If by now you have not heard about the Syrian refugee crisis, then you’ve been hiding in the no man’s land of northern Canada. Based on everything I’ve seen on the news, blogs, Twitter, and Facebook, my guess would be that if polled your church, family, and friends about what should be done then you would find sharply divided opinions.
It should not surprise us. Disagreement runs in our blood.
Personally, I think we should accept those we can. Yes, we should vet them and check their backgrounds to the best of our ability; but we should not let the threat of a few terrorists stop us from doing good to people in need, as individuals, churches, and a nation—we can walk the line of compassion and national security.
But this picture is a snippet of a photo I’ve seen passed around social media that disturbs me to the core. Not so much that someone would post it and that people would share it, but that Christians would share it again and again.
You don’t have to agree with my position on the refugees. You might have good arguments for why you don’t think we should accept them. That’s fine. We can agree to disagree and seek to spur one another on as brothers in Christ (iron sharpening iron produces a few sparks, after all). But the argument in this portion of this picture is: Don’t let those Muslims come to America when there are plenty of Muslim countries they can go to.
Let’s think about that for a second. Obviously this is based on the idea that Islam is incompatible with our American way of life. And in many ways sharia law is. BUT from a gospel perspective this arguments amounts to: Let these people burn in hell so they don’t threaten our comfort and safety.
No Christian should ever favor an argument for the people of any religious group, “Let them go to a country filled with people of their own beliefs instead of coming here.” Most of these Muslim countries are either closed off to the gospel or it is difficult for missionaries to live, work, and share within their borders. This argument is only acceptable if we believe that a faithful Muslim can enter the joy of eternity through their Muslim faith.
You have to rip pages from the Bible to make that plausible.
Yes, our culture is becoming more hostile to Christianity, but as it stands today: immigrants or refugees from most people groups have a better opportunity to be impacted by church ministries and the gospel in our country than in many others, especially those countries of the Middle East, Northern Africa, and South East Asia.
If you want to argue on the grounds of safety and protecting our families, that’s one thing. But to say, “They have Muslim countries of their own they can go to,” is both anti-gospel and unchristian. So let’s talk, debate, and argue our sides; but let’s not like and share photos and articles that basically argue for consigning people to hell in the name of culture and comfort.
I understand your points and agree with them. I just wish I trusted our government enough to believe they would do their due diligence in vetting Muslim/Syrian refugees. The point you made about it being better for them to be in a Christian vs Muslim majority country is a good one I had not really considered.
Mike,
If we cannot welcome someone from a middle eastern country, how on earth can we welcome Jesus into our country. Just a thought! If our religion says no to the castaways, we had better change our religion.
Jess — Jesus wasn’t a terrorist or had any terrorist idealism.
eddie,
Please ask the Pharisees if Jesus was a terrorist.
I haven’t, nor will I forward inflammatory posts such as the one you mention in your comment, but to imply that a Christian who opposes allowing the Syrian refugees to come to our country, to my community, is tantamount to my saying “let them burn in hell” is disappointing at best. You and I can disagree, true, we can and should talk about matters in a Christ center manner, but if I chose to disagree with you over a political perspective on an issue, how can we have a discussion when you judge my perspective unchristian and anti-gospel? I spent 20 years in service to this country, I have been a pastor for almost 10 now, maybe we should all spend some time on our knees and seek the Lord’s guidance on how we should feel about this matter. I know I will. Thanks for letting me vent.
Stephen,
I don’t think he was saying what you think he was saying. He didn’t say “if you oppose refugees you want to consign them to hell”. He was referring to one specific argument against taking refugees: “let them go to muslim countries, they aren’t wanted here”.
Bill, it’s not so much that “they’re not wanted here,” but it’s that they clash with our culture, and will not in anyway assimilate within our culture other than partake in handouts. When people come to this country, they’re expected to become a part of it, just not occupying air, like those of the muslim religion do. It’s not hate; maybe a little contempt, but mostly realism.
Yes. Thanks!
I have to acknowledge that although I’m in favor of cautiously allowing refugees in, I don’t live in an area where I am likely to encounter any of them. As I said in the previous thread, I don’t agree with Randy White on everything he said it his post addressing this situation, but he did make some good points about what constitutes a refugee (e.g.: Should we be taking able bodied, fighting age males as refugees?). So there are better reasons for taking the other side (no refugees) than I have given them credit for, even though ultimately I’m in favor of taking some.
Part of it for me is a reaction to the Christian people I interact with in the real world. All I hear about is “the moslems”. And you have to hear the tone when it is said. It’s actually the same tone they use when they say the word “Obama”. It is not disagreement (which I often share). It is vitriol, contempt, hatred.
“They have Muslim countries of their own they can go to,”
I believe we should accept some of the refuges both Christian and Muslim. We should also be well informed. Christ also ask us to use our mind just not our heart.
It costs $64,000 dollars to resettle a refuge into the United States. It costs $5,200 to resettle a refuge in the Middle East.
If you saw twelve refuges in the water ready to drown would you send a fancy one man boat to save one refuge, or would you send twelve life jackets to save twelve. Every dollar we spend is borrowed money. What would Jesus do, save twelve or one? No easy answers to just one simple question.
These refuges are no longer fleeing IS they have already fled from the harm of IS. The Christian refuges are still fleeing from harms way even though they are no longer threaten directly by IS. These UN camps are not safe for Christians. Who should get priority in resettlement?
Do Middle Eastern refuges fleeing from IS get higher priority than African refuges fleeing from Boko Haram?
No easy answers to 100’s of questions like these. Pray for discernment and wisdom. At best we in the US only have one fancy life boat to save one in twelve even if we use God given wisdom and discernment. We can’t resettle every refuge in the US. Nor should we be goaded into gilt because even Christians in the US have limited resources, along with the limited resources of our Government.
We need Christ once again.
Christ also ask us to use our mind just not our heart.
I continually read this from Christians, but where in the Bible does it say to use our minds in this way? Where does it tell us to not use emotions, which love is very powerful, as is hate. I can’t seem to find it, can you point me to it?
The woman at the well, the Good Samaritan, the tax collector Zacchaeus. This is what I keep finding in the Bible.
We have many Muslims where I am. They own businesses, their women and men have worked with me. I am so sad of the reaction above. I see those who I would never believe were vitriol at all, show it in speaking of the refugees. I hope we never have to flee America for the same reasons these people are, but what if they did not take us for the same reasons some are giving among just Christians.
I personally vehemently disagreed with Randy White’s article. I was surprised and not in a good way, by some of the things he wrote in it.
http://www.martyduren.com/2015/11/24/yes-there-are-palestinian-christians-video/
I never said to only use your mind. Type in “mind” into your online bible search engine you will find many scriptures that relate to my point.
Try as example:
Psalm 26:2
Prove me, O Lord, and try me;
test my heart and my mind.
Jeremiah 11:20
But, O Lord of hosts, who judges righteously,
who tests the heart and the mind,
let me see your vengeance upon them,
for to you have I committed my cause.
Matthew 16:23
But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”
Matthew 22:37
And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
Matthew 22:37
And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
Debbie where in the bible does it say only to use your emotions?
Romans 12:2
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
Romans 14:5
One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
1 Corinthians 1:10
Divisions in the Church
I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
1 Corinthians 14:15
What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also.
1 Corinthians 14:19
Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.
2 Corinthians 2:1
For I made up my mind not to make another painful visit to you.
2 Peter 3:1
The Day of the Lord Will Come
This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder,
Revelation 17:9
This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated;
Debbie you know we are to use our “mind” with the help of God for wisdom.
John K: Read my question again. I am asking for scripture for using your mind in this way. It seems to me, and I am not being facetious, that what you are saying we are to use our minds for, with I am reading, no emotions involved, goes against other passages, most of which have already been given in my question.
I think the passages you give are taken way out of context when one reads the whole passage. It isn’t talking about refugees.
Your right Debbie.
Excellent thoughts, Mike.
Our church is aligned with a refugee ministry, and I have become friends with refugees of Iraq, Sudan and Congo, so I have a bias. I completely understand concerns about incoming refugees. I will explicitly state that to want to halt the influx of refugees is a legitimate (though mistaken, remember my bias!) response and generally should not be labeled as anti-Christian.
Here’s the best way to check where you are at. Let’s say that all legitimate attempts at appealing to the government to halt the influx of refugees are overruled (a likely outcome).
What will your response be then? That will be the true indicator of your belief in the gospel.
Will you call for internment camps? Will you call for Islam registration cards? I have heard both of these suggestions from LAWMAKERS!
Once the dust is settled in the political realm. will you help set up a household for those new to the country? Will you visit them and welcome them? Will you have tea with them and hear their story?
You are probably within an hours drive of some refugee ministry. In most cases, the biggest need is for people to care and get to know them. Go care in Jesus’ name.
Just saw this. Lots of wisdom
The photo says, “50 countries with the same language,” but is this correct? Granted their Koran is in Arabic and they are supposed to recite in Arabic in order to gain merit and favor, but many of those countries–unless the contributor knows more than me–normally speak a variety of languages. I suspect an Arabic- or Indonesian-speaking Muslim would be as lost (linguistically) in Mali as I would be.
John
I’m no expert on dialects, etc. It’s simply what the image passed around Facebook from some political webpage.
And we know everything on the internet is true… /sarcasm
“You can’t trust everything you read on the internet.”
-Abraham Lincoln
Abe was truly a man ahead of his time.
“…let’s not like and share photos and articles that basically argue for consigning people to hell in the name of culture and comfort.”
I couldn’t agree more on this one. This is part of the result of cultural Christianity that makes the Western Church what it has become. This is why it is so hard for people to share the Gospel with their neighbors. This is why so many cultural Christians in the West criticize people for going out to dangerous places in order to take the Gospel there. It’s the reason the prosperity gospel ever became popular. It’s the reason we think business leaders make good deacons despite the fact that they show no evidence that they are inclined to moral behavior. It’s the reason that we argue over the carpet in the sanctuary, the color of the hymnals, and the style of music that we use in church. It’s the reason we think miracles are amazing and don’t pay due attention to the Scriptures.
A recent ad hoc study was done of Western “workers” and new Christians in the Near East. One question regarded what was the most important factor in conversion. The Western “workers” all agreed that it was the miracles, primarily dreams and visions, among new believers. The New Christians, however, all ignored the miracles as sufficient factors. For them, the important thing that led to conversion was the Scriptures. We’re not amazed enough by God in the way he has revealed himself to us in Holy Writ to go and trust God to work in the lives of people.
Whether we want “refugees” to come here or not, they will probably be let in. Therefore, we have an unprecedented opportunity to reach them with the Gospel as long as we still have free speech and some freedom of religion left, we need to take advantage of it until the last vestiges of the Constitution remain practically protected. It’s not a question of whether certain people are called or not – that’s often been used an an excuse to not do what we are all called to be involved with according to the gifts we have been given.
Friends,
Many of the perspectives I have been reading here may have confused one’s personal Christian compassion as taught in the Parable of the Good Samaritan with one’s national defense policy regarding refugee resettlement and immigration. A nation might reasonably choose to adopt more restrictive policies if it desires to reduce the impact of potentially dangerous refugees from predominantly Islamic countries, since they might (a) be terrorists, or (b) engage in a cultural jihad.
Some of us do not wish to see America make the same mistake that Europe made in welcoming the widescale assimilation of Muslims into our culture. Tom Wallace describes a cultural jihad thusly: “This is where Muslims move into a non-Muslim country and work to slowly change the culture and break it down with the goal of replacing it with a Muslim culture. This has been done in Europe with great success and now they are attempting to do it here in North America.” http://bit.ly/1Sii8i4
As for the primary thesis of Mike’s post, I’m afraid I cannot agree, as a matter of national defense policy, that this is a terrible reason for opposing Islamic refugees specifically, or for that matter, for greatly limiting Islamic immigration of any kind. I do not wish to see the mistakes that were made in Europe repeated in America.
How, then, can I call myself a Christian? Have I no compassion? No love for the lost? No desire to help those in need? Please. Spare me the guilt trip and the shame game. If God’s Holy Spirit has not convicted me that such a policy is sinful—and He hasn’t—then what makes you think you will be successful in doing so?
My compassionate response to those suffering from poverty and oppression ALL OVER THE WORLD involves the following: (a) sending, praying and going as missionaries to these people to share the gospel, (b) providing “safe zones” and humanitarian aid closer to their native land, where many if not most will desire to return one day, and (c) dealing militarily in a strong manner with the threat of ISIS so as to promote a peace that will allow them to return to their homeland.
We need both a compassionate Christian response to those in need AND a sound national policy that takes seriously the obvious existence of our War on Terror. It seems to me that if we are at war, and I believe we are, then we should be exceedingly careful about permitting the enemy to enter through any kind of Trojan Horse.
Blessings to one and all over this Thanksgiving Season. It is a pleasure disagreeing with most of you—an option that will never be tolerated in the future if the America that our grandchildren know should ever become as Islamicized as Europe.
Rick, that seems reasonable to me and in line with what the Bible declares is the mandate of government. Personally, I believe that Christians should influence the government’s policy to show mercy and kindness to refugees while balancing the government’s mandate to protect the populace at large.
I think our government can do both but not if forces continually seek to divide people into camps instead of uniting us a family.
I come at this another way. Let’s say your objections have been noted by the government and ignored. Next week 35 Syrians appear in your town. What will be your response then?
I don’t have much issue with debating what is wise to do. I’m a little more interested in what the will church do if (when?) the government does what it has already said it would do.
This question assumes that there have been no refugees showing up on our doorsteps until now.
My question could be, “What has your church been doing with the refugees flooding here for a decade or more.”
Personally, our church will continue doing what we have been doing when refugee families show up at our doorstep. We will love them, share the gospel with the ones who are not Christians, provide legal assistance and other basic needs.
I don’t think anything in the Bible suggests that Christians intentionally throw themselves into danger to prove our trust in and devotion to God (Mt. 4:5ff).
Wisdom and compassion are not competing virtues.
Just an FYI…I am not Mike Bergman. I did not write the OP. Sorry for any confusion.
To a large extent, I agree with everything you said. I tried to make myself clear that I do not have a problem with debating the wisdom of our current refugee policy. I’m just a bit cynical about what will happen after the government goes ahead and does what it said it will do.
I live in the suburbs of one of the top 5 destination cities for refugees. Like yours, my church has embraced a local parachurch refugee ministry as our own and work with setting up households for the new arrivals. We also work at developing ongoing relationships.
Can I be so bold to say that I suspect our (yours and mine) shared experiences are not the norm for SBC church attenders?
Even in my church, where our pastor has made it clear that we will continue to support refugees, I have heard some grumbling about the type of people we are working with.
If a local church has no history, or shared memory, of refugee ministry, will they jump in and help?
Or, on the negative side, will they participate in a movement to bring back internment camps or issue religious identity cards? Both of those ideas have been floated by conservative politicians in the last week. I bet they go to church somewhere.
Jack: I would disagree that the Bible says we never throw ourselves into danger. I would like to see this passage. There are risks in everything, including taking a bath in your bathroom, that doesn’t stop one from taking a bath or showering.
Jack: I misread your comment about throwing ourselves into danger. I don’t know of anyone here who is testing God’s trust or trying to prove it, we just believe God would have Christians be a little more giving and charitable than we are, thinking less of how dangerous it may be and doing it. Missionaries who are in Muslim countries certainly would not agree with your statement.
Debbie, it is interesting that you say you misread my statement (which you did), and then you build a straw man and set it on fire.
Comparing the call to be a missionary, where ever it may be, and inviting an evil person to harm innocent others, does not seem to be the same thing to me.
As far as your bravery compared to my cowardice–which is what your straw man seeks to establish–it is laughable to anybody that knows me, especially my wife.
She would be quick to tell you of the many times she begged me not to go into a dangerous part of town to help someone who called out of the blue in the middle of the night.
I don’t question the “giving and charitableness” of people who suggest that we think through the process of vetting those coming from terrorist countries. Of course, it is easy to be brave when it is not likely you live in an area which may see a terrorist attack.
You may be more brave, more giving, and more charitable than those that disagree with a “blind allegiance” to the government’s vetting policy. I’d bet you never have had to risk your life based upon decisions made in Washington, as I have.
Demonizing those who feel “needless risks are ungodly,” does not seem to be especially helpful. As I’ve said before, I live in an area where Middle Eastern refugees have be entering for over a decade. I have heard their stories and sought to assist them in their plight.
I also, am “pro-refugee,” so I don’t know what you see in what I said that would indicate otherwise. As with any issue there will be those who are more extreme in their views–like Trump for example, but also those that hold a similar, yet less reactionary position like Senator Ryan.
I really think the “us versus them” divisiveness in our country (and obviously represented on this Southern Baptist blog), is not likely to move us toward more effectiveness.
How about we discuss the matter without judging who is more “giving and charitable?” If ever there were a time that Christians (Southern Baptists, et. al.) needed to find common ground, these seem to be the days.
Mike: My thoughts are pretty close in alignment. And I think some are tending to group all Muslims, and I don’t think that is something one can do. It seems some think at heart, and because of their religion all Muslims are terrorists. I don’t believe that to be the truth.
Mike, we will do exactly as we did with the Vietnamese boat people that settled in large number in my hometown of Dothan, AL in the late 70’s and early 80s when it was OK to be a little racist. We will support them with charitable works, evangelize them and make great lifelong friends. One of my very good friends is a man who remembers his bombed-out childhood village. He came here as a teen and is now a Christian, an Auburn graduate (engineering) and overall great guy.
Your concern for a gospel witness to the Muslims is admirable, yet you miss this point: you are asking us to not protect, or even think it important to protect, our culture, which is part of Western Civilization. Western Civ. was built by European Christians, and they are the only ones who can maintain it. If hordes of Arab Muslims are allowed to infiltrate and begin to tear down our culture (through Sharia and gutter religion, Mosque building etc.), then there will be no Civilazation left from which to launch a missionary endeavor. You are asking us to allow the destruction of our culture/civilisation in order to establish it. This involves the forfeiture of our children’s, and grandchildren’s, future in the lands their forefathers bequeathed to them, so that you can say ‘I am a compassionate gospel witness to the lost Muslims.’ John McCain says ‘fight them over there so we won’t have to fight them over here.’ How bout ‘witness to them over there so we can maintain civilization over here.’ To do that, the Arab Muslims must be turned back.
This attitude is frightening.
As an astute tweet put it, many refugees came to the US throughout the 20th century, prompting the usual concerns from racists and xenophobes. If you look across American history, there is only one single instance of newcomers taking over and completely upending the culture, and we will be celebrating that event in a few days. We are the people you fear.
At least Gina put into words, in one comment, pretty much everything I’ve felt nervous about.
“Gutter religion?” That’s straight out of the racist handbook – it is usually directed as an anti-Semitic slur, but it is no less offensive when it is directed against a religion we feel less kinship with.
And honestly, Gina, where on earth does the Bible call us to protect, honor, or promote Western Civilization? I’m not particularly ashamed of it – we’ve done some good and some bad. But we are called to glorify Christ and to promote the Kingdom, not to protect our “culture and heritage.”
This is what I’m talking about when i say I hear the echoes of racism in comments.
I’m not saying everyone with concerns is a racist – but comments like this reveal an idolatry, a spiritual priority so twisted that we need to take a long hard look at ourselves. We have some real problems!
Maybe God is using this refugee crisis to show us what we’ve become.
Trigger Warning
“Maybe God is using this refugee crisis to show us what we’ve become.”
Where was the voice of the SBC?
2013, 2014, 2015: The Years of the Christian Genocide in the Middle East
Christian News Service August 13, 2014
Bishop Anba Suriel, who was born in Egypt and leads the Coptic Orthodox Church quote.
“Yet most world leaders remain silent in the face of the murder of innocent children and horrific beheadings of civilians,” said the bishop. “We question why the media has not highlighted the unprecedented systematic eradication of the city’s entire Christian population.”
New York Posts June 2, 2013
“We are witnesses to murder, and our governments are accomplices. The relentless destruction of the last remnants of the Middle East’s Judeo-Christian civilization is well under way. And we are silent.
The Wall Street Journal
The Genocide of Mideastern Christians
Americans haven’t suddenly turned interventionist. They’re moved by the Islamic State’s particular evil.
By Peggy Noonan
Sept. 12, 2014 6:36 p.m. ET
President Obama would have been rocked the past few months by five things. One is the building criticism from left and right about his high need for relaxation—playing golf while the world burns. Another is that he misread the significance and public power of the beheadings of American journalists. Third, he has been way out of sync with American public opinion on Islamic State, …
Assyriatimes 8/1/2014
The world watches in silence as the last Christians are expelled from Mosul, Iraq in one of the most merciless and barbaric acts of genocide we have seen in the 21st Century.
Mosul, the cradle of Christianity in Iraq since the first centuries, is now purged of its entire Christian population. The ruthless and purposeful savagery of the attacks by the fundamentalist Muslim terrorist organization The Islamic State (IS) formerly known as Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), is truly inconceivable. Yet, most world leaders remain silent in the face of the murder of innocent children and horrific beheadings of civilians. We question why the media has not highlighted the unprecedented systematic eradication of the city’s entire Christian population.
We are not dealing with a one sided issue. If you do not speak out against “The Genocide” who will? If I do not speak out against “The Genocide” who will?
If we do not seek the Whole Council of God, who will?
I do not post this to be an inflammatory racist xenophobic, I post this to place perspective on the forgotten 15 million Christians that use to be in the Middle East. They also deserve a better life.
I choose not to be silent.
I choose not to be Politically Correct.
God granted me a life and a day, to truly be thankful to Him.
I will pray that Christians and Muslims have the same opportunity throughout the world to be thankful to Him. As I enjoy a meal today with both faiths at the same time(I’m bringing the Southern Style Mustard Potato Salad).
Are you implying that Christians and Muslims worship the same God?
Cara, please either enter the discussion on a serious basis or not at all.
Everyone on this board believes that there is one God and that only through the blood of Christ may sinners such as you and I come into a right relationship with him.
Twisting people’s words to make them say that which they do not say and do not believe – that Allah and Yahweh are one and the same – is not helpful or fair.
Thanks
If you wish to show how an argument someone made could have the unintended consequence of conflating Allah and Yahweh, then I’d be interested in seeing that argument made. But simply resorting to a wild allegation is not fair and will not be permitted. Thanks.
Shakespeare, updated: “First, reject any and all so-called experts on Islam who talk as if the 1.5 billion+ people in our day who are Muslim are a unified, cohesive group who are after the same goals and who express the same ambitions.”
Some of the stuff here reminds me a lot of the genteel south of my childhood, filled with plenty of code words, broad generalizations, and haughty presumptions about what ‘they’ want, desire, will do if we gave them a chance.
I think better of some of my friends here. Perhaps when we are beyond the passion of the moment, some of them will be more perspicacious about their opinions.
You captured my thoughts in much more elegant prose!
Sorry William,
But you’re oversimplifying and comparing it to a racial issue, which it clearly is more involved than that.
William we are about the same age, and share a similar Deep South heritage, with the addendum that my father was police chief in an Alabama town of 16,000 with a historically black college, that the city fathers sent him to Birmingham and Selma to learn how to handle “those people,” and I was a police officer and detective in Montgomery (I listened to stories Sheriff Mac Sim Butler, told about what they did with “troublemakers” in the ’60s). And you are right on target. Congratulations on putting into succinct words something I have felt but not been able to put my finger on. Now: wanna bet you will be criticized for it, or at least strongly disagreed with that the two are not the same?
John
I hesitate to “criticize” the Plodder on the Eve of Thanksgiving Eve, for his insights are always worth pondering. Instead, let me “gently suggest” that comparing racial discrimination in the 1950’s era Deep South to America’s anti-Islamic terrorism policy in our post-911 world, pushes the metaphor a good bit too far.
I was profoundly moved when I visited the 911 Museum in New York in 2014. Certainly, all Muslims are not radicalized terrorists, but I have no problem with us profiling Middle Eastern men of military age, and I have no problem with a national policy that takes seriously the threat of a cultural jihad.
In the past I have been chastened for violating Godwin’s Law: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”
I hope there is not a similar law regarding refugee resettlement and immigration that likewise leads to the comparison of every national security position targeting specific people groups with Jim Crow racism. I believe that would be unfortunate because there are many differences between the two.
BTW Rick, the Alabama town of 16K my father was police chief in was 20ish miles north of you, Talladega. Before Talladega had its own lodge, he served as president of the Sylacauga Fraternal Order of Police, and graduated from Sylacauga High School in the 1930s. His home and mine growing up was at the foot of Horn’s Mountain, from which I could see the lights of Sylacauga. In fact, I could see one traffic signal in Sylacauga just from Dronny’s Hill, which was maybe fifty feet higher than our house and just a few hundred yards from the house.
I did not hear William say deny that there are differences between Middle Eastern refugees and Jim Crow racism. What I heard him say, and what I agree with, is that many of the same code-words are being used of both, suggesting a similar attitude towards both. The issue to explore, it seems to me, is whether (1) our attitude is informed by the Bible or by some form of racism, and (2) what, as pastor-preachers, our responsibility is in combating the later and separating national security concerns from Christian responsibility/opportunity.
John
William, I don’t disagree with your analysis. There is one issue that may be a weakness in making any generalized application of your proposition.
I am not an expert in Islam (nor Shakespeare). I do have a degree in world religions, and an advanced degree in philosophy of religion. Islam is a monolithic religion in the same sense in which Christianity is monolithic.
Both religions are religions of a “Book.” There is a nuance that makes speaking of Islam as monolithic and Christianity as monolithic a little confusing. Whereas Christ is the foundation for Christianity (not the Bible), Mohammed is not the foundation for Islam. The Koran (Quran) holds that place in Islamic theology.
The Koran is a book of wars and a book that “requires” (not motivates but requires) those in submission (Islam means submission) to bring everyone else into submission to the teachings of the Book, which commonly means Sharia Law.
So, Muslims have a different problem with “radical, war-thirsty Muslims” than Christians have with “radical, crazy Christians.” We can say that our Holy Book reveals that our Founder never acted in any way to harm or dominate (seek devotion by force) and person. Muslims cannot say that. They are stuck with the fact that radical Muslims look an awful lot like Mohammed–there model for what “submission” means.
So, while I agree with you that all Muslims are not blood-thirsty crusaders, they all are stuck with the same teachings and the same model behavior of their Founder.
I think this is what a lot of people are trying to express when they seem to lump all Muslims together.
The way I deal with the “radical versus moderate” (jihadists versus peaceful) Muslims, is to point to Christianity. All Islam is a false religion, even if it is peaceful. The argument for me is not “radical versus moderate,” but “truth versus error.” This way, one can avoid implying that all Muslims are jihadists.
I said more than I intended to say and it seemed to make more sense in my head than on my computer. I agree we must avoid lumping all Muslims into a “terrorist or potential terrorist” camp. The issue is dealing with a false religion, like any other religion.
Spot on, William. I hear so much that reminds me of the subtle code I heard so much of during my first pastorate in the Deep South.
I begin to think that these refugees show us, if nothing else, how far we’ve strayed in America from the passions and purposes of the early church.
As Americans we look at the world with Western Eyes. We understand our words and the western definitions of these words. How many of us understand Arabic words and Syrian culture.
Refugees from most people groups have a better opportunity to be impacted by church ministries and the gospel in our country if we understand the culture and language that they come from. The Apostle Paul was a great example of this in his ministry as he traveled.
How many of us know from an Arabic perspective how a Syrian translates the word “Integrate”?
How many of us know from an Arabic perspective how a Syrian translates the word “Compromise”?
How many of know as we visit with our new Syrian friends at their home, to let them know that we have had enough coffee or tea in a polite way?
How many of us know as we share a meal at their home what it means in their culture when we use our right hand and/or our left hand while eating a meal with them?
How many of us know what it means and how it is viewed by a Syrian if we are invited into their home?
We talk about compassion and understanding as Westerners. Will you put forth the effort to understand their culture? Maybe you won’t be invited into their home, maybe you will never invite a Syrian into your home or church. Maybe compassion towards refugees takes effort and action on your part.
Are you willing to put forth the effort. Are you and your church really ready to spread the gospel to Muslims from the Middle East?
If you are ready you are very blessed, because most Christians in America have no clue how to share the gospel with a Muslim without insulting them. Or how to share a meal without insulting them, let alone how words have different meanings in other cultures.
If you want to bless a refugee, you may consider understanding them from their perspective first. You’ll have a friend for life if you do.
Keep in mind that Mike’s post is, I think, focusing on the Christian response to muslim refugees, not the government’s response. The government will do what it will do. The question is, is don’t come to us, we’ll (perhaps) come to you the appropriate Christian response?
I actually thought Mike’s original post was to draw people into a false dichotomy argument where by to be a Christian we had to disavow the social network he visits.
Now I see that if some don’t share a certain rah rah mantra of yet undefined conformity for acceptance of Middle Eastern refugees, some are considered to be using code words, broad generalizations, and haughty presumptions about what ‘they’ want, desire, which hearkens back to a very sad time in American history. Followed by a amen.
Talk about a conversation killer, accusing fellow Christians of being deceptive, and haughty in this thread is an accusation of sin that needs a more biblical explanation, and an example the the accuser(s) needs to defend not the accused.
If this conversation thread has not been respectful enough:
“Trigger Warnings and Safe Spaces” need to be implemented.
Although the accusation of deceptiveness, and haughtiness of fellow believers in Christ should be put forth so we may know fully and clearly of the sin committed on this thread.
Real World issues need Real World conversations. Not Ad Hominem attacks.
I pastored a church in the Deep South where racism ruled. All I’m saying is that the things being said about these refugees sound so much like the things that were said back then about blacks – it scares me.
Generalization. Demonization. Segregation. Same old themes. I am afraid the heart is treacherous and the Middle Eastern Muslim may now be the dehumanized object that the American black once was.
I tell you something else that bothers me. Christianity is built on repentance and (at least sound theology-based Christianity) the idea of the depravity of the human heart. But whenever we question anything today, people react like you have. “How dare anyone question our motives or actions?” Well, that is exactly what we need to be doing – constantly questioning our own motives and actions. Mine. Yours. Everyones.
Have we adopted the concept that our Americanism is above introspection? I constantly evaluate my motives, my actions and my words. I do not assume that everything I think is of God.
And I am convinced that the anti-refugee spirit among Christians has among its reasonable roots a strong strain of xenophobia and sinful racism.
I agree with the second half of your reply. I do not have your experiences in the south. I grew up with the children of Medgar Evers who was a slain civil rights leader. Different perspectives.
We need to have these discussion at a Christian blog. Please lets do this without Ad Hominem attacks. Let iron sharpen iron. This is one of the few places that civility is shown on this subject. I do not see the same xenophobia and sinful racism here, that I see elsewhere. I am grateful for that. Thank you for this blog, and putting up with this fallen man.
“And I am convinced that the anti-refugee spirit among Christians has among its reasonable roots a strong strain of xenophobia and sinful racism.”
Dave, let me temper your statement a bit, yet agree with you as well.
First, there is a flaw in your reasoning here. (There’s more than one, but I’ll only address one) While many rightly point out that Islam isn’t a race, the radical Muslims are indeed largely Arabs. However, if rejecting the refugees is an act of racism in itself, then the largely Arabic Muslim countries in the Middle East who are rejecting them are also racist – against their own race. That doesn’t add up. It sounds too much like a conspiracy theory to take seriously, but there is good reason to think that there is a common idea that this is the way to Islamicize the great USA.
However, I think you are right in this way: Western Christians are often more committed to being Western than being Christian. We have a great society and many, although they don’t see it in themselves, see Western civilization as being the ultimate culmination of Christianity. Nothing could be more wrongheaded or self-centered about Christianity. It’s not exactly xenophobic, but it’s pretty darn close. That’s why I focus on the Great Commission in this case. We can see in Acts 8 that God used persecution to spread the Church. If those early Christians had the idea of the Christian life that pervades Western Christianity today, they would have curled up their toes and failed to turn their persecution into a Kingdom-building event. Instead, they went out into hostile lands and took the Gospel with them. If our country is being sold out by our government, so be it. The Kingdom of God is not the US government or the USA. We have no more a call to proclaim the Gospel among the nations that we have been pretending-to-be-superior-to / hating-on / fearful-of than we ever had. It’s just that it is becoming more evident that we have to get off our sanctified duffs and actually go do it.
Say what?
Mike,
Yeah. Reread it yourself and see if my perspective is unjustified. Why should Christians have to take a stance on what is self evident?
“But this picture is a snippet of a photo I’ve seen passed around social media that disturbs me to the core. Not so much that someone would post it and that people would share it, but that Christians would share it again and again”(just like you did).
With your interpretive view of this as:
“Don’t let those Muslims come to America when there are plenty of Muslim countries they can go to.”
Could you have misinterpreted why it was being passed around. The posters of this snippet photo are clueless on basic facts. There are only 22 Arabic speaking nations, 193 nations in the world that have someone that can speak Arabic(give or take a few based on world changes), and virtually every nation has Muslims in them. You used it as a conversation starter. As core to your post.
I know you intended to further the conversation. Could your interpretive view also not Inflame the issue.
Many things disturb me to the core. This is not one of them. Different life perspectives.
I know you write great posts and I look forward to reading more your posts in the future.
Many things disturb me to the core. This is not one of them. Different life perspectives
John K: Too bad cause it should.
John:
“Don’t let those Muslims come to America when there are plenty of Muslim countries they can go to.”
What other interpretation can you arrive at from that photo? Do you think the intent of the originators of that photo could be anything other than what Mike is suggesting?
Sometime it seems we all read different Bibles. I am not familiar with a single verse that offers even a hint that the Christian method for sharing the Gospel is to create a benevolent state with a large population of Christians, then open the borders so refugees may come and have a new homeland. Our mandate is to carry the Gospel to the nations.
It is clear from Acts 17, Romans 13 and I Peter 2 governments are given Biblical mandates. They are to protect the citizens, they are to punish lawbreakers and they are to also praise those that do well. (Dave, I alliterated that sermon for you.) I am not familiar with a single NT passage that remotely can be interpreted that a nation has a responsibility to another nation’s citizens. (Unless you want to discuss Israel in the tribulation and the judgment of the nations.) If one uses the OT laws concerning Israel then they are conflating several theological positions. Israel may be viewed as the church today. Israel may still be viewed as God’s chosen people who God will deal with in the future. No theology says Israel is America or America is the church.
My position is simple, if my government says America’s citizenry is safe if we allow refugees in then I have to believe them. They are more capable than I am in making that decision. If they say we are not safe and delay their entry I will not feel in anyway we are less Christian. The government’s job is to protect, punish and praise. I am not afraid of refugees and we will help in ministering to the refugees. Our church is designating our world hunger offering this year to the Syrian refugees. I am grateful our SBC partner Baptist Global Response has made this possible.
I live within an hour of where Michael Schwerner, James Chaney and Andrew Goodman were dug out of a pond dam. I know what the modern day version of the KKK looks like and what it is called. While not violent it is still just as repulsive. I haven’t heard or read any Christian use the same language when discussing Syrian refugees. Xenophobe would mean they oppose any refugees. I don’t hear any discussion about refugees from other nations that are coming daily to America. I hear concerns over safety. I hear factual statements that Syria has not been a true ally to America. She has produced terrorists and her citizens celebrated in the streets each time America has been dealt a blow by terrorist. They want to know, “Are we inviting an enemy into our nation?” I live everyday with reminders of our nation’s racism. I am not ready to condemn our brothers who view Syrian refugees as a real threat as = with the KKK of the past or the Concern Citizens of today.
As to Mike’s original post. For a Christian to have such a sentiment as the one in the caption is misguided. “Let the Muslim care for them” should never the slogan of Christians.
I think your response shows that most of us here are in the same vicinity of the continuum of thought on Syrian refugees. Caution and Compassion as two equal pillars. Appeal to the government for caution, then if they go ahead with their plans, be part of a solution to welcome refugees in Jesus’ name.
Perhaps it’s just the crude nature of social media, but I don’t see that level of nuance in my feeds. I don’t see the urge to show compassion after first exercising caution. I just see SHARES of websites that purport to be legitimate new sources spreading fear and hatred.
And that’s from some of my Christian friends…
Yes, the “movement” of Islam is something to be concerned about, but it should never stop us from caring for individual Muslims.
I can care for secular humanists too, right?
I find it surprising that Baptist pastors are willing to publicly dispute the thesis of this post and support the concept of isolating these refugees in countries that are Muslim dominant.
Mind-boggling.
Consider this.
1. These countries under Muslim control restrict Christian witness and most punish those who convert in severe ways.
2. The idea that we’ll just send missionaries to these places is equally counter-factual. Sending missionaries to Muslim countries is a daunting task.
3. If we care about the souls of Muslims there is no greater opportunity for ministry than to receive, welcome and help refugees and immigrants.
4. If you say, I care about the souls of Muslims but only if they stay over there and don’t come over here the words ring hollow.
5. National security is important and safety matters but NT Christians always prioritized the gospel over personal safety or any other issue.
6. Arms length ministry has questionable provenance. We will minister to them over there sounds more like an excuse than an argument.
Mike us right. His post is right.
Happy Thanksgiving.
I am not a xenophobe. I am not a racist. My position as a Baptist Pastor should not astonish anyone. It is a legitimate option that need not be marginalized as lacking compassion.
Here is a statement that is representative of our tendency to set safety and security against the gospel and compassion: “National security is important and safety matters but NT Christians always prioritized the gospel over personal safety or any other issue.”
Perhaps everyone’s minds would be less blown if they simply understood that, for many of us, the provision of national security and safety IS a gospel issue since it preserves the free nation that has sent out more Christian missionaries than any other in the history of the world. Thus, it is not “safety and freedom VERSUS “the gospel” but it is rather “safety and freedom FOR the spread of “the gospel.”
We’re all for the gospel, folks. We’re all for compassion. We’re all for reaching the refugees, helping poor and displaced people. No one is heartless here. We just have different approaches to fighting the war in which our nation is engaged.
And that is one factor I don’t think is getting enough attention in the way that it drives our responses. Does everyone see the War on Terror as a REAL war? Or do people think we are simply using that term as a metephor? The more someone takes seriously not merely the THREAT of an ISIS terrorist attack, but the actual current EXISTENCE of a War on Terror, the greater the likelihood of the red state border closings we’ve seen over the past few weeks. American lives matter.
I also think we should make a Herculean effort, especially at Thanksgiving, to affirm all of the Christian responses to this issue, no matter on which side they may find themselves. Let’s not pretend that one side or another is not responding in a godly, biblical or Christian manner—just because they disagree with us on this political national security issue.
Happy Thanksgiving! Go Cowboys!
We are not obliged to affirm all views, but to hold them up to the light if scripture. People who call themselves Christians hold many unbiblical views.
All views are not equally biblical.
Happy Thanksgiving to you, Rick.
Odd that in this context you would explicitly call national security a “gospel issue.” It is not. It is a secular political issue with consequences for all citizens. A certain SBC subgroup is front and center in the use “gospel” as an adjective.
Go figure.
It is without biblical support, as well. I hope for national security but the idea that America needs national security to share the gospel shows just how far we’ve strayed from church history, the worldwide church, and biblical principles.
We can now only share the gospel under the umbrella of safety? Of government protection?
National security is now a gospel imperative?
In retrospect, I immediately realized the need to edit that sentence. It would have been far better to term the existence of a free republic in America—as over against an Islamic invasion in which America no longer exists—as a “condition which leads to a free society that historically has permitted a way of life facilitating the spread of the gospel and leading to the greatest missionary advance in Christian history.”
No, it is not necessary for America to exist for us to spread the gospel—but it helps. Western Civilization is worth defending in order to preserve all of our freedoms, especially the religious freedom to share our faith. If you want to characterize national security as a “secular” issue, fine, but it is one that does indeed have “spiritual” consequences for the spread of the gospel.
I think there are two equations here:
Gospel Advance > National Security.
True, but beside my point, which is:
Gospel Advance + National Security > Gospel Advance – National Security.
Rick,
Happy Thanksgiving!
You said:
“No, it is not necessary for America to exist for us to spread the gospel—but it helps. Western Civilization is worth defending in order to preserve all of our freedoms, especially the religious freedom to share our faith.”
But what if NOT having the governmental given freedom to share our faith makes sharing our faith MORE effective to those lost and dying in their sins?
In that case, it could be true that:
Gospel Advance – National Security > Gospel Advance + National Security.
and
Gospel Advance – Freedom of Religion > Gospel Advance + Freedom of Religion.
Its Thanksgiving, so lets be thankful for the country God has given us with its great security and religious freedoms. But let us not presume to think that God needs us to have either our security or freedoms to get His message out through us. Easier isn’t what we should pray for, effectiveness fir and obedience to God are.
mike
William said “Odd that in this context you would explicitly call national security a “gospel issue.””
Even more odd is that you do not understand the rest of that sentence.
“…since it preserves the free nation that has sent out more Christian missionaries than any other in the history of the world.”
Interacting with the actual words is preferred, even if it makes your “sound bite” response less affective.
Donald,
Happy Thanksgiving!
You said:
“…since it preserves the free nation that has sent out more Christian missionaries than any other in the history of the world.”
…and it also preserves the enslaved nation that distributes more pornography and sinful self promotion [through song and hollywood] than any other nation of the world.
If you want to boast on the good, look also at the bad. The USA is a tool of God like every other nation has and will be, and He who rose this nation up will in His timing, bring it down.
And maybe, just maybe, the idea that the USA is what’s best for the world is a step towards its fall.
Better to be humble in His sight that He might lift us up.
Happy Thanksgiving to you too, Parson!
You give a great example of how one might have responded well to the original comment. My point was that William’s response sounded great in isolation, but did not really address the point that was actually made. That would have started a great discussion instead of Rick Patrick having to restate what was really pretty obvious already.
Cheers!
Donald
Hi Mike,
Happy Thanksgiving! I, for one, do not presume God needs America or the SBC or the IMB or for me to be alive.
If the destruction of any of the above advances the gospel, then, Lord, may it be. I am willing to martyr my life, my culture and my denomination.
But that’s not my “working assumption,” if you will. I believe Christianity is better off with me, the SBC, America and Western Civilization preserved.
Self-preservation is not always selfish, if one’s preservation serves to advance the gospel.
Blessings!
Rick,
Thanks for the holiday greeting.
I hear you…
But how do you know that “Christianity is better off with me, the SBC, America and Western Civilization preserved.”?
Maybe, take one, say you, in dying a martyr’s death for the Lord might ignite a revival across the land?
So unless you know the future then you are most certainly basing your belief on your presumptions.
Okay, but in that case, a presumption is being made by both of us.
I presume that America is worth preserving in an effort to better promote the gospel.
Others who do not value preserving America if it means keeping hurting people out are presuming that we will be able to promote the gospel just as well, or even better, without it.
I think defending America is worth it, is not selfish, and does not require letting everyone in the country in order to be good Christians.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Rick,
Actually, I am not presuming America isn’t worth saving [at least for a while].
I’m not making a case either way.
Instead of trying to fit my own desires into the world scene, it seems better to simply seek to obey the Word.
In this case, I wouldn’t oppose God bringing to us thousands that need the Gospel that we otherwise have been unable to reach.
I
I’m truly curious as to what is being proposed here. If you had the power would you:
1. Cease accepting all Muslim immigrants?
2. Seek to expel Muslims from the country?
3. Make Muslims register with the government?
4. ???? (something I haven’t thought of?).
1. Strategic bombing of ISIS and countries sympathizing with or harboring them.
2. Proportionally allow immigration from Syria only equal to that of other impoverished and oppressed nations the world over with no special preference for Syria.
3. Set up safe zones THERE. In the same way we *fight* there, we *humanitarian aid* there. Witnessing will be permitted in the safe zone.
4. Persons of any religion or ethnicity deemed somewhat likely to be radicalized by the terrorists should be registered and carefully screened. All Muslims would not be expelled but potential threats with unusual behavior might be deported.
5. Arm American military bases to avoid another Fort Hood.
6. Possibly other measures nations at war typically take.
Basically, protect America and our citizens, presuming America’s existence is worth preserving, and that it ultimately results in more support for world missions than if we are destroyed by Islamic terrorism.
1. Agreed, although I think it will take more than bombing.
2. I think the gov treats refugees differently than regular immigrants. I’m for vetting and letting in women, children, the elderly, etc.
3. I think this may be harder than everyone thinks it is, but sure, if it can be done. The witnessing comment is a little strange, since we’re talking about something the government would have to do.
4. I’m not sure if you are using more words to say “register all muslims” AND Arabs. This one sounds a little anti-American.
5. I’m OK with this if the military wants it. I’m not keen on telling the military how to run its operations.
Rick, perhaps having overdosed on cornbread dressing, offers foreign and domestic policy suggestions that have no connection to the gospel, to scripture, and some, to the constitution.
Certain religions are identified and assigned restrictions, not on the basis of acts but on the suspicion of future acts. These are formally deemed religious groups which have fewer first amendment rights than others. This shows itself by white Christians having greater privileges than non-white non-Christians. The same restrictions are to be applied by ethnicity, prima facie evidence of racism. We’ve traveled this road before.
If I think Rick Patrick is a member of a race or group capable of a potential threat, his own principles would permit me to force his group to register with the gummit and undergo special ‘screening’. Members of Rick’s religious group would not necessarily be forced to wear certain identifying clothing, nor would they be transported to special places of residence but we would hold such measures in abeyance, temporarily, until needed.
There’s nothing of the gospel and very little of Jesus in Ricks feeble attempt at foreign policy, the thrust of which seems to be that our policy should be designed to maximize and preserve the wealth of Christians because this group gives a few percent of their income to missions, leading one to wonder if Rick is unaware that greater threats to our wealth exist in monetary policy, Chinese currency manipulation, and deficit spending. Are these not “Gospel issues” as well as refugee policy?
I conclude that Rick, a good pastor and stellar example of SBC clergy, is heavily uninformed about such things. I recommend that he stick to something he knows well – the Calvinist threat to Southern Baptists.
“4. Persons of any religion or ethnicity deemed somewhat likely to be radicalized by the terrorists should be registered and carefully screened.”
That anyone is seriously advocating – in America – the registration and screening of an ethnic group ought to raise the hackles of anyone who a) loves America’s freedoms or b) understands history.
I don’t want to run afoul of Godwin’s law, but there is historical precedent for ethnic registration – it is ominous and offensive. That Americans – and Christians – are even countenancing the idea of Muslim registration ought to send shivers down our spines.
It may be time we removed the plaque with Emma Lazarus’ poem from the Statue of Liberty.
By the way, since the current administration views the right wing and conservative Christians as more dangerous than Muslims, we might be the ones standing in the registration line.
When you start sacrificing freedom and suggesting heinous and immoral things like ethnic registration in the name of national security, you often find yourself standing in the line you created for someone else.
“That anyone is seriously advocating – in America – the registration and screening of an ethnic group…”
Who in the world did that? I went out of my way to do the opposite. I wrote: “ANY person of ANY religion or ethnicity…” That’s all of us—Americans, immigrants, illegal aliens, refugees, anybody on the planet of any skin color or any religion.
My qualification was that if Homeland Security deems a person likely to be radicalized, whether a caucasian due to their suspicious internet activity or a middle eastern military aged pilot, then we ought to consider registering, screening, and keeping an eye on them.
This is what I am talking about: http://fxn.ws/1kXpT2L
The way you worded that led to the conclusion that you were in support of Trump’s call to Muslim registration.
We already have a terror watchlist.
If you meant to say, “persons, regardless of race, religion, or background should be registered and screened” that is less shocking, but still problematic.
It still gives the government the right to designate someone as a threat. In America you have commit a crime to do that. We do not allow the gov to simply declare people as threats.
We would certainly be on Obama’s threat list if such were permitted. He’d likely put you and me on it before he put any Muslims on it.
It’s not a great idea to give the govt the right to sanction those they consider threats.
In America, our rights are endowed by God and ought only to be limited by our actions, not by the perception of the govt.
Of course, planning, conspiring, and aiding terrorism are actions.
“We do not allow the gov to simply declare people as threats. ”
Yes we do, it is called the “No Fly List”
The No Fly List is a list, created and maintained by the United States government’s Terrorist Screening Center (TSC),[1] of people who are not permitted to board a commercial aircraft for travel in or out of the United States.
Many false positives are on it, just because of your name. You are never notified you are on the list till you try to book travel arrangements or show up at the airport. Try getting off the list as a law abiding citizen and you’ll see our government at it’s finest.
I won’t go into all the other agencies that declare American citizens a threat and are placed on a watch list. Do a FOIA request on yourself. Your famous and heavily redacted.
Look into the The Utah Data Center, also known as the Intelligence Community Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative Data Center. This is not tin foil hat stuff, its real and well known and written about.
Rick: Then let’s put them all in camps so that the we can keep an eye on them.
Debbie,
Of course, that was done with the Japanese in World War II and I think that was a mistake. That’s why I did not advocate such “camps” but rather “registration and screening” for people of ANY race or religion that might be radicalized as a terrorist threat.
To clarify, I’m talking about the people that likely to be radicalized by the terrorists. I’m talking about keeping tabs on ISIS and the people who are sympathetic toward them, thereby becoming ISIS suspects:
http://fxn.ws/1kXpT2L
To be absolutely clear, I mean folks of any religion and any ethnicity—NOT the assumption of some kind of ethnic cleansing, racist whatever that people have accused me of here.
My intentions are simply to protect America from terrorist attack. For whatever reason, my motives are always questioned more here. I thought maybe I could come back and engage. It was a mistake.
BYE.
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/carmen-harlan-talks-with-local-muslim-leaders/36651036#.VlfnjF3zQV8.twitter
This is an interview with Muslim leaders in Dearborn.
It is your ideas that are being challenged.
Rick: I am hearing you, but what you don’t seem to realize is that you are still promoting methods that are not what America is about. These things or close to them have been done in the past, and it has always been the innocent that have been targeted and not any real criminal or in this case terrorist. History is a great teacher and in history it has always been a constitutional disaster and the innocent suffered, not the guilty, if there were any guilty.
After I watch a scary movie, any noise, movement, scares the bejeebies out of me. That seems to be the reaction here. Any Muslim scares the bejeebies out of people. Again, in history it was any German with an accent, any native American, any black man, any Japanese, etc.
Sometimes the freedoms we enjoy and take for granted in America come back to bite us in the butt.
But is the solution Less Freedom?
Rick, what religion would you deem “… somewhat likely to be radicalized by the terrorists…”?
Not sure how to be much clearer, folks. Not talking about profiling by religion or ethnicity. Never said a word about it.
When it comes to registering and watching people, my stated goal was the precise opposite–anyone of any ethnic group or religion whose behavior or speech indicated them to be a possible ISIS sympathizer should be watched.
No more questions, please. I have stopped beating my wife already, and I am trying to exit. Move on.
My positions on ISIS, Syrian refugees and immigration issues are similar to those of Robert Jeffress, Cal Thomas, Randy White and Franklin Graham. Anyone astonished at my desire for security at home combined with both war and compassion abroad should read some of their perspectives.
Adieu.
Rick said “Not sure how to be much clearer, folks”
You couldn’t You were clear from the beginning. The misreading of such clear words is beginning to sound intentional.
“…for many of us, the provision of national security and safety IS a gospel issue since it preserves the free nation that has sent out more Christian missionaries than any other in the history of the world. Thus, it is not “safety and freedom VERSUS “the gospel” but it is rather “safety and freedom FOR the spread of “the gospel.””
How could he have been more clear? The leading questions and rhetorical devices used to twist this are truly sad.
What you are witnessing are Social Justice Warrior Tactics. Straight out of the play book. They are not doing it intentionally, or deliberately and are not conscious of it most likely.
Their hammer appears to be angry accusations of racism, intolerance, godlessness, and xenophobicism. It is a hammer capable of doing real damage, as many of those hit with it are not racist, intolerant, godless, or xenophobic of any sort. Their “offense” is disagreement.
Even polite, respectful expressions of disagreement bring the hammer. Not sure you want to take their side and accept their views uncritically? Fine, here is the hammer, I’ll isolate you, ridicule you, and demean you.
Once you are the enemy, your reputation will be assailed. You see, it is okay to label perceived enemies as “bible traitors,” “sin apologists,” and “immigrant punishers.” That such accusations are largely unwarranted does not matter. These are enemies, and this is war. Meet the HAMMER!
Have you seen one of these folks make a Solution Proposal of any depth whatsoever? They only have to make attacks and ridicule you so that you feel like you need to defend your position.
Don’t fall for it, make them support their attack. They won’t, they just go to the next target.
You think I am a SJW, I’ll defend my Solution Proposals, I’ll back up what I type with sources that we can discuss and you can review.
Can you?
Will you?
This has been a great site for furthering the Kingdom of God when dealing with most subject. It can show how the Gospel can spreed.
It is up to us.
If you want to bless a refugee, you may consider understanding them from their perspective first. You’ll have a friend for life if you do.
You can find them at your local Library, not in a book, they are actually real and in person and would love it if you helped them understand our culture. Listen to them, ask questions. Treat them as you would want to be treated. If all the sudden you were dropped into a strange foreign country, would you go to library? Many refugees do.
Or, perhaps there is real racism and xenophobia that needs to be confronted and you are defending the indefensible.
I am playing no games and engaging in no “tactics.” Perhaps that is what you do and so you transfer that onto me. I don’t know you – you do not reveal your identity here.
But I observe soemthing that bothers me and I comment on it. I do it honestly based on my convictions, John.
You are free to disagree with me, but you should not demonize those you disagree with. The odd thing is that it is you who are doing what you complain about. I make an observation and you react with wild accusations, name-calling and such.
IT is a petty, small tactic and I think most here see it for what it is. But you should either engage the ideas or not – stop the name-calling. If you don’t think xenophobia and racism are involved, then explain your reasoning. Do more than simply attack the character and integrity of those of us who do see it.
Your comment is sad.
Dave,
I’ll start with the accusation of Racism. Some of comments on this thread and Alan’s previous thread said that those that disagreed “may be concerned with brown people” (paraphrased).
Lets look at the natural make up of the Syrian people with the lens of this comment. Many Syrians are Blue Eyed and Blonde Hair. Many Syrians are Red Haired and Green Eyed. They run the spectrum just like here in the states.Virtually all Syrians our known to be light skinned. Yes I know the media shows you a different image, and we so easily adapt media.
My Savior came from this region of the world, and what he looked like I have no idea. We could and should point that out people who “we perceive” may be racist. We all are able to embrace our Savior here.
Usually Racism and Ignorance go hand in hand. I have pointed out what I call facts of the Syrian “Looks and the region Christ came from”
Do you care to discuss?
First of all, I challenge you to show where Alan, or I, has lodged any accusation against “those who disagree.” That is a dodge. What I have consistently said is that I hear disturbing things in comments. There were comments from a lady (I think her name was Gina?) on this thread that were blatant racism.
1. We have NOT called everyone who disagrees with us racists. That is a dodge that people who disagree with us have used to deflect the argument. We have said that there are elements of the discussion that have racist roots and some of the comments and strains have racist themes.
2. I think there is an effort to intimidate those who identify xenophobia and racism in this discussion. comments like yours were designed to ridicule and belittle, not engage. It questioned my motives, integrity and character – showing utter disrespect for my ideas. I was speaking from deep conviction but you assigned a motive to me, as if I was operating from some playbook.
Despite your implication of ignorance, I have no desire to discuss the looks of Syrians. The issue here is the perception of the American people, not the actual racial makeup of the Syrians. I use the word xenophobia more than I use racism, because I’m not sure the problem is the color of skin as much as the fact that these people are different – different religion, culture, ways, etc. I think the prejudice here is note really primarily about skin color.
Dave said “I use the word xenophobia more than I use racism”
Just say bigotry since either way that is what you mean. I am not a bigot and I have valid concerns.
Donald,
It sure is clear to me.
But it also assumes that safety and freedom are the best way or even God’s planned way to spread His Gospel as time unfolds His plan.
It may be.
But it may not.
But it sure seems like some think it is the best way for them to do it. It presumes on God.
God told Paul that he was to go to Rome to be a witness for Him.
Would going under house arrest be the ‘preferred’ method?
God told Paul to go and preach the Gospel, would getting beat up and whipped be the ‘preferred ‘ method?
It sure seems like safety and freedom isn’t always God’s way.
What about Martin Luther standing up for truth at the Diet? safe and free?
What about Tyndale getting the Bible to the common man? safe and free? [Was it Tyndale?]
How did Peter end up for his witness? safe and free?
How do you know that the price the bloated self serving American church might have to pay isn’t giving up safety and freedom?
Maybe it isn’t.
Maybe it is.
Yes, I assume that the lack of a legal barrier is better than having a legal barrier. It certainly makes a lot of sense that if I can freely share the gospel it is better than if I can’t. Wisdom is not anti-biblical.
Give me an example of a child who did great things after a terrible childhood and I will still advocate for good upbringing.
Donald,
There is more than one type of wisdom.
So you admit you are presuming?
Why do you feel the need to do so?
When we pray, we say, “Father, let they will be done.”
We shouldn’t presume that our own wisdom is the will of the Father.
James puts it like this:
Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit.” Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. Instead, you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and also do this or that.”
Many times the Gospel’s effectiveness was magnified because those who believed and shared did so despite the truth that their livelihood and/or their life was on the line.
Let God define “better”, and let us take the Word to those who are the despised, the rejected, the downtrodden, the displaced, the needy, the poor, and the weak.
Rick’s statement: “Persons of any religion or ethnicity deemed somewhat likely to be radicalized by the terrorists should be registered and carefully screened.”
Glad you have since walked it back a few times. No secret about the target – Muslims. The sentence is a good expression of profiling. Among the 1.5 billion plus adherents would be some who note statements like the above. I don’t question motives on this but believe such appalling statements, even if careless or ignorant of the ramifications, should be challenged.
I’m not impressed with your three amigos, BTW.
But i agree, enough of this.
I think Rick’s clarification is reasonable even if you ultimately disagree with it. I think he worded it badly but I think he’s basically saying keep tabs on people who may through their actions, be seen to sympathize with terrorists.
What he said made it sound like we should keep tabs on people who through their religious or racial identity might theoretically sympathize with ISIS or other terrorist groups, and that’s what I reacted to. But I think he’s made it clear he doesn’t mean that.
If someone is tweeting pro ISIS slogans or hanging out on terrorist social media sites, they ought to be watched, just like we ought to be watching white male mass-murdering nutcases who post their plans on facebook.
I always try and give anyone but the drive bys the benefit of the doubt. I think Rick is inelegant in his national security stuff here but when he creates a group that defines a religious group likely to be radicalized, meaning found guilty and penalized as a result of their religion, not as a result of either words or actions, he is closer to some of the demons of the recent past than he shows evidence of understanding.
He hasn’t exactly clarified this. A good start would be giving up the implication that we should have laws penalizing unfavored (by government) groups and individuals in such groups.
Get your stuff together, Rick, and then run for congress.
” that we should have laws penalizing unfavored (by government) groups and individuals in such groups.”
You mean like the Tax Code?
Yeah…don’t come after my housing allowance. The gummit can take that away after they pry my cold, dead fingers from it.
william,
Don’t worry I’ll let China take it away from you 😮
Bill: What constitutes actions seen as terrorism? That too can and has been taken too far.
I gave you examples already.
I can agree Bill, that is reasonable, but at the same time we are speaking of refugees who are fleeing ISIS not consorting with them.
The Swiss have become Racists and Xenophobic, oh my!
Officials in the Swiss county of Ticino voted Monday to make the Muslim burqa illegal in public spaces, with fines of up to $9,800 for violations.
The local government wanted the law to also include other forms of headwear that cover the face, including masks worn by demonstrators and soccer hooligans, but the parliament voted to only ban the burqas and niqabs (face veil). This means covering your face in public is legal, as long as you don’t do it with a burqa or niqab.
Giorgio Ghiringhelli, who drew up the proposal, said the result will send a message to “Islamist fundamentalists” in the country.
“Those who want to integrate are welcome irrespective of religion,” Ghiringhelli said. “But those who rebuff our values and aim to build a parallel society based on religious laws, and want to place it over our society, are not welcome.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/25/swiss-region-imposes-9800-fines-on-burqas-aims-at-islamist-fundamentalists/#ixzz3sjQiZqej
https://www.facebook.com/talkislam/videos/927607720663026/
Well worth watching. Muslims are speaking out against ISIS violence!
Way to go, Debbie. They guy on the video makes Mohammad the Prophet sound like Jesus.
Bin Laden lamented that more Muslims did not know what the Quran taught. He was right and it benefits us.
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/carmen-harlan-talks-with-local-muslim-leaders/36651036#.VlfnjF3zQV8.twitter
Even more leaders speaking out against ISIS.
In the comment section of the video I posted are even more Muslims speaking out against ISIS.
Lydia: I am simply giving a sample of what the Muslims I know believe. Including the one I collaborated with, and spoke openly of what he believes. Yes, they need Christ, but they are not terrorists or people to fear.