Jason has been inquiring how my interpretation of the Bible's instructions on how to care for the "alien and stranger" among us shapes my view on immigration, but more specifically illegal immigration. Rather than focus on this one aspect of an issue that I've been wrestling with, I will attempt to answer it by touching on what I believe is the bigger issue.
For much too long the church has allowed the government to be the provider of social services. This is not the place of the government, such programs should be emanating from the church.
While the church is in no way infallible, we would hope that a majority of the people in it are attempting to live like Christ. Parishioners have a higher goal to which they aim. We hope, then, that their motives for instituting social programs would be in service to their Lord and assistance for their neighbors. The government does not have this advantage. The government's job is to make sure the government remains. One way to do this is to make certain that thousands of people believe that, with out the government in its present form, they would perish. Even with a so-called "Christian" in office, most of the social programs instituted are cyclical and do not encourage the people whom they serve to move on from them. Thus ensuring the belief that government must remain.
What has the government to offer? Political alliances? False promises? What does the church offer? Christ! Love! Salvation! Acceptance! Social assistance is a fantastic way to reach people with the Gospel. We know this in Africa along with Central and South America but we can't figure it out at home?! Many will say "Well, there is no one to help the poor in Africa and Central and South America! The Church must step in." This is exactly the common lackadaisical American Christianity that drives me insane! We don't do anything unless there is a void. Well, we must then create that void so that the church feels the need to intervene!
Many believers satisfy their "social concern" inkling at the voting booth. "I feed the hungry and clothe the poor ~ I voted for a democrat, didn't I?!" How long will we allow the government to take the place of the church?! ("Sorry, I can't give to your charity, I gave in my paycheck.") How many of our churches have homeless shelters? How many of our churches have a food pantry for people who have problems feeding their families? How many of our churches offer low cost day care for those who can't afford to live on a single income? Anyone? (Beuller?) Why don't we? Because the government provides homeless shelters, and food stamps, and a myriad of other services to assist he poor and the church sees that need as being met and does not take the initiative to start their own for the glory of God and the salvation of many!
So, should the church care for the alien and the stranger? Yes! Should we force the government to allow them to sneak in? No.
When I responded to the issue of banning gay marriage in Massachusetts I wrote the following in a previous post:
"We do not live in a theocracy. I look at it like this: We are Jonahs living in Nineveh. We are called to inform people of the consequences of their sin. We are not called to make sure they do not sin. We can hope and pray that they turn from their sins and turn to the LORD and repent, but it is not our responsibility to prevent our neighbors (outside of the church) from committing sin."
Jason, I hope this helps you understand my views on illegal immigration and being a moderate Libertarian. Because, after all, it's just my opinion.
33 comments:
I am sorry I still don't know what your view on immigration is.
I am not suggesting that we continue to force them to sneak into the country. I argue that the current immigration policies are immoral and they need to be changed. Also when Christians support them, decry illegal immigrants, support deportation, and don't react in outrage and action towards businesses that exploit them and at the government when it looks the other way at those businesses, then we as Christians don't act to see these laws changed they fail to live as faithful children of God.
I agree that we as Christians have failed to fulfill our responsibilities in justice, mercy, compassion and care for widows, orphans, the strangers and aliens, the outcast, the despised, and the least of these.
Also as Christians we are to live as people whose alligance is to God and his kingdom reign and way of life so we provide examples or foretastes of that kingdom in this case by caring for those who are the least of these and one of the ways we can do this is to work to see the immigration policies changed.
Jason,
Your comments continue to put the onis of caring for the poor and widows and strangers on the back of the government.
Why is it the governments responsibility to allow people into the country? I agree that the laws are too strict. But while they are the way they are they should be enforced and those companies that employ those people should be punished.
It's interesting that you seem to NOT be outraged by people entering the US illegally but ARE by the companies that supply them with livelihood by employing him, yet you are decrying the hypocracy of those who don't want them here but look the other way when a company chooses to employ them. Shouldn't someone from your point of view encourage the employment of illegal immigrants?
I support the enforcing of both laws.
Marc,
Immigration laws are the responsibility of the government. The church doesn't determine who is allowed into the country.
Where in my post did I put the responsibility to care for them on the government. Yet I do believe that the role of the government is more than to ensure that it continues to exist it exists to serve is to serve its people.
You say that the laws must be inforced but if the laws are immoral and counter to the ways of the kingdom they must be challenged and changed if possible. I don't argue that the governments responsiblity is to support the kingdom but we as people of the kingdom are to act redemptively in society to point to and work for the ways of the kingdom.
Why do you think that I should support companies that hire illegal immigrants. They are exploiting them and oppressing them. Yes their wages might be more than where they come from but they are still treated and second class people. That is wrong and contrary to the ways of the kingdom. I am opposed to both the laws that exclude them and the companies that exploit them. Both are part of the rebellious world system that we as Christians are supposed to be part of a counter-alternative way of being based on God's work of redemption of us and the rest of his creation in Christ.
I am not outraged at the people who are forced to enter illegally because the laws and the companies are contrary to God's kingdom ways and I desire to see those ways changed by the redemptive work of Christ being practiced by the church.
I support the changing of the laws and until then the enforcement of those laws against those who exploit the immigrants.
How do you justify your position biblically and please be more nuanced than to say its sin to break the law. Think about slavery laws, treatment of Jews in Germany, and how can you then justify opposing homosexual marriage and abortion when they are the laws of the land.
Hi Marc, sorry I've been so absent. Its been hard to keep up with all the posts.
A question to what you said about the church/gov't. Are you suggesting that the government just up and cancel all the programs/homeless shelters and hope that the church fills in the void? You make it sound like it is ONLY the church's responsibility to care for the sick/poor/homeless, and yes, ailen. BUT-can't there be a balance, a situation where they work together?
When I was in Oakland, I was a part of a non-profit organization that was teaching birth control to middle schoolers (we can argue the benefits or not of that at a later time) And my brother was so mad at me for being a part of it. He, too, said that it was the CHURCH's responsibility, as well as family. But in Oakland, neither are very strong. So, what does one do when the only a hope a person has is through a gov't program. The church, too, is fallen; we can't do it all. Should we? yes. I agree the church should step up more, but I'm not opposed to the government lending a hand.
What kinds of things are you (and your wife) doing to feed the hungry, etc etc? HOw are you being the church in Beverly (salem?)
I really do wonder-would you REALLY report your friend if you found out he/she was an illegal immigrant? OR, would you work to try to get him/her a residency status? You are right-I had a roommate who was an illegal immigrant. (found out after she moved in) It really never occured to me to report her. She came with her family when she was five. She only knew of America as home. And when her family had done some legal work to get residency status, the guy they were working with stole their money and disappeared. So then what? By reporting her, I would be reporting her entire family. Is that right?
Ah...just a few thoughts...aren't you glad you gave me your blog site address.
On a totally off subject matter-what do you think of the sox trading arroyo?
It sounds like you are imagining a Christian utopia where gov't doesn't exist (except to keep illegal immigrants and "bad guys" out, a.k.a. "defense") and that the church is this massive presence doing everything good in society, both social and spiritual... Would you say that pacifists are just living in a dream world that is fallen, that will never be perfect and is full of sin? Are you not imagining a dream world where the church caters to everyone and where the masses don't have to and will not turn to the goverment for anything, because frankly the government shouldn't exist except to defend them. Aren't social programs and assistance a way of "defending" the masses... of defending those who are the future leaders of this country?
I'm not sure what world you're imagining that we live in, but in this country of 300 million people, how can the church cater to everyone? I'm NOT making excuses for the church to not step in. Absolutely not! Come on, my degrees are in Bible/Theology, Missions, & Intercultural Studies/Anthropology/Missiology, give me some credit. :) However, as long as we live on this earth, and in this fallen, sinful world, gov'ts will continue to exist. In our U.S. population which claims to believe in God, but I would argue most of which are not Christians, many people are clearly oppressed, whether that be because they are from broken homes if any homes at all, or are homeless or are immigrants just trying to make it here. Trust me, I KNOW the struggle immigrants have when they come here. I am WAY too familiar with all the ins and outs of the INS, green cards, etc! As we speak, my husband and I are waiting for an interview with the INS (now under the Department of Homeland Security--go figure!) so that we can get his residency extended since it expired in February... you know, so he won't be DEPORTED! Put down the phone and don't call the Department of Homeland Security... he's here legally and has been for 5 years. :)
Honestly, the average person in this country, whether he or she is born here or is an immigrant, first and foremost looks to the gov't to be the primary source of support and advocacy for the masses, not the church. I wish it were different, but it's not.
By nature and design of what a gov't is, it must ensure the safety of it's citizens. Thus the gov't has power to create and enact laws in order to provide for the domestic tranquility. We see the gov't use the military in keep the peace within the confines of it's boundaries. By nature, this is what gov't must do.
Does not the gov't also have a responsibility to it's own poor?
Whoa, so not fair. You guys are ganging up on me. I'm gonna do my best to go in reverse:
James: By your logic, doesn't the government have a responsibility to its rich? Or its minorities and majorities? Why does the government have more of a "responsibility" to one group over another? Really, government as I see it (whose secretive end goal is the continuation of itself) has a responsibility to those that will keep it stable, so, yeah, the government would see that as the "poor" as there are more of them and the government can control the with programs as opposed to being controled by the rich's money.
2:10: It's funny that you claim that I am envisioning a Utopia. I see it, rather, that you, Jenna, and Jason view a Utopia where government is altrusitic. I have not seen this and don't believe I ever will which is why I wish to remove thier "responsibility" to the downtrodden of society because, as I said before, the government is not doing it for the good of the people, but rather, for the good of itself. Which is more realistic? A giving altruistic government or church?
Still 2:10: Programs defend the future leaders of the country? I'd love to see the percentages of current "leaders" who were once on wellfare, or were once illegal immigrants who became legal. Really? The INS is under homeland security? Gee, Jason, I thought that was a straw man...
Still 2:10: You wrote: "Honestly, the average person in this country, whether he or she is born here or is an immigrant, first and foremost looks to the gov't to be the primary source of support and advocacy for the masses, not the church. I wish it were different, but it's not." Why is this? Because the church has allowed the government to take its place taking care of its neighbors! And until the church stands up rises up and takes it back the governement will NEVER reliquish it! (And I have many friends who are immigrants (legal) who are more peeved at illegals because they are circumventing the law when my friends' families waited years so that they didn't break the law!)
Jenna: Look, whichever way the church/gov't would like to do things. Either the gov't cancels so the church has to step in, or the church steps in so that the gov't can cancel, doesn't matter to me. It is only the churches responisibilty. What in secularism demands altruistic caring for your fellow man? What part of "what's right for you isn't right for me" leads to charity? In Oakland you worked for the gov't because the church was absent in assisting the people you were seeking to help. Honorable, but the church NEEDS to step in! (I'm unbelievably pissed that the Red Sox traded Arrroyo! more on that later.)
Jason: I believe that the government's role shouldn't be its own preservation, but I believe that is its end goal. I vasilate on this stance but as I put in the post, I see us as Jonah's in Nineveh. Right now, I do not actively seek to overturn laws that allow sinfulness. Our position on this earth is to inform people of the Gospel and the freedom it brings, not to demand that non-believers act in a righeous manner. I would, however, seek to overturn laws that outlawed righteousness.
Wow, so if anybody reads all this, good for you!
What should the governments role be then?
Marc our responsibility is more than simply to inform people about the Gospel and the freedom it brings. The Israelites were also called to do more than to tell people about their God, God in his covenant with them says you are blessed so that you can bless others. We are called to live the real results that he has made real in us. We are now new creation with the ministry of reconciliation. We are to act in a way that reflects the image of God that we were created to bear, (Gen 1:26-28) that means caring for the world and loving it the way that God would love it (dominion and rule over it). That image has been and is being restored in Jesus. We are to be conformed to the image of Jesus the Messiah who perfectly fulfilled that human image bearing function in his life. He not only announced the kingdom and brought it in his life, death and resurrection but he also brought to others the benefits of it in his daily life. Think of Luke 4 and Isaiah 61, which Jesus quotes and says today in your midst this has been fulfilled.
You said, “I would, however, seek to overturn laws that outlawed righteousness.” I am glad to hear that because it is good to know that I can count on you to act to change the immigration laws in this country. After all Jesus said our righteousness should surpass that of the Scribes and the Pharisees. They were told that they should not neglect the weightier matters of the law like justice and mercy. We are also told that when we care for the poor, and the hungry (the least of these) we are caring for him and those who don’t act that way won’t be in heaven. (It must mean they aren’t really saved because redeemed people act that way). Paul says that we are new creations with the ministry of reconciliation. We were created in Christ Jesus for good works.
Or would you say that these things aren’t what righteousness is made of.
Jason. Sorry. I do not see the immigration laws as outlawing righteousness. How does having regluations on who can and cannot enter this country outlaw righteousness?
The verse says, "the least of these brothers of mine." I'm annoyed when scripture is misquoted. This verse clearly points to serving those in the church in this manner. It's not a very popular interpretation for a liberal theologian, but it's right there in black and white, I can't see what else it could mean.
I couldn't agree with you more that the church is called to "the ministry of reconciliation. We are to act in a way that reflects the image of God that we were created to bear, (Gen 1:26-28) that means caring for the world and loving it the way that God would love it." That is why I continue to implore the church to take over programs from the government! How much less "expensive" would it be to rebuild New Orleans if Christians donated their time and materials.
It's unfortunate that they only way I can be righteous and care for the poor is to allow more of them to break our laws and enter our country illegally. It's too bad I can't go where they and and help them there (which would in turn assist their entire community.)
I'm also not afraid to say that illegal immigration is a financial issue. Illegals are a drain on the social programs provided by the government. Which means more money is taken in taxes which means less money is given to the church and other charities which means the government continues to own social programs which means the church remains conspicuoulsy absent from that realm in the United States.
I am in favor of acting to change the immigration laws not just continue forcing people to enter illegally. I also never said the only way you can demonstrate righteousness is to allow people to break the law. Working to change this law is one way you can practice your righteousness. You don't see this policy as immoral why?
Do you really believe that Jesus is limiting who we are to care for to believers only? How literal do you take the whole passage. You believe salvation is determined on whether or not you care for Christians. If you don't you go to hell and I guess if you do whether you confess Jesus as Lord and Savior you go to heaven. Or do you see in in the context of all of biblical teaching.
What are you doing to clean up New Orleans or allievate homelesness. I know, you can't do it because the government takes your taxes.
Who is stopping you from going there but you are here and how are you incarnating the gospel here. Or when are you going there to incarnate the gospel.
Marc-
Life is not as black and white as you seem to think. I'm sorry, it just isn't that simple. I would have to re-read that "least of these" scriptures, but I bet you could find many people with many differing interpretations. We're all struggling to work out the multiple meanings in the Word. And none of us are getting there. We're trying.
Anyway...I second Jason's questions --> What DO you see the role of the government to be then? I don't understand what you mean by "defense" (which I think you said in an earlier post). I still say that the Church is NOT the ONLY entity that should be responsible. Shouldn't we all as humans care for each other? Or, is that just because I see the world through a Christian perspective? I don't know. I guess it is too hard to separate it. But, I just don't see how the church could even afford to care for the people and do all the "social activism" things that the goverment (or non-religious affiliated organizations) does.
You never answered my question: what are you & your wife doing to bring the church to the world-to feed the hunger, clothe the naked, care for the orphans and widows, etc? (obviously, I don't think you're doing all of this, I'm just making a point :) ) Maybe if each Christian did something individually it would be okay.
(and, you still haven't said anything about Arroyo. I think Theo's loosing his "wunderkid" touch)
Ok-I guess I should be going.
Have a good one!
Jenna
Alright, so the "what are you doing" arguement is a bit tiring because, clearly, no one person can do it all.
So what am I doing? Not being what others might call "well off," I do what I can. I've volunteered at the local soup kitchen in Salem. "Feeding the hungry." I give blood. "Visiting the sick (in a way)" The Queen of Hearts and I have taken the classes through DSS to be licensed foster parents and will be taking in a foster child in the very near future. So I am being a "Father to the fatherless." Multiple times my wife and I have gone overseas to bring the gospel to others. "and to the ends of the Earth." "What am I doing to clean up New Orleans?" Well, I belong to a national denomination that has a national domestic missions fund that has the most non-governmental people assisting in the clean up and rebuilding of New Orleans. My wife and I make certain that we give to both the domestic and international funds for this denomination. My money is helping clean up New Orleans thru the church! And what are you doing?
Yes, I do believe that, in the verse that is being referenced, that Jesus is limiting it to fellow believers. Do I believe that is the overall message of the Bible? No. "You believe salvation is determined on whether or not you care for Christians?" No. Do you believe that salvation is determined solely on whether or not you care for non-Christians?
The role of the government is for defense, foreign relations, and education. Defense consists of internationally and domestically (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and police, FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, Boarder patrol, Coast Guard, etc etc etc.) Foreing relations (Treaties, trade, tarifs, embargos, loans, etc).
"Shouldn't all humans care for each other?" Yes, but why would people without religion? Here is what I don't understand: Why do people without a religious background care for others at all? We are just a bunch of evolved amino acids. Why do they get married? Our end goal is only reproduction. Why do they attempt to abide by societies norms? There is no higher truth that regulates them. I do think that your life long viewpoint is clouding your concept of people. What's your take on total depravity?
I'll have a separate post on the whole Arroyo thing.
Marc,
sorry if I came of strong on the what are you doing argument. I am sure that you and the Mrs. are doing what you can but it seems that you have been so busy arguing for what we don't have to do, in this case of illegal immigration. Or maybe more accurately why it isn't a Christian issue to act in this regard. I think you fail to see the calling for the people of God to be generous caring and compassionate people who live lives that reflect the image of God and proclaim the gospel in word and deed.(This is a bit of an overstatement.
You still haven't addressed my question as to why you don't see this law as immoral and violating the kingdom principle of caring for the stranger and alien. If for you this isn't an immoral law I can see why you don't think we should be actively working to change the way things work to allow people who want to immigrate into this country to do it legally and to ensure that they aren't being exploited by the people they work for when they come here. I think your wrong if you don't see the immoralness (word?) of the policy as practiced and selectively inforced for the good not of the immigrant but of the corporations.
I also think you are missing the point of the passage in Matthew. Jesus isn't limiting those we care for to Christians only but is saying that those who belong to the kingdom will be characterized by love, compassion, and mercy to those in need and one way this is going to manifest itself is in care of others starting with your brothers and sisters in the faith. And more specifically if you say that you belong to the kingdom of heaven but your lives aren't characterized by this kingdom mercy and service you might be suprised when God returns.
I think we get into trouble when we start to legalistically apply Scriptures when other Scriptures clearly don't limit things that way. Also when we use Scriptures to exclude others from mercy and compassion we fail as well. Think of the story of the good Samaritan.
Please don't imply that I am a liberal theologian. That is different that calling me a liberal.
While not excusing the strong statements that we made about what are you doing you shouldn't throw to many stones in your glass house. You have through rhetoric repeated stated that I want to keep people coming into the country illegally which has never been my point. You also overstate what I have said with extreme absolutes that are not accurate representations of what I say. That gets tiring as well. Never have you acknowledged that you have overstated my comments. I won't hold it against you but please don't get bent out of shape when we act the same way back.
Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you were a liberal theologian... just that they don't like that interpretation. (I may be way off on what a liberal theologian believes anyway. I always thought they were more into the doing of the Word. Salvation through works, less literal interpretation of the Word. etc. Whereas Conservative theologians were more about the theology of Scriptures, the faith of salvation, 7 day creation. etc.)
I have overstated your comments and I recognize that you aren't advocating for the continuation of illegal immigration, rather a overhaul of the laws. What would you suggest in that area?
I do see the exploitation of illegals by corporations as immoral. I do not see the laws as immoral because people do not have to be allowed into this nation to be cared for. I see the immigration laws as a protection of the US economy. The US economy allows us to send aid to other nations both as a nation and as individuals. If the QofH and I lived in Poland, we couldn't go to Mexico (I have been, by the way) to assist in whatever. We couldn't go to Honduras to help rebuild after a hurricane. I see corporations exploiting illegals as a threat to the economy as well and do not support those actions either.
(Do we allow any immigration from Mexico?)
Bottom line: I do not see how lessening the immigration laws and allowing more people into this country is caring for the poor or needy.
I certainly see Christ's teachings to care for all of mankind, I do not see it in the "brother's of mine" verse. We are heirs through our brotherhood with Christ. It is clear that he is speaking of the church in that section. I am not denying that we need to care for others as well. I think we get in trouble when we attempt to apply one scripture that is making one point to another that is making a different point simply because there is a similar analogy. I don't believe the point of that verse is "how do I get to heaven" but rather, "If I can't even care for those in the church, how can I possibly care for those outside of it."
I am not attempting to use this scripture to say that we don't have to care for those outside the church. I am saying that this scripture doesn't apply to that issue.
Is your largest concern regarding illegal immigration that corporations exploit those people? That seems to be what I am hearing.
One of the major issues is the exploitation by corporations. The laws and their inforcement fosters this exploitation. Additionally the policies exclude certain people based on their economic ability not based on some criteria as criminal conviction, or involvement in terrorist organizations that want to destroy our county, those would be potential legitimate reasons for preventing someone from immigrating. These are part of the reason why I see the law as immoral and contrary to the teaching of Scripture.
Jesus isn't saying and I am not saying the passage in Matthew is about "how do you get into heaven". What I said about the passage was
"Jesus isn't limiting those we care for to Christians only but is saying that those who belong to the kingdom will be characterized by love, compassion, and mercy to those in need and one way this is going to manifest itself is in care of others starting with your brothers and sisters in the faith. And more specifically if you say that you belong to the kingdom of heaven but your lives aren't characterized by this kingdom mercy and service you might be suprised when God returns."
You have to see this passage decribes what Christans are supposed to be like. That care and blessing of others must start with the family of God but again I don't believe Jesus meant in this passage to limit who we serve. Again seeing it as limited in scope misses the point of what should characterize our lives as followers of Jesus. The people in the story didn't even see what they had been doing. Their lives just were marked by that kind of compassion.
Okay,
I'm getting dizzy, so I think I'm going to bow out of these conversations now. I'm sorry to have offended you by the "what are you doing?" question. I didn't mean to. I just wanted to make sure you weren't just spouting out a lot of thoughts without backing up, but I knew you'd be doing something. Awesome about you being foster parents. That's really neat! (er...neat's kind of a lame word, but you know what I mean.)
Anyway-I've actually been thinking of late that I don't do enough. I've given blood -- but that will be banned for me for a while since I've lived in an "at risk" country) and, of course, helped to run a Bible Study for inner city girls in Oakland for 4 years. And I give money to various organizations, and...I'm living in Kenya helping to furhter an organization that I believe in 100%. But, sometimes I think giving money, when a person is able-bodied, is a bit of a cop out. So...I'm working on figuring out what kinds of things I can really do.
And I agree-no ONE person can do it all. That wasn't my point. My point was that if EVERY Christian did something maybe it would make a difference. Sometimes the needs are so overwhelming it really gets me down.
Anyway-its been fun! Maybe I'll join the next conversation.
cheers-
Hey here's a radical thought. Does the book of Ephesians suggest that the most radical thing a Christian can do is to live a live of love and submission to God and to one's neighbor? Kind of tanks the whole "run to another country to show how serious about Jesus you are" argument, don't you think?
Thom -- well said!
Here's a challenging book to read in light of the comments made on how we read Scripture: Reading the Bible from the Margins by Miguel A. De La Torre, one of the profs I had in seminary. This will surely stretch your thinking, especially if you are a white North American Christian. Two other books that I have yet to read but plan to do so is Doing Christian Ethics from the Margins (by De La Torre) and Ethics by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Anybody read either of these?
Marc, this discussion/debate on illegal immigrants in your blog is very timely. Did you hear about the half million people who flooded Los Angeles to protest new immigration proposals on Saturday?
http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=4c9dfffc-e029-4ba3-ae66-9ce71286d349&f=06/64
http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=bb114ebd-a355-460f-9a11-d0bc30d1a823&f=06/64
http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=22dd9163-16b4-41e7-b375-39520a934227&f=06/64
I did hear about the protests. I wonder where they were from...
I also saw an image of a big fence with a big whole in it and about 30 people running through... There was video of it and the video was shot from the US side... Hmmm... I wonder if the helicopter shooting that video was from a news org. I wonder if they let any authorities know... hmm...
Thom. Not entirely sure how your point applies. I didn't hear anyone announcing that we have to go overseas to prove our faith...
Jenna. I wasn't offended.
hello can of worms
i am new to marc's blog. i've read most of the immigration posts and thought i would put in my two cents.
unfortunately it does involve economics and if Jason, my brother in-law, wants to increasingly pay more taxes on his already limited income to pay for others schooling, health care and lack of taxes then more power to him. I personally don't want to encourage, support or pay for anyone who doesn't follow the rules. what would each of you do if someone was usurping power and resources in your local congregation? you would have a serious talk with them and if they didn't start following the rules you would kick them out! I highly doubt you would change your bylaws to accomodate their breaking the rules.
as for acting in line with the character of God what about justice? where is the justice for the millions of immigrants that are waiting to come to our country legally? why would anyone support the legalization of 12 million+ illegal immigrants when there are probably that many waiting in line around the world legally ? this country was built on immigration! LEGAL immigration! hello, Ellis Island anyone! Where is the justice for those that came here LEGALLY to build and create the beautiful country we now enjoy? Let's get past the theological arguments that have nothing to do with the simplicity of FOLLOWING THE RULES! Doesn't God want us to follow the rules of the land? to change the rules misses the point. if we cahnge the rules then their is potential for the legal immigration system to break down as those doing it legally find out that it is quicker to just break the rules. this makes no sense! I pray that that domino is never dropped!!
Welcome Corey!
Corey,
Are you in opposition to abortion?
Are you in opposition to homosexual marriage? Would you follow the rules of the land that allows them? Would you support and praise those same laws? Would you take a stand to see those laws changed?
I know that answer is no and the reason is becasue there are theological arguments that are more important than following the rules.
now who is setting up straw man arguments?
just so we are all clear on what a straw man argument actually is;
The Straw Man Fallacy
A fallacy is a common error in reasoning which people (even well educated, careful people) often fail to notice in their own arguments or which devious people might use in their arguments in the hope that we won't notice them.
The Straw Man Fallacy
Example: People who think abortion should be banned have no respect for the rights of women. They treat them as nothing but baby-making machines. That's wrong. Women must have the right to choose.
This argument commits the straw man fallacy. It misrepresents the position of the opposing side in such a way that the opposing position appears obviously false or ridiculous. (That is, it creates a 'straw man' just so it can be knocked down.) It's worth noting that 'straw manning' often takes place on both sides of charged debates like the one concerning abortion. Consider a claim like: 'People who are in favour of abortion think it's okay to commit cold blooded murder.'
'Strawmanning' your opponent can be an effective strategy in an argument. If your audience doesn't realize that's what you're doing, you may succeed in convincing them that your opponent's view is wrong. However, it's an intellectually dishonest strategy & so not useful for getting at the truth about things.
The moral: Strawmanning your opponent is bad. Don't do it.
now, i could list 10 laws you agree with and support and 10 laws you don't agree with and don't support. one list would have nothing to do with the other.
Corey,
the point isn't simply about agreeing or disagreeing. It is about is something the state advocates or supports or legislates contrary to the bible.
My point those things are and you would oppose them on biblical grounds. I argue that this issue is contrary to biblical teaching and prinicples and it should be opposed as well.
i guess i don't understand, then, where you are coming from, Jason. i've tried to get your point in the past postings, but it is all too clouded by the debate back and forth. Marc and others have made definitive statements on their position. what is your definitive statement on the issue? what, exactly are you proposing. if you put down a new statement on immigration perhaps we can all debate from your starting point rather than marc's which seems exhausted at this point.
look, everyone, illegal immigrants are criminals. i'm sorry to be harsh, but the instance one breaks the law he or she is considered a criminal by definition. i don't appreciate the broken system at all for those who are trying to go about it legally, but if you are trying to cheat then that is just wrong.
nevermind, i went back and read a second time and i think i have the basic idea of your position, Jason. thanks for your patience. the future of our country is definitely wrapped up in this issue!
by the way, Jason, Marc's defense argument is not a straw man fallacy -:>
Corey I have attempted below to pull from my posts several statements that I think shed light on what I think is the problem with the immigration system in America. Hope this clears things up for you about what I am saying a little. Thanks Corey for reading my stuff again I went ahead and pulled these quotes and am posting them. The first paragraph after this is new statement then in quotes after.
A major problem is the way immigration works in our country. We have laws saying who can and cannot enter the country, these laws lay out remedies and punishments for those who violate these immigration laws but we have a system of practice that violates these laws. Our businesses rely on this cheap labor force to help increase their profits, people hire immigrants who do not come here legally to do work but because they are illegal they can pay them cheap pay and keep money in their pockets. We live in a society that takes advantage of the immigrants breaking immigration laws. This practice by America and Americans creates a lower class, potentially sub class of people (I see parallels here to the 3/5 law in the Constitution). This is immoral and dehumanizing. That is contrary to God’s law. If we as Christians don’t oppose a system that treats people as less than human we are failing to act in a way that reflects the God that we have been saved by. While I think there are issues with the way the government decides who can legally immigrate to this country the bigger issue is that the laws aren’t enforced and they aren’t enforced not because we want to do good to others but because we want to take advantage of them for the purpose of keeping our pocket books fuller. Why are we so quick to blame and seek justice against the immigrants but we don’t step up and demand justice against business and our society that lives by this double standard? Because they don’t have power and we don’t have to look at ourselves or give up our comforts a little.
“I argue that the current immigration policies are immoral and they need to be changed. Also when Christians support them, decry illegal immigrants, support deportation, and don't react in outrage and action towards businesses that exploit them and at the government when it looks the other way at those businesses, then we as Christians don't act to see these laws changed they fail to live as faithful children of God.”
“Also as Christians we are to live as people whose allegiance is to God and his kingdom reign and way of life so we provide examples or foretastes of that kingdom in this case by caring for those who are the least of these and one of the ways we can do this is to work to see the immigration policies changed.”
“You say that the laws must be enforced but if the laws are immoral and counter to the ways of the kingdom they must be challenged and changed if possible. I don't argue that the governments responsibility is to support the kingdom but we as people of the kingdom are to act redemptively in society to point to and work for the ways of the kingdom.”
“I am opposed to both the laws that exclude them and the companies that exploit them. Both are part of the rebellious world system that we as Christians are supposed to be part of a counter-alternative way of being based on God's work of redemption of us and the rest of his creation in Christ.”
“I support the changing of the laws and until then the enforcement of those laws against those who exploit the immigrants.”
“… our responsibility is more than simply to inform people about the Gospel and the freedom it brings. The Israelites were also called to do more than to tell people about their God, God in his covenant with them says you are blessed so that you can bless others. We are called to live the real results that he has made real in us. We are now new creation with the ministry of reconciliation. We are to act in a way that reflects the image of God that we were created to bear, (Gen 1:26-28) that means caring for the world and loving it the way that God would love it (dominion and rule over it). That image has been and is being restored in Jesus. We are to be conformed to the image of Jesus the Messiah who perfectly fulfilled that human image bearing function in his life. He not only announced the kingdom and brought it in his life, death and resurrection but he also brought to others the benefits of it in his daily life. Think of Luke 4 and Isaiah 61, which Jesus quotes and says today in your midst this has been fulfilled.”
“I think your wrong if you don't see the immoralness (word?) of the policy as practiced and selectively enforced for the good not of the immigrant but of the corporations.”
“One of the major issues is the exploitation by corporations. The laws and their enforcement fosters this exploitation. Additionally the policies exclude certain people based on their economic ability not based on some criteria as criminal conviction, or involvement in terrorist organizations that want to destroy our county, those would be potential legitimate reasons for preventing someone from immigrating. These are part of the reason why I see the law as immoral and contrary to the teaching of Scripture.”
“I am not saying that illegal immigration is a good thing. It is not a good thing.”
“I am in favor of making legal immigration available to all who want to come into this country. I have no issue with enforcing laws that would bring consequences (deportation or some potential other alternative) to people who then choose to not follow the rules. One major reason that the current laws are unjust is because it turns a blind eye to enforcement of corporations, businesses, and individuals that exploit these workers to make more money for themselves.”
“Wouldn't be nice if everyone could enter the country legally but our immigration laws don't allow that to happen. Maybe the laws should be changed but I don't see that happening because so much of our economy takes advantage of this undocumented labor force.”
Jason,
I agree with the following comment and think it's something we should all be asking ourselves: "Why are we so quick to blame and seek justice against the immigrants but we don’t step up and demand justice against business and our society that lives by this double standard? Because they don’t have power and we don’t have to look at ourselves or give up our comforts a little."
Jason: I agree that we need to punish comanies who hire them, whether they exploit them or even if those companies pay them fair wages and benifits.
They shouldn't be in the country and if they are unable to locate employment then they just might have to leave.
All laws regarding illegal immigration should be enforced!
Post a Comment