Bishops make Alabama immigration law matter of religious freedom

[rug]

Episcopal, Roman Catholic and Methodist bishops have joined with civil rights groups to challenge an immigration bill signed into law in June by Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley on grounds it violates religious freedom.

The law makes harboring, transporting or shielding undocumented people a criminal offense. Yet faith communities are often transporting immigrants to church, hospitals, and events, while assisting them with food, shelter and school supplies—the very hospitality commanded by scriptures.

“Religion is not just about what we do on Sunday morning in worship, it’s about how we live and love our neighbor, how we do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with God in our dealings with each other. But the law creates a climate of fear…” says the Right Reverend Henry Nutt Parsley, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Alabama. ”We are people under the law and we have to be obedient to the laws, but laws have to reflect the morality of the culture.”

Republican Senator Bryan Taylor claims the law is meant to crack down on employers who are knowingly hiring illegal immigrants and to provide more employment opportunities for the citizens of Alabama, one reason his constituents largely support it.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/features-the-religion-world/2011/09/15/bishops-make-alabama-immigration-law-matter-of-religious-freedom/

[demosincebirth]

1. Thanks for some positive news. I guess this'll be the only comment here

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. What the matter with those guys? Don't they know that Jesus commands them

to hate the poor, despise the stranger, and worship the golden calf?

[darkstar3]

3. Dangerous reasoning.

This is the exact argument used by homophobic religious leaders like Dr. Dobson. According to their religion, the scriptures dictate that they discriminate against people who are homosexual, and they claim that disallowing such discrimination constitutes a violation of religious freedom.

This is precisely what trotsky was talking about in a previous thread. If we allow religious reasons to be used as justification for the social changes that we wish to see, then we cannot complain when the other side does the exact same thing, even if their version of the religion is supposedly "wrong".

Religion simply has no place in the politics of a nation that must respect the religious freedom of all. We must keep to secular reasons for changes in our governance if we are to respect the principle and the letter of the First Amendment.

[kwassa]

4. Are you attempting to limit the freedom of speech of these Bishops?

I think they are entitled to say whatever they believe.

That is the American way, after all.

[darkstar3]

5. They can say whatever they want.

I never said they couldn't. Once again, you have trouble reading what I wrote. I would suspect my communication skills, but I never have any trouble communicating with anyone else.

Read that post again, and again, until you realize that I never once touched on the idea that anyone shouldn't be allowed to say whatever they god-damn please.

[kwassa]

6. You accused them of dangerous reasoning.

This implies that they shouldn't express such reasoning.

(You never have trouble communicating with anyone else? Sure. O.K. Right. I must have been reading a different forum with the same name as this one where a poster with the same name as you writes quite a bit. What a coincidence. That poster seems to have trouble communicating fairly often.)

[darkstar3]

10. I am critiquing their reasoning, not attacking their freedom of speech.

There is a world of difference.

[laconicsax]

7. Are you seriously making the argument that opposing bigotry is limiting free speech?

[kwassa]

8. From which planet did you get this idea?

[laconicsax]

12. Try to follow along:

Darkstar3 posts that the lone of reasoning in the OP is identical to that of bigots.
You asked if darkstar3 was trying to limit free speech.

I know, it's such a stretch to connect your words to what they in response to.

[rug]

9. Are you seriously making the argument these bishops' act is bigotry?

[laconicsax]

13. Nope. Swing and a miss, rug. n/t

[rug]

14. Therefore, you do not find it bigoted.

That wasn't so hard.

[laconicsax]

15. While your conclusion is correct, your logic is flawed.

You asked, simply if I was making a specific argument. I responded that, no, I wasn't making that argument.

To conclude what you did is correct, but illogical.

[NMMNG]

11. Aye, there's the rub

The Bible can be plucked and twisted to mean whatever the user wants it to mean. The RRRW Christians can select the quotes that support their anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-immigrant, "Jesus wants you to pull yourself up by your bootstraps you lazy SOB" position. Liberal Christians can find the Kumbaya pro-equality, love-everyone, aid-the-poor, "Jesus wants us to embrace and love the world" stuff. Each side is emphatically sure theirs is the right, True Christian interpretation. They both insist their mirrors are not True Christians because of their radically opposite stances on everything and their "misinterpretations" of the Bible.

So what exactly is the True Christian position on immigration--or anything for that matter? And are we to consider it superior to other opinions because it's Christian?

[xchrom]

16. recommend