The Stranger within Your Gates

This week, Politico presented results of polling revolving around the question of whether America should officially become a Christian nation. There is renewed interest in the question because of the prominent Christian nationalist idea in modern political discourse. The results were fascinating. The article broke down the Republican Party by generation and found that the majority of most of the generations felt that America should be a Christian nation.[1] Generation X was the only exception, and just barely so, with 49% agreeing that America should declare itself a Christian nation. Overall, 61% of the Republicans polled agreed with the proposition. Of course, this is not necessarily earth-shattering news. Since the early 1980s, conservative Evangelical Christianity in America has tied itself to the Republican Party as part of a political project to codify Christian moral principles into law.


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at http://spectrummagazine.org/node/12000

I read the article from Politico… Scary!

As I sometimes say, “Christians” are the most dangerous people on the planet!

3 Likes

The same day the illegals landed on Martha’s Vineyard, Karine Jean-Pierre reiterated, “the border is secure” as an echo from Merick Garland who has been staring right at the cameras saying the same thing - as three, four, even five thousand illegals come pouring across the border, per day. Who knew? If it’s not on CNN or MSNBC it’s not happening.

Was this political - perhaps; was it a stunt - no. It was a wakeup call to the American public. For months now, the Feds have been flying illegal immigrants to various parts of the country, all under the cover of darkness - literally, in the middle of the night. Do you think the good folk of Martha’s Vineyard knew about that - did anyone know about that? Not until Abbott sent busloads to NY, DC and Chicago, and now, the “island of the rich and famous”, some in broad daylight, did the salsa hit the fan. What would the mayors of these sanctuary cities possibly do with 50 homeless people? I don’t know, ask Governor Abbott. He gets them thousands at a time.

Well, Abbott has decided to share. You call yourself a sanctuary city; then, do it - provide sanctuary. On top of that, the public gets to know, the border is anything but secure. … which brings us around to the second misconception - that the border should always be open to anyone who wants to come into the country.

Just past the statue that beacons the “tired and the poor”, is an island. When, as a child, I made that journey past the statue, I was told that not long before, all who responded to the statue’s invitation had to first stop at this little island, just beyond. It’s called “Ellis Island”. It was set up to process all “the tired and the poor”. It was the first stop into this new country. But it was more than that. It was a promise to the citizens of this new country that they, themselves, can still feel safe and secure as they welcome these new folk, looking for respite and security. Here, the citizens of this country were promised that no harm would come to them, because we made sure people who wished them harm would not be permitted to come. Back then, the major danger were diseases that were rampaging throughout the world. Once medical science had spread all over the globe, it was no longer necessary to process immigrants at the island. All that was done in the country of origin since most new arrivals come by plane, as the days of ocean liners is past.

How does that work at the southern border? Can we be assured that no harm can come across that border? The entire country was double masked and sequestered, but the border was entirely unmasked and definitely unvaccinated. Did all the little kids arrive with their required shots against measles, chickenpox, polio, and various poxes? Apparently not, since cities like NY are seeing a resurgence of polio, which has been eradicated since the 50’s.

These immigrants are not marching across Central America, wearing Nikies and carrying cell phones on their own. They are being guided by the Mexican Cartels who are getting mega rich from smuggling drugs. Little children, travelling alone, are being used as “mules”, smuggling drugs, made in China. Do we have a responsibility to our own children to keep them safe. Can we say, FENTANYL?

There is just one question that needs to be answered - would you leave your front door wide open as you go to bed tonight?

5 Likes

It is as interesting as it is a sad history that a nation of immigrants can’t solve the problem of immigrants. We hold crazy and contradictory policies and laws governing immigration. The entire apparatus is a broken and dysfunctional bureaucracy that harms immigrants and is used to polarize Americans. Politicians seem to not really care about the issue in so far as really solving it, as they can use it effectively for political gain.

4 Likes

This is relevant:
The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus:

It’s sad that non-Christians understand Jesus’ message better than most self-proclaimed “Christians”.

1 Like

Really?

Or is it odd that Spectrum should run one article saying all should be welcome in America alongside a news item about an Adventist School refusing admission to a five year old with dreadlocks?

I think not as it’s been my experience that Adventism, and Christianity in general, have never been about personal freedom, encouragement of individuality, acceptance of people as they are or even coherent, non-self-refuting thought.

In 1969, I got my hair cut and went off to an SDA boarding school where one of the first things I was told was that I would have to get a hair cut before attending my first class.

The organizations that do business in Jesus name have never demonstrably been about anything that Jesus said or did given that he had no hand in writing the Bible nor in establishing the organizations themselves.

IOW, Supply Side Jesus as a characterization is just as ludicrous as is “the real Jesus” as conceived of by those who paint Jesus as Woodstock-going, peace and love Hippie who preached a “Can’t we all just get along”, Rodney King style message, this given that Jesus, himself, has done nothing to update his message for two thousand years, UNLESS one is willing to take the words of the unknown and contradictory authors of the Four Gospels, or one of the countless others such as Paul, The Pope, Joe Smith, EGW, Jimmy Jones, Joe Smith, Charles Taze Russell, David Koresh, et. als., all of whom have so graciously volunteered to fill the void in the interim and purportedly speak for him.

IOW, the 2nd Coming Jesus might logically insist “I never knew any of you guys!”

Oh?

But the Holy Spirit helped write those books so all scripture, or scripture-based sermons are inspired by god?

If so, then this comment is just as noteworthy as anything else ever written about Jesus-which is not the real name of the person who supposedly inspired this mess, BTW-as my belief in what I say is “properly basic” and to question me is to commit the unpardonable sin of blasphemy against all mighty god.

:flushed::wink::rofl:

Brutal satire, but makes its painful point, Ouch!

Spoken much like a true citizen of Sodom. This might be a good place to revisit the words in Ezekiel about the great sin of Sodom. And NO, it wasn’t homosexuality, it was their inhospitable behaviour. But this really is the defining moment for “Christianity” of at least of all who call themselves Christian. Christians don’t lie, they don’t commit adultery, they are not selfish, they are not prideful, they don’t turn on those who turn against them, and they take care of the strangers within their gates. Not exactly in the Republican playbook. It reminds me of the texts in Revelations which speak of a form of godliness but denying the power, or to paraphrase, the heart of a Christian.

These people are mostly from Venezuela, a country run by a ruthless dictator who is as repressive as Russia or worse. And, there is no question that there might be some among them who are mules for the drug cartel. Vetting should be a priority. But turning our backs on them isn’t at all Christian. Getting Republicans to allocate funds to do a proper job of this process has been a dismal failure. All they want to do is build a wall, which has been a complete failure. Look at how much of the wall that was built in the past six years has now been penetrated and riddled with passages not to mention such simple things as ladders. But, as Christians, or at least pretending to be Christians, this is a testing period. How we deal with this will demonstrate which pen we are in when Christ comes back.

Many of the non-Venezuelan immigrants are coming here because climate change has destroyed their farming and production. They are literally starving to death because all of us have destroyed the planet. They do not take our jobs, but rather, they are the ones here who do the jobs we would would never be caught dead doing. They are some of the hardest working people I have ever met. But we seem unwilling to take any responsibility for their plight. If we truly wanted to fix this, we would help these Central American countries build a sustainable infrastructure so they could survive…but we will never do that.

This will truly be the separation of the sheep and goats. And all these “pseudo-Christians” are the ones that will probably find themselves surrounded by a lot of goats.

4 Likes

Jason Hines wrote this piece and he refers to the move of immigrants to Martha’s Vineyard as a political stunt but then states that he understands the logic and how it can make sense, but then calls it a charade. I wonder if, using his logic, he has actually written how the same has really been the truth of what is seen at the southern border. Has it also been a political stunt to not finish building a wall that would certainly have hindered a huge percent of the cartel corruption and illegal “got aways”? Has it also been a political stunt to remove the “return to Mexico and wait for processing” plan that the former president had setup as a control measure?
I wonder if much of the current administration has performed numerous political stunts to actually cause confusion and fighting amongst our nation and is following an agenda that is going about the business of the great deceiver. We have all seen the destruction taking place since January 2, 2021 with huge failures financially and without going deeply into another direction, this immigration invasion is causing so much turmoil I have to wonder if it is on purpose.
On September 22 Congressional Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee passed an amendment to an elections bill calling for non-citizens to vote in US elections. If this gets voted in through Congress, could this have been the purpose of the Southern border “stunt” to maintain political power and control? I wonder if this is why the Federal govt. has been transporting immigrants in the late nights to “Red” states so that they will turn “blue” in there voting preferences?

Sirje, I wonder if what you have written in your entire comment has more value than what Hines has written in his piece. Does Hines lock his front door at night?

Yes, we do need to care for the strangers within our gates, but what if there really is a plan, a stunt, to overwhelm and destroy the caregivers? I wonder if Hines can see logic to this.

2 Likes

This is bogus! The resolution does not allow non-citizens to vote. It allows for the translation of voting material into other languages.

Immigration is a complex issue. Under US law you can arrive through the “front door” with a visa, or through the “back door”. You are equally entitled to claim asylum regardless of how you enter the country. Your claim for asylum is tested, then you are either allowed to stay, or removed. That is the process. At issue is the speed at which that happens, and how those waiting on the process are treated.

What is relevant is how we treat people, regardless of their status.

3 Likes

Here, my friend, is the article quote…

According to the text of the Democrats’ “amendment to the amendment,” the language to be struck from the legislation reads “nothing in this section may be construed to permit any noncitizens to vote in a Federal election, or to encourage or require a State or political subdivision to permit any noncitizen to vote in a State or local election.”
Under H.R. 8770, which is making its way through the House of Representatives right now, Democrats aim to “expand the voluntary opportunities for translations in elections.”
In other words, they want to make it easier for non-English speakers and, evidently, non-citizens, to vote in American elections.

In a breaking news tweet announcing the Democrats’ move, the House Judiciary GOP wrote that “there’s no hiding it. Democrats WANT non-citizens voting in our elections.”
Here is the source: https://nationalfile.com/house-democrats-move-to-allow-non-citizens-to-vote-in-us-elections/

I wonder if there is a reason for simply translating as you have stated? Any written documents can be translated without an act of Congress and that has been happening for years now.
I wonder if immigration is considered complex because govt. makes it seem complex. The last president removed much of the “complexity” by simply building a wall and having people wait in line. That was easy and cost less than financial assistance for the millions of people recently crossing the border! And it was also easy to negate that plan with the stroke of a pen. I wonder where the complexity is?

Therein lies one of the complexities. The absence of the attendance before a judge results. Those that must be removed are not found. This is exactly why the wait in Mexico plan was put into place.

Now, I wonder if the amendment to strike out the phrase to the amendment of the elections bill H.R. 8770 will still be considered as bogus?

Facts matter, not presumption.

Appearance before a judge is not made any easier when a court appointment is made in states far removed from the location of the asylum seeker, or the asylum seeker is shipped off in the opposite direction.

The continual use of the phrase “I wonder” is standard obfuscation, casting doubt in the absence of evidence.
If the feeling against asylum seekers is so strong, why not advocate for the removal of the provision from the law? Instead the harsh treatment of asylum seekers seems to be the preferred option.

America is a nation built on immigration. (Ask the First Nations what it is like to be overrun by immigrants). The test of a nation is how it treats those considered to be “the least”. If you open your arms (“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore”) then you have a moral obligation, as a nation to treat them humanely and with respect.

The complexity of immigration is that no side really can solve the issues. It needs to be bipartisan. A notion that seems to be largely absent from US politics.

2 Likes

There is no greater need than wanting political ideology to be true. Facts can not/will not be considered. You are correct, obfuscation is being pushed and assuming that readers are not knowledgeable. Rather sad, that a topic can not received as a matter for consideration and thoughtful discussion but rather to be brought down into gutter politics.

1 Like

Close.

But not exactly.

Political lifetimes, in America at least, are measured in 2, 4 or 6 year increments or, in the absolute worst case, until a politician dies.

By contrast, religious ideologies “echo in eternity” if religious people are to be believed so their need to be “right” is measured on an infinitely larger scale.

Under such enormous pressure, is it any wonder that so many people’s theology becomes as cringe-worthy as an amateur comic at the local open mic night?

:yawning_face:

It is interesting that comments by some here are from the seeds sown of hatred/fears of others fueled by what they think is true, or what they want to be true, without regard to what is true. They having lost all sight of what distinguishes fact from opinions. These ones lob grenades when they should be sharing and humbly challenging their level of thinking

2 Likes

Striking the language within that one sentence pretty much says it all, in my opinion. I wonder if many writers and lawmakers will tend to twist this desired action and if it is voted into approval will then watch it suddenly unravel into allowing non-citizens to vote. Well, my friend, we shall see.
I have observed over the years that the political party currently in control tends to ignore laws and act on their wishes, then wait to see if the opposition will challenge it in courts while we get to watch the slow motion process.
I just wonder what is to become of all the dangers brought in by strangers. Sirje pointed those out in his comment and these have been highly publicized and bring great concern to many Christian caregivers. I wonder why Hines did not discuss the dangers?

Is it safe to assume all strangers are asylum seekers?

I wonder if this is an assumption? I have not seen any comments in this thread to verify the preferred option as stated, but maybe you see this among others not related to this Hines piece.

Really? I have searched for this and it sounds like you pulled this up from Q-anon or some other “fake news” site. It is totally unconstitutional and I am 100% sure it is a lie.
You later infer that even though it was intended to simply make ballots available in other languages than English, that it was the Democrats intent to, further, allow non-citizens to vote. You have a lot of nerve to lie like that…I suppose that the Democrats also have this hidden location where they are killing children so that they can drink their blood in order to stay young. It is just as stupid a statement. You really have a lot of nerve.

3 Likes

I’d be cautions jumping to that conclusion. Legal language is sometimes odd and misunderstood. Including language in a bill that describes what it does not do may well be inappropriate. One could go on and on about what a bill doesn’t do. It might be useful for promoting the bill to clarify what it does not do, but such language is probably routinely eliminated from legislation because legally it is not helpful. Generally a bill only does what is explicitly states it does. Adding language to describe what it does not do does not change what it does do.

For example, if I introduced a bill to fund the local school system, I could promote it by describing many ways how the money could not be spent, but it’s likely that none of that language would be included in the bill, and instead it would only include language regarding how the money would be spent.

1 Like

How’s the Kool Aid taste?

1 Like

True to the political party you seem to prefer, you have this annoying habit of lowering yourself to personal attacks when confronted with viewpoints contrary to yours. There seems to be an inability to deal with differences of viewpoint.

Just an observation from a “citizen of Sodom”.

2 Likes