Boston City Council to weigh non-citizen voting

A new home-rule petition would allow non-citizens with "legal status" to vote in municipal elections in Boston.

Councilor Julia Mejia. 

Pat Greenhouse / The Boston Globe, File

By Ross Cristantiello

March 19, 2026 | 11:06 AM

A number of Boston City Council members are showing support for a measure that would allow immigrants with “legal status” to vote in municipal elections.

Councilor Julia Mejia introduced a home-rule petition Wednesday, framing it as an extension of the progressive legacy laid out by former councilor Kendra Lara and others. Lara was the driving force behind a similar effort in 2023.

That year, the City Council approved a home-rule petition with very similar language in an 8-4 vote. It moved on to Beacon Hill and eventually stalled there. Mejia described the State House as a place “where everything goes to die” when speaking about the new home-rule petition Wednesday.

But now, in the context of the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign and an explosion in anti-immigrant rhetoric, Mejia said that the time has come to try again.

“We’re back again, because the urgency of this issue has only grown. At a time when immigrant communities are facing increasing attacks, harmful rhetoric, and fear, we have a responsibility at the local level to respond,” she said.

Councilors Liz Breadon, Miniard Culpepper, Ruthzee Louijeune, Enrique Pepén, Henry Santana, Ben Weber, and Brian Worrell all signed on to Mejia’s petition, indicating their support. It was referred to the Committee on Government Operations and will be the subject of a future hearing.

Non-citizen immigrants with “legal status” make up more than 28% of Boston’s population, according to Mejia’s petition. They pay an average of $2.3 billion a year in taxes.

Ganoun Diop: The Truth About Inter-Church/Interfaith Relations

Commentary

December 19, 2019 

The Truth About Inter-Church/Interfaith Relations 

Insights that inform public affairs work and religious liberty advocacy.

By: Ganoune Diop, director of General Conference Public Affairs and Religious Liberty

This article addresses some concerns that have been expressed regarding the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s engagement with other Christians.

Though most Adventists, since the establishment of a department of Public Affairs and Religious liberty in 1901, understand the necessity to mingle with other Christians, the questions are still asked: “Why mingle with other Christians? Is this not a betrayal of Adventist identity, message, and mission?” To these, our unequivocal answer is no, it is not. The mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church cannot be fulfilled without mingling as Jesus did. Fears and objections are part of human experience, but they have to be addressed rationally.

First, a clarification. Inter-church and interfaith relations do not mean ecumenism in the sense of union with other churches, doctrinal alliances, obliteration of differences, or the loss of distinctive emphasis on biblical truths.

A misunderstanding of this basic fact has prompted a few at the fringes of the church to accuse Adventist leaders of betraying the church’s position, which they assume demands there be no interaction with other Christians at all. This radical rejection of mingling with others is, at times, expressed through violent and angry rhetoric.

Both in the Bible and in the writings of Ellen White, we have a clear picture that antagonism and hostility toward other Christians should have no place in a heart in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit. Love of even enemies is at the heart of the teachings and lifestyle of Jesus. Ellen White admonishes Adventists to present ourselves in a favorable light before all the world. The gospel, the good news of God, should never be sidelined. The gospel of the kingdom must be proclaimed, and then the end shall come, said Jesus. But this gospel of the kingdom cannot be separated from the fruit of the Holy Spirit, the first of which is love. After all, a distinctive mark of discipleship is love of God and love of one’s neighbor.

Pope Benedict Says Blame the ’60s for Priests’ Abuse

Benedict, the pope emeritus, weighed in on the Catholic Church’s abuse crisis. What was once opaque becomes clearer, and even stranger. 

Rachel Donadio 

Apr 12, 2019

Pope Francis greets Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.Tony Gentile / Reuters

VATICAN CITY—Popes are supposed to be infallible. They communicate through carefully worded speeches, apostolic letters, or encyclicals that are often the fruit of slow collaboration with doctrinal experts inside the Vatican. So what are we to make of the strange text that Benedict XVI, the pope emeritus, unleashed on the world this week, in which he effectively blamed the abuse crisis in the Catholic Church on the freewheeling sexual revolution of 1968?

Before we get into the contents of Benedict’s letter—which is informal, not Church doctrine—let us pause for a moment to consider the utter weirdness of the situation. In 2013, Benedict, who turns 92 next week, became the first pope in modern history to resign. It was a brave and rather beautiful act that defined his life and the modern history of the Church. Since then, he’s lived in retirement inside Vatican City—reading, writing, playing a little piano.

Benedict pledged to stay in the background and lead a life of quiet contemplation, and to not meddle in the affairs of his successor, Francis. Instead, he has weighed in on one of the most fraught issues of both their papacies, in a way that’s bumbling, tone-deaf, and theologically problematic. (Theologians have also pointed out that this kind of document isn’t subject to the doctrine of papal infallibility.)

Especially since it comes just months after the Vatican held a summit of bishops from around the world to address the sexual-abuse crisis. Bishops heard the painful testimony of victims who’d been abused by priests, and Francis called for concrete action. The conference was seen as a step forward, even if victims’-rights organizations said that it didn’t go far enough, and that it confirmed their sense that they’ve found a clearer response through civil justice.

Read: The “Spotlight” effect: This Church scandal was revealed by outsiders

Benedict didn’t stay in the background. Instead, he published a letter that is incoherent, inaccurate, and at times truly bizarre. In his letter, he wrote that the news of the February conference had compelled him to action. “I compiled some notes by which I might contribute one or two remarks to assist in this difficult hour,” he wrote.

Benedict alerted Francis that he’d be publishing the letter, but I can’t begin to imagine how Francis responded.

In his letter, Benedict blamed the sexual-abuse crisis on the absence of God. This is a theological argument that’s worth hearing out, although one could argue that, say, human agency was also to blame for a crisis in which priests sexually abused minors and dioceses routinely covered up the abuse.

Did Pope Francis say there is no hell? Not quite, the Vatican insists

SUSAN MILLER | USA TODAY
4:14 p.m. EDT Mar. 29, 2018




Pope gives boy with down's syndrome gleeful ride

At the beginning of the audience, the Pope's security guards lifted a young boy with Down's Syndrome from the crowd and gave him a spot in the back of the Popemobile. (March 28)
AP


Hell hath no fury like a misquoted pope — especially when it comes to, well, hell.


Three days before Easter, the Vatican tried to tamp down a firestorm over a comment attributed to Pope Francis that hell "does not exist," which would mark a historic break with teachings of the Catholic Church.

Pope Francis washes the feet of inmates during his visit to the Regina Coeli detention center where he celebrated Mass in Rome on March 29, …

VATICAN MEDIA HANDOUT, EPA-EFE

The Vatican on Thursday rebuked Eugenio Scalfari, 93, a well-known Italian journalist who is the founder of Italy’s La Repubblicanewspaper.

When asked where "bad souls" end up, according to the article in Thursday’s La Repubblica, Francis reportedly said that those who repent can be forgiven, but those who don't repent simply "disappear." 

Sabbath debate: Saturday or Sunday? Does the day really matter? (Update)

Patrick Mabilog

03 July 2016

Pexels

There is a long-standing debate on the day the Sabbath ought to be observed—Saturday or Sunday?

While it's important to know historically what the Sabbath day really was, the essence of Sabbath has very little to do with the day it is practiced and more to do with how we spend it.

If based on early church practices, scriptures will point to the Sabbath as being on the first day of the week which is generally accepted to be on a Sunday. Acts 20:7 says, "On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight."

1 Corinthians 16:2 also tells us, "On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come."

So in that aspect, the Sabbath was on a Sunday.

But looking at the pattern of creation, God rested on the seventh last day of the week, which is now accepted to be a Saturday. Genesis 2:2 says, "And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done."

The word "Sabbath" comes from the Hebrew term "shabbat," which means to cease all activities.

The essence of Sabbath, however, has very little to do with actual body rest and the mere halting of work. God rested on the seventh day not because He was tired but because He wanted to enjoy His creation. And that is the essence of Sabbath—for us, God's creation, to enjoy our Creator.

And though our bodies may need to be restored at times, it's not just the body that needs rest. Your soul needs rest as well, and as far as rest for the soul is concerned, we can only gain this kind of rest in God. In Matthew 11:28, Jesus invites us, "Come to me, all who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."

Nowadays, many people have Sabbaths on different days. Most of the corporate culture today takes two days off mostly on the weekends. I take my Sabbath on a Monday, the day after a full work day in ministry.

The essence of the Sabbath does not lie on the day it falls under. The essence of the Sabbath is a Person, and that person is Jesus Christ.

In Luke 6:5, Jesus declares, "The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath." What day you celebrate Sabbath, how long you celebrate it or how often does not matter if it is not spent in Christ. In Christ alone do we find true rest for the soul and the spirit so that we will be revived and rejuvenated by His presence.

Source


P.S.

The above article comes to us directly from the Hillary Clinton, Alibi School of Philosophy (Rationale).