Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Immigration Citizensip and the Bible’

 

Ruth_and_Naomi_Leave_Moab

Ruth and Naomi Leave Moab, 1860, by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld (1794-1872).

Having observed the ongoing European migrant crisis from afar for these past several years, I’ve been tempted to think that even government officials whose policies caused the disaster in the first place would have by now woken up to the fact that things are not working out, admitted the error of their ways, and sought to change course. But such is not the case.

 

In an apparent attempt to secure her reputation as the second worst leader in German history, on Saturday, with US Vice President Mike Pence in attendance, German Chancellor Angela Merkel defended her refugee policy that has allowed 1.1 million migrants into Germany since 2015, argued that Islam is not a source of terrorism and indicated that the European Union (EU) has an obligation to accept even more refugees.

These are astonishing claims, and one wonders how anyone with even a passing acquaintance with events throughout Europe in recent years could make them, let alone the Chancellor of Germany, whose nation has been among the hardest hit by the migrant crisis.

Consider the following headlines related to migrant issues in Germany taken from over just the past year.

It would take a strange definition indeed of “Islam”, “source” and “terrorism” for anyone to deny the connection between the religion of the Prophet and these horrifying acts of Islamic terrorism in Germany.  What part of “Allahu Akbar” do they not understand?

Is it not just obvious that letting millions of Muslims into your country, at taxpayer expense to boot, is a bad idea? The ideas held by the people of a nation determine the course of that nation. When you import a million Islamizes, you’re going to get Islamization on an industrial scale. Commenting on the United States, John Robbins wrote,

When we apply these insights to the United States, we notice several things. In the beginning all America was Protestant – 98 percent of the people. The numbers we have for church affiliation in seventeenth and eighteenth century America show that three-fourths of Americans were Calvinists of one flavor or another: Puritan, Pilgrim, Presbyterian, Baptist, German Reformed, Lutheran, Congregationalist, and Episcopal. There were few Catholics, almost no Jews or Methodists, and no Muslims, Mormons, Moonies, Buddhists, Confucianists, Hindus, or atheists. Had there been any large numbers of these groups, there would have been no America as we have known it, not because the people who hold these views are somehow inferior, but because the views themselves are inferior: They are logically incapable of creating and sustaining a free society (Rebuilding American Freedom in the Twenty-First Century, emphasis added).

Rejecting mass, taxpayer subsidized Muslim immigration is not, as some have charged, racism. Islam is not a race, it’s a religion. And as a religion, it is accompanied by certain tenants, certain doctrines. And if those doctrines conflict with the maintenance of a free society, and they do, Westerners have very good reason to be concerned about the Islamization of their countries and are well within their right to oppose it.

But if Islamization is so obviously a problem, why is it that Merkel and others cannot see this? Apparently they lack the discernment necessary to grasp the fact that their policies are destroying the very nations they were elected to serve.

And why do they lack discernment? “The fundamental answer” to why men lack discernment, as John Robbins reminds us, is “the will of God.” Robbins quotes several Biblical passages in support of this idea. Citing just one as an example, “Thus says the Lord: ‘Behold I will fill all the inhabitants of this land – even the kings who sit on David’s throne, the priests, the prophets, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem – with drunkenness! And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together,’ says the Lord. ‘I will no more spare nor have mercy, but will destroy them’ ” (Jeremiah 13:13-14).

It is God who both gives and withholds discernment from the hearts of men. And given the extreme state of ignorance of even basic politics in the West – according to the Bible, the task of the government is to punish evildoers, not invite them into your country to prey on your citizens and then tax the people for the privilege of being shot, bombed, and raped – it is fair to wonder whether it is God’s intention to destroy the West.

It is my prayer that this is not the case. But if he does intend to bring an end to Germany and other Western nations, it’s not as if he would be without good reason.

What we call Western Civilization is the result of the widespread preaching of,, and belief in, the Gospel of Jesus Christ beginning at the time of the 16th century Reformation. Yet for the past 200 years, the West has been in the process of rejecting Christ and embracing secular philosophy. As a result, the West is in the process of collapse. And the ongoing Islamization of the nations that were the cradle of the Reformation is one of the consequences of that collapse.

But perhaps God isn’t done with the West. Perhaps he is graciously warning us of what may happen if we stay on our current course. But if the West is to be saved, it will not happen as a result of political activity, but once again as the result of the widespread preaching of, and belief in, the Gospel of Justification by Faith Alone.

Read Full Post »

blob:E6DA3888-B84E-4EA7-8E3A-0979B507DB56blob:E6DA3888-B84E-4EA7-8E3A-0979B507DB56blob:E6DA3888-B84E-4EA7-8E3A-0979B507DB56

Please click the following link for the original blog post on which this podcast is based:

https://luxlucet.me/2017/01/29/immigration-citizenship-and-the-bible-part-9-immigration-reform-and-the-conservatives-a-review-of-peter-brimelows-alien-nation/?iframe=true&theme_preview=true

Read Full Post »

 

Ruth_and_Naomi_Leave_Moab

Ruth and Naomi Leave Moab, 1860, by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld (1794-1872).

Although the mainstream media (MSM) is firmly committed to the proposition that that the entire world has the right to immigrate to the US at taxpayer expense, conservatives have increasingly raised their voices in opposition to this practice.

 

This installment of Immigration, Citizenship, and the Bible (ICB) is an attempt to examine various conservative arguments for immigration reform in light Gordon Clark’s Scripturalism, the system of thought that asserts the Bible and the Bible alone is the Word of God and is the textbook to prepare the man of God for every good work, including the good work of immigration reform.

My critique of conservatives is presented here in the form of a review of Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster by Peter Brimelow.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

 

Ruth_and_Naomi_Leave_Moab

Ruth and Naomi Leave Moab, 1860, by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld (1794-1872).

Among the more frustrating aspects of the immigration debate is that, at least as far as immigration and related issues are discussed in the mainstream press, it is not a debate at all.

 

In general, reporting on immigration issues takes the form of a lecture, in which proponents of keeping and/or expanding the current immigration/refugee/aslyee/migration system are posited as the defenders of all that is just, right and holy, heroically fighting against nativist, racist, xenophobic bigots who complain that current immigration laws do not serve the interests of the American people.

This sort of reporting often has a Kantian undertone to it, by which I mean that in many cases immigration to the US is explicitly or implicitly presented as, on the one hand, a right to which is due to the entire non-American population of the world, and, on the other hand, a duty owed by American people to them. The notion that US immigration policy should serve the interests of the American people – a point that Donald Trump explicitly made part of his immigration platform – is considered beyond the pale of polite discussion. Further, anyone so foolish as to attempt to argue that the interest of the American people should be considered when making immigration policy is immediately scorned and dropped into Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” from which there is no escape.

There is a second annoying aspect of the immigration debate, the tendency of immigration proponents to commit the informal logical fallacy known as appeal to pity. An appeal to pity is where one argues that you should accept his conclusion, not because of any sound logical reasoning requires that you accept it, but because you feel sorry for him. One example of this sort of argument runs, “If this man is given the death sentence, who will take care of his children?” (Norman Geisler, Come, Let Us Reason, 96). And how many times have we heard this sort of thing from immigration enthusiasts? “You can’t deport X, because you’re breaking up X’s family!” But feeling sorry for someone is not a sound basis for making immigration policy. For example, one can always reply, “Yes, but X should have considered the possibility of deportation before electing to enter the US contrary to American immigration law. No one made him violate the law. He chose to do so. Therefore, the breakup of his family is his own fault.”

(more…)

Read Full Post »

A

“An Ohio State University student posted a rant shortly before he plowed a car into a campus crowd and stabbed people with a butcher knife in an ambush that ended when a police officer shot him dead, a law enforcement official said.” Thus read the headline on the NBC News website on November 28, 2016.

That same day, CBS ran a story titled “What’s known about the OSU attack suspect Abdul Razak Ali Artan”. According to the article, “A Somali-born Ohio State University student plowed his car into a group of pedestrians on campus and then got out and began stabbing people with a butcher knife Monday before he was shot to death by a police officer.”

As it turned out, the November terrorist attack at OSU was a relatively minor example of what has become an all too common pattern of violence by Muslim immigrants and refugees throughout the US and Europe. In the case of the Ohio State attack, the only death was that of the attacker himself. But sadly, this is not always the case.

The Ohio State attack makes a good lead in to the discussion of what I have termed the “refugee racket” for several reasons.

First, it strikes close to home. OSU is located in Columbus, Ohio, about 90 miles up the highway from where I live. It’s bad enough to read about Islamic violence in faraway places. But it hits home all the more when it’s in your backyard.

Second, the attack fits a larger pattern of refugee violence in the West.

Third, there is a direct connection between the OSU attacker and Catholic Charities, by far the largest taxpayer funded refugee resettlement organization in the US.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Ruth_and_Naomi_Leave_Moab

Ruth and Naomi Leave Moab, 1860, by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld (1794-1872).

Last week in Part 3 of this series, we looked at Donald Trump’s immigration reform proposals. This week, the focus will be on Hillary Clinton’s immigration stance.

As you may recall, the verdict on Trump’s immigration reform proposals was mixed. Some of his ideas were quite good – 1) his statement that American immigration policy should be set up to benefit all Americans and 2) his call to end birthright citizenship – can readily be reconciled with Biblical political theory. On the other hand, some of his ideas fell short of the mark – 1) Trump’s signature issue, his call to build a wall all along the US-Mexico border, and 2) his eVerify program, a proposal that would, in effect, create a national biometric ID card, requiring anyone looking to get a job to show “his papers” to prove he was eligible to work in the US.

An analysis of Hillary’s immigration plan will require a different approach than the one I used for Trump’s. Because her immigration proposals are so uniformly bad, realistically there is no way to break her ideas down into the categories of “good” and “bad” ideas.

In short, her immigration program is an unrelieved disaster that, if enacted, will go a long way to transforming the US into a third world country, while forcing ordinary Americans to foot the bill for the privilege. Or to put it another way, her immigration policy could well have been crafted by prelates of the Roman Church-State, whose destructive immigration policies she has largely adopted as her own. In fact, the only real difference between Mrs. Clinton’s ideas on immigration and those of Rome is that she doesn’t bother with trying to justify them, as the Romanists do, by twisting the Scriptures.

The following critique will be based upon Mrs. Clinton’s immigration platform as stated on her campaign website here.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: