June 14, 2016

"In the comments, I'm seeing some questioning of my last sentence there — 'It sounds as though Catholics might have trouble meeting his standard."'

"But I'm interpreting Trump's words, the actual text, as spoken. He said: 'Immigration is a privilege, and we should not let anyone into this country who doesn’t support our communities – all of our communities.' That is, to earn the privilege of immigration, you must support all of our communities, including the gay community. He's not limiting his exclusion to those who believe that gay people should be killed. He's saying you need to support gay people. I'm sure many religious Christians will say that he might not mean to include those of us with a love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin approach, but I don't hear that reservation in his words. I hope he is pressed on this question, and I would love to see Trump outdo Clinton in wholehearted acceptance and love for gay people and their freedom to openly love according to their heart's desire."

I said, in another update to yesterday's post about Donald Trump's anti-terrorism speech.

ADDED: And don't think I haven't anticipated comments like: Must immigrants support the pedophilia community/the bestiality community/the polygamy community?

134 comments:

tim maguire said...

As a requirement, it's a tough standard, but it could fairly be interpreted as supporting their right to exist. A variation not on "love the sinner, hate the sin," but "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."

Ann Althouse said...

Trump has been saying that we as American are entitled to select those who will immigrate and we should choose those who share our values and who will serve the interests of those of us who are already Americans. Does that mean we will select only those who are decent enough to accept that Americans have a "right to exist"? I think he's calling for something more fundamentally supportive of the right of the individual to live in freedom and to choose as an individual how to conduct the aspects of our lives that do not infringe on the rights of other people. That's more than merely being permitted "to exist" (or to talk about what you would like to be allowed to do).

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

I cannot possibly speak for Trump, but what I think he might have been saying relates to the more general case -- if you don't support the concept that in America people are (and should be) free to do what they wish, so long as it does not harm another individual or someone's property ... we don't want you. Stay home, or go someplace else.

That's a very reasonable position, which ought also to be applied to many in government.

whswhs said...

Regarding your final question, one of these things is not like the others.

MayBee said...

What you put into the word "support" is up to you.
" I think he's calling for something more fundamentally supportive of the right of the individual to live in freedom and to choose as an individual how to conduct the aspects of our lives that do not infringe on the rights of other people. "

I'm sure you anticipated the cake baker/florist comments as well.

john marzan said...

accept means not kill or harm gays. doesnt agree withthem on everything like gay marriage

PB said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hagar said...

the right of the individual to live in freedom and to choose as an individual how to conduct the aspects of our lives that do not infringe on the rights of other people.

Strictly speaking, this is not possible. If you exist, you affect the lives of those around you - and thus also their "rights."

Basil said...

Professor, perhaps a refresher on American history might be in order. Mr. Trump is merely reflecting the standard American melting pot ideal which existed for most of our country's history until the diversity crowd of radical leftists took over many institutions.

Therefore, he means what Presidents Washington, Adams, Jefferson, through to Lincoln, Taft, TR, Ike, JFK meant. Come to America if you want to become an American. Don't come if you want America to become your country. What angers Americans more than anything else about the illegal immigrants is the incessant waving of the Mexican flag. Americans believe what they have built is better than what the Mexican government and culture have built and don't want to go backwards. Likewise, with the Sharia/Wahhabi/Shiite belief in the supremacy of Islam.

If Islam is supreme, them America, and its ideal of the sovereignty of the individual, must go away. This is what Trump objects to. Do you?

Curious George said...

"Ann Althouse said...
I think he's calling for something more fundamentally supportive of the right of the individual to live in freedom and to choose as an individual how to conduct the aspects of our lives that do not infringe on the rights of other people. That's more than merely being permitted "to exist" (or to talk about what you would like to be allowed to do)."

You know, I don't remember a single case of a Catholic couple seeking out a gay baker for a wedding cake that says "Marriage is ONLY between a man and a women." Do you?

So maybe you should change your comment to ""It sounds as though homosexuals might have trouble meeting his standard."'"

Michael K said...

I think he means that Christian cake bakers should not be driven to bankruptcy by gay extremists who do not recognize their right to be left alone. Of course, that right already belongs to Muslim cake bakers and has been proven to be the case.

PB said...

It starts with a more basic question. Do we have the right to determine who comes here?

David Begley said...

PB

We should have that right to select who comes here, but we don't. There hasn't been a vote in Congress. It drives me wild that we don't enforce current law. This country was built on LEGAL immigration; not illegal immigration.

tim maguire said...

Ann Althouse said...Does that mean we will select only those who are decent enough to accept that Americans have a "right to exist"?

That's an odd interpretation of my comment. I didn't say anything about Americans as a group, I was pretty clearly talking about communities (ex., the gay community) because that's what Trump was talking about.

I think he's calling for something more fundamentally supportive of the right of the individual to live in freedom and to choose as an individual how to conduct the aspects of our lives that do not infringe on the rights of other people.

That's a restatement of my comment. Odd that it is phrased as a refutation.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Pfft.

Althouse trolling her readers one more time.

But I guess we must enjoy it to an extent.

Curious George said...

"It sounds as though college professors might have trouble meeting his standard."

"It sounds as though BLM might have trouble meeting his standard."

"It sounds as though the MSNBC line up might have trouble meeting his standard."

""It sounds as though every American might have trouble meeting his standard."

David Begley said...

To the extent Trump has a point or strategy here, I think what he is trying to accomplish is pointing out that Hillary's support for Muslim immigration and her gun control policies will only bring grief to the gay community. IOW, Hillary's deeds don't support the gay community. There is also a complete disconnect between the gay community's support for Hillary and what might happen to them in a Clinton Administration. If some patrons at Pulse had guns, then a different outcome. The bad guys will always get guns. Gun control is completely ineffective. It just sounds good.

Unknown said...

Somewhere on the North East coast a few hundred years ago. "Hello Native Americans. We are the Pilgrim Fathers from England. We have come to live in your big beautiful land". "Welcome Pilgrim Fathers. Could we please see your passports or the right to immigrate papers first? Thank-you"

Ann Althouse said...

"Regarding your final question, one of these things is not like the others."

I know. I meant to introduce that level of difficulty.

AllenS said...

"We don't have passports, but you can have these blankets." -- Unknown

damikesc said...

It seems baffling to me that some are upset that he wants an immigration policy based on "How, exactly, do you benefit US in being here?"

I can't think of too many other countries who willingly import poverty, outside of the virtue-signaling Europeans. And even then, they will only import poor people who will rape and attack their women and children. They won't import the poor who don't do that.

What angers Americans more than anything else about the illegal immigrants is the incessant waving of the Mexican flag.

Yeah, that bugs the shit out of me. If Mexico is so damned great, go home and fix Mexico. Don't fuck up my home.

Somewhere on the North East coast a few hundred years ago. "Hello Native Americans. We are the Pilgrim Fathers from England. We have come to live in your big beautiful land". "Welcome Pilgrim Fathers. Could we please see your passports or the right to immigrate papers first? Thank-you"

If you're going to try and argue that the way the rather vicious Native Americans handled newcomers as a sound policy, you will have few takers.

pm317 said...

Trump has been saying that we as American are entitled to select those who will immigrate and we should choose those who share our values and who will serve the interests of those of us who are already Americans.

Why is this new? This is true for most countries as it always has been for the US even before Trump. Immigration is not charity though some of it comes in the form of refugees.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@Unknown

And look at how well that worked out for the Indians.

There probably isn't a square foot of land on earth other than Antarctica where some tribe of people were dispossessed by some other tribe of people. Talking about how we are all descended from immigrants is a non-sequitur.

Having taken possession of the land through force of arms (which is ultimately the basis of all land claims, I'm standing here and will defend it if you try to take it from me) the citizens of any nation have the right to decide who will be admitted to the nation.

Ann Althouse said...

Basil said... "Professor, perhaps a refresher on American history might be in order. Mr. Trump is merely reflecting the standard American melting pot ideal which existed for most of our country's history until the diversity crowd of radical leftists took over many institutions."

Well, I think he's not just saying you have to be willing to go into a melting pot. I think he's saying we will judge you at the entry point and saying we will chose the ones who already have the kind of values that will work well in our system and that will make life good or better for us Americans. He's saying immigration isn't for you outsiders who want in but for us Americans who need the good qualities and good work that some of those who want in can provide.

BDNYC said...

This is basically the Pim Fortuyn argument against immigration.

David Begley said...

The United States has no DUTY to allow any immigration. We could put it at zero tomorrow.

Important point the Left doesn't get.

tim maguire said...

damikesc said...I can't think of too many other countries who willingly import poverty, outside of the virtue-signaling Europeans. And even then, they will only import poor people who will rape and attack their women and children. They won't import the poor who don't do that.

Not even the Europeans are as generous as the United States in terms of accepting immigrants as full members of society. The Europeans are allowing their borders to be overrun, but if the past is prologue, these immigrants' grandchildren will still not be accepted.

AllenS said...

Sound immigration policy, would be to go back to the immigration policy of the 1920s.

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act

It wouldn't have to be permanent, but we need time to limit immigrants for a while.

rhhardin said...

What about the baker community and the photographer community and the pizza shop community.

Is reciprocity contemplated?

Civil inattention used to be the standard before social justice theory.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Having an immigration policy that benefits the entire country instead of a single political party would be a common sense approach. Therefore, it can't happen here.

Mark said...

Basil's melting pot concept would seem to contradict my father's experience where their family and community only decided to stop speaking German everywhere when the US entered WW2.

The prior 60 years no one thought anything of living a life spoken in German (outside of their kids schooling).

I don't see that kind of acceptance on this thread, as all these points are made forgetting all these inconvenient truths.

buwaya puti said...

Althouse is correct, the picking and choosing of immigrants is exactly what he is implying. This is reasonable. Immigration laws around the world already do this, Australias for instance. These laws are also political. Australian law under conservatives (liberals there) favor Britons, Rhodesians, white South Africans and some Asians, while labor favors other Asians and Middle Easterners.
I expect modified US laws will be tuned politically as well.

JAORE said...

We need immigrants. Lots of them. Th aging US population needs young workers based solely on demographics. But "Ya'll come" is not a very bright tactic.

Do we need auto mechanics? Yes. OK, bring in some mechanics.

Health care workers? Hell yes! Bring in a bunch.

People with antibiotic resistant TB? Uhhhh, that would be "No". Sorry, you can not come in.

Terrorist ties? Need you ask?

Gang bangers with MS-13 tats? Nope, nope, nope.

It is insane to allow the survival of the fittest travelers to dictate who arrives in this day and age. Only those with virtue signals drowning out rational thought could believe otherwise.

pm317 said...

He's saying immigration isn't for you outsiders who want in but for us Americans who need the good qualities and good work

Majority of immigration has always been skills based and based on need, other than people crossing the border, and that seems to have got worse with Obama and out of hand to some extent. I think Muslim immigration from offending countries like Saudi Arabia has also risen under Obama.

gerry said...

Althouse trolling her readers one more time.

Bingo!

Gahrie said...

Don't gay people also have a duty to " support our communities – all of our communities.", including say...Christian bakers who don't want to make wedding cakes for gay weddings?

Larry J said...

As a general rule, if you're wanting to immigrate to the US and believe:

1. That people of a different religion to yours should be killed, or
2. That people who live in ways not approved of by your religion or culture should be killed, or
3. That our laws should be changed to match your religion or culture, then

You don't belong here. If you want to live under Sharia Law, why don't you immigrate to a country like Saudi Arabia that already has it? If you want to come here to live in peace, to obey our laws, to become a productive member of society, and to build a better future for you and your family, you're welcome regardless of your religion. It's really that simple.

MayBee said...

I think he's saying we will judge you at the entry point and saying we will chose the ones who already have the kind of values that will work well in our system and that will make life good or better for us Americans. He's saying immigration isn't for you outsiders who want in but for us Americans who need the good qualities and good work that some of those who want in can provide.

So why can Catholics not meet that standard?

David Begley said...

The Dem narrative is that gays and Muslims are both oppressed minorities. Therefore they should both vote Dem.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

exiledonmainstreet said...

V the K, a gay conservative blogger wrote at another site:

I've probably attended well over a thousand church services in my adult life, across eight states, four countries, and two continents: Methodist, Baptist, Non-Denominational, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Roman Catholic, and LDS... and never have I ever, in any of them, been instructed to hate gay people or wish them harm.

Hagar said...

It now develops that the rifle used by the Orlando shooter was Sig-Sauer and no kind of an AR-15, and furthermore - to complicate Althouses's line - several people who knew him say that Mateen was gay.

So, think The NYT will now issue "The Mother of All CorrectionS"? Nah.

Steve said...

Absolutely. You must support every community. The gay community, the evangelical community...

Oh wait, maybe we need to hold off on this idea of immigration for a while.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Mark,
I strongly suspect that you are exaggerating the speed of the transition to English.

I think it more likely that some, maybe most, of those who were adults when they arrived from Germany never learned much English. Their children spoke German before English, still learned English at a very young age, although they continued to speak German quite a bit. Their children (second generation born in the US) learned German and English simultaneously, spoke German to the older (i.e. grandparents) adults when necessary, but otherwise spoke English. Third generation did not learn German in the home.

buwaya puti said...

Republicans will import their voters and Democrats will do the same. Thats a reasonable system under present tribal conditions. Both will make it clear that their classes of immigrants are being favored by the party, and they owe it loyalty. Actually, only Republicans need to get up to speed here, that is already the Democrat system. The Republicans just need a few La Raza type organizations. There is an excellent case for a Filipino one to start, this was once a solid Republican group, and could easily be again.
An interesting option is an Israeli organization. There are quite a few Israeli immigrants in the US, that may crack the Jewish block.

J. Farmer said...

It's rather difficult for an immigration official to determine with any reasonable degree of certainty what a potential immigrant actually believes. The 9/11 hijackers managed to get visas while keeping their mouths shut about the whole mass murder thing they were planning. Saying we're going to evaluated potential immigrants based on their ideology is foolish. It's quite easy to lie about your ideology. People commit immigration fraud every day by pretending, for example, to be in love with American citizens and wishing to marry and build a life with them, when they have no such intention.

buwaya puti said...

That SIG is functionally identical to an AR15, the complaint is a quibble. Its like complaining that a hit and run driver was reported driving a Ferrari instead of a Lamborghini.

David said...

Do you think Trump would support the Althouse blog community?

JAORE said...

"Basil's melting pot concept would seem to contradict my father's experience where their family and community only decided to stop speaking German everywhere when the US entered WW2....
I don't see that kind of acceptance on this thread, as all these points are made forgetting all these inconvenient truths."

The opposite of my family history. Both my paternal grandparents came from Belgium. They moved to a Belgian enclave in the Kansas City area where they met and married. To their dying days they spoke with heavy accents and struggled with some words and phrases. My father, uncle and aunts spoke almost no Flemish at all. Grandfathers rule was, "We came here to be Americans, we will speak English".

Thank you, Grandpa.

MayBee said...

It's rather difficult for an immigration official to determine with any reasonable degree of certainty what a potential immigrant actually believes.

Isn't that why Trump is proposing limiting immigration from certain countries?

It would be interesting to actually have a conversation about that. We do make it easier for people from some countries to visit that we do for others.

rhhardin said...

Camille Paglia was asked log ago why pedophiles don't have protected rights. She said no lobbiests.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

To me support for the 2nd Amendment is part of what it means to be American, traditionally (just listen to all the people who continually remind us that America is the only country where guns are so prevalent, etc)...but I'm not sure how to make a case that we should restrict immigration only to people who share that view when the domestic Left up to and including the presumptive Democratic nominee for President don't share it, now.

Anyway, it's fine, you made your point--Catholics aren't sufficiently loving (w/r/t the gay community) so even though they're not quite as bad as middle eastern Muslims they're really in the same boat, and using Trump's terms Catholics would be prohibited from legal immigration because their worldview isn't sufficiently friendly to certain American communities. Fine.

Hey, just wondering: most of those folks who illegally came here from Mexico and central & south america--what religion do they profess, again?

What have the Catholics ever done for homosexuals, anyway?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...I think he's saying we will judge you at the entry point and saying we will chose the ones who already have the kind of values that will work well in our system and that will make life good or better for us Americans.

Ok, and the evidence that Catholic believers/those who follow the Catholic faith don't "already have the kind of values that will work well in our system and will make life good or better for us Americans" is...?

J. Farmer said...

@MayBee:

"Isn't that why Trump is proposing limiting immigration from certain countries?

It would be interesting to actually have a conversation about that."


Yes, but even that does not take it far enough. As I said in an earlier post, there are plenty of radical Salafists born and raised in Western Europe, so simply limiting it by nationality will not necessarily be effective.

My solution has the benefit of being very easy to implement and being more effective: stop immigration from everywhere.

janetrae said...

I did a double-take at the Catholic comment by Ann yesterday, but decided not to comment until today when a thread was opened. That's because Catholics are both thick-skinned and forgiving.
As I parse the comments by AA above, she thinks that Catholics are NOT "fundamentally supportive of the right of the individual to live in freedom and to choose as an individual how to conduct the aspects of our lives that do not infringe on the rights of other people" and that Catholics are do NOT "have the kind of values that will work well in our system and that will make life good or better for us Americans." Wait, what? (Thought JFK had worked that kink out of political thought in this country. "But if 40 million Catholics lost their right to become president on the day that they were baptized, it is the nation as a whole that will suffer and not just those 40 million.")

I found yours a thoughtless and ill-conceived remark. But, while I may not agree with what you say and the prejudices you hold, I will defend to the death your right to say it/hold them.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

It's rather difficult for an immigration official to determine with any reasonable degree of certainty what a potential immigrant actually believes.

Especially if they come from a war torn area were the government and the rebels are both hostile to the US. So perhaps, and I'm just throwing this out there, we should maybe not bring in a bunch of people from that area into the West, especially fit males between the age of 18 and 35? Maybe?

J. Farmer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Farmer said...

@Ron Winkleheimer:

"Especially if they come from a war torn area were the government and the rebels are both hostile to the US. So perhaps, and I'm just throwing this out there, we should maybe not bring in a bunch of people from that area into the West, especially fit males between the age of 18 and 35? Maybe?"

You're pushing on an open door with me. I've been advocating a moratorium on all immigration for at least the last 10 years.

Hagar said...

That SIG is functionally identical to an AR-15, the complaint is a quibble. Its like complaining that a hit and run driver was reported driving a Ferrari instead of a Lamborghini.

Indeed. Both are also "functionally" identical to a M1 carbine or a Ruger Mini-14, etc., etc.
They just look different and "scarier" to Senator Feinstein et al.
And in .223 caliber, they are more like Miatas than Ferraris.

sean said...

Prof. Althouse has thought about the polygamy community, but not about the community of people who want to bake cakes/take photographs/make paintings etc. only for heterosexual weddings. Those communities are not welcome in her America.

Ann Althouse said...

"So why can Catholics not meet that standard?"

Do they support the gay community?

Hagar said...

Now, how about the claim that Mateen himself was gay?

J. Farmer said...

@rhhardin:

"Camille Paglia was asked log ago why pedophiles don't have protected rights. She said no lobbyists."

That kind of facile reply is typical of Paglia's output. I wonder if her interlocutor asked the obvious follow up: and why don't they have lobbyists?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I don't think we should import people who hate America.
I don't think we should raise our kids to hate America.
I don't think we should teach our kids in school to hate America.

The Left, largely, does. They'd quibble with "hate," of course, but I don't they can argue the central point. It's what's behind Mrs. Obama's "for the first time I feel proud of my country" and any one of the thousands of examples of Left academics mocking non-Left Americans for believing silly fictions about America & apple pie (being knuckle dragging flag wavers, naturally). The Left rarely misses an opportunity to insult and blame America (the racist, patriarchal, regressive, oppressive, colonial/hegemonic devil country that we are) and therefore sees nothing wrong with bringing in MILLIONS of foreigners who similarly have a low regard for America as a nation (they're happy to take advantage of our higher standard of living, free markets, good pay, etc, of course).

Your colleagues in academia, Professor, widely share a low opinion of America--their values aren't shared by the majority of the nation and I'd argue that those Left academic values don't make "life good or better for Americans." Your coworkers are more harmful to this country than foreign Catholics who want to immigrate could ever be.

Ann Althouse said...

"Prof. Althouse has thought about the polygamy community, but not about the community of people who want to bake cakes/take photographs/make paintings etc. only for heterosexual weddings."

What's your basis for knowing what I have thought about?

You could at least check to see whether the archived posts on this blog address this subject. Answer: They do. A lot. Why not check it out and then come back and say something appropriate?

Rick said...

ADDED: And don't think I haven't anticipated comments like: Must immigrants support the pedophilia community/the bestiality community/the polygamy community?

Did you also note effectively every politically interested person fails the test since they don't support their opposite "community"? And for people who aren't political do we believe this of them?

What good is a test which everyone fails? Doesn't this suggest your reading is fantastic? So why single out Catholics for failing a test everyone fails?

Clayton Hennesey said...

I believe this hinges on what the definition of "support" is?

Not kill them?

Bake them cookies?

Give them an allowance?

Let them crash on your couch?

Who adjudicates what "support" means?

Ron Winkleheimer said...

You're pushing on an open door with me. I've been advocating a moratorium on all immigration for at least the last 10 years.

Did mean to imply that you supported open borders, though looking at the post now I can see how it could be construed that way.

I too think we need an immigration pause and renewed emphasis on assimilation. As it is, from what I see online, kids today are basically being educated to despise the West in general and the US in particular. They don't seem to be getting a "warts and all" education but instead the West is all warts education.

buwaya puti said...

I certainly hope that Catholics are incompatible with much of the prevailing culture. Many are, and glory to them. If I am called, in such a case, deport me. It is a trivial sort of martyrdom.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Sorry, make that "didn't mean to imply." Moar coffee.

J. Farmer said...

@Ron WInkleheimer:

Sorry, make that "didn't mean to imply." Moar coffee."

Or even more coffee. Don't sweat it. I don't think I've ever posted a comment on this site that didn't have at least one typo. I'm way too lazy for proofreading blog comments.

Anglelyne said...

AA: Well, I think he's not just saying you have to be willing to go into a melting pot. I think he's saying we will judge you at the entry point and saying we will chose the ones who already have the kind of values that will work well in our system and that will make life good or better for us Americans. He's saying immigration isn't for you outsiders who want in but for us Americans who need the good qualities and good work that some of those who want in can provide.

Remarkable that normal, sane immigration policy is presented as a new and radical idea. It's a lesson in how much relentless propaganda can accomplish, in relatively little time, that so many "nice" Americans uncritically accept recently-minted cant ("nation of immigrants", "who we are", "every one has a right to immigrate here") as the historical, default, "ethical" position.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...Do they support the gay community?

Literally 2 seconds of Googling: 6 in 10 American Catholics Support Gay Marriage

Is 60% not enough, Professor? What level of support are you asking for? AMERICAN CITIZENS aren't all on board with the full "gay & transgender rights" agenda, Professor. What is your standard here? Do you see why people think this is just a gratuitous swipe on your part? How much "support" is enough? I know the answer from the Left is "it's never enough;" is that your position also?

Wiki: Homosexuality & Roman Catholicism

Despite the official position of the Catholic hierarchy on LGBT rights, in some locations, such as North America, Northern and Western Europe, support for LGBT rights (such as same-sex marriage, or protection against discrimination) is stronger among Catholics than among the general population

Not good enough, though, right? Stupid bigots--we definitely shouldn't let any more of them in.

Gahrie said...

"So why can Catholics not meet that standard?"

Do they support the gay community?


Well..they don't throw them from roof tops.

What does "support" mean? Agree with everything they do? Endorse their behavior? Sponsor unprotected, random sex nights at the church?

How does the gay community support American Catholics? Does that mean gay people can't immigrate?

buwaya puti said...

60%?
It seems its time for a bit of persecution, because standards are definitely slipping. We need more martyrs. Or you need to import a better class of Catholic.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I don't oppose gay marriage but I think the push for "transgender rights" is almost entirely nuts (if you'll pardon the expression). I have gay friends and haven't ever advocated for oppression or violence against gays, but I don't agree with much of the gay political agenda (having the law recognize homosexuals as special protected class, enforcing diversity in hiring, forcing businesses including to transact with gays, etc). A few years ago I had a long talk with a gay acquaintance of mine during which I encouraged him to take actions to help protect himself physically, including obtaining and (training with) a firearm for protection. I'm pretty sure he did purchase a firearm later.

Do I count as someone who "supports" the gay community, Professor?

MayBee said...

Do they support the gay community?

To let them live free? Yes.

Do you mean more than that? Support for newly enacted laws like marriage, do you mean? Did Obama or Hillary Clinton support the gay community 8 years ago? 5 years ago? Or just when they decided they were in favor of gay marriage? Is being pro gay marriage the only way to support gay people?

I amused by your line about "don't think I haven't anticipated...." as if that answers anything!

MayBee said...

It's as if "support" is supposed to mean agree with the laws I like that are in effect right now!!!

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Anyway, I'm just glad we're focusing on the REAL issue here: hateful anti-gay Americans and how ashamed we should all be of ourselves and our country. Oh, and of Catholics!

MayBee said...

Ha! Good point HoodlumDoodlum.

Gahrie said...

I amused by your line about "don't think I haven't anticipated...." as if that answers anything!

Probably slippery slope.....

Remember when we were told that gay marriage wasn't a slippery slope?

How long did it take for transgender to be the next cause?

Gahrie said...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bestiality-legal-canada-supreme-court-a7073196.html

Gusty Winds said...

That's some strong support for gay people! It sounds as though Catholics might have trouble meeting his standard.

Professor: I don't think you realize how fast the Catholic Church is moving toward the left. It doesn't look anything like it did 50 years ago in regards to homosexuality, divorce, seven deadly sins etc...

I would expect it to hold the line on abortion.

Hagar said...

Well, American Catholics are the only ones I have seen pass out free beer at a church picnic.
Americans are just strange.

rhhardin said...

Freedom of association is the actual standard. It was put out of business by the civil rights legislation, and common sense has had no foothold in the law ever since.

The standard ought to have been freedom of association except in monopoly markets or except in cases of state or private violence preventing free association.

The courts made it freedom of association except in case of race, or then sex, or then any number of categories, which gave rise to idiotic protected group status, all of it wrong and wrongheaded and certain to screw up civil society as a whole.

So muslims have to leave gays alone, under freedom of association. Nothing about protected groups or communities or anything.

Farmer said...

"So why can Catholics not meet that standard?"

Do they support the gay community?


In the context of Trump's comments, absolutely. The Catholic Church does not teach her members to kill or harm gay people. The Catholic Church does advise her members to vote and to make changes in social issue policy through legislative change. You'll note the difference between voting and lobbying, and slaughter. Or maybe you won't.

We don't support the death penalty. That doesn't mean we want to oppress those who do.

We don't support abortion rights. That doesn't mean we want to oppress those who do.

We don't support SSM. That doesn't mean we want to oppress those who do.

We don't want a theocracy. We just want a voice, like everyone else in the country has. Look at the above issues. Most of the time we're add odds with the majority, so we lose, in the legislative sense. Our response is not to murder our opponents. Our response is prayer, speaking the truth as we see it, and persistence.

The derangement on social media in the wake of this mass murder has been incredible. If you walked into the middle of it with no prior knowledge you'd think the killer was influenced by Christian theology, or at the very least that American Christians laid the groundwork for it.

We're on your side on this, Althouse. If you'd prefer to be left to the tender mercies of ISIS, that's your call, not ours.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

For some reason I can't understand I keep remembering the end of 1984--how it wasn't enough for Winston to say the slogans or do the right things, he had to be made to actually LOVE Big Brother--that was the only acceptable outcome. And in the end, of course, he did; he loved Big Brother.

It's all about love, people.

buwaya puti said...

It would be far better if the Catholic church, and lay Catholics, made themselves indigestible, incompatible, inconvenient, and adopted Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson-like tactics.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Farmer said...
We're on your side on this, Althouse. If you'd prefer to be left to the tender mercies of ISIS, that's your call, not ours.


No you're not, Farmer. You're not! Maybe you thought you were, but it turns out you don't "support the gay community." So you're not on her side, Farmer. Neither, I guess, are Catholics generally. You're not supportive, and the difference between you and a pro-ISIS dude who murders gay people is simply one of degree--you both don't support the gay community, he just takes it further.

Isn't that lovely? Isn't that a wonderful thing to discover, that someone you respect thinks that of you? I mean, it serves you right, obviously, since you don't support the gay community...but I'll bet it still feels like a punch in the gut to realize that someone you like & respects thinks that of you just because you don't fully align with her beliefs.

Anglelyne said...

Unknown: Somewhere on the North East coast a few hundred years ago. "Hello Native Americans. We are the Pilgrim Fathers from England. We have come to live in your big beautiful land". "Welcome Pilgrim Fathers. Could we please see your passports or the right to immigrate papers first? Thank-you"

Indian tribes had their own way of saying "papers, please". Many fought very hard to enforce an "immigration policy" to keep out other people - both other local tribes and the interlopers from across the sea - and preserve their lands and way of life for themselves. They failed in the end against the Europeans because they were out-numbered and at a vastly more primitive stage of technological development.

It's an internet Law (needing a name), that any discussion on immigration will be visited by at least one retarded commenter who thinks that "because Native Americans" or "your grandparents were immigrants" is a brilliant, heretofore unheard, and utterly unanswerable argument in favor of open borders.

Gahrie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gahrie said...

Isn't that a wonderful thing to discover, that someone you respect thinks that of you? I mean, it serves you right, obviously, since you don't support the gay community...but I'll bet it still feels like a punch in the gut to realize that someone you like & respects thinks that of you just because you don't fully align with her beliefs.

It gets worse...he's a splooge stooge too.....

< sarc >Fucking haters....I hate them.

janetrae said...

And as for Catholics supporting the gay community: Prayer vigils were held at Catholic churches in Chicago over the weekend, and one of my colleagues and his husband attended. One of the bishops of the Chicago Diocese lead the prayers for the dead. Is that enough support for you?

So, yeah, when I read AA's comments yesterday and above it was a punch in the gut and makes me think less of her. So does the doubling down on "Do they support the gay community?" Many of them do, and openly -- see above.

Find a less tolerant group to pick on -- like Southern Baptists or Mormons or whatever you were raised.

Gahrie said...

To qualify for immigration, you must support ALL our communities. You must SUPPORT the Catholic community. Not merely refrain from killing Catholic people or spreading the ideology that says Catholic people should be killed. You need to SUPPORT Catholic people.

Gahrie said...

Actually...I'm starting to agree with Althouse's position...because they only logical outcome is to end all immigration.

Farmer said...

Find a less tolerant group to pick on -- like Southern Baptists or Mormons or whatever you were raised.

They're too easy to dismiss. Intellectuals and college professors laugh at them. But Catholics seriously piss them off.

Why is that?

buwaya puti said...

Catholics certainly shouldnt support the "gay community".
Catholics should pray for their souls, and extend charity, but the "community" is merely an enabler for a sinful, empty life.

buwaya puti said...

Catholics piss them off because there is a serious intellectual tradition behind them. Mormons and Baptists dont do philosophy.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Angelyne said...It's an internet Law (needing a name), that any discussion on immigration will be visited by at least one retarded commenter who thinks that "because Native Americans" or "your grandparents were immigrants" is a brilliant, heretofore unheard, and utterly unanswerable argument in favor of open borders.

Moreover the "native American" example is exactly the wrong one to use! It argues "well the native Americans didn't effectively control immigration/prevent foreigners from taking their land and wiping them out, so we should...be...more like them, I guess?" Or, I dunno, since distant ancestors of some Americans (a huge portion of current Americans trace their American ancestry back only to the late 19th-mid 20th century) didn't refrain from freely immigrating and taking over the land from/killing off native Americans it's only fair that they allow new immigrants to do the same to them?
Who could be convinced by such backward, idiotic arguments? And yet I agree, I see it put forward frequently. Baffling.

jr565 said...

his words. I hope he is pressed on this question, and I would love to see Trump outdo Clinton in wholehearted acceptance and love for gay people and their freedom to openly love according to their heart's desire."

I said, in another update to yesterday's post about Donald Trump's anti-terrorism speech.

ADDED: And don't think I haven't anticipated comments like: Must immigrants support the pedophilia community/the bestiality community/the polygamy community?

so althouse makes a distinction between gays who should love openly according to their hearts desires, but then asks must the immigration community support the polygamy community. Do we think they shouldn't be able to loce according to their hearts desire? Many immigrants may not n fact be part of that community. I'm wondering how far we need to extend our tolerance.

And we're gays denied this right if it wasn't legal to marry? Polygamists were denied the right of even cohabitation.

jr565 said...

Bart hall wrote:
I cannot possibly speak for Trump, but what I think he might have been saying relates to the more general case -- if you don't support the concept that in America people are (and should be) free to do what they wish, so long as it does not harm another individual or someone's property ... we don't want you. Stay home, or go someplace else.

That's a very reasonable position, which ought also to be applied to many in government.

this sounds great... In theory. But who defined harm? Is it physical harm or mental harm? And how much harm is required before it meets the standard of a ban able offense.
For example, take consensual incest. Who is defining the harm? The people engaged in the consensual behavior or the society that assumes there must be harm, even if those in said relationships don't think there is. Then there's harm that both parties agree too. If a man beats his wife and the woman Always forgives him, is there harm? Clearly yes, but if she's not pressing charges is there actual harm?

FullMoon said...

Ann Althouse said... [hush]​[hide comment]

"So why can Catholics not meet that standard?"

Do they support the gay community?

Seems Catholic upper management supported gay pedophiles, according to frequent news reports and lawsuits..

hombre said...

As of 2015 there were 70 million Catholics in the U.S. Perhaps they should be sent to re-education camps and taught to support LBGT rights. That would put things in perspective for Catholic immigrants, regardless of any ambiguity in Trump's policies. Re-education camps won't be necessary for Evangelicals. The government is re-educating them through lawfare.

There will be no re-education for Muslims. It's too dangerous.

Larry J said...

Ann Althouse said...
"So why can Catholics not meet that standard?"

Do they support the gay community?


What does the phrase "support the gay community" mean? Is it limited to "live and let live"? Does that mean agreeing with everything the gay community wants/demands? Please define what you think the phrase means.

jr565 said...

(cont) what about second hand harm. i.e. I have an affair with someone. I harm the husband indirectly even though I never actually interacted with him. Suppose the parents get divorced and the kid goes into therapy. All because I engaged in behavior that I didn't think was harmful (or didnt care about) but led to harm to others.
We should be free to do what we wish, but if it causes harm should there be a law against adultery? Most people would say no. But if it caused harm should we be free to do it?

Everyone has their own concept of harm. The left will ban big bottles of soda because soda causes harm. Even though, just because I buy a 20oz bottle of coke doens't mean im going to drink it all in one sitting. I dont think thats harmful, but that's me. There will always be disagreements about what is harmful. and therefore there will always be questions about what we are allowed to do.

In the case of marriage, gays were not the only ones denied legal marriages. You can't marry kids. But who's to say that's in fact harmful? Or that the age we set is the right age? Maybe those saying its harmful are the same people saying gay marriage is harmful, and we should ask kids what THEY think is harmful. (im not suggesting this as an actual suggestion)

hombre said...

"LGBT rights" (10:14)

jr565 said...

What about supporting Transgendered rights. What does that mean? What if we think supporting transgendered rights actually denies rights to men or women?
For example, Title IX is set up to allow women access to sports teams. Women then are supposed to get the spots. However, if gender as a social construct means that you can define gender does it mean you can play on whatever team you want? Or get a scholarship meant for women? If Bruce Jenner started doing the decathlon as a woman woudl it be fair to other women to compare their scores to him?
And why stop at gender as social constructs. Why not race as social constructs? Shouldn't we support Rachel Dolenzal and not condemn her? But then what about scholarships for black people, or grants for black businesses.
Elizabeth Warren (or Pocohantos) got money for claming to be an American INdian. Many might say that's FRAUD.

Char Char Binks said...

Respect all rape cultures.

hombre said...

jr565: "We should be free to do what we wish, but if it causes harm should there be a law against adultery? Most people would say no. But if it caused harm should we be free to do it?"

You cannot expect a reasonable answer to such questions from secular progressives. Lefty morality is a combination of moral principals poached selectively from Judeo-Christian morality and moral relativism. Since there is no trancendent authority behind it, there is no need or ability to explain it. It is transitory. Cogency is not required.

Anglelyne said...

AA: "In the comments, I'm seeing some questioning of my last sentence there — 'It sounds as though Catholics might have trouble meeting his standard."'
[...]
He's not limiting his exclusion to those who believe that gay people should be killed. He's saying you need to support gay people. I'm sure many religious Christians will say that he might not mean to include those of us with a love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin approach, but I don't hear that reservation in his words.


Of course you don't, just as of course you do hear an implicit sermon on the Gospel of Inclusion as understood by the fundamentalist Full Gospel Church of Progressivism, that was unlikely to have been intended as such.

That's because it's dogma in your Church that cultural incompatibility between peoples who have followed a different civilizational path for over a millenium is exactly the same thing thing as a difference of opinion within a mostly-shared culture, about a "right" which one subset of said culture pulled out of its butt yesterday morning. Most of Trump's support, however, comes from people who are fed up to the back teeth with this sort of discount sophistry - this refusal to acknowledge obvious distinctions, this insistence that anything is analogous to anything else, as long as it supports the agenda. And remember, this whole thing is in the context of Trump unapologetically calling for restrictions on Muslim immigration, specifically.

So, while I think it would be fun to see Althouse at a Trump event pinioning Trump on the extent and limits of this "support", to see where he would go with it, I don't think she'd get the exegesis on "support" she's hoping for.

JAORE said...

"Do they support the gay community?"

As the above discussion notes the definition of "support" is interesting.

Apparently our host means to support requires complete allegiance to any and every position taken by the GLBT community. Now sometimes those positions change. I hope Ms. Althouse is generous enough to allow a 24 hour transition period before we lose our "support" privileges.

Stunningly blinded in this area, Ms. A, stunningly.

cubanbob said...

Lost in all of this is who has the right to be here? As Birkel once said (I believe it was Birkel) there are 3.1 million Indians in this country and this country is roughly 3.1 million miles square. So therefore all of us who aren't at least half Indian blooded (and that includes Pocahontas Warren) and commenters here like Unknown should just pack our bags and go and stop occupying a poor Indian's square mile. Sorry Althouse, you too and I don't think you can drive to Europe from Wisconsin. Gonna have to fly.

Oye Fidel desculpa me todo la mierda que yo a hablado sobre ti.

On the other hand if you buy the argument the land belongs to those who can hold it, then tough cookies to the Indians and the Mexicans and those in the majority control get to set who gets in and who doesn't and in what numbers.


Milwaukee said...

Yes, Ann, you are trolling your readers because you are really, at your core, not conservative. You just play a conservative on the internets.

This "Ann Althouse said...
"So why can Catholics not meet that standard?"

Do they support the gay community?"


Seems to demonstrate an incredible amount of willful ignorance on your part. I don't see Catholics persecuting those in the homosexual and lesbian lifestyles, unless not selling them cake is persecution. So, why the Catholic hate?

Is it possible to love and support homosexual individuals without endorsing sodomy?

The progressive left (a la Ann Althouse) will push "support" to mean "actively endorse", whereas a more moderate approach would be "allow to live".

William said...

Why should Muslims be the only immigrants to America not to face discrimination and suspicion. The Catholics certainly did. Catholics inspired both the Know Nothing Party and, in its 1920 resurgence, the Klu Klux Klan. It is placing an unfair burden on Catholics to ask them to be less bigoted than your grandparents.

Original Mike said...

" I think he's saying we will judge you at the entry point and saying we will chose the ones who already have the kind of values that will work well in our system and that will make life good or better for us Americans. He's saying immigration isn't for you outsiders who want in but for us Americans who need the good qualities and good work that some of those who want in can provide."

Anything else is insane.

Anglelyne said...

cubanbob: On the other hand if you buy the argument the land belongs to those who can hold it...

I'd say that's a fact of life, not an argument.

William said...

Santa Ana invited the Anglos to move to Texas. He did this not because of his great love of Anglos nor of any wish to diversify and enrich the cultural heritage of the Mexican population. At that time, Texas was occupied by Comanches. The Comanches did not like immigrants. They would torture the children of immigrants to death before their parents' eyes. Then they would kill the parents. Comanchia, as they called their land, did not have a problem with undocumented Mexican immigrants. Santa Ana invited the Anglos not to enter Mexico but to enter Comanchia and do the wet work for him.......Just a little background on how other cultures have handled their immigration problems.

William said...

I wouldn't expect all immigrants to accept and embrace all facets of American life. I certainly don't. At a bare minimum, however, I would want all immigrants not to believe that America is the Great Satan that is responsible for all the world's woes. That's not such a high bar, but many Muslims fail to meet it. Ditto with Mexcan protesters who burn the American flag.

JAORE said...

"I wouldn't expect all immigrants to accept and embrace all facets of American life. I certainly don't. At a bare minimum, however, I would want all immigrants not to believe that America is the Great Satan that is responsible for all the world's woes. That's not such a high bar, but many Muslims fail to meet it."

And a substantial proportion of the American Left.

cubanbob said...

Anglelyne said...
cubanbob: On the other hand if you buy the argument the land belongs to those who can hold it...

I'd say that's a fact of life, not an argument.

6/14/16, 10:57 AM"

Somebody get the memo to the progressives especially when it comes to immigration to the US and to the Israelis.

William said...

When I see a woman wearing uncomfortable and unflattering clothing, I wonder why. I suppose it's possible that she does this to proclaim her modesty or her religious heritage, but it's just as likely she does this because of family pressure or pressure from the insular society in which she lives. My suspicions are aroused. I would prefer Muslim women not to wear hijabs. It would show that they or their community is willing to meet America half way........I understand that the same objections could be raised about Hassidic or Amish women, but they are not part of religions that routinely practice mass murder and thus have no need to allay my suspicions.

Original Mike said...

Althouse asked: "Do they support the gay community?"

In a shocking move, the Orlando [Chick Fil A] location at University and Rouse Road fired up its grills on Sunday. The chain is notorious for not being open, ever, on the first day of the week. Employees cooked up hundreds of their famous chicken sandwiches. They brewed dozens of gallons of sweet tea.

Then, instead of making a single dime, they crated the product of their labor to the One Blood donation center. The food and drinks were handed out, free of charge, to all the people who had lined up to donate blood.


Yet, these people are haters.

The left doesn't request "support". It demands celebration. And it turns a lot of potential "supporters" off.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I was just about to link to that one, Original Mike. Chick Fil A is evangelical Christian, though, not Catholic, so the Professor's point still stands--Catholics don't support the gay community and should under Trump's standard be excluded from immigrating to America (since they're insufficiently supportive of the gay community).
It goes without saying that evangelical Christians are just as bad as Catholics, of course, and really it's just a matter of degree and not qualitative difference between those groups & Muslims who believe homosexuals should be killed.

Shame, shame on you all. On us all!

Chuck said...

I don't understand why Trump would get any special credit for an observation that international Islam is to a great extent cruelly punitive of homosexuality, and that internationalist liberals have a stunning level if hypocrisy in promoting gay rights at the same time that they promote public tolerance of Islamic culture in the United States.

Conservatives have been making those observations for years.

I'm even less comfortable with Trump's selling his campaign to homosexual activists, as being better for them than a future Clinton Administration. Would Trump include gay rights in federal civil rights legislation? Is Trump happy/satisfied with Obergefell ? How Trump ever won the support of a handful of the leaders of Evangelical politics is a complete mystery to me.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

So, Chuck, Trump's on the right side of the issue and you largely agree with him, but that makes you uncomfortable...with Trump?

You don't think he should "get any special credit" for being correct and/or taking the standard conservative line? Aren't you especially quick to point out that Trump is himself not a conservative? If so doesn't this demonstrate that Trump is at the very least adopting the stated view/line of conservatives (somewhat contrary to what you've said before)?

We all get that you don't like Trump, but as an additional reason to not like him this seems...well...it borders on incoherent, Chuck.

Jason said...

After carefully reading yesterday's thread and comments, and this thread and the comments up through now, I am confident that I had Althouse's entire argument pegged and responded appropriately yesterday.

That is to say,

Go fuck yourself, professor.

sean said...

I can't find any Althouse blog posts in which she squarely defends the right of cake makers/photographers/artists not to participate in gay marriage ceremonies on free exercise grounds, although on a few occasions she criticizes the reasoning of people who criticize the assertion of such a right. Can someone else point to such a post?

CStanley said...

As a conservative, practicing Cathoilc, this post angers me a great deal. Was that the intent? If so, I hope you will reconsider the harm you sow.

I wish I could unread it, but instead I'll just try to refocus:

http://www.catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2016/we-must-recognize-dignity-of-all-orlando-bishop-says-at-prayer-vigil.cfm


Laslo Spatula said...

Catholics.

John F. Kennedy should never have been allowed in this country.

I am Laslo.

Jonathan Graehl said...

If so: fine, no catholic immigrants unless they recant on their non-acceptance.

It's quite obvious that we can demand things of people who want to immigrate that we can't demand of citizens. Don't like it? Don't come.

Jonathan Graehl said...

I don't think catholics don't "accept" gays. That new pope is really something. He accepts it all daily, I'm sure.

cyrus83 said...

Ann, to borrow from the logic in your above post about Obama's sermon of 2 perversions, the only way Catholics would have any difficulty meeting Trump's standard is if the government gets in the business of determining Catholic orthodoxy. In order to even begin to attempt this, the government would have to recognize the teachings of the papacy (through its various official publications and instrumentalities) as authoritatively representing Catholic orthodoxy - a move that would make a sea of leftist Catholics and Bishops explode in apoplexy throughout the Western world, since there are a host of them that do NOT support that idea.

So besides stepping into a religious debate on the side of the traditionalists, the government would then also have to query people about religious beliefs to try and determine how orthodox they were. As anyone familiar with the broader Catholic community is aware, that's not easy even on a good day within a single parish. It's certainly not a secret what the official teachings are - most are online for free. The trouble is that relatively few Catholics know all of them, and fewer still follow all of them.

To get back to Trump's statement, it depends on what the meaning of "support" and the meaning of "communities" are. Interpreted in its broadest sense, it would mean full embrace of any possible grouping of people in the country...including some rather unsavory communities. Interpreted in its narrowest sense, it could be something as generic as a patriotic spirit of brotherhood toward fellow Americans. It could also be nothing more than vacuous bull that sounds good and connects emotionally.

Context suggests Trump is referring to the gay community here, but there's enough ambiguity that the statement can be interpreted as referring to a wider range of communities. I would be curious to know exactly what he meant here.

As far as support goes, people have different ideas about what constitutes support. That might mean acceptance, it might mean tolerance, it might mean being neighborly, it might mean making outreach, or any number of things along these lines.

CStanley said...

Ann, to borrow from the logic in your above post about Obama's sermon of 2 perversions, the only way Catholics would have any difficulty meeting Trump's standard is if the government gets in the business of determining Catholic orthodoxy. In order to even begin to attempt this, the government would have to recognize the teachings of the papacy (through its various official publications and instrumentalities) as authoritatively representing Catholic orthodoxy - a move that would make a sea of leftist Catholics and Bishops explode in apoplexy throughout the Western world, since there are a host of them that do NOT support that idea.

This is a good point, but it's only true because progressives have begun establishing a set of secular tenets that is antithetical to orthodox Christian beliefs. We wouldn't have this problem, and didn't for hundreds of years, if we didn't get the federal government involved in intimate details of individuals' lives.

This distinction matters a lot to me because contra Hoodlum Doodlum and a few other commenters, I reject the idea that one must reject the actual teachings of Catholicism to pass this test of tolerance. Yes, there is division among American Catholics with many rejecting orthodoxy, but there is still a strong contingent that does not and it's offensive (and ignorant) to imply that we are bigots.

mikee said...

Catholics are taught to love the sinner, and to hate the sin. There is no inherent conflict between being Catholic and living peacefully with neighbors of different beliefs.

CStanley said...

It's also particularly egregious to single out Catholics because the RCC is the only denomination (well I'm not sure about the Eastern Orthodox) that has a theology of sacramental marriage that makes it impossible to include homosexual unions. Other Christian churches that allow birth control and divorce are more hypocritical if they do not endorse SSM but in Catholicism it is simply an extension of doctrine which also excuds other kinds of unions.

The Catholic Chirch cannot "evolve" on this issue, which is based on a different understanding of the purpose and meaning of the sacramental binding of two persons.