he deserves to be criticized (as when he oversteps his bounds and mission and starts pontificating about “global warming,” donating 20,000 dollars to build shelters in Mexico for illegals, praising Cuba, etc.) His mission is the salvation of INDIVIDUAL souls, not making the world into a socialist utopia.
On April 20th, 2008 at 2:58 pm, Nichevo @ #240
Concur. The Pope most likely was betrayed by his American leadership pursuing their own socialist agendas
Andy,
Not exactly sure what point it is you are trying to make, but concerning Liberation Theology. It is basically considered a heresy in the Catholic Church. One of the leaders in fighting it was the current Pope. More than a few Priests have been excommunicated or forbidden to teach because of those views.
The Pope and Church is well aware of the fact that Liberation Theology is nothing more than Marxism wrapped up in a Christian cloak. The reason why Marxism is so dangerous is that Marx borrowed a lot of his ideas from Jesus but takes them down a road that was never intended. Marx also rejects the teachings of Christ that he doesn’t like (a good indication of errant thinking). Communism has been declared a heresy since the days of Pious XI (I think, can look it up if needed), Liberation Theology was just a way around that ban.
i dont even know if i’m catholic anymore. here in the mexican province formerly known as los angeles i was born and raised a catholic. every sunday i go to mass and sometimes there is a taped lecture of cardinal mahony telling us we are all god’s children and we must prayer for fair immigration laws. i think it’s time for me to move to salt lake city and become a mormon.
I handle snakes to test my faith in God.
Gabe,
Let’s start with the statement we are all debating.
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…
What do you think that is about? Abortion and Euthanasia maybe? If you know anything about “Theology of the Body” you would know that this is about Pornography as well.
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.
Who is he talking about here? Islam maybe?
The idea of “Dictatorship of Relativism” that he mentioned in his address at the White House. Come on Theology student, what’s that all about?
Michelle has made great points in the posts relating to groups who are admantly pro-illegal on anything.
The critics have been totally unable to take on those points. Instead, in some bizarre diversion tactic, all they’ve done is shanefully scream “anti-Catholic!!”.
Maybe the critics are dainty hothouse flowers who really just shouldn’t be on the internet in any way, shape or form. That is unless they also are hysterically screaming “anti-Baptist!” everytime some of Fred Phelps’ group members stances/actions are critiqued.
The complaining and whining is all just so much “MPCRA” - More Political Correctness Run Amuck.
It’s pitiful the point that there are groups of all types - business, civil, governmental, religious, etc - who are working hard against enforcing America’s laws and borders is a point that’s totally lost on those attacking Michelle.
I’m not Catholic, but I believe that you are a good person to point out this problem that infests the Catholic church. My protestant church has the same problems with Liberation Theology, as most recently manifest in the Jeremiah Wright controversy. My guess is that it no more represents the true faith in the Catholic church than it does in the rest of Christendom.
Harris
To which I can only reply - Are you kidding me? You actually cannot debate your points without being churlish? You cannot consider differing viewpoints? Are your ideas so fragile that any deviance from what you consider right must be stamped out and people told to leave?
You argue like a liberal. I don’t mean in the goals you advocate, I mean in the methods you employ.
Although your goals make me wonder also.
Then why should not every pregant woman in the world come to America to give birth? You are emoting, not thinking.
Harris
Your mini-autobio left out the fact that you can’t understand what you read, and that that you don’t understand how blogs work.
I did not demand that people think as I do. By that standard, YOU are guilty of demaning that people think as YOU do. I have no ability to “force” anyone to do anything. And you seem to like lock-step just fine, as long as it is your own lockstep under which the kids of illegals born in the US get to stay. Along with their family.
My apologies for being unclear: what I was proposing was that the incoming illegals, already Catholic, would rebuild his flock in the U.S. church where membership has been showing a steep decline due to unfortunate events such as the homosexual pedophile priest scandal. If you can’t build your church in the U.S. citizens, then the next best thing is illegals, apparently.
Clear now?
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that was a compliment. If you knew the background, it would be! If, on the other hand, you were being churlish, then a pox on your house!
Harris, exactly how many non-Mexican women and children do you see on these constructions jobs? Has it ever occurred to you that these are not the ideal locations to observe in order to get an idea of the scope of the problem?
Mendel, the point is the open borders issue is another front in the liberation assault. Look at what the Pope wrote about how the Gospel is misconstrued for marxist political/social purposes and LT is the exact same playbook used by illegal immigration sympathizers.
Bottomline, the US liberal religious are operating outside of the proper role of faith, because 2 wrongs make wright (pun intended)
MendelMendol, sorry.If you want to quote me, quote the whole story.
Since I do not nor have not lived in the illegal Mexican world I do not know the extent of Mexican women being in this country illegally. Therefore I have to go by what I have heard and seen. I have heard Mexican men here illegally speak of a lack of Mexican women for them to date, etc. I heard it from the proverbial horse’s mouth, as evidenced by the quote above. In my experience the majority of illegal Mexicans have been working age men and a much fewer number of women are available to bear children.
That’s why I view the ‘anchor babies’ issue as small potatoes compared to the overall arc of illegal immigration.
If I have to spell it out any simpler for you I will need a crayon. Ideologues like you are the reason liberalism is such a force today. Your unwillingness to even consider an idea other than your own drives people away from the right.
Linked to this story at newsbuckit.com
Is it an M.A. in Catholic theology? If you’re so conservative in your Catholic faith, you should take a longer look at history.
Why would the Pope think that the U.S. can be the sole moral leader in the world? At no point in the past has it worked out well for their to be one secular government doing whatever it wants with impunity. So what about the last 5 years? Think about the last 2000. Strong, powerful centralized governments without clear external checks don’t govern too terribly well. Whenever a clear power has emerged head-and-shoulders stronger than anyone else in Europe, lots of people eventually die; e.g., Prussia, the old Roman empire, or look at the administration by France and Spain of their colonies. Why should the Pope care about since WWII? There’s a lot more history than that.
It’s a seamless garment. Euthanasia, the death penalty, the war, abortion, porn, how we treat the poor (including illegals) are all related. Besides, this all has to do with what American law is. You’re complaining on those points seems contradictory to your point in (1) that the Pope shouldn’t be telling us what to do with our laws.
Have you read rerum novarum or any of the anniversary encyclicals for it? I’m pretty sure it would be too socialist for you, what with all the concern for the plight of the poor in the free market. Pretty much all modern Popes have been equally oppsed to both strict Smithian capitalism and Marxism because both reduce the human person to economics. There have always been more or less liberal Bishops, and the Pope will never be too huge a fan of any Enlightenment-influenced political ideology. Benedict does not differ from the popes of the last 200 or 2000 years in this regard. And why in the world would the Pope want to boost the democratic party per se. I can imagine the Pope agreeing with some of the Democrats’ goals, esp. universal healthcare, but things like abortion and gay marriage aren’t things he wants to see happen.
This is the same as the nonsensical accusation liberals make when they accuse Republicans of fascism. The claim that he thinks the state can solve our problems is nonsense. You should read Deus Caritas Est, where he says as such. (Though, perhaps you think this whole “God is love” thing makes God girly too). The distrust of the free market is a distrust in any political system that is concerned with economics or politics before people.
Does every pregnant woman in the world come here now? It seems to me like we subscribe to the idea of jus soli already, so where are these billions of pregnant women? Hmm…I guess I just emoted US policy.
Harris…So was I. It would certainly take divine
intervention to keep me clean in all white clothes.
“Does every pregnant woman in the world come here now?”
Well, certainly thousands from Mexico. And we’ve got a healthcare system on life support as a result.
“Born here, you’re a citizen”. Brilliant idea.
(rolls @@ eyes)
Bill Maher sleeps around with pornstars, flight attendants and was busted for DWI. He has about as much integrity as a 1971 Ford Pinto. You wanna nail this weasel? Drop your HBO and tell em’ why you’re doing it.
Harris,
It occurs to me that the men you’ve met may have been referring to SINGLE Mexican women. An illegal Mexican woman with an anchor baby would likely be married (or she may simply be considered “unavailable” because she has a kid).
Nah, we were in New Orleans after Katrina and there just weren’t any women in the area. I can attest to that. Personally I think the whole idea of anchor babies is detestable and I don’t care if their families are broken up, kept together through a deportation, or whatever may befall them. If they didn’t want to be subject to that they should not come here illegally in the first place. (Wow, it’s much easier arguing for the position you actually take!)
A lot of people say it would be impossible to deport them all, or too expensive, but we would actually save money over the next 20 years by at least trying.
Sorry, I was bored on a Sunday and wanted to argue. flenser, you’re still a douche.
On April 20th, 2008 at 5:34 pm, Gabe said:
OK, he did say we should show compassion for “immigrants” already here — but “the fence” — got a quote? I don’t.
So, you take your interpretation from Reuters? Exactly where in the UN speech did Benedict explicitly indicate that he was referring to the US when he mentioned multilateralism? Hints: China has blocked the condemnation of the slaughter in Darfur. Sudan has refused to rein in the violence. And the Arab states in condemning violence against Christians? — well, we know what they do.
Abortion: nope, no explicit mention. Has there ever been any doubt where the Catholic church stood on abortion or on the sanctity of life? Didn’t Terry Schiavo’s family have a private audience with the Vatican?
“Has Pope Benedict ever mentioned hell once in his papacy?” Why, yes, he’s very interested in eschatology. Maybe there’s not enough fire and brimstone to suit your taste, but maybe you can overcome your Reuters headline mentality (and obvious anti-Catholicism) to wade through the encyclical from which this trip takes its theme: Spe Salvi (In Hope We are Saved).
Pornography, Hollywood: uh, why? Do those topics deserve mention?
Islamic terrorism: “excuses for terrorist (they are exploited by America; thus we deserve it).” Who the heck are you talking about? Did you even hear the Pope’s speech at Regensburg? (The one where he quoted by the 14th Century Byzantine emperor as saying “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”) Were you asleep? The Muslims weren’t, as they proved by murder and mayhem in response to the Pope’s remarks.
Jeebus. “We?” Dude, if you’re Catholic, I’m the Queen of England. So the Pope should do what? — swoop down on America like Batman and cast these liberals, leftwingers and congressmen into hell? Fantasize much? This is getting tedious, but let me remind you of the history of the Catholic Church in America: the Vatican has historically taken a “hands off” approach to the American Catholic church, due to the anti-papist sentiment very prevalent here among protestants in the 17th through 19th Century, and still, unfortunately, around today, judging by your post. The a–holes Cardinals, bishops and politicians who corrupt Catholicism are the American Church’s problem, although the Pope has taken it upon himself to apologize, in almost every appearance on this trip, for the sexual abuse scandal among the American Catholic clergy — because the American Catholic Bishops, who should have been down on their knees in abject apology, weren’t.
Yeah, of course, free markets are perfect — never any abuses, like all of man’s perfect institutions, right? Give me a quote where the Pope advises abandonment of free markets. There aren’t any.
The “idea that the state can solve inequalities, instead of charities.” Huh?
The “arrogant European idea that the elite can solve the world problems.” Re-read the UN speech without the Reuters blinders, dude, and tell me that is what he says. Hint: watch for words such as “should” and “can” as opposed to “is” and “does.” The Vatican has had more than one run-in with the UN idiocracy.
“Also Nazi-like, he does seem to have a soft-spot for dictators, if they are anti-U.S.” So, Debbie Schlussell’s account of one Cuban exile is now the ultimate authority on the Catholic Church’s stand against dictators? And that, of course, negates the historic collaboration of John Paul II and Ronald Reagan in bringing down the Soviet Union? Cool.
Oh, and the “Nazi” reference? — Reductio ad Hitlerum.
Harris
You need to get around a little more. I can attest to the fact that there are vast mumbers of illegal Latin Americans, women and children, all over this country. I’m not sure how manage not to see them.
You’re not very good at it.
And you are still a stupid liberal who emotes instead of thinks.
Kids should not play with concepts they don’t understand. Of course Wikipedia encourages them.
Gee, I wonder why there is anti-Catholic sentiment with these boorish statements by Pope Benedict like these, where he condemns even a border fence for our country: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/11/vatican-calls-us-plans-for-mexican.php
Yes, I am a devout Catholic, but I don’t appreciate the Pope coming to my country and lecturing about things he has no mission to do. Christ did not hand the keys to Peter so the Pope could lecture about border fences, global warming, the wonders of socialism. . .all things these postmodern European Popes recently think is more important than saving souls.
Boy, the guy needs to his priorities straight then. He has mentioned illegal immigration numerous times, but I guess abortion doesn’t concern him too much.
Most of the fellow Catholics I know are getting very sick of the Vatican’s anti-Americanism and overstepping their bounds by lecturing about illegal immigration, global warming, and other stupid things they have no expertise on.
You and JRoberts sound very much like liberal “Catholics.”
Harris
What, the guys you hire on street corners?
Can we take a poll? You think he’d be receptive to a petition in that regard? I mean, they’ll all end up there eventually…
Okay, so there weren’t any women in the area. What does that prove, exactly? New Orleans was a total disaster area back then and most engineers and construction workers are men. Of course there weren’t any women in NO.
I’m sure that if we could somehow do a head-count of all illegal Mexicans in America the males would probably outnumber the females, if only because Mexican families tend more towards the traditionalist model (male breadwinner/female homemaker) and most illegals come here for work. But that doesn’t mean the anchor-baby problem is “small potatoes”.
I would totally convert to Catholicism if he did. : )
So the power of the keys doesn’t apply in America, or on issues of temporal governance? And I’m the liberal? Until 40 years ago, the Pope wore the triple-tiara representing his authority in all matters of temporal and eternal government; the triple tiara has not strictly speaking been suppressed; the pope just put it aside for the sake of tact. There are heaps of encyclicals, addresses, apostolic letters, etc. where the Pope claims authority over temporal princes, from Theodosius through Henreich IV. through Elizabeth I, etc. If the Pope can tell the Roman Emperor what he should do, how is it liberal to think he should exercise that same authority here?
The anti-papal sentiment here has its roots in the Protestant movements that populated the country before the Irish got here, and has more to do with the Pope refusing to anul Henry VIII’s marriage (technically, he refused to undo a previous dispensation), as well as in various nationalist movements on the Continent. It predated any sort of immigration issue, and was typically over things like government control of episcopal sees and monastery land-holdings.
Liberal Catholic? I take a much broader reading of the power of the keys vis-a-vis temporal heads of state than you do, one that predates your reading by about 500 years. Similarly the idea that issues of social order and conduct are immaterial to salvation, the focus on salvation in terms of Hell, the passionate defense of capitalism (an entirely Calvinist invention) and frustration that the Pope doesn’t focus more on individual salvation put you pretty much entirely using 16th through 18th century ideas. As far as I care, those are still new ideas. The Pope isn’t post-modern. He’s almost pre-modern and only looks that way to people who are so conservative that they don’t see anything from before Trent.
http://moderncommentaries.blogspot.com/2008/04/done-with-michelle-malkin.html
There has been an update which clarifies some of that which was said about Michelle.
There seems to be much anger on both sides here. Perhaps, given that we agree on much as well as disagree on much, we (on both sides) should attempt to phrase our views on the subject in a more constructive, polite, and logical manner.
Remember, emotionalism and emotional arguments leads to tree-hugging. Tree-hugging leads to brain cancer. Brain cancer leads to…suffering.
Wait, I just broke my own rules. Oh, well, forget what I said. Everyone fight! Yarr!
MM. I agree entirely with you. I attended a Catholic graduate school as well as a Catholic grammar school. But the Pope and most of the world treat America and Americans as some sort of natural resource that must be mined until it it is destroyed. It is not a beacon of ideology to the rest of the world, it is a place to be plundered to make up for the failed ideologies of the others. Including all the Catholic countries of the world, which combined, do not equal the economy of California or Texas. Right now, fully one half of all wealth accruing to the Catholic Church comes from America. Let him give his speech to Romania.
Wow! It just goes to show that every faith contains a vocal minority of zealots who refuse to accept honest criticism of aspects of their religion. I suppose as long as they aren’t chopping off heads it’s their prerogative, but nonetheless I can’t claim to be impressed by them.
I’m glad to see from the comments here, (and the few I’ve read at the link you’ve provided), that most Catholics are supportive of Michelle’s reasoned, logical analysis—and that most of those who disagree haven’t falsely chosen to pretend that she’s an anti-Catholic bigot.
The comments here on this topic, as well as in the Huckabee threads at Hot Air during the Republican primaries, have been a refreshing reminder that although every branch of Christianity contains a few nuts, the vast majority are reasonable, respectable people.
And before any of the nuts get too mad at me I wish to point out that you’re far superior to the Islamic strain even if you do have a lot of things in common with them. For example, although SaintOlaf at Hot Air has condemned several people, Christians and inferior non-Christians alike, to “an eternity in the lake of fire”, as long as he or she doesn’t try to speed the process I can’t say as I mind too much. I’ve packed extra sun block and swimming shorts.
Well put!
That was supposed to read: Non-Christians and inferior Christians alike
Am I the only one here who just had chills run up the spine at this glimpse of the return of the all-powerful, all-invasive, all-controlling, medieval, Inquisitional Church of my youth?
No wonder I recoiled when I heard him declare in his homily at Yankee
Stadium that the dichotomy between faith and politics is false.
“Authority over temporal princes” is back, folks, because as he also reaffirmed last year, the Holy Roman Catholic Church is the Only One True Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
Take that, you non-Faithful infidels. For our current proclaimed kumbaya God-believing fraternality with all you Jews, Prods, Buddhists and Muslims will only last until the moment we outnumber you globally.
Then the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will once again congregate in grand old hell-fire style. Your future is our past!
flenser,
Obviously you were seeing only what you wanted to see in my posts. Did you completely miss the part where I stated, quite directly, my actual views on illegal immigration, anchor babies, and deportation?I will have to start duplicating my posts so you can read them twice. It seems you are a little slow. Here it is again, waterhead.
I’ll recap the evolution of most of my posts yesterday in a rudimentary fashion so you will hopefully grasp it.
You, Ignatius Reilly, and Mendol were arguing about what the Pope said. Mendol never said anything remotely condoning an ‘open borders’ mentality, yet you accused him of it anyway.
I was making an analogy involving kittens.
I commented on the lack of a troll to bash and stated that was the reason you were projecting your fears of divergence of ideas onto him.
I singled out the one concept of jus soli, even though I do not agree with it in its present state, and tried to argue for the other side. Of course it was a poor argument, numbnuts, I don’t subscribe to that and the best argument for it by anyone is weak at best.
I was being honest in my point about ideologues like you driving people away from the right. In every post I made you simply chose a small part of the whole and took it out of context.
Yeah, I just skimmed back over your posts and replies and my labeling you a douche is quite accurate. At my school I debate the issue of illegal immigration at least once a week. If you tried to ‘add’ to the debate the same way you do here I would tell you to get lost since you would only drive those who don’t agree with you farther to the left.
I disagreed with you on the issue of anchor babies and you accused me of emoting and not thinking. You read half of my posts and then call me, interestingly, a liberal. Yeah, good tactic. You are sure to win droves of supporters to our side like that.
Gabe # 358
The article does not have the Pope saying any thing about the border fence. Yes, the Vatican made an official statement from an official in the Council on Migrant and Itinerand People. Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican’s Council on Migrant and Itinerant People [official website], made the statement, not the Pope.
Should have copied the Itinerant as opposed to typing Itinerand.
I know how this works..first hand knowledge of Immigrants (legal ones) from a developing country: They come to the USA and work their tails off. Spend some money here, pay taxes, and send the rest back home. The money is invested in real estate, a modest business and a really nice house. the family back home are now “millionaires” (in pesos, at least). When the immigrant visits home, they are highly respected and treated like stars. No different with illegal ones…anchor babies will have a real nice place to live back home!! Much better life than before. Don’t let the pro-immigration group paint a pic of the children going back to the mud house in the bario and starving. After sending money from the USA, all the family members back home do just fine.
I know in New Orleans after Katrina they were paid by commission according to how many roofs they reshingled and most were making at least $2,000.00 per week. I am not saying they were overpaid but I am saying $5-6,000 sent back to Mexico each month per man would be quite a hefty sum.
Harris,
They could probably afford to send more than that home. When the work crews came through Kansas they lived 12-20 to a trailor home and had no expenses that I could see. They may have a portion of their wages held to pay the rent but with the numbers in the trailors that would not be a large sum for any of them. Nice racket if you can get it.
Unhinged Michelle Malkin wrote:
“If the Vatican had its way, we’d be paying for every last organ transplant for every last illegal alien patient in the world.”
You sure bent over backward to give the most uncharitable spin of the Pope’s words and actions. Lies like this sure make me lose a great deal of respect for you.
I sure hope a hacker hijacked your computer. If not, I’ll do what any self-repsecting conservative should do: walk away.
This statement is either historically ignorant or intentionally dishonest.
I’m not sure which I think is worse.
Harris, are you sure that came out right? Jesus, our Saviour, the Christ IS Christianity. And His apostle, St. Peter, was the 1st Pope of the CHRISTIAN Church.
Yes, that one really hurt us all.
Lastly, from Rush Limbaugh today, Monday April 21st:
I guess there are some Republican who do not hate the Pope.
IIRC this amendment was added to ensure ex-slaves wouldn’t be denied US citizenship after the US Civil War.
Now it is being twisted to give illegals a foothold towards US citizenship.
kaoskleric,
Hmm…How about instead of getting upset over that sentence let’s look at the context that sentence was in.
greenfarie, in post 159 had stated that an e-mail was sent to Michelle about some of the comments being made towards the Pope. My response in post 160 was, to paraphrase, assuring greenfarie that Catholicism, Christianity, and Jesus have been around a long, long, long time and are able to withstand any criticism the posters on this blog would like to aim towards it.
You seem to wish my comments offensive, but I assure you that if I desire to offend you it will be quite blatant.
I apologize. I misread your original post.
My contention had to do with the phrasing. By seperating Catholic from Christian it came across as yet another put-down in a whole slew of them.
Fine by me!
I’m amongst those who know it is the businesses who illegally hire Illegal Aliens that are our biggest problem. I’m amongst those who know that when the jobs dry up most of the Illegals will return to their homelands. I’m amongst those who realize that a vote for Juan McAmnesty is a vote for Illegal Alien Amnesty.
I’m also amongst those who realize that there was no reason to play the politically correct game of Poke A Pope concerning this topic. I’m certain that Bennedict did not a thing to bring those people to America, but the potential of wealth certainly did.
I’ll also not give up on Michelle easily. ;o)
I have lost a lot of respect for this place and Republican “conservatives”. The fact that all of the hate filled, anti-Catholic, anti-Pope comments are still here (and over at the “Catholic elite” post) says a lot about this blog.