Everyone
knows that the Catholic Church teaches that wealthy nations ought to welcome
immigrants. It is less well known that
she also teaches that a nation may put conditions on immigration, that it need
not take in all those who want to enter it, and that those it does allow in
must follow the law. In
an
article at UnHerd, I spell out
this neglected side of Catholic teaching.
Defenders and critics of Trump administration policy alike can appeal to
moral premises from the Church’s tradition.
These migrants, legal and illegal, are mostly scabs crossing the de facto picket line of American workers, doing the jobs "americans won't do."
ReplyDeleteIf so, that's admirable of them. Crossing a picket line, de facto or otherwise, is one of the most praiseworthy things a man can do.
DeleteI would think taking the side of greedy globalist corporations in a pay dispute would be less than praiseworthy.
DeleteThe vice of greed is not limited to the wealthy. In facr, its sheer meanness is often proportional to how hard-done by the sinner fancies himself. And despite all the people who like to throw around the word "globalist" in some pejorative sense, they seldom seem clear on why.
DeleteIt's because they destroy local businesses and influence government policies to benefit that business model. "Sheer meanness" sounds retarded. Instead think of the ice-cold industrial scale greed of globalists.
DeleteAny local business that does well enough tends to become "globalist" in time: you're simply objecting to success as such. And since you didn't seem to understand my use of "meanness," I meant it in the sense of pettiness, of small-souled spite against anything/anyone that one looks bad compared to (and of which anyone railing against "scabs" is the perfect example).
DeleteCrossing a picket line, de facto or otherwise, is one of the most praiseworthy things a man can do.
DeleteSo, it simply doesn't matter why there's a picket line? It doesn't matter if the line is picketing a real and grave injustice or a made-up fluffy "issue"? It doesn't matter if management is imposing unjust working conditions and offering unjust pay, or if it's the workers who are demanding unjust benefits?
No. It doesn't matter. Unless a country's laws allow for forced labor, nobody is in a position to "impose" any sort of working conditions, pay, or benefits upon anybody else. And if nobody can cross such a line without risking harm, then the line itself is inherently unjust.
DeleteGlobalist corporations are in a position to impose upon citizens wrt working conditions and pay and they buy politicians and government agencies with their vast wealth in order to reinforce that power and to subvert the best interests of employees. But you think its immoral for employees to negotiate with government backing wrt preventing illegal scabs? Are you a boomer?
DeleteNext generation down, Anon. Last I checked, nobody has any working conditions "imposed" upon him. And every employee negotiates with his boss; it's called the "hiring process." And yes, it's immoral to forbid another man from working for whatever he's willing to work for. If you're not willing to work for that, that's a you problem.
DeleteUnless a country's laws allow for forced labor, nobody is in a position to "impose" any sort of working conditions, pay, or benefits upon anybody else.
DeleteWell, OK, i guess you simply reject what popes from Pius XI to Paul Vi to JPII to Benedict to Francis said, i.e. that employers can do things that have the effect of imposing unjust working conditions, pay, etc. The fact that in a supposedly "free" system, the worker can decline to work for that employer does not make him truly free, if he cannot find some other employer who is offering work under just conditions. I.E. the typical condition of factory work in the 1890s, for example.
And if nobody can cross such a line without risking harm, then the line itself is inherently unjust.
Well, sure. I assumed that. Picket lines are not lawful and not moral if they threaten physical harm to those crossing, that's obvious. Given that premise, crossing a picket line to help an unjust employer continue to be unjust to employees would be unjust, obviously, even if it's legal.
Alright well I guess if youre a true believer in the goodness of greedy global corporations whose entire business model is using dirt cheap labor in foreign countries to destroy local businesses and buy politicians and incentive migration of people will to work for dirt cheap wages in the US and then claim Americans don't want to work, you might be genx. Its not just boomers anymore.
DeleteCertainly the the former Christian West is being overwhelmed in many places by migrants who are unlikely to integrate in the Christian worldview. But not all migrants fall into this category. The MAGA campaign (including some famous Catholics) has lied continuously in describing "illegal" immigration into the US as composed of rapists and drug traffickers, when the United States contains a home-grown, non-Hispanic minority that accounts for most of its worst crime.
ReplyDeleteEurope, Canada and Australia have indeed long been the recipients of a mass immigration that is pagan and Islamic (Spain, Portugal and Italy not to such a degree, however). The crisis in those areas is palpable.
The United States, on the other hand, has received a large immigration (both regular and irregular) that is largely drawn from Catholic, Hispanic countries. The United States itself is not a monoculture, but a bi-lingual country like Canada; the border between the Hispanic world and English-speaking Protestant culture has never been the Mexican border. To describe Hispanic migrants as unassimilable if they continue to live as New Mexico's Hispanics have since 1848 is illogical.
To be conducted properly and sincerely, the Catholic debate on immigration in the United States needs firstly to distinguish Hispanic immigration from the pagan and Islamic migration affecting the West generally. Secondly, it needs to wean itself off the old WASP dislike of everything Hispanic, or else make out a "Catholic" case for such an attitude.
The MAGA campaign (including some famous Catholics) has lied continuously in describing "illegal" immigration into the US as composed of rapists and drug traffickers,
DeleteTrump and his cronies lie plenty, but they haven't claimed that the illegal mass is composed of rapists and drug traffickers - not all 10M of them! Though the huge mass of them helps disguise the traffickers and rapists (and other criminals), to be sure.
It reached "crisis" levels in England over 15 years ago, it's well past that now. It's probably close to crisis levels in Italy if not already there. Even Sweden and other northern places are having severe problems.
The United States, on the other hand, has received a large immigration (both regular and irregular) that is largely drawn from Catholic, Hispanic countries. The United States itself is not a monoculture, but a bi-lingual country like Canada;
This is complete balderdash. The US was monoculturally English-speaking as recently as 1970: That's not to say that every person present spoke English: my own grandparents (legal immigrants) weren't proficient in English, though they spoke it. Most immigrants wanted to learn English and become inculturated into American ways, and most did so: there were few holdouts and they were relatively isolated. It is the explosion of illegal immigration in recent decades that threatens to change that.
To be conducted properly and sincerely, the Catholic debate on immigration in the United States needs firstly to distinguish Hispanic immigration from the pagan and Islamic migration affecting the West generally. Secondly, it needs to wean itself off the old WASP dislike of everything Hispanic, or else make out a "Catholic" case for such an attitude.
You're full of it. To be conducted properly and fairly, the debate needs to have the common good the center of the debate, and how rule of law is central to THAT. Then we can talk about things like whether Hispanic and nominally-Catholic illegal immigrants who flout the laws are a greater drain on the good than non-Catholic legal immigrants who actually practice their non-Catholic faith, and add in when / how Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, and atheist legal or illegal immigrants are a greater detriment to the common good than other groups.
The data shows that just over 3/4 of Mexicans (in Mexico) self-identify as Catholic, but a lower 60% of Hispanic immigrants do, and a much lower % of second generation Hispanics do; fewer still actually go to church. Manifestly, leaving a Hispanic country and migrating to the US is producing a diminishing Catholic practice in their own numbers, and is unlikely to be generating any catholicization of the US. In my town, 70% Hispanic, less than 20% go to church. Looks like migrating to the US is damaging their spiritual lives.
What use is an immigrant demographic that despite identifying itself as catholic has a higher rate of criminality and disproportionately votes for leftists who will promote immoral policies? They should live the religion in the first place. Catholicism for Latin Americans means nothing in practice.
DeleteI have good reason to think that there are many conservatives like me: I would rather have a dirt-ridden blue-collar Catholic Mexican legal immigrant living next door than a snotty, woke-left atheist Anglo, high-society and Ph.D holding legal immigrant. At the same time, I would rather have a not-practicing but sincerely seeking legal Hindu immigrant next door (for whom I would have a plausible chance of helping in conversion) than a nominally Catholic Peruvian illegal immigrant who sneers at American systems and sneers at actually practicing Catholics (and those of every other religion) as fools, while working under the table as a plumber and sending money home. It ain't the race, and it ain't the color, and it ain't their culture alone: it's whether they respect and seek to fit in with American values, and part of those values are Christian. And one of those Christian values is obeying law.
DeleteAnoymouse.
DeleteIt's unlikely you would recognise a non-practicing Hispanic if it bit you on the arse.
If they don't go to church, they are not practicing. It's quite simple and direct.
DeleteYour article in Ordo references Pacem et Terris , in which the Pope said that health care is a basic human right. Some conservatives then like Bill Buckley and now like George Weigel shamefully took issue with that statement.
ReplyDeleteHealth care IS a basic human right - the same way food is. Everyone should be free to buy the food he needs with his money.
DeleteLike food, health care is not in infinite supply, and it is necessarily an economic product generated by human input and work, and therefore it is naturally subject to rules that reflect supply and demand. Like food, health care should not be handed out by the government as if it were primarily the government's job to supply it. It is not a good that rests first and primarily in the government's hands, like enforcement of free speech is.
The liberals in the West want to interpret JPII to be saying that health care is a human right in the same sense that free speech is a human right. It's not, it's a human right the way food is.
Healthcare is a negative right. No one should get in the way of you getting it. Just like how marriage is a negative right.
Delete"The liberals in the West want to interpret JPII to be saying". Pacem et Terris was not written by JP2. Educate yourself about Pope John XX111 and about healthcare.
DeleteThere may to "two sides to the immigration debate," but the Republican position is not one of them. It's no good to say "abusus non tollit usum" when—from the point of view of Trump and his supporters—the so-called "abuse" is the system working exactly as intended. Trump's hyper-aggressive deportation policy is intended to terrorize illegal immigrants into leaving the country for fear that they could be arrested and deported at any moment. It's also pandering to his supporters' visceral hatred of "illegals" and their belief that all or most of them are dangerous criminals who need to be publicly punished. I don't think anybody objects to actual criminals being treated as criminals (that is, through due process). But this is obviously a circus intended to send a message, not a good-faith attempt to rigorously uphold common-sense policies that protect the common good.
ReplyDeleteReally, claiming that there are two legitimate sides is a sneaky attempt to reset the debate by adopting a disengenous posture of moderation while trying to smuggle in all the assumptions that undergird the hardline position. I mean, what do all those cherry-picked papal quotations add up to, anyways? An acknowledgment that national borders exist, and that states should stop people from crossing them illegally if that can? An assertion that ethnic minorities should be, in some sense, integrated into the national whole? Again, who denies this? But I notice you didn't quote the line in JPII's speech about illegal immigration where he says that illegal immigrants should be given a lawful path to permanent residence, and affirming a right for families to be reunited (what are the two sides on *that* issue, I wonder?). Instead, you do your darndest to bend Catholic teaching to accomodate Republican ideology, when you should obviously be doing the reverse.
Oh, it's rather rich for the United States to claim that Latino immigrants are a potential threat to its "national indentity" after forcefully and unjustly annexing California, New Mexico, Texas, etc. in the 1840s. You can't build an empire and then turn around and complain that there are too many Spanish-speaking non-white Catholics in it. That ship has sailed. The rhetoric is no different than that which once attempted to exclude (again, mostly Catholic) Irish and Italian immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. "They're taking our jobs, they don't understand our values, they don't speak our language." Same old circus, different ringmaster.
"They're taking our jobs, they don't understand our values, they don't speak our language."
DeletePretty much the same reasons every nation gives for limiting immigration. It's Biblical.
Good reply
Delete@bmiller
Delete"It's Biblical."
There is absolutely nothing in the Bible about limiting immigration, much less anything about doing so for reasons of language, values, or economics, as you well know. The closest you can find is the requirement that foreigners in ancient Israel conform to the bare minimum of the Law (i.e. not eating blood or carrion, not working on the Sabbath) and follow the same requirements for ritual cleanliness if they voluntarily take part in the worship of YHWH. Otherwise, the Bible includes lots of reminders not to oppress the immigrant or foreigner (Exodus 22:21, Exodus 23:9, Leviticus 19:10, Leviticus 19:34, Deuteronomy 24:17, Jeremiah 7:6) and to give them equal protections and penalties under the law (Numbers 15:15-16, Numbers 15:29, Deuteronomy 1:16).
You don't have to think unrestricted immigration is okay. Most people don't. But the Bible is not a manual for upholding the political and economic integrity of a modern nation-state. Ancient Israelites seem not to have cared much about who came in and out of their lands, except to the extent that they didn't bring down YHWH's wrath by ritually contaminating the community. But since America isn't an Iron Age theocracy in a covenant relationship with God, even that's not a valid concern. Give everyone equal access to justice, do not oppress immigrants and foreigners. That's your "Biblical" immigration policy.
Shaggy,
DeleteI prefer St Thomas' Biblical interpretation and his distinction among travelers, resident aliens and those that want to become citizens. You've lumped them all together:
https://undergroundthomist.org/thomas-aquinas-on-immigration
It's fair to point out that most nations today are not a Theocracy as was ancient Israel, but it is true that modern nations have immigration laws in order to preserve their national heritage and culture. Doing so does not amount to "oppressing" immigrants and foreigners nor does it deny them "equal access" to justice.
An assertion that ethnic minorities should be, in some sense, integrated into the national whole? Again, who denies this?
DeleteThe woke left, who actively despise traditional American values.
There is absolutely nothing in the Bible about limiting immigration, much less anything about doing so for reasons of language, values, or economics, as you well know.
Total BS. Even a casual perusal of the historical books shows the opposite: God and his prophets constantly told the Israelites not to permit foreigners to worship idols in Israel, not to marry foreigners, and when they foolishly had married foreigners, not let their worship of false gods (i.e. foreign values) infect them (as happened to King Solomon). Exodus, Leviticus, Judges, Nehemiah, and Jeremiah have examples. The places where the Bible told the Israelites not to oppress the foreigner did not extend to letting the foreigners practice false religion in Israel. That's because these foreign values were antithetical to Israel's values. A people's obligations to be hospitable to others doesn't require them to allow visitors to bring down their own society.
"Trump's hyper-aggressive deportation policy is intended to terrorize illegal immigrants into leaving the country for fear that they could be arrested and deported at any moment."
DeleteThey shouldn't be in the US in the first place. And if it is terror to make the dishonest fear that consequences are coming for their actions, may them be stricken with terror.
In summary: Only a moron, utterly lacking in common sense or prudence, would fail to acknowledge that immigration (not to mention its correlate: emigration) has pros and cons; that there is zero reason for thinking of it as categorically good or as to be promoted unconditionally. Moreover, the official teaching of the Church is not, and certainly it has not always been, moronic and devoid of common sense in respect to this issue. (OTOH, much of the Church's recent official teaching on the matter is gravely and scandalously stupid.)
ReplyDeleteDr.Feser acknowledges the "excesses" in Trump's handling of the immigration issue. Well, that is a good first step.
ReplyDelete"The economic needs of its own citizens are among the considerations a government may weigh when determining how many immigrants to let in. In a 1996 address, Pope St. John Paul II affirmed that “illegal immigration should be prevented” and that “the supply of foreign labor is becoming excessive in comparison to the needs of the economy, which already has difficulty in absorbing its domestic workers.”
ReplyDeleteThis would be a legitimate point to bring up if Trump was being advised by an anti-immigration liberals like Michael Lind instead of the Heritage Foundation, and was supporting other policies meant to strengthen the bargaining position of US workers, like the supporting union organizing and labor rights, rather than doing the precise opposite of this. Trump is governing in a economically libertarian fashion apart from his trade and immigration policies. In every other area he wants workers to have less bargaining power. A consistent libertarian would be pro-immigration (as was GOP policy until Trump came along) and a consistent advocate of worker bargaining power would govern very differently than Trump has. Economic concerns do not seem to be driving Trump's anti-immigration push and if they are they do not seem to have any consistent logic.
Trump seems to mostly be motivated by racism, as reflecting in the increasing mainstreaming of formerly fringe alt-right beliefs. The Trump admin is full people who believe in the hereditarian racial theories of Richard Lynn and J. Phillipe Rushton, holding that darker-skinned Hispanics and Blacks tend to be mentally feeble and prone to criminal behavior, and that only Whites and certain Asian groups can support advanced civilizations. Many of Trump's most powerful backers, namely Musk, Theil, and Andreessen, likely hold to some version of these beliefs. The other GOP donors don't want to oppose immigration or embrace racism but feel that doing so is the only way to appeal to their increasingly working-class base. Trump is paying the donors back with free-market policies elsewhere, so they are going along with it. There are legitimate non-racist reasons to want to limit immigration, but the growth of a sizable racist contingent within the Trump admin means that they should not get the benefit of the doubt. The church's default position should be to protect vulnerable people being attacked by a bigoted government. If a Democratic president was cracking down on immigration at the urging of labor unions and the NAACP in order to preserve working class wages it would be a different story.
If a Democratic president was cracking down on immigration at the urging of labor unions and the NAACP in order to preserve working class wages it would be a different story.
DeleteThe Dems had their chance, and took it to do things even more detrimental to America as a whole (which includes its immigrants) than Trump's policies. And to enact policies even more contrary to Catholic teaching. Sure, rolling back the decades to a much softer liberal Dem policy like that of the 1970's might be nice, but it's also a pie-in-the-sky idea that can't be made to happen in this climate.
This would run as more believable if only it didn't read as a series of Dem talking points. The Trump administration has blacks, Hispanics and other races in very high office, e.g. Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Kash Patel, etc. Trump himself is probably not racist in the traditional sense. Even if he listens to racists some of the time, he also listens to others who are not, on these hot-button issues.
Deleteand was supporting other policies meant to strengthen the bargaining position of US workers, like the supporting union organizing and labor rights, rather than doing the precise opposite of this.
Trump has been forthright about this: his policy is to promote the ECONOMY, not "workers" as such. When you have a minimum wage law, promoting the economy includes going after workers AND companies who operate below the minimum wage, as that illegal activity sends invalidating economic signals overall. Trump has been going after such employers. He's not SOLELY promoting business owners at workers' expense.
Labor unions, while they do at times perform necessary checks on business owners, they (and the laws that give them fangs) are poorly adapted to modern realities, and labor unions are often a significant portion of the reason the economy runs badly. We need good defense of workers, but unions don't do a great job of it, and they do other stuff that's detrimental. Not surprising that Trump (or any president) would not think that catering to unions is the best way to promote the economic health of the country.
Why examine the actual rationale for, or the actual underlying principles governing the evaluation of, any given policy, when you can just speculate about the evil motivations of the evil man who is responsible for those policies and the evil people who support him?
ReplyDeleteYou're speaking gibberish. So, we're supposed to care about the "actual rationale for... any given policy," but somehow the motives and character of the politician who enacted the law are irrelevant to that fact? This is classic pro-Trump special pleading. "Evaluate the policies, not the man," as though elected officials are just policy-generating AIs trained on their party's platform instead of actual human beings with motives and characters that inform their decisions.
DeleteThe motives are important, but they need to be based on actual evidence and not opposition talking points (which are pretty much never reflective of actual motive) or speculation like claiming the Trump administration is full of people who "likely" hold some asserted belief as a motivation.
DeleteSince in this case the opposition is the left, can you name a single example of a Democrat or progressive accurately framing a conservative or right-wing belief in the same way the conservative would frame it? I sure can't. And given there is no tangible reason to trust progressives over conservatives, I tend to believe conservatives when conservatives explain why conservatives feel the way conservatives do, and it is overwhelmingly not the simple bigotry into which the left tries to boil it down.
So yes, what is the non-racist motivation for opposing illegal immigration? If someone can't answer that, then he or she has some self-education sorely needed before casually claiming racism out of lazy ignorance.
@Thurible Huh? It's in fact very easy to have a distaste for a politician and understand the rationale behind certain policies they advance. I guess you overlook the various evils supported by the left because you like their politicians. It's more likely that you don't consider those evils actually evil. I wouldn't normally make assumptions like this but what's good for the goose...
DeleteMy, what an angry little man.
DeleteToD: I suspect your (feigned?) outrage at my gibberish is mainly a function of your morally corrupt character. And by your corrupt and hypocritical standard (cf. V83's correct observation), that would be sufficient response, and sufficient reason to reject your view, even if your comments were in fact sound by some objective standard of evaluation. (Your comments are in fact so stupid, and indicative of moral corruption, that it probably *is* a waste of time trying to explain why, since you likely lack the requisite intellectual and moral virtues to understand such an explanation. Make sense? Or just more gibberish, in your view?)
Delete@Kevin
DeleteTrump's motives are not a matter of mere speculation. That man is 79 years old and says (or tweets) everything that pops into his head. Republicans only think liberals (and conservative anti-Trumpers) are engaging in wild flights of fancy when they ascribe evil motives to Trump because they either filter out or conveniently forget all the crazy or wicked things he's said and done over the years. Moreover, it takes a special kind of credulity to accept the rationales offered by politicians for any policy at face value. Plenty of Trump's actions (like pardoning the Jan 6. rioters, or wasting tens of millions of taxpayer dollars on a mediocre birthday parade) are self-evidently motivated by corruption or sheer egotism, and it would be credulous to assume (given how openly he advertises his vices) that he suddenly becomes serious and thoughtful when it comes to making policy. If you wanna buy that bridge in Brooklyn, be my guest, but don't complain that no one else wants in.
As for why I don't take the professed motives of American conservatives that seriously... well, look at the policies and politicians they favor. They claim to support marriage and the family, but they're opposed to social safety nets and raising the minimum wage. They claim to believe in "Christian values," but somehow the only thing they've taken away from the Bible is that God is against gay marriage and abortion (and two correct propositions does not a Christian ethic make). They claim to believe in "Truth" and yet vote for and frequently defend an inveterate bullshitter (and those are Dr. Feser's words, not the slanders of some "leftist"). They claim to oppose an overweening Executive... until they get the presidency, and then it's politicized appointments and executive orders all 'round. I could go on. Really, Republican policy for the past few decades has amounted to little more than "socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor" and increasingly "lawlessness for us, law and order for our enemies." Growing up in an evangelical family, I was told that "moral relativism" was one of the great evils of the age. I happen to agree. And I see a lot of moral relativism within the American Right, especially among people who claim to believe in absolute Truth.
@V83
I like that I only had to go one comment down to find proof for my case that American conservatives are neck-deep in moral relativism. Thanks for that.
@David McPike
DeleteI assume that was meant as a "parody" of my views on Trump (either that or you're mentally deranged.) Unfortunately, it does't work. Trump has tens of thousands of tweets, hundreds of executive orders, and has spent thousands of hours in the public eye. He's also written a few books, starred on his own reality TV show, and been president of the United States a few times. I, on the other hand, have left maybe a few dozen comments on this blog, and you clearly haven't seen most of them since you think I'm some kind of liberal (go find the one where I describe pro-choice activists as the moral equivalent of the SS; it's one of my favorite). You have very slim epistemological ground for your conclusion that I have a "morally corrupt character," whereas I have ample evidence for drawing that conclusion about a man who's been in the public eye his entire life.
Again, assuming partisan politicans hasn't reduced you to an unreasoning beast. You never can tell on the Internet.
Character and motives....Hmmmmm...one might intuit a small man. In stature as well as security. Angry, but also sad. Shortcomings in many areas being compensated for in others. Unhappy life generally. Lashes out at those whose reasoning ability he finds suspect, proposes to enlighten but mixed motives include a disproportionate disposition to disparage and minimize the characters of those with whom he disagrees...frightened that he may be mistaken, that his entire worldview collapses under the weight of its own self-righteousness? Perhaps he's been misled? What to do then...double down? Indeed. Don't worry, we got it. Humility foreign, a virtue of the weak. I mean, we all tend to go to websites whose views we abhor, attempt to enlighten the foolish, those without insight or moral rectitude. Yeh, we all do that. Because most of us have lives that are empty, devoid of value...We want very much to belong, to be seen as important and as possessing wisdom, wisdom that is crucial. That's what we do. We aim to prove that we're not educated fools, not at all, but that our education _means_ something. It's to seek out injustice and rectify it. That's our life's purpose. To see to the progress of humanity. Because we drive it, us. We seek out those who, though they may be unaware, need our wisdom. Require it. We give it to them, whether they want it or not. We do so angrily. Because our anger, or emotive force, it suffices for the merits of ... well, anything else.
DeleteWhat must a life be like? It's truly hard to imagine. Outside of a Cormac McCarthy novel.
@Thurible Indeed. As are American progressives. The fact that the conservative side of the aisle is the only one you profess disdain for is the point. One thing Dr. Feser does regularly, as I'm sure you've noticed, is criticize the American right. Something I've never seen you willing to do as it pertains to the American left. You're as blinded by your political tastes as those MAGA conservatives you imagine you're better than. As many of the progressives I converse with openly embrace relativism and adore situation ethics, maybe you can find a some of them to attempt to play the role of gadfly.
Delete@Thurible
DeleteSo, "Moreover, it takes a special kind of credulity to accept the rationales offered by politicians for any policy at face value.", but yet also "That man is 79 years old and says (or tweets) everything that pops into his head."?
That indicates the problem with your further claims: they depend on assumption that you have good judgement etc.
For example, let's look at "well, look at the policies and politicians they favor. They claim to support marriage and the family, but they're opposed to social safety nets and raising the minimum wage.". Let's note that there is no trivially detectable contradiction between supporting marriage and the family and being opposed to social safety net (it is not literally "supporting marriage" and "opposing marriage"). Nor have you offered an actual argument to show that there is a contradiction that is harder to see. Thus everything depends on your judgement (in many cases that includes the judgement on what is or is not "wicked", because of which the talk about you having "morally corrupt character" is not irrelevant).
For that matter, there are many people who make a contrary judgements, thus you also need a premise that you are "better" (smarter, more honest etc.) than those other people.
And no, we are not going to grant it to you for free. If you want that premise (and all your claims fall without it, unless you support them by arguments), do prove that you are better than other people.
And it is going to be a challenge, given how you left a pretty clear contradiction (Trump always says what he thinks, yet somehow we must not believe what he says about his motives) and made no effort to harmonise those claims. Not the sign of uncommonly great judgement, I'm afraid.
But feel free to try.
@Anonymous
DeleteI'm just gonna file your personal attacks and attempted psychoanalysis from behind the veil of complete anonymity as yet another exhibit in the lax moral standards Trump followers apply to themselves and their own. And I'll tell you what people used to say to the trolls back when Dr. Feser mainly wrote attacks on the New Atheists: Log in or shut up.
@V83
"The fact that the conservative side of the aisle is the only one you profess disdain for is the point."
Precisely because *in this context,* that's the side that's being advocated for and defended. But because you've been huffing the drug of partisan politics, you assume anyone who thinks the American Right is full of sellouts, moral relativists, and pseudo-Christians must be enamored with the Democratic Party and love its policies and politicians. As it happens, I'm don't. I'm hard on Christians because I am a Christian, and I'm sick of seeing the worship of Mammon and Moloch being baptized under the name "Christianity." That, to me, is a far greater moral emergency than whatever "the Left" is up to this week. The American Church has compromised with evil and, as always happens when one compromises with evil, it has forgotten that it ever made a compromise. "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"
@MP
Delete"Let's note that there is no trivially detectable contradiction between supporting marriage and the family and being opposed to social safety net."
There is absolutely no mystery here if you don't have a prior commitment to laissez-faire economics. Families and marriages require economic resources to sustain them. Parents need well-paying jobs to provide for their children. This isn't come esoteric lefty idea; it happens to be the official teaching of the Catholic Church: "In order to protect this relationship between family and work, an element that must be appreciated and safeguarded is that of a family wage, a wage sufficient to maintain a family and allow it to live decently... " (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 250). The same document defines the common good as "the provision of essential services to all, some of which are at the same time human rights: food, housing, work, education and access to culture, transportation, basic health care..." (180). If anything, a social safety net may be too mild for the radicalism of Catholic teaching on the universal destination of goods and the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity.
@All
I've noticed a consistent trend in responses to what I've said: accusations that I think I'm arguing for my personal moral superiority over Trump supporters, or that I'm making vicious attacks on the characters of other participants. But to describe someone's ideas or positions as incoherent or inconsistent with their other professed values is none of those things. Or rather, it's only a personal attack if you've somehow bound up your identity with your support for Donald Trump and his policies, and thus see my attacks on him (go read Dr. Feser's "Trump: A Buyer's Guide" if you think I'm being unfair) as attacks on you. Nothing that I'm saying would have seemed particularly exotic two or three decades ago, even among Republicans. Bill Clinton was impeached for a matter of character (he got a blowjob and lied about it) in 1998; John McCain released a book called "Character Is Destiny" in 2005. I may think conservatives have failed to consistently apply their Christian convictions to their politics, but the real problem is the moral commissurotomy they've undergone as part of their support for a man of wicked morals in the name of the greater good. Think back to the you of 15 or 20 years ago. Did you really think the personal character of politicians didn't matter? Do you really believe that now? Republicans in my state are having a fit over the fact that Democratic candidate for attorney general was revealed to have sent some texts fantasizing about doing violence to his political opponents and their families. Trump has called on him to drop out of the race, because his personal failings have disqualified him from the dignity required for political office. And you know what? I think he's right. The candidate should drop out of the race. But then again, notice the selective application of the principle here. Jay Jones is morally corrupt, so he can't be attorney general. Donald Trump, on the other hand... well, his policies are good, so we'll make an exception, just like we always do for him.
Moral relativism at its finest.
(My wife says I'm not allowed to participate in this online argument any further. I'll see you all next time.)
They claim to believe in "Truth" and yet vote for and frequently defend an inveterate bullshitter (and those are Dr. Feser's words, not the slanders of some "leftist").
DeleteWell, when it's that or vote for someone whose standard position is either lying or flat out wrong and too dumb to know everyone else around her is lying to her? I'll take the guy who is only wrong half the time over the woman who's wrong every time.
They claim to oppose an overweening Executive... until they get the presidency, and then it's politicized appointments and executive orders all 'round.
Again, it's not that they preferred to get an overweening president over one who who would not abuse his power: the choice was a president likely to abuse his power some of the time, and sometimes for good goals, or a president likely to abuse her power much more of the time and always for bad goals. Add in that the Congress and the Judiciary have also exceeded their bounds via leftism, a overweening president who might pull them up short, back to their proper roles, at least arguably is an evil of a lesser variety.
Thurible, it's a pity that your wife has made such a decision at this moment, but maybe you'll still read it, so, I'd like to offer you some praise: you did offer something like an argument. Not a good argument, but an argument nonetheless. Yay!
DeleteOf course, the argument is not good, but now we can look at its steps and see where it fails:
1. "Families and marriages require economic resources to sustain them." (premise)
2. Pro-family policy has to include all that families and marriages require. (premise)
3. The Great Thurible of Darkness has judged that the social safety net is needed in order to get resources. (premise)
4. Whatever The Great Thurible of Darkness has judged to be true is true. (premise)
5. The social safety net is needed in order to get resources. (from 3 and 4)
6. Families and marriages require social safety net. (from 1 and 5)
7. Pro-family policy requires social safety net. (from 2 and 6)
When we put it like this, it is obvious that the weak part is the premise 4: we have no reason to see your judgement as reliable (in fact, I doubt you have a reason to see it as reliable either).
"I've noticed a consistent trend in responses to what I've said: accusations that I think I'm arguing for my personal moral superiority over Trump supporters, or that I'm making vicious attacks on the characters of other participants." - as you can see, the arguments you make keep relying on the premise that your judgement is reliable, and judgement of your opponents is not. It is not a premise you state explicitly, but you rely on it anyway.
As for "the real problem is the moral commissurotomy they've undergone as part of their support for a man of wicked morals in the name of the greater good", you are wrong in several ways.
First, Trump is not as wicked, as you (and people on your side) think. This is true in several ways. It is probable that some of the vices you think he has are simply not vices (for example, here one post says "Trump seems to mostly be motivated by racism", and I suspect that many of things its author would include in this "racism" are going to be objectively fine; likewise many of things commonly described as "hate" by your side are objectively fine). And then Trump also has some rather uncommon virtues. For example, you wrote "That man is 79 years old and says (or tweets) everything that pops into his head.", and yes, that indicates that he has some sort of honesty. Strange honesty, but honesty nonetheless. Not a common virtue for a politician.
Second, as others have pointed out, we have to choose from the candidates we have and not from the candidates we wish we had.
Third, our opponents like to use "weaponised empathy", shaming (including shaming for vices that are not really vices, or are very minor). And, while being a saint would be a better counter to this, saints rarely offer themselves as candidates, and sometimes being shameless in some way is also a relatively good counter.
For example, a saint would have been able to respond to the pictures of crying illegal immigrants being deported in the right way: showing sympathy but keeping the policy. Trump responded by mocking them and keeping the policy. This is not ideal, but I guess it is better than the common response of supposed "decent men" who would overreact and cancel the deportations.
Thurible, I just love the way you rile up people here. Keep it going.
DeleteAnonymousOctober 27, 2025 at 5:17 PM
DeleteI think I know who are by the way you write. Why are going anonymous now? As for me, well, I have been anonymous for many years.
https://www.goerie.com/story/opinion/columns/2025/01/30/us-needs-immigrants-legal-pathways-citizenship-deportation-trump-populations-jobs-business-asylum/77995504007/
ReplyDeleteWhatever evil Republicans commit, there is a Christian intellectual there to twist and turn scripture and apologetics to justify. May the meek inherit the earth one day so a just, and non-white supremacist,non- racist Christianity can actually flourish. Every one of these people practice the religion better than its unfortunate intellectual center.
ReplyDeleteI am from Santa Fe and my family was here long before the united States existed. I resent the claim that Hispanic migrants and their children need to adopt English instead of Spanish or assimilate into any other culture. It's impossible to understand why so many Anglo-American Christians hate Hispanic culture. We go to Church more, have larger families and keep our traditions better than they do. They should be happy. Why should we do what the Irish and Italians did and disappear? They are just an ancestry group or choice of cuisine now. The migrant raids only achieve bitterness. With only 250 thousand deported in a year, they just stir up bitterness. The Hispanic population's natural increase is about 700 thousand each year, the same amount as the annual non-Hispanic whites' natural decrease. It's about time the United States accepted us. In New Mexico, after almost 200 years of efforts to make us disappear, we are now the majority.
ReplyDeleteIt's impossible to understand why so many Anglo-American Christians hate Hispanic culture.
DeleteI have not encountered a wide-spread Anglo-American hatred of Hispanic culture as such. At least, when you limit the meaning of "Hispanic culture" to those aspects of Hispanic culture that can readily survive and even thrive within certain aspects of a larger American ethos consisting in such matters as rule of law, governance by consent of the people, checks and balances, subsidiarity and distribution of power between federal and state, and American enterprise self-engaged to solve local problems, etc. Not so much, if the Hispanic culture is taken to include openly accepted corruption and graft of officials, top-down authoritarianism, etc.
We go to Church more, have larger families and keep our traditions better than they do.
Maybe. As noted above, I see a similar rate of 2nd generation Hispanics not going to Church as among other Catholics in the US. Let me ask a question, derived from my brother who spent 20 years living in Latin American countries: he found their attention to time-measured-by-the-clock nearly non-existent: "in the morning" was the closest he could get for appointment "times". Do you in New Mexico follow this cultural standard, or do you follow clocks more like the rest of the US? It's a small thing, unimportant in itself. But I suspect that what you actually enjoy in your New Mexico a beneficial blend of typically American and typically Hispanic cultural details, blended to best adapt to a mixed society.
In New Mexico, after almost 200 years of efforts to make us disappear, we are now the majority.
When you do local politics, is it mostly in Spanish? OK. Now, when it comes to electing representatives to Congress, is it still mostly in Spanish, and are you prepared to elect a representative who cannot readily and fully understand - and make themselves understood - in English? Because participation in the national debates - and getting the full range of information with all the nuances and details - requires grasping the English language in which most of the debate takes place. If your fellow Hispanics are unable to unable to participate in that debate on an equal basis in English, their participation will suffer. That's what I see among those Hispanics around me who are not fluent in English. I don't want them frozen out of FULL participation by lack of understanding the language in which the national debate takes place, for which reason I want to see them fully fluent in English. And for that reason I resist the attitude of some who don't think learning English is part of being American (and I say the same about those from other parts of the globe coming here, too).
"The migrant raids only achieve bitterness. With only 250 thousand deported in a year, they just stir up bitterness. The Hispanic population's natural increase is about 700 thousand each year, the same amount as the annual non-Hispanic whites' natural decrease." - so, you all but declare that in the "conflict" between illegal immigrants and "Anglo-American Christians" you are on the side of illegal immigrants, and say that "It's impossible to understand" why they do not like you?
DeleteSee, usually people do not like their enemies or people that they consider to be their enemies. If you position yourself as a probable enemy, then they won't like you.
Who knows, maybe if, instead, you would talk about "Anglo-American Christians" as about your actual or potential friends and allies, as the people that you like, things might work out differently.
The migrant raids only achieve bitterness. With only 250 thousand deported in a year, they just stir up bitterness.
DeleteIt's up to 400k now, and it hasn't been a year. And he stopped the illegal inflow. Plus there are about 1.6M that have migrated away on their own steam.
I don't know why you are bitter about the migration of 1.6M people who chose to leave one place and migrate to another place. Isn't Church teaching all about supporting the migrants? Why can't you be supportive of them when they migrate to Mexico or points south?
I run into Hispanics who support sending the illegal immigrants back (and this includes those from other places, like Asia, as well as Hispanics). They aren't bitter. Perhaps the illegals deported are bitter, as are criminals in prison.
Juan, I agree with you, but Dr Feser and some of his followers believe we need to preserve our "cultural identity." Well, white folks stopped having large families, but Hispanic Americans do, so the USA of 1960 is gone forever. They need to get used to that. And nothing Trump is doing with deporting migrants is going to change that.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous:
DeleteWhat color are "Hispanic Americans"?
@Anonymous:
Delete"So the USA of 1960 is gone forever".
The "USA of 1960" was filled with useless hippies who were low on higiene, drug addicts and unproductive f***ers.
No one misses those losers (who were mostly white), nor that period.
Being white doesn't mean being "valuable". In fact, it has been mostly whities who have actively helped in destroying the societies that nurtured them.
Well said, Juan! For a long time now, those most in favour of a secular United States in the 1776 tradition have been watching the growth of the Hispanic percentage (now over 23%) with anger. You're so right to say that the ICE raids are only for show as, on average, Trump and arch-secularist Hispanic hater S. Miller (such a big Christian, that one) have only deported less than 30,000 a month since January, less than Biden. Some clowns have claimed that millions of 'illegals" have run away, but that's based on a labour market survey which they obviously don't feel like participating in. All the raids will do is embitter more Hispanics. We all know about the many who voted Trump and are now angry about it.
DeleteWoke cult, you have an unfortunate sense of irony. Hispanics are not a race. About two thirds of their "gene pool" in the U.S. is European, and this varies in cases and groups, as you know.
DeleteUsually brown. And that's the justification ICE gave to the Supreme Court for questioning migrants and the court agreed.
DeleteGood article. This really is just common sense, though.
ReplyDelete