Tancredo and Dobbs vs. Pope Benedict

In case you don’t know, I am not Catholic. I am, in fact, a Baptist. My church belongs to the Conservative Baptist Convention, which is more or less to say that we’re independent of any other congregation. The reason I’m saying this up front is because I want to drive home my point about what the Pope says, and make it clear that I’m not just backing the Pope because he’s the Pope. Depending on whose Christian history you believe, you might well find that Baptists have been defying Papal authority since well before the Reformation.

But that’s a different story for a different day.

Two anti-immigration stalwarts have decided to take on the Pope himself, and have made themselves look like complete fools in so doing.

So, let’s look at the three players. First, there’s the Pope. Pope Benedict is an intellectual theologian, and a strong advocate of right doctrine. He’s also the head of the Roman Catholic Church worldwide. I’m not sure how many people, therefore, follow him, but it’s certainly quite a good number.

Lou Dobbs is a TV anchorman who has made a bigger name for himself lately by crusading against illegal immigration.

Tom Tancredo is a Colorado Congressman who ran for President until he endorse Mitt Romney, and really ran so that he could drive immigration as an issue (which must have worked really well, since John McCain wound up with the nomination). He’s not merely anti-illegal immigration, he’s been known to wear T-shirts with the slogan “America is Full.” Tancredo, of course, was also the genius who suggested that we should bomb Mecca in the event of another terrorist attack.

Pope Benedict issued a call for the humane treatment of immigrants in the US, and encouraged his bishops to continue offering hospitality.

“I want to encourage you and your communities to continue to welcome the immigrants who join your ranks today, to share their joys and hopes, to support them in their sorrows and trials and to help them flourish in their new home.”

Tom Tancredo doesn’t like the sound of that, apparently, and accuses the Pope of just trying to recruit new Catholics –

“I suspect the pope’s immigration comments may have less to do with spreading the gospel than they do about recruiting new members of the church,” Tancredo said. “This isn’t preaching; it is faith-based marketing.”

Lou Dobbs manages to take this even farther –

“I don’t care if he listens or not, but I’m going to send him the message because I really don’t appreciate the bad manners of a guest telling me in this country and my fellow citizens what to do.”

There are several other Dobbs comments at the linked article. If you want to make sure that you lose all respect for Dobbs, check them out.

As I said, I don’t feel the need to obey the Pope, necessarily, but there are a few things about the Papacy in general and this Pope in particular that are worth mentioning — first of all, he leads the single largest Christian denomination in the world. That alone entitles him to a measure of respect. Moreover, it makes him more than “a guest,” as Dobbs derisively called him.

Dobbs also remarked:

“Here he is, I guess, in many ways insulting our country, talking about the need to be welcoming, taking up the issue of illegal immigration without any comparison to the rest of the world.”

Yeah … the Pope is talking about Christian love and charity. Who does he think he is?

Beyond that, though, let’s unpack a bit. Dobbs is accusing the Pope of insulting our country? How so? By saying that we should be welcoming? Frankly, it sounds like having a conversation. He’s stating a principle.

Dobbs, though, is resorting to the same kind of weak-kneed attempts to cut off debate that I accused the Chinese of using last week — claiming that someone is insulting the entire population. If Dobbs wants to take on the Pope, he can do so. But it’s simply dishonest for him to claim that he’s doing it on my behalf. Dobbs knows it, too. He wants to excite nationalistic fears and sentiments so that we unite against the outsider — in this case, the Pope — because he’s one of THEM, telling US what to do. The fact that he’s a man of faith who speaks on the global stage apparently doesn’t register with Lou Dobbs. The Pope is expected to express his views on spiritual and moral matters around the world. It’s his job. If Lou Dobbs doesn’t like what Pope Benedict is saying, that’s one thing … to object to him saying it is more than a little peculiar. I also have to wonder … just what kind of weaklings does Lou Dobbs think that Americans are, that we can’t take a comment from the Pope feeling so deeply and pitifully insulted?

Moving on to Rep. Tancredo, I have to look at his challenge to the Pope’s sincerity. He’s accusing the Pope of caring not for the Gospel, but just for bringing more people in to fill seats in churches.

So, getting past Tancredo’s little catchy attack, let’s look at the substance of his attack. Which sounds more like it’s based on the Gospel: A t-shirt reading “America is full” and a policy of refusing any immigration, or welcoming newcomers and inviting them to join in the national bounty?

I’m going to have to side with the Pope on this one. And I’m going to have to reverse the charge — Tom Tancredo names himself an evangelical Christian, yet he can speak with such profound ignorance of what love and grace mean that I question whether his life has anything to do with sharing the Gospel, or rather he simply uses the label “evangelical” for the purposes of faith-based marketing.

Rep. Tancredo also challenged the Pope to identify what kind of violence was being committed against immigrants. I was planning to write more about that, but Andres Oppenheimer already did it so much better than I would have.

More and more, I’m watching the Right attack faith in the US. I wrote about Tony Perkins of the Family Research Center and his derision of the Compassion Forum for asking about AIDS and global poverty. Four Republican Presidential candidates — Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain, and Rudy Giuliani — refused to attend a Values Voter Debate last year that would have allowed Christian and Jewish leaders to ask them questions. The label “Religious Left” is being thrown around at anyone who dares mention that there is more to a Christian’s life than opposing certain moral offenses and voting Republican.

I would rather be called part of the Religious Left than be part of the Secular Right.

This kind of attack on Christian values is being permitted by a Christian church that has become complacent about partisan politics and weak on its own values. The Pope is reminding people that we are called to love the stranger among us. If you want to challenge him on this point, I think that the only legitimate way to do it is going to be to pull out a Bible and attack him in his battleground, in the language in which he was speaking.

Fair warning: You’ll lose.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

11 Responses to “Tancredo and Dobbs vs. Pope Benedict”

  1. in2thefray Says:

    Tancredo and Dobbs are just using the headline potential that the Papal visit offers. Unlike many MSM outlets the Pope was actually referring to immigrants in the legal immigrant sense.This was easily foreseen by anyone who remembers the Pope was due to h/t the Latin American population of the USA.(they bing the reason for US Catholic growth) Tancredo and Dobbs do a disservice to Christians and people concerned about illegal immigration. Nice Post Wickle btw

  2. eric b Says:

    Personally, I agree with your entire post. But, I can see that toughening our borders can be a legitimate political issue. What bothers me is the hate filled language that comes from the religious right. I was a delegate at my counties Republican convention last month, and so many “Christians” spoke viciously against immigrants, even missing the irony of them calling to punish “sanctuary cities.” It amazes me that in Micah 6:8, we are called to “love mercy.” Too many Christians seem to hate mercy.

  3. wickle Says:

    Thank you both for your comments … and, Eric, I have to agree with you completely. Your reference to Micah 6:8 is right on, and I think you’re right about hating mercy. The blurring of the lines between conservative politics and conservative theology has led to some terrible things like that.

    The truth is, I don’t mind if people want to discuss the issue. That’s fine. My point with the post, though, is that telling the Pope he should shut up is, well, a bit weird.

  4. Kurt Says:

    It sure is weird. Not that I think the Pope is “unchallengeable”, but on this issue, these two geniuses are way off base.
    And that’s a fantastic point, Eric. Too many Christians seem to hate mercy.

  5. Raymond V. Banner Says:

    I am a believer in mercy (we all need it!), but I think the comments on this blog topic are leaning a little too much
    toward mercy and not enough toward law, justice and common sense in doing a much better job in protecting our borders and bringing under control the serious illegal immigration problem we have undergone in the United States.

  6. pistolpete Says:

    Very thoughtful reflection on a difficult issue. On this issue, I believe the Pope offers and sound Biblical ethic for how we as Christians are to respond to “aliens” among us.

  7. wickle Says:

    Raymond, you’re more than welcome to add something else … I happen to think that most discussion of illegal immigration goes too far toward legalism and not enough toward compassion and love. Of course, it’s worth noting that Rep. Tancredo is simply against immigration, not just illegal immigration.

  8. Raymond V. Banner Says:

    TO WICKLE & OTHERS,

    My own overall historical and philosophical view is that the greatest threat to the United States is moral/cultural decay, as reflected in such matters as legalized abortion and the deterioration of the family unit (of which the descent into homosexuality is of special significance). The historical tendency of great empires and nations is internal laxity, depravity and decline. This was true in the Old Testament history of the Jewish people, of the Roman Empire, etc.
    The out-of-control penetration of illegal immigrants is not to me the greatest problem, but it is another significant sign of our nation losing assimilaltion and internal order.

    Yes, mercy and compassion are important. To love God first and our neighbor second (as exemplified by the New Testament parable of the Good Samaritan) are the the two great commandments. But mercy and compassion without
    sufficient law, justice, order and basic standards to guard
    its boundaries become maudlin and mischief. God’s love
    and compassion must finally be balanced by God’s other attributes.

    I was among the minority of conservatives that questioned the wisdom of getting involved in wars in the middle east unless we were directly attacked by these nations, though I was and am concerned about the intentions of militant
    Muslims destroying and/or converting the west. Like Rome of old we seem, in my opinion, to be spread too thin as
    empire while rotting away within morally, culturally and politically while failing to control the illegal immigration problem.

  9. Kurt Says:

    You know, I’m sick to death of you neocons and your righteous indignation that some of the folks we stole land from want to come home. So, let’s call ‘em “illegals”, that’ll make us sound like we’re the good guys!
    Obviously, if gays can marry America will crumble before our very eyes! And abortion is only a sin if our taxes you to pay for it!
    Praise God?!?

  10. Alfie Says:

    You know, I’m sick to death of you neocons and your righteous indignation that some of the folks we stole land from want to come home. So, let’s call ‘em “illegals”, that’ll make us sound like we’re the good guys!

    First of all the problems with illegal immigration goes far beyond the people south of the Rio Grande. I understand you’re trying to make a point but it reminds me of how many play the race card against those that want the law enforced. As for the stolen land I have to laugh. The native populations that are part of the illegal and legal migration flows are not descendants of the Native American population. The American Indians are essentially the only people qualified to claim land being stolen. The previous borders from Spanish conquest were redrawn post treaty and payment. (Treaty Hidalgo,Gadsen Purchase) One way or another the land has a receipt paid in full.

  11. wickle Says:

    I’m not sure that I can back calling it part of moral decay to be in favor of a welcoming immigration policy.

    In what way, for example, would using Spanish in printing ballots, signs, etc. actually cause harm?

    Alfie has a great point about stolen land. There are many things about our history of which I’m not so proud … but I’m not on board with the idea that we stole a lot of land from Mexico. From the Seminole, Apache, Navajo, Iroquois, etc., etc., etc. …, yes. But if we’re all going to go back to ancestral lands, now, then this could be challenging.

Leave a Reply