So, here we have a group of senior Ministers entering into the immigration fray. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/us/14immig.html?_r=1&hp In this case, it is against an anti-immigrant law that has criminalized almost anything to do with being or helping an illegal immigrant, including providing basic charitable services to a human, who happens to be a illegal immigrant, in need. Church leaders are clearly balking about such a stipulation, and suing to have the law removed. (The bills supporters state the the language is merely being misapplied). Should churches be involved in these kind of social issues?
It is an issue that, if they are interpreting the law correctly, would criminalize part of their faith. I think this is more of a matter not not wanting the law interfering with their faith rather than wanting their faith to interfere with the law. The Separation of Church and State has to exist to protect churches from the state, not just the state from the churches.
They seem to be aproaching the issue as a charity organization not as a religious organization. So it seems appropriate to me... What a bull(*)(*)(*)(*) law anyway.
Except that is not quite how our constitution works is it? It protects all legitimate expression of faith, and prevents any official favoritism of any particular faith. THis contrasts quite sharply with atheisms law suits, which many atheists consider to be an absolute civic duty. http://atheists.org/blog/2011/08/05/now-is-not-the-time-for-atheists-to-back-down More often than not, atheists sue to block expression of religion, not to protect any portion of their ill defined belief structure. And, once again, suing on behalf of atheism (a faith choice) is fine and encouraged, a protection of liberty, but we are instantly worried when a collection of church leaders sue? In this case, the church, given their scriptural teachings, have concluded not only that the law blocks the legimate expression of their faith, but that there is something inherenty immoral about the Alabama law. We very often hear thatthe religious right expressing its opinions about these things, but it is interesting to see the actual leaders of the faith weigh in on the subject in a decidedly moderate fashion. Secularism is not the prevention of religious people from participating in politics, it is ensuring that we stay focused on the merits of the points they make rather than the faith of the person making it. In this case, they are making a valid case and adding to an already solid case against the Alabama law.
As private, voluntary associations, churches may be "involved" in any issue they please. However, this does not give them license to break the law if the law should happen to--as in this case--conflict with their faith... "But the law also makes it a crime to transport, harbor or rent property to people who are known to be in the country illegally, and it renders any contracts with illegal immigrants null. To some church leaders who say they will not be able to give people rides, invite them to worship services or perform marriages and baptisms the law essentially criminalizes basic parts of Christian ministry. " Let's remember that the illegal aliens we are talking about here have NO BUSINESS IN THIS COUNTRY IN THE FIRST PLACE. Any act that would give them comfort is aiding and abetting criminal activity. Presumably, nobody is above the law. Of course religious folks like to talk about "God's law" v "Man's law." Well, here in the rational world we are subject to man's law and if you violate it, you suffer the consequences. Now, this being a church means they already enjoy special deference, and I predict that nobody will dare toss these ministers in the klink where they belong along with all the rest of the illegal alien enablers and exploiters.
This why I dislike religion. Every other aspect of religion (that I can think of at the moment), I'm fine with but when we're discussing things that actually change people's lives, we need to see, at least primarily, to verifiable things. What people do on their own is not my business. Of course, the hard part is differentiating making sure that they don't influence people in bad directions from just plain taking people's freedom of speech and I don't claim to have a good fix for that. Ideas?
But that does not mean that churches are above the law. They can believe in "God's law" all they want, but here in the rational world, it's "Man's law" that counts. And not to put too fine a point on it, but most religious folks will be the FIRST to tell you there is no such thing as "separation of church and state."
So it's OK to break the law if you don't like it? Especially if you think it's a bull(*)(*)(*)(*) law?
I think we have a new record! Yeahaw! Only FOUR POSTS in and Neut has taken his own thread off-topic and managed to bring atheism into the discussion!
Once again, what is this crap about "legitimate" faiths. It is precisely this idea of "legitimate faiths" that principle of the freedom of religion is meant to protect us from. For as soon as we begin to divide religions into legimitimate and illegitimate, we have lost freedom of religion.
There is no fix. All freedoms have their bad side. If we want freedom, we must accept the bad in order to have the good. A trial by peers might let some guilty people go free. Should we try to change the system so that no guilty people ever go free? I don't think so. In my opinion the cure would be worse than the disease.
I for one think anyone should be allowed to be involved in anything as long as they try to make a case and not just thump a holy book.
Churches and religious organisations making statements regarding politics is one thing, using said organisation to threaten democratically elected members is another. Kennedy said it best, in an answer regarding his Catholicism. -- John F Kennedy, address to the Ministerial Association of Greater Houston, September 12, 1960, from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom From:
That part of the law could basically be interpreted as making it illegal for one person to aid another, if the other is known to be in the country illegally. The churches seem to be against the law as some sort of encroachment on their faith. It isn't, and I think they'll lose if they stick with that argument. There's a pragmatic problem, though, which is that any responsible person who is aiding a stranger would have to try to verify that the stranger is in the country legally. Otherwise, they could potentially be prosecuted and forced to defend the fact that they didn't know whether the person was legal or not. Anyway, I don't have any problem with religious groups fighting the law for any reason. They're well within their rights to do that and maintain their tax-exempt status. If any holy man/woman threatens their congregants with religious punishment for standing with the bill's supporters, though, that will be another matter.
That's exactly what the law says. It is already illegal to aid a criminal. It's called "aiding and abetting."
The practical implication, then, is that I need to make sure I vet every stranger for their immigration status before helping them.
One other thing (too late to edit my previous post), it's illegal to aid a criminal in evading capture. It's not illegal to give a criminal food to keep them from starving, or transport them to shelter from the elements, or provide religious counsel to them.
I'm with discovery on this one. You can be ethically justified in breaking a law. Just because it is the law does not mean that it is right. Not too long ago, there were sodomy laws in my state. People were perfectly justified in breaking those laws. In Saudi Arabia, it is illegal for women to drive. It is perfectly ethical (though not wise) to break that law. I'm not sure how warranted the concerns of these clergymen are, but I know for a while they were worried that the water stations they had set up along the border to prevent illegal immigrants from dying of thirst would be considered illegal. As far as them having "no business in this country" goes, I'm sympathetic. If I were them, I'd want to come here too. I'd want to do it legally, but our immigration system is a piece of (*)(*)(*)(*). My wife has been in this country since she was eight years old. She is completely naturalized, speaks with a valley girl accent, has a PhD in biology (parasitology), and has been maintaining a student visa for as long as she's been here. After she graduated and started working, she was always terrified of being deported. She couldn't go to her father's funeral because she would not have been allowed back into the country. She couldn't get a part-time job outside her field to make ends meet (and it ain't easy living on a post-doc salary) or she would have been deported. Whenever a grant would run out and her contract wasn't renewed, she'd have to pack up and go wherever she could find a place looking for a post-doc position that would sponsor her visa. Sometimes that meant paying a crapload of money to get out of her current lease. She moved to my city and started working at a cancer lab. Then her boss informed her that he did not get the grant he needed and could no longer sponsor her visa. Post-doc positions in her field are few and far between here, and even fewer of them are willing to hire aliens. So we bumped our wedding plans a few months earlier than we originally intended, trimmed all of the expenses that we could from our wedding budget so we could afford the few thousands dollars we'd need to get her a green card, and got married in a friend's backyard. We barely squeaked everything through before her visa expired, but we got it done. Now she has a green with restrictions--i.e. they take it away if we get divorced--and those restrictions will be taken away in two years. I think a year or two after that she will finally be a citizen. She's already excited about being able to vote in the 2016 presidential election. Again: here since she was 8, got her PhD here, she's a cancer researcher, she doesn't remember enough Spanish to get by if she ever got deported, she had to shell out a few thousand dollars to get this all taken care of (and that's without a lawyer, which is extremely rare), and she might finally be a citizen by 2016. Our system is crap.
From my previous post: Otherwise, they could potentially be prosecuted and forced to defend the fact that they didn't know whether the person was legal or not. If all someone has to do is say "I didn't know they were illegal," then that provision of the bill has no teeth. In that case, why include it at all? For that part of the bill to be effective, law enforcement will have to investigate people suspected of helping illegals, which will inevitably involve investigating charitable organizations like churches.
So, essentially you are suggesting that if mans law were to contain a statute, rule, regulation, code of conduct which you were required to obey (it is the law) and you were to violate that law, then you would suffer the consequence. Correct? Then what about the 'government agents' who violate the law "Thou shalt not kill (murder)"? Government agents commit such crime every day, but of course they have immunity from prosecution by the law. Is that not a double standard? Why should some people have immunity from the law while others are obligated to the law? Why is it stated in LAW that police have no obligation to protect any private person? It is my personal opinion, that this thread should more appropriately be placed in another section of the forum, as it appears to be dealing more with secular law circumstances than it does with 'religion'. Religion in the United States (for the most part --- churches being 501c3 corporations) has been rendered a 'corporate affair', thus subjecting 'religion' to secular law, than it does with Ecclesiastical law.
From what I could see, the main issue turned on exactly what constitutes "harboring." "Tlaw essentially outlaws a part of my religion" was really the best they could come up with? For me this is just another example of how religion clouds ethical thinking. What about this instead?: "If there's a kid starving in a gutter, I'm not going to bother with checking their immigration status before helping them. If you want to call that harboing, be my guest." Even the ACLU's argument that harboring is vague is better. I never believe it when they say "that is clearly not what the law is for." Laws are typically used in whatever way they can be construed. In this age of balloons, there is always someone willing to exploit any vagueness to see if it floats. Such vagueness has to be contested up front...or you can wait a decade for any possibility of change.
Good posting and good thoughts Kmisho. IMO, 'harboring' would be anything that gives aid and or comfort to an enemy of the state. Now defining 'enemy of the state' is a very interesting subject, because it was outlined in Congress by a past Presidential declaration "who" the 'enemy of the state' really is. But of course, that would be material for another thread.
If you don't like the law--you use the legislative process to change it. That's if you care to live in a nation of laws, anyway. Frankly that's the whole problem with the immigration system in this country--people just ignore the law because they don't like it. Employers ignore the law. Police departments ignore the law. School districts ignore the law. The Department of Labor ignores the law. Social service agencies ignore the law. Even ICE, the very people tasked with enforcing the law--ignore the law. What is the point of the law if everybody is going to simply ignore it? And what is so bad about a law that says you must obtain the permission of a sovereign nation to cross its borders? Certainly there are some laws that go too far. I don't think immigration law and sodomy law are remotely equivalent, however. From our Western perspective, it would seem so--but in that culture? I'm not sure I agree with you there either. The bottom line is if everyone simply gets to decide which laws they would like to follow--where does that leave us? Of course, the broader discussion could be about the purpose of law and I'm going to speculate we are probably pretty close on that one. Again, aiding and abetting is illegal. I am also sympathetic. I can not blame a person for wanting to better their situation, or that of their family. However, that still does not provide license to simply ignore our laws--and then demand that WE make accommodations for these uninvited guests. Indeed, our immigration system is badly flawed. It makes it very difficult for some people to gain status. And of course, unless you are Native American, we are all immigrants. In that situation, as someone who complied with the law, I would probably resent those who simply ignored it. Glad that worked out for you! Though not how you'd hoped for I know... Outstanding. Your wife sounds like EXACTLY the kind of person we want to be welcoming here as a fellow citizen. Best of luck with all that. It needs to be scrapped and we just need to start over. I agree.
