Illegal Aliens Declare War on the United States

No I didn't. I put a link there for folk to read if they wanted to. Here it is again if you missed it: http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2006/jul/20/072010285.html I still think that Christians should not go with the flow just because something is law. If that law is wrong then we as Christians should be prepared to oppose that law. What? are we content to keep our Christian living "respectible" and acceptible to society. So many Christians are mixed up with politics today that the old Christianity has almost disappeared under this cloak of respectibility. If something is wrong in society we have an obligation to oppose it. Many of us seem to content today to sit in out churches and yes even "drive" into our churches that we have forgotten that our Lord had not where to lay his head. Yes he was poor too. Are we really like him, with all the stuff we have in our homes? Our televisions and washing machines and all our creature comforts. We read something like this, which seems to be designed to limit the poor even more, so that the city can appear "nice and tidy" and people won't feel bad when they see a poor person roaming around the park and spoil it for everyone else who may be eating their sandwiches there as well. So, what are we doing for the poor in our own towns and cities? God forbid that we should see our Lord in the park. For he would surely be moved on and anyone giving him a bite to eat would receive a hefty fine.

 

Regardless of the link provided this statement is incomplete. It is missing relevant information, and therefore incorrect. It has the appearance of characterizing the issue in a way that fits an agenda that at its premise may be true and correct but in its implementation is false. It destroys crediblity.

 

Perhaps not so much "odd" as "unusual", but I've been accused of far worse! Apology accepted.

I agree that they are claiming rights they do not have and that the country is not obligated to give, though whether "we" (i.e. as moral actors, not citizens) are obligated to give them entrance into the country is a much more difficult question.

 

I am unaware as to why this would be offensive. But if that is the case then I apologize.

What is it that makes such a question difficult? And if this question truly is difficult then why would it not be difficult to determine whether or not we are obligated to those rights mentioned as well?

 

No, no...It's just that it's often irrationally used as one. No apologies necessary; indeed, I apologize for thinking you meant it in such a manner.

Well, in the first instances you were speaking of the country having no obligation, which I wholeheartedly agree with since I don't see how a country can be a moral actor. Think of it as a judge dismissing a lawsuit because of a lack of jurisdiction. People, however, certainly are moral actors, and thus once you said "we" the question must be considered. Unless you're a contractarian, defending the idea that one is ethically justified (eg. not for pragmatic or functional reasons) in preventing the immigration of other sincere moral actors is difficult to do without resorting to reasons based in one's own selfishness, which is not morally justifiable.

 

What would you base your idea that we as "people (moral actors) are obligated to allow illegal aliens of any race into this country?

 

It is not the right of BUMS to expect to be given an area where they can continue to be BUMS, and hassle taxpayers. I support this law, and hope other cities follow suit.

 

So our cloak of Christ's righteousness is what we use when we ignore his commandment not to feed those who won't work ?

And I have worked, hard, for my washing machine, and my skis, and my truck, and my guitars. They didn't just appear one night when I was sleeping.

This isn't about the poor, it's about BUMS. Big difference.

 

Did you post this in the correct thread?

 

I don't see it as being an obligation to allow so much as I see the lack of any moral imperative that would prevent it. To put it another way, it's not that I see an obligation to assist, but rather the lack of a moral imperative which justifies interference in their free passage.

 

Well, it did kinda veer. But yes, it was an answer to Mr. Grahame & Mr. Analgesic.

 

Unless you've suddenly switched to talking about public toilets, no one's talking about giving BUMS an area to be BUMS. This is about the idea that people who pay taxes should have preferential access to public services on that basis.

 

And I still believe that. Public parks are built to support the local community, that's why they have swings, sandboxes, ball fields, & such. Not to give BUMS a place to solicit handouts.

 

BTW, I didn't mean to go O/T, Mr. Grahame introduced a point, and my reply & further discussion has hijacked the thread. I return you to the previous argument.

 

Would such an idea apply to your home?

 

Of course they are. But that doesn't mean that BUMS (since we're apparently capitalizing it now) aren't members of the local community with the same rights of access.

We now return to our originally scheduled program...

No, since my home is property, whereas the country is not.

 

Are you divorcing the country from the land?

 

One can hardly divorce separate concepts. Countries have borders which limit the territory of their jurisdiction, but the Louisiana purchase did not make America a different nation.

 

On what source do you base the idea that a country and the land are different concepts?

 

Every text on political theory ever written? While I of course exaggerate, it's pretty well accepted that there's an obvious distinction. For example, to paraphrase Weber, a state is an entity with a monopoly of legitimate physical force over a certain area. But it's an old concept..."I am the state" hardly meant that Louis XIV was declaring himself to be the land.