What a crock. There are numerous jobs in the newspaper, yet, unemployment is high here and there are a number of homeless AMERICANS who refuse to work, prefering to milk the welfare system. And why can illegal aliens work on three dollars an hour (or whatever) while living in America? What magic do they employ to be able to make ends meet while Americans cannot?
The argument that illegals do jobs Americans won't do is BOGUS!!! In the farm industry, where there is the greatest share of illegals, they still only represent 24%.
I don't know what you are talking about. Every field that I drive by is full of Mexican laborers. I don't see any Americans out there...What your statistics are not taking into account is the very broad number of types of jobs. Sure, Americans will take the job of driving tractors or managing laborers. But who do you think is cutting the lettuce? In labor-intense jobs, there are very few Americans.
Are you aware of how many billions of dollars are given away each year by American corporations? Gates by himself gives away nine figures. Pharmaceutical companies give away free medicine to the poor. Power companies give credits. Beverage companies give zillions of gallons of water to disaster victims. I could go on for a week. Why would they ever do this if they had no sense of community?
Well, Gates is not the norm! But the rest is based on tax credits. The owners of these companies are NOT in the business of giving money away to the community, but in making money for their shareholders. Anything given away is a drop in the bucket and is received back in tax credits...
Man has enough common sense, huh? Would these be the same men (all men) that God gives sufficient information to in order to choose Him, and yet they don't? Is that the common sense of man you are talking about? Oh yeah, I think, as you do, that all men should just use their common sense to decide which laws to obey. Come on. :)
God gives us free will, so He doesn't overwhelm us with His power and force us to choose Him. Our choice in Him is based on faith, not certainty. Anything that happens in our lives that we attribute to God COULD be attributed to blind luck, coincidence, or our own natural abilities. We believe that God acts in our lives, not random events. But this is a matter of faith. Thus, yours is a false argument, since God is not based on empirical evidence.
No, this is just like a sit-in that I already told you I was fine with. That doesn't hurt anyone else in any way.
Oh, but they do... Those who fight for the "right to choose" are bothered by any type of display that gives a person the right to choose life. Thus, they may call the police to have peaceful demonstrations dispersed.
Who did Christ hurt by healing on the Sabbath?
that is not the question you have posed to me. You have told me that because of its mere existence, I should obey a law. I disagree with that idea.
But by all means, prove to me that you are serious. Look at where your taxes are going. You must disagree. I fully encourage you to skip your next return in protest. As you said, that's how unfair laws get changed. Don't worry, God will protect you from any consequences because He healed on the Sabbath. As your argument goes, that gives you the right.
That certainly is an option, but my convictions are not so strong on this subject to do such a thing. My conscience is not offended as greatly to take such action regarding my taxes, because I am told to pay to Caesar what is Caesar's...
Your whole position so far has been predicated on your righteousness in determining which laws you will condescend to obey and which you find unacceptable, and thus, feel free to disobey (with God's blessing no less). You argued that if a silly and unfair law, such as against stealing, got in the way of a hungry person, then he had the RIGHT to steal, with God's approval. And, God would think it nothing because of the circumstances.
Could you please quote me where I said anything to that effect? I merely said that a person's culpability in stealing is less, not non-existent, when stealing. Stealing is ALWAYS a sin! The circumstances will effect the "level" of sin against God. However, feeding a person who is defined as an illegal (a Samaritan?) is not against the Ten Commandments, but against the laws of men. My conscience dictates that I obey God's Law first, since He has given precedent for disobeying the laws of men so as to obey the Law of Love.
You have showed me very little respect for the laws of the United States.
When they are in contradistinction to the laws of God, they deserve no respect. Abortion is a horrific law, I don't give a crap if it is an "American" law. Sending Jews to labor camps because they are Jews is a horrific law, I don't care if it was a "German" law. We judge man's law through the lenses of Jesus Christ.
I thought a Christian would know that we answer to God first, not man. If we all thought as you did, there would be not a single martyr or confessor in the Church's history. Meditate on that for awhile, FK. Ask yourself WHY they gave their lives - in defiance of man's "laws"...
Regards
Because they are willing to live in squalor, 20 to a shack. Your philosophy says "why shouldn't Americans live like that?". Mine says "Why should they?". It comes down to valuing one group of people over another. For whatever reason, it seems clear you value illegals above Americans. My loyalties are to my countrymen above illegal aliens when scarce resources are at stake.
Plus, illegals don't have the expenses that other poor Americans have because social services are provided for free (stolen). American working poor have to pay their taxes and contribute to their medical care from their paychecks etc. Illegals have none of these expenses, by and large.
Sure, Americans will take the job of driving tractors or managing laborers. But who do you think is cutting the lettuce? In labor-intense jobs, there are very few Americans.
If there are very few Americans it is because they have been priced out of the market by illegals. This is Economics 101. The free market is being disturbed by the illegals. The only justification I have heard is the preference of one people (illegals) over another (Americans).
Well, Gates is not the norm! But the rest is based on tax credits. The owners of these companies are NOT in the business of giving money away to the community, but in making money for their shareholders. Anything given away is a drop in the bucket and is received back in tax credits...
You're unbelievable. :) Are you a tax lawyer? Where in the world do you get that charitable contributions are all made back in tax credits? That's nonsense. If that was true then every corporation would give enough away (to earn the good will) to pay no taxes at all. Do you think big companies pay no taxes? I don't even understand your complaint. American corporations give away billions of dollars to worthy causes every year and that is bad BECAUSE ...? This is free market capitalism, and you don't think this is compatible with Christianity?
God gives us free will, so He doesn't overwhelm us with His power and force us to choose Him. Our choice in Him is based on faith, not certainty. Anything that happens in our lives that we attribute to God COULD be attributed to blind luck, coincidence, or our own natural abilities. We believe that God acts in our lives, not random events. But this is a matter of faith. Thus, yours is a false argument, since God is not based on empirical evidence.
We were talking about your assertion that man has enough common sense to decide which laws to obey and which to ignore. I pointed out that under your theology, most people have little or no common sense (as you said because they do not have faith), therefore with all information necessary (under the Catholic view) they still choose satan over Christ. I do not see how your above responds to the issue. If you agree that most people do not have faith, and therefore common sense, then how is the result NOT anarchy when according to you everyone should decide for himself which laws he should obey?
FK: "No, this is just like a sit-in that I already told you I was fine with. That doesn't hurt anyone else in any way."
Oh, but they do... Those who fight for the "right to choose" are bothered by any type of display that gives a person the right to choose life. Thus, they may call the police to have peaceful demonstrations dispersed.
No, when I said "hurt" I meant physically or financially. Americans have the right to protest, even if it hurts someone else's feelings. If the demonstration was truly peaceful, and the organizers had their permits, then there is nothing the cops can do. ... You are defending harboring illegals which, if systematically adopted by other clergy, absolutely WILL lead to the physical injury or death of law abiding Americans AND the physical draining of American financial resources. While I already know you have no problem reaching into the wallets of law abiding Americans to finance your pet projects, I wonder what those clergy and you will tell the families and victims of violent crimes committed by the illegals you have decided have a right to be here in defiance of the Constitution.
You have told me that because of its mere existence, I should obey a law. I disagree with that idea.
No, I have said that you should obey a law of a valid political government, when such law does not separate you from God. That gets rid of Daniel-type comparisons. You have also disagreed with THIS idea. I do not see Christ approving of any person today, who picks and chooses, based on his own judgment, which laws he shall obey and which laws he is above in his own mind. This is especially true when the breaking of the law directly harms others, as is the case here. Such a person is anarchistic and anti-social towards an ordered and civilized society. IOW, not a very good Christian example. :)
Could you please quote me where I said anything to that effect? I merely said that a person's culpability in stealing is less, not non-existent, when stealing.
You have said, in effect, that you do not feel honor bound to follow any law you think is unfair, or is unjust. Is that not accurate? When you labeled stealing "in special circumstances" as being a non-mortal sin, I instantly knew that such a sin need not even be confessed. IOW, wink wink, not a big deal even though it's straight from the Ten Commandments.
However, feeding a person who is defined as an illegal (a Samaritan?) is not against the Ten Commandments, but against the laws of men. My conscience dictates that I obey God's Law first, since He has given precedent for disobeying the laws of men so as to obey the Law of Love.
It proves you are scrambling when you keep raising an undisputed issue. I have never used whatever California law you are referring to in my arguments. Feeding is fine, harboring or obstructing justice is criminal. Your "Law of Love" protects some small percentage of illegals who WILL go on to murder and otherwise hurt Americans. ALL of those you protect take food off the table from all Americans. Where does God teach us to individually TAKE from our neighbor to help the poor?
When [American laws] are in contradistinction to the laws of God, they deserve no respect. Abortion is a horrific law, I don't give a crap if it is an "American" law. Sending Jews to labor camps because they are Jews is a horrific law, I don't care if it was a "German" law. We judge man's law through the lenses of Jesus Christ.
First of all, the German government is different because it COMPELLED the murder of innocents. For comparative purposes, this would be like Daniel's situation, a compulsion to disobey God. In this case American law doesn't do that, it offers to allow people to break God's law. Nobody requires our women to get abortions. Big difference.
Second of all, if your philosophy grew in popularity then it is an absolute certainty that Americans would be killed by some of those harbored by clergy. According to you, God approves of illegals having a better quality of life, AND that is worth the trade of some Americans dying (a statistical certainty since the clergy cannot possibly promise that none of their fugitives will murder in the future).
Now, using this as a base, do you approve of people shooting abortion doctors as a protest? American lives WOULD be saved with every less abortionist out there, no? Legalized murder is an unjust law, no? God must approve of this because in comparison, while still some American abortionists are killed (but God was fine with that before), in this case more American lives are saved. This sounds like a much better deal than what you are advocating, because with your philosophy there is only the death of Americans, no lives are saved because all the illegals face is deportation. On the one hand, by supporting harboring you de facto approve of some deaths of Americans to further the quality of life of illegals as a whole. If so, then you must also approve of the deaths of other Americans, if it actually saves more lives. This entire argument is possible since you freely admit that you have no respect for laws you do not like.