Illegal Immigration, christian viewpoint? (Jesus, America, religion)

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

This is a startling statement. There is no law if its okay to break “unjust laws,” for everyone has their own conception of what's just. This is what we have courts and legislators for. If you don't like the laws, change them, but do it in a civilized manner. So long as there is no violation of divine law, we are obligated to obey the laws of the land.

Yes, but some are more right than others. William Wiberforce was more right than the slave trade supporters and its legal supports. Nelson Mandela and Bishop Desmond Tutu were more right than the Apartheid Regime. Mohandas Ghandi was more right than Imperial Britain. Martin Luther King Jr. was more right than the United States (and most of the contemporary culture). It was right for these men, nay, their bounden duty, to rise up against such tyrannies and defy the laws that dehumanized other human beings.

Slavery, apartheid, colonial rule, and segregation were all legally sanctioned in their time and were a stench in the nostrils of God. Today, the stench arises from impossible bureaucracy and institutionalized fear leading to unjust exclusion of immigrants and refugees. Such people, when granted citizenship, generally work much harder and are more successful than Americans at large, so there's no problem about their sucking the government teat dry. The stench arises from the heavy burden of third-world debt, creating and perpetuating poverty for the Southern hemisphere. I say it's right and our bounden duty to defy the laws that make such institutionalized dehumanization possible.

Doing so will be costly, not just (or even primarily) in terms of dollars. There's a price to be paid for justice. But that price will be worth it.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

Slavery, apartheid, colonial rule, and segregation were all legally sanctioned in their time and were a stench in the nostrils of God. Today, the stench arises from impossible bureaucracy and institutionalized fear leading to unjust exclusion of immigrants and refugees. Such people, when granted citizenship, generally work much harder and are more successful than Americans at large, so there's no problem about their sucking the government teat dry. The stench arises from the heavy burden of third-world debt, creating and perpetuating poverty for the Southern hemisphere. I say it's right and our bounden duty to defy the laws that make such institutionalized dehumanization possible.

When the issue is considered against the Gospels, I'd be inclined to agree. However, when it's considered against the Epistles' declaration that all authority is God-appointed and therefore to be obeyed as God would be obeyed, or its statements like "slaves, obey your worldly masters", I think we may arrive at a different conclusion.

I guess the question for Christians is whose word they place greater value on: Jesus' or Paul's.

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

When the issue is considered against the Gospels, I'd be inclined to agree. However, when it's considered against the Epistles' declaration that all authority is God-appointed and therefore to be obeyed as God would be obeyed, or its statements like "slaves, obey your worldly masters", I think we may arrive at a different conclusion.

I guess the question for Christians is whose word they place greater value on: Jesus' or Paul's.

I think Paul is misunderstood. He didn't command absolute obedience to rulers. If he had, what was he doing trapsing around Asia Minor proclaiming another Caesar, namely Jesus? No, what Paul said is that authority in general is God-appointed in the sense that it's better to have a government than to have chaos. Government has a good role to play in society. But governments, like all the powers, are fallen and stand in need of redemption. Thus the church exists to proclaim the wisdom of God "to the principalities and powers in heavenly places". These "principalities and powers" include governments.

I can (and will) elaborate on this later if there's interest. We may need to have a more specialized thread on Pauline political ethics or something, though!

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

I think Paul is misunderstood. He didn't command absolute obedience to rulers.

He didn't?

Romans 13:1-2:

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

If he had, what was he doing trapsing around Asia Minor proclaiming another Caesar, namely Jesus?

I don't take that meaning from the Epistles. It seems to me that he was trapsing around Asia Minor proclaiming a spiritual "Caesar", in contrast to the temporal one.

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

No, what Paul said is that authority in general is God-appointed in the sense that it's better to have a government than to have chaos. Government has a good role to play in society. But governments, like all the powers, are fallen and stand in need of redemption. Thus the church exists to proclaim the wisdom of God "to the principalities and powers in heavenly places". These "principalities and powers" include governments.

I don't take that meaning from the Epistles. If you want to argue that the passages are later insertions, go for it, but I think the text says what it says.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

Yes, but some are more right than others.

Well, duh.

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Well, duh.

Eeeeeeew....kay.

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

He didn't?

Romans 13:1-2:



I don't take that meaning from the Epistles. It seems to me that he was trapsing around Asia Minor proclaiming a spiritual "Caesar", in contrast to the temporal one.


I don't take that meaning from the Epistles. If you want to argue that the passages are later insertions, go for it, but I think the text says what it says.

Sounds like another thread's in order. If I have time this weekend, I'll set it up.