It seems it would take more guts to have the meeting elsewhere. Why can the bishops not inquire privately if they want to know what is going on at the border? But to hold a meeting in the capital city Phoenix, even if the secular mayors of their See Cities have passed motions against doing business in Arizona, I think is a bad example. It seems to say they don't care about the politics of a state as long as they get to hold their meeting. There are many other cities that can host the house of bishops meeting that haven't voted on such a law as Arizona has. Times are getting tough for all in the Church. What is convenient may not be right.

Now Arizona has passed a new law restricting how ethnic studies can be done. They may no longer teach anything that suggests "oppression", for example.

So now free speech and inquiry are repressed in public schools.

It seems to say they don't care about the politics of a state as long as they get to hold their meeting.

It seems to me that they care less about symbolic but ultimately economically inconsequential actions than they do about actually engaging the people and issues and making an informed and strong statement about it. It's a lot easier to take one's marbles and go home, and we've had far too much of that lately.

So the Bishops are willing to make statements about the State's criminalizing a portion of its people -- but not to inconvenience themselves in order to express disapproval. Wasn't there something we said about "the dignity of all human beings"?

This is not a time for fact-finding. Wrong has been done -- but, oh dear, let's have some pious hand wringing and meet as usual. No wonder so many people find institutional religious pronouncements irrelevant.

This Episcopalian is disgusted.

Jan Adams

Make no peace with oppression (BCP, 260). I would recommend that rather than simply make an inquiry, our bishops consider a direct action with their skin painted a lovely brown as they protest before the capitol or governor's mansion. This statement sounds like mealy-mouthed unwillingness to face into a great harm done with the power of the state. Have we learned nothing from the troubles of the Twentieth Century?

And if you are white and do not think this is a harm, I recommend painting yourself a lovely shade of brown and try driving around in a less than mint condition car.

I have no doubt people are harmed all around, but this is legal, institutionalization of harm without a seeming sense that most folks on both sides of the border are just ordinary folks with concerns for their very everyday families.

Make no peace with oppression (BCP, 258). What is it about the lessons of the Twentieth Century that our bishops do not understand? This is legalized, institutionalized harm on the part of the state toward fellow citizens, toward fellow brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ.

This looks like empathy failure to me.
Rather than make more inquiries, such requires direct action. I recommend our bishops paint themselves lovely shades of brown and march on the capitol or governor's mansion.

I have no doubt that many have experienced harm, but institutionalized harm such as this ignores the complexity that most on both sides of the border are just ordinary folks with everyday concerns for their families. And if you are white and do not quite understand the concern, I recommend traveling to Arizona, painting yourself a lovely shade of brown, and then start driving around in a less than mint condition car.

I'm with Tom on this. Any action my church takes, I want to be meaningful and effective at changing a wrong, not just written off and ignored. My sense of the mood in AZ and among those deeply concerned about the impact of illegal immigration is that a boycott of the state will do just that, likely hardening hearts on both sides.

Our immigration (admission and enforcement) is broken - I would rather put my energy into fixing that than in taking an ultimately meaningless protest action against a state trying to respond to what many people see as a real problem, however misguided this particular resopnse may be.

Being a Christian does come at a cost - more and more I'm thinking that cost includes being willing to wrestle with those with whom you disagree to find a just solution for all rather than trying to achieve some sense of moral oneupmanship.

Dirk

Just be sure, dear bishops, that you have your identity papers in order and with you at all times.

I don't think the PB will get racially profiled in Arizona, unlike citizens who are people of color or who speak English with an accent. Our own New York State Senator, Jose Peralta, told us last night he would not go to Arizona because he would fear getting stopped by the police. The law in Arizona is both unconstitutional and unethical but I am not surprised to that the Episcopal bishops will protest.

I do not buy the idea that the Bishops will go to Arizona to investigate this unconstitutional and unethical law. Rather it seems they have gone wobbly again on yet another civil rights issue. There is a pattern here of refusing to stand for the dignity of the human person and equality before the law.

Gary Paul Gilbert

A better gesture would be to meet on the Mexican side of the border, issue their statement, and then walk across with immigrants.

It's easy to feel affinity with scared white people. After all, we mostly ARE scared white people. It's harder to feel affinity with scared people who are unfamiliar to us.

But if we are to follow the example Jesus' life offers, that's the point -- embracing the Other. Hard, but pretty simple.

Church too often obscures rather than reveals this. We all stumble.

I remember well the boycott of Adams Mark Hotels in 2000, and that the General Convention relocated its Convention Hotel within Denver on that account.

In the same year, however, my primary professional chaplaincy organization faced that decision. However, they had much less notice, much less clout (being a much smaller conference), and much less money. Leadership felt they didn't have the time or resources to make a change, however just a change might be. More specifically, they couldn't pay both the contracted guarantees to the Adams Mark (for which expenses the organization would receive nothing), and also the additional fees for a new hotel, restructured reservations, etc.

So, might the bishops have decided to stay with the plan and make the best statement they could within those limitations? Perhaps. Note that these days the Episcopal Church doesn't have the clout or the money we had in 2000, and making such changes can cost a lot of money. More to the point, the money comes from individual diocesan budgets, not the national Church budget; and many dioceses these days are more strapped than they were a decade ago, my own included.

So, should the bishops have decided not to go to Arizona? Perhaps. Many of us here at the Cafe might want them to. I'm only sugggesting that decisions are not always either/or, that such changes do have costs, and good stewardship also requires us to consider those. (I do also think that if that's part of the equation, the House needs to say so, because leadership also calls for good communication.)

Marshall Scott

Just so long as they make a lot of noise while they're there... The border crossing Ormonde Plater suggested is a great idea. Something like that, at least.

Adam Roberts

Many of our bishops could be picked up for "breathing while brown" - perhaps will show the bishops more about the law and the sheriff of the county Phoenix is in -- I would hope they accompany each other as they walk the streets of Phoenix though cynical me thinks they will never leave the hotel. Perhaps all of us can lobby our bishops to attend the "optional" activities. Seems like it should be required - making it optional makes it seem that some people are optional for our church.

I fail to see what an Episcopal boycott of the state would achieve. Rather, it might be more effective to have 110 gifted and respected preachers in purple cassocks flood pulpits throughout the state on Sunday to give a WWJD sermon regarding the issue.

For those advocating the bishops walk across the border with immigrants - I'm curious, would those be legal immigrants with appropriate documentation or those who are choosing to enter the US in violation of our laws?

It's a bad law - but it seeks to address the difficult problem of people using the Mexico/Arizona border to illegally enter the US.

Do those who enter the US in violation of US law get carte blanche, or does the US have a moral right (even duty?) to enforce its laws?

What about other states who have laws at odds with our social justice theology? I can build a good case that there should be no Episcopal money spent in California due to Prop 8. . . .

Better to go where we want to go, be who we are, and stand with those who don't have others to stand with them.

"Just be sure, dear bishops, that you have your identity papers in order and with you at all times."

Like all legal immigrants must, for example? By Federal law. And, btw, a valid driver's license is sufficient, as one must have proof of identity and residence eligibility to obtain one in most states, AZ and WA (my home state) included.

The AZ law also includes a "where reasonable" clause that allows a certain amount of leeway. So let's wait and see if the law is abused first, before we claim foul, hmm?

The opportunity here is for the Episcopal Church to lose Latinos for good, just as the Republican Party did in California over its embrace of English as the official language of the state. The Roman Catholic Church has done a much better job on this issue.

This law is a horrific precedent. States do not have the right to make immigration policies. The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable searches. And the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment applies to all persons, not just citizens. It was written in the context of freed slaves after the Civil War being beat up, robbed, raped, murdered by whites with the police and the courts looking the other way.

Day laborers in Arizona, whatever their citizenship status, deserve the protection of the laws, just like everybody else.

Hispanic ministry in the Episcopal Church is not just about theology and liturgy but about social justice for all persons.

The PB sounds as tone deaf on social justice for Latinos as she does on LGBT equality.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Because I think this is largely a disagreement over tactics, I feel that the righteous indignation in some of these comments is misplaced.