There has been much talk among conservatives of religious liberty over the past few years with a great deal of fear expressed that religious people would not be able to exercise their freedom of religion in the public sphere. This is a legitimate concern and religious liberty, like all of our freedoms, should not be taken for granted. Rather, we should vigilantly seek to maintain it. That being said, the recent actions of the South Carolina state legislature cause me to question if the next front in the battle over religious liberty might involve the ministry of churches to refugees and immigrants.
The South Carolina General Assembly is working through Bill 997 which states:
TO AMEND CHAPTER 1, TITLE 43 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, BY ADDING SECTION 43-1-730 TO PROVIDE THAT REFUGEES PLACED IN THIS STATE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST REGISTER WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; TO AMEND TITLE 15, CHAPTER 5 OF THE 1976 CODE, TO PROVIDE CIVIL LIABILITY FOR VOLUNTARY RESETTLEMENT ORGANIZATIONS ARISING FROM THE ACTIONS OF A REFUGEE PLACED IN THIS STATE TO WHOM THE ORGANIZATION PROVIDED SPONSORSHIP OR RESETTLEMENT SERVICES; TO PROHIBIT STATE OR LOCAL FUNDS BEING EXPENDED FOR THE DIRECT OR INDIRECT BENEFIT OF REFUGEES UNTIL LEGISLATION SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE IS ENACTED; AND TO DEFINE NECESSARY TERMS.
Talking Points Memo has a good synopsis of the bill, who supports it, and the arguments for and against it in South Carolina. The expectation is that the Senate will vote on it this week and then it will go to Governor Nikki Haley’s desk to sign or to veto. I think that this is a terrible bill for several reasons.
- It creates an online registry where refugees who have already been strenuously vetted must now have all of their personal contact information available for anyone to look up and find out who they are and where they live. With the current furor that has arisen over refugees entering our country, this could cause these people to be targets for anyone who wants to do them harm.
- It creates “civil liability for voluntary resettlement organizations” who aid the refugees coming into the state if AFTER they were helped they then at some point in the future commit any action that could cause any kind of problem. The resettlement organization is apparently forever responsible for the actions of the refugees even if they only assisted them for a short period of time. This also extends to “sponsorship” which is something that churches participate in in partnership with resettlement organizations like World Relief. Is this bill saying that churches could also be held in civil liability for any action committed in the future by a refugee even after they were sponsored by the church? Or, for an organization like World Relief, which is a Christian organization, will they be held responsible for anything that the refugee might do in the future, even years later? Some of this is unclear and needs to be better explained. Will churches who work with World Relief be held liable if any refugee later commits an act of violence? Or, will civil liability stop with World Relief? I am asking.
- This creates a prejudicial situation based on religion, ethnicity, and country of origin which is clearly unconstitutional. Refugees are people who are legally admitted to the United States. This bill creates a class for them based on their status as refugees that does not apply to others who are also legally admitted. It also casts them as a pariah not worthy of assistance or aid, lest the group helping them be held in civil liability at some point in the future. Rep. Mick Mulvaney, in the testimony for this bill, even said that we didn’t have to worry about Irishmen coming, but we did have to worry about Syrians.
- My biggest question is, “Does this bill violate the religious liberty of Christians who believe that Scripture commands them to minister to and welcome the poor, the needy, and the stranger that would come to them?” These refugees are here legally. They have been vetted and admitted to the United States. In imposing possible civil liability on religious organizations (even churches? I am asking), who help and serve those who have been legally admitted to the United States and who have committed no crimes at the time that assistance was given, are religious liberty rights being violated? That is worth considering.
Religious Liberty does not just involve the freedom to worship or to make lifestyle choices or to have a religious opinion. Religious Liberty involves the freedom to live out one’s faith. When that freedom is infringed upon, it should be recognized and serious questions should be asked and answered. World Relief and Lutheran Services are the two organizations that are resettling refugees in South Carolina. Both organizations are Christian based.World Relief, operating out of Spartanburg, has an explicitly evangelical mission. World Relief also partners with dozens of churches in the Upstate to help receive and care for the refugees who are placed in their local communities. The ministry to refugees and the sojourner is an explicit Christian command found in both the Old and New Testaments. How much authority does the government have to infringe upon that command or to create a climate of fear where anyone ministering to a refugee in the need in the name of Jesus will be held liable for anything that that refugee might one day do?
Leviticus 19:33-34 “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.”
Zechariah 7:9-10 “Thus says the Lord of hosts, Render true judgments, show kindness and mercy to one another, do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor, and let none of you devise evil against another in your heart.”
Exodus 23:9 “You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.”
Isaiah 16:3-4 “Give counsel; grant justice; make your shade like night at the height of noon; shelter the outcasts; do not reveal the fugitive; let the outcasts of Moab sojourn among you; be a shelter to them from the destroyer. When the oppressor is no more, and destruction has ceased, and he who tramples underfoot has vanished from the land,”
Deuteronomy 10:18-19 “He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.”
Mark 12:30-31 “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
Just for context, recent ariel drone footage of the Syrian city of Homs, once home to approximately one million Syrians as recently as 2011, demonstrates why the Syrian refugees had to leave. Utter destruction.
In the Parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus was asked the question, “Who is my neighbor?” and he responded by telling the story of a foreigner and religious outcast helping a man who was beaten by robbers and left on the side of the road while being bypassed by the religious leaders who were socially and religiously acceptable. Jesus said that the Good Samaritan was the one who was the neighbor. Jesus both defined how we should treat those in need and also showed that those who are doing what God commands might not be those who are on the inside of religious propriety. Now, what if the man beaten by robbers had one day in the future committed some crime and then the authorities went back and held the Good Samaritan responsible for helping him and saving his life? That is essentially what the South Carolina legislature is proposing.
While not directly outlawing ministry to refugees, the South Carolina legislature is creating a climate that is inhospitable to Christian ministry and the obeying of Scriptural commands by churches, individuals, and Christian-based refugee agencies. The refugee situation is an occasion for the church to step up and serve instead of being intimated into shrinking back out of fear. I call upon the South Carolina Senate to reject this bill and to not infringe upon religious liberty and the obedience of Christians to Scripture in their state. We are not talking about actively bringing in terrorists or people who want to do harm to innocent people. We are talking about creating a situation where anyone who helps those FLEEING from terrorism or violence will operate under a climate of fear and potential future civil liability if the person that they help might one day do something wrong that would be unforeseen to any authorities or possily even to the refugee himself at the time of his assistance. That is terrible public policy, it sets an awful precedent that would have a chilling effect on our entire society, it violates Scriptural commands to love your neighbor and even your enemy and to do good to all, and it tramples on the religious liberty of those trying to love their neighbor – neighbors vetted and legally admitted to our county by our own government.
If this bill passes this week, I pray that Governor Nikki Haley will veto it. This law will not make the people of South Carolina one bit safer. It will only put refugees at risk of vigilante violence and will cause Christian based organizations to potentially not engage in assisting the refugee in their state who has come to them. Religious liberty does not just mean that we can worship as we choose. It also means that we have the freedom to engage in the ministry that God calls us to. While this law would not explicitly outlaw ministry, it would certainly make it much more difficult. That is not good for religious liberty and it is not good for our communities.
Security is important and we should make every effort to make our nation and communities secure and to protect the innocent and the weak. But, religious liberty to follow God, obey Him, and minister to those He calls us to minister to is even more important than safety and security. In this situation, however, we really do not have to choose between the two. I believe that we can have both.
Perhaps our religious liberty will not be taken away by secular progressives who seek to silence Christians, as has been said so often over the past few years. Perhaps we will just give it away because we care more about being “safe” than we care about loving our neighbors and obeying God. I really hope that won’t be the case.
Your church could provide assistance to a paroled ax-murderer with no liability whatsoever, no matter what he might do in the future.
Your church could provide assistance to a Syrian grandmother and her infant granddaughter, and if the granddaughter accidentally knocked over a lamp in their furnished apartment and broke it, the landlord could sue your church for damages.
Yeah…that’s rational, ethical lawmaking, right there. #smh
Their primary concern involves future acts of terrorism, I think, which is impossible to predict. But, they did not limit it to that at all, so your example is not too far-fetched. The effect will be chilling on evangelical mission in South Carolina in regard to ministering to those fleeing persecution and violence from war-torn lands. The law will be struck down if it is passed, but my concern is in how much damage will be done between now and then. The precedent that this could set is staggering.
Well Alan I thank you for this post as it hits close to home but living in SC I had not heard of this bill until your post. It will still have to be approved by the Senate and then the House before it gets to Governor Haley’s desk. Based on her more recent statements I have hope that should that occur that she would veto it.
The troubling aspect to me beyond the egregious nature of the bill and the fact that is alive in my General Assembly is that the sponsors all claim to be Christians and this being SC, they are mainly Baptist. Three of the eight were the only Senators to not vote for removing the Confederate flag from the State House grounds. So it is safe to say that brotherly love and reconciliation are not top priorities. Those three are:
Senator Lee Bright- @leebright, Spartanburg County(Upstate), member of Roebuck Baptist Church(SBC) and member of the Board of Visitors of SEBTS
[for Mr Thornton & other numbers geeks like myself.
Senator Harvey Peeler- @harveypeeler, Gaffney in Cherokee County(Upstate), member of Gaffney FBC.
Senator Danny Verdin- Laurens County(Upstate), Faith Free Presbyterian.
The other nasty eight are:
Senator Kevin Bryant- @kevinbryantsc, Anderson County(Upstate), Concord Community Church [non-affiliated]
Senator Tom Corbin- Greenville County(Upstate), Deacon at Clearview BC(SBC).
Senator Mike Fair- @SenatorMikeFair, Greenville County(Upstate), former USC QB in the 60’s and Deacon at Faith Baptist Church(Bob Jones- followers)
Senator Larry Grooms- Berkeley County(Lowcountry & only non-Upstate sponsor), his lengthy bio lists him as Saved by Grace in April 1987, has served or serves on Board of Visotors of Charleston Southern U(a SC SBC school) and ironically the United Methodist Relief Center. He is past Chairman of the Deacon Board at St Stephen FBC but currently is a member of Pointe North Community Church. He ran in the GOP Primary for Congress a few years back but lost to the Appalachian Trail Tango Man aka Mark Sanford. He came in third place.
Senator Shane Martin- @senshanemartin, Spartanburg County(Upstate) is a Deacon at Philadelphia BC(SBC).
Now the 2 GOP Congressman involved are Mick Mulvaney(@RepMickMulvaney / @MickMulvaney), a Roman Catholic who has apparently never heard of the IRA, and Jeff Duncan(@RepJeffDuncan). Both are from the Upstate and Duncan is of course another Baptist. He is a member of FBC in Clinton, SC and they gave the CP.
In the spirit of full disclosure, my home church is Kelleytown Baptist in Hartsville(Pee Dee) and we gave $74,347.84 to the CP & $29,202.85 to LMCO in 2015. I don’t know how William does it. Grabbing this handful of numbers has my eyes glazed over right now.
Louis. Wow. What a picture that you are painting. The disconnect between many of the positions that we take and what Scripture says can be disheartening. What is really interesting is that World Relief in Spartanburg partners with dozens of churches in the Upstate – many of them Southern Baptist. Some of WR’s biggest supporters even now are Southern Baptists. So, many SBC churches and pastors are getting this right, but it doesn’t always make its way into the policies that our elected representatives support. We have seen this over and over.
Jesus calls for sacrificial love for others and our political system currently exists on the basis of supporting and representing people’s self interests as they promote and defend their own “way of life,” often over and against others. Like I said, I am all for safety/security, but if we have that and do not love our neighbor and/or the vulnerable, then what good are we? If we have everything and have not love, then we are nothing more than a clanging cymbal (1 Cor. 13:1-8). That seems to be the case here.
Interesting times. If we want to influence our culture for Christianity, we have so many opportunities – and we tend to miss them over and over again. Glad that you are seeing them, Louis.
A key point to note is Section 2, part B which reads as follows: B) A person that provided sponsorship or resettlement services to a refugee being relocated to this State from a country recognized by the federal government as a state sponsor of terrorism who causes the death of or personal injury to the person or destroys, damages, or steals property, real, personal or mixed, belonging to the person, is entitled to recover damages in a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction from the voluntary resettlement organization and the organization’s directors, individually.”
Currently there are only three countries recognized as “State Sponsors of Terrorism” and they are: Iran, Sudan and Syria. So the attempt to make individuals or groups helping settle refugees is not as broad as one would think. Perhaps it is an oversight on the author’s part. However that limits only the potential liability should a refugee from on of those three countries commit a terrorist act. The registration at the state/local level is broad enough to apply to Cuban/Haitian immigrants, hum trafficking victims, asylum seekers, survivors of torture, Special Immigrant Visa holders(those who have helped us in Iraq & Afghanistan), Amerasians and other refugees. I do not think that this proposal would withstand constitutional scrutiny. States are in no way in charge of immigration policies. Yet another overreach by supposedly “small government” Senators trying to micromanage everything.Since they are doing such a great job with our schools and roads here, they must be bored.
Should be: “So the attempt to make individuals or groups helping settle refugees liable for future acts is not as broad as one would think. Perhaps it is an oversight on the author’s part. However that limits only the potential liability should a refugee from one…
A safe zone is a weak euphemism for both a refugee camp and not in my backyard, city or state. It boggles my mind that the thought of 10,000 vetted refugees in a nation of 320 million is cause for gnashing of teeth when Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon are handling millions.
The United States once was the safe haven for people. It was a nation of refuge and that made us stronger. Think of the greatness we would have missed if we had closed our doors to refugees from Vietnam, China, the Soviet Union, Korea, Iran, India, Lebanon and yes even Syria in the past.
We should have a nature of fear. Christ lives in us. What do we have to fear? Nothing but we do have work to do: sharing the gospel and helping the foreigners, the widows and the orphans.
If what we want is just safety and comfort, do we serve the Lord or are we asking him to serve us?
Louis, as one also in SC, a native here, this doesn’t surprise me. If SBC church membership had been polled, their is no doubt in my mind a large majority would have favored keeping the flag where it was. It will be interesting to see where this bill goes, as I believe if church members were to be polled on this issue, they’d agree with the bill. That’s just my take, but that feeling to me is palpable in our state. We don’t think like Christians on such matters, we think like “Americans,” nationalistic with a clear enemy that these refugees represent in their minds. Love you enemy does not enter the conversation. It’s sad.
Perhaps the most Christian thing to do would be to provide safe zones in which to accommodate these refugees, and the refugees from all the countries on earth who understandably desire to live in America. We obviously cannot take them all in, but we might be able to help more of them through safe zones than through refugee and immigration approaches. These safe zones could be closer to their own homelands, in the event that one day they might return when it is safe.
In this manner, the refugees would be cared for like the Good Samaritan met the needs of his neighbor, and the safety of our homes and families would also be provided, as we are instructed in 1 Timothy 5:8.
There is more than one “Christian” approach to the problem of having too many refugees and would-be immigrants wanting to live in America. It is probably not right or fair to suggest that those of us who favor different approaches than yours are in any way less Christian or less familiar with our Bibles.
Rick, while I appreciate your desire to help the Syrian refugees, your solution has nothing to do with the situation at hand. We can discuss solutions to the Syrian refugee crisis at any time and I would like to have that discussion. But that is not what this post is about. Not directly, at least. Or rather, not totally.
There are no Syrian refugees in South Carolina. And none on their way. There are other refugees there though. And, if there were Syrian refugees vetted and admitted by the United States government, then they should receive protection from the government and, as far as we are concerned, they should receive gospel ministry. This is about the rule of law and Christian charity and how we treat people in need. Passing laws that expose refugees to potential harm and that intimidate churches from engaging in ministry is problematic to say the least. I am no Constitutional lawyer, but I have questions as to its legality.
We can talk about overall solutions for the Syrian refugee crisis that are Christian and humane. And, we can also have that discussion about how to treat the refugees that are here. But, this law is neither and to point that out is appropriate, I believe.
Alan, great post! The thrust of Bill 997 is to enslave. What a bad precedent to establish for a country that stands for freedom, liberty, free markets, capitalism, etc. Hopefully the Governor will not succumb to the political pressure and use a wise veto instead.
This bill is simply a reaction and not a solution. A better solution is to be diligent about understanding who these folks are as they enter the United States. We should not give up at that juncture. Yet to diminish their freedom, and moor them to a governmental system of slavery while coming into the most free country on the planet is astonishing and moving in the wrong direction.
In light of the most recent terror activities in the US and around the world, America should simply be more diligent, apply better scrutiny, provide the most advanced gauntlet, and prosecute those that break the law, as they enter into freedom. But, for our country sake, don’t create a another system of ongoing slavery for anyone. America and its politicians do that enough with providing a lifetime of food stamps, public housing, rewarding baby killing, and unnecessary welfare. Let’s not compound it again by providing a lifetime of government scrutiny that not only shackles those that have just escaped from shackles, but it also prohibits the real helpers inside the US…God’s people.
On target, Alan. SC (I lived there for 15 years) has half the population of Georgia but twice the nutcase legislators.
Rick, compassionate colleague that he is, has already given to Syrian refugee relief ‘over there’ so we can assume he is not just blowing smoke?
If we were in the UK or Germany or France that better strategy would be to pour millions into Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan where the millions of displaced Syrians are living and dying in squalid camps. Since we are an ocean away,Christian compassion has to include accommodating some refugees here. The numbers are extremely small, zero in SC to date.
But if the sponsors of the SC bill show they and their churches have given heavily to overseas relief, then I’d listen to their rationale for the harsh legislation. If they haven’t then we just have another example of Christian hypocrisy…for those SC solons who claim to be followers of Christ.