Nah, if the federal agents did decide to break into the church, I would say, “they were perfectly within their rights to do so, but they did an immoral thing.”
Well, the illegal immigrants are indeed rendering unto Caesar.
The only thing I am accusing you of is missing my point. But I see that we do understand each other.
So, Buttonjockey, when Martin Luther King sat down in a white-only segregated lunchroom, and got arrested for it, you cheered?
After all, he broke the law. And breaking the law is always wrong.
So if someone with AIDS or cancer smoked pot to alleviate their symptoms, you’d be in favor of tossing them in jail? They broke the law, they should pay, no matter what the circumstances?
Every kid who drank under age should go to jail?
When the law conflicts with morality, it might be prudent to obey the law, but it is not immoral to break the law. The law was made for man, not man for the law.
My first Pit post! Scary!
I think that the churches mentioned in the OP are doing their duty by opposing a law they think is immoral, and are doing so responsibly by doing it publicly, so that it makes their position . . . obvious? observable? The point being, they are engaging in a time-honored American tradition - peaceful civil disobedience. Also, trial by media, but that is less time-honored and not exclusively American.
Yes, they are engaging in and advocating support of an illegal activity. No, it is not necessarily wrong. Illegal, bad, and wrong are not always the same, just as legal, good, and right are not. They have an obligation to their own principles to advocate the change of laws they find bad or wrong to conform to what they understand as good and right.
Would the federal agents be doing an acceptable thing by entering the churches and removing the illegal immigrants? It would be legal (I’m assuming they have a warrant), and could be right and good, depending on their interpretation of the goodness and rightness of our laws on immigration.
Personally, while agreeing that illegal immigration is, in fact, illegal and so should not be done in general, and that the US should have some sort of formal entry and registration system, I think that the US’s immigration laws are excessively constraining of both US business needs and the general desire of what is obviously a whole lot of people. So, legal, right, and bad.
I have to admit, I’m kind of uncomfortable with the very idea of church sanctuary in this day and age. I just wonder what’ll happen when a church decides to give sanctuary to an abortion clinic bomber or somesuch…
Except there is no such thing as church sanctuary in this day and age. Churches have no such legal status. The only thing preventing just getting a search warrant and entering the churches is that it would be bad publicity.
The police will arrest the bomber and the rest of us Christians will shake our heads at our brothers and life will go on. The government can generally get away with heavy action on churches if it’s clearly in the public interest (look at Warren Jeff’s arrest or the mess in Waco, for pity’s sake!)
Surely you realize that this quote simply instructs Christians to pay taxes, even when their government/local ruling empire does nasty things with the money? It in no way implies that Christians can’t break laws. Actually, just being a Christian is breaking the laws of many countries, along with proselytizing.
(Not that this is relevant, but I’m a legal immigrant who in no way objects to the US government enforcing its immigration laws, though they really need to be liberalized and opened up to more immigrants. But this has to be the dumbest pitting ever.)
Sorry, should add the caveat that Jeffs is a Fundamentalist LDS, so the majority of other Christians don’t regard him as Christian at all. Actually, the Branch Davidians were pretty far out there. But, truth be told, anyone hiding an abortion clinic bomber is pretty far out there too.
Actually, anyone remember any real Christian anger at the investigations of priests for paedophilia? I certainly remember anger at the Catholic church…
This is where I start to get torn. If the feds arrested the immigrants, and did something really bad (like feed them to Trogdor or something), then I would completely agree that what they did was immoral. If they were just deported, though, I wouldn’t really see it as a moral problem.
Ok, I probably shouldn’t have used that quote. I wasn’t trying to use it in its original sense (i.e., regarding taxes).
Sorry for jumping to conclusions. I thought you were thinking something a little more sinister. 
LilShieste
Well, it can become a moral problem if they have kids (who might be American citizens by virtue of being born here) or ties to the community, or a girlfrined/boyfriend, or if they have an issue that is short of grounds for asylum but could lead to a bad situation back home.
It’s not as black-and-white as it may seem. And I prefer to err on the side of compassion for people who have less power and privilege than I do.
I know this was directed at buttonjockey308, but since I seem to share his sentiments on this matter - no, I wouldn’t have cheered.
Breaking the law is, of course, not always wrong. However, it is always illegal.
Yes, that’s a risk they need to be willing to take. Until the legislation is properly changed to accommodate this type of thing.
If they’re caught, they should be punished according to the appropriate laws.
You’re exactly right. And if people have a problem with a law, they need to not only demonstrate civil disobedience, but also work to change the law.
LilShieste
And when you consider that some of the problems in Latin America were the result of U.S. intervention, well, that just makes it even more justified.
Just remember to keep your back to the wall.
I am definitely aware of the origins of the quote, but was aiming to use it in a slightly different way (to help demonstrate the difference between immoral and illegal). That obviously flew as well as a brick with wings, though.
I concede that the moral issue isn’t always black and white (and rarely is). There are people who painstakingly completed the immigration program legally, though, just so they wouldn’t potentially force themselves into situations like you mentioned.
If we need to modify our laws to accommodate some of these situations, then we should try and do so. Until that happens, they’re going to have to live with the punishments that we currently have for our laws.
LilShieste
I was not aware the U.S. Constitution could be legislated away.
True. On the other hand, because the laws regarding immigration are so fundamentally broken, and because I do not have any sort of responsibility to enforce those laws, I have no problem at all cheering on those who are able to succesfully flaunt those laws, and encouraging those who help them do so.
What’s the constitutional issue, here?
Fair enough.
And you would agree that it is in the best interest of all parties involved to fix the broken immigration laws, right? ISTM that this particular part should be getting more focus than it’s actually getting.
LilShieste
I have to say I’m with the conservatives on this one. Even if you think our immigration laws need reform–and they almost certainly do–unless you think we should completely dismantle our borders we’re going to have some sort of rules. There are going to be people who break those rules, and those people are going to have to be deported, punished, whatever. Until Immigration laws are reformed we have to stick with the ones we have. The alternative is anarchy.
Who you callin’ conservative? 
LilShieste
Yes, and it sucks for the kids who are affected. Fugitive criminals in the U.S. also sometimes marry and raise families, and it sucks for their families when the father is finally apprehended, but that fact alone shouldn’t obviate the fact that they’ve committed a crime, or render them untouchable.
I also believe immigration law is in dire need of reform, but the answer is not to encourage ignoring the law altogether— and the attempts here to equate immigration scofflaws with civil rights or women’s suffrage activists are in extremely poor taste at best, completely disingenuous at worst.
Why?