So Deacon Steven Greydanus has banned me from his Facebook page.
We've had some good discussions he and I. We haven't always agreed, but generally we've debated well, and I've certainly learned some things.
But this time the topic of immigration came up. He posted an editorial about immigration (this was posted on Mark Shea's webpage, since I can't access Deacon's FB page at this point), what it is, America's rights and immigrants and all. We've heard it a thousand, million times.
I responded by something that's been buzzing around my head for a couple days. When Trump said he would do away with DACA, you had the obvious outcry: But the babies! While this was being done, the MSM ran out and found case after case of people who would be hurt by this.
While doing this, some news outlets also went a different direction. I believe they were trying to say 'Look how unfair this is! People who have lived their lives, and are now firmly set in a path toward contributing to society, will be uprooted and thrown out!' To that end, they interviewed various business leaders, tech giants and even Ivy League universities about all those undocumented individuals who will be hurt by this. Undocumented workers who have good jobs, are attending college, going to Harvard, and on and on.
And that got me to thinking, as I am wont to do. Isn't it possible that sympathy for people who have spent their lives breaking the law, who are now attending Harvard, might go down hard for Americans who are struggling to pay bills, can barely feed their own families, and have no hope for their own children affording college? I mean, I'm not hearing much from the Church about that. Oh, the Church talks its usual concern for the poor and injustice at home. But how does it square supporting people who have broken the law, spent their lives breaking the law, and our now reaping great rewards while their surrounding citizens are watching their fortunes diminish?
Isn't it possible that sympathy for that Harvard grad who never became a citizen might not be easy to extract from that struggling American family who can barely afford cloths and a decent car for their family?
That's what I asked. Deacon Greydanus's responses were not what I would call charitable. From the beginning, there was snark, which was unusual. As I said, even when we disagreed, I always found him charitable and an enjoyable debate. But not this time. As we went, he even dropped that 'but *white* Americans' phrasing in his posts. You know, that subtle inference that my problem is with darkies and swarthy types since I'm just your typical white American (Read: Racist).
I just kept going back to my point. What about these stories? I know this wasn't the question I was supposed to have when I saw these stories. I was supposed to be outraged that these people who are living the American dream will be uprooted and thrown back into countries they have no connection to. And I'm not saying I approve of that. I explained I'm not saying I want people deported or thrown out. I"m just asking what about these people who have, for want of a better phrase, lived a lie? Remember when lying was the Great Sin of the Ages? When it didn't matter if we were fighting to defend the unborn, the focus must be on the purity of Truth at all costs?
And nothing. He simply repeated the Church's basic boilerplate. I explained that doesn't do. There is what the Church says, but the Church's 'media face' is solely and only concerned about immigrants. There is scant rushing to the microphone to lament the plight of Americans who might be put at disadvantage to better off immigrants, or even question the lives of immigrants except in some vague, abstract way.
So after several rounds of asking for a response to my point, he banned me. He said I could contact him via email, and I did. After a few emails, however, in which I said I just wanted a response to my observation, about how the "Children" might not be quite fair to focus on since some of those kiddos are adults doing better than their surrounding citizens, he cut off the discussion. He said I had no desire to address the topic at hand. Which is all I wanted to do. Address the topic from an angle I hadn't thought of, but the MSM stories got me to thinking about. But that was it. He said it was over, and goodbye.
That was quite a shock. We've had some good debate, and at no point did I become snarky except once, when Mr. Steven said I was just indulging in Orwellian double speak. That's when I suggested he sounds as if he isn't caring about the children here at home after all. But the conversation went on for some time after that, and when he objected to my observation, I merely explained that if he avoids insults, it will keep things at a better level. Other than that, it was just a discussion.
But this time, there was nothing to it. He would hear nothing of what I was saying, refused at any point to explain how this angle should be addressed, and finally banned me. Nothing in my world says someone is on shaky grounds more than their banning someone for wanting to discuss something that the person obviously doesn't want to discuss. If nothing else, he could just say 'not discussing it, done with this conversation.' Or something. But banned.
There's something there that he didn't like. And I wonder what it was. Oh well. I notice a circle of Catholics on the Net who insist there is one set of acceptable viewpoints, or else be banned. I just didn't imagine he would be one of them.