Skip to comments.Immigration, Politics, and the Church (Ecumenic)
Posted on 05/07/2010 6:50:59 AM PDT by GonzoII
On the day after Cinco De Mayo, Id like to take a deep breath and talk about the Catholic position on Latino immigration, an issue which promises to become ever more important and controversial in our national debate. During the health care debate, critics of my position on the Democrat bill would say that it was more Republican than Catholic. Of course, I would describe it as (in order) Catholic, prudent and conservative. (As Ive mentioned before, Im not registered with any political party.) These same critics I hope will be relieved to find out that I dont, in fact, have much patience with the Republican party-line on the issue of immigration, and that I am critical about what many conservative politicians are saying about the issue.
A few points for background: I grew up in southern California, where Latino issues, culture and the reality of illegal immigration was far more pressing that it is in much of the country (or at least was when I was growing up). I have visited Mexico several times and while I obviously am no expert about Latinos, Im not the greenest of gringos either (I hope). My experience is in part formed by knowing individuals who work for the Church on both sides of the border. Also, much of my thinking about the political and cultural debate has been formed by working with and talking to individuals associated with APPs Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles - this article published in Politico gives a good snapshot of their views. Finally, when I cite various sources in this post, I am not endorsing everything this individual or organization has said, just the points Ive highlighted.
If the issue of the Catholic position on Latino immigration in our politics doesnt interest you, feel free to cease..
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicvoteaction.org ...
Unlike the caucus threads, the article and reply posts of an ecumenic thread can discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term gross error in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical fact and a legitimate subject for an ecumenic discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.
Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are for and not what you are against. Or ask questions.
Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a where theres smoke, theres fire basis. When hostility has broken out on an ecumenic thread, Ill be looking for the source.
Therefore anti posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an anti or ex article under the color of the ecumenic tag.
Posters who try to tear down others beliefs or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.