[RepublitarianRoger2]

There is evidence that it is more than just “perceived” motivation. Even CBS, of all places, is reporting that the Pope has followed the lead of many US Cardinals in pushing for more open borders:

http://cbs4denver.com/local/tancredo.pope.immigration.2.703118.html

Also see Michelle Malkin’s write-up that I posted earlier.

Some may say Tancredo acts on knee-jerk reactions. Others say he fearlessly hits issues head-on. I agree that attacking the substance without attacking the Pope himself might have been the most prudent way to do it.

[rob777]

"I agree that attacking the substance without attacking the Pope himself might have been the most prudent way to do it."


It is more than imprudent, it is a formal fallacy of the rules of logic. I have absolutely no respect for this approach. In fact, I would have more respect for someone who I disagreed with on the issue, but who was able to argue his point of view in an adult way.

As for the supposed "evidence" of an ulterior motive, the only evidence is that the Pope appears to agree with the U.S. Cardinals on pushing for more open borders. How in the he-- does that prove what the motive for that agreement is???? I personally know Catholic Priests who are morally the salt of the earth who agree with the notion. Does the fact that these Priests agree with the open borders position mean that there motive is more a matter of increasing the U.S. flock? I disagree with them on this issue but am fully aware that they take it because they sincerely believe that it is a matter of human dignity.