Here's an idea: The GOP House and Senate will pass the "Land Of The Free Act", ostensibly to prevent foreigners and terrorists from having access to our ERs and things, by forcibly deporting all migrant Mexicans, no matter what. We'll trot out Boehner and McConnell to talk about how important it is. Smart, good people will say that it's going to be harmful, expensive, and at best, like dropping a nuclear bomb on an hill of fire-ants. The supporters will say, "Don't you care about keeping us safe?!" and Boehner will say,--after we've nearly forced it through both chambers at record speed--"We have to pass the bill to see what's in it." Also, a chemical tagging system we will use to track our targets, paid for by a new compulsory fee, has the unintended effect of killing spotted owls and other waterfowl. Numerous environmental, religious, and community groups protest, objecting to being compelled to participate. Boehner figures, "Well, there aren't that many people in those groups; who cares?" There will be a new system for tracking legal residents, too. Critics say that it will lump all immigrants together, and possibly be the end of immigration itself. In response, the president says memorably, "If you like your green card, you can keep your green card." However, the INS determines that the new costs make working with the old cards and honoring them unsustainable. Millions of legal residents are mistakenly deported, also. Leaders promise that it will work out eventually, and that everyone will love the law by then. Oh, and they botch the waiver system set up for groups whose mission it is to protect the birds. Most people realize it's not broad enough, and the government is sued on First Amendment grounds all over the place. The supporters shame the vast array of critics by repeatedly pointing out that the law was duly passed by Congress, and signed by the president. Besides, this is a huge problem, right? DON'T YOU CARE about freeloaders and killers destroying the lives of Americans?! Well, of course, say the critics, but this is draconian. If this scenario makes sense to you, and makes you angry, you'll have some idea about the opposition to the Affordable Care Act. But it's worse, because we're not killing waterfowl; we're killing people. I wouldn't kill birds, either. But I know I wouldn't force Greenpeace to help me do it, either.
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con
Comments