Sunday, March 26, 2006

Would Jesus feed the hungry?

On ABC’s "thisweek with George Stephanopoulos" this morning Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo derided Hillary Clinton’s knowledge of the Bible and Christianity. George Stephanopoulos asked Tancredo's reaction to this quote from Hillary Clinton talking about the bill written by Tancredo and passed by the US House of Representatives: "It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself." Rep. Tancredo, laughing while he spoke said "It does not surprise me that Hillary Clinton not only knows absolutely nothing about the Bible, but she also knows nothing about the bill that I want to introduce or what the Senate is saying about this bill." It appears from this statement that Tom Tancredo does not believe that the Bible depicts Jesus feeding and healing social and legal outcasts.

The bill would make it a crime to knowingly offer aid or assistance to illegal immigrants. Many people in this country who clothe the naked, feed the hungry, house the homeless and care for the sick are concerned that this bill would make them criminals because they are often aware that people they are assisting are illegal immigrants.

Los Angeles Roman Catholic Cardinal Roger Mahony believing that if the bill becomes law it would make illegal many of the things priests, nuns and lay workers in his diocese do as part of their Christian duty, has said that if the bill becomes law he would instruct his people to deliberately disobey the law.

Rep. Tom Tancredo does not think that his bill would make a criminal out of Christ and he accuses Hillary Clinton of knowing nothing about the Bible when she says that it would. So who do you think knows less about the Bible, Tom Tancredo or Hillary Clinton?


The Inside Dope said...

Tancredo has a long history of occupying the furthest reaches of the weirdo right and has left a trail of almost insane statements in his path.

His measure, obviously motivated by the simplistic way of thinking typical of that strain of Republican, reflects the unstated belief that immigrants should be left to die in the desert or in the back of trucks or otherwise treated as social pariahs and somehow untouchable.

While it might be more within the boundaries of rational debate to desire to prevent people from sheltering illegal immigrants routinely or sheilding them or hiding them from immigration officials, as usual, this proposal misses the mark by a wide margin and ends up being dangerously immoral and harsh while not doing a thing to address the problem it is supposedly meant to deal with.

I've seen reports of people who actively roam the desert near the border seeking out illegals to help them with blankets, water, clothing, etc. This might be specifically targeted at these folks as well.

It truly is an anti-do-gooder, or anti-Good Samaritan bill, is ill-conceived and stupid.

It's even more revolting when you realize that the mere process of moving this issue through the congress, printing costs, armies of lawyers, armies of aides, committee time, etc. etc. and even if it doesn't pass, it will likely cost at least a half a million dollars just so this moron can satisfy his rabid right base.

The Inside Dope said...

Oh yeah... Tancredo was also the guy who suggested that if their were ever a terror attack on the soil of the U.S., that we should bomb Mecca and Medina and other Muslim holy shrines.

Dave Barrett said...

What I found so infurating was the laughing way he derided Hillary Clinton for making an argument based on religious morality. His assumption was that in a dispute between a conservative and a liberal the conservative wins by default.

If these people are going to make a public show of being Christian then they should be challenged when what they do and say contradict what their religion has to say about how the poor and disadvantaged should be treated.

paladin said...

I have a few thoughts about this. 1) Can you imagine the shrieks of outrage and the cries of "theocracy" from the ACLU and others if George Bush had said what Hillary said? Hillary gets a pass because her wealthy donors in Manhattan and Beverly Hills know she is just playing the god card for political reasons. Otherwise, they'd be shrieking along with the ACLU, which wants to leach every ounce of religion out of the public sphere.(2 I'm no religious scholar, but to my recollection, Jesus didn't say "Let Caesar feed the hungry and shelter the homeless, etc." He admonished his followers to do so. But isn't that what Hillary is saying? Let the government, educate the children of illegals, clothe them, house them, hospitalize them, all on the taxpayer dollar. Let them break the law and we'll give 'em a break. If Hillary was truly morally and intellectually honest, she would say, let's repeal all the immigration laws and let everyone from everywhere come here and we'll take care of them---no questions asked---just be homeless and hungry----US taxpayers are a bottomless well of goodwill---we'll foot the bill. So, let's see if Jesus said Caesar should take care of the homeless, etc. or whether he asked his followers to feed the hungry. I'm sure you know that most liberals would rather die than see religion take over what they perceive to be the government's job of "feeding the hungry".(3 Yes, I do believe it the obligation of the people who live by Christ's tenents to help the helpless, I just don't believe the government is the best or most efficient way to do so. If you don't believe me, check out who did the most good during the Katrina hurricane----local, state and federal sources, or individuals and private corporations.(4. Look for lots of demagoguery from the left and the right on the immigration issue---it's why we can never have an honest debate in this country about ANYTHING!.

Dave Barrett said...

I think you have completely missed the point of this whole thing. No one is talking about the government providing welfare assistance to illegal immigrants. Right now illegal immigrants are not eligible for very much assistance at all from the government because most of it requires producing a Social Security card which illegal immigrants don't have. About all they can get (I happen to know this because my wife works as a volunteer for Casa Guanajuato) is LiHeap assistance for any of their children who were born in this country and possibly some one-time township emergency assistance.
Hillary Clinton was saying that if this bill becomes law then private and religious groups who provide help to the homeless like soup kitchens and rescue missions would be committing a crime. That is the whole point of the discussion and why the Catholic church is weighing in on it. No one who is complaining about this bill making what they do illegal works for the government.
Paladin, you are putting in some mighty whacks at a strawman liberal you have created. I am not aware of the ACLU ever having anything to say about politians quoting from the Bible. If they did they would be mighty busy because politicians quote from the Bible and talk about how their values and morals are rooted in their Christian faith all the time. I am not aware of anyone, other than you just now, having anything to say against it.

paladin said...

Well, it appears Our Sainted Senator Durbin has added an amendment to the House bill that exempts charitable and church organizations from criminalization when they assist immigrants. Saint Hillary Lives! May we soon see her visage on the I-74 bridge (har!har!).(Snark aside, it was always a bad idea to criminalize church/charity organizations who were assisting the "downtrodden".)