Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-tgr!jcp
From: jcp@brl-tgr.ARPA (Joe Pistritto <jcp>)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Re: It Cant Happen Here
Message-ID: <7601@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 21-Jan-85 15:03:06 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.7601
Posted: Mon Jan 21 15:03:06 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 24-Jan-85 06:35:10 EST
References: <658@ihopb.UUCP> <7474@brl-tgr.ARPA> <643@ccice5.UUCP>
Reply-To: jcp@brl-tgr.ARPA (Joe Pistritto <jcp>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 47
Xref: watmath net.politics:7094 net.religion:5338

In article <643@ccice5.UUCP> rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) writes:
>> 	Religions and their believers are not and never have been,
>> above the law.
>> 
>> 	Groups who wish immigration laws changed should write their
>> congressmen, not break the law by smuggling in people from Central
>> America (or anywhere else).  And besides, what the hell do they
>> think they're changing by smuggling in a few hundred people anyway?
>> 
>> 						-JCP-
>In reguards to your above statements:
>1.  I would assume it's been a long time since you had a history course.
>2.  Maybe a few hundred deaths?

Gee isn't it nice to see people responding to my comments by throwing
out random insults to my intelligence (its so USENET to do that...)

In response to your non-reponse to 1)
	Please show me the provisions of applicable federal law which
	exempt [any] religious organization from the requirement to
	promptly report known violations of law to authorities (you don't
	get to use priveledged relationship, may people in these churches
	OTHER than the pastor/priest/whatever are involved in this, and they
	can't have a priveledged relationship (legally speaking).  Also
	the same for immigration law.

	Whether proper authorities have ENFORCED laws against religious
	organizations is immaterial (the state always has the option of
	non-enforcement).

2) Even if EVERY ONE of the people being so sheltered were to die in
	[El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, wherever], please explain how
	that would significantly alter the situation in [Central America,
	the US, anywhere else].  I doubt all the people in question ARE
	in such danger (although some may be), and besides, in countries
	where civil wars (revolutions...), claim multiples of tens of
	thousands (50K in El Salvador?), I'm still not convinced a
	significant improvement is being made.

I strongly suspect that the entire operation is an attempt, not to engage
in a humanitarian effort, but to force the government to change its
Central America policy, which would be an unconstitutional attempt
(although not an unusual one), to influence political affairs via
religion.  [yes, I know Falwell does it all the time, that doesn't
make it right...]

						-JCP-