Legislating From the Pulpit

Interfaith services were held across the country today to raise awareness of the plight of the “undocumented worker” (illegal alien in plain language). This was part of Pelosi’s ask for the religious leaders to support Obama’s initiatives. Immigration might sound on the surface like a good and proper thing for members of the religious community to support, but nothing is further from the truth for so many reasons it is hard to list them all. But I’ll try.

One, a person who has entered this country without a passport or visa is committing a crime and it does not matter why they did it. Just as we do not care why a man robbed a bank or why a man shot his neighbor, it should not matter why he or she entered this country illegally. Break the law, get punished.

Two, Nanci Pelosi—a progressive liberal and Osama Bin Bama’s left hand—approached the religious leaders of the country and asked them to support the “progressive” (Socialist in plain language) agenda. This from the liberals, who are the first to cry out for the separation of church and state. Now why is this not just ironic? Well, I’ll clue you in on a little known non-secret: the founding fathers never envisioned that the government and religion would never cross. In fact, the founding fathers established our country on Christian principals and it has been the act of every progressive, liberal administration since to undermine that philosophy and drive Christianity out of the political realm, thus distancing it from the public consciousness. Now Pelosi is asking for not just Christian leadership, but every religious leader to support the progressive (socialist) agenda—an agenda that is expressly anti-religion. It seems that they can accept religion when they can use religion to subvert the common will of the people. This is precisely why separation of church and state was written into the bill of rights. So the government does not use the pulpit to sway public opinion. “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” If congress or the president is preaching from the pulpit, it is establishing a religion of itself.

Three. If some interfaith or ecumenical agency wants to help the plight of the criminal, let them minister to them while they are in a detention facility awaiting deportation. Or even better, let them ride the bus with them back across the border. You cannot minister to a criminal in the act of committing a crime by excusing the crime.

Four. The media is covering these interfaith services and portraying those who support the criminals as being compassionate and those who support the law as being hard hearted. This is because the media has long ago thrown their full support behind the socialist agenda.

It seems that people want to throw open the borders of this land and welcome anyone who wishes to come in. That may sound laudable, but it is in fact foolhearty. We cannot absorb the masses who would want to come here. Our infrastructure would collapse under the burden of all the refugees we would encounter. Also, you have to consider the fact that if so many people refuse to refute their country of origin you have major culture clashes happening in the streets as we find in France and Great Britain. One of the requirements of citizenship in this country is to renounce citizenship in your country of origin. You have to assimilate into the American culture. No, we cannot welcome all the huddled masses without some kind of controls, such as we currently have in place.

Not everyone can get in. That is for a reason and it is a good idea. We as a nation cannot afford it.

But think about this: if we dissolve our borders and let anyone come in as Obama all but suggested in his speech with the Mexican president, then what kind of nation do we have? Our nation is in fact defined by our borders and those borders must be protected and respected. Most importantly, the government should not be using the pulpit to sway the will of the people.

Advertisements

9 Comments

Filed under Media, Politics, Religion, Society

9 responses to “Legislating From the Pulpit

  1. Mike kalish

    I’m looking through my pocket copy of the constitution, and I don’t see it in there where it says that there is a separation of church and state. What it actually says is: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” What does that actually mean? I believe that if we take what Darth Pelosi is doing in “asking” church leaders to support the ‘progressive’ agenda and with promises of “funds” is completely unconstitutional. How can you say that the founds supported the separation of Church and State when you can pull out any coin, and read “In God We Trust”? The pledge of Allegiance States “One Nation, under God, Indivisible.” The founders even mention that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. What the founders were trying to do with the first amendment, was to make sure that the Government couldn’t take control of the churches (like King George), nor could they tell you what God you could pray to. This is exactly what Darth Pelosi, Vice Chancellor Reid, and Emperor Obama are attempting to do. This is the Hallmark of Socialism. Take control of the media, take control of religion, disarm the populace, then starve them till they comply.

    Like

  2. Halee

    Here Here! I like both what you and your friend; Mike had to say.
    It also bothers me that all the people who are for letting anyone in who wants in don’t ever realize is that it is a safety issue to not know who is coming and going across our borders. Sure some people sneak across cause they want a better life… but I believe that many more are sneaking across for more nefarious purposes.

    Like

  3. Mike Kalish

    I also believe that if we want our borders secured, we need to stop relying on the Feds to do it. We have a Texas State Army, separate from the Texas national Guard. We need to raise it up to speed, then begin using it for our “defense”. I’ve looked into it, and have sent them my interest in joining. They wouldn’t have to provide me with a weapon, as I have one that will do. Another thing we can do, is to start mowing our own lawns. It’s easy to pay Jose to do it, and he does a good job on it. However, if you want to do your part in assuring that the ants stay out of the sugar bowl, you should make sure you’ve secured the lid. This starts with paying only American citizens, naturalized Aliens, or Aliens with valid green cards to mow your grass, clean your house, watch your kids. . . the list goes on. I’m sure there is a bored neighborhood kid hungry for the same pay that you give to Jose to mow your lawns. Hire a Teeny-Bopper to watch the kids this summer. Once we start securing the lid on the sugar bowl, the ant’s will seek elsewhere for their sweets. I also believe that if we were to up the fines, and punishment on people that “hire” illegal workers, then the problem will solve itself.

    Like

  4. Pingback: Open your mind « Dave's Quills & Pixels

  5. Scorpio Woperchild

    Were the interfaith services, which you readily admit were services not just in christian churches, mandated by the government? Or were the members of those congregations in freedom to choose to hold a service or not?

    The church I served on the board of directors for for six years held no such service. As they are strapped for cash, I suspect that if there were a financial incentive, they’d have at least have to have considered it. But they didn’t.

    Separation of church and state does indeed mean that the government can’t force a state religion (christian, muslim, or otherwise) on you, but to suggest that’s what this is borders on paranoia.

    Like

    • My outrage is not that the government is mandating anything, but rather that they have the gall to even ask religious leaders to support the administrations agenda; particularly after the affronts to religion the administration has already committed.
      And call me paranoid, call me a conspiracy theorist, but this could be the first step of a movement leading to a larger government presence (read control) in religion in the future.

      Like

      • Scorpio Woperchild

        Not sure which is worse, in my eyes. A stronger government presence in religion, or a stronger religious presence in government. As a staunch agnostic, both notions are worrisome to me.

        Like

      • Scorpio Woperchild

        And yes, I am both a staunch agnostic and have served on a church board. I’m a bit … complicated.

        Like

  6. Pingback: 2010 in review | Dave's Quills & Pixels

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s