DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Love God Only
HTML https://lovegodonly.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Politics
*****************************************************
#Post#: 14030--------------------------------------------------
Mexican Catholic Journal Attacks Trump
DIR By: Kerry
Date: March 1, 2017, 12:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A Catholic journal in Mexico has attacked both President Trump
and the Mexican government. My own opinion is that the article
is logically flawed and that religious leaders should not make
such inflammatory political comments. I also think Catholic
leaders need to take some responsibility for the current
situation instead of trying to put all the blame on politicians.
HTML http://www.desdelafe.mx/apps/article/templates/?a=7128&z=27
Translation courtesy of Google:
Donald Trump threatened as a candidate, and now serves as
President of the United States: Undocumented Mexicans, all
without exception, will be deported. But not only those who have
a criminal record - which may be understandable - but anyone who
has filed without papers, it does not matter if he is an
exemplary worker, if he pays his taxes and is part of the
development of that country. Every undocumented Mexican will be
deported without any respect, without any respect for his human
dignity, without taking into account his fundamental rights, no
matter in which situation his family remains. All will be
treated as criminals and sent to Mexico; But not only that, will
also be returned to our country non-Mexican immigrants who have
crossed our territory.
What Mr. Trump does, is not only the application of inhuman
legalism, but a real act of terror. What other name can be given
to the executive orders of the American president, who
authorizes to carry out raids of undocumented persons, giving
authority to all local police to act like migratory agent?
Our undocumented brothers are afraid, their children suffer a
real psychosis, while the Mexican authorities are not able to
act, they only make statements and promises; Their reactions are
lukewarm, they also show fear, and worse, submission. They are
still waiting for the US president to come to his senses, when
he has demonstrated, since he was a candidate, that his method
is just unreason.
Our government continues to explain the gasoline as the country
burns in violence, economic instability and obscene corruption;
While our immigrant brothers have no one to defend them or to
whom to turn; Are orphans and do not know what to do, because
they do not trust a government that is the cause of their exile;
Indeed, they have realized that the political class is not
interested in their fate.
While the political parties and senior officials immortally
receive billions of pesos, and the government irresponsibly
spends millions on its failed advertising, hardly give, without
getting the resources to the consulates, crumbs-a billion pesos-
To address this humanitarian emergency. That is what the
government is worth to all Mexicans who annually send almost 30
billion dollars to relieve the misery of countless families
whose political class has not been able to provide a decent
development.
Cowardice is not prudence, nor stridency is virtue; However, we
do not see firmness in the defense of our sovereignty; We do not
see dignity in dealing with our northern neighbor; We do not see
effective strategies to help our compatriots; We do not see
height or intelligence in those responsible for dealing with
this humanitarian crisis. It takes skill, experience, not
learners where you need true masters of the art of diplomacy,
and human and political sensitivity.
The episcopal commissions of Mexico and the United States make a
great effort to address this crisis. Pope Francisco has made
several pronouncements, expressing his concern, and has united
these two churches to work together for the undocumented, but
much more is needed, and it is not only national solidarity but
also solidarity To curb the racism, hatred and terrorism of the
unworthy US president.
#Post#: 14033--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mexican Catholic Journal Attacks Trump
DIR By: HOLLAND
Date: March 1, 2017, 9:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
^^^I am struck, Kerry, that this may be contrary to Catholic
teaching given that it is an advocacy of the breaking of laws.
I am not near a Catholic church catechism at the moment but I
would agree that the morality behind the article is suspect in
Catholic terms.
I'm inclined to think that the lawlessness of Trump and of the
people who've illegally crossed the border is of the same
nature. It is the opportunism of seeking the advantage to the
contempt of the law.
I wonder if this opportunism is an attitude that is a cause or
result of a culture that is socially libertarian; and I wonder
if we are seeing now, in and because of Trump, the beginnings of
a social reaction to libertarianism.
#Post#: 14036--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mexican Catholic Journal Attacks Trump
DIR By: KerimF
Date: March 2, 2017, 10:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The goal of this article, like of all similar ones, is to calm
the people (here Mexicans) that some of their men on top (here
religious) think seriously of them.
But the side behind it (as any of its counterparts, said
religious or political) doesn't dare (or has no interest in)
revealing any of the truths that explain how Bush, Obama and now
Trump have succeeded, in front of the entire world, in making
"Terrorism" against the peoples (civilians and troops/forces) as
natural as the daily sunrises are.
Surely, the genius brains behind the different faces/means of
this Global Modern Terror (introduced worldwide at the beginning
of the 21st century) are surely not among the politicians we use
seeing and/or hearing. So, as long the truths of the 9/11 terror
are covered up by all systems in the world (religious and
political, claimed being in one camp or another), the powerless
peoples (living under the New World Order actually; thanks to
the very advanced technologies) will be given continuously new
elected actors to play roles even worse than of Trump... I wish
I can be clearer ;)
#Post#: 14039--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mexican Catholic Journal Attacks Trump
DIR By: Kerry
Date: March 2, 2017, 1:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: HOLLAND link ---
>
> ^^^I am struck, Kerry, that this may be contrary to Catholic
teaching given that it is an advocacy of the breaking of laws.
I am not near a Catholic church catechism at the moment but I
would agree that the morality behind the article is suspect in
Catholic terms.
>
--- End Quote ---
I got the time to look it up. From the Vatican's site
HTML http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c2a2.htm:
1897 "Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous
unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to
preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is
necessary to work and care for the good of all."
By "authority" one means the quality by virtue of which persons
or institutions make laws and give orders to men and expect
obedience from them.
1898 Every human community needs an authority to govern it. The
foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is
necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as
far as possible the common good of the society.
1899 The authority required by the moral order derives from God:
"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For
there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have
been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities
resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur
judgment."
1900 The duty of obedience requires all to give due honor to
authority and to treat those who are charged to exercise it with
respect, and, insofar as it is deserved, with gratitude and
good-will.
Pope St. Clement of Rome provides the Church's most ancient
prayer for political authorities:18 "Grant to them, Lord,
health, peace, concord, and stability, so that they may exercise
without offense the sovereignty that you have given them.
Master, heavenly King of the ages, you give glory, honor, and
power over the things of earth to the sons of men. Direct, Lord,
their counsel, following what is pleasing and acceptable in your
sight, so that by exercising with devotion and in peace and
gentleness the power that you have given to them, they may find
favor with you."
1901 If authority belongs to the order established by God, "the
choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are
left to the free decision of the citizens."
The diversity of political regimes is morally acceptable,
provided they serve the legitimate good of the communities that
adopt them. Regimes whose nature is contrary to the natural law,
to the public order, and to the fundamental rights of persons
cannot achieve the common good of the nations on which they have
been imposed.
1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself.
It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the
common good as a "moral force based on freedom and a sense of
responsibility":
A human law has the character of law to the extent that it
accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal
law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be
an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of
a kind of violence.
1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the
common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally
licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or
take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements
would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority
breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."
1904 "It is preferable that each power be balanced by other
powers and by other spheres of responsibility which keep it
within proper bounds. This is the principle of the 'rule of
law,' in which the law is sovereign and not the arbitrary will
of men."
In theory, the Catechism agrees broadly with Trump about
nationalism at least in some ways. When he says other
countries have their own leaders, and he's the President of the
United States and not the world, this seems in line with the
Catechism. It is not the duty of the American President then
to try to determine what the "common good of the society" (as in
section 1899) of the whole world is.
It seems as if the author of the editorial thinks of American
Presidents as ruling the whole world. If something is wrong in
Mexico, it's the job of the American President to fix it.
American Presidents should have laws that benefit Mexicans; and
if the written laws in the legal code do not benefit Mexicans,
the President should ignore them and write his own new laws so
Mexicans are benefited.
Broadly speaking again, I happen to agree with Trump on this
topic. I also agree with him that the immigration laws we have
now should be revised; but unless Congress revises them, it is
Trump's job to execute them not to ignore them or make up new
ones on his own. The laws of this land are written by
Congress -- that is the process we have. It has worked in the
past and I think it is the only process we should use in the
future. If harm is being done by a law, then Congress should
repeal that law. The answer is not rebelling against the law,
not defying it, not ignoring it. That is the path to anarchy
which is a far greater evil.
Thus I see this editorial as an attack on the rule of law here
in the United States.
--- Quote ---
> I'm inclined to think that the lawlessness of Trump and of the
people who've illegally crossed the border is of the same
nature. It is the opportunism of seeking the advantage to the
contempt of the law.
--- End Quote ---
Yes, the same rebellion against authority is at work. We will
see if the American system teaches Trump he is not free to
ignore laws he doesn't like. So far, things look rather
gloomy. Conway got left off for her ethical breach although it
was glaring.
HTML http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/321790-wh-conway-acted-without-nefarious-motive-in-promoting-ivanka-trump
"Upon completion of our inquiry, we concluded that Ms. Conway
acted inadvertently and is highly unlikely to do so again," says
the letter, signed by Stefan C. Passantino, a White House deputy
counsel for compliance and ethics, according to CNN.
"It is noted that Ms. Conway made the statement in question in a
light, off-hand manner while attempting to stand up for a person
she believed had been unfairly treated and did so without
nefarious motive or intent to benefit personally."
The letter did not note any plans for disciplinary action
against Conway.
I would have been satisfied had she received an official letter
of warning about it. The "nefarious motive" comment makes no
sense at all. So far as I can see, there is only one motive
for promoting a business and that's to help the business make
more money. That was her motive, pure and simple; and it's
what the code of ethics forbids. How evil would someone need
to be then to have a "nefarious motive" when promoting a
business? Would he need to be recommending people buy shoddy
goods? How about recommending them to buy food that contains
poison?
And we see two of Trump's nominees lied to Congress when being
confirmed. That's perjury. Flynn was dismissed for lying to
the Vice President. He wasn't even under oath; but now it
seems okay to lie to Congress under oath? This is lawlessness,
of course.
In my book, it's called authoritarianism when a government
believes the people exist to serve the state and since they have
the power, they can do as they please but tell others without
power what to do. When individuals feel they are free to
ignore laws, they are behaving like anarchists or criminals.
--- Quote ---
> I wonder if this opportunism is an attitude that is a cause or
result of a culture that is socially libertarian; and I wonder
if we are seeing now, in and because of Trump, the beginnings of
a social reaction to libertarianism.
--- End Quote ---
I think of it as anarchy rather than libertarianism. The
libertarian believes government should exist to preserve the
rights of all its people. The libertarian should not want to
deprive others of their liberties since he should know that once
you use the power of government to limit the freedom of others,
he has given that government the power to limit his own freedom.
When I see the President of the United States calling the press
the enemy of the people, I am close to being alarmed. It seems
as if he sees himself as a dictator. If he can convince some
people how evil the press is, maybe he can start clamping down
on the press and get some applause for it. The statement is
obnoxious to me, and it makes me see Trump as an enemy of the
Constitution and of freedom. Most Presidents have had
disagreements with the press. Of course, they have, but
Jefferson said he'd rather have newspapers without government
over having a government without newspapers.
HTML http://oll.libertyfund.org/quote/302
The people are the only censors of their governors: and even
their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of
their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be
to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to
prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give
them full information of their affairs thro’ the channel of the
public papers, & to contrive that those papers should penetrate
the whole mass of the people. The basis of our governments being
the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to
keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we
should have a government without newspapers or newspapers
without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer
the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive
those papers & be capable of reading them.
#Post#: 14040--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mexican Catholic Journal Attacks Trump
DIR By: Kerry
Date: March 2, 2017, 2:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I found these two articles on the same day. I now don't know
what Pope Francis thinks. Not really.
February 20, 2017 from The Guardian
HTML http://oll.libertyfund.org/quote/302:
In the 15th century papal bulls promoted and provided legal
justification for the conquest and theft of indigenous peoples’
lands and resources worldwide - the consequences of which are
still being felt today. The right to conquest in one such bull,
the Romanus Pontifex, issued in the 1450s when Nicholas V was
the Pope, was granted in perpetuity.
How times have changed. Last week, over 560 years later,
Francis, the first Pope from Latin America, struck a rather
different note - for indigenous peoples around the world, for
land rights, for better environmental stewardship. He said
publicly that indigenous peoples have the right to “prior and
informed consent.” In other words, nothing should happen on - or
impact - their land, territories and resources unless they agree
to it.
“I believe that the central issue is how to reconcile the right
to development, both social and cultural, with the protection of
the particular characteristics of indigenous peoples and their
territories,” said Francis, according to an English version of
his speech released by the Vatican’s press office.
“This is especially clear when planning economic activities
which may interfere with indigenous cultures and their ancestral
relationship to the earth,” Francis went on. “In this regard,
the right to prior and informed consent should always prevail,
as foreseen in Article 32 of the [UN] Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples. Only then is it possible to guarantee
peaceful cooperation between governing authorities and
indigenous peoples, overcoming confrontation and conflict.”
That statement seems in line with the Catechism to me; and I
agree with the idea that every nation, tribe and tongue has the
right to self-determination. I think that's good politics and
also that it's God's intention that people decide some things
for themselves collectively. But then there was this article
from February 21, 2017 from Vatican Radio
HTML http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2017/02/21/pope_francis__the_protection_of_migrants_is_a_moral_duty/1293921<br
/>--You can read his entire speech if you like, but I'll quote
just a bit of it:
The beginning of this third millennium is very much
characterized by migratory movement which, in terms of origin,
transit and destination, involves nearly every part of the
world. Unfortunately, in the majority of cases this movement is
forced, caused by conflict, natural disasters, persecution,
climate change, violence, extreme poverty and inhumane living
conditions: “The sheer number of people migrating from one
continent to another, or shifting places within their own
countries and geographical areas, is striking. Contemporary
movements of migration represent the largest movement of
individuals, if not of peoples, in history” (Message for the
World Day of Migrants and Refugees, 5 August 2013).
Before this complex panorama, I feel the need to express
particular concern for the forced nature of many contemporary
migratory movements, which increases the challenges presented to
the political community, to civil society and to the Church, and
which amplifies the urgency for a coordinated and effective
response to these challenges.
Our shared response may be articulated by four verbs: to
welcome, to protect, to promote and to integrate.
This is in stark contrast to his own statement. Now he's saying
the countries receiving refugees do not have a right to their
own countries, their own culture, their own sense of national
identity!
So which way is it?
If Mexican leaders mess up their own country so badly that
Mexicans don't want to live there because of crime and lack of
economic opportunity, does that give Mexicans the right to
cross the border into the United States? Do Americans have a
duty to accept Mexicans and others? A duty? According to the
Pope, such a duty does exist in some cases:
I believe that conjugating these four verbs, in the first
person singular and in the first person plural, is today a
responsibility, a duty we have towards our brothers and sisters
who, for various reasons, have been forced to leave their
homeland: a duty of justice, of civility and of solidarity.
No, dear Pope Francis, no one has the duty to charity. Love is
a choice. If it is an obligation or duty, it's not love.
While I am very much in favor of welcoming refugees gladly in
many cases, I refuse to accept it as my duty. If that is my
duty, then it would also be the duty of rich people to feed and
house the poor. The poor would have the right to steal food
from the rich and break into his house to live. We do not see
Lazarus breaking into the rich man's house in the story Jesus
told; and we do not see Jesus recommending this kind of
lawlessness where the poor or downtrodden have a sense of
entitlement and that others owe them something.
Then too there is a kind of "compassion" which makes things
worse. Yes, it was tragic when people fleeing Libya and other
countries were perishing at sea because they were in boats that
sank. Was the appropriate response to send out rescue boats to
scour the sea? That is what happened; and when the human
traffickers saw that, they started using even worse boats, boats
that would sink almost as soon as they were launched. It also
encouraged more people to become refugees. If I am to be
truthful, I must say I believe Pope Francis helped make things
worse by visiting Lampedusa and saying what he did. From July
8, 2013 the BBC
HTML http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-23224010:
The Pope called for a "reawakening of consciences" to counter
the "indifference" shown to migrants.
"We have lost a sense of brotherly responsibility," he said, and
"have forgotten how to cry" for migrants lost at sea.
He denounced the traffickers who exploited migrants and took
great risks with their lives.
Francis, whose own ancestors immigrated to Argentina from Italy,
has previously stood in sympathy with impoverished illegal
migrants.
Lampedusa's native population of 6,000 is often outnumbered by
thousands of migrants in improvised camps around the island.
The UN refugee agency says 8,400 migrants have landed in Italy
and Malta in the first six months of the year, almost twice as
many as last year, but down on 2011, when tens of thousands fled
north Africa during the Arab Spring.
The migrants are normally transported to reception centres on
the Italian mainland to be identified and ease the burden on
Lampedusa.
Do the people of the island of Lampedusa have the same rights
the Pope says indigenous peoples have?
#Post#: 14041--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mexican Catholic Journal Attacks Trump
DIR By: guest6
Date: March 2, 2017, 2:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[Quote]When I see the President of the United States calling the
press the enemy of the people, I am close to being alarmed. It
seems as if he sees himself as a dictator. If he can convince
some people how evil the press is, maybe he can start clamping
down on the press and get some applause for it. The statement
is obnoxious to me, and it makes me see Trump as an enemy of
the Constitution and of freedom. Most Presidents have had
disagreements with the press. Of course, they have, but
Jefferson said he'd rather have newspapers without government
over having a government without newspapers. [/Quote]
He only considers the press who disagree with him and who call
him to account as enemies. He praises Fox News and of course
Breitbart. ::)
#Post#: 14042--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mexican Catholic Journal Attacks Trump
DIR By: Kerry
Date: March 2, 2017, 3:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: KerimF link ---
>
> The goal of this article, like of all similar ones, is to calm
the people (here Mexicans) that some of their men on top (here
religious) think seriously of them.
--- End Quote ---
Calm them? I see it as an attempt to maintain the Catholic
Church's power over the minds of the Mexican people. "Listen
to us. We care about you. We are on your side." Both
Mexican and American politicians are blamed while the Catholic
Church itself is portrayed as the savior of the people. It's
an effective way to gain and hang onto power.
Christianity has a history of "victimology" that goes straight
back to the Roman Empire. The Romans saw it as the "religion
of slaves and women."
HTML http://originsofchristianity.net/lessons/lesson-11-rome-persecution-and-martyrdom/
The Romans came to despise this religion of slaves and women
that refused to submit to Roman public religion. The Roman gods
blessed the empire and grew crops. Who was to blame when natural
disasters occurred? Tertullian, an early church father, writes
that Christians are blamed instantly at every natural disaster.
Christians were blamed when the Roman gods punished society,
because the Christians were disrupting the peace of the gods. We
know of one episode of persecution in 177 AD when some churches
in Gaul were attacked because an outbreak of plague. The
Christians were not systematically persecuted, but they were
especially vulnerable in these periodic moments of persecution.
Tertullian says that the call to throw Christians to lions
arises at every disaster. Execution was part of the culture of
public spectacle. The Romans loved public spectacles, especially
violent games. They loved to watch as people were killed in
entertaining ways – including by animals. It is impossible to
understand the early Christian mindset without knowledge of this
experience.
True enough, Christianity developed another trait when it
became the official state religion; but the Catholic Church
still retains this tendency to hang onto power by convincing the
people they're victims and only the church cares or will do
anything. So the Catholic Church is a mixture of
authoritarianism and victimology.
What I find very annoying is that the Catholic Church has broken
the law for decades; and their actions have produced some of the
misery they now complain about. Oh yes, the Presbyterians and
others also did it. It started with refugees from Guatemala and
Nicaragua back in the 1980's.
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_movement
The first church to declare itself a a sanctuary for Central
American refugees was Southside Presbyterian Church in Tucson,
Arizona. The movement quickly spread and was also strong in
Arizona, Chicago, Philadelphia, California and Texas. In 1980,
Jim Corbett, Jim Dudley, John Fife and other residents of
Tucson, Arizona, began providing legal, financial and material
aid to Central American refugees. As Corbett recounts, the
tradition of his Quaker faith and its involvement in the
Underground Railroad compelled him to take action. Gary Cook,
associate pastor of the Central Presbyterian Church in
Massillon, Ohio, cited the simple experience of personal
interaction: "We're a very conservative group of folks
politically. But once we encountered the refugees face to face,
we couldn't justify not taking them in."
For Dudley, one of Corbett's friends, it was his experience
coming across a man on the side of the road on the outskirts of
Tucson one afternoon. As he described in an interview, after
picking up the hitchhiker, Dudley learned through broken Spanish
that the man was a Salvadoran attempting to make it to San
Francisco. As they drove into town, Border Patrol agents stopped
the car and identified the man as an illegal alien and promptly
took him away. Dudley recalls the pleading look on the
Salvadoran's face and the fear in his voice as he asked Dudley
to lie to the patrol agents and tell them he was a friend and
that they were going to Tucson together. Dudley left that day
troubled and confused. Why was the man so afraid? Were the
border agents going to send him back? What would happen to him
if they did?
On March 24, 1982, the second anniversary of Archbishop Oscar
Romero's assassination, Fife, the minister of the Southside
Presbyterian Church in Tucson, after garnering the support of
his congregation, declared his congregation a public sanctuary.
Outside the church building he posted two banners that read:
“This is a Sanctuary for the Oppressed of Central America,” and
“Immigration: do not profane the Sanctuary of God.” A rush of
churches, synagogues and student groups across the country
followed suit, and by 1985 Sanctuary became a national movement
with roughly five hundred member-sites across the United States.
Movement members likened Sanctuary to the "Underground Railroad"
of the 19th century: Central Americans would flee their
countries, often under extremely dangerous circumstances, travel
up through Mexico and eventually find a safe haven in a
sanctuary community in the United States or Canada. To give a
picture of how this phenomenon worked in practice, refugees
coming through Tucson would make it to Nogales (the nearest
border town in Mexico), often on foot, and find refuge at El
Sanctuario de Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe (Sanctuary of Our Lady
of Guadalupe) Catholic Church. With help from Padre Ramón
Dagoberto Quiñones, the head priest at Guadalupe, they would
travel a short distance across the border to the Sacred Heart
Catholic Church, whose steeple was visible from across the
border in Mexico. There they could find shelter, food, legal
advice and perhaps a little money. The two churches kept in
constant contact, and priests and lay people traveled frequently
between parishes.
Over the years of the movement, which was active until 1996,
activists developed a number of coordinated routes for
transporting individuals to designated Public Sanctuaries, the
communities that accepted them. At first a part of the effort
was to get those with credible claims to Canada, whose landed
immigrant status became available once a refugee turned
him/herself in on Canadian soil. But the U.S. government
convinced the new conservative government to tighten the border
and exclude more Central American refugees. This led to many
more U.S. churches becoming welcoming sanctuaries. Prospective
candidates or families were matched by numerous factors with a
community that was prepared to house them and assist them to
make political statements by recounting their personal history.
Those who were not willing to do public speaking, for example,
would be matched with a community that was not interested in
doing that level of organizing or was located in a rural area
where little public effort was possible. Volunteers drove
refugees to exchange points where they would be transported to
their next night's lodging, until they reached their
destination. The system was highly decentralized; despite the
pre-organization, it was fairly ad hoc; and different groups
found varying methods for providing publicity or secrecy as
protection.
Once the refugees found safe-haven in a Sanctuary community,
U.S. congregations, student groups and activists often invited
Central Americans to share their beliefs and experiences with
the community. Refugees were invited to the pulpit to give their
testimonies during church services, congregations held special
Central American peace nights where stories were shared and
information given, and Central Americans and North Americans
talked frequently and openly, whether through Bible studies,
meetings or rallies.
What happened as a result was that many of these people in
country unlawfully had children here. Their children would be
American citizens, so if you deported the parents, you'd be
breaking up families; and the same people who helped create this
problem then complained about how evil it would be to break up
families.
Then there were children brought here as children. Is it right
to deport them if the US is the only country they know since
they grew up here? They didn't make the choice to come here.
But who is to blame? I can't feel that much sorrow for the
parents who helped create the problem. I feel a lot of sorrow
for their children who didn't do anything wrong. But should
both parents and children be allowed to stay in the US? It
doesn't seem right to me to say we are "obliged" and bound by
"duty" to let the parents stay if they helped create the
problem by breaking the law. And I certainly can't approve of
the sanctuary movement that helped people break the law and
helped create the current miserable situations of these people.
In fact, the people in the sanctuary movement annoy me more
than the people who came here unlawfully. Maybe they wouldn't
have broken the law if these other people hadn't made it easier
for them. They should have demanded Congress change the laws
if they didn't like them instead of breaking the law and
encouraging others to.
And honestly, none of this addresses the real reasons people
were fleeing Nicaragua and Guatemala back in the 1980's. The
United States helped create those messes. If we are honest, I
think we also have to admit Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton
also helped create the Libyan refugee crisis.
#Post#: 14043--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mexican Catholic Journal Attacks Trump
DIR By: guest6
Date: March 2, 2017, 3:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Here's an article I remember reading last year. Very
interesting.
Obviously many people crossing the border are Catholics. Church
attendance by Catholics has decreased significantly in the U.S.
I wonder if that has anything to do with this. Maybe more people
to fill the pews?
Pope suggests Trump 'is not Christian'
By Daniel Burke, CNN Religion Editor
Updated 10:47 PM EST, Thu February 18, 2016
CNN) Thrusting himself into the combative 2016 presidential
campaign, Pope Francis said Thursday that GOP front-runner
Donald Trump "is not Christian" if he calls for the deportation
of undocumented immigrants and pledges to build a wall between
the United States and Mexico.
The Pope, who was traveling back to Rome from Mexico, where he
urged the United States to address the "humanitarian crisis" on
its southern border, did not tell American Catholics not to vote
for Trump.
But Francis left little doubt where he stood on the polarizing
issue of immigration reform.
"A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they
may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not
the gospel," the Pope told journalists who asked his opinion on
Trump's proposals to halt illegal immigration.
Trump immediately fired back, calling Francis' comments
"disgraceful."
"No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right
to question another man's religion or faith," he said in
statement. Trump added that the government in Mexico, where
Francis spent the past five days, has "made many disparaging
remarks about me to the Pope."
"If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone
knows is ISIS's ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope
would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have
been president," Trump said.
By Thursday evening, the GOP candidate had softened his tone.
"I don't like fighting with the Pope," Trump said at a GOP town
hall debate in South Carolina hosted by CNN. "I like his
personality; I like what he represents."
He added that he thinks Francis' remarks were "much nicer" than
the media reported and that the Pope had been misled by Mexican
officials.
Trump also said that the Pope has an "awfully big wall" himself
at the Vatican.
That may be true, Catholic priests said, but Vatican City also
has an awfully big door....
HTML https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/02/18/politics/pope-francis-trump-christian-wall/index.html
#Post#: 14044--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mexican Catholic Journal Attacks Trump
DIR By: Kerry
Date: March 2, 2017, 3:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Heartsong link ---
>
> He only considers the press who disagree with him and who call
him to account as enemies. He praises Fox News and of course
Brietbart. ::)
>
--- End Quote ---
Just the way he says polls are rigged or fake . . . unless one
says something he can use to try to make himself look good.
I almost laughed out loud when he cited the Rasmussen poll, "our
new Rasmussen poll just came out, just a very short while ago
and it has our approval rating at 55 percent and going up."
What is going on with the polls?
HTML https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/02/20/why-the-polls-are-so-all-over-the-place-about-trump/21718086/
The trend Nate Silver reveals shows live telephone interview
polls, like Pew, Gallup and CBS News, all have the president
with the three lowest approval ratings. At the same time, online
or automated telephone polls, like Rasmussen, Morning Consult,
and Zogby, all show the president with the three highest
approval ratings.
I'm beginning to think Trump never felt love as a child and is
still trying to find approval. Sometimes desperately. Or he's
in a world of his own making and thinks anything that supports
his delusion is true and anything that disagrees has to be
false.
#Post#: 14045--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mexican Catholic Journal Attacks Trump
DIR By: guest6
Date: March 2, 2017, 3:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Kerry link ---
>
> Just the way he says polls are rigged or fake . . . unless
one says something he can use to try to make himself look good.
> I almost laughed out loud when he cited the Rasmussen poll,
"our new Rasmussen poll just came out, just a very short while
ago and it has our approval rating at 55 percent and going up."
>
> What is going on with the polls?
HTML https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/02/20/why-the-polls-are-so-all-over-the-place-about-trump/21718086/
>
> The trend Nate Silver reveals shows live telephone interview
polls, like Pew, Gallup and CBS News, all have the president
with the three lowest approval ratings. At the same time, online
or automated telephone polls, like Rasmussen, Morning Consult,
and Zogby, all show the president with the three highest
approval ratings.
>
> I'm beginning to think Trump never felt love as a child and is
still trying to find approval. Sometimes desperately. Or he's
in a world of his own making and thinks anything that supports
his delusion is true and anything that disagrees has to be
false.
>
--- End Quote ---
He seems to be out of touch with reality very often. Either that
or he doesn't care about the chaos, confusion, division and even
danger that he's creating.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page