You know when liberals–who have never touched a bible because it would burn them–chuck scripture at you because they want to expose you as a hypocrite, thus making themselves look better? Yeah, it’s that time again.
Twenty-seven governors and counting have stated that they will not accept further Syrian refugees in the wake of the mass-casualty attack in Paris at the hands of the Islamic State. There’s little need for me to tell you why these governors are shutting the gates, but I’ll recap just in case.
According to Reuters and The Wall Street Journal, on October 3rd, a man going by the name Ahmad al-Mohammad arrived aboard a refugee boat in Leros, a small island off of Greece. The man was required to stay within the city of Corinth, however, as Reuters reports, “within days, Mohammad had gone at least as far as Croatia.”
“Authorities in France and Greece have said that fingerprints taken from the remains of a suicide bomber outside France’s national sports stadium, the Stade de France, match the prints of [Mohammad].”
By all accounts, it appears that at least one of the Paris attackers came to the city of lights under the guise of a refugee. This idea is backed up by a BuzzFeed piece from earlier this year, in which the publication allegedly interviewed an IS operative who said members of the militant Islamic organization were indeed being smuggled into Europe disguised as refugees. BuzzFeed also interviewed two alleged smugglers who corroborated the story.
The FBI is concerned about the vetting process, despite the Obama admin saying it’s secure. Rep. Michael McCaul, chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, is similarly concerned, saying there are “gaping holes” in the process by which refugees are vetted.
Now, back to the main point. My Facebook feed–which is populated by a lot of liberals–has lit up with finger-wagging statements about how the twenty-seven governors, as well as Christians in general, are being hypocritical for wanting to shut the gates on Syrian refugees.
Feminist blogger Liz Boltz Ranfeld published a post on Tuesday, comparing the story to the Good Samaritan. It reads in part:
“The Good Samaritan helped a beaten, bloodied stranger, even though that stranger was someone he was supposed to perceive as a threat. The narrative was always the same: Christians help their neighbors. Christians help those who are in need.
I’ve always believed that despite differences between us in political and social and theological issues, my Christian peers and I would all do the same thing: if we saw our neighbor in the street, bloodied and suffering, we would help. We would play the role of the Good Samaritan, and we would do the right thing.
Seeing my fellow Christians speak against helping Syrian refugees has broken that belief for me. I no longer believe that all of us would help a broken person in the street, because we are choosing not to. Right now. We are choosing not to help.
By saying, ‘You can’t come here,’ we are saying to our dying neighbor, ‘We’d rather leave you for dead.’
What if the Good Samaritan had said, ‘I can’t help that person! He doesn’t believe in the same God as I do!’ Or if the Good Samaritan had said, ‘What if he has a knife?! I can’t help him!’ Or if the Good Samaritan had said, ‘I have to protect myself first.’ That is what we are saying when we say the refugees cannot come here, despite the rigorous checks we would subject them to, despite the numerous Biblical commands to care for the ‘foreigner, the orphan, and the widow.'”
Additionally, a non-Christian friend posted a list of fifty-four bible verses that deal with helping “aliens” and “strangers.” Listed in chronological order, he presumably googled “alien, bible verses,” and dumped everything he found into a Facebook post.
Let’s forget the fallacious argumentation for a moment. Forget Ranfeld’s assertion regarding the “rigorous checks” to which we would subject refugees. When the FBI, as well as the head of the House Homeland Security Committee, voice concern, flatly stating we’d be fine because of rigorous checks is a severe overreach. There is extraordinary uncertainty regarding the vetting process.
Forget the false dilemma Ranfeld presents, in which she claims we either bring refugees to the United States, or we leave them to die in Syria. There are certainly more options, not the least of which is resettlement elsewhere. There are numerous Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the UAE, who have taken few to no refugees, and whose culture and languages are much more closely related to the Syrians.
There’s one point that blows up the Good Samaritan comparison. Governors–not to mention the president–have a primary duty. They must do everything they can to safeguard the lives of their constituents. They are the guardians. It isn’t for his or her own benefit that a governor would refuse to accept Syrian refugees, it’s for the benefit of the millions of people who live in his or her state.
Allow me to draw a comparison.
A single mother, let’s call her Linda, lives with her three children. One day, her neighbor’s house catches fire. The neighbors are safe, but the house is destroyed. The family has nowhere to stay.
The family consists of a father, a mother, and two kids. They ask Linda if they can stay with her while their house is being rebuilt. For reasons unnecessary to this analogy, Linda has a well-founded and reasonable belief that the father of the family may be a danger to her children. At this point, there’s no way to prove if her belief is true. Though she hurts deeply for the family, her primary concern is for the safety of her own children.
What does Linda do? She has several options. She can allow the family to stay in her home, potentially endangering the lives of her children; she can offer the family money so that they can stay in a hotel; she can refer them to the home of a neighbor who doesn’t have children; or she can apologize and shut the door.
Would you say Linda is justified in not wanting to allow the family inside her home? Would you call that unchristian? Would you also allow that there are more than two options in this scenario, as there are in the case of Syrian refugees?
There’s a point at which “Christian kindness” must end, and that point is when there is a well-founded and reasonable suspicion that those to whom you’re offering kindness may be a threat to your life, and the lives of your loved ones. In the case of governors, their “loved ones” are the residents of their state.
I’m tired of people–specifically non-Christians who view the bible with contempt–using verses and portions of scripture to justify their arguments, and impugn the motivations of those with whom they disagree.
But sure, let’s be kind. When the bombs are going off, and blood is running in the gutters of Washington D.C. or New York City, you can say you were just trying to be kind.