The anti-Christianity of the Racist Right

[_Coggins7]

No; I think my views are based upon two things: Christian principles and libertarian economics. As to the latter, I see no good reason for rascist barriers to entry to the United States. These laws are no different than Irish and Chinese quota laws (which many evaded nonetheless.)

If you want to have an intelligent, intellectually substantive discussion on this issue, then you are going to have to stop the wild ad hominem smears against anyone or any group of people who disagree with you and cease pontificating like a Moveon.org ideologue or Democratic congressman looking for minority community votes.

The desire for the wall and to limit and control immigration has everything to do with the respect and enforcing of our own laws, the continuation of respect for the law among both foreigners and indigenous Americans, and the preservation of the unique American political culture from dilution and atrophy, and nothing to do with race. I know of no arguments presently being made by serious intellectuals and commentators that has the slightest thing to do with racial animus.

You are using this as an alternative to rational argument rc, something I know you are perfectly capable of. Further, in the post 9/11 world, keeping our immigration policies as they are is not just a matter of poor judgment or the the power hunger of self serving politicians, but something approaching insanity.

[_rcrocket]

You want to condemn a whole group of people as lawbreakers when the Church doesn't do so.

There are two types of criminal laws. Malum per se (prohibited conduct because of years of legal development -- murder, rape, etc.) and malum prohibitum (bad because govt says it is -- endangered species act, clean water act, immigration).

Thank God the Church does not deny temple recommends on the basis of immigration status.

rcrocket

[_Coggins7]

Christian principles have nothing whatever to do with this on a national level. These people are breaking the law, and if the level of immigration we have had continues, our country could be dramatically altered in a manner that is not going to be good for the Constitution and the republican principles upon which this country was founded. Mexico has no such history or traditions.

This country is not a massive welfare farm for foreign nationals who may assume to come here and live off of the fruits of the labor of productive Americans. As things are, immigrants from Mexico are consuming several times in social services and tax payer funds what they are contributing in tax revenue. There is no sign of this changing in the foreseeable future, and as millions more move into the big northern nanny state, that situation will grow dramatically worse.

Simply put, these people have no legal or moral right to be here, clogging and overwhelming schools and hospitals, and consuming massive quantities of welfare services when they are not even legal residents of this country and have no legal right to those services. Neither you, nor the political class, nor anyone else has the moral right to browbeat those who are the victims of this illegal invasion from south of the border.

[_Coggins7]

You want to condemn a whole group of people as lawbreakers when the Church doesn't do so.

There are two types of criminal laws. Malum per se (prohibited conduct because of years of legal development -- murder, rape, etc.) and malum prohibitum (bad because govt says it is -- endangered species act, clean water act, immigration).

Thank God the Church does not deny temple recommends on the basis of immigration status.

rc...THEY ARE LAWBRAKERS! Are we now actually having a semantic problem with the English language? They are CRIMINALS, the same as I would be if I were to break the immigration LAWS of any other country.

How do you know the Church doesn't consider them lawbreakers. Source? All you've provided is that we baptize them. Ceaser and Christ are separate realms, but we are to render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's no? You are putting words into the Church's mouth here.

[_Coggins7]

I am under no obligation, as to my political views, to support or oppose the wall, or stricter immigration laws. The Church has no official position on the matter and has given neither myself or anyone else official counsel as to what our views on the present immigration issue should be.

Let them continue to baptize and give out Temple recommends. More power to them. That has, as I said before, nothing to do with the other very serious issues with which we are presented as a body politic.

[_Mercury]

Hey! You slamming girlies or something? I was thinking more like rooster fight.

Rooster, C*ck...whats the difference?

[_Jason Bourne]

God bless our immigrants, and God bless the Church for opening its arms to the wave. God bless the Church for organizing entire congregations for illegal immigrants, baptising them, changing their lives, and providing social and economic support. I am gratified that our stake spends resources and time providing decent and clean buildings for the Hispanics to meet -- a large segment of which in my area is illegal.

Damn those racist anti-immigrant laws which our own ancestors did not have to face. We have no moral imperative to keep the children of Lehi out of territory Mexico owned rightfully until 1848.

rcrocket

While I have no problem with assisting anyone anywhere anytime I strongly disagree with your second paragraph. However, I am happy if you want to give California back to the Mexicans. They can then deal with all the weirdness. Just let's save the rest of the USA, or did you forget there is large part of it that never was part of Mexico.

Unfettered immigration will destroy the USA and bankrupt your children. It is rather silly to compare the immigration of the 19th and early 20th century to current demographics in the USA today. It just is not the same world it was then.

[_Jason Bourne]

God bless our immigrants, and God bless the Church for opening its arms to the wave. God bless the Church for organizing entire congregations for illegal immigrants, baptising them, changing their lives, and providing social and economic support. I am gratified that our stake spends resources and time providing decent and clean buildings for the Hispanics to meet -- a large segment of which in my area is illegal.

Damn those racist anti-immigrant laws which our own ancestors did not have to face. We have no moral imperative to keep the children of Lehi out of territory Mexico owned rightfully until 1848.

rcrocket

I now see that what I suspected was indeed well founded. You are no better, no better than Scratch. Don't try to politicize the Church and its reaction to the present wave of immigration-they have not taken a political stand on it-and don't try to imply that the church is welcoming with open arms the many millions of illegal aliens who have committed criminal actions by coming here or staying here illegally (which would be, per the Church's doctrine on being law abiding citizens and honest in one's dealings, in conflict with Church teachings).

If this is the best you can do in the realm of political philosophy (if you wish to call the above something along these lines), then the marketplace of ideas is, yet again, debased and demeaned.

Oh Boy!! Are we going to see Crocket and coggins go at it? I knew this would get Coggy going.

[_Jason Bourne]

Gotta say I with Coggy on this one.

[_Mr. Coffee]

Yeah, pretty screwed up universe when I find myself agreeing with Scooter.

Oh, Coggins, is there a reason why you had to make two entirely different threads for posting evidence to support your position instead of just posting it in here?