Is It “Unchristian” To Refuse Syrian Refugees?

A newsletter from the Christian Action Network arrived in my email today. My bias here: I have a soft spot for CAN since much of the Baron’s early investigative work into Jamaat ul-Fuqra was seconded and significantly expanded to a national level by Marty Mawyer, whose work is funded by CAN. As the Baron says admiringly, Marty had ummm… manly junk “composed of steel”. Marty went right into those compounds like Daniel into the lion’s den, admitting later that it was scary at times — like when they boxed him in.

Much of the CAN newsletter follows my own thoughts about the situation of “Syrian” “refugees” and also the ugly slams I see on Twitter occasionally. Their petition is on Facebook, a much rougher neighborhood.

But many of you know and experience what Marty talks about: the amount of UGHly that emerges when any contrary opinions are aired about this very charged issue of “Syrian” “refugees”. These Alinsky disciples are so deeply indoctrinated they’re unable to entertain the idea that there could be more to an issue than what they so firmly feel about it.

CAN points out the pieces of this burning issue being flung at them because of their attempt to petition the governor regarding what Obama wants: 10,000+ “refugees”, in actuality more like a hundred thousand before the end of his term. Should he succeed, it will be another of Obama’s disastrous “signature accomplishments” in his stated goal of “radically transforming America”. [Wait until you see the impoverishment planned in his take-down of the fossil fuel industries. What is particularly cruel is the ways in which it will devastate the working poor.]

What is obvious is that CAN is among the favorite targets of people who already loathe religion, Christianity in particular, and love “immigrants” of whatever stripe, though they don’t know any. The fact that they have such little information about the objects of their hatreds doesn’t stop them from having lots of opinions about us anyway.

I’ve made no secret of my Christian beliefs and the ways in which they inform my thinking about what constitutes moral behavior, or about the need to develop a mature discernment regarding the proper response to various media bombardments. Beyond those few areas, any conversation about “faith” is between me and The Whomever.

In this case — the “thinking” of those as moved by pictures of homeless puppies as they are by big-eyed children from somewhere far away from themselves — needs closer examination. When they want to paint our reservations as selfishness I’ve pointed out my favorite parable about wise ways to help needy strangers. Perhaps our readers (whatever their own beliefs) will find this example from the book of Luke also helpful (but only in those cases when an anti-religious rant has been delivered. One has to stay within the categories they propose as weapons to use against you).

Only Luke’s Gospel contains the parable; this version is from the Children’s Bible because I like the language — direct without being condescending:

The Parable of the Good Samaritan

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus.

“Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

Notice the behavior of the Good Samaritan: he didn’t take the fellow from the side of the road home with him. He didn’t expect his children to have to attend school with the robbery victim’s kids. No taxes were removed from his purse for other robbery victims. It was all hands-on help, limited to practical solutions for the immediate exigency.

Notice also the characters Jesus chose as the dramatis personae in his tale:

  • a Samaritan in Christ’s time was roughly equal to members of today’s right wing groups — thought to be sub-par and stupid; socially and politically untouchable.
  • the Levite parallels our political leaders.
  • The priest corresponds to the anointed MSM and perhaps bigger fish in our permanent bureaucracy. Those two species often trade places.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Now the message from CAN. Their effort may be quixotic at this point, given that our Virginia governor is a full-fledged Obama disciple. He doesn’t have to listen to anyone because Virginia governors are limited to one term. And his future help in politics — e.g., a distant presidential campaign — shall come from the Democrats National Committee. It is their directives that shall be his desires.

Meanwhile the wishes of the people he was elected to serve figure not a whit in Mr. McAuliffe’s calculations. He’s a politician first, and a public servant second — or perhaps not a public servant at all. It’s becoming ever more difficult to find a pol who is not a self-serving narcissist. This is not necessarily a bad thing; it’s only when that is the sum total of his character that citizens are in trouble.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

A statement from Christian Action Network

Let us share a trend from Christian Action Network’s Facebook page, where supporters “Like” the things we do and haters bombard us with profanity and/or insults.

When we announced our recent petition drive to keep Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe from settling Syrian refugees in our home state (it’s still open; sign it here), the negative reactions all had a similar tone: that we are “unchristian” for opposing a huge, hasty and very political importation of strangers into our midst from a region known for terrorism and extremist violence.

Here are some choice examples:

  • “How Christian of you. WWJTA? (Who would Jesus turn away?).”
  • “No, I won’t [sign the petition] you racist, xenophobic, satan worshipers.”
  • “Quote me some Jesus, people. All that is said here is not Jesus, but is fear and hatred.”
  • “Wow. Way to show the compassion that Christ commanded His followers to give to those in need.”
  • “I can almost feel the Jesus! Don’t worry this crisis will be over and you can go back to complaining about abortion and homosexuality, two latchkey issues Jesus never spoke of but he did tell us how to treat immigrants.”
  • “How can you claim to be “Christian” and refuse to minister to those who need your help? Disgusting!”

You get the idea. We don’t practice what we preach. We are hypocrites.

Because Christian people strive to be self-aware and mindful of their own sins, that really hurts. On its face, it seems so true! The president of the United States himself even needles us with it, accusing us in public of being unwilling to help suffering women and children.

What is the correct answer to this charge, such a key part of the left’s — and thus our current government’s — war on people of faith? What is the answer when we’re similarly thrashed for opposing food stamps, mortgage forgiveness, “free” housing, “free” health care, “free” mobile phones — all the wealth redistribution tricks leftists use to buy votes?

Here’s the answer:

There is a big, big difference between giving up one’s treasure and security to help others, and having that treasure and security taken away and traded to others.

The first is charity. The second is theft.

This is the essence of the left’s slimy and dishonest sleight-of-hand [slams against] productive and religious people. They confiscate people’s work and money via government regulations, then hand it out from a high place as if it were their own, all the while characterizing themselves as the most charitable people on Earth, or as noble social-justice warriors like Robin Hood.

Us? We are of course selfish, ugly hypocrites, and angry to boot.

To help people who are still in Syria, or to commit a random act of charity that isn’t managed by the government, consider International Orthodox Christian Charities (click), to whom CAN makes donations.

What we are angry about is being stolen from, and then seeing our stolen property used to paint us as stingy and mean. It’s adding insult to injury, this system of them providing all the wisdom and good intentions, while we provide the actual wealth and shoulder all the risks.

In the case of refugees from Syria — or those from Central and South America, who continue to pour over our borders — we are seeing our property, our security, and our children’s future handed over willy-nilly to strangers.

Yes, many of them are strangers in need. Given the chance, we would be delighted to help them. Christians (and Americans at large) are in fact the most charitable people on Earth.

But let Americans make the call. Let us decide the who, when, why, how much and the conditions of our charity (because charity need not be unconditional. In fact it is a great way to teach and lead).

If we need to take care of our own veterans first, let us.

If we want to take care of our own elderly first, instead of continuing to spend all the money they thought they were stashing safely in Social Security, let us.

And the next time a leftist accuses you of being a false Christian, ask for one of their blank checks, with the account number clearly legible. Right now. Or ask for their credit cards, or for a set of keys to their home.

Because you can think of a lot of people who really need their stuff.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Go to this Facebook page to sign the petition.

Go here to donate to the International Orthodox Christian Charities. They help people in Syria but also many other places in need.

14 thoughts on “Is It “Unchristian” To Refuse Syrian Refugees?

  1. Well said, Dymphna. The compassionistas are very generous with other people’s money. Their moral vanity is nauseating.

    I expressed disapproval after a Catholic nun opined that it was wrong for our then Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, to discriminate in favour of persecuted Christian refugees in the Middle East when selecting settlers. “Only on need”, she said, and piously referred to the parable of the Good Samaritan.

    I replied, “I don’t think the parable of the Good Samaritan actually requires us to look overseas for people to help. I’ve often noticed that people who profess compassion sometimes don’t even get on with their own families.”

      • There is another excellent proverb the Muslims in general, and street hustlers O and Erdo in particular have made part of their daily discipline. “Never give a sucker an even break”.

  2. The government has one primary objective: To keep their citizens SAFE in their homes and in their persons.
    Christian charity is not a task assigned to the government. Though it is all too apparent that the welfare state is sold by appealing to Christianity, somehow the abortion mills operate under some different paradigm.
    The government these days — these last 100 years of days — exists in the US to tear down what remains of the historic American nation.
    I see each and every of its actions in that light.
    Therefore, while we pray with great fervor that God would watch over and protect us as well as those in immediate danger in distant lands, we should not permit our government to use yet another tool — the “Refugee Resettlement Program,” exposed by Ann Corcoran for its nefarious design — as a mechanism by which to destroy the nation God has granted our leaders to protect.

  3. Yesterday, I replied to an email from “The Daily Kos” (heaven only knows how I ended up on their e-mailing list) asking me to email my Senators and telling them to vote NO on the “anti-refugee” legislation the House passed last week.

    This was my response (I’m only sorry that, in my haste, I didn’t even mention the esp. dire situation of Syrian Christians and the Yazidis):

    “I *support* slowing down/stopping the so-called ‘refugees.’ Most of these people are economic migrants, looking for $, rather than genuine refugees. A disproportionate number of the mobs of migrants storming their way into and through Europe have been single men of military age unaccompanied by women (wives, mothers, even sisters) or children. Why should we let them devise dangerous plans from within our country?

    “Five men were reported by Honduras using the same Syrian passport with only the photograph changed. The Honduran officials said it was ‘very difficult’ to identify the passport as fraudulent.

    “The ISIS terrorists in Paris Friday before last, and the terrorists in Molenbeek (part of Brussels) have achieved their goals largely through non-controlled borders within the EU. Let’s not join that movement: let’s control our borders and *selectively* allow people into our country, people who will benefit–not terrorize–those already here.”

    As of Tuesday, 24 November 2015 2121 Pacific Standard Time, I have not received a reply from “The Daily Kos.” Who knows whether anyone actually read it? But it needed to be said, to someone on the left.

  4. Right on.

    The other thing is, if one is to continue the parable, it would create a model to live by for individuals – but that doesn’t mean that governments are to do the same.

    But in general, my reading of it would be along the lines of supporting efforts to “fix” Syria so that it becomes livable again!

  5. Christianity is so hated by the secularists that they want to eradicate it by any means. The waves of Muslim ‘refugees’, particularly in Europe, are a useful tool to accomplish this. What they haven’t grasped is that they are planning their own demise.

  6. In the post-Christian West, Christian virtues have been perverted to serve evil. Christian love and charity has been transformed into secular virtues of tolerance and solidarity. The indiscriminate and mindless acceptance of this deluge of self-proclaimed refugees is motivated by these secular caricatures of Christian love, not by Christian love itself.

    Yes, Christianity requires a Christian to help people in need even if it means personal sacrifice and discomfort to him. An ideal Christian would even sacrifice his life to save another person.

    What Christianity does not require from Christians is to let their families, their communities, their States be destroyed and replaced by ungrateful strangers’ families, communities and States. And, of course, no Christian is required to help destroy the Christian Church and the holy Christian faith. A Christian duty to his Church, to his family, to his motherland takes precedence over his duty to help non-Christians who would have no qualms about destroying everything that is holy to him.

    Further, let it be mentioned that the desperate situation of the Syrian, Iraqi and Lybian peoples is the direct result of the US aggression (supported by EU members) that plunged the population of those countries into the abyss of bloody wars and abject poverty. The Western elites first destroyed secular States in the Middle East, now they want to destroy the remains of Christianity in the West using Muslim refugees. Their appealps to Christian love are nothing but so much hypocrisy.

  7. Do what you practically can, without destroying your ability to further help others.

    The argument being put forward to brow beat Western nations into accepting demographic take over is nonsense. Are we to scour the planet for every person who is “in need”?

    We are destroying the capabilities of those in need when they endlessly receive magical hand outs that they become reliant upon; instead of offering a hand up – enabling people to help themselves.

  8. Quote: “What we are angry about is being stolen from, and then seeing our stolen property used to paint us as stingy and mean. It’s adding insult to injury,. . .

    That statement encapsulates the tone intended under shariah for the taking of jizya, a deliberately humiliating poll-tax.

    (9.29) O you believers, fight the unbelievers, namely the People of the Book who do not believe True Faith and do not accept the Resurrection and the Recompense [heaven, hell] in the true way, and do not require stopping what God and his Emissary ordered stopped; they do not embrace the True Religion , i.e. Islam. Fight until they believe, or force them to pay the jizya humbly and obediently, not grudgingly, so that they contribute to the Islamic budget.

    From Dr. Andrew Bostom:

    ” In his seminal The Laws of Islamic Governance al-Mawardi (d. 1058), a renowned jurist of Baghdad, examined the regulations pertaining to the lands and infidel populations subjugated by jihad. This is the origin of the system of dhimmitude. The native infidel “dhimmi” (which derives from both the word for “pact”, and also “guilt”—guilty of religious errors) population had to recognize Islamic ownership of their land, submit to Islamic law, and accept payment of the Koranic poll tax (jizya), based on Koran 9:29. Al- Mawardi notes that “The enemy makes a payment in return for peace and reconciliation.” He then distinguishes two cases: (I) Payment is made immediately and is treated like booty, “it does, not however, prevent a jihad being carried out against them in the future.” (II). Payment is made yearly and will “constitute an ongoing tribute by which their security is established”. Reconciliation and security last as long as the pavment is made. If the pavment ceases, then the jihad resumes. A treaty of reconciliation may be renewable, but must not exceed 10 years. This same basic formulation was reiterated during a January 8, 1998 interview by Yusuf al-Qaradawi confirming how jihad continues to regulate the relations between Muslims and non-Muslims to this day.

    The “contract of the jizya”, or “dhimma” encompassed other obligatory and recommended obligations for the conquered non-Muslim “dhimmi” peoples. Collectively, these “obligations” formed the discriminatory system of dhimmitude imposed upon non-Muslims—Jews, Christians, [as well as Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists]-subjugated by jihad. Some of the more salient features of dhimmitude include: the prohibition of arms for the vanquished dhimmis, and of church bells; restrictions concerning the building and restoration of churches, synagogues, and temples; inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims with regard to taxes and penal law; the refusal of dhimmi testimony by Muslim courts; a requirement that Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims, including Zoroastrians and Hindus, wear special clothes; and the overall humiliation and abasement of non-Muslims. It is important to note that these regulations and attitudes were institutionalized as permanent features of the sacred Islamic law, or Shari’a. The writings of the much lionized Sufi theologian and jurist al-Ghazali (d. 1111) highlight how the institution of dhimmitude was simply a normative, and prominent feature of the Shari’a:

    …the dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle.. .Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims]…on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible]… They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells…their houses may not be higher than the Muslim’s, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddler-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths…[dhimmis] must hold their tongue.

    [read the rest at Dr. Bostom’s site in a post addressing attempts to ‘bowlderize’ (moderate) Islam’s foundational doctrines]

  9. The Good Samaritan did not have a suicide belt strapped to his body, nor did he threaten to strike the necks of non-Samaritans.

      • Not so much oneself as what is sacred to oneself. Christian faith is the source of life to an individual Christian. It is also the source of life for the whole civilisation based on Christianity. It is also the source of light for the whole world.

        Remove it – and the whole world would sink into darkness.

        Both Muslim fanatics and anti-Christian ruling elites of secular society (whose religion, to all appearance, is the worship of the golden calf and lesser deities ancillary to it) are bent on extinguishing the light of Christianity as it hurts their eyes.

        That is one thing they have in common and that is why they are helping each other (even if they hate each other).

  10. They link the migrant crisis to the parable of the Good Samaritan – perhaps because they’ve been told about it. Have they heard of the case of the Syrophenician woman’s daughter, I wonder? It seems a little more appropriate:

    Mark 7:24-30 (King James Version)
    24 And from thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into an house, and would have no man know it: but he could not be hid.
    25 For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet:
    26 The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.
    27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.
    28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs.
    29 And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.
    30 And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed.

    The parallel passage in Matthew 15:21-28 is, if anything, rather stronger on the subject of who is entitled to priority of consideration.

Comments are closed.