Jesus, Mary and Hillary
Friday, March 24, 2006 at 09:52PM Sen. Hillary Clinton from Arkansas…er, New York, is vowing to oppose a Republican bill that passed in the House in December 2005. The bill is making its way to the Senate in a revised state and would make illegal immigration, currently a civil offense, a felony. (ILLEGAL immigration)
Mrs. Clinton called the bill "mean-spirited " and had this to say about the bill:
"It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself."
What Would Jesus Do? Well, he wouldn’t sneak into the country illegally. Mary traveled with Joseph for the census from Nazareth to Bethlehem, ordered by Caesar Augustus. All this while a very pregnant Mary had less than some would consider "humane conditions", sleeping in a manger with the animals. But good Jews obey the law.
Then when Jesus was an adult he was asked (as a trap) if the Jews, under occupation by the Romans, should pay taxes to Caesar or not. His reply: Pointing to the coin, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar’s," they replied. Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s." Under the injustice of Roman occupation, Jesus still said the Law should be obeyed.
As for the Good Samaritan whom Hillary claims would be criminalized, she is obviously unfamiliar with that story as well. The good Samaritan BOUGHT (not stole) a donkey for the dying man he found on the Jericho Road, PAID FOR (not slipped out without paying the bill and leaving the foreigner’s debt on the back of the locals) the hotel and food bill, and he registered with the hotel manager to make himself financially accountable to pay any other debts incurred by the injured man (he didn’t stick the tab with the state). This man, Jesus said, was the GOOD Samaritan. "Go and do likewise", said Jesus. Sounds like Jesus would support the immigration bill.
Hillary not only doesn’t know her Bible or know her base, but maybe this is why she thought Jesus was on her side?
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/421446
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (22)
AMY -
Yeah, I thought this was pretty amusing when I heard about it. It would seem that the "Smartest Woman in America" is not always so clever after all. Not only was this maneuver completely transparent and disingenuous, but she has stepped in it enough to even alienate much of the Liberal Democrat Cheerleading Section....meaning Hollywood.
Are you aware that the immigration bill in question (H.R. 4437) may make it illegal for charitable organizations to help illegal immigrants? The definition of "alien smuggling" can be interpreted to include giving out food at a soup kitchen or taking confession without proof that the immigrant is legal. Cardinal Mahony (Los Angeles) has been an outspoken critic of the bill for this reason.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1743009&page=1
I'm no fan of amnesty, because I think it sends the wrong message to the millions of people who enter this country legally (and wait years to do so). But I'm not really a fan of this either -- it's not the responsibility of a priest to check your passport before he gives you communion. The bill also calls on employers to verify the legal status of potential employees, which sounds good...but how many human resources departments can be expected to know the difference between real and forged documents?
The current system is so fouled up that twice it took the intervention of our representative in Congress. In obtaing her visa, our Representative had to contact the US Ambassador of my wife's home country in order to ovecome the roadblocks the Embassy way throwing in our way. Later, after entering the US, US Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) lost her paperwork and we had to re-apply for her green card (USCIS never bothered to tell us that it had been lost). Meanwhile, people flow across the southern border illegally with little fear of getting caught, much less deported. My wife and I learned the hard way - obey the law, get jerked around. Break the law by sneaking into the country illegally, get the red carpet treatment (relatively speaking).
I have heard similar horror stories from other legal immigrants. And this has been going on for over a decade, so it did not originate with President Bush.
(I wonder: is it possible that Osama bin Laden immigrated to the US, and the USCIS has lost his paperwork? Better than hiding in a cave!)
Now HRC and other politicos - not to mention various churches - want to keep the present system of no controls on illegal immigration in place. Can they not see the fundamental unfairness and immorality of allowing people who entered the country illegally to go to the front of the immigrant line while people like my wife have to jump through hoops (it seemed) every hour on the hour?
No one is going to be denied in the confessional! That's spin. In California, every individual who entered the confessional would have to show proof of citizenship. That's ridiculous and not what's going on. Not to mention there is the secrecy of confession. Before a charitable organization could hire an illegal, they would have to show documentation. What's wrong with that? Clergy should be arrested if they are aiding and abetting illegals. ILLEGALS.
Cardinal Mahony is against the bill because he thinks he's being compassionate. There are also pro-choice priests and gay priests, all of which the Church rejects. Just because someone thinks he's being compassionate doesn't mean he's being right. I would suggest that all who are so loving toward illegals reach into their pockets and foot the bill for their paperwork, if there is any, and do what the Good Samaritan did to make it legal. People are all about talk but not very big on putting their money where their mouths are.
The Cardinal's comment, "The war on terror isn't going to be won through immigration restrictions," is pretty ignorant of the real world situation, although I'm sure he means well.
Yeah, definitely, but you misunderstand my point. The person who is responsible for hiring me isn't necessarily qualified to know if the papers I show him are actually okay or not.
"Before a charitable organization could hire an illegal, they would have to show documentation."
It's not just about hiring the person, it's about helping him. Giving someone food or shelter is assisting that person to remain in the US. To do so either knowing or in "reckless disregard" of the recipient's illegal status becomes criminal. It's not hard to imagine religious and other private charities fitting this description at times, and Mahony IS being compassionate by wanting to help people regardless of their status. It's one thing to say these people can't go to public school or get health care, but I wouldn't go so far as to criminalize giving some food to a migrant worker when you know he's probably illegal. It just seems cruel.
My former denomination, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), is fond of making a seemingly endless string of political statements about everything under the sun from taxes to welfare to foreign policy. The effect has been to drive members away and divide those who remain. When you turn a church away from the Creator and morph it into a leftist (or rightist) political party, don't be surprised if the flock, er, "flocks" towards the exits.
I did not always agree with the late Pope John Paul II when he spoke about political issues. Yet he was a very wise and prudent man who knew that political statements from church leaders are the theological equivalent of nuclear weapons - to be used only under extreme circumstances and with the knowledge that severe collateral damage to the church could result. The leaders of the ELCA and other liberal denominations are neither wise nor prudent, and that is one of the reasons that their churches are dwindling away.
However, it seems to me (as I sit here in my nice warm home with full citizenship) that it is problematic to fascilitate the sustaining of an illegal.
The problems with illegal immigration are crime, money, homelessness. The crime rates in Texas and California because of illegals crossing the border from Mexico is scarily on the rise, and the types of crimes getting more deadly: grand theft auto, rape, murder. These are not insignificant. In California, I understand that illegals cannot be turned away from medical care (that's a huge dilemma) and offers welfare support to many illegals. The problem with that is obvious: TAXPAYERS money supporing lawbreakers. There is not enough money to sustain them all, either. There are millions of illegals who make money in the US, pay no taxes yet receive state funds. How is that compassionate and for whom?
I also understand the problem with Mexico is a bad one. It might behoove the US to offer some sort of additional funding to Mexico to help them help themselves.
The real reason Democrats want illegals in the country is the same reason they are trying to pass a bill to allow ex-felons, once they are out of prison, to regain their right to vote. DEMS NEED THE VOTES. The Democratic base is not growing and they are not convincing anyone to come to their side by their debates and illogic... so if they can help illegals gain access and help felons regain their privileage to vote, Democrats get more voters. How pathetic is that. It's not about compassion for them, it's about power.
Mr. Daudi, Johnny & I years ago looked into joining the ELCA, but it was liberal to the point of breaking the commandments. In one single induction class, we learned that the ELCA supported: abortion, sex outside of marriage, gay unions. We voiced our objections to the "priest" before leaving so he'd know not everyone swallowed the error, but at least right leaning Christian Churches don't tend to violate the obvious moral Laws of God.
I also disagreed with Pope John Paul II on several key issues, like the death penalty (which the Catholic Catechism does allow for; I am totally within my rights as a CAtholic to support a death penalty; I think the real issue would be regarding less humane countries like Taiwan and other Eastern and Middle Easter countries, for example, that don't access due process for the accused and treat the prisoner inhumanely), the War in Iraq (which JPII later changed his mind about before his death, but again, I am totally within my rights to support this just war) and evolution (he's just wrong about that). In fact, the Church doesn't teach evolution, it teaches creation but leaves open the door for pondering the creation of the universe in greater depth, which liberal Catholics and theologians have run with and exploited to bring in evolution as fact, which it is not). JPII could not on any of these issues speak as if Christ because Church doctrine did not support him. So he never issued an encylical on such matters because he couldn't, but he was certainly allowed his opinion, as we all are.
Pope Benedict is right on the money. His job at the Vatican as Cardinal Ratzinger was to safeguard truth and doctrine, i.e., to fight heresey, so he knows error when he sees it. He is much more supportive of Operation Iraqi Freedom and condemns terrorism and supports the war on terror, and he also supports "Intelligent Design" if you will, and Creation.
Chris, I'm on my way to check it out.
You can read the text of the bill here, if you like:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4437:
The relevant section is the one on "alien smuggling."
There are lots of problems with illegal immigration for sure, and like I said, I'm against amnesty because it's very unfair to legal immigrants. I completely agree with Mwalimu about the difficulties of legal immigration (my father is also a legal immigrant to the US). And I'm not sure how I feel about the guestworker programs being advocated by Bush (and others). I don't have enough information on exactly how they would work.
But yeah, I think illegal immigration is a big problem in lots of places, I just think the definitions in this bill of "alien smuggling" are too broad. I don't have strong feelings either way about making illegal presence in the US a felony. Using public services is a major problem, but I don't think you should make US citizens afraid to help people. Hiding immigrants, transporting them, etc, these are problems, but there should be exceptions for charities providing humanitarian aid. Proponents of the bill say charities weren't meant to be the target, but the fact is they could be prosecuted under the law as it is written.
I agree that one way to combat illegal immigration is to reduce the perceived need for it in places like Mexico, but that is going to be a long road. There is already a big problem that has to be dealt with somehow, and it's hard to say what the best way is. Like I said, I don't know much about the guestworker proposals, but my gut feeling is that these don't work so well (looking at Germany, for example).
I think immigration reform in general is most definitely necessary for national security, but I'm pretty sure that fruit pickers in southern California aren't who I'm worried about. Making illegal presence a felony would probably help with quite a few real dangers, and of course we should be taking a hard look at whoever gets let in (and make sure the only people who get in are allowed in). I have no problem with deportation, but if someone is here, and he's hungry, it's asking a lot to say that no one can feed him. The religious groups speaking out against the law are only speaking against this one provision. I don't see what the problem is with that, they have a mission to serve people and they don't want to screen the people they're serving. The only way to make sure no one is illegal is to ask everyone for papers, why isn't this too much to ask of charities serving the poor?
Ms. Underestimated calls this "Immigration pornography". I also refer to it as the "condom syndrome". That is, "They're going to do it anyway, at least give them protection."
Democrats oppose the immigration legislation because they need the votes. This is the same reason they're trying to pass a bill to allow ex-felons to get their voting rights back! How pathetic are the Democrats! And illegals are taking a lesson from the Dems playbook; they're imitating Democrat behavior by flaunting their illegality and demanding it be sanctioned. Yes, illegals have learned from the masters.
People misunderstand Christianity, and especially Christ himself. He never came to abolish law for love and peace. Civil and moral law is an invention of God himself. We are instructed as Christians to obey the law and submit to civil authority. There is no way around this.
Jesus said, "You are my disciples if you do what I COMMAND you." in John 15. Everyone wants to overlook the OBEDIENCE part and jump right into the "Don't judge" and "Love, Love, Love!" part. That is ignorant.
Jesus also said, interestingly enough, when Judas, who was the treasurer of the disciples, rebuked Christ for allowing a woman to anoint his feet with expensive perfume, "She has annointed my feet for burial. The poor you will always have with you, but I will not always be here."
If we leave social interpretation of Christianity up to individuals, even clergy, there will be trouble. How many ministers support gay unions and abortion? Does that mean its Jesus' position as well? Absolutely not. We really need to stay away from using misinformed clergy to support our political stances.
You don't have to look far to see that Jesus had "issues" about people misrepresnting him. I'm thinking specifically about the clearing of the Temple where Jesus whipped people, flipped over tables and in short made quite a mess of the place becuase he was angry that people made his father's house a 'den of theives'. Jesus doesn't seem to take lightly the abuse of God's agenda, as it was with the temple.
I didn't see anything in the bill that prohibited religious services such as the sacraments or food. The closest I saw was:
SEC. 205. MANDATORY SENTENCING RANGES FOR PERSONS AIDING OR ASSISTING CERTAIN REENTERING ALIENS.
`(b)(1) Any person who knowingly aids or assists any alien violating section 276(b) to reenter the United States, or who connives or conspires with any person or persons to allow, procure, or permit any such alien to reenter the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for a term imposed under paragraph (2), or both.
`(2) The term of imprisonment imposed under paragraph (1) shall be within the range to which the reentering alien is subject under section 276(b).'.
What there to disagree with? Seems totally reasonable.
You are completely right about Jesus.
Also, I think you missed her point on the good samaritan story. Her point was that the Bible teaches to help thoes who need it.
How can I say God doesn't agree with Hillary? I'm just using examples from the Bible, which Hillary CLEARLY is unfamiliar with. When people say, "Judge not, lest ye be judged", they are committing the error of exegesis, coupled with their unfamiliarity of what Jesus said and in what context. I'm just pointing out the obvious.
That's part of the point -- the bill does sound good. None of it sounds like an outright bad idea. But the part I'm concerned with is Section 274:
"(C) assists, encourages, directs, or induces a person to reside in or remain in the United States, or to attempt to reside in or remain in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien who lacks lawful authority to reside in or remain in the United States;"
This part sounds good too, at first, until you think about the vagueness of "assisting" someone to "remain" in the place they already live. What does that entail? Like I said earlier, I don't think charities were a purposeful target, but I think the language is vague enough that they could become a target for a prosecutor.
Of course this is all moot now because the Senate is not going to pass this bill, but Meg is right about what Hillary meant. She wasn't talking about letting in the good Samaritan or not, she was talking about criminalizing the actions associated with the good Samaritan. She wasn't talking about letting people in at all, actually, she was talking about what to do with the ones who are already here. Admittedly, every quote I've read has been completely inarticulate, but that's definitely the way she was using the analogy.
Check out this photo from Timmer's site:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3261/667/1600/We_NEED_a_fence.jpg
Pretty sickening.
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2006/3/24/its-the-demography-stupid.html
1) Did God call you and tell you that he was a Republican?Most
2) Mexicans are Christians!!!
3) You fail to see how giving people jobs and healthcare is helping them?