← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Buster
Thread ID: 14994 | Posts: 41 | Started: 2004-09-13
2004-09-13 22:50 | User Profile
I've noticed of late that Lou Dobbs has taken on the pro-immigration lobby straight on. I found this very unusual for the corporate media. Dobbs seems to have really experienced a conversion and become a real bulldog on this issue. One example has already been noticed here:
[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14715&highlight=Dobbs[/url]
2004-09-13 23:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]I've noticed of late that Lou Dobbs has taken on the pro-immigration lobby straight on. I found this very unusual for the corporate media. Dobbs seems to have really experienced a conversion and become a real bulldog on this issue. One example has already been noticed here:
[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14715&highlight=Dobbs[/url][/QUOTE]Thanks for noticing. Too bad we've spend so much of our time dealing with the harrangs of people like the Phorans who prefer to, at least temporarily, work in concert with the neocons to sabotage the democratic anti-immigration lobby, supposedly so as to hasten the inevitable white revolution, in accorance with their own fuhrerprinzip.
2004-09-14 01:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Thanks for noticing. Too bad we've spend so much of our time dealing with the harrangs of people like the Phorans who prefer to, at least temporarily, work in concert with the neocons to sabotage the democratic anti-immigration lobby, supposedly so as to hasten the inevitable white revolution, in accorance with their own fuhrerprinzip.[/QUOTE]
The same people who want to "destroy" the GOP by voting (assuming they're not convicted felons) for Democrat candidates instead of doing something constructive by building a credible nationalist party, or at least use immigration-control lobbying organizations to pressure the GOP and highlight to average joes their betrayal by party leadership.
2004-09-14 05:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]The same people who want to "destroy" the GOP by voting (assuming they're not convicted felons) for Democrat candidates instead of doing something constructive by building a credible nationalist party, or at least use immigration-control lobbying organizations to pressure the GOP and highlight to average joes their betrayal by party leadership.[/QUOTE]
Do we have a credible nationalist party anywhere on the horizon?
2004-09-14 13:21 | User Profile
Centinel,
We need a far victory of some kind, it would only take a few Congressmen to get things started.
[QUOTE]The same people who want to "destroy" the GOP by voting (assuming they're not convicted felons) for Democrat candidates instead of doing something constructive by building a credible nationalist party, or at least use immigration-control lobbying organizations to pressure the GOP and highlight to average joes their betrayal by party leadership. [/QUOTE]
I am very fearful of what Jorge Busho will do in 2005. It looks as if with the new poll Bushie may win. But them what. Jorge's "Guest Worker Plan" I fear will be the first thing he works on. And one fears what arabs will doing as Bushie works to get cheap workers for his masters.
Tancredo on Lou Dobbs Tonight Comment on Immigrants Voting in American Elections [url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14715[/url]
2004-09-14 13:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Do we have a credible nationalist party anywhere on the horizon?[/QUOTE] Not really. The Constitution Party is on the ballot here in TN, however, so I think I am going to vote for Peroutkas. I don't agree with every single thing in their platform, but they are immigration-restrictionist, anti-'Free Trade,' pro-2nd amendment, and anti-Iraq War. It's doubtful anybody better is going to come along this election, and even a few percentage points of the vote would send a message. It might not send a message to the elites, but it would send a message to other regular, white folks that there are plenty of other people who think as they do, and that they don't have to support the GOP come hell or high water.
2004-09-14 14:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Not really. The Constitution Party is on the ballot here in TN, however, so I think I am going to vote for Peroutkas. I don't agree with every single thing in their platform, but they are immigration-restrictionist, anti-'Free Trade,' pro-2nd amendment, and anti-Iraq War. It's doubtful anybody better is going to come along this election, and even a few percentage points of the vote would send a message. It might not send a message to the elites, but it would send a message to other regular, white folks that there are plenty of other people who think as they do, and that they don't have to support the GOP come hell or high water.[/QUOTE]
The goal is to cost the GOP a couple of big elections.
My concern about Constitution Party is that it's very kosher at the top. It just smells like potato latkes to me.
ADL diversion?
Maybe I'm paranoid, but in this old world only the paranoid survive.
Walter
2004-09-14 14:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] My concern about Constitution Party is that it's very kosher at the top. It just smells like potato latkes to me.[/QUOTE] Is it? I haven't researched it very much. Who, specifically?
2004-09-14 14:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Is it? I haven't researched it very much. Who, specifically?[/QUOTE]
Howard Phillips.
2004-09-14 15:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Howard Phillips.[/QUOTE] Hmm. I have mixed feelings about this. Howard Phillips is certainly Jewish, as you state. However- 1. He converted to Protestantism. 2. The impetus for that conversion was the writings of Rushdooney, who was certainly not philosemitic. 3. He supports ending all foreign aid, including that to Israel. 4. He states that US society and laws are, and should be, based on Christianity.
We face the timeless question, then: is he sincere or not? Is he a Marrano, or a St. Paul?
2004-09-14 16:12 | User Profile
[quote=Faust]Centinel,
We need a far victory of some kind, it would only take a few Congressmen to get things started.
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Do we have a credible nationalist party anywhere on the horizon?[/QUOTE]Walter's is a good question, but it really is a broader question. The exact nature and role of "parties" in national politics is always changing. Right now, as we can see by the conventions, the "parties" are just an empty shell, at least regarding their formal organization, which does little except ratify decisions already made behind the scenes.
Constitution Party is maybe the best (i.e. least objectional), but we've discussed their weakness a number of times before. As a political vehicle frankly I think Tom Tancredo's immigration reform caucus in the House has a good a chance of success as any. Caucuses have a long role in America of fulfilling a defacto party role while working in the existing two-party structure. The Congresional Progressive caucus and the Democratic Socialist caucus both have a solid presence among left Democrats, and make the need for a third party (Ralph and the Greens notwithstanding) largely superflous.
Tancredo by his nature my be a little wary toward the hard right, such as Vdare, because of fears they may be places where the cantankerous, cranks, and kooks mass in numbers, necessitating considerable house cleaning before these associations are of any value. But these types of problems are certainly something we here can relate to. :wink:
Tancredo I think is increasingly going behind the narrow logistical questions behind immigration to at least some of the broader ideological questions we deal with, such as the weaknesses of both parties on multiculturalism. I think in this election as a paleo I'll basically be sitting out the Presidential election. I think the congressional, state, and even local races are the real future of this country politically, and where we should be looking a lot more.
2004-09-14 17:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Hmm. I have mixed feelings about this. Howard Phillips is certainly Jewish, as you state. However- 1. He converted to Protestantism. 2. The impetus for that conversion was the writings of Rushdooney, who was certainly not philosemitic. 3. He supports ending all foreign aid, including that to Israel. 4. He states that US society and laws are, and should be, based on Christianity.
We face the timeless question, then: is he sincere or not? Is he a Marrano, or a St. Paul?[/QUOTE]
Marrano.
Were he in fact sincere, he would understand that we Christians cannot afford to trust him with power over us. NOT EVER.
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't trust him to be a good neighbor and friend. But since he's a Jew, he may never play a leadership role in our society - he must always support and never lead. Certainly he may never exercise real political power.
The fact that he seeks political power knowing full well that no sane Christian society could ever trust him with it proves to me that he's a Marrano.
Walter
2004-09-14 18:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Marrano......
The fact that he seeks political power knowing full well that no sane Christian society could ever trust him with it proves to me that he's a Marrano.
Walter[/QUOTE]Walter, would you feel the same way if he, like Robert Novak, had converted to Catholicism rather than Protestanism? Tell the truth. :wink:
2004-09-14 20:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Walter, would you feel the same way if he, like Robert Novak, had converted to Catholicism rather than Protestanism? Tell the truth. :wink:[/QUOTE]
This topic has moved quite far from discussing Lou Dobbs and immigration. Perhaps we can pick it up elsewhere.
In any case, speaking for myself, not necessarily. Marranos were Catholics at the time, not Protestants. Besides, with the state of affairs the Church is in today, many Catholics aren't Catholics (O'Reilly, Bennett, Hudson, Buckley). But I would have more confidence if there were no Rushdoony affiliation. I don't know Rushdoony well, but I gather he had some theological thoughts that were less than orthodox. I'll defer on that to Walter.
Sincerity will be judged on a case by case basis. Larry Kudlow claims he has converted but he told his story to Crisis, which is more Republican than Catholic. It's hard to say what people like Kudlow or Novak need to do to demonstrate integrity. Bishop Williamson once told me to give such people the benefit of the doubt, but remain wary regardless.
2004-09-14 20:14 | User Profile
Never trust a Jew thats "converts", remember,,,, "By deception we shall rule".
All you have to do is to ask a BORN AMERICAN Jew "if you are ordered by the President of the USA to go and fight the ISRAELIS in Palestine, would you go?" ,,,,,,, the answer will be NO.
The Jews are not like the rest of the people in this world,,,,, first thing that you must learn is that they are at war with the whole world, as they have been for the past 5,000 years.
Being a Jew is no longer having a religion (only to a few) but a race or nation, and that race is the race of the Kazhar Zionists.
"When the truth comes into the light, the lies will hide in the dark",,, Ponce
2004-09-14 21:10 | User Profile
We've gone over this ground before, but the historical situation was much different pre- and post-Emancipation. The Jewish problem in its modern form and dimension is really defined by that fact. Christendom got what it asked for after the Reformation and French Revolution. Divided we fall.
As for Zionism, prior to World War II, even most Jews saw what fanatics and kooks the Zionists were. I predict they will become regarded as such again.
With respect to conversions, my experience is that a genuine Jewish conversion is a rarity, but an ardent rarity. It wouldn't surprise me if a Novak or Kudlow was quite active in his parish behind the scenes.
Finally, I don't think I'd ever want our military fighting in Palestine, but the point about loyalty is well taken.
Anyone remember Dobbs? Immigration? Oh well...
2004-09-14 23:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]This topic has moved quite far from discussing Lou Dobbs and immigration. Perhaps we can pick it up elsewhere.
Well its not really our fault. We went from anti-immigration in the media to generalized political parties that oppose immigration, got to the Constitution Party, noted Howard Phillips is head of said and guess what - we're back to square one.
It just shows how no matter how far you travel in these matters, all roads lead back to Jerusalem. :lol:
But I would have more confidence if there were no Rushdoony affiliation. I don't know Rushdoony well, but I gather he had some theological thoughts that were less than orthodox. I'll defer on that to Walter.
Are you kidding about Rushdooney? He is head of the ultra-orthodox Calvinist organization [url=http://www.chalcedon.edu]Chalcedon Institute[/url]. Protestants don't get more orthodox than that, even discounting Calvinism. I never realized that about Phillips actually.
Sincerity will be judged on a case by case basis. Larry Kudlow claims he has converted but he told his story to Crisis, which is more Republican than Catholic. It's hard to say what people like Kudlow or Novak need to do to demonstrate integrity. Bishop Williamson once told me to give such people the benefit of the doubt, but remain wary regardless.[/QUOTE] Actually MacDonald had a simple test. If a Jew acts contrary to the interests of the tribe, that and really only that is evidence of some sort of conversion, either religious or political. (Chomsky figuring in the later).
Novak I think counts pretty good, from making David Frum's "gang of four" list in his NR article "Unpatriotic Conservatives - A War On America".
2004-09-14 23:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]We've gone over this ground before, but the historical situation was much different pre- and post-Emancipation. The Jewish problem in its modern form and dimension is really defined by that fact. Christendom got what it asked for after the Reformation and French Revolution. Divided we fall.
We could say the same thing about Catholics re things like the St. Bartholomews Day massacure. In fact Petr was just pointing out (re: [url=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=90422&postcount=1]Our Judeo-Pagan Heritage[/url]) how the Reformation saved Catholicism from de facto becoming another jewish sect.
As for Zionism, prior to World War II, even most Jews saw what fanatics and kooks the Zionists were. I predict they will become regarded as such again. In other words, they certainly aren't now.
Anyone remember Dobbs? Immigration? Oh well...[/QUOTE] And if all roads seem to lead through Jerusalem, and awful lot of them pass through Rome.
You and Walter actually are pretty smug at times consider you are both members of what Chilton Williamson called "The number one pro-immigration organization in America". He might not have read MacDonald, but his point is arguably more neglected than it should be on this forum.
2004-09-15 03:07 | User Profile
Walter Yannis
"Do we have a credible nationalist party anywhere on the horizon?"
Any party not built on the idea of "Blood and Soil." Is not a real nationalist party.
2004-09-15 08:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Walter, would you feel the same way if he, like Robert Novak, had converted to Catholicism rather than Protestanism? Tell the truth. :wink:[/QUOTE]
Yes.
Cross my heart and hope to die.
2004-09-15 09:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE][Okiereddust]Are you kidding about Rushdooney? He is head of the ultra-orthodox Calvinist organization [url=http://www.chalcedon.edu]Chalcedon Institute[/url]. Protestants don't get more orthodox than that, even discounting Calvinism. I never realized that about Phillips actually. [/QUOTE]
I don't know much about Rushdooney, but from what I've seen he looks pretty four-square. Read a few things.
I just ordered his Institutes of Biblical Law. I've read lengthy excerpts from that, and I've seen nothing that any orthodox Catholic couldn't believe.
I look forward to discussing that book with you, Tex and others.
Walter
2004-09-15 18:25 | User Profile
Okie:
I presume Chilton Williamson was referring to the Catholic bishops, and he is correct. I've made the same point myself in this forum. Immigrants fill their pews and their coffers. These churchmen are a weak and disgraceful generation, and very low on intellectual firepower as well. They do not reflect the Catholic population as a whole. The real problem, of course, starts at the top.
I might say the Reformation was good to the extent that it inspired the Counter-Reformation, which emphasized the Church's differences with the Reformers and declined to compromise with them. Sadly it was only partially successful. No doubt there was corruption in the Church (then as now) but the better solution would be another St. Francis, or St. Catherine of Siena, or St. Pius V (whom Petr mentioned) who revived the Church in preceding periods of weakness.
I'm not sure about this Jewish sect business so I'll take that up some other time.
As for Rushdoony, my minimal knowledge is that he is religiously orthodox, but politically controversial. I gather he leans toward a more theocratic view of government than is the case today. Catholics have traditionally (pre-1965) recognized a distinction--not separation--between Church and civil authority, while demanding recognition of Church authority and condemning religous liberty, aka, indifferentism.
Incidentally, I gather he has an admirer in the Constitution Party candidate, Mr. Peroutka.
2004-09-16 01:22 | User Profile
Hmmm. When did the Bush family become Methodists---I was always under the impression they were Episcopalians. Did they become Methodists when they moved to Texas?
Sort of like Teresa Heinz, I was always told she was an Episcopalian---not a Catholic.
2004-09-16 04:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Pennsylvania_Dutch]Hmmm. When did the Bush family become Methodists---I was always under the impression they were Episcopalians. Did they become Methodists when they moved to Texas? [/QUOTE] The Bush's always were Episcopalians. Which sometimes doesn't mean a whole lot, but for George H. Bush apparently something, as he was a good churchman, at least for a Episopalian. Not so though apparently for W. He as far as I know basically got his religion, (as do many men) in large part through his wife, or at least indirectly through the people she helped put him in contact with.
2004-09-16 10:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE][Buster]Okie:
I presume Chilton Williamson was referring to the Catholic bishops, and he is correct. I've made the same point myself in this forum. Immigrants fill their pews and their coffers. These churchmen are a weak and disgraceful generation, and very low on intellectual firepower as well. They do not reflect the Catholic population as a whole. The real problem, of course, starts at the top.[/QUOTE]
True, but man has the shite run downhill. I have close relatives who think that abortion on demand is a good thing, and that sodomite marriage is just as good as traditional marriage, while swearing up and down that they're Catholics.
The fags we have for parish priests abet them in this nonsense.
Rushdoony (see my signature) really hit the nail on the head. We Catholics were offerred a new religion by our apostate clergy after VATII. I bought it, but I was young and fooloshly trusted the clergy. I'm over that now. I see just how rotten to the core our American clergy is.
[QUOTE]I might say the Reformation was good to the extent that it inspired the Counter-Reformation, which emphasized the Church's differences with the Reformers and declined to compromise with them. Sadly it was only partially successful. [/QUOTE]
I agree with that. The Anathamas of Trent are wonderful things. Salvation by faith as a free and unmerited gift of God, but with faith made strong by works. Our souls really are transformed in this life by our cooperation with the Holy Spirit in the Sacraments, making us children of God.
[QUOTE]No doubt there was corruption in the Church (then as now) but the better solution would be another St. Francis, or St. Catherine of Siena, or St. Pius V (whom Petr mentioned) who revived the Church in preceding periods of weakness. [/QUOTE]
Well, I think we have to admit that the Medici Popes who caused the Reformation were scumbags of the first order. If I recall correctly, the whole reason for the terrible abuse of indulgences that was the proximate cause of Luther's outrage was their bankrupting the Vatican treasury on lavish feasts that went on for years. Reverly, corrpution, rampant nepotism. We should have moved the Papacy to Scandanavia and the hell out of Renaissance Italy.
I think that a deep bow is owed to the other side of the Reformation-Counter Reformation on that point. It just didn't get any worse than the Medicis, and were it not for them, I doubt that the whole thing would have happened.
But as you point out, great good came out of Trent. There really was a creeping Pelagianism that the Church needed to condemn. Conversely, the Church needed to avoid the pitfalls of Calvinism, which Trent clearified and of course formed the basis for the later condemnation of Jansenism.
[QUOTE]As for Rushdoony, my minimal knowledge is that he is religiously orthodox, but politically controversial. [/QUOTE]
Nowadays the two are identical. If you're really faithful to the Gospel, you'll certainly wind up in ZOG's crosshairs.
[QUOTE]I gather he leans toward a more theocratic view of government than is the case today.[/QUOTE]
I think that the quote in my signature hits on an essential truth. All culture derives from cult. Our brains were designed to arrange our lives and innermost being around religious symbols and beliefs, and any change in expression in law or art signals a change in underlying religion.
2004-09-16 15:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]Immigrants fill their pews and their coffers. These churchmen are a weak and disgraceful generation, and very low on intellectual firepower as well. They do not reflect the Catholic population as a whole. The real problem, of course, starts at the top.[/QUOTE]
Hello Buster,
Are you faulting the Catholic Church clergy for ministering and administering the sacraments to the immigrants in their respective parishes?
If so, why?
2004-09-16 16:54 | User Profile
OH OH, here we go,,,,,, Tex is on the move.
Ponce <------- hiding under his bed.
2004-09-16 17:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Hello Buster,
Are you faulting the Catholic Church clergy for ministering and administering the sacraments to the immigrants in their respective parishes?
If so, why?[/QUOTE]
Were it not for immigration, the collapse of the Catholic Church in America would be even more obvious than it is.
I am talking about the bishops specifically.
First, they equate Catholic social teaching with Rooseveltian welfarism, which it is not.
Second, they promote the romantic and naive notion of immigration as a universal good.
Third, they place their selfish interest in populating their dioceses and stabilizing their financial situations ahead of their obligations to their fellow Americans.
They are a wicked generation, one that confirms St. John of the Cross's saying that Hell is decorated with the skulls of bishops.
2004-09-16 18:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]Were it not for immigration, the collapse of the Catholic Church in America would be even more obvious than it is.
I am talking about the bishops specifically.
First, they equate Catholic social teaching with Rooseveltian welfarism, which it is not.
Second, they promote the romantic and naive notion of immigration as a universal good.
Third, they place their selfish interest in populating their dioceses and stabilizing their financial situations ahead of their obligations to their fellow Americans.
They are a wicked generation, one that confirms St. John of the Cross's saying that Hell is decorated with the skulls of bishops.[/QUOTE]
Amen to that.
We need to quit funding them.
I give but only to Catholic organizations that I know are orthodox and not fag-dominated. There are a few left out there. Not many, but there is a remnant.
As far as Tex's question is concerned, the Mexicans are my fellow Catholics and a priest is obliged to provide them the Sacraments as he can.
That doesn't go to the political question of whether that same priest should be brought up on charges of aiding and abetting cimres, such as violation of our immigration laws.
Walter
2004-09-16 20:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]As far as Tex's question is concerned, the Mexicans are my fellow Catholics and a priest is obliged to provide them the Sacraments as he can.
That doesn't go to the political question of whether that same priest should be brought up on charges of aiding and abetting cimres, such as violation of our immigration laws.[/QUOTE]
Do you consider performing the public ministry duties of the office of the keys a violation of immigration law if they are performed for and/or provided to illegal immigrants?
2004-09-16 20:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Do you consider performing the public ministry duties of the office of the keys a violation of immigration law if they are performed for illegal immigrants?[/QUOTE]
The "crime", if you will, is subsidizing illegals, lobbying for amnesty, or arguing for greater public benefits to support them.
It wouldn't surprise me though if some self-hating white priest were involved in actual criminal traffiking across the border.
2004-09-16 20:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]The "crime", if you will, is subsidizing illegals, lobbying for amnesty, or arguing for greater public benefits to support them.
It wouldn't surprise me though if some self-hating white priest were involved in actual criminal traffiking across the border.[/QUOTE]
Please forgive me if I was not clear, Buster. I was not speaking to the activities you mention here, although I would still think that legal political activity is legitimate and not a crime. I am specifically talking about the ministry duties of ordained pastors i.e. hearing confession, proclaiming forgiveness of sins, administering the sacraments, etc.
2004-09-16 20:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Do you consider performing the public ministry duties of the office of the keys a violation of immigration law if they are performed for and/or provided to illegal immigrants?[/QUOTE] I don't see what the question is, really, from a Christian standpoint. Regarding the aid of illegals immigrants in one's diocese/jurisdiction, the old admonition of "hate the sin, love the sinner" is at play. The same rule that allows us to extend help to unwed mothers without being accussed of promoting fornication, ministering to prisoners without being accussed of fomenting crime etc. In fact it goes back to the oldest of questions, the dualism of how God loves us while simultaneously condemning sin. (Answer, Christ's death).
Are you setting this up for a protracted theological discussion between Catholics and Protestants on the nature of grace, atonement, etc.? :wink:
2004-09-16 21:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Are you setting this up for a protracted theological discussion between Catholics and Protestants on the nature of grace, atonement, etc.? :wink:[/QUOTE]
Ha! You think you have me figured out, huh? :)
No, seriously. I just think we need to be careful when we criticize clergy, in that we need to make sure we are drawing a distinction between a minister performing his ministerial duties and say, willfully and actively breaking the laws of the state by smuggling in illegals, for an example.
I think laws should be obeyed, but at the same time Christ's Great Commission transcends national boundaries and citizenship.
Luther addressed this in his 'Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms'. It is not the Church's function to enforce immigration law, but it is the Church's duty to tend to the spiritual needs of everyone, legal or illegal.
2004-09-16 21:28 | User Profile
I see no purpose or obligation or right to refuse anyone the sacraments because of his legal status. Would crossing the border illegally be considered sinful?
2004-09-16 21:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]Would crossing the border illegally be considered sinful?[/QUOTE]
Yes, I think so.
2004-09-16 22:08 | User Profile
There is a twofold government in man: one aspect is spiritual, whereby the conscience is instructed in piety and reverencing God; the second is political, whereby man is educated for the duties of humanity and citizenship that must be maintained among men. These are usually called the 'spiritual' and the 'temporal' jurisdiction (not improper terms)...The one we may call the spiritual kingdom, the other, the political kingdom. Now these two, as we have divided them, must always be examined separately; and while one is being considered, we must call away and turn aside the mind from thinking about the other. There are in man, so to speak, two worlds, over which different kings and different laws have authority. Through this distinction it comes about that we are not to misapply to the political order the gospel teaching on spiritual freedom, as if Christians were less subject, as concerns outward government, to human laws, because their consciences have been set free in God's sight.4
[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14098[/url]
2004-09-16 22:42 | User Profile
There is no power but from God, and those that are in power are ordained by God. Romans XIII,1. The authority, whether it is monarchical or democratic, must be exercized justly, according to the moral law. Moral law in essence is the divine law applied to practical matters. The Church is necessary to foster the moral law, and to advise whether conditions for resistance or rebellion have arisen.
Therefore, distinction between Church and State is proper. Complete separation is not. This is why Popes prior to Vatican II condemned religious liberty as an ideal.
2004-09-17 02:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]There is now power but from God, and those that are in power are ordained by God. Romans XIII,1. The authority, whether it is monarchical or democratic, must be exercized justly, according to the moral law. Moral law in essence is the divine law applied to practical matters. The Church is necessary to foster the moral law, and to advise whether conditions for resistance or rebellion have arisen.
Therefore, distinction between Church and State is proper. Complete separation is not. This is why Popes prior to Vatican II condemned religious liberty as an ideal.[/QUOTE]
Well stated Buster and I don't necessarily disagree.
So am I correct in understanding that you do not believe it is or should be a crime for a priest to administer sacraments and/or otherwise minister to illegal immigrants?
And how 'bout you, Walter?
2004-09-20 01:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]My concern about Constitution Party is that it's very kosher at the top.
FWIW, Peroutka's running mate is [url=http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com]Chuck Baldwin[/url], a Christian Zionist pastor and talk radio host. He's alot like Joseph Farrah--decent domestically but Israel-First on foreign policy.
2004-09-20 09:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Well stated Buster and I don't necessarily disagree.
So am I correct in understanding that you do not believe it is or should be a crime for a priest to administer sacraments and/or otherwise minister to illegal immigrants?
And how 'bout you, Walter?[/QUOTE]
Hmmmm . . .
No, it's not a crime to adminster the sacraments.
Priests have a special role that the law recognizes. The confessional seal is privileged under the rules of evidence, for example. And thank Heaven for that.
Breaking the immigration laws is a civil offense. Is it also a sin?
There's a difference between malum in se (inherently bad, violating the Natural Law) and malum prohibitum (bad because it's illegal but perhaps not violating the Natural Law). [Malum prohibitum is "an act which is immoral because it is illegal; not necessarily illegal because it is immoral." See, e.g. [URL=http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1487.ZO.html]United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998).][/URL]
I think that there's a case to be made that, at least when viewed from a broad perspective (say, on a national level), routine violation of the immigration laws is malum in se. The Mexican government's policy of encouraging illegal immigration is probably malum in se. Mexico is committing the Sin of Babel, violating the tribal nature of man that is part of the Natural Law. But on the level of the individual illegal, I think these big issues don't really come into play directly. On the individual level illegal immigration is closer to malum prohibitum.
But even then, the question that I think we Americans need to ask is exactly how "prohibitum" is illegal immigration really? We Americans are the ones who are not enforcing our immigration laws, holding them up to ridicule before the whole world. How can we blame a Mexican peasant for seeking higher wages (on a moral level) when he's doing something that is at most malum prohibitum, and even then arguably not in fact "prohibitum" at all due to our consistent failure to honor our own laws.
I mean to say, if we Americans don't take our own immigration laws seriously, why in the hell should foreigners? I really do think there's a strong Natural Law argument that foreigners shouldn't have to obey the very laws that we ourselves openly mock.
Priests deal on the individual level, and so at most we're talking about failing to assist a Catholic in spiritual need for his violation of a law malum prohibitum (and under the natural law, it's probably not even malum prohibitum, since we ourselves aren't de facto subject to them).
Given the weighty equities in favour of spiritual help on the one hand and the morally far less cogent argument against rendering such assistance on the other hand, I see no moral problem with a priest rendering all spiritual assistance under the Natural Law, and least in most cases.
That's probably not the answer you wanted to hear, but man, what can I say?
It's America's fault that the Executive wipes its butt on the will of the People acting through Congress.
If we Americans can't be bothered with it, wherefore the Mexicans?
Walter