Posted on 01/03/2011 8:15:52 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o
***A worthy topic for discussion, but I hope not on this thread,****
True. For a different thread at a different time.
I resent the Catholic higher ups thinking they have a divine right to flood America with Catholics. No church or religion has this right. Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims don’t have the right to flood this country with their co-religionists
But the Catholic church is the worst and the obvious results from Mexico etc are all around us.
This country was founded by Protestants, has a Protestant English legal system and Federal government and has the Protestant work ethic. But Protestant immigrants are the most discriminated against ever since the 1965 Immigration Act. While it is open borders for Catholic third worlders and we go out of our way to import 70,000 Muslim refugees each year from pits such as Somalia
Any civil society is formed and maintained by four distinct pillars or institutions. They are the political, economic, education, and certainly not least the religious. It has been the political that has sent by unoffical invitation a mass welcome to peoples around this globe to come.
There will come an accounting of the leaders of these intuitions regardless of how much is claimed they act out of compassion. There is blood on the hands of these that promote lawlessness on both sides of the border. I find it more than a little disgusting to have the holier than thous promoting human beings as chattel to service the political for votes and striping the middle class clean bare telling US to be compassionate while the religious tax plate is held over our labor and properties.
I’ll believe welcome the stranger when, the Catholic Church opens their schools offering free tuition to the stranger, when the Catholic Church refuses gov money and offers to pay at their hospitals, all medical services to welcome the stranger without it being a burden on taxpayers.The Catholic Church, is for all this as long as someone is paying for it all and they reap the benefits of filling the pews, to further justify their cause of welcome the stranger. Does welcome the stranger apply in Mexico when others come south must pass through, Mexico, to reach the border, there is not many welcome the stranger, rest stops along the way.
The younger Latino class coming over the border is no more capable of hard or skilled work than our own lazy, young people.
When I can help people, I try to, not because I am a good guy, but because my Lord Jesus has done the same for me. ...My meager charity has nothing to do with the responsibilities of our government, as designated by God. The divisions of nations are for the prosperity and security of the citizenry, and leaders of nations that can’t accept those responsibilities should get into another line of work. I have no problem feeding and clothing illegals who ask me for help, but I expect my government to enforce the laws that are meant to safeguard this nation. It’s not complicated.
Please take me off your list.
I never asked to be on it.
Thank you.
Fantastic and powerful article on this subject! Best I’ve read thus far. Thanks for the post.
This is such an excellent article.
It is too bad that the author found it necessary to bash sane, normal protestants in the very first paragraph. It probably will prevent it being read by many sane, normal protestants.
Bashing snake-handlers, yes.
Bashing the very people who will sanely and rationally side with you in rejecting unrestricted illegal immigration....dumb.
If they are illegal, call ICE! I have no responsibility to help them break the law! Believing Christ condones law breaking is heresy. The only law Christ says to break is when man's law contradicts God's Law.
Roman citizens had rights under their system and could demand certain things from the government. A non Roman had no such rights. Christ commanded his followers treat people with compassion, but to condone law breaking wasn't one of them. It's the same argument about the Death Sentence. The 6th Commandment says we shouldn't shed innocent blood. Another way to interpret it would be "Thou shalt not murder". To say "Thou shalt not kill" is a little misleading in translation. Some have even taken this to mean we can't kill for food or step on a spider. We surely have the right of self defense and protection of family and country. To allow yourself and family to be slaughtered because you think God would frown upon self defense is sick.
If a person, any person needs food, why would I deny it just because they are illegal? OTOH, I would be ignoring the law to ignore their legal status. The Apostles had to abide by the law in their time and their are verses to cover that aspect of Christian life. It is also made perfectly clear that we are to follow God's law over man's law if they contradict. I can't find where God forbade nations having borders.
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear Mrs. Don-o!
My point her eis that Biblical Hebrew is apparently not as specific in meaning as the English words use to translate. A woman who is almana is a woman in an empty house, lacking male suport (whether she had a husband who died, or for whatever unspecified reason); and a yatom is a child without a father, whether he died or is merely absent is unspecified.
My point is NOT to say that foolish willful choices have to be subsidized; butthe compassion urged for the poor goes bneyond strict contractual justice. It is an applicationof mercy, not a rndering of just deserts.
Hence the need to push back.
It seems to be to tough for some to make their point without tearing down someone else.
Very well said.
bump
However, it is quote otherwise with "Catholic" colleges and universities, and the "Catholic" healthcare systems, now quite effectively spun out of the control of Bishops or any other ecclesiastic authority, and deeply entwined with public funding and subsidies at all levels.
The grim truth is that very soon, I fear, these institutions will sever their last threads with the Church and become 100% assimilated into the Borg.
God laid out very specific borders for the land he gave the Israelites and for the areas in that land which he gave to the tribes.
In fact, I thought of editing Zmirak's article to eliminate the itchier distractions, but decided that it would be too big an alteration of Dr. Z's characteristic style. I judged that most people would focus in on his main topic. I hope I have not judged rashly.
Anyway, thanks for the comment.
It is such a good article. It’s one that we FR protestants will easily and wholeheartedly agree with.
I’m glad you posted it.
I should get Dr Z’s email and drop him a note about shooting himself in the foot. :>)
Blessings, Dear Sister in Christ.
Thank you for the post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.