“Coalition of Civil Rights Groups Condemn Rash of Hate Crimes “
Recently, the Anti Defamation League delivered a strong repudiation of the current toxic atmosphere regarding illegal immigration. Here is a link to the full press release written by ADL.
For those who decry, “those anti people, they are the haters”, I wonder, how are we seen as haters, when in fact, seven major civil rights organizations ALL side with our concern over the scapegoating and extreme rhetoric directed at Hispanics. ANY day, I would rather be publicly seen as aligning myself with civil rights organizations than a group led by a man that talks about human beings as dog food.
It is time to start recognizing that a reasonable and humane resolution will come with this administration, and people need to ask themselves, in ten years, how do I want to remember my words and deeds. I believe, this quote by Michael Lieberman, encompasses everything antibvbl stand for, not only as it relates to solutions for immigration, but also our need to remember we are all a part of the human race.
Words have consequences. And we must use our words, our power of persuasion, our political clout, to condemn scapegoating, bias crimes, racism, and anti-Semitism and to press for fair and workable immigration reform.
For those who accuse Alanna and I of infiltrating and influencing ADL, ask yourselves, do you believe we are so powerful that we can also determine the agendas of six other national civil rights organizations?
Here is part of the press release:
Washington, DC, November 24, 2008 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today joined with a coalition of seven national civil rights organizations to denounce the recent wave of hate crimes against Hispanics and other minorities, including the brutal murder of Marcelo Lucero, a Suffolk County, Long Island man of Ecuadoran descent.
“There is a direct connection between the tenor of the political debate and the daily lives of immigrants in our communities. It is no accident that as the immigration debate has demonized immigrants as “invaders” who poison our communities with disease and criminality, haters have taken matters into their own hands and hate crimes against Latinos are on the rise for the fourth consecutive year,” said Michael Lieberman, ADL Washington Counsel.
Michael Lieberman also said in his press release:
Reasonable people can and will disagree about the parameters of Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
But make no mistake. There is a direct connection between the tenor of this political debate and the daily lives of immigrants in our communities.
It is no accident that, as some voices in the immigration debate have demonized immigrants as “invaders” who poison our communities with disease and criminality, haters have taken matters into their own hands.
ADL has documented a growing atmosphere of bigotry and xenophobia and a disturbing increase in the number of violent assaults against Hispanics, legal, and undocumented immigrants – and those perceived to be immigrants. Across the nation, the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis have exploited the immigration issue to advance their own agenda.
But we at ADL have also become increasingly concerned about the virulent anti-immigrant and anti-Latino rhetoric employed by a handful of groups and coalitions that have positioned themselves as legitimate, mainstream advocates against illegal immigration in America.
As previously mentioned, the FBI has documented that reported hate crimes against Latinos increased in 2007 for the fourth consecutive year.
The demonization of immigrants has led to an increased sense of fear in communities around the country and created a toxic environment in which hateful rhetoric targeting immigrants has become routine.
Elena, really you don’t have to defend yourself from a Gospel Greg follower or two who think the only problem with hate crime in America is that some people call it for what it is. Just consider the source. Who doesn’t like SPLC? The KKK and FAIR. Who doesn’t like ADL? Neo-nazis, the KKK, and FAIR. Who doesn’t approve of your courage in taking a stand against hate in Prince William County? John Stirrup, and others indulge in and/or capitalize politically on hate.
You don’t have to even mention these clowns. Everyone who reads this blog understands where they are coming from.
“Some voices in the immigation debate have demonized immigrants as invaders”; where have I seen this before? Looks like the ADL got ahold of the HSM handbook, or they saw Duecaster on a 9500 Liberty video.
NGL,
I feel bad including John Stirrup in with KKK and all them, but he does belong to a hate group and he had that melt down at a town hall meeting going after a constituent because she asked him why is he still a member of said hate group.
It’s the tactic for which I include him in such bad company. Attack the messenger instead of looking inward and doing something about yourself.
Nice job, Elena. NGL is correct. We, as a blog, are a reaction to a small cadre of people who tried to silence us. We wanted more rational discussion that was not charged with racial epithets and 1 line sound bites. We were silenced. But we were not silenced for long.
Some velvets refuse to see that you and Alanna didn’t sic ADL and SPLC on them. There are other people out there in the county who did not like seeing what their county was becoming. Some feared the economic impact. Others just didn’t want to live in an area where people were ‘run out of dodge.’
Don’t you and Alanna both wish you WERE that influential? Thumbs up to ya!
But I do think they were influential in wrestling our local democracy out of the bear hug of Help Save Manassas and Corey Stewart. Just having an alternative blog that was uncensored was enough to let the Supervisors know that the entire county was not an angry mob out to get them (and the immigrants).
Well, I see HSM and BVBL as refusing to take personal responsibility for their actions. The ADL, SPLC is simply stating their opinions based on what HSM/BVBL has offered the public. I would think that this right would be respected by such Patriots as HSM/BVBL.
Didn’t we already discuss their constant cherry picking of the US Constitution?? Would that be a “cafeteria patriot”??
Translation: Seven major ultra-liberal organizations who live and breathe to label everything and anything that doesn’t agree with them as “hate-based haters”. Big surprise! Hate crimes….like beating a little old lady and setting her on fire in Wheaton..that kind of hate crime?
Anti-Defamation League……Good Lord.
Slowpoke, guess you’ve never been a target because of what you are or what religion you follow. Once you’ve been a target, even an itty bitty one, the kalaidascope shifts….. Just make a small shift. No one has to embrace all opinions, just be open to possibilities. It’s healthier.
So Slow, you think it is ok to defame people or groups of people?
I mean why was the SPLC formed? ADL has been around for almost a century? Do you think they were considered ultra-liberal back in 1913? How about in 1945?
As for the poor little old lady in Wheaton-horrible. There are evil thugs everywhere it seems. I thought her husband was killed also. Bad things happen to good people. There are bad people across the spectrum.
Juturna, you noticed that cafeteria patriotism also? A real smörgåsbord. But some people go straight to the dessert table and forget about the vegetables and meat.
Moon-Howler
No, it’s not OK to defame people or groups of people, but unfortunately, the hand’s been way overplayed. One could literally spend hours a day just trying not to offend someone. Is defaming people going to ever, ever, ever stop? NO. Cavemen defamed the cavemen from the cave on the other side of town. I’m just jealous…I wish I could have a goof-off job like sitting on my fat butt calling groups “hate-groups”. I wonder if the pay is good.
My absolute favorite was the little old lady who got up at the BOCS meeting to get teary-eyed over “kids are picking on other kids because of the resolution”. Yeah, that’s it, lady. No kid ever picked on another kid before the resolution happened. All we have to do to stop bullying the world over is rescind the resolution!
I hardly think that ADL deals with that type of trivial issue. They have been around since 1913. Hardly a reaction to the political correctness fad of the 90’s. Well before WWII or WWI as a matter of fact.
By the way, I looked up KKK and found that the original KKK was disbanded in 1871. The present day KKK was organized in 1915 – two years later than the ADL. Again, hardly a reactionary group.
Hey Slowpoke,
If you knew what it meant to be a real American, you wouldn’t be picking on little old ladies.
Hmm, when black people were being lynched in the South, were these civil rights organizations left wing nuts? Also, since when did the word “liberal” become a dirty word? Is “conservative” then a dirty word too?
Anyway, I digress from the point. The reason these groups were formed was because there was, and still is, a tendency to point to the physical characteristics of someone and form instant opinions as opposed to the “content of your character”. Already there are conspiracy theories that the “jews” are at fault of the economic global crisis by hate mongers. So Slowpoke, what I would advise, is that you delve into some history books and learn about why these groups were formed, for if you “don’t learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it “.
You know Elena, I was a supporter of the History themed Disney park proposed a decade ago. The reason for my support was that I believed it would raise many citizens average person’s History IQ many points.
As was just pointed out by a pal, the reason the KKK died in 1871 was that many US citizen found them intolerable and a Force bill was passed to “help” the KKK to cease and desist”. Didn’t know there were that many goof off jobs sitting around finding hate groups in the good old days.
Boy that first paragraph is pretty garbled….. Seriously, with so many Americans frequently choosing 1914-1917 as the dates of the Civil War – even Disney would have been an improvement to many minds.
Well, you know Juturna, people loved to sit around, with nothing better to do, and pick on people who simply want to denegrate, belittle, and dehumanzie certain sects of people, pesky ole do-gooders.
Call me lazy, given many many heinous historical actoricities when people sit on their butts and do nothing, I guess I’d prefer to err on the side of “liberal” and make sure that we all remember we belong to one human race.
It’s pretty sad to think this great country has to rely on theme parks to educate the general public!
I also am proud to be a liberal in PWC considering what conservative stands for in PWC. I would rather feed 5 able bodied men than let a child starve.
As St. Luke said, to whom much is given much is required. It is foolish for us to believe we’ve accomplished so much in our lives or had the luck to be born where we were all on our own. It is a foolish person who believes they are superior to a Supreme Being who has the plan and has allowed them to suceed or be in the right time and place.
That and USA Today. Yikes!!! No wonder there is so much anger. There is too little knowledge and depth.
Ah…. I will move to the shools next and will be shoo’d away….
Much has been said about one having the good fortune to be born in the United States of America. Right place, right time and all that. I suppose that makes location location location even more critical.
The Supreme Court will decide whether to hear the Obama citizen case on Friday. I hope this isn’t another case of the Supreme Court deciding who the president is. That sounds like the last dying scream of desperation to me.
I am hoping the Supreme Court will explain to me why Hawaii isn’t part of the United States.
MH,
Maybe the people who brought the law suit could have used the theme park as an education to understand that Hawaii is indeed in the U. S. ! Having said that, Obama’s mom is Amercian anyway, how many different ways does the guy need to prove he’s an Amercan!
SPLC Wins $2.5 Million Verdict for Teen in Klan Case
The SPLC sued IKA leader Ron Edwards of Dawson Springs, Ky., contending that members of his Klan group attacked a 16-year-old U.S. citizen of Panamanian descent because they thought he was an “illegal spic.”
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2008/11/15/trial-day-3-update-splc-wins-25-million-verdict-against-klan-group/
Alanna,
Wow, let’s hope they put the IKA/KKK out out of business forever!
“The verdict is expected to shut down the Imperial Klans of America (IKA), which has 16 chapters in eight states. “We intend to collect every dime we can on the judgment and do everything within our power to put the Imperial Klans out of business,” said Southern Poverty Law Center President Richard Cohen at a press conference after the verdict announcement.”
Elena, the Obama case is the longest reach I have ever seen sore losers attempt. I believe they are saying he was born in Kenya. Regardless of where he was born, his mother is still his mother and she was an American citizen. His maternal grandfather served under Patton in WWII. His father could have been anyone. Obama would still be an American. I( am wondering if the Supreme Court would be unscrupulous enough to hear the case. I guess Friday will answer that one. I am thinking back to the 2000 election.
Violence, whether hate crime or otherwise, deserves to be renounced. As to the recent murders of Hispanic/Latino people, I would agree that the rhetoric over “illegal immigration” has played a very sad role.
But renouncing and condemning is one thing. That’s like diagnosing a symptom and saying how harmful it is. What needs to be done is to not merely treat the problem, but go to the cause.
So, while I appreciate the ADL and the seven civil rights groups identifying a symptom and decrying its effects, what needs to be done is to attack the cause.
(P.S., the “immigration debate” isn’t the cause.)
Robb,
You are correct, but how, how do we get people to look within themselves at the root cause of fear and hate that ultimately ends up being so destructive? So many historical moments should enlighten each new generation that is threatened by this human flaw, yet, hate and fear continue to rear its ugly head.
Robb,
I’m not sure what the real root cause is. But as long as there are political gains to encouraging and fomenting hate, there will be skillful and effective politicians and TV/radio personalities to exploit the opportunity.
If you want to gauge the power of propaganda, just imagine that somewhere in Virginia there is a person who calls himself “Slowpoke” and thinks that violence is only bad when his own kind is victimized, and worse, that violence against minorities is a political inconvenience to be trivialized. Needless to say, he is a long way from the boy his mother raised.
Ethnocentrism. People are afraid of change and people see their own race and culture as not only superior but also having a sense of entitlement, generally because of ancestory.
No one wants to be a minority. Look at the Republicans. The Democrats didn’t like it when it was their turn in the barrel. In this case, it is all about control. When you are no longer in the majority, you perceive loosing power.
As long as folks refuse to see that the problem is the ignoring of our immigration laws and not some “inner hatred” fantasy, the root cause will be missed completely.
Bottom line this all boils down to is the inalienable rights of all members of the human family. In 1948 the United Nations adopted and signed the Declaration of Human Rights which recognizes the right to equal, fair and just treatment of all.
December 10 marks the 60th Anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Human Rights. To honor that day a new organization will be launched called Spirit of Justice,
Spirit of Justice engages in public education, advocacy and direct services to highlight the plight of, and bring justice to, those persons suffering the most egregious human rights violations, with the hope that as each such person’s divinity and rights are honored and defended.
You are invited and encouraged to attend a reception that will be held on Wednesday, December 10 at the Trinity Episcopal Church at 9325 Church St. in Manassas from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Come and celebrate as this new organization is launched in honor of International Human Rights Day marking the 60th Anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
BTW If anyone is interested in reading the Declaration of Human Rights you can read it at:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Dreamers at UCLA–Pass the DREAM Act
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soFkm7srtFw
Elena, you asked:
By first abandoning the fear within ourselves and then living a completely new way of life. And that requires tremendous humility on our part.
And only then can we invite others to do the same. And we have to do so redemptively.
Was it a hate crime when the El Salvadoran Zelaya-Ascencio raped a 10-year old girl in her bed over on Alleghany Court? Or when the prosecutor plea-bargained this down to 10 years of jail, since the guy’s illegal and as such gets different rules to play by than the rest of us?
http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2008/12/02/prosecutors-balk-in-case-of-illegal-alien-child-rapist/#more-2764
Was it a hate crime when the (illegal?) landscaper in Montgomery County did a day labor job for a 83 year old woman, took the check for $75.00, added two zeros to the end of it, then decided with his cousin and wife to bash her head in and set her on fire?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/01/AR2008120102948.html
No? Oh, well. Never mind me, go on talking about what’s really important.
After all
Slowpoke – don’t think anyone here disagrees that our federal immigration laws are a shambles and not enforced. Most here just don’t think its up to locals to take it on or to pay for it. Clearly local elected officials do not have the expertise in dealing with larger issues such as immigration other than on a personal level. That is the problem.
“Most here just don’t think its up to locals to take it on or to pay for it. “Depends on your viewpoint. When your neighborhood becomes overrun with illegal flophouses and you realize that half the people you share a town with are here illegally and not being tracked meaningfully by our crimninal justice system – while the two parties keep failing to enforce the law, so long as our wages stay low – it’s time for locals to take it on and pay for it.
It’s cool. The guy I mentioned above got 10 years time for going into the house he used to stay at with a bandana on his face, and raping a 10 year old girl at 7:30 AM. 10 years. After that he’ll be released back to El Salvador while his “probation” plays out. Maybe he can be confined by ankle bracelet to some chicken coop or cantina.
No need for local officials to get involved. Or for people like Greg L and HSM to get involved. Just invest in lead doors and chastity belts.
It’s not like families of these people are colluding to murder 83 year odl women … oh wait, they are.
and just for clarity “these people” refers to lawless people who are allowed slack on following laws, not to Latinos. The root problem is not Latin blood or culture. It’s rewarding people for breaking laws and giving them a freedom and mobility that average Americans who break laws do not have. It’s this mindset we have of trusting our officials when they refuse to uphold their oaths of office, it’s about the mindset of giving an Amnesty every 20 years and pretending that’s responsible.
The answer to preventing crime cannot possibly be to give anyone an Amnesty or a reward for criminal behavior.
It’s like saying we could stop pedophilia if we legalized child porn.
NotGregLetiecq, you stated:
Answer: fear.
I know that seems over-simplified. But it is the answer.
“Fear of what?”, some may ask. Fear of becoming nothing. And the three major ways it’s felt are: (1) fear of losing identity; (2) fear of losing security; (3) fear of losing life (which is the main root of all fear).
When one ties up their identity so tightly and irrationally in something like their nation, a religion, a cause (such as a political cause), etc., any perceived disruption to that identity can elicit a defensive reaction (verbal or physical). Because that disruption means potential loss of identity. And to many, loss of identity is as good as being dead.
And so they vigorously do what they can to preserve their identity. I witnessed this phenomenon firsthand when I was knee-deep in “anti-illegal immigration” activism, and it was evident on both sides.
It’s humanity’s greatest distraction: the failure to recognize that our core identity is found in our common humanity.
Rick Bentley:
Laws are broad-spectrum treatments which attack the symptoms and effects of social ills (such as crime). And yes, law is necessary. But laws don’t solve the core causes of those ills. And until we attack the causes, all the laws we could possibly write will be ultimately inadequate.
I have to object to the misuse of the word ‘amnesty.’ Amnesty is simply overlooking. A path to legal residency is NOT amnesty. It can have conditions, restrictions, fines and penalties.
Those who truly want to find a solution to illegal immigration will examine paths to legal residency and citizenship and they will stop calling anything that allows someone in this country a way to become legal ‘amnesty.’ The anti immigration crew has attempted to hijack the expression ‘amnesty.’
I will simply not play the game any more.
am·nes·ty (ām’nĭ-stē)
n. pl. am·nes·ties
A general pardon granted by a government, especially for political offenses.
No one is suggesting just plain old forgiveness.
I guess we can add Rick Bentley to the very small list of people who can only see the complete senselessness and tragedy of violence when their own race is the victim.
Rick, let me put it to you this way. If a rape or murder (one that matters to you) was the direct result of media hysteria and politically motivated hate-mongering, wouldn’t you be upset by the media hysteria and politically motivated hate-mongering AS WELL as the rape or murder?
Just to make it perfectly clear, the reason why most human beings are concerned about Hate Crime is that hate spreads. When a particular minority is targeted for a violent crime, there are usually cultural symptoms that created the climate for such a crime. These symptoms can lead to more crimes unless they are addressed. Thus, the purpose of this thread.
One purpose that was NOT intended for this thread: A Victimization Contest in which maladjusted Caucasian men list crimes where Caucasians were the victims as if this is somehow a reason not to pay attention to hate crimes.
Well until you acheive Utopia I’ll fight to keep my family and my neighborhood safe. And I also will fight to make the elitists who run our government make a good faith effort at enforcing the laws they swore to uphold. Also, I’ll fight to stop the ruling class in America from degrading wages by means of encouraging illegal immigration.
You work towards Utopia if you wish. I suspect all you’ll create is Mexico North.
The “core causes” of poverty in South and central America are overpopulation and a culture that is accepting of corruption. How are you – or we – addressing those?
“A path to legal residency is NOT amnesty.”
Anything that provides reward for breaking in here, and/or ensures that the individual won’t be deported in future, is rather clearly Amnesty. Please face that rather obvious truth even if it draws an unpleasant picture to you.
NGL most people understand the inanity of hate crime laws. I’ll spare us that debate.
Civil rights laws in a prejudiced society, good idea. “Hate crime” laws, totally inane.
“If a rape or murder (one that matters to you) was the direct result of media hysteria and politically motivated hate-mongering, wouldn’t you be upset by the media hysteria and politically motivated hate-mongering AS WELL as the rape or murder? ”
I’m not sure what you’re getting at. But what gets me agitated is the way the papers and news media HIDE the fact that illegal aliens are committing crimes. They frequently do not report immigration status, or when the police obscure it, do not follow up on it. They call illegal aliens by misnomers like “A Manassas man” if any address in Manassas is provided as ostensible residence. Worst of all they sometimes hesitate to put out physical descriptions for Latino perpetrators even when they are at large, out of some reflexive political correctness. Am I paranoid or am I speaking the truth? Keep your eyes open and look around you.
The actions of murder, or assault, or harassment, are what needs to be dealt with. Motivation is less important. Arguably, anyone who would murder or assault is out of touch with their humanity and not mentally healthy. Nevertheless I favor punishment.
overpopulation? does this really have anything to do with legality? or is it just too many people?
Mr. Bentley:
FYI-The elderly women murdered by the Hispanic couple was Jewish. Does that count as a hate crime? Or is it because the perpetrator was Hispanic, he gets a pass because he probably had a ‘good reason” or maybe he is a victim himself. It is interesting how the ADL does not come out and voice their opposition to these crimes, or on this site, the folks ignore criminal behavior that doesn’t fit their agenda or storyline.
Ms. Mizell,the elderly Jewish woman killed by the Hispanic couple, was a kind human being who never bothered anyone. She was taken advantage of financially, brutally beaten, and then had her home set on fire by this couple. There is no mention of her death or the death of Mary Havenstein, another elderly victim of a illegal immigrant, who assaulted multiple senior citizens in Montgomery County, and who now live in constant fear, anywhere on this site. Again, it doesn’t fit the storyline of this groups agenda. They list other criminal acts when Hispanic’s are the victims, why not report these heinous acts on these elderly, defenseless human beings? A heinous act is a heinous act.
You can say amnesty means anything you want. I prefer to go by the standard disctionary definition.
Let’s be honest. Anti-immigration people want no way for anyone who is in the USA illegally to rectify that status. No fine, no hoop to jump through will ever be enough. Just admit that you and yours will accept no form of payment for legal residency.
The dictionary definition rather obviously fits.
“Just admit that you and yours will accept no form of payment for legal residency.” EXACTLY, no form of payment should give advantage over those who played by teh rules and sought legal entry. This is my position and I’m proud of it. I want to shout it from rooftops. I’m hardly trying to hide it. i think that when the American people come to fully understand the issues and logic behind the alternatives proposed, they will agree with me by a wide margin.
And who grants permission to enter the country as a legal resident or an extended visitor? Why are some people allowed in and others not How come one person on the blog has a husband who changed his status and the other person has been waiting 8 years?
If you don’t see this as a discrepancy, than I don’t know discrepancy.
I believe your bottom line, Rick, is that no one from a latin American region gets in here legally or will be allowed to adjust to legal status. Am I correct? (there might be other regions you restrict also)
Just out of curiosity, why do you feel that a $5000 fine is ‘amnesty?’
Rick,
I am wondering what you think of Robb’s posts at December 2008, 9:33 and 9:44 .
Elitistliberals,
As sad as the story is regarding Ms. Mizell, she was attacked because she was probably trusting and kind, not because she was Jewish. Are you doubting the credibility of the Anti Defamation League or their long history of fighting anti semitism and other groups targeted throughout history?
Actually, elitistliberls, we don’t often report crimes. If we do discuss crime, it is when Latinos have been singled out because they are Latinos, not because of the crimes.
Right now over in the reader comments of insidenova.com, there is much discussion over the rapist of a 10 year old child. Hideious act. Louse and psychopath. The victim was also an illegal alien, from what I have been told and have read. It is being handled in that venue. It isn’t a hate crime. It is a horrible crime regardless of who committed it..
I obviously not not feel Hispanics are exempt from commiting heinous crimes nor do others here on this site. You might be surprised to know that most of us support the 287(g) program. We don’t want criminals roaming the streets either.
“Most people,” Rick? I’ve neither met nor heard of a person who opposed hate crime laws other than flat out racists. But that aside, if you feel there is a connection between legal status and crime, great! We can require everyone to obtain legal status and presto! Zero crime in America.
Meanwhile, those of us who exist in reality will focus on more demonstrable cause of violent crime, like hate rhetoric and politicians who seek to capitalize on existing racial tension for election season, like Supervisor John Stirrup and Chairman Corey Stewart. Media outlets that stoke racial hysteria also lead to hate crimes. So I’ll tell you want. If I grant you this “presto” magic way of reducing crime, you grant me mine. We can make all the undocumented people get papers and we’ll vote out the politicians who ratchet up the hate for the purposes of electioneering. Deal?
“I believe your bottom line, Rick, is that no one from a latin American region gets in here legally or will be allowed to adjust to legal status. Am I correct? (there might be other regions you restrict also)”
Sigh
“Just out of curiosity, why do you feel that a $5000 fine is ‘amnesty?’ ”
Because it’s an pardon. If a give a theif a pardon and charge him 2 cents for it, it’s still a pardon. The idea of rewarding those who snuck in and disadvantaging everyone else is crazier than the other system anomolies you decry.
“I’ve neither met nor heard of a person who opposed hate crime laws other than flat out racists.”
You need to get out more.
Meanwhile, watch this – http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/401/
“Rick,
I am wondering what you think of Robb’s posts at December 2008, 9:33 and 9:44 .”
Okay, here comes a critique of each.
Rick,
Seriously? Beevis and Butthead?! YOU need to get out more
“NotGregLetiecq, you stated:
I’m not sure what the real root cause is.
Answer: fear.
I know that seems over-simplified. But it is the answer.
“Fear of what?”, some may ask. Fear of becoming nothing. And the three major ways it’s felt are: (1) fear of losing identity; (2) fear of losing security; (3) fear of losing life (which is the main root of all fear).”
————————-
First off you can’t identify a singular “root” of all fear. I might fear getting raped, humiliated, turned into a wage slave, losing my job and income, etc. etc. and they don’t all relate to loss of life.
————————————
“When one ties up their identity so tightly and irrationally in something like their nation, a religion, a cause (such as a political cause), etc., any perceived disruption to that identity can elicit a defensive reaction (verbal or physical). Because that disruption means potential loss of identity. And to many, loss of identity is as good as being dead.”
——————————–
Perhaps some of you here see yourself identity-wise as liberal (tolerant, accepting of diversity) and well-meaning and when common sense (i.e. punish criminals rather than rewarding them) conflicts with that, you go with the self-image over what’s so obviously the rational course of action. Judging from the next paragraph Robb might agree with that.
————————————-
“And so they vigorously do what they can to preserve their identity. I witnessed this phenomenon firsthand when I was knee-deep in “anti-illegal immigration” activism, and it was evident on both sides.
It’s humanity’s greatest distraction: the failure to recognize that our core identity is found in our common humanity.”
————————————————-
I don’t agree with that categorization. Talk about simplification. That could be a great rationalization for not punishing any set of criminals. Our “core identity” is not so lofty as that. We are animals. Most of us have an innate sense to help rather than harm each other – but not everyone has it. Hence laws and law enforcement are necessary.
I have a better simplification of right and wrong that a wise man uttered circa 1969 (Captain Beefheart). When asked what evil was, he replied it was any distortion or lack of clarity. And that’s what i see as wrong with the whole eyes-closed, let’s-hope-for-the-best open borders crowd. They are willing to encourage much more illegal immigration, with no plan to stop it, and bypass logic. Rational discussion of this issue would lead to no Amnesty and increased deportation.
“Rick Bentley:
Laws are broad-spectrum treatments which attack the symptoms and effects of social ills (such as crime). And yes, law is necessary. But laws don’t solve the core causes of those ills. And until we attack the causes, all the laws we could possibly write will be ultimately inadequate.”
Sure.
And the root causes of Central and South American poverty – population control, cultural acceptance of corrupt governments and institutions – aren’t being addressed by anyone.
By all accounts, we would have had a regime change in Mexico in their last Presidential election had not 15% of their working class been over here instead of back home voting. And so things continue as they are, and oil-rich Mexico is ruled by an elitist class who grow rich through the status quo just as the rich in America remain content with the influx of workers into the US. Workers have less leverage there, and also less leverage here.
Ricardo Bentley,
If you were a Real American who cared about national security, you would be supporting 100% amnesty.
how do you figure that? Because to start with, an amnesty now only gives us MORE and MORE illegal immigration.
If you’re not a big South Park fan, just check out the presentation “Hate Crime Laws ; A Savage Hypocrisy” that the boys give at 16:30 – 17:50. that’s how I see it.
Rick Bentley, you stated:
Yes, we absolutely can identify the main root of all fear: it is fear of dying, the ultimate loss. With that, we fear anything that might diminish the life that we do have. And with that, we fear other types of loss, mainly (1) loss of identity, and (2) loss of security.
Which goes to your examples of being afraid of getting raped, being turned into a wage slave, losing your job and income, etc. All those relate to a fear of losing security. And with such losses of security, our very lives can be jeopardized.
Ricardo,
I figure that undocumented workers are no threat at all. If we gave amnesty and revised the immigration system to make it realistic, then we could actually put resources into increasing security rather than persecuting innocent working class people.
But since you’re not a Real American I don’t expect you to agree.
Rick Bentley, what is it about “illegal immigration” that centrally bothers you?
Mackie, what is a “real” American?
I don’t know but whenever you use this term it really gets under the skin of the nativists. It’s fun to use.
Of course, all crimes are inexcusable and horrific. How does someone avoid being victimized? They take precautions. But, what precautions can somebody take against being targeted because of their skin color?
I suppose this would be a good time to explain something to the contributors on this thread, and future threads, who leap to the defense of John Stirrup and Corey Stewart whenever the words “hate” or “racism” are mentioned here.
Shall I call them “Hate And Racism Apologists,” since “Stewart and Stirrup Apologists” somehow seem to fall under the same category? Here goes.
Dear H&RA’s,
Please do not take it personally when this blog and/or other news and information outlets discuss hate or racism. The authors of this blog are not criticizing John Stirrup or Corey Stewart … at least not directly … when they express concern about hate and racism.
I believe I speak for most residents of the county when I say that our concern about Stewart and Stirrup’s associations and memberships in groups like FAIR and Help Save Manassas has little to do with the label or classifications “hate group” or “nativist extremist.” We are uncomfortable with those two organizations having undue influence on our county government because they don’t represent the views of the majority of citizens in this county.
If you recall, it was only with the help of technological tricks like automated faxes and email spam machines that these two groups working together were able to seize control of our government,
and force it fight against itself, over a single issue for the better part of a year … an issue that fell outside their jurisdiction and their sphere of influence. In the process, they managed to waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money and cause irreversible damage to our county’s economy, to the value of our homes, and to the ability of our government to function effectively for at least the foreseeable future.
Now, there will always be Hate Groups, and there will always be Extremist Groups, but what was unique to Prince William County was that they had members inside the government. With John Stirrup and Corey Stewart in their pockets, FAIR and Help Save Manassas were able to plot a surprise attack that superseded the other Board Members, the Police Department, the County Attorney’s office, and the County Executive’s office. Worst of all, they robbed the other 99.9 percent of this community of our faith and trust in our elected officials. Up until July 10, 2007, we had trusted that our government was a representative democracy that we would not need to fight tooth and nail to keep.
That’s what we hold against Stewart and Stirrup. Get it?
You don’t have to pop up here every time you see the word “hate” or “racism.” You don’t have to worry about the hate group classification … after all, FAIR was not classified as a “hate group” until after the damage was done.
If you want to defend Stewart and Stirrup, defend their decision to circumvent the democratic process and create a false hysteria as part of an election year strategy, employing legislation crafted by a lobbying firm that viewed this county as a macabre laboratory experiment.
(And yes, hate crimes are awful and they should be prosecuted as such. But anyone who attributes hate crimes that occur outside county lines to Stewart and Stirrup is stretching plausibility. Stewart and Stirrup have played a small role, if any, with all the national press they earned for us, in building the kind of hatred and hysteria that led to racially motivated murders in other states. There hasn’t been one here, unless you count a murder that preceded Stewart and Stirrup’s decision to exploit this issue.)
The real crime for which we must hold Stewart and Stirrup responsible is the hijacking of our local government, which they so proudly handed over to lobbying firms and radical groups that, regardless of their classification by civil rights organizations, did not represent the views nor the best interests of the people of Prince William County.
Rick,
Does removing the ‘Welcome Mat” work?
Does attrition work?
Does enforcement work?
If so, then why are you convinced ‘amnesty’ will encourage other ‘illegals’? I get this whole concept of not rewarding bad behavior but there are equally compelling arguments for permitting some of these people the opportunity to gain legal standing.
“we could actually put resources into increasing security rather than persecuting innocent working class people”
you’ll only encourage further border crossings and an even greater anarchy
“why are you convinced ‘amnesty’ will encourage other ‘illegals’?”
It already has, this is not some type of theory which we haven’t seen manifest itself already. The 1986 Amnesty lead to what we have now.
“Rick Bentley, what is it about “illegal immigration” that centrally bothers you?”
A. The way our elites bend and manipulate our system for their own profit and in this case most notably for the sake of artificially lowering wages in America.
B. Rewarding lawless behavior and making a joke out of the rules that so many Americans were naively raised to follow, believing our leaders and government had some integrity
C. The way whole continents are being abandoned rather than improved, leading to the wealthy as usual buying up land there and owning a greater chunk of the world than working people
D. The transformation of my own neighborhood circa 2005-2006 into a much less safe place and into an urban rather than suburban environment (overcrowding, lack of parking, lack of courtesy, noise, shady unknown figures walking around at all hours, men leering at young women, someone showering on my lawn late at night, someone trying to siphon my gas late at night. etc. etc.)
D is probably most important to me but rest assured that A-C really anger me also.
“Does removing the ‘Welcome Mat” work?
Does attrition work?
Does enforcement work?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback
Alanna,
I think that’s a very elucidating observation. People of color have learned from experience, that they will be targeted simply because of their skin color. They will be targeted with housing discrimination. Millions of times each year. They will be targeted by this farce called the drug war that is just a tool for politicians to look tough on crime by locking up young black and hispanic males in poor neighborhoods while white men and women in universities across our nation get stoned every night…and stoned is just the tip of the iceberg for many of them. I know.
People of color know they will be targeted by the police. So many simply don’t call the police unless they absolutely have to. Just like a highly educated black coworker earning 6 figures advised me, the best way to protect yourself from the police is to simply never call them and never talk to them when they come uncalled.
The reality for people of color is that bigotry can impact your life at any moment, at any time. You must never forget, you are in a white world.
White people on the other hand, barely ever think about being white. They can’t conceive of the notion that the police would charge them with crimes they didn’t commit. They honestly never entertain the notion that they will be shot for pulling out their cell phone. They live in an alternate reality. And since they are the majority, a majority of naive people, even the well meaning ones support abusive laws like 287(g). Here’s a perfect example of the disconnect between these 2 worlds and how painful reality can be when it comes crashing in. It’s also a testament to the power of denial. It’s not a few bad apples. It’s institutional. It’s embedded everywhere:
http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise/sexacrosscolorline.html
You have missed one very important point in your otherwise valid rational for this thread.
You assume that all actions to stop “illegal” immigration into our country, and all actions to enforce the current immigration law, and all actions by any community to stop “illegal” immigration and all actions to stop execution of a lawful 287G program that legally removes criminal “illegal” immigrants from our country, are all just a “SUBSET” of your real anger at “hate crimes” and “hate groups”, denounced by civil rights leaders.
By blurring the lines of “legal” and “illegal” you have simply created a tangled web of deceit, a web of lies and a web of “veiled implication arguments” against legal and proper actions taken by a community to stop “illegal” immigration.
When you can erroneously relate and associate “guilt by implication” and “wrongness by associated rhetoric” and “guilt by abstraction and inference” you blur (intentionally) the real and wrong actions of hate and hate groups with the real and right actions of legal and lawful steps taken by the nation and by community members to prevent and stop “illegal” immigration and the harm it does to our country and our community.
Your logic for this thread and your entire manifesto for “morality” hinges on the following erroneous and flawed logic process.
1. Hate crimes and hate groups as well as violent acts and verbally hurtful acts against any individual regardless of race, gender, religion and ethnic group are wrong.
(no one will disagree with that statement).
2. International and national civil rights groups condem hate crimes and actions of hatred toward all people based on race, gender, religion and ethnic group.
(no one will disagree with that statement)
3. Legal immigration is legal and no-one who is legal should be subjected to hate crimes or discrimmination based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
(no one will disagree with that statement, but some people are incapable of making the distinction between illegal and legal behavior, and apply that concept regardless of race, religion, gender or ethnic group the individuals who commit illegal acts come from)
4. “illegal” immigration can be made to sound like “legal” immigration, if you abstract it and only think of all forms of “immigration” as an intentional and misleading abstract concept which can mask all attempts to properly assign right or wrong to human behaviors.
(people who intentionally mislead and what to win rhetorical debates will agree that abstraction is a technique to diffuse and obfuscate reality and truth, so it cannot be discerned from fiction, deceit, lie and misconceptualization. It becomes just an abstract image of “good” or “bad”, with no “truth” qualifiers. It can make “true” become “false” and “false” become “true” with the proper level of abstraction and misleading inference and association.
5. A 287G program to stop “illegal” criminals and deport them, can be reconceptualized as a 287G program to stop “legal” immigrants and “legal” criminals and make gullible people believe you want to “deport them”, when legally you cannot and in truth you intend no such thing. Such a concept can obfuscate a “legal” and moral program to reduce the impact of crime, with an “illegal” abstraction, so it can be more easily attacked with misinformation, obfuscation, lies, partial truths, and unproven accusations.
6. If you can associate an organization or persons(s) who do legal and lawful acgtivities, with illegal and unlawful concepts and ideas, you can make their actions, though legal, lawful and moral, sound illegal, unlawful and immoral, by blurring the distinction between “illegal” immigrant and “legal” immigrant, “law enforcement” with “unlawful enforcement”, “hate and hate crimes” with legal language, legal actions, law enforcement activities and otherwise moral activities with abstract and erroneous association with offending and illegal activities, by use of abstraction, obfuscation of the truth, anectdotal evidence, association with “like”, “similar”, implied, weakly linked, deliberately misleading but not “correct” concepts, and can attack individuals and associations, and groups with guilt by association rather than guilt by action, or guilt by truth. Since you do not have to stand up to a court of law to prove this, you can use “contempt of the court” to win your illogical debate.
(This is your pitiful logical error, and why you hate people who want to enforce “legal” laws against “illegal” people, and take verbally abusive, punitive and hateful actions gainst any person and any group who takes lawful and moral actions against “individuals” who are doing “illegal” damage to “lawful citizens”.
7. With this logical error conviction you can turn “lawlessness” into “lawfullness”, and “immoral acts” into “moral acts”, believable by all people who do not possess the truth, the facts, the distinctions and the evidence, but simply possess the abstract erroneous convictions and hatred of the truth.
(This is why anything you do to try to stop “illegal” immigration, is immoral and wrong, when you believe that ALL you are “innocently” doing is “stopping hatred and discrimmination”, when in addition to stopping hatred and discrimmination, you are also stopping lawful and legal action, effectively with your actions letting criminals, “illegal” people and “illegal” actions go unpunished, and continue to grow under you misguided protective umbrella of indignance and ignorance.).
You continuously (and gleefully) shoot at the wrong target in pursuit of your self-inflicted “illegal” means “legal” false morality.
The real reality is people (”individuals” break laws. Those that do are hunted down by the police and punished by a judge, court and legal, lawful actions toward criminals. This happens to “individuals”. This includes “indivudlas” who break “immigration law” and by doing so are labeled “illegal” immigrants or “illegal aliens” Those of you who leap from blaming indivduals, to sympathizing with and socially defending groups for individuals in those groups behaviorsa (regardless of how many people belong to those groups who break the law), are the problem, rather than the solution.
How can 287G possibly be abusive? (except in the minds of the misinformed and the angry, and those who stand to gain from crimnal behavior or personal gain by overturning lawlessness). 287G is a program to remove “criminals” who are also “illegal” immigrants from our streets. Who could possibly confuse that with “abuse”? Except Mackie and a few others who blur everything into “save the poor, especially if you can put a skin color on it”
Michael,
In your post you said “3. Legal immigration is legal and no-one who is legal should be subjected to hate crimes or discrimmination based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.”
Are you suggesting that only “illegal” immigrants “should” be subjected to hate crimes? I think maybe you should clarify that point.
WHWN,
EXCELLENT post, as usual!
Alanna, I have to ask you a few “questions” regarding your statement to Rick Bently (who has taken an ethical position of the impact to him of “illegal” immigration by others lawlessness) to assess your level of “right-doing and ethical convictions” so I can hope to possibly understand why you “seem”to support illegal behavior, “illegal immigration” and the consequances of illegal immigration behavior on innocent people.
If you had committed a illegal act or crime, and a law said you should be punished for that crime, but if you never got caught, never had the law punish you, even though your actions harmed many, many others, while it benefitted only you and your immediate family…would you continue doing this crime without guilt knowing it would harm others outside of your family?
Would you make the leap like so many people do, to believe your crime was not a crime, but actually a lawful and moral act that should be rewarded, given amnesty for, never punished and never held accountable for, even though thousands, even millions of people are harmfully affected by your continued illegal behavior?
If you got amnesty or a pardon for that behavior, even though it was illegal, would others be encouraged or discouraged to try to duplicate what you did to benefit only yourself and your immediate family, even though it would continue to hurt thousands, even millions of others not in your family?
“illegal” immigration is not a “victimless” crime, though so many of you believe it harms no-one.
No Elena, I’m very clearly suggesting that only “illegal” individuals and “illegal” immigrants, regardless of race, religion, gender or ethnic group should be subjected to LAW ENFORCEMENT, and that, that action of LAW ENFORCEMENT is moral, legal and beneficial to our entire society, regardless of what group, individual, or member of society is supporting it or helping it along.
Law enforcement is NOT a HATE CRIME, as this illogical thread would have you believe.
michael,
Exhibit A: White Denial
Michael, the problem is more that you are confusing hate crime with law enforcement; not that Elena is confusing law enforcement with hate crime.
If you come on this blog to defend Corey Stewart, John Stirrup, and the Immigration Resolution just because the subject of the thread is “hate,” “racism,” “anti-immigrant zealotry,” or “hate crime,” it says more about your perceptions than it does about Elena’s.
Mackie, you are a racist, blind to your own hatred of white people…
WHWN, No the issue is that I support what is said in stopping hate crime. I do not defend hate crime, nor do I defend any “hate crime” you can accuse others of “including Stewart or others” but first you should determine if they are angry at “illegal” behavior, or angry at other races, before you accuse them of the implied crime of “hatred”.
I do not confuse hate crime with law enforcement, law enforcement is what stops hate crimes. I’m just acusing most of you for focusing only on hate crimes, and other social isues and those who commit hate crimes, while ignoring other forms of crime also damaging millions and millions of innocent people. You support “illegal” immigration criminals when you want the 287G program removed, and you support “victimization of innocents when you support “illegal immigration” Your ethics are selective and skewed, when you associate “hate crimes” with enforcement of law on “illegals”, and when you support people as “individuals” who commit “illegal” immigration lawbreaking as lawful and deserving of sympathy and pardon. You hypocritically support one form of law enforcement and make a mockery out of the other. The impact of such “selective” law enforcement and “selective “ethics” is a loss of ethics in our nation, an increase in crime and “illegal” activity, and an increase in the damage caused by ignoring “illegal” immigration.
This is your legacy and lunacy to the destruction of our future legal system and sense of “legal” ethics by supporting “criminals and lawbreakers that you have sympathy toward just because they are “illegal” immigrants. Nothing else matters to you, except your focus on reasons to justify it, like associating law enforcement on “illegals” and those who support law enforcement on “illegals” with hate crimes and groups who commit hate crimes.
This is proof of our nations’s decaying ethics and increased support for criminals and those who break our laws.
Michael, you have the word “you” in several sentences that don’t describe me or anyone who posts on this blog. I have perhaps seen one person advocate against 287g. I have not. Elena has not. Alanna has not. M-H has not.
We don’t equate violent murder with an elapsed student visa. If you want to write a “you” sentence, start with that. Otherwise you’re just talking to yourself.
Michael,
Therein lies the problem. Maybe you can throw stones from your glass house, but me, I’ve had a few speeding tickes, not recently, but I’ve had some. I paid my fine, and I was done with my “legal” obligation. There are many people who have had their status adjusted from “illegal” or undocumented to “legal”. Are those people still criminals in your mind? I loved NGL’s “dare” to Rick. We adjust everyone’s status to “legal” and crime miraculously disappears. But I wonder, what happens if crime doesn’t disappear?
I also wonder why the national police chief association, I presume trained individuals in law enforcement, are reluctant to take on this federal issue? Do they not want safety for all citizens? Maybe you should listen again to Chief Deanes comments back in October, advice that was clearly ignored by the BOCS. Are you more qualifted then Chief Deane?
I do support 287G, however, this program does NOT address the underlying issues and reasons behind the impacts of a broken immigration system. Furthermore, the idea of “soccer moms” sitting in jail is not what I imagine the purpose of 287g. I would hope that felony offenders are the ones being detained, not the stories that Lucky Duck has shared about “soccer moms” being detained.
Corr: qualified
Oh good grief! I think I have learned ANOTHER lesson tonight.I think the debate STARTS from within oneself. Race, religion,economic status, CONFIDENCE… so on and so on
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbNPotsAFxg
Tomorrow is not a promise, it is TOMORROW. I know I am chillin’ back and thanking ( MY-yours might be different ) God for all the blessings I have and had in my life. I am actually enjoying the adversities and struggles in life as they are teaching me VALUABLE lessons of gratitude and keeps me humble.
Peace out
LOL
RD
No one has said anything about 287(g) but Mackie. Address him. The rest of us support it. We don’t want criminals on the street. Frankly, I am tired of black velvets telling me what I think.
Mackie, tell us why you think 287 g is a bad thing.
Rick, tell us why you feel you can change the meaning of amnesty. let’s see, if there is an amnesty day at the library, it means I can bring my overdue books back and not get a fine. All is forgiven. If an illegal immigrant has to pay a fine and jump through some hoops to acquire legal status, why is that amnesty? It isn’t.
No Elena, any person who has paid for a crime, caught by law enforcement and given suitable punishment to deterred repeated offenses, should not be continued to be punished by that crime unless they keep committing that crime.
I don’t live in a glass house, I simply believe that crime should never pay, and criminal behavior can never be bought or outlasted politically. That’s what people do in third world countries with corrupt governments and corrupt legal systems, and maybe that’s why so many people believe this is the right ethic today (buy your crime away), because we have had such a large infusion of foreign ethics into our society. I for one am tired of it, and I want LAW ENFORCEMENT to enforce law , NOT look the other way for a fee when crimes are committed.
NO PERSON who is legal is a criminal in my mind, including my own wife who had her status adjusted legally.
Look, let’s cut to the chase. Any person who is still illegally in this country, must pay for that illegal behavior by following law. My wife followed law, and so should everyone else. In most people’s minds if you are caught “illegal” that means “return to your country and get in line”. It does not mean, pay a fine and we will then give you a green card for that fee proving to everyone that crime and law enforcement can be bought for a price. That is a road to criminal decay, increased lawlessness because it is rewarded, and has little consequence on the perpetrator and because of the vast impact that “amnesty” precedant has set in the past and will set in the future.
“illegal” immigration is not a crime that can be deterred by any fine. It can only be deterred by finding illegal people, deporting them, and having them clearly get the message that “illegal” behavior will not result in your “capture of a green card and US citizenship ahead of anyone else who waits in line.
The only effective solution is “get to the back of the line, and leave the country, until you are invited in”.
When people are sent to jail for a crime, their family is in no way obligated to go with them, but they are affected by the loss of that individual for the duration of the punishment period. “illegal” people should suffer the same consequence of their actions, soccor mom or not. Soccor mom’s ans Soccor Dad’s go to jail when they have broken a law and the whole family suffers for one person’s lawlessness. Their is no pardon for family inconvenience, while a criminal serves jail time, nor should their be any pardon for family inconvience while a lawbreaker pays for their lawlessness.
We’ve all had speeding tickets and most of us pay the price designed by justice to be a deterrent to doing it again. Drunk driver;s have deterrants appropriate to preventing them from continuing to commit the crime. “illegal” immigrants should have deterrants sufficient to prevent them and followers from continuing to commit the crime, when the damge is not just one drunk driver killing one person, but millions and millions of people affected by an “illegal” commiting the crime of “illegal” immigration.
I do not agree with Chief Dean. I think his officer’s should do more than just enforce the 287G program. I think whenever they find a law breaker, by definition a person that breaks law, they are morally obligated to the rest of us citizen’s and green card holders to uphold the law, and let Justice Departments (courts) determine what the proper punishment is for breaking the law. We also let elected politicans in a democracy who represent “we the people” decide what the law is, not Chief Dean. Dean’s policy to not arrest illegal immigrants is circumventing our legal system because of his personal beliefs and political convictions. I do not believe he has a right to make that decision, only a judge has that right, representing “we the people”, against ALL of those including “illegal” immigrants who commit crimes against “we the people”.
The immigration system is not “broken”. We already have paths to citizenship and work visa’s and a legal process for legal immigration. People only SAY ITS BROKEN because it won’t allow “illegal” people (their “illegal” family members) overnight to become “legal” and allow everyone they want to come into the US come TOMORROW. I don’t agree with that misguided concept to “FIX IT”.
MH, I hear you, understand and agree, in fact the only thing I think you and I most disagree on is how soon and under what terms to allow “illegal” people to become “legal”. My reasons are the consequences on our future wealth and prosperity of overpopulation and out of control population. I think the time and quotas need to match that reality, not how many people want family members into the US TOMORROW. I also think people need to go home until they are granted permission to enter, just like everyone else, because their are already too many people here, until those conditions are met in the best interest of our entire society, not just individuals and “select” family members.
It’s always the case in the “immigration” discussion that crime is brought up, as if all unauthorized residents in America are committing measurably harmful acts upon others (such as robbery, theft, assault, etc.,).
Yet while crime is a legitimate issue to discuss, we must acknowledge that people who commit such crimes do not represent the majority of unauthorized residents, most of whom are hard-working and peaceable people who want nothing more than to create better and more sustainable lives for themselves and their families.
In other words, and as I mentioned recently on my own blog (here), the discussion misses the point. This isn’t about law. This is about people. It’s about lives. Human lives. And not just the human lives of our American and “legal” neighbors.
As to answering the immigration issue, I prefer a course of grace rather than a course of intolerance; risky compassion to safe legalism.
We have to start seeing beyond the black-and-white of our law codes and beyond the competitiveness of our debating.
michael,
did your wife go home before being able to re-enter legally?
Honestly, I can’t think of a single government agency that’s doing a great job. Somebody help me out here. Department of Transportation – traffic stinks. Federal Aviation Administration can’t get planes to depart on a timely basis. Department of Labor – seen unemployment rates lately? Health & Human Services – how’s your health insurance premiums looking?
All I’m saying, is this immigration mess is of our own making. I know it’s not an enforcement only problem. How do we take responsibility? We have finite resources, and there are some hard choices and compromises that need to be made.
Robb, I define crime by those who break law, you obviously do not. For you some “lawbreakers” are criminals and others are not. I think you will see in the federal statutes that “illegal” ilimmigration and harboring of “illegal” immigrants is a crime and has both federal and civil penanties for even being in the country “illegally”… I’ve read the statute, because my wife was commiting crimes under that statue and I checked with INS on what the penalty was both for her illegality and my harboring. We were not married at the time, but the consequence of her being caught was enourmous. We were in love, so I followed the law, I legally informed law enforcement of her illegal status and the INS, AND I got married to the person I loved as soon as possible, all following legal immigration law.
There was a period while we waited for the legal process to work, where if she had been detained by police she would have been deported and forced to go home until our marrigage approval under the law issued a valid green card. Her card is still not permanent and can be revoked if she commits a crime. Again I will simply follow the one I love wherever necessary and live legally rather than illegally. If I can do it anyone can, so I’m not living in some glass house and expecting others to do what I won’t do. I expect the law to be followed in a democracy and enforced in a democracy or we won’t have a democracy, only a society of criminals and lawbreakers like countries have had so many times in history.
Though it would have been hard on us, it would have been an inconvenience not the end of the world if she was sent home until her green card was issued. I would have simply followed her, and obtained a work visa for her country.
ANY PERSON in the US here “illegally” can do the same, just like I did. THE issue is following the law is legal, and not following the law is illegal and has punishible consequences, and accepting/fearing the punishment when you are caught is a deterrant to breaking law.
Robb though I respect your ideology, I believe it will end in increased lawlessness, and increased overpopulation, decreased well being of our society and loss of ethics in our community. These issues and realities are already witnessed by many, many people in our community, who believe your naivity (my perception of your naive belief and understanding of human behavior) will do far more harm than good for our community and our country.
Alanna, don’t you realize ALL of those problems are caused by an excessive explosion in population growth in the US, in large part fueled by “illegal immigration”?
Do you not realize we have grown by some 50 million people in our US urban centers, in large part by “currently illegal” and once “illegal” people in the past 25 years? Gripe ALL you want but until the population decreases and “illegal immigration is stopped and people already here in these overpopulated centers sent home where they can legally be sent home, ALL of those departmental problems will get far worse than better over the next 25 years, until we run out of oil in 2035 and then mother nature will do the thinning for us.
WHWN,
I disagree here. It’s convenient to blame the SS (Stirrup and Stewart) but it’s also missing the point.They would not have been able to accomplish what they did without the support of the voting white electorate. That’s where the real problem lies. So long as white people continue to live in denial about the racism that’s all around them, it will continue.
The resolution may be controversial, and so it received media attention. But the whole War on Drugs is just as racist. It is a modern day version of Jim Crow. What about the millions of cases of housing discrimination? What about the huge disparity in access to higher learning? What about the fact that people with black sounding names are half as likely to receive a call for a job interview as those with white sounding names?
All of these things possible because white people all across the country live in denial about the systematic racism in our society. They live in denial because it’s more comfortable that way.
Elena,
Your hope is a false hope, born and sustained by denial.
Michael, you clearly believe law is an end unto itself. It is not.
I am reminded of something Jesus of Nazareth is reported to have said:
Law is not, and never should be, an absolute. Its purpose is to serve, not to be served. And when absolutism of law creates injustice, then justice needs to prevail in its place by the deeds of men and women of conscience. And if bringing about that justice itself necessitates a violation of some code, so be it.
Some would live for law. I choose to live for life. And life is more than law.
“Justice” would be protecting the rights of ordinary Americans and upholding the laws our leaders are sworn to uphold. Not eroding them to enable cheap labor in America at any cost.
“Law is not, and never should be, an absolute. Its purpose is to serve, not to be served. And when absolutism of law creates injustice, then justice needs to prevail in its place by the deeds of men and women of conscience. And if bringing about that justice itself necessitates a violation of some code, so be it.”
Is that a quote from the Unibomber’s manifesto?
But you’re building a better world, right Robb? That’s why Food Stamp use is up 17% in the last year -http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE4B28CB20081203?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews
I think we’re going to have to face reality at some point. National economic woes are due to Bush policies. The fact that we are worse off in PWC than any other county in Virginia or the DC Metro area, well, that has to do with Corey Stewart policies.
If we had known what sort of economic trends were around the corner, I seriously doubt we’d have shot ourselves in both feet with this immigration insanity.
Immigration insanity hurts the economy. It has hurt the national economy, as Bush has proven, probably on purpose, with these random ICE raids all over the country.
Immigration insanity hurts local economies too, as Corey Stewart has proven with his “crackdown” that has destroyed local business communities and murdered our property values. Just compare our county to our neighboring counties and it is undeniable. The immigration “crackdown” of 2007 was economic suicide.
Robb, though I agree with your perspective that the law is not absolute in terms of Christian ideology (and Muslim for that matter), and that Jesus himself repeatedly broke jewish law as did his disciples, and the fact that no mosaic or levitican law brooken by any Christian will ever prevent anyone from getting into heaven,
To counter your argument there is one immutable law, that will always be enforced no matter what, this law is and forever will be absolute, and that is the law that you will not get into heaven if you are an unbeliever. Christ himself said he came not to change not one of the mosaic laws, but that he himself was the law of the second covenant.
Since I understand you are not a Christian, but you use Christian ideology to support your argument, you should know the fact that there are indeed immutable absolute laws, that are never repealed in Christianity. That is a scriptural fact, go read it.
In secular law, your Christian analogy does not apply, as all laws until changed by congressional action are immutable, absolute and binding on the legal system, judges and people. Judges only determine what the punishment is. Only elected officials can change the law, and until they do ALL of those laws are by law immutable and absolute. Only the punishment has discretion. So again your analogy is not applicable, until the law is changed.
It is highly unlikely the current immigration law is going to be changed to remove any concept of “illegal” immigrant. There will likely always be a condition where an immigration act will be ruled to be “illegal” because it will break existing law.
There is no room there for waffling or Christian ideology to change the law, except through our elected officials.
Justice, mercy and faithfullness only applies to how God tells men to treat each other under Christian law (scripture), it is not absolute, except for the law of non-belief, and will be determined on your death, by God and you the “individual”. Secular law on the other hand is justice in itself, showing mercy and compassion, by the structure of the law created under a democratic process to benefit and defend the rights of the “majority” who are the greatest harmed. It is an assessment by an elected official who proposes the law, what “individuals” are most harmed by other individuals or groups, and what “law” should be passed to protect those most harmed.
I am simply telling you, that you are dead wrong if you think that “illegals” are the most harmed by the breaking of immigration law. That law was made to protect the majority of “individuals” harmed by “illegal” immigration and always will be, and those individuals are the victims (millions and millions of them) protected by that law, and made vistims of the breaking of that law by the perpetrators who are “individual” illegal aliens.
Justice, mercy and faithfullness are to the ones most harmed by the breaking of that law, and that is not the “illegal” alien.
Your attempt to use Christian principal to identify the “most harmed” is flawed, as is your logic for your use of the Christian argument of mercy. Only God will know who is the most harmed, at our death. Until then we must proitect the innocent victims harmed by “illegal” immigrants acts of lawbreaking.
Your morality is in the wrong place.
I am morally protecting the general welfare, rights, victims, injustice done to the vast majority, and social, financial and security needs of 296 million people more affected by “illegal” immigration than the “illegal” immigrants are. You are only immorally, and with misplaced justice and morality” protecting 12 million “illegal” immigrants who broke the law, creating millions of “real” and suffering “victims” affected in a multitude of ways by the breaking of individual protective laws.
294 million, but who’s counting, there are far more victims than perpetrators.
The real logic flaw in your argument and the reason you mis-apply Christian ideology Is the fact that Christ NEVER harmed ANYONE when he broke Jewish Mosaic and Levitican law. (perhaps because you claim to not be a Christian, you do not understand the implications of what you are saying when you quote scripture, and do not realize it takes most Christians 10 years of hard study or more to understand the following)
There is only one unforgivable law, that has no discretion in punishment (or loss of status) with the father, at the time of your death, and that is the sin of unbelief. Everything else is forgiven, and you will not be denied entry into heaven if you break any mosaic or levitican law. What will happen is on a CASE BY CASE BASIS GOD will decide what is the status in heaven (who he is most pleased by), by the acts of each individual as that individual interprets and understands his own relationship with God. For is a correct act for some, and in the general welfare of some, is not the correct act and in the general welfare of others.
Christ believed in looking at the “greatest harmed” when interpreting law. On a case by case basis in his acts he made a decision regarding the “greatest harmed” when interpreting the law. This is why he received tax collectors, beggars, prostitutes and individuals harmed the greatest by jewish law, as they were the most in need of mercy and salvation. In this concept, Christ says I and the Father are the law, and the punishment of breaking mosaic law or scriptural law is your relative staus in heaven, judged by the harm it does to the greatest harmed individual by a perpetrator. This included stoning harm. For example, if an individual is harmed greater by abortion law (deciding for both the mother and the baby what is best for each on judgment day) and until that time as “general guidance” for the “individuals” protected by abortion law, then Christ in every scriptural case I have read, protected the greatest harmed.
Robb you have not in my opinion properly assessed the greatest harmed. I get my answer through prayer, how do you get yours?
This is why I protect and defend “legal” immigrants, they do no harm. It is also why I do not protect “illegal” immigrants and “illegal” immigrant criminals prosecuted under the 287G program as they do a greater harm to innocent victims of their illegal actions and far greater harm than the immigration law does to them.
This is also the “guidance” for why killing a person who is going to kill or seriously harm you and your family, or killing a criminal, soldier, person or even “stem or egg cell” who is the greatest harmed, such as you and your family as innocent victims of the oppression of nations and oppressive leaders. Your actions taken in breaking mosaic and levitican law, must be understood in terms of the strength of your personal relationship with God, your individual understanding of what decisions he expects you to make for your general welfare and the welfare of others, and what actions you take create the greatest harm, when God decides whether he is pleased with others more than he is pleased with you. Regardless of your action and decision made, He will not deny you entry into heaven if you have NOT broken the one un-forgivable law and sin of un-belief.
Turning the other “cheek” by the way means in Greek and Aramaic, “now treat me as your equal by striking the other (more honorable) side of my face as you struck the less honorable humiliating side of my face. It does not mean “give in to violence, lawlessness, and cruelty that harms the greatest harmed.”
Michael:
Ultimately — and as I have mentioned many times — our common humanity is paramount above all, and certainly above any notions of common nationality, common race, common politics, common culture, or common legal system.
And so to some of the things you mentioned . . .
(1) I repeat: you clearly believe law is an end unto itself. It is not.
(2) Christian notions of theology and/or theocracy as they relate to law are of no concern to me. I quote Jesus of Nazareth, not for religious or spiritual purposes, but for the ethical content of his words. Nothing more.
(3) My position on “law” is not based in Christian ideology, or any other religious or secular ideology. My position on law is based upon the fundamentals of Natural Law (e.g., as discussed in the Declaration of Independence), which is discerned through reason and rational inquiry. Natural Law ideology, by the way, predates Jesus of Nazareth by several hundred years (via the Stoics).
(4) Notions of afterlife (heaven, hell, reincarnation, etc., etc.) are completely irrelevant.
(5) My position on justice is less interested in notions of greater or lesser “harm” (whatever that means), but on establishing relief for all who struggle and/or suffer as a result of conditions of inequality. The difference is you see justice merely as a legal function to serve a “majority”, where I see it as a human right of all.
And it is the protection of human rights — or natural rights — which is the main function of government, and hence the laws it creates. Just as the Declaration of Independence states:
Robb,
That was incredibly well written, thank you. You know I get all weak in the knees when you talk about “natural law” and the Declaration of Independence
Makes me want to throw up. Open-borders anarchy.
Elena:
Thank you. In spite of its writer and signers, the Declaration is the most superb witness and manifesto to the universal supremacy of natural law.
Rick Bentley:
I am not calling for anarchy.
Two days ago you mentioned 4 points about what centrally bothers you about “illegal immigration”. Two of your points (A and C) focused on your distaste of elites and the disparity created by the wealthy. Point B focused on how you feel “lawless behavior” is being rewarded and the rules being made a joke. Point D discussed your resentment of how your neighborhood changed into a less safe and less desirable place by certain people moving in.
To points A and C: what do you propose as a solution to the disparity?
To point B: No reasonable person wants to reward “lawless behavior”, inasmuch as “lawless behavior” is overtly destructive (e.g., robbery, assault, vandalism, etc.). But where immigration is concerned, we can no longer ignore the reality of the real problems in Mexico and other nations south which compel many to come to the United States, with or without authorization. Any reform of immigration law must take those national conditions into account, so as to allow grace and compassion to dictate not only immigration law but also how it is applied to our southern neighbors.
Furthermore, I would posit that if the United States can set itself up as the western hemisphere’s “big brother” via the Monroe Doctrine, and if U.S. policy still retains the right to enforce that doctrine (which it does), then we are bound to extend our influence beyond the political and render due assistance and aid to people’s south. And particularly as it now relates to immigration. This is not to say that assistance and aid should be disorderly or unregulated, but it is to say that we have a “righteous burden” to extend compassion to “the least of these”.
To point D: “illegal immigration” is not what caused the problems in your neighborhood. Recall that your county’s BOCS made the error of that assumption and passed a resolution whose enforcement has revealed that the “illegal immigration problem” in PWC was not, in fact, the big problem it was overhyped to be.
To A and C, the solution is simply for the American people to flex their muscle and insist on accountability from their elected officials. And not to swallow the hogwash they try to placate people with.
And the Zogby poll showing public opinion on this matter is very heatening in this regard. There is no mandate for an Amnesty, or Moon-Howler’s “Amnesty for a Stipend”. And I don’t think that anyone will be able to pretend that there is.
On B, the best thing we can do for Mexican and other Central/South American nations is to teach their people to stand up and demand the use of their country, demand that they stop letting the elitists who run their country hoard. The solution is not to degrade our way of life, to degrade wages here. At least not in an uncontrolled naive way that will increase the effect.
You’re wrong on D. My neighbors know it, every realtor I speak to knows it, and my ex-neighbors who ran screaming know it. My life is much better now.
Obviously Robb you ignore the “natural law” interaction between two human beings if you don’t understand the concept “greater harm”.
Here is your logic flaw (based on cynic ideas and origins to your obviously stoic convictions that drive your indifference statements in (1), (2), (3) and (4) above, when you state after such indifference claims that your belief system is “stoic” from the pagan roots of the 310 B.C. greek philosophers.
“My position on justice is less interested in notions of greater or lesser “harm” (whatever that means), but on establishing relief for all who struggle and/or suffer as a result of conditions of inequality. The difference is you see justice merely as a legal function to serve a “majority”, where I see it as a human right of all.”
If man lived in isolation of the actions of other men then “individual” natural rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are powerful and just concepts, indeed our nation is founded on such natural law ideas, but it is also founded on “seperate & equal status” and natural laws endowed by God (you leave out the rest of the declaration’s concepts).
But man does not live in isolatation to the actions of other men, and that is where your logic error exists in interpretation of “natural law”. You think only in terms of one human being and that one person’s “individual right”. Thomas Jefferson as the framer of the Declaration, and contributor to the Constitution, understood that natural law applied to basic human rights, especially with regard to how one human was treated by an institution or government, but in that same line of reasoning he was a spiritual person when he made his references to the law of God and the guidance or morality between humans in terms of Justice and morality.
From the same Declaration you quote from, but leave out:
“and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…and
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. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Since these powers are derived from the “consent of the governed” is that one person’s consent or the consent of the majority?
See its this thing called “seperate but equal station” that leads to the need for law, and justice. When two humans who each have seperate, but equal station, and those two humans consent to be governed, they must have a system of morality and justice to resolve what to do when one of them harms another. And that justice system (called law) must deal with a concept called a greater good (that extends natural law, into divine law, or moral law upon which our modern legal system is based (you still think in terms of 310 B.C.). When one person does greater harm to another than is being done to them, then “morality” of the behavior of one toward another is not “equal” and the harm done by one to another is not “equal”. The decision for justice when one is harmed more than another must be given to one and taken from another, when a dispute exists to determine “which individual” hurt the other more, which individual deserves justice and which individual must have their “individual freedoms, life liberty and pursuit of happiness taken away to prevent them from doing furthur harm to another.
I am simply telling you “follow where reason leads”, that if an “illegal” immigrant person harms another more than he is being harmed, then justice belongs to the person harmed the most. Your “stoic” and “cynic” logic is flawed because you assume that “illegal” immigrants live in isolation, harm no-one else and only the state harms them.
That is not reality, for “illegal” immigrants harm millions and millions of innocent people who have done nothing to them. The justice and prevention of this harm upon the innocents lies with the innocents, not the “illegal” immigrant perpetrators of those “illegal” actions which harm others with “greater harm”.
Just because you want to “establish relief for all who struggle and/or suffer as a result of conditions of inequality.” which by itself is good moral guidance, that does not mean that “those who harm others” as they struggle for relief/or suffer, can cause greater suffering, greater harm, and greater struggling on others affected by their actions.
“equality” is not a magic 50/50 or equal numbers, or equal pay, or equal lifestyle, or equal brains or equal beauty. “equality” is about “equal opportunity”, but cannot be used to allow one person to harm, dominate or oppress others “equal rights” to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
“illegal” immigrants by their very “illegal actions” suppress the “equal rights” to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of 294 million people in this country.
It’s that pursuit of happiness thing you don’t understand that is an equal right for all, until one person harms another and creates a greater harm, then it is not an equal right. Interestingly it is the “cynics” from which stoicism is derived that believed the “pursuit of happiness” should rein over all emotions, and led to a prime natural law to “follow your reasoning” Dr. Spock.
I understand “Paganism” but I choose not to follow it. I choose to follow the Divine Law, that proclaims “entry into heaven is determined by belief in Christ”, and brotherly love is secondary to that, but next in importance. Brotherly love or “agape” however is not a command to “love lawlessness and evil” which is what the Pagan belief system is derived from, as well as parts of the cynic and stoic philosophies to “eliminate emotion” as “evil”.
Human beings have emotions and pursuit of happiness as an equal right to all is one of those emotions that is an inalienable right from God, as long as that pursuit of happiness does not lead to harmful evil done to others and the unforgivable sin of “unbelief”. Sadly Robb, your pagan and stoic beliefs have led you to ultimate death.
If the universe dies a cold and slow death, then it will not likely matter to you that you die that way also. I on the other hand will have warmth and love for eternity, though the natural law of the universe will die a slow and cold death.
This is why almost all of you do not undersrtand why I am supportive of the concept that only “individuals” and individual rights rather that group rights are a divine right from God, giving preference to no gender, no religion (doctrine), no race and no ethnic group, but to use only “law”, morality and “justice” to cleave “illegal” immigrant from “legal” immigrant, “good person from bad person”, a loving human being from a hateful human being, right from wrong, harm from benefit, and to determine with “brotherly love” who deserves the most compassion in the same manner that Christ would. Christ defended the “greater good”, from those “individuals” doing the “greatest harm” to others, regardless of the jewish law be was born under.
Legal immigrants do no harm, “illegal” immigrants do greater harm to innocent millions of people far more deserving of your sympathies, emotions, and “justice”, and “illegals” base this right to harm others on their percieved “equality” numerical numbers balancing or quota based rights to give preference to specific gender, racial, religious and ethnic groups claiming “priviliged” rights not equally available to all.
Rick Bentley:
I’ll focus on B for the moment. In regards to nations south you state that we should “teach their people to stand up and demand the use of their country, demand that they stop letting the elitists who run their country hoard.” It’s actually an encouraging answer since you at least acknowledge a neighborly responsibility on our part to “teach” them how to stand up for themselves and develop self-sufficiency.
That then begs two questions: (1) how do we teach them? and (2) how do we practically assist them in alleviating certain conditions of inequality which, for so many, are life-threatening?
I don’t think we have a responsibility to teach them that. But at any rate I would think they’ll learn it themselves if forced to stay in their homeland instead of running here like cowards.
As to the problem of druglord corruption, my solution for that is to seal the border tight and shoot those who attempt to come through illegally. It will stop the flow of illegals AND of drugs. And put Johnnie Sutton in jail rather than Ramos and Compeon.
Michael:
You stated:
You, warmth and love for eternity. Me, ultimate death, and all because of how you feel about my beliefs.
What a sad and disgusting display of divisive “us-them-ness”, judgmentalism, and intolerance, the very same which has historically caused so much division in this world.
And it is very familiar:
Ponder on that a while and see what the mirror reveals to you: a Pharisee, or a tax collector.
At this stage, having respectfully shared with you what I feel is sufficient, and now realizing the strange malevolence you possess toward those who do not believe as you do, I’m content to “shake the dust from my feet” and let you be. All the while keeping in mind Jesus’ words:
Rick Bentley:
Cowards. Druglords. Interesting you should mention both terms in the same sentence.
What would you say of the destitute and powerless Mexican family that escapes Mexico and into the U.S. in order to flee the murderous druglords in their home-states? Would you call them cowards?
It’s not a theoretical scenario. Countless who escape Mexico and into the U.S. face that very reality. A number of home-states in Mexico (such as the northern states of Chihuahua, Sinaloa, and Nuevo Leon) are controlled by druglords who hold sway over local law enforcement, even murdering them.
Many people who live in those regions face dire life-and-death circumstances which are not immediately resolved by legalities that you and I are able to take for granted (and able to afford). What many Americans perceive as the relative simplicity of our immigration system is not so simple for such people.
If a government cannot or will not protect the powerless among its people, let’s not blame the powerless, nor demean them by broadly characterizing them all as “cowards”.
Robb,
Not to worry, according to Michael, I’ll be right there with you, no heaven for me either I guess
I thought your comments to Michael were very insightful. It reminds me of the words of the prophet Hillel. I have quoted him a time or two. He was around duing the common era, and proposed that G-d’s most important law was ” do not unto thy neighbor what you would not want done unto you” if you did not learn this most important law in the Torah, then you would miss the greatest lesson of all, for all other laws within the Torah are secondary to that belief. Clearly, the golden rule was borne out of this tenent.
Your humanity is what guides you and your beliefs, there is nothing more important than that I believe. It is what keeps us all remembering that we are all a part of the human race. Did you watch the special on CNN with Christian Anampour? It’s called “They screamed bloody murder” or something very close to that. It was riveting to watch.
Rick,
I guess my ancestors fled like “cowards” from Russia if I were to believe your logic. They should have stayed during the Progroms and “fought” the government. I wonder, what is the history of your family tree that you are so willing to judge others?
Sadly Robb you twist scripture. I feel not hatred toward you but compassion and sorrow that you will never know Christ, just like the Lord felt toward those who will only hear parables, and never hear or heed his words. It is you my friend who are the stubborn, un-informed one. You miss the entire message of Christ trying to save your soul from death, and twist his very words to sooth your own ego.
One day I hope you will re-read more closely and understand the message correctly with your eyes and heart open rather than closed. I can say no more to have you self-reflect on what you are doing to yourself, the correct belief must come from within and your own intellect and understanding of the parables you are so fond of quoting out of context. Christ warns often that “evil” not you Robb but the force within you that drives your blindness to the ultimate message will use every device it can to twist scripture and turn innocents away from the Lord.
The vistory you think you feel in your ego, is an empty one with no true understanding of what I’ve even been trying to tell you.
Elena neither you nor Robb have apparently read the scripture enough to clearly discern why you are so against it. It is a very simple message, believe in Christ or face eternal death. There is no hatred or malice in that message, except the twisted concepts you want to believe instead of a simple, uncomplicated message.
Granted the scripture is complex and can lead many down the wrong path without hard and long study of it’s entirely, and within its entire context. Immature readers make this mistake many, many times. Most of us are afraid of scripture because we feel it will deny us pleasures, and make us into mindless idiots. It does neither, when you understand that the relationship requested is like a parent to a child, only one thing is required of you and every other behavior you fear will be taken away is only viewed the same way any parent would feel for a child that does not understand. Both of you are kind, good hearted people, I can tell, that, but you are missing an essential understanding of life, and goodness over things that harm.
I too was where both of you are now, I certainly resented people telling me what I’m telling you now, full of ego and confidance that your understanding of life, science and belief is the correct understanding.
Let me put it a simpler way.
There are two possible outcomes to life, death and eternal death in which the universe slowly cools, black holes condense and eventually explode only to eventually lose all energy, heat and warmth (no more photons). If there is no mechanism of higher intelligence, all of us will simply cool into dust and dust into dispersed fundamental particles that are cold and held at absolute zero forever.
If this is true then your belief is correct and we will all die in this way, no matter what I say or believe, or the massage I am giving you.
The second possibility (there is a third where the universe simply repeats itself forever and has been forever), is that the total energy of the universe expands and dissasociates into fundamental particles, but in this distribution there is a pattern of particle structure that has intellectual organization, communication, heat, warmth (photons), and will last forever. If you believe that that higher intelligence is God, and that he has the ability to interact with the natural laws, claiming and capturing the essence of your soul when you die, then he has state there is only one rule that will allow Him to co-exist with you and you with Him, and that is belief. If you cannot do this he must outcast you to the cold (some say “evil”).
Now if you believe in reason, ask your self which of these two scenarios whould you rather end your life with? One has a cost, the other does not, but that cost is nothing compared to the eternal time of warmth and love promised (as a father protects a child).
If you can see it from this point of view, then re-read the message of the scripture. Your behaviors other than this sin of unbelief belief, can be anything you want them to be. You will not be denied entry into heaven, only your Father will be less pleased with you if you harm yourself or others. By your very nature as a human, your own compassion and love you already have you will be able to love your Father. He will demand nothing more of your other than to attempt to guide you as your understand grows, that love is stronger than hate, and “agape” is compassion, but harmful behavior is self-destructive, especially when it is toward others.
It a simple choice, eternal death or eternal life.
I will get off of my “soapbox”, or “please don’t shoot the messager, plea” so you can ponder this. It is not my role to “make you do anything”, but I hope you understand my motive and especialy the message. The parables and scripture out of context will not help you. You are both smart intelligent people, simply think about it.
Also know this, there are Christians who hate. They are are almost as devoid of understanding. I am not one of those who hate, I simply seek truth as best I can and use a compass stronger than one I could build on my own.
Michael and Robb,
You both have me going back and forth with a good debate.
Michael,
John 3:16 (King James Version)
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
and
Mark 16:15 (King James Version)
“And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature”
You have done that and just like a child in your analogy above to Robb and Elena, they HEAR it. They will as everyone else, have to accept it or not.
But this is where Robb is right too:
“For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
Luke 18:9-14
“Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.”
Matthew 7:6
BOTH of you are hitting the PIVOT point/core in thatedebate ( in my honest opinion)
You are so right Red Dawn, all of these have a context critical to the understanding of their meaning. As usual your insight and wisdom is timely.
Michael,
I give credit where credit is due:) It’s not my timing
Elena:
Well then at least we can keep each other company, wherever it is some think we’ll be going (or not). (For the record, I do not concern myself over what may or may not happen after death. I am content to accept it as a mystery, while I move forward with more relevant and pressing concerns in the here-and-now.)
Yes, actually, I caught the first 45 minutes of Amanpour’s special, but then a phone call kept me from the rest of it. But from what I saw of it it was tremendously moving. What people do to one another because of differing religious or political beliefs is astounding.
And then this from Michael a couple posts up:
“No, not me. I’m not a hater. Not like those other people who hate and are devoid of understanding.”
And that deserves a repeat of a portion of Jesus’ words which I quoted just recently above:
Like a carbon copy. Very saddening.
But . . . forward we go.
My family tree emigrated from Europe. Probably for economic reasons. They had to take ships and so they didn’t come millions at a time.
Fairness and equality of purpose aside, I think it’s obvious that we can’t keep encouraging the underclass of every Central and South American country to come here as janitors and gardeners and fast food salespeople. And rather than just saying “go home and starve” I am saying “go home and fight for what’s yours, as American working-class people once did. Your country has wealth and resources so work towards equality rather than just praying and lighting those candles”.