Good Catholics
Submitted by James on Mon, 05/21/2007 - 4:46pm
I've had plenty of differences with the Catholic Church over the years, but there's much to admire in their work as well. One example of the latter is this remarkable stand by eastern North Carolina's Catholic leader:
Foreigners who can't earn a living wage or ensure the security of their families have a right to immigrate to the United States, Bishop Michael Burbidge, said today.
The News and Observer has the brief story.
Burbidge said the proposal the Senate released last week was "a good beginning," but he urged Catholics to protest a provision that would remove family ties as a basis for immigration.
Of course, don't go expecting Family-Values Sue Myrick to be agreeing with any illegal-lovin' man of god. Au contraire, the Wicked Witch from Mecklenberg thinks this so-called good beginning is more of a slap in the face."
“The only thing a visa holder cannot do is vote and how long will it be before some activist judge gives them the right to vote. Come on get real. It gives amnesty a slap in the face,” Myrick said.
Poor sad Sue. Is there anything she's actually in favor of? Oh I remember now. She likes banks that cut good-paying American jobs and sends the work to India.
What an embarrassment.
It would have to be a Republican activist judge
I think they've stacked the benches.
Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.
***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.
So...
...you're for the Catholic Church's involvement in politics specifically, but not in general? And, if so, don't you find that to be a little hypocritical?
Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it. - Robert F. Kennedy
----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy
Hypocrisy?
We're obviously focused on different things. You're looking for some magical blend of consistency and purity that doesn't concern me in the slightest. I am out to pursue a specific agenda, and I will use whatever allies I can find whenever I can find them.
The Catholic Church can and will say whatever it wants. In fact, I haven't noticed any Bishops getting even the slightest bit worried about my complaints.
When I disagree with their positions, I'll argue for them to butt out of the issue in a heartbeat. For example, I consider the Church's stands on contraception and end-of-life issues to be immoral. In those areas, I will fight them to the end. However, when the Church does what I consider the "right thing," I will encourage them and join cause without hesitation.
Your comment suggests a kind of rigidity that I find unproductive. By your standard, I could never agree with the editorial page editor at the News and Observer because I so often find myself disagreeing with him. What kind of standard is that?
You apparently have reverence for the Catholic Church, which is your right, of course. I don't. In my view, the Church is one of many institutions that attempts to shape public policy to align with its own agenda. Sometimes I agree with that agenda, many times I don't.
What's hypocritical about that?
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
A foolish consistency is
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines
key word: foolish
The foolish consistency referred to by Emerson is the consistency of thoughtless conformity, which is not the type of consistency referred to here.
I disagree with your interpretation
perhaps "thoughtless conformity" but I think he's talking about conformity with onesself and one's past actions and statements.
Perhaps the following is a better way to say it:
Even men
get to change their minds, and change them back again and again.
_____________
The Den
It's your democracy; use it.
Let Me Clarify.
In your previous post (and subsequent comment), you said the last thing you needed was the Catholic Church "putting the weight of the Church on the line to influence legislation." But, in this post, that seems to be exactly what you're applauding.
To use your N&O analogy, it'd be like telling the editorial page editor that they could run only the editorials with which you agree. That's what I think is hypocritical.
My argument here (and in the previous post) isn't so much about the substance of the issues, as it is about defending the church's right to participate in the debate...not because I agree with them on a particular issue, but because I know there are others (the death penalty, poverty, immigration, etc.) on which the Church and I do agree and, quite frankly, I want them on my side.
Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it. - Robert F. Kennedy
----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy
Anglico
has clearly stated that he doesnt want them involved in politics.
Unless he agrees with them in which case he is happy they are on the right side.
He then addressed the charge of hypocrisy. You might not like it, but he addressed it. To bring up the same point again is unproductive. If you dont accept his explanation that is fine, but frankly I dont think it matters, you just wont respect his opinion in the future I guess.
Draft Brad Miller-- NC Sen ActBlue
"Keep the Faith"
Seriously.
I'm bringing up the same point again because it's relevant to the extent that it proves an inconsistency. Beyond that, I was just responding to questions Anglico posted in his response to my comment and, in so doing, clarified my own thoughts on the inconsistency.
I'm not sure what's wrong with that...
Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it. - Robert F. Kennedy
----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy
I understand your point
but I think we're working on different levels of abstraction.
I am consistently against the Church's involvement in politics when I believe their moral foundation is antithetical to the common good. I am consistently happy when the Church takes political stands that are moral and aligned with the common good.
That's not so hard to understand.
A
PS I welcome your challenge of hypocrisy and inconsistency. It gave me the chance to think through my positions and clarify my own thinking too. I find I am a pragmatist.
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
Disagreeing is one thing...
when you're putting forward a reasoned argument. I think the trouble with the inconsistency can be if you are too polemic on the issues you disagree with a church or whatever group on, when it comes to those issues where there's agreement and you want support, its harder to come by. I'm not saying that's the case or that it's not something I run the danger of doing at times, just that that's the danger. Also I use "you" in the broad not the specific sense here.
I've thought about that
and with individuals or organizations where there is a chance of building alliances, I'm usually more circumspect.
As i said above, the Catholic Church will do what it wants with ZERO regard for what I think or say. They have a direct pipeline to god and, thus, are always right about everything. The NC Bishop could no more support my position on contraception, for example, than George Bush could admit a mistake. They are both guided by a doctrine of infallibility.
The same logic applies to the Puppetshow. Before I knew their operating model, I used to look for bridges and shreds of common ground thinking I might see eye to eye with them on something. Now it's scorched earth.
I understand your point.
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
I have several issues with this statement:
If our economy and job market were both infinitely elastic, and everyone in America was being paid a decent wage and had health care, then we might be able to enact his suggested immigration policy....legally.
However, there are 40 million citizens in this country living at or below the poverty level....and another 50 million or so who are members of families earning less than twice the poverty level income. I believe it is a fact that illegal immigrants are depressing the labor market and wages for citizens, and that those same citizens are at the same time footing the bill for essential services to these illegal immigrants.
I have great sympathy for and respect the motives of those who have come here looking for economic security and freedom. I also believe we need to take care of our own before we spend trillions of dollars assimilating people who knowingly came here illegally. If we had a Congress that understood fair trade and was interested in protecting American jobs and industry, eliminating poverty, and reversing the growing ecomomic disparities in our nation we might be able to do both...
Meanwhile, this statement by the Bishop seems to me to be just another example of the church's unrealistic views...on many topics.
SE NC Dems
Stan Bozarth
the problem is
that in my opinion your view puts the blame on immigrants. Or to put it another way, the fact that we have poverty isnt the fault of the immigrants and they shouldnt be punished for it.
Our economy is not infinitely elastic, but it would be capable of handling our poor and immigrants if we changed many other policies.
Draft Brad Miller-- NC Sen ActBlue
"Keep the Faith"
Not an excuse for poverty but...
Our standard for what income and quality of life defines poverty is still higher than what many in the world can hope to achieve.