The first is in line with today's "theme":
"In order for an Irishman to talk with an equal, he must speak with God."
While clearly not true as no one is equal with God, it certain is clever and made me chuckle.
The second (and final) is more along the lines of my typical posts:
I hear this on the radio this morning: "Authorities operated a sting on illegal immigrants in Boston this week. Of those that were rounded up, over 60% had a committed a crime."
Anyone see anything wrong with this statement? Bravo if you did! Here it is: 100% of illegal immigrants have committed a crime! Maybe 60% of those criminals committed other crimes while here, but they all became felons when they crossed our boarders illegally. But we are so desensitizing to laws regarding illegal immigration that they have to mug somebody, rob someplace, or drive drunk before we consider them criminals! NEWSFLASH: Entering the country illegally is a crime! Don't do let people it and prosecute those that do! I've heard people say, "it's not such a terrible crime, they just want a better life for their families." Ok, we won't prosecute people who don't pay income tax either. After all, they are just doing it so their families can have better lives!
I'm not going to say anything about the *cough*lib *cough*er *cough* al*cough media that reported the information (*ahh ahhhh WBZ Choooooooo)
But hey, somehow in someone's mind, what I've written above is just my opinion.
24 comments:
hiring undocumented workers is a crime as well isn't it. Prosecute it.
Violating the 4th amendment of the Constitution is probably crime as well.
So-what happens if you discover that one of your very good friends is an illegal immigrant? Would you report him/her to the appropriate people?
Jason, I completely agree!
Anonymous, Grow some stones and put a name, until then, I'll be ignoring your off the subject comment.
Jenna, Are you trying to tell us something? What if you discover a very close friend was shoplifting? Money laundering? Drug running? Having an affair (also a law no longer enforced)? Yeah, I'd have to report it.
It seems odd to me that you, the libertarian, would be in favor of this law.
Also doesn't it seem unamerican to prevent people from coming into this country to make a better life for themselves. Isn't this what this country was founded on.
Also most importantly don't you have theological issues with a law that excludes strangers and aliens.
As a "Libertarian" I believe that the government's primary job (and one of the few that it has) is defense. I see this issue as a defense issue. I have no problem with people entering the country legally to make a better life for themselves, or their families. I think this country should welcome "strangers and aliens" who chose to enter it lawfully. Perhaps the laws in this area are a bit too strict, allowing only a certain number of people from certain countries, but if we have them, enforce them.
I love all of the things that this country was founded on! Let’s see, there’s “Religious freedom,” “to have a better life,” “avoiding the tyranny of taxation without representation” and “to avoid persecution.” Very few people came to the untamed "new world" to have a better life. In fact, most of the people (not all) were either money hungry seeking to exploit the natives, or were sent here because they were causing issues in civilized England.
We are not an isolationist nation. We welcome people from nearly every nation. There is a proper way to go about getting in. Why should one person from Poland have to wait 4 years for their visa while another person from Cuba enters the country illegally? Simple answer? They shouldn't.
If you are going to be a part of our country, obey our laws. And do it from the minute you set foot here!
Wouldn't be nice if everyone could enter the country legally but our immigration laws don't allow that to happen. Maybe the laws should be changed but I don't see that happening because so much of our economy takes advantage of this undocumented labor force. I think a Cuban who makes it to dry land does enter the country legally. If they are picked up at sea they are deported.
What about theological issues? Do you have any with this?
I also think the defense argument is a straw man
True enough, the Cuba one was a bad example because they are fleeing a communist country (I chose them because I didn't want to single out Mexicans...)
Sure, I'm all for lessening immigration laws. But we haven't yet and we won't anytime soon. (I don't see the amnesty... I mean "guest worker" program as a lessening. I see it as a dangerous removing.)
As mentioned, theologicall, I welcome any and all to this nation legally. One could easily argue that God sets up governments, who decide laws, who make it illegal to enter a nation without proper documentation, which makes illegal immigration not only illegal but sinful. So I would hope that they repent of thier sin, return to their nation and enter honestly (Yes, some tongue in cheek on this paragraph).
Interesting that you see defense as a straw man as we've caught several suspected terrorists attempting to enter the country illegally through Canada. But hey, let's just let them in and welcome them as "strangers and aliens."
Just because you can point to a few examples doesn't negate that overall the argument is a straw man. For the most part it isn't about defense it is about economics but we don't like to talk that way because it doesn't sound nice to couch the argument in those terms. Most of the undocumented issues and out cry doesn't come from states that boarder Canada but Mexico and the issues revolve around the cost to those states with all these immigrants using our resources while being here illegally.
If the driving force of theological arguments are the laws of the land. Why do you oppose abortion or homosexual unions in MA. It is the law of the land. If God ordained the government to make laws then shouldn't you as a Christian support those laws and not work to repeal them. Of course not because those practices are contrary to God's law. What about abolishists in the days of slavery? Slavery was legal but immoral they worked to have the laws changed and some even felt that the right thing to do was to take in runaway slaves and help them escape, which was against the law. Should they have sent them back?
That slavery comment reminds me of the Christians and other non-Jews who sheltered and hid Jews during the Holocaust... and who dare argue that it was wrong to do so, yet clearly it was "illegal"?
This could start a great debate about whether or not it is wrong for Christians to fight injustice in governments/dictators, whether by peaceful means or otherwise. I'm thinking Liberation Theology here...
Have you studied the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer? I don't mean have you read one of his books for a Bible study group. His books have almost become "devotionals" to Christians in recent years, but if you study his life, he's very controversial in terms of being a German Pastor teaching in an 'illegal' seminary and involved in a plot to assassinate Hitler. Studying Bonhoeffer is very eye-opening... ok, that's way off topic from illegal immigrants, but I thought I'd throw in my 2 (10) cents.
Oh yeah, Marc... so what in the world are you REALLY, are you Republican or Libertarian??
Dietrich Bonhoeffer is someone that I have trouble knowing what to do with. While his work in the confessing church movement I think is great he also became involved in a plot to kill Hitler. The anabaptistic pacifist tendencies in me are opposed to this action. I know I can affirm laying down your life to protect someone but not sure about the move to take a life in protection of others.
Jason, my reply to your earlier post is in the works. but in the mean time:
So you value the life of the one who will take many over those of the many that will be taken?!
It seems to me that a pacifist can lay down his own life, but you are laying down the lives of others as well!
no Marc
I don't value the life of one more than the many. I am attempting to reconcile the ways of Christ in an extreme situation. Jesus act at the cross was one of laying down his life for filthy sinners who killed each other and rejected the God who made them. Ultimately I have to count that he will bring justice and vengence. Doesn't mean that I don't act in other ways in addition to laying down my life, like harboring potential victims or helping them escape. Seeking to change the system but I am pretty sure that I can't resort to the ways of the world for the cause of the kingdom of God.
I also hope that I would learn to value all life as Jesus does.
When Jesus laid down His life, it quaranteed that others would be saved.
I cannot think of a situation where if I lay down my life, it will guarantee that no others would die. Couldn't we also say that God killed Christ to save many?
There is a huge difference between Christ's death willingly for redemption and me in my fallenness taking the life of another. God says Vengence is mine I will repay.
Killing of hitler wouldn't not have insured that no others would die. I also wonder why you changed from a limited saving of others in Jesus death and said you couldn't think of any example of your death guarnanteeing that on one else would die.
And still I have to grapple with pragmitism verses biblical values, principles and teaching. Where does biblical teaching refute what I am saying and suggest that taking matters into your own hand and killing is the right thing to do.
I don't understand this statement: " I also wonder why you changed from a limited saving of others in Jesus death and said you couldn't think of any example of your death guarnanteeing that on one else would die."
If Vengence is in the hand of God, is not also salvation? Why witness? Of course, "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." is clearly a one on one issue. There is nothing that reflects on evil being committed upon many. Except in the Old Testament where "the spirit of the LORD" comes upon person after person and they slay thier enemies...
What do you think of this:
Romans 13:3-4 3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
tongue in cheek on the witnessing, Just taking it to the extreme
Paul in Romans 12 when he says Vengeance is mine is quoting from Deut. 32. The context is of God taking vengeance on behalf of his people on the nations. The context of the romans 12 passage is 9-21 an talks about how Christians are to live, not repaying evil to anyone, in peace as much as they can, abhoring evil, loving, etc. I think the scope has to be seen in a way of life that doesn't take vengeance but trusts God to act on behalf of his people and I would argue his world that is being redeemed and reconciled in Christ.
It is an interesting study to look all the usages of vengeance in the Bible. See who is the who most often who brings vengeance and justice. God's people are often called on to appeal to him for justice not to bring it out themselves and definately not to bring it out on their own. When the are the ones it is in the context of God ordaining them particularly to carry that judgment out.
Sorry about my confusing sentence. Thought you were unfairly spinning the argument against a legitimate understanding of the value of laying down your life by absolute statement in your case and a particular statement for Jesus.
Was Bonhoeffer acting on behalf of a government with God's authority to carry the sword or was he part of a group of individuals acting on their own to stop a wrong on their own using the means of the world.
You probably think (thought) that anonymous is me, huh? It wasn't, but damn Marc, what's with always avoiding anon peoples (unless you always consider anon remarks trolling)? I also don't think it was off the subject.
Nope, I didn't think it was you AZ, I know you put a name up.
Yes, I do assume that all anonymous posts are trolling and I force the Anon person to post again just to prove that they are here to see my response. If they are going to lay down some smack and not return to see how it's recieved, why should I respond?
(It is off the subject...)
Jason, I've answered your questions regarding the alien and stranger in the my next post... we can continue the discussion here or we can start comments on that one.
I hear you. as for it being off topic though . . . technically it is, but not when it when you consider that it's challenging your total view of law.
Post a Comment