Debunking Cardinal O’Malley’s Position on Illegal Immigration

February 16, 2017

In the wake of President Donald Trump’s two recent Executive Orders to limit immigration from terror-associated countries, last week Cardinal Sean O’Malley sent a letter to parishes underscoring the church’s support for immigrants and refugees. The previous week, on Feb 2, he convened a private meeting of top politicians and Muslim lImage result for debunk
eaders
at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross to express solidarity with Muslims. BCI thinks it’s high time for Cardinal O’Malley to quit making emotional arguments and accept facts and reality.

He said, “Although many Americans are frustrated by a broken immigration system and others are fearful of the threat of terrorism…I believe that most people in this country recognize that we are a nation of immigrants and that we have an established history of assimilating people of different languages, religions, ethnicities into the magnificent mosaic that is America.”

We have a history of doing this–when the people want or wanted to adopt the core values of America, which was founded as a Christian nation. What should be done for immigrants whose intentions are evil?  Cardinal O’Malley implies we should just let them all in anyway.  He needs to look at the facts.

  • According to the Center for Immigration Studies, 72 terrorists have come to the U.S. from the countries covered in the Trump travel ban since 9/11.
  • In 2016, the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest released a report on individuals convicted in terror cases since 9/11. Using open sources (because the Obama administration refused to provide government records), the report found that 380 out of 580 people convicted in terror cases since 9/11 were foreign-born
  • 2,996 Americans were killed by Radical Islamists in the 9/11 attacks.
  • Since 9/11, an additional 145 Americans have been killed in 50 separate acts of deadly Islamic terror or Islam-related honor killing in the United States.  They are described in detail in this article and inventoried in this article.  Hundreds of mass murder plots have been thwarted or botched.
  • Illegal immigrants pose a danger on the roads: About 4.5 million illegal aliens in the U.S. drive on a regular basis, many without licenses or insurance or even the ability to read road signs written in English, The New York Times reported. In Arizona, 63 percent of cited drivers have no license, no insurance, and no registration for the vehicle, and 97 percent of them are illegal aliens. According to this article, of the 188,380 deportations of illegal aliens in one recent year, 23 percent had committed criminal traffic offenses, primarily driving under the influence. Rep. Steve King of Iowa has estimated that illegal alien drunk drivers kill 13 Americans every day.
  • Many immigrants entering the country illegally have a criminal record in the U.S.: In 2010, the Border Patrol reported that 212,000 illegals were caught in the Tucson, Ariz., sector alone, and as many as 30 percent of them already had a criminal record in the U.S.
  • Many illegal alien convicts have been arrested multiple times: A Government Accountability Office study of 55,000 illegal aliens found that they were arrested at least 459,614 times, averaging about eight arrests per alien. About one-quarter of them had 11 or more arrests.
  • In this recent piece by a former Muslim refugee, “Trump’s Immigration Ban Was Clumsy But He’s Right About Radical Islam” the author cites Pew research data in support of the ban.  “In a survey of Muslims who believe Sharia law should be official national law in their country, three-quarters of Pakistanis and almost half of Bangladeshis and Iraqis think that those, like me, who leave Islam should suffer the death penalty. More than 80 percent of Muslims in Pakistan and around two-thirds of Muslims in Bangladesh and Iraq regard Sharia law as the revealed word of God. Only tiny fractions would be comfortable if their daughters married Christians. Only a minority regards honor killings of women as “never justified.” More than a quarter of Bangladeshi Muslims, 13 percent of Pakistani Muslims and 7 percent of Iraqi Muslims think suicide bombings in defense of Islam are often or sometimes justified.

    People with views such as these pose a threat to us all, not because those who hold them will all turn to terrorism. Most will not. But such attitudes imply a readiness to turn a blind eye to the use of violence and intimidation tactics against, say, apostates and dissidents — and a clear aversion to the hard-won achievements of Western feminists and campaigners for minority rights. Admitting individuals with such views is not in the American national interest.

Pewsitter has written an open letter to the USCCB on Immigration with 5 questions for bishops who support illegal immigration, including the following:

  • Does the leader of a country have the right to prudentially limit immigration to that country?
  • If so, is it not Mr. Trump’s duty as President of the U.S. to make a prudential judgment as to what is an appropriate restriction? If, as Cardinal DiNardo and Archbishop Gomez have specifically noted, we must “screen vigilantly for infiltrators who would do us harm”, what about his order is problematic, and upon what moral reasoning?
  • Another frequently condemned item is the building of a wall on the southern border. An explanation of why such a wall is immoral would be helpful. The doors of our churches have locks, some of them have fences around them, and even part of the Vatican has walls. Jesus spoke of thieves coming in the night, and of the owner who would have taken precautions against housebreaking. Is the building of any wall on the border of any country morally wrong, or merely prudentially ill-advised?
  • During the latter part of the 19th century and early part of the 20th century, millions of immigrants came to the United States via Ellis Island. At this time, American immigration restrictions were very tight: immigrants were subjected to health inspections, questions about their beliefs, and their job prospects; some went before a board to answer more detailed questions, while others were held in detention, or quarantine. Would the bishops disagree with imposing such requirements on today’s immigrants?

Cardinal O’Malley, how would you respond to these questions and the factual data?  Just let everyone in because it feels good to be nice guys?


Deception at Boston Marathon Bombing Interfaith Service?

April 22, 2013

In follow-up of our last post , Cardinal O’Malley Hosting Obama at Cathedral for Interfaith Prayer Service, and the 100+ public and private email comments it generated at BCI and at this Catholic forum, BCI has been prayerfully reconsidering that last post.  Some long-time readers and BCI supporters strongly disagreed with the post, and some were in agreement.  Even with the two bombing suspects no longer at large, many people are still feeling pain.  Should we blog even once more about the interfaith service?  We thought not, but something happened there that we feel needs to be reported, and we have some open questions from last post. The possibility of national deception by one of the speakers should not be overlooked.

First, just to clarify our perspective at BCI, we said multiple times that prayers were needed and we agree 100% with readers who said in the wake of the senseless evil bombing at the Marathon, Boston needed a strong spiritual moment. We still need prayers and to pray. The interfaith service on Thursday at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross appeared to have provided a strong spiritual moment to promote healing for the victims and the city.  Many churches have celebrated Masses or prayer programs/vigils in the days following the bombing and through the weekend.  In our opinion, it is a very good thing that the Catholic Church has been involved, and remains involved, in marking this tragedy in various ways and extending love and prayer for the community.

With that said, if you want to feel good about the interfaith service, we suggest that you stop reading here.  The questions of deception and scandal come next.

As reported in the Boston Globe and other publications, one of the speakers on Thursday, Nasser Weddady, director of civil rights outreach for the American Islamic Congress, read a verse from the Koran, from Surat Al-Maida verse 32, that he said brought him comfort in the past and may bring comfort today. Here is the exact text from his talk and passage he cited: “Whoever kills a soul, it is as if he killed mankind entirely, and whoever saves a life, it is as if he saved all of mankind.”

The problem is, the Quran does not exactly say this. And what it does say instead is rather troubling when you look closely–there is an exception and justification for murder that the speaker conveniently left out.  BCI merely Googled Surah 5:32. Here is one translation:

On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.

Here is an explanation from WikiIslam:

This verse  is one of the most often-quoted verses purportedly taken from the Qur’an, thus proving the incompatibility of Islam with all forms of terrorism.

This verse has become so popular among Islam’s apologists that the President of the United States, Barack Obama, even quotes it in his speech delivered at Cairo University in June 4, 2009. Visiting the countless pro-Islamic websites, forums and blogs on the net, you are almost guaranteed to be confronted with this verse.

But try as you might, you will not find it in a Qur’an. The reason for this is quite simple: the verse in question does not exist.

What you are actually presented with by Muslims is a distorted, out-of-context paraphrasing of the following verse:

On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person – unless it be in retaliation for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew all mankind: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all humanity.  Qur’an 5:32

Analysis of Verse 5:32 from WikiIslam

Firstly, this verse is written in past tense (Ordained, not Ordain) and does not apply to Muslims but to “the Children of Israel” i.e. the Jews who, according to Islam, received an earlier set of scriptures.

Secondly, when the clause which allows killing is reinserted and we read it in context with the following two verses directed at Muslims (notice the reference to Allah’s messenger and the switch to present tense), what first appeared on the surface to be a peaceful message, is in actual fact a chilling warning to non-believers:

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
Qur’an 5:33-34

Even if one allows that WikiIslam is a site critical of Islam, a rebuttal of that criticism at the site Islamic Life is still concerning. Here is how they explain what qualifies as “mischief through the land”:

In Surah Al-Qasas Allah has said that Fir’awn made mischief in the land. He oppressed the people and made life difficult for them, and he divided them into sections and groups. One of them he harassed very much.
BCI is not expert at Islam, so we could use some help from an Islam expert. Does this appear to say, if a person or entity does not accept Islam and “makes mischief” (along the lines of the above), it is permissible in Islam for them to be murdered or have their hands and feet cut off?  The passage from the Koran was offered as a source of comfort from the pulpit at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in the aftermath of the bombing that claimed innocent lives and left people with limbs gone. A more careful study of the passage suggests that instead, the passage could be condoning or calling for violence.
How does that make you feel about the Thursday service?
Beyond that, we also learn from this report that the imam of a mosque managed by the Muslim Brotherhood-founded Muslim American Society (MAS) was initially invited to speak at Thursday’s interfaith service,  but that invitation was later rescinded by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick’s office:

The Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center’s (ISBCC) Imam Suhaib Webb, according to a series of Twitter posts, was replaced as the representative of Boston’s Muslim community at the service—whose keynote speaker was President Barack Obama—in favor of Nasser Wedaddy.Webb posted on his Twitter account Thursday, “Sorry, Muhammad Wedaddy from the American Islamic Congress will represent Boston Muslims.” Asked by another Twitter user who Wedaddy was, Webb wrote, “No idea. I was informed last night at 9pm that he was replacing me? lets focus on the service.” Webb later tweeted, “I was told the governor’s office made the call.”

MAS-affiliated Web sites “have featured articles advocating jihad and suicide martyrdom.” ADL also cites individuals involved with MAS including radical Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader and terrorism supporter Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is the chairman of Islamic American University, an MAS subsidiary in Michigan, and the Islamic Society of Boston’s founding president Abdurahman Alamoudi, who is “serving a 23-year prison sentence for illegal dealings with Libya and his involvement in a plot to assassinate Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah.”

Does the above raise enough questions?

We could stop there, but we return to a topic and questions raised in the comments on our last post: Exactly how far should Catholics go in welcoming certain individuals to speak from the pulpit in a Catholic Church, even if it is outside the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? This is an edited version of our response to comments by “Attaboy:

  • Would someone who overtly called for murder of innocent people, or was affiliated with groups who supported the murder of innocent people be permitted to speak in a Catholic Church?
  • In the 1940s, would a rabbi have been expected to welcome a figure such as Adolf Hitler into a temple, out of respect for the office of chancellor of Germany?
  • If a featured speaker on Thursday was complicit in, supportive of, or actively involved in the systematic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jews by the Nazi regime, would they be have been welcome to speak at the interfaith service at the Cathedral?
  • If a featured speaker was complicit in or supportive of the systematic dismemberment and brutal murder of 5 million young children in the past 4 years alone, would they have been allowed to speak at the interfaith service?
  • What if the person openly and proudly supported the sexual abuse of minors?
  • What if the person proudly supported the Rwandan genocide in 1994 when more than 500,000 people were killed in 100 days?
  • What is the person was driving moves that will require Catholics to act against our faith and morals, as described in this piece from CNS?

No doubt, good was done by people coming together in prayer as a community. But, specifically what sort of actions by a political leader would cause you (Attaboy), rank-and-file Catholics, or Cardinal O’Malley to conclude the person should not be a featured speaker at any Catholic Church or Catholic program? Exactly how bad must they be where we all say, “NO”?

Questions still remain for BCI with regard to the interfaith service. More importantly, we all have questions about the senseless evil of the bombing. In the absence of answers and amidst the pain of this tragedy, we pray that God bring hope and healing to all affected by the Boston Marathon bombing.


%d bloggers like this: