A thought on sanctuary cities

[Darth Executor]

quoting myself =/= walkback

You can either speak plainly about what you mean or allow others to say it for you. We both know why you avoid the former.

[One Bad Pig]

A number of religious leaders debased themselves in their support for Trump. Consider Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life, who placed an aborted baby on an altar in a video urging people to vote for Trump. This was a desecration of human remains as well as of God's altar.

I agree. However, using one example to broad-brush "the Right" is hardly fair, doncha think?

If that's not enough for you, might I recommend Russell Moore's essay in First Things from earlier this year? https://www.firstthings.com/article/...right-be-saved

Since there is rather a paucity of sources, it's difficult to know how widespread much of the stuff he references is. The odds are decent he's using the worst examples he can find to drive home his points. Even so, I don't see anything that excuses the over-the-top rhetoric in your OP.

If I were a card-carrying Catholic, I'd be more embarrassed by Nancy Pelosi and the legions of Catholic Democrats who support abortion than Fr. Frank.

[Sparko]

I am not tracking your thought process at all.

As far as I can tell, the only person to really grasp what I was trying to get at in the OP was OBP. My stance on immigration is immaterial.

well maybe I am not tracking your thought process then. Because the whole point of sanctuary cities is immigration and that is the title of this thread.

[Spartacus]

well maybe I am not tracking your thought process then. Because the whole point of sanctuary cities is immigration and that is the title of this thread.

I don't think we have ever found it easy to understand each other. More than half a year of not interacting at all probably hasn't helped.

[Darth Executor]

well maybe I am not tracking your thought process then. Because the whole point of sanctuary cities is immigration and that is the title of this thread.

You are tracking his thoughts just fine. He just pretends we are all beneath him because he can't defend his positions.

[Spartacus]

I agree. However, using one example to broad-brush "the Right" is hardly fair, doncha think?

Since there is rather a paucity of sources, it's difficult to know how widespread much of the stuff he references is. The odds are decent he's using the worst examples he can find to drive home his points. Even so, I don't see anything that excuses the over-the-top rhetoric in your OP.

He wasn't the only religious leader to try to convince people that they have an absolute religious obligation to vote for Trump. There were also plenty of conservative Christians who thought Obama might be the antichrist.

Has there ever been a time when American religion has been free of con-men and charlatans? Go back to the Maria Monk scares, to Joseph Smith-- there have always been people willing to make a buck off of exploiting religious fervor. Do you think that the political manifestations of modern American Christianity are more likely to be free of charlatans than their churches are of the like of Joel Osteen?

If I were a card-carrying Catholic, I'd be more embarrassed by Nancy Pelosi and the legions of Catholic Democrats who support abortion than Fr. Frank.

No one ever told me to look up to Pelosi. Plenty of people have treated Fr. Frank as someone worth admiring and listening to, even after his little stunt. It's hard to be embarrassed by Pelosi when you've never for a minute thought of her as a heroic figure.

[Sparko]

I don't think we have ever found it easy to understand each other. More than half a year of not interacting at all probably hasn't helped.

I wasn't attacking you or being snide. I was just commenting on what I thought you were saying and also trying to make the point that as Christians our views are not really that different. As Leonhard said, I think most of our differences are regarding social programs. We both believe in helping the poor, we just think how to do it in different ways, for example.

[Terraceth]

He wasn't the only religious leader to try to convince people that they have an absolute religious obligation to vote for Trump. There were also plenty of conservative Christians who thought Obama might be the antichrist.

Erm... "plenty"? I'm going to need a source for this. Sure, some claimed he was, but some also claimed that of Trump. You can't be elected president without at least some people accusing you of being the antichrist.

[Leonhard]

If I were a card-carrying Catholic, I'd be more embarrassed by Nancy Pelosi and the legions of Catholic Democrats who support abortion than Fr. Frank.

She's much maligned in most orthodox (little 'o') Catholic circles, and she's received, long ago, a formal correction from a cardinal who told her to refrain from communion until she had repented and shown public contrition. The fact that she doesn't care about his warning and proudly receives anyway (to her own spiritual detriment) doesn't bother me nearly as much as the scandalous fact that there's a priest out there giving her communion.

East or West, there's plenty of oddball priests and bishops to be ashamed of, even more so among the laity.

Being less ashamed of one, rather than another, doesn't mean that you shouldn't call out that person. The fact that there's worse stuff, doesn't mean you're excused from failing to call attention to something.

[rogue06]

She's much maligned in most orthodox (little 'o') Catholic circles, and she's received, long ago, a formal correction from a cardinal who told her to refrain from communion until she had repented and shown public contrition. The fact that she doesn't care about his warning and proudly receives anyway (to her own spiritual detriment) doesn't bother me nearly as much as the scandalous fact that there's a priest out there giving her communion.

East or West, there's plenty of oddball priests and bishops to be ashamed of, even more so among the laity.

Being less ashamed of one, rather than another, doesn't mean that you shouldn't call out that person. The fact that there's worse stuff, doesn't mean you're excused from failing to call attention to something.

Pelosi lives in her own little world. Recall after how after meeting the pope in 2009 she came out saying it was a wholly positive encounter where they discussed poverty, hunger and global warming. Meanwhile the Vatican released a note dealing with the meeting, which U.S. News & World Report reported "exuded chilliness," which mentioned none of these things and instead said

"Following the General Audience the Holy Father briefly greeted Mrs Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the United States House of Representatives, together with her entourage.

His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development."

Another indication that the meeting was anything but wholly positive, was the pope also refused to have his picture taken with her which is the customary practice.

As the Catholic theologian and commentator, George Weigel (a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center), said that Pelosi is "deeply confused about what her church teaches on the morality of abortion" but "has now been informed."

It isn't like she wasn't "informed" previously since six months earlier Pelosi was rebuked by several U.S. bishops for attempting to theologically justify her position on abortion during an interview with "Meet the Press."

Weigel further noted that

[Spartacus]

Pelosi lives in her own little world. Recall after how after meeting the pope in 2009 she came out saying it was a wholly positive encounter where they discussed poverty, hunger and global warming. Meanwhile the Vatican released a note dealing with the meeting, which U.S. News & World Report reported "exuded chilliness," which mentioned none of these things and instead said

"Following the General Audience the Holy Father briefly greeted Mrs Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the United States House of Representatives, together with her entourage.

His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development."

Another indication that the meeting was anything but wholly positive, was the pope also refused to have his picture taken with her which is the customary practice.

As the Catholic theologian and commentator, George Weigel (a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center), said that Pelosi is "deeply confused about what her church teaches on the morality of abortion" but "has now been informed."

It isn't like she wasn't "informed" previously since six months earlier Pelosi was rebuked by several U.S. bishops for attempting to theologically justify her position on abortion during an interview with "Meet the Press."

Weigel further noted that

Recently, Pelosi was part of the faction of the Democratic party leadership that insisted that there be no pro-abortion litmus test for Democratic candidates for office. She could be worse.

[rogue06]

Recently, Pelosi was part of the faction of the Democratic party leadership that insisted that there be no pro-abortion litmus test for Democratic candidates for office. She could be worse.

"She could be worse" is hardly a ringing endorsement