Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

A thought on sanctuary cities

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A thought on sanctuary cities

    When my home town debated and adopted a sanctuary city ordinance this past Spring, its advocates insisted that the law be thought of as affirming our town as a "welcoming city" rather than a "sanctuary city." Sanctuary, they explained, connoted a person hiding from prosecution. A sanctuary city is a place that shelters criminals, but a welcoming city is a place where people can go about their daily lives and raise their families without fear of harassment.

    This terminology, I soon learned, is actually rather widespread. Most advocates of ordinances that limit cooperation between municipal law enforcement and federal immigration officers prefer "welcoming city" to "sanctuary city." Critics of these policies from Trump on down decry sanctuary cities, but I had not detected in their use of the term the criminal connotation that the advocates do.

    Religion does not play a defining role in the debate over immigration policy, but nonetheless I find here an apt symbol for the relationship between religion and current partisan discourse. The Left is not comfortable with the sacred. They perceive or imagine negative connotations in religious language and consequently avoid it. The Right, meanwhile, willingly employs religious terminology, but they are willing to attack and defile what is holy in service of their political aims. The Left traffics in secularism, the Right in sacrilege. The Left is embarrassed by religion, the Right is an embarrassment to it.

    Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

  • #2
    Let me be the first to welcome you back Spart!
    3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures --1 Corinthians 15:3-4 (borrowed with gratitude from 37818's sig)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by LostSheep View Post
      Let me be the first to welcome you back Spart!
      Seconded

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
        When my home town debated and adopted a sanctuary city ordinance this past Spring, its advocates insisted that the law be thought of as affirming our town as a "welcoming city" rather than a "sanctuary city." Sanctuary, they explained, connoted a person hiding from prosecution. A sanctuary city is a place that shelters criminals, but a welcoming city is a place where people can go about their daily lives and raise their families without fear of harassment.

        This terminology, I soon learned, is actually rather widespread. Most advocates of ordinances that limit cooperation between municipal law enforcement and federal immigration officers prefer "welcoming city" to "sanctuary city." Critics of these policies from Trump on down decry sanctuary cities, but I had not detected in their use of the term the criminal connotation that the advocates do.
        A pig wearing lipstick is still a pig.

        Religion does not play a defining role in the debate over immigration policy, but nonetheless I find here an apt symbol for the relationship between religion and current partisan discourse. The Left is not comfortable with the sacred. They perceive or imagine negative connotations in religious language and consequently avoid it. The Right, meanwhile, willingly employs religious terminology, but they are willing to attack and defile what is holy in service of their political aims. The Left traffics in secularism, the Right in sacrilege. The Left is embarrassed by religion, the Right is an embarrassment to it.

        There is nothing holy about illegal immigration. One thing I can give your thread is that your particular brand of slander and stupidity is fairly refreshing considering the rest of the remaining leftist fauna here (jiml, starlight, tassman).
        "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

        There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
          When my home town debated and adopted a sanctuary city ordinance this past Spring, its advocates insisted that the law be thought of as affirming our town as a "welcoming city" rather than a "sanctuary city." Sanctuary, they explained, connoted a person hiding from prosecution. A sanctuary city is a place that shelters criminals, but a welcoming city is a place where people can go about their daily lives and raise their families without fear of harassment.

          This terminology, I soon learned, is actually rather widespread. Most advocates of ordinances that limit cooperation between municipal law enforcement and federal immigration officers prefer "welcoming city" to "sanctuary city." Critics of these policies from Trump on down decry sanctuary cities, but I had not detected in their use of the term the criminal connotation that the advocates do.
          As DE said, all you're doing here is putting lipstick on the pig. I don't like lipstick on me. Please don't do that.
          Religion does not play a defining role in the debate over immigration policy, but nonetheless I find here an apt symbol for the relationship between religion and current partisan discourse. The Left is not comfortable with the sacred. They perceive or imagine negative connotations in religious language and consequently avoid it. The Right, meanwhile, willingly employs religious terminology, but they are willing to attack and defile what is holy in service of their political aims. The Left traffics in secularism, the Right in sacrilege. The Left is embarrassed by religion, the Right is an embarrassment to it.

          This is an embarrassment. The Left willingly employs religious terminology, as long as it's not specifically Christian. The Left willingly employs left-leaning churches in service of their political aims. The Right is generally afraid that the ACLU and/or the IRS will go after them if they give even the appearance of employing churches in service of their political aims. You'll have to point out to me what you by the right being "willing to attack and defile what is holy in service of their political aims." This seems to me to be so wide of the mark it's like you're aiming in the wrong direction. I'll need similar explication of why you think the Right is an embarrassment to religion.
          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
          sigpic
          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

          Comment


          • #6
            But if a city is sheltering illegal immigrants (emphasis on ILLEGAL) then they ARE sheltering criminals. You can call it whatever you want but it is still harboring criminals. And forcing tax payers to support them. How is being against that a sacrilege?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
              There is nothing holy about illegal immigration.
              Religion does not play a defining role in the debate over immigration policy, but nonetheless I find here an apt symbol for the relationship between religion and current partisan discourse.
              Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                But if a city is sheltering illegal immigrants (emphasis on ILLEGAL) then they ARE sheltering criminals. You can call it whatever you want but it is still harboring criminals. And forcing tax payers to support them. How is being against that a sacrilege?
                The first 2 paragraphs of the OP are a discussion of the use of terms in the immigration debate. The third paragraph is expressly a summary of the overall shape of American political discourse, and not of the immigration debate.

                But if you must know my stance on immigration, I believe that if we do not find a just solution, God will. Make of that whatever you want.
                Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                  This is an embarrassment. The Left willingly employs religious terminology, as long as it's not specifically Christian. The Left willingly employs left-leaning churches in service of their political aims. The Right is generally afraid that the ACLU and/or the IRS will go after them if they give even the appearance of employing churches in service of their political aims. You'll have to point out to me what you by the right being "willing to attack and defile what is holy in service of their political aims." This seems to me to be so wide of the mark it's like you're aiming in the wrong direction. I'll need similar explication of why you think the Right is an embarrassment to religion.
                  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.

                  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

                  And then there were the voter guides. A religious right activist group from Washington placed them in our church’s vestibule, outlining the Christian position on issues. Even as a teenager, I could recognize that the issues just happened to be the same as the talking points of the Republican National Committee. With many of these issues, there did seem to be a clear Christian position—on the abortion of unborn children, for instance, and on the need to stabilize families. But why was there a “Christian” position on congressional term limits, a balanced budget amendment, and the line item veto? Why was there no word on racial justice and unity for those of us in the historical shadow of Jim Crow?

                  I was left with the increasingly cynical feeling—an existential threat to my entire sense of myself and the world—that Christianity was just a means to an end. My faith was being used as a way to shore up Southern honor culture, mobilize voters for political allies, and market products to a gullible audience. I was ready to escape—and I did. But I didn’t flee the way so many have, through the back door of the Church into secularism. I found a wardrobe in a spare room that delivered me from the Bible Belt back to where I started, to the Lion of the tribe of Judah.
                  Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                    The first 2 paragraphs of the OP are a discussion of the use of terms in the immigration debate. The third paragraph is expressly a summary of the overall shape of American political discourse, and not of the immigration debate.

                    But if you must know my stance on immigration, I believe that if we do not find a just solution, God will. Make of that whatever you want.
                    As a politically liberal Christian, in what ways do your values differ from me as a politically conservative Christian?

                    I am against abortion, racism and bigotry. I am for law and order and peaceful coexistence of everyone. I believe no system will be perfect until Jesus comes and sets up his eternal kingdom.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      As a politically liberal Christian, in what ways do your values differ from me as a politically conservative Christian?

                      I am against abortion, racism and bigotry. I am for law and order and peaceful coexistence of everyone. I believe no system will be perfect until Jesus comes and sets up his eternal kingdom.
                      what does that have to do with my post?
                      Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                        what does that have to do with my post?
                        I am trying to understand your views and your statement "Religion does not play a defining role in the debate over immigration policy, but nonetheless I find here an apt symbol for the relationship between religion and current partisan discourse. The Left is not comfortable with the sacred. They perceive or imagine negative connotations in religious language and consequently avoid it. The Right, meanwhile, willingly employs religious terminology, but they are willing to attack and defile what is holy in service of their political aims. The Left traffics in secularism, the Right in sacrilege. The Left is embarrassed by religion, the Right is an embarrassment to it"

                        I think our views are a lot closer to each other than different, don't you think?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          I am trying to understand your views and your statement "Religion does not play a defining role in the debate over immigration policy, but nonetheless I find here an apt symbol for the relationship between religion and current partisan discourse. The Left is not comfortable with the sacred. They perceive or imagine negative connotations in religious language and consequently avoid it. The Right, meanwhile, willingly employs religious terminology, but they are willing to attack and defile what is holy in service of their political aims. The Left traffics in secularism, the Right in sacrilege. The Left is embarrassed by religion, the Right is an embarrassment to it"

                          I think our views are a lot closer to each other than different, don't you think?
                          You're the one who called me liberal. It's kind of a strange thing to say if you think our views are actually pretty close together
                          Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                            You're the one who called me liberal. It's kind of a strange thing to say if you think our views are actually pretty close together
                            What is your problem? I ask about your OP comments and you give me an evasive answer. In order to get clarification I ask you how our views differ and you get snarky. You were the one who originally compared liberal and conservative views regarding religion, and I know you are a liberal because we have discussed it before and you said so.

                            Grow up.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Welcome back Spartacus

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                              16 responses
                              144 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post One Bad Pig  
                              Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                              53 responses
                              393 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Mountain Man  
                              Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                              25 responses
                              113 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                              33 responses
                              197 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Roy
                              by Roy
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                              84 responses
                              365 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post JimL
                              by JimL
                               
                              Working...
                              X