Judge won't ban immigration raids on churches, sides with Trump

[Maori Aussie]

Scripture states that the exodus from Egypt was "a mixed multitude." it wasn't just the Hebrews that left with the sons of Israel

At the time, Ha-Pi-Ru simply meant a Semitic speaking foreigner. This covered the multitude from Midianites all the way over to (at the extreme) Assyrians.

 

[BukiRob]

At the time, Ha-Pi-Ru simply meant a Semitic speaking foreigner. This covered the multitude from Midianites all the way over to (at the extreme) Assyrians.

Ill side with what the bible says over this garbage Exodus 12:38 A mixed multitude [of non-Israelites from foreign nations] also went with them, along with both flocks and herds, a very large number of livestock.

 

[Tuur]

And yet the hypocrisy of the administration in claiming to defend Christian religious freedom, all the while refusing to recognize the ancient right to sanctuary, goes unnoticed.

Sanctuary in the US was controversial long before Trump. Right or wrong, it strikes me as a fixture of European Christianity, from the age that one could seek for their trial to be conducted in ecclesiastical court by demonstrating the ability to read. That said, sanctuary may not be what moderns think it is. Sanctuary is/was to protect the claimant from civil arrest and prosecution . A person has/had to formally claim it, but even when granted was not quite a get-out-of-jail-free card. After a set time, someone who claimed sanctuary had to proceed directly to the nearest port or the border and leave, never to return again.

Let us then suppose that Federal court allowed religious sanctuary in the US. Then let us supposed ICE raids a church and several who illegally entered the US claim sanctuary and that claim is respected. After a set time they would have to leave the US, never to return. Somehow I doubt that's the desired result.

The larger issue is the idea of raiding church services to conduct arrests. Offhand the closest I recall are arrests as someone goes to a ceremony such as a funeral, and even a license check of a funeral procession.

 

[Maori Aussie]

Ill side with what the bible says over this garbage Exodus 12:38 A mixed multitude [of non-Israelites from foreign nations] also went with them, along with both flocks and herds, a very large number of livestock.

That is my exact point. You are actually agreeing with me. The word Ha-Pi-Ru is the one ancient Egyptian word that covers that entire diversity of semitic foreigners.

 

[Tuur]

He's not honoring the sanctuary of the. Church. Conservatives have been using this stuff to lie about Democrats for years. No difference.

Not all Christian denominations have the concept of sanctuary.

Just so everyone is on the same page, here's the article from New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Sanctuary

The interesting thing is that this was bestowed on Roman Catholic churches by secular rulers. That's a little different that what I thought, something respected by various secular governments.

 

[Tuur]

And? What does that Bible teach on how we are to treat sojourners? Do you reject God's wisdom?

Do you reject that Christians should abide by civil law? The law you cited is the law God gave the Children of Israel.

It really dances around the point, which I mention only because I find it annoying that open borders advocates cite Joseph, Mary, and Jesus without addressing the question of whether how they entered Egypt was illegal.

The nitty gritty of the matter is whether the 1st Amendment abrogates all laws that a denomination finds in conflict.

 

[Yarddog]

Do you reject that Christians should abide by civil law?

Whenever possible but we are to follow God's will in all ways. Was Jesus wrong for healing on the Sabbath? It was illegal but Jesus always followed the Father's will. It is not against the law to do good.

It is also not totally against the law to seek refuge in the US. An immigrant that comes in illegally and turns themselves in and seeks asylum becomes protected by US Law.

The law you cited is the law God gave the Children of Israel.

God word isn't just to Israel.
Hebrews 13:2
Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

It really dances around the point, which I mention only because I find it annoying that open borders advocates cite Joseph, Mary, and Jesus without addressing the question of whether how they entered Egypt was illegal.

Who has open borders?

The nitty gritty of the matter is whether the 1st Amendment abrogates all laws that a denomination finds in conflict.

No, it doesn't. But, Christians should always obey God even if it means going to jail. The Apostles spent a lot of time behind bars

 

[Tuur]

Whenever possible but we are to follow God's will in all ways. Was Jesus wrong for healing on the Sabbath? It was illegal but Jesus always followed the Father's will. It is not against the law to do good.

It is also not totally against the law to seek refuge in the US. An immigrant that comes in illegally and turns themselves in and seeks asylum becomes protected by US Law.


God word isn't just to Israel.
Hebrews 13:2
Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

Who has open borders?


No, it doesn't. But, Christians should always obey God even if it means going to jail. The Apostles spent a lot of time behind bars

The last point first. Specifically Romans 13:1-7. As to the next to last point, if we do not recognize that it's possible to illegally enter a country, then we are in effect arguing for open borders. This is in conflict with your second point, where you recognize that there are legal and illegal ways to enter the US.

This is an interesting thing: Being there are legal ways to enter the US, the question then is why support those who chose not to do so legally? Is it not then better to promote legal immigration? Wouldn't a congregation that feels strongly enough about it to break the law do well to set up a mission whereby people could legally immigrate to the US? Help them go through the process in their own country before ever arriving here? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't seem to be happening.

The first point, continuing referring to Leviticus, stretches the idea of hospitality to the point where it includes aiding and abetting. Dr. Samuel Mudd extended hospitality to John Wilkes Booth; was Dr. Samuel Mudd right in doing so? Then there was a family I know who's ancestors allowed Jessie James and James Cummins to stay there from time to time before the two had their falling out. They knew who Jessie James and James Cummins were; were they right to allow then to stay in their home?

 

[ozso]

Because Joseph and Mary were immigrants looking for a safe place to raise Jesus. Many immigrants, from South and Central America are Catholics. Christians looking for a place to provide for their families.

Comparing immigrants to illegal aliens is like comparing customers to shoplifters.

Christians who break the law by entering the country illegally without due process, are just guilty as anyone else who breaks the law. There's no scripture or council or creed that declares the church is supposed to horbor the lawless, even if they are Christians practicing lawlessness.

 

[Yarddog]

The last point first. Specifically Romans 13:1-7.

Were the Apostles disobeying God when they went into other countries and preached the Gospel where only worship for their false gods were allowed? Or do we ignore the rest of Romans 13 for the sake of the first seven verses.

As to the next to last point, if we do not recognize that it's possible to illegally enter a country, then we are in effect arguing for open borders.This is in conflict with your second point, where you recognize that there are legal and illegal ways to enter the US.

Open borders means that a person can legally enter a country and freely go where the country allows people go. That does not exist in the US. There are immigration laws which detail how people can legally enter this country and also how to handle those that enter illegally. If a person enters illegally and is caught or they turn themselves in, law the details how they are to be handled.

This is an interesting thing: Being there are legal ways to enter the US, the question then is why support those who chose not to do so legally?

Because the law recognizes and protects people who seek asylum, regardless of how they enter.

Is it not then better to promote legal immigration?

Yes.

Wouldn't a congregation that feels strongly enough about it to break the law do well to set up a mission whereby people could legally immigrate to the US? Help them go through the process in their own country before ever arriving here? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't seem to be happening.

I'm sure some do. Many Churches have missions in other countries to help people. They probably help people immigrate legally.