Dear Christians, when was the last time...?

From Huffington Post

Dear Christians

Dear Christian, close your eyes. Don’t pray just yet. Instead, reach deep into your memory.

When was the last time you were called an abomination... When was the last time you needed sanctuary just to exist...When was the last time you were refused service because you were seen as the embodiment of sin itself... When was the last time you had to decide between electricity and food, despite working three jobs... When was the last time you were followed by an officer simply because of the way you looked... When was the last time you had the graves of your ancestors desecrated... When was the last time you were called a rapist and a criminal just because you weren’t born here... When was the last time you were called a murderer by a mob with picket signs... When was the last time you thought about any of these people without assuming, like the Pharisee, you were more righteous than them...

>1 John5918: I finally got around to following the link and it is just as dismaying as I feared. The political climate here in the U.S. is toxic as it is in other countries facing rising nationalism. It saddens me when we categorically dismiss groups of people... and I know I've been guilty of it, too.

I'm happy to see my denomination, The Episcopal Church, taking a stand for the "strangers in our midst." I think, though, it's time people in the Western world acknowledged the difference between the legal and illegal immigrant. That difference is lost in the shouting matches across the political divide.

God have mercy on us.

>2 pmackey: it's time people in the Western world acknowledged the difference between the legal and illegal immigrant

Would you care to elaborate on that?

My own view would be that they are both strangers who need to be welcomed - in Matthew 25 Jesus did not say, "I was a stranger and you welcomed me, providing I had jumped through the necessary hoops to obtain the correct legal documentation..."

Sitting where I do, at the opposite end of the immigrant chain from many in Europe and the USA, I also see how difficult it often is for people who desperately need to escape from war, killing, oppression, torture, poverty, etc in order for themselves and their families to survive, to actually get the correct "legal" documentation.

So personally I don't see a great difference between legal and illegal immigrants.

>2 pmackey: it's time people in the Western world acknowledged the difference between the legal and illegal immigrant

Joe is a 45 year old man who came to the USA 20 years ago, going through hell and high water to do so. He's lived the straight and narrow ever since -- got a good job and pays taxes. No murders or rapes -- or even a traffic ticket. Has two children, both of whom were born in the US.

Joe is an illegal immigrant. His children are neither illegal nor immigrants.

What's the difference? The only difference I can see is the spot on the map that someone had the (mis)fortune to be born on. Why is it time to acknowledge such a difference?

More to the point, why is it time for a Christian to make such an acknowledgement?

>3 John5918:, >4 jburlinson: I suppose I'm looking at this from a dualistic point of view: render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's.

As a Christian, it's my duty to treat the strangers in our midst with compassion and justice, whereas a nation's duty is to promote an ethical, just society. A government must do its best balance protecting its citizens and preserving their civil liberties.

In the current political climate in the U.S. and other nations, people's opinions range between live-and-let-live to xenophobia. I would like to see the political rhetoric toned down. I would like people to calm down -- both sides of the issue. If Ronald Reagan could offer amnesty to illegal aliens, I don't see why we can't today. But until that happens, I would be happy if the government turned a blind eye to illegal aliens until they prove they can't live here peacefully. Just recently, there was a case where a high school student was raped in Maryland by two other students who were illegal aliens. Before the rape, I'd have said leave them alone. After the rape, "sorry, buddy, but in addition to being here illegally, you've demonstrated you can't live here peacefully...." If they're convicted, lock them up to serve their sentence and then send them to their nation of origin.

Their is a balance we must seek between compassion and justice as citizens of earthly nations and as Christians.

JB, so, my problem isn't with Joe who's been here for 20 years. Live and let live. I'd prefer it to be done through legal means because it's for everyone's benefit. I would like to see the expanded use of worker visas and I'd like to see amnesty.

JTF, I know you see the opposite side of the immigrant chain. I wish there was an easier way to get asylum seekers and refugees into the country. Anyone, though, entering illegally is gambling on not getting caught which is probably better than where they were, but still illegal.

FWIW, I'm a political moderate: a liberal when it comes to social issues and conservative on the fiscal.

As far as Europe is concerned some states are turning against NGOs who are rescuing too many would be migrants.
https://theconversation.com/ngos-under-attack-for-saving-too-many-lives-in-the-m...

Edited to say I think the politicians want to stem the flow at source or in Libya where migrants arrive from many parts of Africa.

>7 MarthaJeanne: I think the comments in that direction are rather naive, but yes, the idea is first to dry up the flow of migrants at the source. Next to have them prevented from getting on boats, or turned back near the African coast.

The argument is being made that if the migrants on boats get saved and brought to Europe soon after leaving the coast, the smugglers will stuff more people onto worse boats with even less supplies, with the net loss of life getting even more.

1) Many of the migrants are fleeing violence and famine. Those who can get out will continue to do so.

2) The North African coast is long and not under any sort of government control. The governments who have any power to do something have more important things to do than prevent people from other countries from trying to leave.

3) Of course the boats are getting even less seaworthy as this is a one way traffic. The boats are not coming back.

>7 MarthaJeanne:

"Drying up the flow of migrants at the source" by improving the situation in their countries of origin so that they would have no need nor desire to flee their homes is certainly a nice dream, but in practice an end to war and poverty is far in the future for most of them.

But why should we try to prevent them getting on boats, or have them turned back near the African coast? Why should some of the poorest countries in the world be forced to take care of them? Why not help them to go to some of the richest countries in the world, which have far more resources to welcome them?

>8 John5918: I don't see resettling refugees happening unless the UN can develop a plan to distribute that member nations can tolerate. It was ridiculous with the Syrians a year or so ago. Very few states in the U.S. want masses of refugees because there's no money in the budget as it is. Sad, too, is that when we do take refugees a few of them will be bad actors and break the law. That gets all the media attention and stokes the xenophobia.

>9 pmackey:

And yet poor countries such as Uganda, Kenya, Jordan, Lebanon, who definitely don't don't have any money in the budget for refugees, are actually hosting millions of them, whereas, despite the combined financial resources of the USA and Europe, the rich nations are whingeing about a few hundred thousand.

>8 John5918: That was more or less my point. The migrants are going to keep coming. There isn't much European politicians can do about it. The real question is how many are going to die in the process and what sort of conditions are they going to have to deal with.

It is worth pointing out, though, that although some of the refugees get into trouble, the terrorists tend to be home grown. Keeping refugees out will not stop terror. A lot of the refugees who reach Europe are young single males. Just the group that does tend to get into trouble more than other people.

Young, single males... trouble? Inconceivable.

Were not many of the immigrants who built the USA, Australia, etc into great nations young single males? Did some of them get into trouble? Yes to both questions. So?

But the point is well taken. The problem is not immigrants nor people from a particular country nor religion. But there is a global issue with disaffected youth who are ripe to be manipulated, radicalised, influenced by unhealthy ideologies, or whatever. I doubt that it is a new problem, but I suspect it has been exacerbated by modern communications, technology, social media, modern weaponry, a greater awareness of the gap between rich and poor (a gap in opportunities, not just wealth). It might be fruitful to devote more effort to addressing these issues rather than just trying to exclude more and more people, thus increasing the gap and creating yet more openings for radicalisation.

Edited to add:

Incidentally, it's not just young single immigrant men who get into trouble. The Englishman who attacked Westminster last week was native-born, middle-aged and married.

The trouble these young men get into is not terror. That is usually home grown. It tends to be gang fights between groups from different countries. They are often involved in drug selling (partly because even once they can work legally it is hard for them to find jobs.) And sometimes rape. This is a small minority of them, but these are the types of problems that get into the news.

The Austrian government has finally decided that German classes should be offered to those who have applied for asylum, and not just those whose applications have been accepted. And integration classes and a certain amount of 'work for the common good'. The last is somewhat questionable, as it is a way for the towns to get unskilled work done at very low cost. The pay is minimal. Refusing any of this can mean the already very low benefits are cut.

Actually it is amazing how little trouble they get into. Take young men from a variety of countries and cultures. Plop them down in the middle of yet another country. Put them together in an overcrowded facility. (Families are in other buildings.) Give them nothing to do for several months. No language classes, not allowed to work, barely enough money for food, no idea of when they will find out if they will be allowed to stay. (NGOs, often church sponsered have been offering classes to some refugees, but facilities have been difficult.)

Then suddenly the rules change. You get told whether or not you are allowed to stay. If not you are offered a ticket and a certain amount of money to leave and the threat of jail and being put on a plane by force if you don't leave and get caught. Room and benefits stop.

If you are allowed to stay, you have a very short period to start fending for yourself. Those under 18 are given some schooling/training. Up until now, this has been when government sponsered German language classes started.

>13 John5918: But the point is well taken. The problem is not immigrants nor people from a particular country nor religion. But there is a global issue with disaffected youth who are ripe to be manipulated, radicalised, influenced by unhealthy ideologies, or whatever. I doubt that it is a new problem, but I suspect it has been exacerbated by modern communications, technology, social media, modern weaponry, a greater awareness of the gap between rich and poor (a gap in opportunities, not just wealth). It might be fruitful to devote more effort to addressing these issues rather than just trying to exclude more and more people, thus increasing the gap and creating yet more openings for radicalisation.

Amen and amen. In a manner of speaking I'm being "radicalized" when I see the disparity between the so-called 1% and the rest of society. My disaffection is facilitated by the modern media and the internet. I watch the two major political parties in the United States struggle (playing dirty, of course) to maintain their powerbase at all costs. I, as an individual in the declining middle class, am left in the cold while the oligarchs of the political duopoly play their power games. It makes me made as hell. My point is: if I, from a "privileged background" (white, male and middle class) feel disaffected, is it any wonder that unrest is spreading among people with fewer opportunities?

What I would like to see, what I pray for, is that we Christians step up and fill the void being left by Big Government as it retreats. We only stepped back because Government began saying, "That's our job" in the 19th and 20th centuries. I am seeing it in many cases for the illegal immigrants, the environment, and so on... It's heartening.

What I would like to see as a citizen of a reasonably well-off, democratic society is more emphasis on helping the unfortunate in our country and others to improve their lives. Handouts aren't what I'm talking about. That only helps a person in the short term. I'm talking about giving more people more real opportunities. Most politicians pay only lip service to that.

To bring it back to topic.... These issues are why I feel that illegal aliens -- who cause problems -- shouldn't be allowed to stay. (As I said in an earlier post, I would like to see amnesty extended to those who've lived here without breaking other laws; and I would like to see increased opportunities for people to come here legally as workers who could fast track to citizenship). Illegal aliens will continue to sneak into the West as long as the situation they live in is intolerable. I would like to see Western governments step forward and help up front.

14> The Austrian government has finally decided that German classes should be offered to those who have applied for asylum, and not just those whose applications have been accepted. And integration classes and a certain amount of 'work for the common good'. The last is somewhat questionable, as it is a way for the towns to get unskilled work done at very low cost. The pay is minimal. Refusing any of this can mean the already very low benefits are cut.

I think this is extremely smart of Austria and in its best interests.

I would like to see the same done in the United States (if it isn't already being done).

I wish English was the official language of the United States. If that's not politically possible, I'd like take the Canada approach and see English and Spanish as the official languages.

What I would like to see as a citizen of a reasonably well-off, democratic society is more emphasis on helping the unfortunate in our country and others to improve their lives. Handouts aren't what I'm talking about. That only helps a person in the short term. I'm talking about giving more people more real opportunities. Most politicians pay only lip service to that.

Yes! Exactly!

>15 pmackey:

Well yes, I can agree with most of that. But I reject the term "illegal aliens", or rather, I would say that it is an emotionally-loaded term which has already labelled, divided and excluded people and which should have no place in a Christian vocabulary. Why not call them "poor people who are just as much in need of a welcome as anyone else but who, for whatever reason, failed to negotiate the fairly arbitrary hoops which people have to jump through to become 'legal'"? Or, as Jesus did, just call them "strangers"? "I was a stranger and you welcomed me..."

>17 John5918: Because we're back to the image of Caesar on the coin... I use the term "illegal aliens" non-pejoratively as a description of their legal status within the United States. "Stranger" is how we refer to them at church. Those are my two terms, two perspectives... one response: deal with them compassionately and justly.

I'm curious whether the official "separation of church and state" in the U.S. constitution has fostered a dualistic way of thinking for believers in the U.S. Is it just us? What about countries where there's an "established church". Or is the dualism a Western mindset? Or is it just me?

>18 pmackey:

Not sure that it is the entire US church. The US parish I was in for a couple of years in the early nineties had been part of the sanctuary movement, welcoming and protecting strangers who might have attracted the label "illegal", and even training parishioners in nonviolent resistance to potential police operations against the strangers. I understand there is a new sanctuary movement growing (or at least being discussed) in the light of the current xenophobia and hatred against strangers.

I'm not convinced by the "give unto Caesar" idea, at least in this case. It is found in a single parable, whereas the message of love, inclusion and welcoming is a major theme throughout the New Testament. Or to put it another way, I may well have some obligations to the civil power, but they do not override my obligation to love and welcome the stranger.

>19 John5918: I'm supportive of churches offering sanctuary. I'm even supportive of cities claiming sanctuary status IF they're willing to forgo Federal funding. It's an old argument in America: States' rights versus a strong national government.

I haven't meant to sound cold to illegals or strangers. I'd rather err on the side of compassion. Mercy and justice, though, go hand in hand and sometimes the mercy is to enact justice. Victims of crimes deserve justice and while compassion should be shown to the perpetrator in the sentencing, justice is required.

>20 pmackey:

Ah, now we enter a minefield - mercy and justice! Have you read Pope Francis' recent book on mercy, or Cardinal Walter Kaspar's, by any chance?

Victims of crimes deserve justice

That's another statement which might need unpacking, but in fact I'm not sure what relevance justice for victims has to this conversation. Anybody who commits a crime should be subject to civil justice. If an immigrant, whether "legal" or "illegal", commits murder, then of course she should face the same legal process as a non-immigrant. That's justice. Preventing people who are escaping violence and poverty from entering the USA or Europe simply because they belong to a certain group or have failed to attain some arbitrary status of being "legal" is not justice.

young single males

The political right is so upset about young single males from Africa sexually assaulting white women in Germany, that they elected an rich, old, married man who's sexually assaulted women of various ethnicities, all over the world.

>22 timspalding: Thank goodness America elected a fine Christian man who truly respects women and minorities. sarcasm. God have mercy on us.

>22 timspalding:

I think for me that was the most stunning thing about his election. Leave aside his dubious politics, his dubious character, his obvious ignorance, and so many other things, but this is a man who has publicly admitted to committing criminal sexual assaults on women. I still cannot believe that almost half the population would vote for a man who has publicly admitted such crimes. At the very least I would have expected the police to open a criminal investigation, even if the statute of limitations prevented a conviction. Somebody who admits such crimes should have a criminal record and be on the sex offenders register for life.

And perhaps nearly half the US population should now be accused of covering up sexual abuse and allowing a perpetrator to just move to a new position...

>22 timspalding: Germany still has a female chancellor, and her party just won a regional election. At least here in Austria the males involved are mostly Asian. And those assaulted have often been boys or Asian women.

It's a difficult problem for Europe: the 'humanitarian thing' may be to welcome hundreds of thousands of poor, uneducated people into your country. But is it fair for Europeans to ask: 'What do we get out of this deal?' The only answer I've heard so far is: more population. More workers. Like Europe doesn't already have enough unemployed.

If immigrants are accepted into Europe, they need to understand the hard truth that 'tolerance' is a two-way street. You can't expect your new country to change to suit you, if you aren't willing to meet them half-way. You have to learn a new language and new social rules. Both new and old residents will have to adjust, and compromises will have to be made. Immigrants will have to give up a few things, such as face veils and some of their attitudes towards women. The host country will have to accept a mosque down the street and new colleagues and neighbours named 'Mahommed.' The burden of adjustment, however, as always, rest on the newcomer. Maybe that seems unfair, but that's life. As an emigrant myself, I've learned that too.

>26 madpoet: But is it fair for Europeans to ask: 'What do we get out of this deal?'

Well the first question is why should we expect to get anything out of it? What do you think Uganda and Kenya are getting out of the millions of refugees that they have welcomed?

The only answer I've heard so far is: more population. More workers. Like Europe doesn't already have enough unemployed.

More taxpayers. More people to take the jobs which natives are unwilling or not well educated enough to do. More doctors and nurses to work in the National Health Service. More highly-skilled IT workers, technicians, engineers, scientists, teachers. More cultural diversity. More global understanding.

You can't expect your new country to change to suit you

That is precisely what westerners did expect when they arrived as new immigrants in what are now the USA, Australia, former colonies, etc.

Immigrants will have to give up a few things, such as face veils

Why? If someone wants to wear a face veil, why should she be stopped (providing she is willing to prove her identity when it is legitimately required)? Why on earth should it matter to me what people wear? I've seen plenty of Europeans wearing things which are much weirder than a veil.

The burden of adjustment, however, as always, rest on the newcomer. Maybe that seems unfair, but that's life. As an emigrant myself, I've learned that too.

Yes, I too am an immigrant so I agree with you there. But the fact is that Europe and the USA are stopping most would-be immigrants from coming even before they have the chance to arrive and adjust.

>27 John5918: I don't care either what people wear, but it is a token of consideration towards the country you are immigrating to that you try and adjust to their culture. It is a small sacrifice, considering what your new country is doing for you, isn't it?

' "You can't expect your new country to change to suit you."

That is precisely what westerners did expect when they arrived as new immigrants in what are now the USA, Australia, former colonies, etc.'

Yes, 200-300 years ago... Times have changed.

'Well the first question is why should we expect to get anything out of it? What do you think Uganda and Kenya are getting out of the millions of refugees that they have welcomed?'

Ah, but here is the fundamental difference: refugees in Kenya (though not Uganda) live in camps. They will live and die in refugee camps (run by UN agencies? Funded by international donors?) until they return to Somalia or South Sudan. There is no attempt by Kenya to accept those refugees as immigrants.

In Europe, the 'refugees' are not going back. They are actually immigrants. And as immigrants it is perfectly reasonable for Europeans to ask, "What do you contribute?" Or would you prefer European countries to put the refugees in camps, as the Kenyans do?

ETA: after a quick search, I see that Uganda treats their refugees differently and humanely... unless they are gay... and don't put them in camps.

>28 madpoet:

Actually you'd be surprised how many refugees in Kenya are not in the refugee camps. As you say, Uganda doesn't have refugee camps but tries to give them land and integrate them. And Jordan and Lebanon? Two more countries where millions of refugees are unlikely ever to be allowed to return to their own country. The interplay of refugees between Burundi, Rwanda and DRC? Tanzania? The huge number of Zimbabweans in South Africa? The list of poor countries which host huge numbers of refugees goes on, while the richest countrries in the world whinge about a few tens or hundreds of thousands here and there.

>25 MarthaJeanne:

Yes, I was referring to the US right. American right-wingers are very upset about immigration problems in Germany—a country that, honestly, most couldn't name two cities in.

Immigrants will have to give up a few things, such as face veils

The US being a free country, people don't need to do any such thing.

As a matter of practicalities, some adjustments will happen over time. A lot of the dress, and some of the beliefs, of earlier generations of immigrants have lost their sway over time. But free countries don't tell people what to wear, or what to believe.

>30 timspalding: Immigrants will have to give up a few things, such as face veils

The US being a free country, people don't need to do any such thing.

Well said.

>30 timspalding:, >31 John5918: Re face veils... No, we are free to wear face veils except for things like drivers licenses. I'm okay with that. I may be uncomfortable by someone in a burka, but that's true for any group that are very unlike me (Hassidic Jew, Rappers).

Humans are all about affinity groups or "tribes" and the particular tribe may vary from moment to moment. Christian... Navy... Birdwatcher... Episcopalian... Middle class... American... European descent.... On and on and on. The challenge is to be fair to everyone no matter what "tribe" they belong to. That's hard but well worth it and comes back to the Golden Rule.

So, my challenge is to treat the stranger the way I'd want to be treated in his/her shoes.

>32 pmackey: So, my challenge is to treat the stranger the way I'd want to be treated in his/her shoes.


The golden rule is a good starting point for empathy, but treating others as we ourselves wish to be treated does not quite translate into respecting others for who they are in themselves.

I think ultimately the golden rule is a call for us to recognize our common humanity with others, not an etiquette guide.

The golden rule is a good starting point for empathy, but treating others as we ourselves wish to be treated does not quite translate into respecting others for who they are in themselves.

I'm not sure why not. The Golden Rule always requires a perspective shift--you don't give someone with peanut allergies peanuts, just because you'd like some.

>33 southernbooklady: ...the golden rule is a call for us to recognize our common humanity with others, not an etiquette guide.


Actually, I agree with you.

I don't see the Golden Rule as an etiquette guide, though it's a good start. The Golden Rule calls me to treat everyone as I want to be treated. Since I wish to be respected as a person -- even if disagreed with -- then it's on me, too, to respect others.

>34 timspalding: you don't give someone with peanut allergies peanuts, just because you'd like some.

This reminds me of that S&M joke:

Masochist: Hurt me!
Sadist: No.

>35 pmackey: Since I wish to be respected as a person -- even if disagreed with -- then it's on me, too, to respect (the personhood) others

emphasis (and interjection) mine, of course. But this suggests that whatever we mean by "personhood" or "as a person" cannot be dictated to others, just as others cannot dictate it to us. Our sense of self begins and ends with our self. We cannot measure others against our own self to judge how human they are, they will always fall short. Always be "other." (it rarely occurs to us that we are the ones who fall short, are "other.")

"Do unto others...." is a nice check on our more violent impulses, but I think its suggestion -- that we share a common humanity -- is somewhat buried under the protocol. The golden rule is really more than a call to be nice to other people. It also implies that we have to let go of whatever prevents us from recognizing the "humanness" of other people.

The idea that we are each imperfect beings nevertheless capable of creating a bond with each other because of that common humanity -- that acknowledgement of each other's personhood -- that seems a little more demanding than simple "do unto others as you have them do unto you."

Yesterday, and today, in North Korea, Pakistan, and Sudan. Also in Eritrea and Somalia Christians are imprisoned and killed for being Christian. Then there's Saudia Arabia, where if you convert to Christianity, you are under the death penalty.

Hasn't happened to me in the US. But if it happens to anyone, it happens to me.

And in the USA recently people have been killed for looking like they are Muslim, when they are actually Sikh or Hindu or just not white.

>37 jjvors:

Not disputing what you say, but I wonder whether you could explain the context of your first paragraph and whether it is in response to a particular post?

I could add, of course, that in Myanmar Rohingya Muslims are being killed by Buddhists, in India Hindus and Muslims kill each other, in Ireland Catholics and Protestants were killing each other... the list goes on.

I agree with you, of course, that "if it happens to anyone, it happens to me". I think of the quote by Martin Niemoller, which has recently been adapted in the USA to say, "First they came for the Muslims..." I also think of Matthew 25, "I was a stranger and you welcomed me..."

>37 jjvors: I am neither Muslim nor Christian nor Jewish nor Buddhist, nor black nor Asian nor Native American, nor male nor transsexual, nor a straight woman nor a gay man and yet if it happens to any of these people, it happens to me.

>Not disputing what you say, but I wonder whether you could explain the context of your
> first paragraph and whether it is in response to a particular post?

Sure. I was responding to the post that started this thread. "When was the last time you were called an abomination" etc. I should have quoted it.

>41 jjvors:

Ah, I see. I understood from the context of the article that it was not addressed to Christians in those countries, but to Christians in the western world.

Just read this by J.R.R. Tolkien in On Fairy Stories

"A child may well believe that there are ogres in the next county; many grown-up persons find it easy to believe of another country; and as for another planet, very few adults seem able to imagine is peopled, if at all, by anything but monsters of iniquity."

Shame on those who preach intolerance in the name of Christianity (Guardian)

The Guardian view on politics at Easter: Jesus of platitudes (Guardian)

Religious identity is profoundly tied into nationalism. It can weaponise cliches