www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Orthodox Church in support of Putin: yes to crack down on immigra

Orthodox Church in support of Putin: yes to crack down on immigration

by Nina Achmatova
Asia News
1/25/2012

The spokesman for the Patriarchate welcomes the proposal by the presidential candidate to introduce Russian language tests for immigrants and to toughen laws.

More at http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Orthodox-Church-in-support-of-Putin:-yes-to-crack-down-on-immigration-23789.html

One wonders how the Patriarchate would respond if the US did likewise with immigrants from Russia.

{{{yawn}}} So what else is new?: the ROC-MP supports the Russian government, probably to the point of connivance. Any chance there might be precedence for this sort of thing in the not-so-distant past?

Now what DOES surprise me is that there are any voluntary immigrants to Russia. I do, however, know a lot about INVOLUNTARY immigrants there - like some of my distant relatives who, upon the occupation of Lithuania by the Soviets, were "invited" to settle "in the east."

It was an invitation they couldn't refuse.

Actually, we do--Russian immigrants to the United States must apply for and receive a visa. If they wish to work here, they must get a work visa and permit. If they wish to settle here, they must apply for permanent resident status. And if they wish to become citizens, they must learn English and pass the citizenship test. Failure to comply with the law can and usually does result in deportation.

The problem of illegal immigration in Russia is on par with that facing the U.S. along its southwestern border, but is more severe in that (a) most of the Caucasian and Southwest Asian illegals are Muslims; (b) many of them are radicalized Muslims; (c) Most speak little or no Russian; (d) most do not even have a basic education or rudimentary job skills; and (e) the Russian economy is in no shape either to assimilate them or to provide them with the social services they require.

All told, one rather sympathizes with Putin on this issue, though one also wonders where he intends to find people to replace all the babies the Great Russians are not having.

As compared to places like Uzbekistan, Tajikstan, Kazahkstan, Kirgizhstan and the other Stans, life in Russia is good indeed.

What is surprising is how little of Stalin's displaced populations have returned to their native homelands.

"What is surprising is how little of Stalin's deported populations have returned to their native homelands."

You can't return if you've been KILLED. Maybe repatriation in a box is a form of "return" because, if you consult the following site, you'll see some did "return" by that means...

http://genocid.lt

altho a few of my relatives married Russians and voluntarily remained; thus I have distant relatives in both Samara and Penza...I've visited them twice and had a good time.

You can't return if you've been KILLED.

Most weren't killed, as any decent demographic map of Russia and the former Soviet Republics shows. There are little islands of displaced ethnicities all over Central Asia and Siberia. Though mortality was high, not everybody died, and their descendants continue to live in the regions were their parents and grandparents were relocated. During the Soviet era, moving back was well-nigh impossible, given the need for internal passports and living permits. After the collapse of the USSR, many of these people found themselves on the wrong side of the Russian border, and, although Russia has actively solicited the return of ethnic Russians from the former Soviet republics, non-Russians are simply viewed as aliens, which prevents many from returning to their homelands in cases where these are still inside Russia. But many Balts, Caucasians, Poles and other displaced minorities, who could return to their ancestral homelands, have chosen not to do so.

I would take the fact of displaced people not leaving Russia (or any other place they find themselves) for ancestral homelands as evidence of little beyond the ordinary human tendencies to get used to a situation and get on with life.

I don't know from Russia and the Orthodox Church there, so I can't comment.

What I CAN comment on is the way my people were treated when they came to the US looking for a better life.When I finally came to understand how Slavs, generally, and Rusyns in particular were treated I promised myself that I would never allow someone else to dictate to me how I welcomed foreigners to American soil. Here in the States there is a lot of Hate for the Latino-s who come to the US looking for a better life. I can't control how others feel about the situation. For myself, these people are welcome and I would stand with them as they work to make a place for themselves. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

You should distinguish between those who come here in accordance with the laws of the land and the regulations governing immigration and residency; and those who ignore and break those laws. The latter show no respect for the country they intend to make their home, and make those who do obey the law look stupid. Moreover, it's not just one law they are breaking, but many.

For instance, if they are working, they must have a social security number. To get one, most illegals engage in identity theft (which often causes considerable legal and financial trouble for those whose identities are stolen). To drive, they need a driver's license, which they obtain with fraudulent documents. The driver's license application includes a sworn, signed statement that the information on the application is true, so the illegal applicant is also guilty of fraud and perjury.

In short, I don't see much hatred for Hispanics in general (and the Hispanic population in my part of Virginia has ballooned in recent years), but much anger at illegal immigrants (and not just Hispanics), much of it from those who went through the trouble of following the legal process, filling out the forms, meeting the requirements and waiting their turn.

I welcome all legal immigrants willing to work hard to make their way in the United States, but a country has a right to secure its borders and to set standards for immigration, and those who do not obey those laws ought not to be welcomed.

Read the Gospel passage appointed for Meatfare Sunday within the context of controversies about immigration into the U.S.: Mt. 25:31-46

I bet a compromise solution to this particular problem can be found; a solution which doesn't present undocumented immigrants in naive and romantic ways; and which is also flexible enough to counter the "one size fits all", black-and-white outlook.

Neither risk-taking, blind leniency nor objective harshness (which runs the risk of depriving the undocumented immigrants of their personhood) are called for.

We're talking about PEOPLE just like you and me here. Overlooking that might not go over well with Jesus.

My solution is strict reciprocity: we will simply adopt Mexico's immigration laws. They can hardly complain about ours, then.

In the best of all possible Worlds, Stuart, I would agree with you. As a former High School teacher, however, I am painfully aware of how institutionalized our Classism, Racism and Economic Elitism is in-grained in our Laws. We Americans know we have a good thing here as do the French, Dutch, Germans, English and other Northern European cultures. We also know that many African, Asian and South American cultures have had to develope with the foot of Western Industry on their neck and with much meddling of Western Governments in their affairs. We Westerners bally-hoo about the level of our Economies and the sophistication of our toys while around the World---- according to UNICEF--- 5000 children die each day from lack of water and of diseases born of consuming fetid water. Do you honestly believe that I can accept that people who see our prosperity in the midst of their terrible poverty make no effort?

In the short time that I have been on this forum I have read many references to "following Jesus" and being "Christian"....and apparently proud of it. Would it not make sense for a person who represents themselves as "Christian" to find reasons TO ACT rather than excuses NOT TO ACT? Thoughts?

Bets Wishes,

Bruce

Good thing I'm not a former high school teacher, and just a modest historian, otherwise I might buy into the nonsense about this, the most classless of societies, having institutionalized classism, racism and economic elitism. Your post does explain why so many of the college students I know have such a distorted view of their own country's history--and world history, for that matter. To quote C.S. Lewis, "What do they teach them in the schools these days?"

Speaking only for myself, Stuart, you may have touched on exactly the issue here---at its core. This is not---IMHO--- a matter of "view" or "opinions". This is a matter of seeing the World clearly for what it is. Fact is that there are injustices and abuses and they are not meant to be bandied about like cocktail chatter, but to be addressed through Courage and Strength of Character.

I believe in a Final Judgement for myself. I believe that when that occurs my Judge will not want to know about "views" and "opinions". I doubt He will want to listen to me whine about how Virtue was inconvenient or that I was told by another to do thus-and-so. I don't remember anywhere in the "Good Samaritan" parable a mention of the G-S having to check things out with the local authorities before he helped the traveler. Likewise, I do not remember Abraham having to produce "travel documents" when he found himself to be a "stranger in a strange land".

Believing in your rationalizations may not make you Right, but it sure won't make you lonely. There are plenty of folks who represent themselves as "christian" and have all the reasons in the World not to conduct themselves that way.

I just don't happen to be one of them, thats all.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

What makes you think you see the world clearly, Bruce? Your vision is rather crabbed and distorted, in my opinion, based more on your own prejudices than facts.

As regards the Good Samaritan, Samaria was part of the Roman province of Judea--no travel documents required. As regards Abram, yes he did, as various Sumerian and Akkadian cuneiform tablets make clear. Likewise Jacob and his sons when they went into Egypt. The Davidic Kingdom and its successors likewise required the registration of aliens (how else to enumerate them?).

This is an area the Church leaves to the prudential judgment of the secular authorities. It has always been so. The Roman Empire established limes or demarcated borders and controlled the influx of immigrants from the barbarian lands. When it could no longer do this, the barbarians flooded in, and the Empire collapsed (in the West) or was hard-pressed to survive (in the East). Compassion need not be a suicide pact. Nations have a right to secure and control their borders. It's not a matter of hate, it's a matter of security and common sense.

Mexico's immigration laws are draconian and hardly a model for the U.S. As far as I know, they are uttlerly devoid of flexibility, adaptation to particular circumstances and completely uninfluenced by the Gospel. (perhaps, though, a mordida (bribe) comes in handy for people who run afoul of them) Thus it's utterly hypocritical of the Mexican government to chide the U.S. for enforcing it's own comparatively compassionate immigration policies.

Precisely my point. Just who are they to lecture us?

Can you imagine going to Germany, sneaking in without telling anybody, driving around without getting licensed, working with no or false documents, and then getting caught, and acting like God gave you the right to waltz into Germany whenever you felt like it?

What does God have to do with immigration laws, other than the admonition that we are to obey laws?

It boggles the mind.

Actually, that's Germany's problem right now--due to the EU's open border policy and Germany's Gastarbeiter program, Germany is swarming with undocumented Muslim workers, most of whom are unemployed, living on the dole, and slowly subverting German society. Germany started the problem itself through its Guest Worker (Gastarbeiter) program that allowed tens of thousands of Turks to come into the country to take menial jobs for which there were insufficient Germans available. But then the EU established an open border policy; i.e., a person living in one EU country can freely move throughout all EU countries without a passport. This meant that Algerians sneaking into France, Libyans, Tunisians and Albanians sneaking into Italy, Saudis and Pakistanis sneaking into Britain, and Indonesians sneaking into the Netherlands, could all then move to Germany and set up house.

Moreover, these illegal immigrants have proven to be unassimilable. Self-ghetoizing, they run their communities as states within the state, and aggressively attempt to assert their right to be ruled by Sharia within Germany. Crimes associated with these immigrant groups are on the rise, and involve not only crimes against property, but crimes against persons, including a high incidence of rape, as well as a spate of "honor killings", mainly involving female victims.

The situation has become so bad that German nativist parties are growing in strength, and Chancellor Angela Merkel has stated publicly that the policy of multiculturalism has failed. A consensus is rising in Germany that immigration has to be controlled, and that those immigrants allowed to live in Germany will have to become German in outlook.

The situation in Germany is mirrored throughout Europe, due mainly to a very loud, pushy, and obnoxious Islamic minority that runs with scissors (pausing periodically to thrust them into the chests of cartoonists and film makers it dislikes) and does not play well with others.

I think I can be forgiven for anticipating that people who come here do so out of a sense of raising the World above the standard to which it falls when left to its secular devices.

One does not have to be a Christian....even a Byzantine Catholic...... to rationalize delegating one's own responsibilities to a secular government. Nobody said being a Christian was a singularly easy Road to walk and there are more than a few who, when asked to put their Faith into action on behalf of their fellow man, find all sorts of excuses.

I am more than a little familiar with using Intellectualism to obfuscate what is primarily a Humanitarian issue. However, playing word-games will not, and does not, relieve you of the obligation to address the suffering of the people around you. If you choose to do this, it is not my place to judge you. I can't say if you are wrong, but I think you may be "wrong-headed".

Best Wishes,

Bruce

"Suffering"?

Bruce has a rather idiosyncratic approach to capitalization, no?

The problem Stuart is that some of us can smell jingoistic nonsense trying to pass itself off as Christianity. I find myself, especially as a convert to the Catholic faith who used to hold to this very kind of selective history, appalled that Catholics, of all people, should fall into this trap. America is not the shining city upon the hill. That appellation was given to the Church.

I am also hard pressed to understand those who refuse to take a long and hard look at the way that their own fellow Catholics were treated by the mainly Protestant Americans of this country for a long time. Must I drag out the Thomas Nast cartoons of a century gone by to remind you? Of all people, we should be following the Lord first and the Americanism (which was condemned by Pope Leo XIII) not at all.

I will be happy to give you a long list of the nasty ways in which our government over the ages has happily persecuted minorities, bullied their way around the world, and generally acts as if the "American Dream" is something that every country eventually shall have -- LIKE IT OR NOT!!! Iraq and the lies that got us in to that war, is the latest example. Pope John Paul II condemned the war as unjust and was followed by the USCCB.

We have interfered in so many Latin American countries, covertly assassinating their duly elected leaders because we didn't like the political system they chose, that is no wonder that those who have suffered under our meddling are now seeking some relief in the form of sneaking over our borders for a new life. Maybe if we had minded our own business instead of meddling everywhere -- or even better yet, had actually HELPED other countries to develop thriving national economies instead of destabilizing them so that our corporations could move in on them and claim the national resources in the midst of the chaos, this would have never happened.

Christian country my Aunt Minnie!!!

I can't quite see what America's countless past and present sins have to do with immigration policy. Are you really saying that America must, to be just, open her borders completely? Exercise no control over who is allowed in?

It isn't that I blame people particularly for sneaking in, but neither do I blame anybody for kicking them back out.

Two wrongs do not make a right. We all leaned that as young children.

Greece fits the description of a country wronged in the manner you describe - and it was wrong.

But that didn't give my grandfather the right to sneak in, steal somebody's identity and take advantage of the opportunities here.

He followed the law of the land. It is a gross fallacy to suggest that such a thing is not possible, necessary, or the Christian thing to do.

Is it less covenient? Difficult? Probably in many cases. But that doesn't give anybody the right to break the same laws that millions of others devote years following properly.

"....I can't quite see what America's countless past and present sins have to do with immigration policy. Are you really saying that America must, to be just, open her borders completely? Exercise no control over who is allowed in?

It isn't that I blame people particularly for sneaking in, but neither do I blame anybody for kicking them back out......"

Not at all, JDC. What I am advocating----from a Christian POV--- is that we have Balance and accept full responsibility for our position.

My point is that we have had a track-record of promoting ourselves and our World Agenda----and yes, sometimes at the expense of other countries. As a result we are now the single largest consumer of "toys" in the World. People who live in other countries want what we have and wish to come to this country for its opportunities. Certainly they would like to come here legally but the bureaucratic barriers are set---and kept--- artificially high. There is nothing "fair" about our immigration laws. They are purposely set to favor immigration by the monied and influential.

BTW: The State of Illinois, and CHicago in particular, are identified as "immigration sanctuaries". While this means little from a legal standpoint the condition exists to suggest that a person who comes to Illinois at least can get a fair shake, something not always available everywhere else.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

<div style="display:none">
</div>

How I feel about Capitalism is grist for another mill, Stuart. AFAIK we are talking about the nature of foreigners coming to another country looking for opportunity. I hold that we Americans have made much of our Judeo-Christian roots and the inscription on the Statue of Liberty. Apparently, when people actually take us up on our aspirational rhetoric we suddenly pull in the "welcome" mat.

My people, Rusyns from the Slovakian border country, were good enough to die in American Coal Mines and be scarred in the American Steel Mills, but their Faith was not acceptable to the American RC and RO Churches. My people kept the Law and supported their communities, and for their compliance they lived in the Squalid areas of the cities. If there was an "American Dream" to be had it was secured by these people IN SPITE of America and NOT because of it.

I find your lack of compassion disturbing. Not just because its expressed here on this forum, but because its arrogance and insensitivity is so widespread among Conservatives and Isolationists. I support your reconsidering your "I-got-mine-the-heck-with-everyone-else" attitude.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Actually, I said "Capitalization", as in Someone likes to use Capital Letters to Make a Point.

As regards your absurd claims, go read some Thomas Sowell. It isn't so much race as it is Culture: Arab Americans (mostly Christians) have the second highest per capita income of any minority group in the United States, exceeding that of Americans of European descent. Blacks of West Indian descent are physically indistinguishable from Blacks of American ancestry, but the former are economically better off than whites. Among American blacks, those who finish high school, get a job and get married have incomes indistinguishable from white Americans.

As for Asians, they were treated like dirt when they arrived here, but today outperform just about everybody on standardized testing, college admissions and personal income--though even there, one must distinguish among different Asian nationalities, some of which do much worse. The same is true of Hispanics: you can hardly say that, e.g., Mexicans or Salvadoreans are in the same boat with Cubans or Argentines.

And then there are the Irish, whose arrival in this country was greeted with the kind of joy that usually accompanies an abscessed wisdom tooth. Signs saying "No Irish or Dogs Allowed" were quite common in respectable establishments, and much of the first century of Irish life in the U.S. was fought trying to break through social and religious barriers--as one book on the subject put it, "to become white".

They succeeded, as did most other ethnic groups in this country--including the Rusyn, most of whom have, in the second and third generations, broken out of the coal mines and steel mills and entered into the American middle class. Not that it stops some of them from whining about how badly they were treated--which is to say, no worse than my ancestors (Romanian Jews, Italians and Germans) were all treated in their turn.

Every group faces obstacles when they come to a new land. The thing about the United States is everybody gets a chance to climb over the obstacles and make what he can of himself. Those who fail to do so cannot blame the system, which is indifferent to where you came from, or what you look like. It is, as Sowell points out in his books, culture which determines who sinks and who swims.

Many American blacks and many Americans from the rural South share a common culture (Sowell calls it the Cracker Culture), and as a result, they share a common socio-economic profile. But those blacks and whites alike who transcended the Cracker Culture broke through the socio-economic limits faced by their peers. The system doesn't care about color, or religion, or ethnicity: it cares about results, which are the result of culture. Adapt to the culture, and prosper. Buck against it and fail. Very simple.

The problem facing minorities in Europe is utterly different from that in the United States, a country based on a common creed, and not on common blood. That's why someone like Nicholas Sarkozy can be born in France of parents who have lived in France for ages, and still be considered a Hungarian. It's why an Arab, or a Berber, or an African or an Indian or a Turk living in Western Europe will always be an outsider, even after he assimilates. Ask my ancestors, who thought they were good Germans or good Romanians, right up to the point they were marched into the gas chambers.

Thank you for confirming my POV, Stuart.

As you have affirmed, people of past generations were indeed "treated like dirt". I choose to have that practice stop with me, as much as I am able. I can't speak for anyone else.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

You're an individual. You can do what you want. That is what Christ wants you to do. But, as St. Paul notes, because of the fall, governments are put over us, and governments must attempt to act justly within the confines of this world, employing their prudential judgment. That's why we pray for them at every liturgy.

Now, a person can rightly conclude that Christ's call for us to turn the other cheek requires him to renounce violence in all circumstances, and adopt a stance of radical pacifism. But a king, prime minister or president cannot do that, because he has responsibilities that extend beyond his own personal preferences and even beyond his own soul. One cannot impose pacifism on another person, let alone on a nation, and anyone who tries to do so is violating the integrity of another person. No one who is a radical pacifist should be allowed to hold a position of authority over others.

The matter of immigration is not so stark, but the same principle pertains: you may think the teachings of the Church demand open borders, but those elected or appointed to rule over us must consider the entire res publica as well as enforcing the laws which are on the books--laws which St. Paul says we must obey (or at least take the consequences of our disobedience).

As for the redistribution of wealth, again, you misread scripture and have decided that what is a personal mandate for radical metanoia is something the state should impose on all others. Again, it is a matter of prudential judgment, and here a degree of humility and retrospection on your part is needed: ask yourself just when, in all the history of mankind, has any sort of coerced redistribution of wealth ever brought anything other than misery, poverty and injustice upon mankind? Like all utopian attempts to create paradise by human means, they have failed, and the failure is marked by the graves of millions. Is that something for which you want personally to be responsible?

Please don't speak for anyone else. And please, don't ever put yourself in a position where you have the power to make decisions for other people.

a few issues.

1)Why the disjointed policy in the US? If someone comes over the border from Mexico, they are to be deported.. yet the same story from Cuba and they are to be embraced?

2)The issue of disrespecting the human dignity of the immigrant, whether illegal or not, is a Christian issue. When it comes to our Catholic brothers and sisters, their Catholic faith should trump any legal status as to how they are treated by fellow Catholics. This is not to say their illegal status shouldn't be questioned, or that one can disagree with what they are doing, but would you turn in your brother, sister, mom or dad to ICE? I wouldn't, why should an illegal immigrant - who's done nothing illegal but the obvious - fare worse?

3)Why should the individual illegal immigrant be treated worse than those exploiting their services for cheap illegal labor? Fr. Benedict Groeschel has a few choice words for you if you want to know what Christ thinks about that.

4)Take it for what you will, but if it wasn't for the illegal Catholics coming over the border, this country would have been vehemently neo-protestant and atheist a long time ago. Those old Christian protestant centers have already fallen away, including those integrated Irish, Italian, E. European, etc neighborhoods. Those unintegrated pockets, it seems, retains one's faith against the secular majority.

Actually, my fault for not making myself more clear. I was not referring to immigration policy, but rather to this post:



Much of what we were force fed in school was nothing more than the same nationalist crappola that the Chinese kids are fed about their country, the Russian kids are fed about their country, and etc.

In other words, jingoistic nonsense of a high caliber.

I have no problem with closing and banning our borders. Please don't misunderstand me here. I deviated from the path of discussion regarding our borders to address what I see as a mindset that, quite frankly, bothers me when I see it in Catholics. We are Catholic first and Americans second, and our behavior should line up as such.

Well said, Irish.

For my part I have given the better part of 60 years to living in a Secular Society. I can't say that I have found it any better or worse than had I lived in a Theocracy as say the Iranian or Saude government purports to be. The regret that I have is that many times I DID delegate my responsibilities to the government when I had a moral responsibility to become involved and make my voice heard.

In recent days---these last two years--- I have begun to awaken a bit and have begun to accept that I owe a level of intervention over and above just being "a good citizen". What I should have been doing with my life was to harden or toughen myself so that when an unpopular or minority view needed to be taken I could stand my ground and not be swayed. Can't say I've been very dilligent about this.....but maybe its "better late than never". At any rate, if the government comes to throw its power down, expect me to follow my Conscience first, and THEN observe the Law. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

What part of your conscience differs from those who choose to emmigrate legally?

Honestly, J, I don't think I draw a distinction. The people who emmigrate legally follow their conscience. The people who emmigrate illegally follow THEIR conscience and the people who support either group----or both---follow THEIR conscience. I think that I draw the line at delegating my responsibility to follow my conscience to a hired offical or bureaucrat.

As most educated folks know, the Nurenburg Defense (IE. "I was just following orders.") does not hold up in a court of law. I tend to hold that it does not hold up when one is called to account for their conduct in a Spirtual sense, either.

I hold that we are given Free Will and questions of this sort are exactly the furnace in which such Free Will is tried. Other questions such as "are Muslim Extremists my brothers?" and "What is the purpose of an individuals' dominion over their own body?" are similar anvils upon which our Spirits are forged. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

So, for you to be persuaded, you would have to be convinced that it is immoral (sinful) to sneak into another country illegally against that country's will. The morality thus determined, your conscience would, presuming it was a moral conscience, follow.

Isn't the sinfulness of this action self-evident?

In other words, why not just emigrate through legal channels?

A friend of mine is from Mexico. He was born there and lived there as a child, and moved with his family while still relatively young to the US. He's in his early 20s now and is still in the process of acquiring citizenship. He is even married to an American citizen. But he's here legally.

Why do you say that this is like sending somebody to a Nazi death camp?

<div style="display:none">
</div>

I can only conclude that you are being willfully obtuse on this subject.... or at least in reading my posts. Actually I think I am being particularly clear.

a.) I am making a case for a moral decision and believe that decision surpasses legalities. I believe it is immoral to flaunt American conspicuous consumption around the World and then to attempt to control who will have access to opportunties to enjoy that abundance. I believe that Americans themselves understand and appreciate this moral issue as even Americans have taken exception to the artificial strictures placed on control of wealth and power in the US.

b.) I am not judging anyone else for THEIR decisions.

I'm afraid that is just about as clear and concise as I can be on the subject.

That said, may I now take issue with the manner in which you have expressed yourself.

a.) Whether or not what I have done----or advocated--- is a "sin" is a determination made by God. We are given guidelines and mandates to follow during this life. Whether our actions are a "sin" or not is something that is determined by God as He examines the motives of our heart. Some people know already that they have "sinned" because they already know the rules and what the nature of their motives were at the time.

b.) Having said that it is very apparent, at least to me, that you are unable or unwilling, to discriminate between what is an "immoral" act and what is an "illegal" act. Not all illegal acts are immoral, and not all immoral acts are illegal.

Again, I think I have been prety clear about all of this. What part of what I have just written do you not understand?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Now we're getting somewhere. You believe that the very notion of citizenship or borders at all are immoral (those being the methods of control).

I believe that taxation is immoral. Would you advise me to not pay taxes? Or am I still morally obligated to pay them? Don't tell me that it's up to me, I want to gain insight into your conscience by seeing what you would advise.


Nobody said otherwise.


You are appealing to conscience as a reason to morally break a secular law. But as we know, our consciences must be fully formed and informed for them to guide us in such a path that, on the face of it, is indeed immoral (breaking the law).

What I think that means is that you need to explain to us why your conscience tells you that every human has an innate right to be a citizen of the United States. You've asserted it, but I don't think you've attempted to explain why exactly that is, other than something about "flaunting consumption." Can you elaborate?


An illegal act is immoral until it can be proved otherwise. I'm all for proving otherwise, and believe in such instances myself. I just need to go on more than taking your word for it if I am to agree with you.

So let's hear it.

Regardless of the morality or immorality of a particular law, there is nothing about acting in accordance with an informed conscience that says Christians are not required to face the consequences of their actions. You break the law, you go to jail, conscience or no.

I'm sorry, J, but I think we will just need to agree to disagree.

The Nurenburg Laws were passed during the 3rd Reich and many up-held them. The Laws were still immoral. Segregation in America and South Africa was the Law, but it was immoral as well. Flipping the coin over it is not illegal to be selfish, lazy, lie or fail to assist those in need or distress. I believe it IS immoral. Most of us grew-up on stories of people who defied Laws and were martyred for their Faith and those conditions have not gone away even if we ARE in the 21st Century.

If you ever want a fine example of what happens to a country that confuses what the populace owe their country with what they own their Faith you may want to reflect on the years 1965 to 1975 here in the US. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

I think that goes without saying, don't you? Gandhi went to prison numerous times in his life and was ultimately murdered by an extremist. Sir Thomas More was beheaded for following his conscience. Nobody said doing the right thing was easy
.....at least nobody said it to me.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

If that's what you want, I was just asking you to explain how your conscience was formed in this. I'll be checking to see if you decide to explain it either way.


You can make that analogy all you want, the problem is that you are using this example to pre-suppose that the enforcement of borders or citizenship is de facto immoral, without first demonstrating WHY. The analogy will only apply if you can (at least attempt to) demonstrate HOW the two are similar, rather than just repeatedly asserting it.


If you're talking about Vietnam, that is more of the same type of argument. Just making the comparison without explaining how they are analogous doesn't mean anything. You have to back up what you are saying, otherwise there's no reason for anybody to take it seriously.

And as Stuart points out, as far as the Vietnam analogy goes in this sense, there is a very big moral difference between going to prison for following your conscience and refusing to be conscripted, and running to Canada.

There are plenty of Vietnamese Americans living in my neighborhood who see the Vietnam war as a just--indeed, noble and selfless conflict by the United States in support of the people of South Vietnam, who, whatever their feelings about the government in Saigon, had no desire whatsoever to be governed by the communist regime in Hanoi. More than a million of them died, either in "reeducation camps" or at sea in rickety boats fleeing to freedom after the United States shamefully abandoned an ally whose security it had sworn to guarantee when the Paris Peace Agreement was signed.

I'm very sorry, J, but I have to ask this and I know that it is not going to sound very nice, so I apologize in advance for any offense.

The only time I have encountered anyone who needs to have everything spelled out for them down to the most minute detail have been people for whom English is a second language, very young students and individuals with learning disabilities. It would help to know if you have some particular cognitive or perceptual difficulty that makes it hard for you to track on this discussion. If such is the case I can take a very different approach in expressing myself and maybe that would make this discussion more productive. As it is, though, all I seem to be getting from you are repeated requests to explain my explanations.

I typically express myself at about the level of the first or second year of College. I rarely have trouble being understood and most people track on my examples,similes and metaphors just fine. To be perfectly honest, I can't tell if you are truly having trouble understanding, or if you are using these repeated requests for elucidation as a ploy to avoid making constructive contributions of your own. Help?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Bruce, all my work is done at the post-grad/doctoral level. I understand you all too well, so maybe the problem is your arguments don't make too much sense, either logically, philosophically, morally and theologically. There's no need to act condescending to people who just might be a lot smarter than you are. That's my job.

"Track" is a verb. "Fine" is an adjective, but this phrase wants for an adverb. I suggest "well" or "adequately" and the deletion of "just". I wouldn't usually point it out, but I am amused by the irony of the context.

Don't be too hard--Bruce just writes like a person who has had a year or two of college. His writing is not nearly as awful as some of the graduate dissertations I've read, but he certainly just as muddled in his thinking.

I'm a high school drop out. But if you're going to suggest that the fellow opposite might have a learning disability, don't make grammatical errors doing it. That is, if you're going to swing it, it really should have both length and girth.

For a high school dropout, you write better than most of the grad students I teach. I guess those sheepskins aren't necessarily worth the $100K you have to pay to get one.

Gentlemen,

I'm going to say it once - and only once - if I read one more post from any of those participating in this thread, on either side of the argument, that even remotely smacks of being a personal or ad hominem or denigrating jab at another poster's education, erudition, intellect, or any other personal characteristic, the thread will be locked!

It's only gotten this far because I neglected reading the thread for a couple of days - having tired of repetitious, circuitous, argumentation that does little but seek to conflate one's point by seemingly citing distinct facts and opinions through the medium of substitution - ethnicity for ethnicity, event for event.

Enough, already!

Many years,

Neil

I appreciate what you have shared, Neil, but that won't be necessary. Fact is that I have been on the INTERNET almost since its inception as PLATO back many decades ago. I have only been on this forum since the 7th of last month and I am already seeing indications of the same attitudes and conditions that I would rather not be around. I am 61 years old and life is much too short to brook these sorts of experiences.

Thank you for your time and attentions.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Wow! Were you there, Bruce, when Al Gore smote the rock and the Internet popped forth, fully functional and ready to go?

I am very sorry that you seem to view discussions as an opportunity for confrontation and contention. Frankly, I had higher expectations in coming here as this forum came recommended by other Byzantine Catholics.

Judging from the careful approach taken by the management as I registered and made my initial contributions I was quite sure I had found a well-meaning support system and source of information. I am profoundly disappointed in what I have experienced here and would rather not continue to visit here.

Regards.

Actually, ...

Moderator Note: The content of this post has been deleted for blatantly disregarding moderator warnings on the tone and tenor of postings to this thread, as well as for being generally dismissive of the standards of charitable and civil commentary expected of forum members, which have been clearly enunciated on more than one occasion!

Stuart, I strongly recommend that you look in a mrror and cogitate, long and hard, on the application to your own posts of the point you sought to make here as regards postings that seek solely to validate one's own views and being dismissive of others' opinions!

Many years,

Neil

I said it once ... this thread is now closed!