Jocelyn Downey writes: In the mid-2000s, James Hoffmeier, probably most known for his archaeological work in Sinai and his writings on the Exodus, weighed into the discussion on immigration by producing a book seeking to examine the Biblical view on the rights and responsibilities of migrants as well as, in broad terms, the duty of care of those receiving them. The result was The Immigration Crisis: Immigrants, Aliens, and the Bible, Crossway Books Wheaton Illinois, 2009. As he notes,
This book is not meant to be the final word from the Bible on the subject of immigration and plight of illegal aliens.
However, this book provides some extremely useful thoughts on building up a biblical picture of immigration and how we, as Christians, should respond.
Boundaries and migration
After providing a survey of methodological approaches to examining a Biblical view of immigration, Hoffmeier notes the foundational importance of the Torah throughout Israelite history in providing a focus for justice, and outlines the importance given to national boundaries and migration in the second and third millennia BC, citing Egyptians sources across this period outlining their national concern to maintain strong borders. Migration was widespread in the Ancient Near East but national boundaries were recognized – and looking at material in the Torah, we are informed of the importance given to boundary markers in Scripture (e.g. Deut 27.17) and the practice of the wandering Israelites, who would seek permission to cross territories (e.g. Num 20.16–21).
Examining the Hebrew terms used of migrants, Hoffmeier notes that Abraham is referred to as ger in relation to his migration to Canaan (often translated ‘sojourner’, ‘foreigner’, or ‘alien’), a term also applied to the Israelites in Egypt and resident foreigners amongst the Israelite community. Sometimes coupled with the word toshav (resident) Hoffmeir distinguishes ger from nekhar and zar, synonymous terms for ‘foreigner’ or ‘stranger,’ and argues that ger toshav (and variants thereof) should be translated, ‘resident alien.’ The term is found translated into Greek as prosyletos (and as xenoi, parepidemoi and parokesen in Gen 23:4 and 47:4) and implied legally recognized status not implied by nekhar or zar.
Resident alien, foreigner, and exile
According to Hoffmeier, the absence of the use of ger (or its root verb, gwr) for the Israelites during the Sinai wanderings (or in Mesopotamian exile, where they are instead called ‘exiles’ (golah/goluth) emphasizes the distinction between native citizen, foreigner and legal resident. Reinforcing the distinguishing force of ger, this term is used of the legal residents that form part of the Israelite community, and who enjoy the benefits and protections of the community (e.g. Exod 22:1/23:9, Deut 10:19), while the nekhar/zar do not have such benefits (Lev 25: 35ff; Deut 15:3). Gerim were included in the religious life of the community, being invited to give sacrifices to the Lord, could participate in Passover, and were also held responsible under the law in the same manner that the Israelites were (Exod 12:49). Hoffmeier notes that the principles underpinning the treatment of aliens in the community reaches back to humanity’s creation in the image of God in Genesis 1.27 and stands in sharp contrast to other ancient near eastern law codes, such as those found in Mesopotamia, where aliens were not a legally protected group.
The book offers a brief survey of the community of aliens within Israelite history, from Moses’ wife, Zipporah, to the inclusion of the Kenites following an (initially refused) offer in Numbers 10, then on to Ruth (who referred to herself as ‘foreigner’/’nokheriah’), the case of an Amalekite serving in the Israelite army in 2 Sam 1, who is a ‘ger’ (vs13) and the role of gerim in the construction of the Temple.
Refugees and sanctuary
In the closing chapters, Hoffmeier examines material in the New Testament, briefly recalling Jesus’ child refugee status in Matthew 1 and the scattered and transnational nature of Christians in the first century where they saw themselves as aliens in the world and citizens of the Kingdom of God.
For Hoffmeier, it is Christian responsibility to submit to authorities (Romans 13) and he offers a critique of the practice of giving sanctuary to illegal aliens in churches and cities, tracing its roots to the establishing of sanctuary cities in the Torah (Exod 21:12-14) and commenting that ‘sanctuary was never intended as a place to avoid the law but to allow the law to take its proper course.’
Whatever your view of immigration, this book is a useful addition to the discussion, and offers a number of interpretations of Scriptural texts that are worth chewing through – whether it is the exclusive understanding of ‘brothers’ in Matthew 25:40 (as followers of Jesus, not the poor in general), his discussion of the Hebrew terminology which distinguishes between recognised ‘resident aliens’ and foreigners, or his survey of the inclusion of foreigners in Israelite history.
By probing the Biblical languages, culture, and events from which the discussions of immigration arise, Hoffmeier urges people to avoid simplistic views of immigration based on contemporary contexts overlaid onto modern translations. The argument that Biblical texts advocate open borders between nations is strongly challenged and, while there has been some push-back against Hoffmeier’s narrow interpretation of ‘ger’, it is nevertheless clear that ger is a distinguishable term from general terms for foreigner and embraces people with a high degree of assimilation within their resident population. We cannot simply apply ‘ger’ onto the language of ‘immigrant’ carte-blanche.
(For an example of push-back, see Carroll R., M. Daniel. “Aliens, Immigration, and Refugees.” In Dictionary of Scripture and Ethics, edited by Joel B. Green, Jacqueline E. Lapsley, Rebekah Miles, and Allen Verhey, 53–58. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011.)
Dr Jocelyn Downey initially developed a career as an immunologist in the UK, US and Asia. He returned to student life to study theology and become ordained. He currently works with Mission Without Borders and serves as consultant in ongoing science projects.
Thank you, for providing a far more considered, weighty, scriptural approach, than exists in the media and knee jerk political and Church figure-head responses.
“Immigrants” is a broad category term.
We have to make some distinctions between :
Legal immigrants, and illegal immigrants.
Refugees fleeing genuine persecution, and mere economic migrants.
It is a God-given duty for Governments to govern well (Rom. 13:1-6), and we are to pray for them to have, presumably, ‘wisdom’ – which may not necessarily be synonymous with ‘reckless sentimentality’ (1 Tim. 2:1-3).
We should be careful not to use biblical concepts of boundaries, migration, status etc related to 2500yrs + ago to frame how we should approach immigration issues today. (I’m not saying this is being done by Jocelyn here, I’m just advising against using specifics set in specific times in vastly different societies and imagining they can be used as templates and models for how we deal with ‘the great migrations’ taking place in the world today.)
If we felt that the Bible was the model for such issues about national boundaries we should be on very thin ice – because on that basis the occupation of Canaan and the horrific ethnic cleansing of its population might seem to offer justification and mandate for invasion of other countries in today’s world, or the slaughter of inhabitants including children.
The issue of migration in the modern world is hugely complex and calls on the exercise of conscience (which in Christian terms requires prayer and listening to what God’s Spirit says in our hearts). If there is one constant in the Old Testament which recurs and may be relevant to migration it is the call to “act justly and love mercy”.
The implementation of that in the modern world requires us to regard every single person as precious to God and worthy of compassion, dignity, respect, and care. Of course, those values are carried forward into the New Testament and arguably deepened. We are to love our neighbours as ourselves – and ‘who is our neighbour?’ to echo Jesus. The challenges for politicians and rulers over migration are many and complex.
Some of those in a country already feel sense of displacement, or sense of loss and alienation from their own neighbourhoods and way of life. They argue that migration places heavy burdens on public services like schools and the NHS. But on the other hand there can also be racism at work within some of them, or islamophobia. Love of country and culture is by no means inevitably bad. Fear or hatred of foreigners on the other hand can be a base feature in human nature, something visceral and violent.
While we may be called to try to live by the law of a land, I also believe it can be Christian to strongly and publicly oppose those laws. Flying human beings like a commodity, like a cargo of cattle, to Rwanda, does seem to me to be a rogue proposal and act of cheap populism. We really don’t need cheap populist gimmicks with a subject as sensitive and complex as immigration.
Not sure you are learning anything from the whole sweep of scripture even as Canaan is misused as an example.
Or is there a hint of rudimentary neo- Marcionism?
I believe both the Old and New Testaments report encounters with one and the same God, so no, I repudiate Marcion.
The invasion of Canaan, and the slaughter of its inhabitants, is an example of why we should be cautious about how we deploy biblical values from the Old Testament, when it comes to nations, boundaries, and migration in the modern world.
If the invasion of Canaan by force is justifiable, and if it’s claimed it was mandated by God, then arguably it could be used as precedent for the mass migration of people to the UK… or the brutal treatment of Palestinians today (please note – I also recognise that people in modern day Israel are attacked as well, as I know all too well from a dear friend – a Christian missionary = who was killed in an attack on a bus stop).
Why do the nations rage in vain?
Dear Susannah;
What role, if any, do you think Yahweh God played in the exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt, and their entry into Canaan ? You seem to suggest that something was wrong somewhere.
Well from the point of view of a Canaanite child being knifed by an invader, there was.
Being direct with you, I don’t believe God ever told anyone to slaughter the Canaanite children. That’s supposed history written by the victors, claiming God as a mandate.
My last comment on this thread because I can see we’re diverging too far. We have to be careful how literally we take the Bible, and how we apply its words to situations we find ourselves in today.
Ethnic cleansing… that is never right. Migration may be.
Dear Susannah –
You are judging an omniscient God by your own limited, human standards.
So far as we know, God’s commandments in Deut. 20:16-18 may have something to do with a phenomenon analogous to morphic resonance – i.e. a behaviour influencing, racial memory.
But whatever, we trust the ‘God and Father of our Lord Jesus Messiah’ (Romans 15:6) : ” If God were unjust, how could He judge the world ?”. (Romans 3:6)
Dear Susannah;
Imagine the scene :
You’ve just become U.K. Prime Minister with a massive majority in the House of Commons. How would you tackle current, potentially illegal, immigration into the U.K. ?
My calling is to prayer, Pellegrino, and I have never been part of the political scenario you are asking me to imagine… because it’s not my role. I’ve already said it is a hugely complex issue. I don’t have all the answers any more than most other people do. That doesn’t stop me expressing methods I don’t approve of. You can believe in conscience that something is wrong, without having all the solutions to a problem.
So any answer would be guess work and also thoughts about things I’m not qualified (or called) to propose with finality.
My guesswork would be: 1. Prioritise those with refugee status. 2. Next, create some kind of ‘Green Card’ system for those who can fill gaps such as nurses, doctors, dentists, science teachers, as well as other kinds of work where labourers are desperately needed.
But what do you do with a mix of refugees and economic migrants who step ashore in Kent (and especially vulnerable children)?
I don’t know, but that doesn’t make sending them to Rwanda okay. How would you feel if you were a refugee and you were flown to Afghanistan or Zaire?
But as to policy: I – don’t – know. I’m just not sure the OT offers the solutions, apart from appealing to us to act with mercy and justice, with compassion for suffering.
I appreciate your comments, dear Susannah.
Thank you – and all glory to God.
And I appreciate your civility, dear Pellegrino.
Who’s ‘we’? We don’t need queue-jumpers, which is what the boat folk are. Let them apply for asylum through the proper channels and not jump the queue.
The number deported to Rwanda would be very small, because as soon as the policy is enacted the numbers of these queue-jumpers would plummet.
Dear Anton;
I don’t think your comments may go down well, with the “Soft-touch” Brigade.
Australia has a huge amount of multiculturalism, but it also knows how to control its borders by :
Offshore processing of Asylum seekers.
Turning back boats carrying migrants.
Detaining refugees indefinitely.
Does this necessarily mean that Australia is a less “Christian country”, than the U.K., which is still bound by E.U. laws and regulations upon asylum and immigration ?
Yes ? ; No ?; Maybe ?
“ Flying human beings like a commodity, like a cargo of cattle, to Rwanda, does seem to me to be a rogue proposal and act of cheap populism.”
I don’t think that this is a remotely accurate description of the Rwanda plan at all. They are to be flown to Rwanda in the perfectly usual way for humans.
Hi Kyle,
It’s not perfectly usual to force people to go somewhere they do not want to go to. We had extraordinary rendition going on with people taken to foreign ‘black ops’ sites as part of the war on terror. These people are not terrorists. While Rwanda is hopefully a safer location, it’s still flying people against their will. It’s like if you and your friends or family were all packed up with tropical clothing for a holiday in the West Indies, and I arranged for the pilot to fly you to Greenland instead. That wouldn’t be usual. Nothing about the Rwanda plan is usual.
I am with Susannah to the extent of being wary of using the Biblical ideas from the Ancient Near East and applying them to the very different Modern Western world.
In terms of boundaries, I think that the use of Deut 27:17 is completely inappropriate. In the context of ancient Israel, each family had their land, and if sold it would revert to that family at the Jubilee. Land provided the means to live, and so moving a boundary stone of your neighbour (in the same local community) was to steal their food.
In contrast, a ‘nation’ was not defined by its geographic location. A nation was a people, comprised of tribes, clans and families. The actual geography of nations changed. Consider how Solomon gave twenty towns in Galilee to Hiram (1 Kings 9:11). This variation of boundaries has been a feature of most nations in history, even in these islands, where the sea gives us to much a sense of fixed boundaries. Where is the boundary between Scotland and England: Hadrian’s Wall, the Antonine Wall, the current odd border?
I also get the impression that both today in many places, and also in the past, people moved freely between countries. After the St Bartholemew’s day massacre, the Huguenots fled France to places like Britain without needing to apply for asylum.
It is only relatively recently that the borders of countries have acquired the significance which they have – for some.
Provocative question then: Should we be more comfortable associating a ‘nation’ with one or more particular ethnic groups than we are? We tend to assume a civic nationalism whereby anyone who has ‘the certificate’ is a part of the people – very akin to the Roman model of citizenship. It seems you are saying that the OT would push us in a direction that puts more of a priority on the ethnic than the civic in determining the (human) boundaries of a nation.
That is to say, a nation is where its people are, and its people are known ethnically (phenotypically, culturally, historically etc).
To be clear, I am not asserting that this is true, I am asking whether it is a legitimate inference from Scripture.
Richard,
I’ve touched on this ethnicity point in my response to David (below), with reference to Scotland as an example.
I don’t think ethnicity should be the key point, but community. For example, the whole direction of the ‘people of God’ in the New Testament as they broke ethnic boundaries and reached out to the Gentiles, seems to suggest a biblical proposal of a ‘Holy Nation belonging to God’ based not on ethnicity but on a different kind of community.
Of course, even that does not address the present debates over boundaries, migration, etc. The Christian ‘nation’ isn’t defined by any geographical boundaries. There is a message to all humanity. Even so, as I mentioned in the case of Scotland, I think nationhood is about more than ethnicity, kilts, haggis, old folksy songs. It’s about communities that work, and share neighbourhood, bring up children, share schools, share healthcare, work in healthcare, contribute to society.
The nation, at each level, is maybe best expressed by sense of community.
“Something there is that doesn’t love a wall…
There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, ‘Good fences make good neighbours.’
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
‘Why do they make good neighbours? Isn’t it
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I’d ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offense.
Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,
That wants it down.’ I could say ‘Elves’ to him,
But it’s not elves exactly, and I’d rather
He said it for himself. I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me,
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father’s saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, ‘Good fences make good neighbours.’
Robert Frost (1914)
It is only relatively recently that the borders of countries have acquired the significance which they have – for some.
Have you read Numbers 34 recently?
If a nation is not defined by a geographical border, then what does define it? It is perhaps here that one treads on the toes of a set of Modern people different from those who want to control national borders.
I would suggest that in the Bible we find that a nation (as a group of people) is defined by a shared origin story. This certainly true for Moab, Edom and, of course, Israel. Being a member of the nation is seeing yourself as part of that story. That story leads to a shared set of cultural values and practices – including religion.
Perhaps the difference between the resident alien and the foreigner is that the latter still longs for their home, while the former settles within the culture of those among whom they live. This idea is at odds with modern ideas of multi-culturism. Different cultures within a country implies different nations.
That nations are distinguished by cultural differences was particularly true of Israel. They were required not to be like the other nations in many ways. This need for distinction is reflected in the Torah, and particularly in the Holiness Code. I would suggest that this means that we need to be careful in applying the Torah to issues in our modern countries. For none of these are a modern new Israel, despite the views of some.
I find your comments here (and elsewhere) interesting and thought-provoking.
I agree with you that modern ideas of nationhood are very different to those of Israel in Old Testament times, including (as you say) that for holiness reasons, Israel may have wanted borders for specific reasons of faith.
Times change.
If I speak for Scotland, it’s a distinctive nation with a now fairly well-settled boundary (as well as its own legal system etc). But there is a general acceptance in Scotland that anyone who lives and works there is part of the nation, with electoral rights, and the right to help Scotland determine its future. In other words, the nation (and who belongs) is not only ethnic.
To be fair, I think a person can ‘long for’ a country they’ve come from, but also grow to love and serve the country they live in. I also think although yes, there are ‘origin stories’, nations also evolve and new citizens add to the whole of what nation becomes. It does not mean relinquishing everything they’ve brought with them, just to conform.
So I think we have modern concepts of nationhood that are not really the same as the concept portrayed in the Old Testament.
How should we as Christians see ourselves in all this? We need to remember that:
“[The Lamb is] worthy to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
because you were slain,
and with your blood you purchased for God
persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.
You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God,
and they will reign on the earth.” (Rev 5:9-10)
Being a Christian means that you are now part of a new nation, inhabiting a new story, that of Jesus of Nazareth, who is Lord and Christ, ascended to the right hand of the Father. Our citizenship is in heaven (Phil 3:20).
As a token of this, it is interesting to see how Matthew in the genealogy at the start of his Gospel, often said to be to the Jews, draws attention to antecedents from outside Israel.
So, in our earthly countries, are we foreigners or resident aliens? Perhaps this should inform us as our attitude to those coming to the shores of the country in which we live.
Surely there is some layering to this. In the same way that becoming a member of the family of God doesn’t dissolve your connections or responsibilities to your family (but rather endues them with even greater importance 1 Tim 5:8), surely becoming a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven doesn’t dissolve our citizenship in the nation where we were providentially placed. The admonition to remember that we are sojourners helps us to keep our eyes on our final destination, and guards us against assuming that the interests and imperatives of the Kingdom of Heaven will always align with those of our earthly nation. But it doesn’t absolve us of affection for or loyalty to that nation.
Yes, as Christians we are ‘citizens of no mean city’ and forever ‘strangers in a strange land’ until we rise to eternal life in the heavenly country.
But at the same time, just as God the Holy Trinity is eternal community, so we are all called/invited to live in community too, both as Christians, and in localities where we live, trying to live out Christian faith while building community. After all, we are told that the ‘Kingdom of God’ is among us, with us, in the here and now. We are not just planted in a place to ‘hang on’ for death and glory to come (though for some people, that can be what it’s like). Rather, we are planted in a place to sow seeds, to love and care, to be good neighbours.
Susannah, et al –
A quick comment on :
” until we rise to eternal life in the heavenly country” [cf. Hebrews 11:16a].
This refers not to a country in heaven, but to a heavenly Kingdom originating in heaven and coming in the future with Jesus from heaven (Phil. 3:20); in order to set up the Kingdom of God on earth (Luke 22:30; Rev. 2:26; Rev. 5:10; Matt. 5:5). Messiah Jesus is coming back to the earth.
As Anglican, Oxford, Old Testament Professor, Willoughby Charles Allen wrote :
” At the end of the age, the Son of Man will come to inaugurate his Kingdom…There is nothing here [in the Parable of the Sower] nor elsewhere in this Gospel [Matthew’s] to suggest that the scene of the Kingdom is other than the present world renewed, restored and purified.”
(“Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels”; Vol. II, p. 145).
To Richard :
” But it doesn’t absolve us of affection for or loyalty to that nation ” –
Amen – particularly when it comes to International soccer.
The written laws of Moses make clear that gentiles were welcome in ancient Israel provided that they respected and did their best to keep those laws. Those laws WERE the culture of ancient Israel. That’s wise precedent, and shows up multiculturalism for the foolish and incoherent notion it is.
What groups are not keeping the laws of the UK?
Here’s a couple in answer to your question, PC1 :
1. Those people in the U.K. who have had their applications for ‘asylum’, all turned down, and yet may still be in the country.
2. Those many British Muslims who go by Sharia Law.
To PC1 :
I was reading the Gospel of Mark last night, and noticed something that addresses one of your past technical points concerning the Greek : ‘ego eimi’ :
Jesus uses ‘ego eimi’ in Mark 13:6; thus – “Many will come in my name saying ‘ I am He’ [ego eimi]”.
Likewise in the corresponding verse of Luke 21:8, : ” For many will come in my name claiming that ‘I am He’ [ego eimi] “.
Matthew however, in the corresponding verse, understands ‘ego eimi’ to mean ” I am the Messiah ” :
” Many will come in my name claiming, ‘I am the Messiah’ ” – Matthew 24:5.
The following Bibles also translate ‘ego eimi’ as ” I am the Christ [Messiah]” in Luke 21:8, : CEV, GNV, TLB, NLV, ERV, et al.
.
How do you understand the first few verses of Mark?
No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation. For they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim to pronounce a curse on you. However, the Lord your God would not listen to Balaam but turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the Lord your God loves you. Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them as long as you live.
Do not despise an Edomite, for the Edomites are related to you. Do not despise an Egyptian, because you resided as foreigners in their country. The third generation of children born to them may enter the assembly of the Lord- Deuteronomy 23
If we want to treat immigration biblically, then we would allow foreigners to live in the country but not allow them to participate in civic life. In our modern context that would include voting and the like. Some foreigners would be allowed to participate after a certain number of generations but other foreigners would never be allowed. And that distinction would be made on ethnic lines. I don’t think the open borders campaigners would like that very much…
Raphael – Ruth was a Moabitess – so you have a ‘one-sided’ view on how to treat it ‘biblically’.
If anyone is ‘one-sided’ on Ruth it seems to be Deuteronomy not Raphael?
David – yes – I agree – but you have to take the whole bible to get a proper ‘biblical’ understanding.
But a proper ‘biblical’ understanding has to also take full account of Romans 13:1-5; and 1 Tim. 2:1-2. Governments have a God-given duty to govern well, and in the general best interests of their citizens. As a consequence, Paul was even willing to fully accept the State’s right to capital punishment (Acts 25:11).
Australia has implemented a fundamentally different immigration and asylum policy to the U.K. , but who is has the right to denounce Australia as an ungodly country, as compared to the ‘pious’ U.K. ?
Boaz seems to be a compassionate and protective person, and a model of integration. And then there is the inter-ethnic solidarity of Ruth and Naomi, one of the most tender episodes in the whole Bible.
Immigration – a huge issue! I consider that the US with the U.K. hanging on to their coat tails are to blame for the mess we are now in.
Libya was a great country for work for African countries, but Gaddafi had to go according to the US and U.K. Iraq may have had a dictator but he held the two sides of Islam in check and people had to live together. But Saddam had to go according to the US and U.K – had weapons of mass destruction (never found). The suffering of Christians in the fall out from this horror inflicted on Mosul, the cradle of Christianity is an abomination. They were crucified, tortured and the women made slaves! The then vicar of Baghdad saw his godson run through with a sword.
The destabilisation sent people on the move. How did we respond – with a sensible quota system, checks and balances? No, we do not have an immigration structure. Anyone who can make it in us never removed. Housing is under enormous pressure and do are services. How many people can fit in this Island?
This has been brought upon us by a corrupt generation of politicians and as the most popular boys name in the U.K. has been Mohammed for several years it would seem that those Mullahs who referred to the jihad of the womb are well on track.
Those are very, very hard words, Tricia – but somebody had to say them !
There is more than a grain of truth in your political analysis.
God bless you, Tricia – and God bless the world.
Iraq may have had a dictator but he held the two sides of Islam in check and people had to live together.
That phrase ‘may have had a dictator’ is doing a lot of work. Saddam Hussain used poison gas against Kurdish civilians, killing thousands. He killed thousands more in the marshes in reprisal. His son tortured and raped his way across the country.
I can see where you’re coming from, but I don’t think, morally, it’s as simple as just ‘the chaos that came after Saddam was bad so we shouldn’t topple dictators’.
Possibly the greatest moral act of betrayal the modern West ever committed was at Yalta where millions of people were abandoned to live under the murderous dictator Stalin and later the evil regime of the USSR. That was for stability. It’s very easy to trade people to a dictator for stability when you’re not the one who has to live in terror every day of the secret police and the knock on the door.
And yet it’s true that the chaos following Saddam’s removal has been horrifying.
I don’t have a good answer. But it’s definitely not as simple as ‘it was wrong to topple Saddam because he may have been a dictator but at least he forced people to live together’.
The West no longer has a moral compass. Profit comes first and big profits can be made on”reconstruction” after causing destruction. Is Afghanistan a better place after the Americans scrambled to get out? Women have certainly gone backwards again. If you leave you need a plan! Why are we getting so many Albanians crossing the Channel – the Americans have been meddling in Albania. Why are the people of Syria suffering and receiving no help after the earthquake – answer because they wish to be governed under President Assad. Only areas that the Americans run have received earthquake assistance. What is the talk about in Ukraine now? Answer – Reconstruction with big businesses like Blackrock getting the profits – it certainly won’t be the Ukrainians if it follows the usual plan.
Lord have mercy and let their deeds be brought into the light and the wicked punished.
Tricia – in your post, I see strong similarities with the way I see things, especially concerning the evil Anglo-Saxon empire and their modus operandi.
On Syria, here is an important article
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/01/the-terrifying-rise-of-the-zombie-state-narrative/
(from Craig Murray) about the obviously fake narrative of the Syrian government chemical weapons attacks on Douma. It does seem strange that the UK / USA governments do so much work to destabilise countries – and then throw up their hands in horror at the number of immigrants that this generates.
Having said that, whatever we may think of the evil Anglo-Saxon empire, the evil Russian empire is clearly worse as far as the Ukrainians are concerned and it’s a pity that they seem to be forced to choose between one evil empire or another.
The West no longer has a moral compass.
Well that’s hard to argue with. Time was the West really did have a moral compass and stood up for values like freedom of speech; now even previously upstanding organisations like Amnesty are supporting censorship.
Is Afghanistan a better place after the Americans scrambled to get out? Women have certainly gone backwards again. If you leave you need a plan!
True, but would it have been better if we had never got in? That’s really the issue; well, one issue. Of course the situation in Afghanistan was different to Iraq; Afghanistan wasn’t under a dictatorship; quite the reverse, it was the fact it was an ungoverned chaotic state that allowed Al-Queda to base itself there.
Why are we getting so many Albanians crossing the Channel – the Americans have been meddling in Albania.
Surely the reason there were so many Albanians crossing the channel (there are actually hardly any now, since they started being repatriated) is simply that we have a higher standard of living than Albania? They are economic migrants looking for a better life; it’s got nothing to do with American interference, has it?
Why are the people of Syria suffering and receiving no help after the earthquake – answer because they wish to be governed under President Assad.
Do they want to be governed under President Assad? Really? Or are they only governed under Assad because Russia backed Assad against the rebels (making chemical weapons attacks for him, etc) and the West refused to intervene?
Only areas that the Americans run have received earthquake assistance.
Given the Russians are propping up Assad, perhaps it could be argued that it is Russia’s moral responsibility to give assistance to those areas, not the Americans’. Would you not think there’s something in that?
What is the talk about in Ukraine now? Answer – Reconstruction with big businesses like Blackrock getting the profits – it certainly won’t be the Ukrainians if it follows the usual plan.
Surely what matters to the Ukrainians, once they drive the invaders from their country, will be that the reconstruction happens — not who gets the profits? Making profits is not itself wrong, making profits supplying people with things they need is good.
S – I think that John Pilger has it correct on Afghanistan.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2108/S00074/catastrophe-in-afghanistan.htm
Firstly (well, let’s start with 1978), in 1978 there was an immensely popular revolution to overthrow the dictatorship. The new government implemented a programme of visionary reforms that included equal rights for women and minorities. Political prisoners were freed and police files publicly burned. The problem was that, while the government was not a puppet of the USSR, it was supported by the USSR – and this was a serious problem for the Americans (who are – and always have been – governed by self-interest – and not an interest in human rights).
To cut a long story short, the Americans therefore enlisted the aid of the Taliban in order to dislodge this government that was sympathetic towards (and being supported by) the USSR. After they successfully got the Russians out of Afghanistan, they then decided that the Taliban weren’t a very good idea. But unfortunately, after all the training that the Americans had given them, the Taliban turned out to be too much for the USA/UK military alliance – hence the mess we have today.
The USA/UK military alliance is responsible for making Afghanistan uninhabitable (and hence for the large numbers who leave that country and try to settle in a Western country).
You don’t understand the model that is being used. The model is “loans” that put that country into indebted status. There is no good outcome for the country only for the money men. We had the beginnings with Blair and his public private partnership model, which is one of the reasons why the nhs is now in such a mess.
You are not understanding the Syrian point of view. A lot is Syrians do want to have their own President. The geopolitical situation is to weaken countries in support of Israel. The Americans are occupying Syrian oilfields while the Syrian people are suffering from lack of energy supplies. The USA are funding terrorist organisations to attack Syria.
The new government implemented a programme of visionary reforms that included equal rights for women and minorities. Political prisoners were freed and police files publicly burned. The problem was that, while the government was not a puppet of the USSR, it was supported by the USSR – and this was a serious problem for the Americans (who are – and always have been – governed by self-interest – and not an interest in human rights).
I think that’s pretty naïve. The DDR, for example, claimed to be a bastion of equal rights for women and minorities, and to not be a puppet of the USSR. But it was a puppet of the USSR, and like all such puppets was a repressive totalitarian regime controlled through surveillance and fear. If the revolutionary government in Afghanistan wasn’t that to start off with then, under the USSR’s baleful influence, it soon would have become one.
It certainly could never have actually had, say, a free election; the USSR would never have allowed such if there was a possibility of a Western-friendly or non-aligned government coming to power. Which means freedom of the press could not have been allowed either.
To cut a long story short, the Americans therefore enlisted the aid of the Taliban in order to dislodge this government that was sympathetic towards (and being supported by) the USSR.
So clearly not everyone in Afghanistan was supportive of the Soviet-backed government.
But unfortunately, after all the training that the Americans had given them, the Taliban turned out to be too much for the USA/UK military alliance – hence the mess we have today.
That’s not actually what happened. The Taliban weren’t ‘too much for the USA/UK military alliance’ — the Taliban were roundly defeated by that alliance. The problem wasn’t that the Taliban was too strong, it was that the Afghan government was too weak: it could only survive as long as it was propped up by US military support. As long as that support was present the Taliban could not win; but when it was withdrawn, the government collapsed almost immediately.
The USA/UK military alliance is responsible for making Afghanistan uninhabitable (and hence for the large numbers who leave that country and try to settle in a Western country).
No, the Taliban is responsible for making Afghanistan uninhabitable. The large numbers who are leaving the country are fleeing the Taliban, not the US.
You don’t understand the model that is being used. The model is “loans” that put that country into indebted status.
There’s nothing wrong with loans. That’s how the Marshall Plan worked. We in the UK were ‘put into indebted status’ and only finished off paying the post-war reconstruction loans in 2006.
And if not loans, how do you suggest the reconstruction be paid for? It will cost billion of dollars to rebuild Ukraine — reconstruction is skilled work and skilled workers don’t work for free, and neither should they. Ukraine doesn’t have billions of dollars in its bank account. So there’s basically two options for Ukraine: either they get Russia to pay reparations to fund the reconstruction (good luck with that!) or they borrow the money.
That’s simply the reality.
We had the beginnings with Blair and his public private partnership model, which is one of the reasons why the nhs is now in such a mess.
PPI was a totally different thing. PPI came about because Blair wanted to pump money into the NHS but without paying the political price for breaking his spending limits, so PPI was an accounting trick that allowed capital investment that could be done ‘off the books’ and not appear on the government’s balance sheet. It was basically Blair buying political cover in the present and saddling future generations with the debt.
You are not understanding the Syrian point of view. A lot is Syrians do want to have their own President.
I’m sure they do but do they want that President to be Assad? Isn’t what the Syrians want actually to be able to choose their own President? A choice they will never get as long as Assad remains in power with Putin’s backing.
S – briefly – I do recommend that you read the article by John Pilger that I referenced. I don’t intend to reiterate the points there (made much better by JP than I could do it), but they do substantiate Tricia’s point of view, which seems pretty close to my own. Afghanistan would have been all right if the USA hadn’t bankrolled the Taliban and taught them how to fight.
You mentioned Yalta. The key to understanding Churchill was that he was an imperialist. I’m trying to work through the book ‘Powstanie ’44’ by Norman Davies (unfortunately I have the Polish translation – it’s his book about the Warsaw uprising).
Towards the beginning of the book, he makes a very interesting point about Churchill’s involvement in the peace conference in Paris in 1919 (after WW1) where Churchill put the various European countries into two categories; the ‘giants’ and the ‘pygmies’. As far as he was concerned, once the ‘giants’ (i.e. imperialistic powers) were sorted out, job done.
I think that much of the difficulties of present day Ukraine go back to this. As Norman Davies points out in that book, Ukraine had succeeded in gaining its independence during WW1 with the help of the Germans. The Bolsheviks then invaded – so their independence was short lived. In the peace conference the Ukrainians therefore had no chance since anything achieved with German help was considered to be an outrage.
Afghanistan would have been all right if the USA hadn’t bankrolled the Taliban and taught them how to fight.
Yeah, no, I’m afraid I don’t believe that for a second. That’s ‘useful idiot’ talk, like something the Webbs or Walter Duranty would have come up with. No country ‘would have been alright’ as a Soviet satellite state.
You mentioned Yalta. The key to understanding Churchill was that he was an imperialist.
Churchill certainly believed in the British Empire. But I’m not sure how that’s relevant to any of the points I made. Certainly in criticising Yalta I am criticising Churchill’s behaviour there, though to be fair to Churchill he did pretty clearly realise he’d been had — hence the ‘Iron Curtain’ speech.
I think that much of the difficulties of present day Ukraine go back to this. As Norman Davies points out in that book, Ukraine had succeeded in gaining its independence during WW1 with the help of the Germans.
Hm, the book I read earlier this year about Ukraine was Conquest’s Harvest of Sorrow. If you want background to Ukraine’s current position I suggest starting there.
though to be fair to Churchill he did pretty clearly realise he’d been had — hence the ‘Iron Curtain’ speech.
Read: ‘did pretty quickly realise he’d been had’
S – thanks for the recommend – I’m looking for additional background. Have you watched this one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F45i0v_u6s
(Evaluation of Russia by Finnish intelligence)? Most of it would be applicable to Ukraine – namely that the Russians are bad news with imperialist territorial ambitions. The only thing he gets wrong is that Russia, as an entity, didn’t really come into existence much before 1700 – it was Muscovy – and much smaller than the Russia of today (and Ukraine wasn’t part of it).
I simply brought up Churchill at Paris 1919 to show that he had an imperialist mind-set back then – and the Yalta agreement shouldn’t have been very surprising in the light of the position he took in Paris 1919. It was basically the same position – those whom he considered giants and those whom he considered pygmies (and who could therefore be thrown under the bus).
This is connected to the subject of the thread, since we do have Ukrainians emigrating – as a direct result of the war.
Have you watched this one?
I see there’s a transcript so I’ll read that when I get a chance.
I simply brought up Churchill at Paris 1919 to show that he had an imperialist mind-set back then – and the Yalta agreement shouldn’t have been very surprising in the light of the position he took in Paris 1919. It was basically the same position – those whom he considered giants and those whom he considered pygmies (and who could therefore be thrown under the bus).
I’m still not sure what point you’re trying to make. I hope it’s not just the tiresome ‘British Empire Bad!’ refrain one gets from certain quarters nowadays. As far as empires in history go, the British Empire was certainly one if the good ones — you’d have preferred to be conquered by the British Empire than any of the other alternatives at the time.
This is connected to the subject of the thread, since we do have Ukrainians emigrating – as a direct result of the war.
They’re not emigrating, though, because that implies an intention to permanently settle. They want to go home as soon as the war is won and it’s safe for them to do so, they just need somewhere to stay in the meantime.
S – no – it’s not the ‘British empire bad’ – rather it is understanding the mind-set of those involved in the negotiations (the same person – Winston Churchill).
In both cases (Paris 1919 and Yalta 1945), it isn’t completely clear to me what different line could be taken. In 1919 there were so many different and competing interests that the ‘giants’ and ‘pygmies’ approach (get the giants sorted out and let the rest take care of itself) might have been the only practical approach. Again, by the time Yalta came along, pretty much everyone knew what Stalin was – so the ‘oh Stalin broke his promises’ line doesn’t explain very much – because everybody was well aware that any promises couldn’t be trusted. But nobody had the stomach for what it might take to ‘liberate’ the chunk of Europe that the Soviet Union had marked out as its own.
As Christians, I think we’re well aware of how we regard worldly empires – they are some sort of necessary evil – and we shouldn’t be under any illusions about this. The British empire was bad, the current USA/UK military alliance is bad, the EU is bad, but the Russian empire is much, much worse than any of these – and currently the Ukrainians need all the weaponry that the USA/UK military axis can provide them with – so it is just as well that the USA/UK military alliance is there to provide the Ukraine with the necessary weaponry.
Worldly empires are a fact of life, so it probably isn’t very useful to think in terms of whether an empire is bad or good; as Christians we have to think about how to live for Christ in a pagan world (and we have to recognise that the world actually is pagan).
In both cases (Paris 1919 and Yalta 1945), it isn’t completely clear to me what different line could be taken. […] But nobody had the stomach for what it might take to ‘liberate’ the chunk of Europe that the Soviet Union had marked out as its own.
Indeed — I did point out that I am sitting in a comfortable armchair, criticising the decisions of people who had just been through five years of brutal war. But still, what was done to the peoples of occupied Europe was terrible. For the sake of a few years’ respite, we condemned them to many decades of horrendous tyranny.
And as I wrote I think that Churchill realised very quickly what a terrible mistake he had made (and I don’t want to minimise his guilt for that mistake — he willingly signed up to the devil’s deal in order to defeat Germany) but by that time he was out of power (again) and all he could do was make speeches (again).
As Christians, I think we’re well aware of how we regard worldly empires – they are some sort of necessary evil – and we shouldn’t be under any illusions about this. The British empire was bad, the current USA/UK military alliance is bad, the EU is bad, but the Russian empire is much, much worse than any of these – and currently the Ukrainians need all the weaponry that the USA/UK military axis can provide them with – so it is just as well that the USA/UK military alliance is there to provide the Ukraine with the necessary weaponry.
I’m hoping from this that you’re not one of those who thinks the current war in Ukraine is the fault of NATO, which is good.
Worldly empires are a fact of life, so it probably isn’t very useful to think in terms of whether an empire is bad or good;
Hm. Disagree. Well, maybe not ‘bad’ or ‘good’ but there are definitely better and worse empires: it’s good that the German empire lost in 1945, and that the Soviet empire lost in 1991. There are sometimes — not always — right and wrong sides in conflicts, and the right sides won those ones.
S – nope – Ukraine war is entirely the fault of Russia. Even though Ukraine is not Russia (and Ukrainians never have been Russians), Russia thinks of Ukraine as part of Russia. This is why they carry Ukrainian children off to ‘filtration camps’ in order to educate them to be proper Russians. Another typical lie you’ll hear (from the Russian side) is that Kyiv is a Russian city (which simply isn’t true). One of the things that the Russians are trying to do when they have a chance in this war is to destroy anything that represents a distinct (and separate non-Russian) Ukrainian culture.
Even though Ukraine is not Russia (and Ukrainians never have been Russians), Russia thinks of Ukraine as part of Russia.
I don’t know if I’d want to make such a sweeping statement about all Russians, but that’s certainly the case with Mr Putin, and in Russia’s one-man-one-vote system he is the man with the vote. Although it’s also about Russia’s ‘right’ to set the limits of what the states on its borders are allowed to do (eg, joining NATO is right out).
Stalin, on the other hand, was perfectly happy when the famine came to let Ukrainians starve in order to steal their food for ‘proper’ Russians. Conquest gives an overview of the back-and-forth over Ukrainian nationhood as background to the terror-famine.
S – well, I’m glad you understand about the famine. My Ukrainian friends are of the opinion that Stalin was the root cause of the famine – in order to bring the Ukrainians to heel – as punishment for not seeing themselves as Russians.
well, I’m glad you understand about the famine.
Pretty much everything I know about it comes from Conquest’s book.
My Ukrainian friends are of the opinion that Stalin was the root cause of the famine – in order to bring the Ukrainians to heel – as punishment for not seeing themselves as Russians.
Conquest argues that Stalin wasn’t the root cause of the famine, but the collectivisation policies made it much worse than it would otherwise have been; and when it occurred Stain definitely ordered food to be taken from Ukraine and shipped elsewhere, deliberately starving the Ukrainians. There are certainly a lot of things it could have been ‘punishment’ for — the Ukrainians were particularly resistant to collectivisation which ironically is why they had so much food — and Stalin was notoriously vindictive so it’s certainly plausible that that part of his motivation.
(Stalin’s apologists claim that he simply wasn’t aware how bad things were when he ordered food removed from Ukraine and that if he’d known he would have acted differently, but Conquest proves that that’s just not possible)
S – once again, many thanks for the Conquest recommend – this looks like precisely what I’m looking for.
S – I don’t believe that the USA/UK military operation in Iraq was the answer. While it was taking place, I had an Iraqi student in one of my classes and I entered into some conversation with him. He had been kicked out of Iraq due to the fact that he had been a political activist, opposed to the regime – so he had every reason to welcome the fall of Saddam Hussein (he was training to be a maths teacher). Nevertheless, he was dead against the invasion, because he understood full well that a regime change imposed by the USA/UK through a military operation would be a disaster for Iraq.
I prefer to take my information from such sources – i.e. people ‘on the ground’ who have contact with the situation and hence a better understanding of the situation. I’d take the view ‘it was wrong for the USA/UK to involve themselves in toppling Saddam, because the Iraqis – especially those who were opposed to the regime – were opposed to USA/UK involvement – and they understand the situation better than we do.’
Nevertheless, he was dead against the invasion, because he understood full well that a regime change imposed by the USA/UK through a military operation would be a disaster for Iraq.
That’s fair enough — what did he want the West to do instead? Presumably he didn’t think the West should simply stand back and let events unfold in Iraq?
‘it was wrong for the USA/UK to involve themselves in toppling Saddam, because the Iraqis – especially those who were opposed to the regime – were opposed to USA/UK involvement – and they understand the situation better than we do.’
This is another issue where it’s not that simple though. Yes people on the ground know the situation better; but they also have their own agenda, and some of them might want to remove a dictator only so they can impose their own dictatorship (see the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt for example). So you have to listen to people on the ground but also be aware that their aims might not be what we would wish.
“stand back and let events unfold in Iraq”. Who made us the
Policemen of the world? The people in these countries should push out governments they don’t want – they know their needs better.
People need Christ, and the World needs future New Management.
1. “Philip proclaimed the good news about the Kingdom of God and the one named Jesus Messiah..” (cf. Acts 8:12; ‘God’s Word’ Translation).
2. “Do you not know that the saints are to manage the world.” (cf. 1 Cor. 6:2; Moffatt’s New Testament).
3. ” To the one who is victorious and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations…just as I [Jesus] have received authority . ” (Rev. 2:26; cf. Daniel 7:13-14; 7:27).
4. When the the seventh angel trumpets, then :
” The kingdoms of the world are become the kingdoms of our LORD and of His Messiah” (Rev. 11:15).
Great News !
(cf. Mark 1:14-15)
Who made us the Policemen of the world?
With power comes responsibility.
Yes… But… “we” don’t seem to look further than “topple” the current (insert name/country). Who might follow is an important question.
I remember it being raised about Idi Amin in Uganda when prayers for his removal were used. The Ugandan in our midst offered that as bad/worse people were around. But also how did we expect our prayers to be answered? Civil war anybody?
And again in Syria. When the hope of a better government faded once Assad had settled in he became a pariah… He held the country together to a great extent… by brutality… but opposing him has arguably led to a bigger mess. I don’t think all Syrians necessarily “liked” him but may well have felt safer, albeit with reduced freedoms. My Syrian Christian contact in Aleppo certainly thinks other countries are using Syria for their own ends.
We’ve meddled. Others pay. I’m not saying “never get involved” but not to imagine it’s ever simple, actually needed or welcomed…
We’ve meddled. Others pay. I’m not saying “never get involved” but not to imagine it’s ever simple, actually needed or welcomed
We’ve meddled, and others have meddled too (Assad would not be in power now if Putin hadn’t backed his regime). My point is that it’s not as simple as saying ‘we’re always and only ever the bad guys , everything we do is wrong, we should never intervene’.
Yalta is a stain on the West’s collective soul, a deal struck with the devil that left millions under totalitarian regimes for decades. Not intervening can be just as morally culpable as intervention.
To repeat what I wrote above:
I don’t have a good answer. But it’s definitely not as simple as ‘it was wrong to topple Saddam because he may have been a dictator but at least he forced people to live together’.
I don’t disagree… Yes… There’s no simple answer or universal solution…
Dear S: At Yalta, Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin pledged to allow the people of Europe “to create democratic institutions of their own choice” and that “the earliest possible establishment through free elections governments responsive to the will of the people.” It was also stipulated that “the Provisional Government which is now functioning in Poland should therefore be reorganized on a broader democratic basis with the inclusion of democratic leaders from Poland and from Poles abroad.” These quotes are from the Wikipedia article on the Yalta Conference. If you doubt them, please check them from other sources for yourself.
Stalin simply lied, of course. Whatever attitude Churchill and Roosevelt took toward him at Yalta, my question to you is: What else could the West have demanded that would actually have made a difference to what happened in Eastern Europe postwar?
What else could the West have demanded that would actually have made a difference to what happened in Eastern Europe postwar?
As you point out, nothing in the text of the agreement would have made any difference as Stalin simply intended to ignore it all. When I write ‘Yalta’ I’m using it as a shorthand for conceding the principle of a Soviet sphere of influence in Europe, and not taking action when it quickly became clear after the war that the intent was to make Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc, into totalitarian satellite states of the USSR.
Of course it’s easy to criticise from my conformable armchair, and clearly after five years of war there was no appetite in the UK or the USA to take up arms again so soon to protect the rights of the peoples of Europe, as years earlier they had done so on behalf of the Poles. And once the Iron Curtain had descended and the USSR had developed its nuclear weapons, the lines drawn were pretty much set (and the West by then had realised its mistake and the vital importance of the success of such battles as Operation Vittles, which surely must be one of the top five most important military actions in the twentieth century).
Nevertheless, it’s possible that, had such action been taken sooner, fewer people might have had to live their lives under Communist tyranny. That’s why I say that conceding the principle at Yalta, and failing to act sooner to disrupt Soviet plans of conquest once the became clear in 1945-6, and thus abandoning millions of Poles, Czechs, Romanians, Hungarians, Bulgarians and Germans to repression and captivity, is a stain on the West’s soul.
To Pellegrino
Yes people need Christ desperately, but that is never achieved by warfare. Jesus instruction was to take the Gospel into the whole world and that happened. The Roman Empire became Christian under the Emperor Constantine (there is a statue of him outside York Minster). The West was Christian, we were steeped in it from birth. But it no longer is the case. We are in a weakened state and other forces are rising. You only need to look at the faces of women demanding abortion up to and after birth to see demonic activity. Morals are being demolished by so called “sex education” in schools – a mother has remonstrated as her daughter is being taught to be sex positive in all aspects. The UN is pushing this stuff.
My call is “Come Lord Jesus”, I think the end times are near.
There is no such thing as a Christian country or continent, Tricia, and there never was. Institutional Christianity is far from gospel Christianity. The former is a conformism imposed from outwith the human heart by social pressures or even the law, and it does not change the human heart. In the latter you are changed for the better in ways you cannot do for yourself.
One should not blame Muslims for doing what the Quran tells them to (about which they are candid enough in their own languages). As for the influential Islamophiles who admitted them in large numbers to the West, the phrase ‘bill of attainder’ comes to mind. The real enigma is what their motivation is, for secular humanism and Islam are absolutely incompatible. Suggestions anyone?
The real enigma is what their motivation is, for secular humanism and Islam are absolutely incompatible. Suggestions anyone?
I honestly think a lot of them just haven’t thought it through — see the whiplash in American leftie circles from celebrating the first town in the USA to elect a Muslim-majority council to being shocked and appalled that said council voted to ban Pride flags: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/17/hamtramck-michigan-muslim-council-lgbtq-pride-flags-banned
I mean, who could have seen that coming?
I think they do know. But it’s “Build Back Better”. Trash everything and remake anew – a form of communism keeping us in check with surveillance systems and digital currency. Communism always wants to destroy the family.
I think they do know.
Both can be true: most of them just don’t think through the logical consequences of their positions enough to notice the contradictions, but there’s a hard core of accelerationists following Lenin’s ‘the worse, the better’ dictum.
To Anton
I know that institutionalised Christianity is not true faith, but it was certainly instrumental in teaching religion in schools, singing hymns, reading psalms and the expectation of moral behaviour was based on Christianity. We have lost all this and are now living in a soup of relativism at best and at worst a downright overturning of our Christian heritage.
I’d rather say that the boundary between the church and the world is growing clearer, and that this is good for the church if bad for the world. Which is your priority?
Thanks for your comment to me, Tricia.
There’s a lot of sense in what you say, Trish.
I give your comments a “thumbs up”.
I remember in 2016 when Bill Johnson of Bethel endorsed Trump claiming that the bible said national security (in context more restrictions on immigration) was more important than helping refugees.
As an immigrant to the US from the UK, I’m very much in favor of immigration and find it a bit strange and a stretch that a certain type of Christian persists in trying to use scripture to justify a conservative political attitude to immigration.
Immigration is a very modern problem. For most of human history, with the exception of cases of religious difference, most political leaders were either indifferent to immigration or welcomed it. It’s only really from the 20th century that politicians start to blame this that and the other on immigrants and only really in the same period that mass transportation of people became relatively quick and affordable.
As an immigrant to the US from the UK, I’m very much in favor of immigration and find it a bit strange and a stretch that a certain type of Christian persists in trying to use scripture to justify a conservative political attitude to immigration.
Presumably though you recognise that you had no right to settle in the USA. The American government had the sovereign right to decide how many immigrants it would accept, and how it would choose them, and you had to apply and meet the standards it required, and if the US government decided to reject your application then that was entirely a decision for it?
Certainly if I ever wanted to settle in the USA (or any other country) I would accept that was the deal. I can apply, but they don’t have to let me in.
Do you not agree?
Well, that is a ‘conservative political attitude to immigration’. So if you agree then you have a conservative political attitude to immigration.
Immigration is a very modern problem. […] It’s only really from the 20th century that politicians start to blame this that and the other on immigrants and only really in the same period that mass transportation of people became relatively quick and affordable.
Yes, obviously immigration is a modern problem, because immigration only becomes a problem capable of changing the nature of a country when the technology exists for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of people to arrive every year — a far higher rate at which they can integrate and become part of the host society. That’s why it’s only in the modern period that we need legal controls to limit the rate of immigration to that which can be absorbed without fundamentally changing the nature of the country — previously the rate was controlled by the limitations of travel technology, but that is no longer the case.