AntiBVBL

If you’d like to do something actually useful, why not list the names of those who signed it? I, for one, would like to know who they are.

Of course, if they were “religious leaders” usually associated with Conservative causes, they would be vilified.

What a bunch of liberal garbage! Don’t they know that the Biblical exhortation to love thy neighbor is not a requirement if your neighbor is a sinner? I mean come on.

Skeptical -
As a fellow Republican let me just say this was the stupidest wedge issue ever. What it has done is split us right down the middle. There are over 50 signatories on the original letter, and from what I’ve heard, additional religious leaders called in to offer their support after reading Corey’s offensive comments that essentially told the religious leaders to mind their own beeswax. And you think the ministers, not Mr. Stewart are going to suffer fallout from the letter and his response? Doubtful.

As I was driving home today, I thought that it would be a good idea if the religious leaders who wrote to the BOCS would contribute some of their ideas on this blog because there is much more to discuss than GregL. So, I’m glad to see this topic.

I think that in order to rationally discuss the impact of immigration, more voices need to be heard publically and more solutions to the division need to be found. Actually, that would have been a good starting point instead of the move that the BOCS did.

I delivered to a couple of the supervisors’ offices a packet of material that related to a Fairfax County pilot program for revitalization of older neighborhoods . Much of the material is similar to programs PWC already implements but it showed how neighborhoods could be united instead of divided in their initial attempt to address problems.

I’d be interested in hearing how the clergy members would solve some of the issues that vex PWC now that the grenade has been launched into the community picnic.

Great idea Censored! I know one of Corey’s election strageties was to visit various churches and “talk” to the congration. I guess he only wants to deal you with if he is trying to garner your vote.

An alternate action plan is what citizens need. What was their response to the packets you delivered?

IT, they called to say that they had delivered the info to Neighborhood Services. A representative from NS called me to tell me that they had similar programs (though I don’t think they have any extensive, targeted pilot program like Fx Co’s). The woman I spoke with encouraged me to attend a meeting that addressed neighborhood issues but I wasn’t able to attend. ( I had developed a bad case of shingles on my face and didn’t want to scare her audience away. I forwarded the meeting date to the president of our civic association.)

If it’s okay to post links, I’ll give the one to the neighborhood targeted by Fairfax County. If not, a google search for Kings Park Civic Association will bring up the basic site. News about the pilot program is found under “information”.

That quote from the Chairman was one of the saddest things I’ve heard in a long time. Just sad.

Mr Young, what on earth possessed you to make that comment in this context? Do you not think there are any conservatives among county religious leaders? Why do you think that conservative religious villified?

Censored,

I would love to try to attend a meeting regarding neighborhood issues. I do not have to deal with the concerns I have seen expressed by other communities, but I do understand their frustration regarding some of the issues that can clearly be addressed through simple old fashioned communication and education.

James,
I am wondering, in what way would it be “useful to know who signed” the open letter from religous leaders? I have seen what Greg does to people when they are in opposition to his belief system, they become a target on his website.

James already says he wants to villify religious leaders. Someone tell me, on a scale of dispicable behavior where does that fall? It’s pretty low.

Holy Bat Guano. Since when do religious leaders have to weigh as consevative or liberal. To me, that is just dead wrong in every sense of what I know as right and wrong.

I prefer my religion apolitical please. HOOOOOOOWWWWWLLLLLL

“Admin,” I have no idea who you are. You apparently wish to keep your identity a secret, which suggests to me that you wish to make elaborate, unverifiable claims, like “I am a Republican.” When you reveal your identity, then perhaps such claims can be taken seriously. Until then, if it walks like a duck, etc….

By the way, the “fallout” that Corey suffered as a result of his efforts was a resounding reelection victory.

Of course, it’s just a suspicion that you’re lying, “Admin.” “Bring It On” is clearly lying, since I nowhere said that I “want[] to vilify religious leaders” (though some — Muslim clerics who make apologies for terrorists among them — clearly deserve vilification). However, it might be useful to know whether the “religious leaders” signing onto this overtly political statement have a history of such statements, and whether they, in fact, speak for their congregations. Additionally, if these self-proclaimed “religious leaders” are largely Unitarian Universalists, it would be quite clear to that they qualify as “religious leaders” on neither element of that phrase.

And “independent thinker,” what Greg does is his own business, and I think you’ll concede that I have certainly been targeted, probably mainly because Greg and others consider me some sort of threat. ‘Fact is, you stick your head up, you’re going to get shot at. If these “religious leaders” are simply notorious Liberals, readers are entitled to know that.

Of course, the fact that they, too, are apparently hiding their identities, or that you are doing so in their stead, speaks volumes.

Well, I guess if ministering to the poor or those in need makes a religious a liberal, then I guess they all are. Isn’t that their job? The fact that they think they might bring their talents to the community table is unacceptable?!

James,

Corey won by roughly the same margin several months earlier. It would have been very UNLIKELY that Sharon would have triumphed in such a short period of time. I really wonder what the turn out would be if the election were held November 2008? I have my doubts that Corey would win again. His promise of “proffers” has transformed into a joke. Where was his leadership when the general assembly was considering impact fees? He was silent! Not leading his county, just blathering on about illlegal immigrants. Where was he on parks and opens space when push came to shove? NOWHERE! His leadership has been truly lacking and a huge disappointment to many citizens who are concerned about this county from a holistic standpoint, not just one issue.

James,
I did understand what you meant when you referred to the villification of the conservative right. However, the conservative right has been involved in political actions since the time of Reagan, very effectively I might add. I’m not sure what it matters that these religious leaders have done so also. Would it make you feel better to know that there were “conservative” churches supporting this letter? The real issue is really about how the resolution came about initially. Corey was urged to stop the rhetoric and bring the community together. Find a way to find the common ground and reach out to those who were concerned about the resolution. He made a choice to do NONE of that. Life boils down to communication and Corey chose to be devisive. Shame on him.

By the way, James, Unitarian Universalism is a religion. Just because it is liberal doesn’t make it any less spiritually fulfilling to those who are drawn to it.

“Juturna,” “ministering to the poor or those in need” is NOT Liberal; it is the charitable Christian imperative. Demanding that government plunder the successful in order to do so IS Liberal, but it is decided NOT charitable, and is NOT Christian. Moreover, “ministering to the poor or those in need” is fine work, and work that has nothing to do with this political grandstanding.

And yeah, “independent thinker,” you go with that. You assert that “It would have been very UNLIKELY that Sharon would have triumphed in such a short period of time,” but offer no explanation as to why. Uh, perhaps because he was reflecting the concerns of his constituents? Just because you don’t like his agenda does not mean that you can casually discard the expressed will of the voters.

And “devisive” (BTW, the word is “divisive)? That’s political whining. Politics is about division: dividing the good ideas from the bad. Criticize the ideas if you want, but please spare us the whining about “divisiveness.”

And finally, “Firedancer,” a religion requires a set of beliefs. On that score, Unitarianism — I am from one of its home towns on this continent, Northumberland, Pennsylvania — doesn’t qualify. Indeed, it seems as nothing so much as the effort to put a religious patina on far Left political beliefs.

James,
As any good political junkie knows, Corey had just been elected in a special election due to Sean C. leaving to greener pastures. Having just elected him in a race against Sharon, it would have been very unlikey for him to lose his position only several months later, barring some horrific act. No one had seen the actual reality of the resolution in place yet. Now we have four years to watch it unfold and I predict it isn’t going to be pretty. I hope that explanation helps clarify my theory for you.

Thanks for correcting my spelling. I actually find that quite petty when people do that on blogs, but if that makes you feel smarter than me, by all means be petty. I cannot imagine that you believe creating division(did I spell that right?)is heathly for any community. What have you read regarding those on the other side(economists specifically)who believe that what we are seeing is free market labor, going to where the jobs are, that this country does NOT allow enough low skill labor in to meet the demand. What do you think about the experts who say the money spent to expel the country of “illegals” will FAR outweigh any financial benefit.

The letter, as a matter of record, was signed by 56 religious leaders
from our community.
Including: Fa. Bob Cilinski (Catholic – in fact over half the signers
– 33 – are of the Catholic faith.)
Rev. Ronald Boykin (AME)
Rev. Dr. Jeff Carter (Church of the Brethern)
Rev. Bill Higgins (Baptist)
Rev. Nancy McDonald (Unitarian)
Rev. Lee Ann Machosky (Lutheran)
Rev. Keith Savage (Baptist)
Rev. Stuart Schadt (Episcopal)
Rev. Rudy Tucker (UMC)
These and other signers I know and respect. It is a grave error
to demean and ignore their concerns. They address a challenging
and complex issue, but experience has taught us that we work best
when we work with our faith community.
Sincerely,
Steve Randolph
Manassas city Council

James, what sort of beliefs must a religion encompass to be a religion for you? Unitarian Unversalists believe that theirs is a religion. This is copied from their website:

“Beliefs Within Our Faith
Unitarian Universalism is a liberal religion that encompasses many faith traditions. Unitarian Universalists include people who identify as Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists, and others. As there is no official Unitarian Universalist creed, Unitarian Universalists are free to search for truth on many paths.

To quote the Rev. Marta Flanagan, “We uphold the free search for truth. We will not be bound by a statement of belief. We do not ask anyone to subscribe to a creed. We say ours is a non-creedal religion. Ours is a free faith.”

Although we uphold shared principles, individual Unitarian Universalists have varied beliefs about everything from scripture to rituals to God.”

I enjoy attending their services precisely because their liberal religious and social beliefs are meaningful to me. I admire how they accept gay couples, for example. Is that what you mean about putting a patina on leftist political beliefs? If so, why is that any more wrong than Christian denominations condemning gays as sinners? Although I don’t consider myself a UU, I am grateful to have found a place where I feel at home with my beliefs, the same way conservative Christians do.

James,

I am not sure you get to decide whether someone else is a republican or not. Ditto to whether Unitarian Universalist is a religion or not.

I do not have a favorable opinion of snake handling as a form of worship, but I do not deny that it is a religion.

After the butt kicking you have gotten on bvbl, I am surprised you would come here to this blog and try to start an argument with the folks here. Do you have it in you, as one of those who was censored, to find any common ground with the people here?

Perhaps James was referring to the strong role Unitarians had
in fighting slavery, and later, segregation. Those were
very “liberal” ideas at the time.

Mr Young,
The point of their letter was to offer their services for free. I did not see any indication that they were “Demanding that government plunder the successful in order to do so”.

“ministering to the poor or those in need” is fine work, and work that has nothing to do with this political grandstanding” – the only one grandstanding is the Honorable.

“Such solutions might include….. In seeking such solutions, we willingly offer our time, energy, and ideas, so sthat the current discussion might move toward greater understanding and respect within our community.” – That does not sound like a demand to plunder anyone. Did I miss the plunder part?

“Therefore, we members of the faith community of Prince William County and the cities of Manassas and Manassas Park, invite our civic leaders to work collaboratively with the community to embrace our county’s diversity, maintain an equitable rule of law, and provide tangible solutions to local issues so that our shared sense of community might be restored” – What I saw was a simple offer of public/private partnership rejected most rudely.

James Young wrote: “However, it might be useful to know whether the “religious leaders” signing onto this overtly political statement have a history of such statements, and whether they, in fact, speak for their congregations.”

That statement is problematic in the sense that government and politics are intricately linked to our daily lives, morals, culture, community, etc so that it is impossible for religious leaders to not be “political”. Mr. Young seems to be implying that their having issued a “political” statement is somehow wrong or subject to suspicion. Correct me if I am wrong.

That said, there are clear IRS guidelines that prevent non-profits and churches and/or their leaders and representatives from intervening in a campaign or partaking in partisanship. There is no evidence of either in this statement. Supervisor Randolph provided a list of some of the signers which should also remove any doubt of the legitimacy and validity of this interfaith appeal for a less divisive resolution.

My other comments to Mr. Young are about his implication (again, correct me if I am wrong) that a stance against some local legislation to combat illegal immigration and against bvbl is somehow not a legitimate Republican stance. “When you reveal your identity, then perhaps such claims can be taken seriously. Until then, if it walks like a duck, etc….” Mr. Young, this is an issue which is extremely divisive among the Republican Party as evidenced by the Republican nominee Senator McCain and the reactions to his campaign by some Republicans in large part due to his stance on comp. immigration reform. These days there are many varieties of Republicans as there are of 4-H Fair judged chicken varieties, and I include myself as one of them. Also, in that statement you express an unwillingness to accept a stated political affiliation of a poster due to their anonymity. Caution is wise to an extent but a person who rejects the legitimacy of a fellow poster’s positions simply because they disagree with them is a person that may not be well suited for the blogsphere. Anonymity, for better or for worse is the nature of the game.

To James Young–

As a Unitarian Universalist, I assure you that your comments about our religiion are pure, unadulterated IGNORANCE. You don’t know what on Earth you’re talking about.

Unitarianism, and Universalism, happened to tbe the Christian denomination of a majority of our founding fathers, and also time-tested and extremely traditioned LIBERAL religions.

The fact that you may not agree with our methods and beliefs used in expressing our faith does not mean that we are neither religious, nor leaders.

However, keep exposing yourself for the ignorant dolt that you are. It actually helps our case here…

Doug – Is Unitarianism based on Deism? I had no idea. I have been reading about our founding fathers and their deist beliefs but had not realized this. Thanks for pointing that out.

Well, “IT,” you assert that “it would have been very unlikey for him to lose his position only several months later, barring some horrific act.” I agree, and apparently, you (implicitly) and a majority of County voters agreed that the resolution and this debate — all of which occurred prior to the election — agree that the County’s actions were not “some horrific act.” As for your predictions, they are only that: predictions. I vividly remember Gary Jacobsen’s Pot. News dire warnings about Dodge City in PWC when concealed carry was passed, too, and the simple fact is that prediction is a dangerous practice … particularly when your predictions are informed by a far-Left worldview. And I can’t see why you’d complain about my spelling correction (many use words that they don’t spell correctly, or even understand), since it provided you with a method of using psychobabble to avoid discussion of the underlying principle: that complaints that something is “divisive” is political whining. And to answer your question, OF COURSE I believe that creating division is healthy for a community. Thank GOD we divide the community between those who obey the laws and those who don’t, putting the latter in prison. Of course, if you are speaking only to those divisions which are unjustified — like those created by both racists (some among those who support enforcement of our immigration laws) and race hustlers (those who dismiss any enforcement of our immigration laws as inherently racist) — then I would agree. However, it is a logical fallacy to conclude that a policy which finds its genesis, for some, in racism is sufficient to dismiss that policy as a bad one.

Or can I sign you up to support the repeal of Davis-Bacon prevailing wage laws and reversal of court decisions permitting abortion-on-demand?

And thank you, Steve, for the information. It’s the first time that I’ve seen it, but I find it interesting that the same press which savages Catholicism for opposition to abortion promoted this action. However, please don’t presume that I “demean and ignore their concerns.” To the contrary, I find it sad that individuals with constituencies for which they may or may not speak would be taken in by the rhetoric of the race-hustlers.

And “Firedancer,” to answer your question, it must have “a set of beliefs,” by definition. What you describe is a social club, one which purports to encompass contradictory beliefs. That is why I don’t believe it to be properly called a “religion.” That, however, is my belief.

“Poor Richard,” of course, plays the tried and true Liberal race card, implying that anyone who disagrees with him must be a racists. Sorry, “Dick,” that dog won’t hunt. And let’s not get carried away. The “strong role Unitarians had in fighting slavery, and later, segregation”? There never have been enough Unitarians in this country to have a “strong role” in much of anything. But one wonders if one could believe in slavery and segregation, and still find “acceptance” in a Unitarian “congregation.” Hmmm. Think not? If not, then I guess that sustains my view of the group as a political organization, not a religion. There’s an old saw about not having a mind so open that your brains fall out that “leaders” of the Unitarian “faith” seem never to have heard or applied.

And finally, “Juturna,” what are you talking about? I was responding to your silly assertion — “if ministering to the poor or those in need makes a religious a liberal, then I guess they all are” — by pointing out the distinctions between Christians and Liberals, and that one not need to be a “Liberal” — indeed, to effectively do so pretty much requires that you NOT be a Liberal — to “minister[] to the poor or those in need.” So I never suggested that they were “they were ‘Demanding that government plunder the successful in order to do so’.” If you’re going to comment on what I write, kindly make sure that you read and understand it before doing so.

“Valley Girl,” I agree with much of what you say. However, you infer what I had no intention of implying: “that their having issued a ‘political’ statement is somehow wrong or subject to suspicion.” You ask me to correct you if you are wrong. You stand corrected. My interest in the identity of these heretofore self-described “religious leaders” had no context whatsoever, until Councilman Randolph provided it.

You are also wrong in inferring that I somehow believe “that a stance against some local legislation to combat illegal immigration and against bvbl is somehow not a legitimate Republican stance.” They are, of course, two separate issues (many would conclude that being “against bvbl” is a more legitimate Republican stance than being against the former).

All that I am implying — or more accurately stating plainly — is that people who claim to be Republicans while opposing an initiative spearheaded by Republican officeholders (and strongly supported among the Republican activists with whom I am familiar) yet hiding their identities are very likely NOT Republicans, in fact. Which is, of course, why they are hiding their identities and trying dishonestly to create the impression that there is that magical “divisiveness” (which they find so disturbing) within the GOP. It’s a strategy which might play for the rubes, but should be recognized for what it is. And as for “the nature of the game,” the nature of anonymity is unverifiability. If you want to argue a point, then fine. However, if you want to make claims about yourself, caution teaches that anonymity precludes being taken seriously.

As for you, DiMV, it is ironic indeed that someone who would claim that Unitarianism “happened to tbe the Christian denomination of a majority of our founding fathers” would call me an “ignorant dolt.” Your revisionist history is showing.

It depends upon how you count (you apparently believe that there were only three, and two were Jefferson and Franklin), but actually, most (54.7%) were Episcopalians/Anglicans (http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html), and the vast majority were traditional Protestants. Only 3 (2%) were Unitarians (I found it interesting that only five were Lutherans, my denomination).

Then again, given your postings elsewhere, I am hardly surprised that you would credit a group composing less than 2% of the populace as somehow a “majority.” If the measure of “ignorance” is opposing perversion and such self-serving measures of “majorities,” then I thank you for the honor.

In my rush to put something up, I didn’t include their names. I didn’t have a hard copy, I actually typed the whole letter from a fax that I received. I knew it was public record and thought that the letter was the most important part but I understand your point. I see an abbreviated list was posted would you still like the complete list?

Well, Mr Young, the world does not revolve around you, that’s how I read the following quote

Juturna,” “ministering to the poor or those in need” is NOT Liberal; it is the charitable Christian imperative. Demanding that government plunder the successful in order to do so IS Liberal,

How does this paragraph apply to the letter from the ministers? In particular, the last sentence.

JAAAAMMMMMMMEEEEESSSSSS,

Your mother is calling you. Time out for Little Weekend Warriors. Waddle on home and study social skills a little harder.

No offense, but you are being not only a pain in the butt, but also a raving bore. No, you are not intellectually superior to the people here. If any of us want to discuss something with you, we will come to YOUR blog. In the immortal words of those wise sages, Three Dog Night,

“One is the loneliest number that you’ll ever do
Two can be as bad as one”

I find it amusing that no matter where you go, either in real life or in cyber or blog life, you demonstrate the same set of obnoxious behaviors. You aren’t interested in an exchange of ideas; you just want to insult people and dazzle them with your brilliance. Why? What happened to you along the way that makes that behavior your ‘meet and greet’ style?

I honestly believe you must be a masochist to come on in such a manner that everyone you meet has the same aversion to your scorched earth personality. Is masochism your cyber persona or does it show up elsewhere also? (winkwinknudgenudge)

“I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and
belief, which has surrendered its creed and conscience to
neither kings nor priests, the genuine doctrine of only one God
is reviving, and I trust that there is not a young man now
living in the United States who will not die an Unitarian.”

Thomas Jefferson
Letter to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse
Monticello, June 26, 1822.

James,
Psychobabble, hmmm, just pointing out that I thought you were being petty. Maybe you feel like you need a counselor?

You had alot in your post, most of which is just a bunch of blather about how smart you think you believe you are. For me, I am interested in solving problems in a rational humane and fiscally responsible manner. The problem of immigrations, legal and illegal, requires a holistic approach.

corr: James so you don’t feel the need to point out my inferior grammer….The problem of immigration, legal and illegal,……

Noting Steve Randolf’s post and the names of the clergy who signed the letter…..Corey is Catholic and how and the world can he call Fr. Celinski illegitimate? The man is an outstanding pastor of the largest Catholic church in the state.

I don’t know all of them, but Rev. Boykin and Rev. Carter have outstanding reputations in the community and are about as mainstream as you can get. They are a long way from illegitimate.

Corey may have to anwer for his comments some day. And the sad part is when he runs for Lt. Gov. he will come crawling for their help in getting elected.

Cafeteria Catholic.

A colleague came to the office today shaken up after a conversation with a man, a Latino, who was moving from PWC. He told her that you cannot imagine how bad it is for Latinos, that he has been stopped three times for no reason and asked for his papers. One time his whole family was in the car with him, and his daughter was so upset that she was crying hysterically throughout the whole experience. This is just not right. Creating a climate that feels like Nazi Germany is wrong. If you are white, please don’t say legal immigrants have nothing to worry about, because lIke I said before, you are not walking in their shoes. This man is legal. I guess bvbl has won. Congratulations to them; what a victory.

I can appreciate your problem, “Admin.” Unfortunately, it’s the same problem that I had when the media reported on the letter. I also appreciate your (and Steve Randolph’s) willingness to add to the information. I thought that such was one advantage of the Internet. I think it would be useful to all to see the whole list (I’m somewhat surprised that the authors themselves did not see fit to do so).

To answer your question, “Juturna,” it does not “apply to the ministers.” I was making a distinction that you failed to make. YOU were the one who made the connection between acting on the Christian charitable imperative, and being a “liberal” (”I guess if ministering to the poor or those in need makes a religious a liberal, then I guess they all are”), not I. I was trying to explain — perhaps unsuccessfully — that Christian charity has nothing to do with government welfare, or being “liberal.” Interestingly, those who greet the actions of “conservative” clerics with much wailing and gnashing of teeth are conspicuous in their silence in response to clerics who attempt wrongly to equate “Christian charity” with government welfare. Try to keep up.

As for “Moon-Howler,” the irony of his complaints about personally-insulting comments is truly entertaining. “Weekend Warrior”?!?! My professional life as been devoted exclusively to aiding victims of one aspect of the far Left’s continuing efforts to diminish individual freedom. One doubts that “Moon-Howler” can say the same, as doing so would have informed him of the absurdity of his aspersion in light of the facts. “Weekend warrior” indeed!

As for not being “interested in an exchange of ideas,” in a few months, I’ll be exchanging them in the ultimate forum. one in which few have the opportunity to do so. It would be useful if you knew from whence you speak before you spew such ridiculous comments.

But at least my “social skills” are sufficiently developed that I don’t cast insults — if insults they are — while demonstrating an extraordinary level of personal cowardice by hiding my identity. If it is “masochism” — though by suggesting that you cause me “pain” with your childish brickbats, you give yourself much more credit than you deserve — to engage in honest discourse while dismissing silliness and pychobabble, color me guilty.

I really can’t speak to your accusation (and IT’s similar comment) about wanting to “dazzle them with your brilliance,” except to note a sneaking suspicion that no one would ever accuse you of attempting to demonstrate a “dazzling intellect.” That you accuse me of it merely causes me to conclude that you have somehow found yourself “dazzled,” which — given my limitations (a wise man once commented that “A man’s got to know his limitations,” Dirty Harry, I believe) — appears to be a fairly low standard.

Try to keep up??? With what? The ramblings of a manic narcissist?

If you re-directed your efforts from self-aggrandizement to communication you might be more effective. However, as MH has stated, it would depend on your intent, which is perfectly clear.

Have at it. Enjoy yourself.

James,
It really boils down to some simple basic belief systems.

When Thomas Jefferson, in beautiful and elequent simplicty, took these words from John Locke, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” , it was a preamble that would change the world.

I believe that the very soul of our country is based upon this Natural Law theory. It isn’t fancy, it isn’t complicated, it doesn’t take a genius to understand them.

I also believe, along with natural law, is G-d’s law. The Torah says “You shall love they neigbor as thyself”. There have been times throughout mans history, some very recent, where these basic premises were forgotten, or recused from society because they weren’t convienent for that place in time. But if those words are not meant for today, for this time, then ,when are they appropriate? Too many times in the history of our world, we have forgotten these basic simple truths. I know that when times are confusing, I find myself relying on these beliefs, because I know, they will never lead me down the wrong path.

We can debate til the cows come home, but these truths are timeless.

I guess, IT, I’m really confused by your “blather” about Jefferson, appropos of utterly nothing. BTW, it wasn’t the Preamble to the Constitution — with which Jefferson had nothing to do; he was in France during the Constitutional Convention — it was the Declaration that Jefferson authored, and in which those words appear. Thus, while I agree with and support the natural law roots of the American Republic, and your identification of them as such, it has utterly nothing to do with your personal insults, which is the point I was making in response to your post, particularly since its content is beneath contempt.

I do not see where IT mentioned the Constitution.

James, why do you want to come over here and quarrel?

As for insulting you? I live by the golden rule. Want to start over?

James,
I did not reference the constitution. I was referring to the preamble of Declaration of Independence.

preamble n. A preliminary statement, especially the introduction to a formal document that serves to explain its purpose.

I hope that clarifies for you. I am more than happy to debate with you, but I don’t perceive your intent here as wanting to debate and come up with solutions for people on both sides of this issue. I apologize if I offended you when I accused you of “blather”. I certainly wouldn’t want someone belittleling my point of view.

I would note that this letter was mentioned in a Potomac News article, I think it was in late January. I referenced it in my opinion column of February 7, 2008, titled “standing for, not against”.

As I said in that column:

“I supported the resolution. But I am concerned for the hatred and animosity that this issue has raised in our community. This paper reports that “More than 50 religious leaders signed a letter that says Prince William’s illegal-immigration crackdown has divided the community, damaged its reputation and created what they call an ‘unwelcoming spirit.’”

I know, it’s just more people coming out against something. And there will always be opposition. But I believe that we can solve the problems associated with illegal aliens in our community without stirring up such hatred, fear and opposition.

When we are done “saving” the community, it would be nice to still have a community to enjoy.”

Well, IT, I had never heard that section called a “preamble,” but a little more research indicates that some have chosen to call it such, though there appears to be considerable debate on that designation.

However, you also seem to evade the point, which is that citation to this statement — a good one, BTW — adds little to the debate. It provides nothing more than the most general context for the debate over enforcement (or lack thereof) of our immigration laws.

Among the most basic elements of a nation-state is the ability to control its own borders. By that measure, the United States arguably fails miserably. That is the fundamental context for the debate. NOT lofty statements of general principles which provide neither affirmative nor negative guidance.