Those Crazy Catholics February 23, 2007
Posted by threadingwater in immigration, malkin, politics, religion.trackback
What have they done now?
They’ve gone and annoyed Michelle Malkin and others on the right with all their crazy talk about love, understanding and compassion for poor people. You know, they’re going all Jesus over Mexican immigrants.
Roman Catholic leaders in Orange and Los Angeles counties marked Ash Wednesday — the start of a season of repentance and reflection — with a plea to Catholics and others to commit themselves to immigration reform.
In Orange County, the church asked people to fast — consuming liquids only — for one day between March 26 and 30 as an appeal for citizenship opportunities for undocumented immigrants and reductions in visa application backlogs for the families of immigrants.
The church also called for a temporary worker program.
Just when you think atheists are the biggest threat to the American way of life, a bunch of Catholics go and turn the world ass over teakettle.
Still, there are some Catholics out there who want you to know that they are not buyin’ it.
One Catholic, Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, a border patrol group that fights illegal immigration, did not appreciate the Ash Wednesday message.
“It goes to show you that the Catholic Church has no scruples when it comes to separation of church and state. The church should stay out of government business unless it wants to lose its tax-exempt status,” Gilchrist said.
The irony leaves me speechless.
I don’t know what to think. Wow.
-J. Kaiser
BAH! Love that last comment. He forgot “except when I want things done my way and guaranteed by the US gov’t.”
How so Daphne? As far as I understand his efforts, Mr. Gilchrist is trying to get the government to enforce laws that already exist. Is it unreasonable to expect the government to enforce its own laws?
-J. Kaiser
Hey, Daphne! Can I take this one?
Mr. Gilchrist, as a proud registered Republican who represents an organization that wants to protect the US from being “devoured and plundered by the menace of tens of millions of invading illegal aliens,” [straight from the Minuteman Project website] seems to be having a bit of a problem aligning the teachings of Jesus and his professed Catholic values, with the values he actually displays in public.
While there’s nothing terribly new about that particular brand of hypocrisy, telling the Catholic Church to “stay out of government business” when the Republican administration is busy distributing tax dollars to faith-based charities faster than a Minuteman can activate his walkie-talkie, drives the hypocrisy to another level.
Republicans have no problem with religious organizations getting government handouts or encouraging their members to take political action, as long as the politics they preach are politics of exclusion, restricted rights for women, anti-gay and otherwise supportive of the right wing social agenda.
Peace, love and tolerance? Well, that’s damn near commie talk.
I’m with Mr. Kaiser! Let’s get the government to enforce it’s own laws.
In my state, sodomy is still illegal–imagine the revenue if we fined all those lawbreakers. Wahoo!
While we’re at it, let’s get all those Biblical laws under control, too, and start enforcing them. There’re far too many folks walking around in 50/50 poly/cotton t-shirts in clear violation of that ban on clothing made of two or more fibers. Why, polyester’s even unnatural! Scandalous.
Oops–that might be a violation of the separation of church and state. My bad.
Do you have a point Alarming or do you simply like to mix random thoughts together? There are so many unrelated points mixed together, where to start.
First of all, thanks to Lawrence v. Texas no state is allowed to enforce sodomy laws against consenting adults (I do agree with this decision by the court). So your plan might not get off the ground. However, unlike sodomy laws, immigration laws are enforceable- and should be enforced.
Second, the biblical laws haven’t been enforced since Israel ceased to be a nation over two thousand years (and the current incarnation of Israel does not enforce such). Furthermore, they don’t appear to bear any relation to your original point as they aren’t included in any statutory law of the United States.
I am not sure where you get your idea that enforcing immigration laws in anyway relates to an issue of church/state separation. I would be glad to consider a well presented and logical argument.
But here is an open question to any leftist on the comment board. I can’t understand the lefts’ reaction against the enforcement of immigration laws. Near unlimited immigration prevents Mexico from developing further by draining off its most productive and hardworking citizens, while depressing wages in the United States- while many American workers seek jobs. As for the trite old statement that illegal workers take jobs legal immigrant and citizens will not- rubbish. When the meat packing plant not far down the road had many of its workers arrested on immigration violations (and many more stayed home in fear of arrest) hundreds of people lined up for the open jobs.
Furthermore, the people that benefit most from immigration are the wealthy WASPs who run factories and farms (not to mention those who employ illegals to clean their homes, garden, etc.). There is little doubt the immigrants get a small benefit as living conditions are in general better in the U.S. compared to those they left behind. But the largest beneficiary are the factory owners and farmers who employ them at cut-rate wages.
And oddly enough, Dick Morris is suggesting that the Republican Party is likely (if it handle this correctly) to make major gains within the Latino vote since Latinos as a population are (due to religious beliefs) largely pro-life and against homosexual marriage.
So while the right has its own reasons for stalling on immigration reforms, I am curious for the motives of the left? I sincerely hope they include the interest of this nation in continued security and prosperity.
-J. Kaiser
when the purpose of the fence and minutemen etc is to kill people for attempting to reach for a better life (can u say utopia) it goes against everything catholic church stands for. i was raised catholic (and don’t buy any of the crap) but i remember death- or in this case execution – is not a way to go!!! Gilchrist is just a man without scruples doing whatever it takes to get his way. not unlike some presidents i can think of…
no wonder his absurdity is encouraged…
“when the purpose of the fence and minutemen etc is to kill people for attempting to reach for a better life”
I am sorry, but I hadn’t heard any news reports about the minutemen shooting immigrant? Has such a thing occurred? I highly doubt it, as it would be covered from coast to coast on all the major networks (Faux news included). I am assuming you mean to imply they have actually shot immigrants since you mention “execution” in your post.
Your post seems like nothing more than pure emotion, mixed in with false accusations.
-J. Kaiser
totaltransformation would like us to believe that Mr. Gilchrist and his Minuteman brigade are only asking that existing laws be enforced. On the surface, that seems simple enough. Erect a fence. Increase patrols. Seal the border. Problem solved.
Unfortunately, immigration issues are not as simple as that. Totaltransformation is correct in pointing out the symbiotic relationship between US employers looking for cheap, uncomplaining labor and the general state of our economy. Many businesses rely on illegal immigrants and exploit them with low wages, terrible working conditions, long hours and threats of deportation.
Even so, immigrants flock here because, despite working conditions and employer/employee relationships that in many ways resemble slavery, conditions here are a thousand times better than what they face in their home countries. Not a “small benefit” as totaltransformation believes, but a benefit significant enough to justify taking a life or death risk in order to cross the border.
The Catholic Church in the above referenced article, is asking their members to work for immigration reform. They are asking their parishioners to put the teachings of Jesus into practical use by humanizing the immigrant experience and working to grant them citizenship opportunities, reduce visa backlogs for family members and to establish a temporary worker program. In short, they are asking people to change and amend the existing laws to reflect and inject compassion, common sense and reason into our legal code.
Mr. Gilchrist and the Minuteman organization, on the other hand, make no effort to humanize the immigrants or the immigrant experience. If you doubt that, pay a visit to their website. Even the most cursory examination of their language and tone reveals that they perceive immigrants crossing the Mexico-US border as aliens from outer space, or worse, animals.
Dick Morris, Mr. Gilchrist and other prominent Republicans hoping to gain the (largely Catholic) Latino vote, have to be nervous any time the Catholic church focuses the discussion away from pro-life issues and onto immigration reform, because that particular discussion does not advance the Republican social agenda one iota.
Thank you Threading for the first thought out response to this issue. Now if I may respond to your comments.
“On the surface, that seems simple enough. Erect a fence. Increase patrols. Seal the border. Problem solved.”
The solution is far from simple and will involve several important elements. Some unpalatable to the left, some unacceptable to the right.
First, a major change in the way the federal government spends its limited resources. Much, if not most, of the governments current resources devoted to fighting the ridiculous “war on drugs” should be allocated to strengthening our borders from illegal and undocumented borders. This means everything from the deployment of national guard members to the border, to other tactical resources necessary to prevent illegal immigration. But this is only one side of the problem (or you could say one side of the border).
Second, our government must make it easier for immigrants south of the border to obtain LEGAL entrance to the United States. This involves several factors. Key among them are simple paperwork changes (Streamlining) and some change to counter the corruption of Mexican officials.
Third, perhaps the biggest change needs to be a policy that allows Mexico to become a prosperous nation whose citizens no longer need to flee her territory. How to do this? Sealing the border is a good start since it ensures that those who are essential to fostering change (whatever that revolution might entail) remain in Mexico. The United States now acts as a pressure valve that bleeds off much of those who would otherwise call for change in their government. Without that option there is greater hope for change in Mexico.
Now if I may briefly respond to a few of your remaining points. The benefit may seem great to them (a jump from a small number of pesos a day to $2.15/hour), but my point remains that the benefit received by the factory owners and farmers is MUCH greater. Furthermore, this is a benefit they gain at the expense of other taxpayers who fit the bill for education and health care services for illegal immigrants.
Regarding Mr. Gilchrist’s offense at the actions of the Church- what is the problem? Is he wrong to see this as an issue of church state separation? Is he anymore or less hypocritical than leftists to who applaud the actions of the church in this regard, yet criticize them over their pro-life lobbying?
Lest we forget you wrote:
“Republicans have no problem with religious organizations getting government handouts or encouraging their members to take political action, as long as the politics they preach are politics of exclusion, restricted rights for women, anti-gay and otherwise supportive of the right wing social agenda.” (Some might see your posting as supportive of the Catholic position, and this response as indicating your opposition to their involvement in the politics of abortion).
Lobbying from the pulpit is always controversial- whichever side engages in it. I just don’t see this as a serious criticism since I can think of very few purists who would take an absolute stand on this issue.
That being said I have my own problems with the Minuteman organization as they oppose free trade with Mexico. However, judging by the things said about Mr. Gilchrist here, from awkwardly worded assertions that he or his organization “executed” immigrants, to claims that he is “a man without scruples” are nothing more than sad personal attacks on this gentleman.
Thanks for the intelligent response once again. It is refreshing to discuss something on these blog with someone who can string together sentences into cogent paragraphs. My apologies for taking up so much comment space.
-J. Kaiser
Totaltransformation wrote: “Sealing the border is a good start since it ensures that those who are essential to fostering change (whatever that revolution might entail) remain in Mexico. The United States now acts as a pressure valve that bleeds off much of those who would otherwise call for change in their government. Without that option there is greater hope for change in Mexico.”
A flawed concept, I believe, and it seems incompatible with your other position that the US should make it easier for Mexicans to legally enter our country. I know of no example from history where sealing people in – whether it be a country, a reservation, a work camp, etc. – has been successful in forcing positive change to take place from within.
As for pulpit politics . . . If one accepts the teachings of Jesus, it is impossible to be apolitical. Putting into practice his messages of love, compassion and tolerance cannot help but lead his followers into the political sphere. Any religious group whose followers interpret the teachings of Jesus in a way that condemns, discriminates or fosters intolerance is distorting the message.
Those on the extreme right rely on such distortions from the pulpit to advance their anti-woman, anti-gay agenda, and the current Republican administration has generously rewarded religious organizations promoting that agenda with handouts of tax dollars.
But, surely they know that the teachings of Jesus, in their purest form, look a great deal like the liberal, progressive politics of the left. The Catholic churches of Orange County, in urging their members to work for immigration reform, are not violating any church/state separation doctrine. They are not asking for tax dollars. They are asking their members to put the teachings of Jesus into practice in their community. It is disingenuous for Mr. Gilchrist to frame the issue in terms of church/state separation, and hypocritical for him as an outspoken Republican to take offense with the Catholic church asking it’s followers to take political action. The Republican Party has long welcomed, and depended upon the involvement of the Christian right to help them promote thier social agenda. Suddenly, a good dose of real Jesus threatens that agenda and they cry “foul.”