Dear Archbishop Michael Sheehan of the New Mexico archdiocese:
I read that you want us to show "compassion" to "immigrants". In fact, you say: "We don't condone illegal entry, but when someone is here, we try to take care of them."
Let me try to put this in a way that you might understand. (Regular readers are invited to skip this post since you already know this, but the archbishop probably doesn't.)
Let's say you set up an ice cream stand in Afghanistan, and you gave out free ice cream to anyone who shows up. (Afghanis love ice cream!) There's just one catch: your stand is surrounded by a mine field.
Most of the people who come for the free ice cream make it, but a certain percentage don't.
Obviously, you don't want people to be blown up. But, at the same time, you're smarter than Archbishop Michael Sheehan, so you realize that you can't just build giant bridges over all the mine fields, because everyone in Afghanistan would come for the free ice cream.
Hmmmmm.... That's a bit of a head-scratcher, isn't it?
Hey! Here's an idea! Let's say you stopped giving out the free ice cream. That way, no one would get blown up trying to cross the mine field. If anyone does make it through, you send them back without free ice cream, and you make sure they tell their friends. That way, fewer and fewer will get blown up.
If you're thinking compassionately, that is your only option. Every other option might sound compassionate, but it isn't. In fact, it's easy to question whether someone is really compassionate if they support anything else. If anyone tries to claim there is some other option, then they're literally living in a fantasy world.
Plus, that will encourage the Afghanis to build up their own ice cream manufacturing infrastructure, even if they need to replace their current corrupt political system to do that.
So, Archbishop Michael Sheehan, do you want to be truly compassionate, or do you want to just look like you're being compassionate?
Wed, 02/22/2006 - 19:52 · Importance: 4