Arizona Immigration Bill

[HisChildForever]

I enjoy coming to my own conclusions and formulating my own opinions. The Bishops can have theirs, I am keeping mine. Using Bishops as a crutch for one's argument is just not my style.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='02 May 2010 - 07:02 PM' timestamp='1272844929' post='2103832']
To untwist your rather charged question... Why do people still believe in the rule of just law? Because we are not archaists, which is an heresy according to the Church. As is typical with debates with you, you twist and mix unjust law with just laws.
[/quote]

I believe in the rule of God, and I believe in the possibility of just laws. I think State politicians are not the ones to be legislating them. There is no such thing as an unjust law. An unjust law is a contradiction in terms. Justice is required in order for there to be a law to begin with.

Anarchism is called a heresy, as you always say, etc. Then you trot out a lot of peripheral documentation that really doesn't address the nature of voluntaryism. Do you charge that it is a heresy against the Catholic faith, or against morality?

~Sternhauser

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='03 May 2010 - 04:55 PM' timestamp='1272920149' post='2104336']
I believe in the rule of God, and I believe in the possibility of just laws. I think State politicians are not the ones to be legislating them. There is no such thing as an unjust law. An unjust law is a contradiction in terms. Justice is required in order for there to be a law to begin with.

Anarchism is called a heresy, as you always say, etc. Then you trot out a lot of peripheral documentation that really doesn't address the nature of voluntaryism. Do you charge that it is a heresy against the Catholic faith, or against morality?

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Voluntaryism is just a daughter of Anarchism, and since it's pointless to have any debate with you dealing with the rights of States I shall not bother you further.

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='03 May 2010 - 05:33 PM' timestamp='1272918811' post='2104300']
I enjoy coming to my own conclusions and formulating my own opinions. The Bishops can have theirs, I am keeping mine. Using Bishops as a crutch for one's argument is just not my style.
[/quote]


If you want to follow that logic, then that should apply to all prudential judgments (which political issues are)

Including when it comes to determining which politicians are "pro-life" and thus deserving of a Catholic person's vote.

[KnightofChrist]

During the most recent marches by the Pro-Illegal immigration advocates they attacked Anti-Illegal immigration advocates, and caused 100,000 dollars worth of damage. Oh boy I wonder what would have happened if that happened at one of the "racist" tea party marches! It's also funny that anything that goes against Liberal Doctrine is labeled racist today.

Edited May 3, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='03 May 2010 - 05:15 PM' timestamp='1272921347' post='2104373']
If you want to follow that logic, then that should apply to all prudential judgments (which political issues are)

Including when it comes to determining which politicians are "pro-life" and thus deserving of a Catholic person's vote.
[/quote]

Analogy fail, there can be no difference of opinion on the Church's teaching against abortion. But if a Bishop or layperson wants to make believe that an open border is sane then they can have that opinion.