Lou Dobbs spoke with one of the religiously insane last nite on his show

[donsu]

he was a Catholic bishop? who was trying to sell the Pope's stand on illegal immigrants. the Pope is on the side of the illegals.

this bishop spoke garble at Lou and threw charms at him.

a gold star for Lou who knew garble when he heard it and he deflected all charms and kept trying to get the bishop back on the subject of the border.

since Lou is doing more truth telling lately, wonder if they hired scummy Glen Beck to replace him?

[MADem]

1. That must have been an exercise in extreme personal angst!

Lou is a DEVOUT Catholic and member of Opus Dei. Remember when he left CNN awhile back? He quit because someone up the food chain was making fun of him and his religiosity. If I remember correctly, he sued, they settled, and he came back to work.

[ret5hd]

13. Opus Dei...now THERE'S some religious insanity (nt)

[NanceGreggs]

2. If the pope is 'on the side' of the illegals ...

... why don't we round them up and fly them to Vatican City to live?

[rodeodance]

4. The Catholic priest was advocation for a humanitarian immigration

policy--NOT illegal immagration. I listened to that exchange and Lou pushed with this 'illegal alians' every other sentence. The Church is NOT for illegal immigration.

[napi21]

3. Yep, Lou even asked the Bishop if the Church was prepared to

give up it's tax free status! Of course the Bishop dodged that one by saying it is nothing new that the Church voices it's opinion on all matters.

Then Lou asked him why he wasn't complaining about the terrible treatment the people of Mexico receive from THEIR Gov't! The Bishop said there are reps of the church in Mexico who are doing just that!

[ret5hd]

5. being on the side of the downtrodden is now religiously insane???

wow...my idea of religiosly insane has more to do with misogyny, ani-choice, creationism, the "rapture", etc etc etc.

whatever your views on immigrants, legal or otherwise, i would hardly think this position jumps into the realm of religious insanity.
Get real.

[donsu]

6. well, you should listen to the interview cause the bishop kept going

off track spouting religious homilies and avoided making solid statements.

[ret5hd]

9. hmmm...after reading the transcript, would have to say...

that dobbs came across as a browbeating o'reilly clone, never "interviewing" (in the sense of questioning to gain understanding), but rather simply arguing.

it is difficult to say without hearing vocal inflections, but from a straight reading of the transcript, it is apparant that the jesuit priest (not bishop, as you claimed) is approaching the question from a religious (surprise surprise) "all men are our brothers, feed and clothe the hungry, all souls are equal before the lord" point of view (which is historically typical of the jesuits, proponents of "liberation theology" in the third world) while dobbs, rather than questioning to discover any hidden nuances to the priests doctrine, decides simply to berate him.

yeah, after re-reading it a second and third time (just to be sure), i'm sticking dobbs in the "oreilly group" of commentators.

[donsu]

10. if you will note I put a question mark beside the first time I typed

bishop because I wasn't sure.

[ret5hd]

11. well, that response certainly beat me down.

[donsu]

7. let me clarify: Lou was asking if the tax exempt status of the Catholic

church should be stopped if the church was going to chime in on the politics of the border.

[Capn Sunshine]

8. I always wondered where rights fit in on this subject

Does a people who preceed the formation of the United States who have continuously occupied a geographical area for 400 years, do they have any rights to the free movement within that area that they practiced before there was a United States law?

It's kind of a giant real estate law question: persons "A" occupy an area . Persons "B" move into the middle of that area and puts a gate on the road that Persons "A" have used for free movement within the area since before Persons "B" arrived. Further, persons "B" says no one from the group known as persons "A" may use the gate except under very limited times and circumstances subject to the discretion of Persons "B".

Who's correct in this question?

[ieoeja]

12. Law versus Force

A few centuries back the Scottish decided to sit down and decide which clans owned which territories. Most clans simply filed claims to the lands they had occupied for at least several decades and that was that. Some tried claiming others lands. Disputes were settled via the courts or warfare until the issue was finally settled.

With one notable exception: the MacGregor clan. The MacGregors weren't the least bit interested in what some piece of paper said. Their land was their land because they had taken it at some indeterminate time in the past and held it against all comers by "right of arms". This left the way open for other clans to lay claim to MacGregor property which, not unsurprisingly, many did. After several decades the now well established law moved in to evict the MacGregors. The MacGregor clan defeated the combined forces of Scotland in the only pitched battle of this action. But they lost too much of their manpower to field another army, while the rest of Scotland was able to field a second, larger army in short time.

The MacGregor clan lost their lands forever.

So the answer to your question is, "if your scenario occurs before the establishment of law, then the correct person is whoever can beat the crap out of the other; if after, then it depends on what the law says."