Dan refutes Ben

[Doctor Steuss]

Just adding my opinion (which is worth as much as the keystrokes it took to tickity-tack it out).

I think preaching Christ's message -- especially to those in power -- is inherently political.  In some ways, it's designed to be.  The role of God's messengers has almost always been to remind the powerful, prideful, or sinful, of humanity and deity.

Espousing His Beatitudes, or other aspects of His Gospel that have been preached for millennia will be inherently political because they will always run contrary to at least some political movements (and at times, all political movements and ideologies).  If Christ's message was in line with human nature, it wouldn't be needed.  Preaching to a golden calf will inherently cause discomfort, and a drive for boundary maintenance.


(Truth in advertising disclaimer, for those who don't know me:  I'm an agnostic, but find Christ to be one of the world's most important ethical and moral teachers.  So, this isn't coming from a "believer" for those that put weight in such things when it comes to opinions.)

[Benjamin McGuire]

5 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

As much as I agree with Bishop Budde that I should have compassion on "the stranger that is within [my] gates," I think it's a fair question to ask whether she has sufficient compassion for Lakin Riley, Rachel Morin, Jocelyn Nungaray, and so on and so forth.

And what on earth would make you think that she wouldn't?

[Kenngo1969]

21 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And what on earth would make you think that she wouldn't?

She could have said so in her sermon, but, Alas!, she didn't.

[Doctor Steuss]

7 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

She could have said so in her sermon, but, Alas!, she didn't.

She also didn't express compassion for Christopher Tapp or Elizabeth Wilhoite.  I don't think we can imply from that failure that she has no empathy for people who are murdered by politicians.

Edited January 29, 2025 by Doctor Steuss

[Rain]

20 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The other fun thing is that we are dealing with the gap between locutionary and illocutionary acts. That is a technical way of saying that what we say and what we do when saying something can be different. I don't think that there is anything wrong with discussion about the illocutionary aspects of the speech. It does seem to me that there is a bit of mind reading going on when people are arguing about what someone intended to do through what they are saying. My part in this discussion has largely been about the locutionary part of it - what is actually being said

The challenge with Shapiro's comments is that they function at both levels. He goes after the illocutionary act (labels it a political argument and attributes intention and motivation to the speaker). But he also goes after the locutionary act by suggesting that this cannot be a Christian message. It is interesting to see the different comments here and how they reflect this split. Do those who want to see this as mostly a political act (who are focused on the illocutionary act) - do they view the message as a Christian message? I personally think that it's impossible not to see this as a political act of some sort (the context requires it) - but I also think that there is a lot of room there for a range of intentions on the part of the speaker.

I am more interested in the question of the range of beliefs on the message itself and not the intention or act that comes with that message. There is less of a need to engage in mind reading there. The actual message of the speech - the locutionary act - was it wrong?

I have thought much on this through the last few days while reading the thread though in much more basic language. I've talked about it before, but it goes right along with John Lund's content communication and giving hints.  Clear communication isn't being done if we are giving hints that are not evident by our language and hearing hints that were not there.  We cannot know if she was doing this for political points or because God told her to do it or any other reason because she didn't tell us. 

So the message. I feel the message was good.

You ask if the message is wrong though. That's where you will get a variation of thoughts I think, because some people feel the message was good, but wrong because of the time and place and that's where intent usually comes in because whether it was the right time and place somewhat depends on the intent. 

Another place people can look at it as to whether it was "wrong" or not: I can tell you at one time that I would have struggled saying similar types of messages to my children.  Not because the message was wrong or right, but because I felt that if I expressed love or mercy it meant that I was condoning actions. I had a real problem as a parent with this and I think some other people do as well.  Back then similar messages would have felt wrong , even if I could logically see they were right and good.

[Senator]

34 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

I think preaching Christ's message -- especially to those in power -- is inherently political.  In some ways, it's designed to be.  The role of God's messengers has almost always been to remind the powerful, prideful, or sinful, of humanity and deity.

 

Yes, and the King of Judea simply chuckled at the rumor of the birth of a rising King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.....

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

As much as I agree with Bishop Budde that I should have compassion on "the stranger that is within [my] gates," I think it's a fair question to ask whether she has sufficient compassion for Lakin Riley, Rachel Morin, Jocelyn Nungaray, and so on and so forth, along with their families and friends.

 

37 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

She could have said so in her sermon, but, Alas!, she didn't.

What proportion of immigrants to the U.S., even ones who are here illegally, do you think are murderers and rapists?

[Benjamin McGuire]

37 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

She could have said so in her sermon, but, Alas!, she didn't.

She did not mention anyone by name. The fact that you think this would have been appropriate is problematic on its own. There is a funny thing about homicides committed by undocumented individuals - they represent a tiny fraction of homicides. Because we are in this politicized environment they become the focus of certain narratives - but the reality is that homicide rates by undocumented individuals are far below homicide rates by American citizens (by comparison, only 29 homicides in 2023, in the US, out of the total 19,252 total homicides in the US were committed by undocumented persons. So again, this brings up the question of why you would even think that she should mention it. And this tells us an awful lot about your comments and your intentions, and nothing at all about the bishop.

[longview]

2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

She could have said so in her sermon, but, Alas!, she didn't.

There is this "Damned if you DO" and "Damned if you DON'T" aspect. Budde is damning Trump for prioritizing upholding the LAWS that are actually on the books for controlling the borders which Biden surreptitiously and forcefully suppressed for the last 4 years. We already have a process for LEGAL immigration which is orderly and compassionate that carefully avoids dumping masses on urban centers. In sanctuary cities, legal citizens and veterans that are on welfare or receiving some form of aid have been denied their support. Funding for normal government programs have been seriously disrupted by diversion to the "Huddled Masses."

Budde fully understands the consequences of soft-pedalling (or bypassing) the vetting process. Even for suspected terrorists originating from the Middle East. And convicts and gang-bangers that have been released wholesale from South American prisons. Did Budde choose to avert her eyes from the large scale human trafficking racket? Has she any concerns about the overwhelming deluge of fentanyl being pushed through by the Mexican Cartels?

Budde could have been charitable to Trump by acknowledging the sufferings of migrants being sold into sexual slavery, of children being sent unaccompanied into the wilderness, of some people being forced to be drug-carrying mules, and on and on. But no, she chose to agitate for the "hard-line radicals" and making herself very one-sided. What she did was unfair and antagonistic. Very inappropriate in a prayer meeting. Too bad Dan McClellan chose to NOT consider BOTH sides of the issue.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

As much as I agree with Bishop Budde that I should have compassion on "the stranger that is within [my] gates," I think it's a fair question to ask whether she has sufficient compassion for Lakin Riley, Rachel Morin, Jocelyn Nungaray, and so on and so forth, along with their families and friends.

Are these victims and their families at risk from the executive orders currently being issued?

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, longview said:

We already have a process for LEGAL immigration which is orderly

This is very debatable…

[Kenngo1969]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are these victims and their families at risk from the executive orders currently being issued?

Are people at risk simply because it is demanded that they immigrate to the United States legally?

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, longview said:

Budde fully understands the consequences of soft-pedalling (or bypassing) the vetting process. Even for suspected terrorists originating from the Middle East. And convicts and gang-bangers that have been released wholesale from South American prisons. Did Budde choose to avert her eyes from the large scale human trafficking racket? Has she any concerns about the overwhelming deluge of fentanyl being pushed through by the Mexican Cartels?

Since Budde did not specify the actions that should be taken, but only having mercy and compassion while making choices to act, why are you assuming she is pushing to simply ignore human trafficking, etc instead of fixing such things through reformation of the immigration process?

Edited January 29, 2025 by Calm

[Doctor Steuss]

15 minutes ago, longview said:

[...] which Biden surreptitiously and forcefully suppressed for the last 4 years. [...]

CBP data is public record.  You may find the actual data for arrests, border apprehensions, and deportations for the last 4 years, compared to the previous 4 years interesting.

Edited January 29, 2025 by Doctor Steuss

[Kenngo1969]

23 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

She did not mention anyone by name. The fact that you think this would have been appropriate is problematic on its own. ...

Okay, fine: So don't mention anybody by name.  Frame the issue of crimes committed by illegals after they get here however you wish, but, at the same time, don't pretend that nobody wants to come here because our criminal justice and penal systems, as compared with those in much of the rest of the world, are remarkably lenient.  

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Are people at risk simply because it is demanded that they immigrate to the United States legally?

Are you talking about immigrants already here being forced to start again by being deported or ones who are thinking about coming to the US and deciding whether or not to do it illegally?  Or both or something else?

If the former….You don’t believe families are at risk of being separated if a parent or parents are here illegally?  Do you see that as a problem for such families?

[Kenngo1969]

42 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 

What proportion of immigrants to the U.S., even ones who are here illegally, do you think are murderers and rapists?

I don't know.  The fact of the matter is, even if I don't have proximate causation on my side, I do have "but for" causation on my side: If criminal illegal aliens who victimized those who reside here had not been allowed into the country in the first place, such victimization (at least at the hands of those criminal illegals) never would have occurred.

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't know.  The fact of the matter is, even if I don't have proximate causation on my side, I do have "but for" causation on my side: If criminal illegal aliens who victimized those who reside here had not been allowed into the country in the first place, such victimization (at least at the hands of those criminal illegals) never would have occurred.

I see. So, to hell with the hardworking otherwise good people included in your "criminal illegal aliens" group. To hell with "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." To hell with the children whose parents, having no money, sneaked into this country for better pay. To hell with them all!

Love your neighbor, or something...am I right?

[ttribe]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

Since Budde did not specify the actions that should be taken, but only having mercy and compassion while making choices to act, why are you assuming she is pushing to simply ignore human trafficking, etc instead of fixing such things through reformation of the immigration process.

Because black-and-white thinkers always argue the extremes. Nuance only comes into play when it serves their argument.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, longview said:

There is this "Damned if you DO" and "Damned if you DON'T" aspect. Budde is damning Trump for prioritizing upholding the LAWS that are actually on the books for controlling the borders which Biden surreptitiously and forcefully suppressed for the last 4 years. We already have a process for LEGAL immigration which is orderly and compassionate that carefully avoids dumping masses on urban centers. In sanctuary cities, legal citizens and veterans that are on welfare or receiving some form of aid have been denied their support. Funding for normal government programs have been seriously disrupted by diversion to the "Huddled Masses."

Budde fully understands the consequences of soft-pedalling (or bypassing) the vetting process. Even for suspected terrorists originating from the Middle East. And convicts and gang-bangers that have been released wholesale from South American prisons. Did Budde choose to avert her eyes from the large scale human trafficking racket? Has she any concerns about the overwhelming deluge of fentanyl being pushed through by the Mexican Cartels?

Budde could have been charitable to Trump by acknowledging the sufferings of migrants being sold into sexual slavery,

I told you last night I had a meeting about human trafficking.  I learned so much of human trafficking is happening to US citizens where they are often crossing state lines. Children and youth who are gay and trans who have been kicked out of the house. Teen single moms.  Other people who are vulnerable. 94% of trafficking victims are abused before being trafficked. I could ask why are you not mentioning them.  But I find it so much more important to ask what we can do to help people not be so vulnerable before they are trafficked.

A part of the equation is supply and demand. What can we do to decrease the demand?

1 hour ago, longview said:

 

of children being sent unaccompanied into the wilderness, of some people being forced to be drug-carrying mules, and on and on. But no, she chose to agitate for the "hard-line radicals" and making herself very one-sided. What she did was unfair and antagonistic. Very inappropriate in a prayer meeting. Too bad Dan McClellan chose to NOT consider BOTH sides of the issue.

 

Edited January 29, 2025 by Rain

[Benjamin McGuire]

24 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Okay, fine: So don't mention anybody by name.  Frame the issue of crimes committed by illegals after they get here however you wish, but, at the same time, don't pretend that nobody wants to come here because our criminal justice and penal systems, as compared with those in much of the rest of the world, are remarkably lenient.  

It is a matter of record that immigrants commit fewer crimes - and more particularly fewer violent crimes than American citizens. It's not a matter of framing. It is simple fact. As far as the rest of it goes - CFR that people want to come here specifically because our criminal justice system is lenient.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I see. So, to hell with the hardworking otherwise good people included in your "criminal illegal aliens" group. To hell with "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." To hell with the children whose parents, having no money, sneaked into this country for better pay. To hell with them all!

Love your neighbor, or something...am I right?

Ken did not include those who did not commit crimes with those who did in his comment as far as I can see.  I don’t think it is appropriate to assume he is rather than ask him for clarification first.  Making similar assumptions is what is leading to misunderstanding of Budde’s remarks imo, so I don’t see it as helpful to do the same when arguing in support of her comments.

Edited January 29, 2025 by Calm

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Ken did not include those who did not commit crimes with those who did in his comment as far as I can see.  I don’t think it is appropriate to assume he is rather than ask him for clarification first.  Making similar assumptions is what is leading to misunderstanding of Budde’s remarks imo, so I don’t see it as helpful to do the same when arguing in support of her comments.

I'll let him argue his case. His commentary in this thread clearly indicates, to me, an attitude that all undocumented immigrants are "criminal" and the only way to ensure one of them doesn't rape or kill a citizen is to make sure none of them were allowed into the country in the first place.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'll let him argue his case. His commentary in this thread clearly indicates, to me, an attitude that all undocumented immigrants are "criminal" and the only way to ensure one of them doesn't rape or kill a citizen is to make sure none of them were allowed into the country in the first place.

Wow, I have not gotten that impression from him at all.  He certainly hasn’t said it.

Mind reading is not that useful, imo, in actual discussion.

Ken, could you please clarify if you view all undocumented immigrants in the same category as those who commit crimes and is your desired solution to prevent as much as possible future rapes and murders by undocumented persons stopping any illegal immigration in the first place and possibly deporting those illegal immigrants who are already here?  If not, what is your desired solution to the issue of criminal illegal aliens (separating them from these who do not commit crimes that do not directly harm others…I am phrasing it this way to separate out actions that might be viewed as criminal that are tied to their illegal status).

Edited January 29, 2025 by Calm

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Wow, I have not gotten that impression from him at all.  He certainly hasn’t said it.

Mind reading is not that useful, imo, in actual discussion.

Ken could you clarify if you view all undocumented immigrants in the same category as those who commit crimes and is your desired solution to prevent as much as possible future rapes and murders by undocumented persons is to prevent any illegal immigration in the first place and possibly deport those illegal immigrants who are already here?

How do you interpret this?  " I do have "but for" causation on my side: If criminal illegal aliens who victimized those who reside here had not been allowed into the country in the first place, such victimization (at least at the hands of those criminal illegals) never would have occurred."

This entire thread is a few people arguing that Bishop Budde's use of the scriptures to ask for mercy on certain groups (including undocumented workers) constitutes a political act. Contextually, we are in the middle of warrantless raids and arrests being made by Federal Agents. We have the President of the Navajo Nation talking about harassment of his people. We have a raid which resulted in the arrest of several U.S. Citizens. We have refugees who were previously granted legal immigration being denied entry.

This administration's entire immigration platform has been about "mass deportation." It seems, to me, that Bishop Budde knows that "mass" anything results in innocents being handed the same punishment as criminals. Hence her commentary which, according to Ken, should have included mention of specific victims of murderous, raping, criminal illegals for some reason which is still a mystery.

The only "but-for causation" Ken can point to is that someone who was also a murderous rapist got into the Country illegally. Well, that same "but-for" also applies to millions of hard-working individuals and children who are guilty of NOTHING other than a violation of immigration law. If he's going to cite illegal entry as his but-for, he has to deal with all the baggage his choice in argument carries with it.