Readers Split on Immigrants, Outraged at Church viewers were burning up their keyboards this week, eager to weigh in on Wendy McElroy's column on a lesser known Catholic Church scandal, and Judge Andrew P. Napolitano’s column on the new anti-terrorism laws. 

Judge Napolitano's heartfelt column defending the rights of immigrants’ to basic freedoms was welcomed by some readers, while others told him to pack his bags. Wendy McElroy's spotlight on the sexual abuse of nuns by priests attracted a full spectrum of responses.

Here’s a sample of what viewers had to say:

J.R. Harell from Atlanta, Ga., wrote:

I believe, in today's environment, that it is far better to do unto others before they do unto you. It is a far more commonsensical approach to the new realities than "personal freedom is a greater good than personal safety." That may have been the reality of the 1740s or 50s, but it has little to do in the early 21st century, when the enemy is exploiting our very own constitution against us — and, undoubtedly, laughing about our weakness.

Dan B. wrote:

Only cowards are so obsessed with safety they will give up liberty. I'm not worried about my safety, and I refuse to sacrifice even a bit of my liberty to protect your safety. Furthermore, the only thing preventing a tyrant from misusing the power of the U.S. is our civil rights and the checks on power they entail. Better this country razed to rubble than our military left to the hands of a tyrant, especially one driven by a religion, any religion.

Matthew Weaver wrote:

Immigrants are in the U.S. "at our leisure" and can be deported and/or detained for any reason, at any time and for however long the government deems necessary, without due process. If you look back through history you will see the U.S. government has done similar things during times of war — the Japanese detentions during WWII come to mind.

No matter how distasteful those actions were they were necessary to protect U.S. citizens. Not all Muslims are terrorists, however, all the terrorists we know of today that want to kill us ARE Muslim, and until that changes, whatever the government needs to do to protect ordinary U.S. citizens is fine by me and the vast majority of the population. These people are using our governmental framework, and people with your views, against us on the supposition that our elected political leaders won’t have the courage to take bold steps. Fortunately, for the safety of all U.S. citizens, you included, our leaders are taking the courageous steps and not listening to pinheads like you!

Lisa Wolf wrote:

We have people living in America now who are citizens, who should be deported or jailed. I know our legal system permits this. However, our government is being very timid about these issues. I do not want them to be timid about exporting hate (especially anti-American, anti-capitalist, or pro-communist/socialist). Whether it is in the form of Islam or Marxism, citizen or not, I don't need hate. Free thought is fine, free speech is a wonderful blessing, but when murder, language, anarchistic hijacking of our court systems, specific coup plans or similar actions are used, something needs to be done.

Matthew Covey from Lincoln, Neb., wrote:

This has been the problem with the Catholic Church for decades. Protection of the church is more important to those who control the church than what is right. What we are seeing now is the culmination of this policy, the total discrediting of the church as a moral, spiritual leader. According to their teachings the purgatory for these leaders will be long and painful. Honesty is the best policy.

John Brown from Kentucky wrote:

As sick and sinister as it is for someone to commit such a crime against a child, I'm equally (if not more) nauseated by the actions of those who have covered it up. In one regard, I can't help but think that they should suffer worse punishment for their crime. I hope you will continue to be outspoken on this issue.

David Heinaman wrote:

This article illuminates an issue that must be addressed quickly and thoroughly. As stated, a cover-up is much worse than honestly confronting and dealing with sin. Unfortunately, I wonder how many of the magisterium has something to fear.

Cynthia Picklesimer wrote:

The Catholic Church's divine function is to forgive but that does not give them the right to circumvent the laws of man, especially those designed to protect and promulgate the morals of our society.

Tom Bloomfield wrote:

This was an eye-opening article for me, as I had not heard of this problem before. Well-written articles such as this will hopefully find their way into the mainstream and shine some much-needed light on the Catholic Church.

As a non-Catholic, I'm truly amazed that the followers willingly accept a hierarchy that is not based on spirituality. When the Pope, cardinals and bishops are more concerned about protecting the image of the church than about the well being of its people, then it sadly reveals the church for what it is.

Looking at Catholicism is like watching an iceberg melt. Unless it can right itself and find some way to meet the spiritual needs of its people, it will continue to devolve into irrelevancy.

Jim Kennedy wrote:

With this whole priest scandal thing I keep thinking of the Tylenol scare and how Johnson & Johnson handled that. They immediately recognized it as a problem, did not hide behind lawyers, and took steps to protect the public. They pulled product off shelves and took back products from anyone — no questions asked — and did not make the retailer suffer. They ran TV spots to assure the public that they could return the product. Then they added tamper proof packages. It worked. People do not hesitate to buy Tylenol today.