Christians should stop aligning themselves with any political party. The evil of slander,demonization,and hatred should not be endorsed by any born-again believer.

Posted by: LJ | February 29, 2008 2:48 PM

LJ--heard you the 1st time =)!

Actually, I've been thinking a lot about the position you put forth.

Posted by: squeaky | February 29, 2008 4:16 PM

Wow. Someone breaks into a country illegally, and put themselves and their family into a harsh and precarious situation.

And we have to blame POLITICIANS for their plight?

I'm sorry, but the people WHO ARE COMMITTING THE CRIME OF BREAKING IN TO THE COUNTRY ARE AT FAULT FOR DOING SO!!!!!

I dont' have to hate anyone to understand what's reality. They are breaking the law. That is the fault of the person who did it, not the people who understand we need to stop them from doing so.

Posted by: The Watcher | February 29, 2008 5:18 PM

Don, do I understand you correctly, that you believe that the Bible requires us as a nation to not only NOT control our borders, but to become accessories to the crime by sheltering, aiding, and assisting the lawbreakers?

I understand what they seek, and it's money, plain and simple. And their wish to find economic opportunity drove them to make a choice to break in illegally and try to make money. They chose this risk, and subjected themselves, their family, and others. They took it on wilfully.

Should we then seek to circumvent the law, or to help them break the law? I can't. The law is right and good. They broke the law, and other than wanting them to be treated humanely, they chose this. It is not anyone's fault but their own.

There is no hue and cry we should sympathize with the plight of the con on the run from the law - except when they are illegal aliens, and suddely it's immoral to enforce the law?

Why?

Posted by: The Watcher | February 29, 2008 5:29 PM

The conservatives say "I don't want my tax dollars being used to support illegals who don't contribute to the system" and the liberals will counter with "Harumph, if my tax dollars weren't being wasted on an illegal war, we wouldn't even have to worry about helping undocumented workers; we'd have plenty of money." On it goes. Then I ask, since it's against the law, why do we allow illegal immigrants to come to our country in the first place and why are we spending so much money on a war that never should have been started? If we hadn't have done either, we might not be in recession and we could help those who come here legally get a decent start and also lend a helping hand to our own who really need it through no fault of their own.

Posted by: Cads | February 29, 2008 5:57 PM

What do you mean, "we allow illegal aliens to come into the country"?

Those of us on the right have been arguing for a LONG time we have to STOP them. We don't "allow" them anyway. Well, not until you bleeding heart lefties starting promising to give them amnesty and then they REALLY started flooding in.

We must PHYSICALLY secure our borders.

And then we won't be flooded with illegals, and this whole argument would be absurd, since it wouldn't exist.

Then, instead of demogoguery, we could actually debate about who should be let in and who should not...and why.

Posted by: The Watcher | February 29, 2008 6:08 PM

I love how people like Aaron...

It's aaron.

Posted by: aaron | February 29, 2008 6:40 PM

Watcher:

On what moral grounds do you say that our border law is "right and good"? One of the beauties of the USA is the sentiments behind the inscription at the Statue of Liberty. I applaud the pastoral tenor, loving perspective of the pastors on the front lines of this issue. Does the term "sanctuary" mean anything to you?

Pastor Jeff (PJ)

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | February 29, 2008 6:55 PM

mark,
I guess I would like to know what you would do if you were in the place of an immigrant? Just say you are living in unimagineable poverty and you can't feed your children, much less send them to school. Your kids daily go to the town dump and rummage through all manner of rot to bring home some barely edible morsels and maybe some stuff they can sell. There are no jobs to be had and no means of making a living. You have no indoor plumbing, much less electricity, you have a dirt floor, and you have one bed for the entire family.

Meanwhile, across the Rio Grande sits a gleaming shiny star of opportunity. You could feed your family and maybe even make enough so your kids can go to the local school. What would you do? Would you not do everything in your power to feed and protect your family?

Illegal immigrants aren't coming over here because they selfishly want to make more money. They are coming because their economic status is so horrible that they really have little choice in the matter if they want their family to rise out of poverty. And it is not easy for them to get here through legal channels, or don't you think more would take those channels?

I'm not saying it isn't a problem and that we shouldn't do something to stem the tide of illegal immigration. But maybe if we start with some compassion and understanding of their situation, maybe then we could find solutions that are viable.

Also, don't forget how much of an economic boost they are providing us. What would happen to the price of goods and services if businesses suddenly had to start paying competitive wages to American workers?

It isn't NEARLY the simple problem you make it out to be. There are no simple solutions to this extremely complex situation. But in order to find any solution at all, we need leaders who think far more deeply about these issues.

Posted by: squeaky | February 29, 2008 7:13 PM

Thank you, Squeaky.

Pastor Jeff--you're talking about the story of the man born blind, right? One of my favorite dialogues in all the Scriptures. A masterpiece from a literary standpoint, deliciously full of irony and understatement.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | February 29, 2008 7:41 PM

On what moral grounds do you say that our border law is "right and good"? One of the beauties of the USA is the sentiments behind the inscription at the Statue of Liberty. I applaud the pastoral tenor, loving perspective of the pastors on the front lines of this issue. Does the term "sanctuary" mean anything to you?

The illegals here are NOT seeking "sanctuary". We have always had a policy of accpeting those seeking relief from political oppression. Our laws are very open in that regard.

But I want YOU to stop playing word games, and explain to the world how you can justify using the Bible to declare that we must open our borders to everyone, anytime, anywhere, for any reason, and that it is a sin to believe we should defend our nation against an invasion of people who do not belong here.

Go ahead. If that's what you think, then SAY SO, instead of hiding behind your platitudes.

In the meantime, I don't think that I have to explain my fully sensible and sane notion that our borders should be secure.

Do people all over the world live in terrible conditions? Of course they do. Should we do something about it? Of course we should. Should we just load every airplane and ship and bus transport them here and dump them on the streets?

Of course not.

I reject your shallow platitude driven political rhetoric. Explain the full implications of what you believe, and let that be judged on its merits, instead of trying to make it about me.

Posted by: The Watcher | February 29, 2008 8:15 PM

"We urge our elected officials to re-engage the immigration reform debate in a civil and respectful manner.
We ask our policymakers to pursue solutions that secure our borders, unite broken families, and uphold the human dignity of each person."

This was what the writers urged. I see nothing in this that qualifies as "fuzzy thinking", on the other hand Watcher's comment "I think the whole family should be rounded up and sent back, together" is.
When you add up the cost to us as a people in dollars and then add the cost to us morally for any such prescribed solution, I will opt for what ever the cost is today. I will be proud to save the tax payer the huge amount of money your "fuzzy" thinking would entail.
If 500,000 untrained, poor Hispanic people get through the desert every year, how come some smart, dedicated and trained Islamic terrorist hasn't lit up one of our urban skies with a glowing mushroom yet? Or is your following statement just "demagoguery" and exactly what you claim it isn't, i.e. fear mongering which lacks any heavenly reality?
"This is no "fear of immigrants and foreigners", as you'd like like to demagogue it, it is reality. There ARE people who, if they could, would detonate a nuclear bomb in every large American city."

Just because your paranoid, doesn't mean we need to be.
I would choose to secure the border, identify all who come and verify their background AND love my neighbor and the poor and needy. I prefer to try to change the antiquated and unfair law that makes it impossible for poor people from Mexico to come illegally in anything but minute numbers. I prefer to allow people who have been here for years to find a means of becoming legal, by paying fines etc. I prefer to find solutions that are not mean and which have some chance of being accomplished.

Posted by: wayne | February 29, 2008 10:38 PM

There are two things people are forgetting about why there are now so many Mexicans coming to the U.S. for work. 1) The abject poverty in Mexico along the border was brought about by NAFTA. Free trade is not, of course, free. However, it allowed the U.S. to gain preferential treatment on the manufacture of goods--and to set up a corridor of employment along the Mexico-U.S. border that has "sweat shop" conditions, driving down the economy in neighbouring Mexican states.
2) Farmers, especially fruit and vegetable growers in Florida and elsewhere WANT illegals to come pick their crops for pathetic wages. No one else would do such hard work for such low wages. See an earlier God's Politics blog on the tomato pickers in Immokalee, where the pickers are not only badly paid, but charged rent for being 'housed' in over-crowded trailers, sometimes chained so they can't escape.
Why do they come and put up with such horror? It's not because they like it or even because they can earn lots of money, because they don't. They put up with it because even though the pay is terrible, it's better than no work, or work for even lower pay, 'thanks' to the changes brought about by NAFTA.
Business people seem to think this is good for business--it's certainly not a plot thought up by Mexican workers.
Finally, remember that Congress has reduced funding to those departments that deal with legal immigration. That means that those who would like to immigrate legally have almost no possibility of doing so--the offices are years behind in their documentation work.

I write all these facts in the possibly naïve hope that they will help cool down the rhetoric. The important fact is this: we are required by God to love one another as God loves us. And this includes loving our Mexican sisters and brothers.

Posted by: bren | March 1, 2008 1:54 AM

Please have someone do an article on the Americans (construction workers, masons, CARPENTERS, truck drivers, etc) that have lost their jobs to illegal immigrants!! I sympathize with the poor, but illegal immigrants are making my family poorer (mason). You can't have justice if your positions ignores the plight of the other people involved in this crisis.

Jobs Americans won't do is nonsense, I personally know people who have lost their WANTED jobs to cheap illegal labor.

Get the facts straight.

Posted by: George | March 1, 2008 8:10 AM

Wayne, The Watcher (Mark) cannot hear you. If you try to dialogue with him, he will continue putting words in your mouth and misrepresenting what you write.

Ignore him.

D

Posted by: Don | March 1, 2008 10:25 AM

I noticed the avoidance of the there 'illegal' with the use of immigrant in this blog. It is very true that we must manifest the Spirit of Christ to illegal immigrants (aliens). However, even your rules of conduct state we are not to participate or advocate in illegal activity. I am afraid that many churches are aiding and abetting law breakers. Soujourners web post a thought stating that the freedom we have in grace does not mean license to do wrong. Ministering to illegal aliens should include correcting their illegal status.Many churches do not related to other law breakers as they do those who have broken our border laws.

Posted by: Doyle Purifoy | March 1, 2008 11:45 AM

ian danley and his religious friends want to blame christians for the alleged persecution of the illegals. perhaps there are secular types that initiate anti illegal activities. like newspapers, radio, t v , and just plain citizens.
has anyone noticed the increased level of violence due to illegal activity (crime) near the border? slow economy, employer laws, gov't budgets, etc. will bring even more pressure. if religious pastors want to help illegals they will devise a plan to return them to their homes in mexico and elsewhere. the message of love and reconciliation also includes justice. even Jesus acknowledged government, society and the laws of the land.

Posted by: jerry | March 1, 2008 12:26 PM

mark,

You didn't answer my question. What would YOU do if it were your family living in such poverty and the only hope you could see was right across the border in America?

Posted by: squeaky | March 1, 2008 1:15 PM

If we hadn't have done either, we might not be in recession and we could help those who come here legally get a decent start and also lend a helping hand to our own who really need it through no fault of their own.

Posted by: Cads

Hey Cads will you stop throwing in logic and comments that do not attack anyone . ;0).

I am not sure about the resons recession would have been stopped , but I do find that more interesting then this idealogical blathering .

I always thought the recession made components were the rising price of oil , mixed in with the feds decreasing the interest rates so much that housing prices just went through the roof . Then add in the subprime farce , mix in jobs going over seas , a slow down after everyone spent their re fiancing profits on their homes , and uck .

Hope the next president does not just raise taxes for the sake of it , because that would be a mistake . Blaming the rich for our problems is almost like blaming the poor guy sneaking over the border in the sense its a scapegoat that does not solve the problem .

Posted by: Mick | March 1, 2008 1:27 PM

Mick,
I don't know what you find so disagreeable about this statement.

""But maybe if we start with some compassion and understanding of their situation, maybe then we could find solutions that are viable""

Especially when you then turn around and say

"And to make myself a hypocrit , I have and will most likely again help an illegal immigrint , because need and suffering is something I detest and hate . "

Is that not the compassion I am talking about? Where did I say we didn't need to do anything about the problem? All I said is that we need to show some compassion so that we can get to the root of the problem and find a real solution. I don't see how you disagree with that statement, especially when your actions betray that you do, in fact, agree with it.

Posted by: squeaky | March 1, 2008 2:16 PM

"Among men age 18-39 (who comprise the vast majority of the prison population), the 3.5 percent incarceration rate of the native-born in 2000 was 5 times higher than the 0.7 percent incarceration rate of the foreign-born. (Source: Rumbaut, R. G. & Ewing, W. A., “The Myth of Immigrant Criminality and the Paradox of Assimilation.” http://www.ailf.org/ipc/special_report/sr_022107.pdf

The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform concluded in a 1994 report that immigration is not associated with higher crime. The Commission compared crime rates in U.S.-Mexico border cities such as El Paso with cities elsewhere in the United States and found that crime rates generally were lower in border cities. (Source: U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, U.S. Immigration Policy:Restoring Credibility. Washington, DC: 1994.)

Posted by: wayne | March 1, 2008 2:41 PM

You didn't answer my question. What would YOU do if it were your family living in such poverty and the only hope you could see was right across the border in America?

I am a little puzzled by this question. If you lived across the street from someone very wealthy, and you were literally suffering want of food, medicine, etc, would it be ok to sneak into their house and eat their food?

You ask me if I were in some hypothetical situation, would I break the law, and try to sneak into the US? I don't know. It's a hypothetical, of course.

Let me answer the question you did NOT ask in order to make this a lot more clear... Would I be TEMPTED to? The answer, of course, is ... Yes. I would also attempt every means possible of doing it legally, of course, because that's who I am. But your hypothetical situation does not account for "who I am" and "who they are". The respect for law and order that creates this country of wealthy people is the VERY thing they lack, and has a LOT to do with why they are poor!

But because I might be tempted to break the law, does not mean I will give people license to do it. If that's our means of determining which laws to break and ignore with impugnity, we're in serious trouble. We write laws to elevate acceptable behavior ABOVE that which "none of us would be tempted" to do. In contrast, we write laws to elevate our behavior precisely BECAUSE we might be tempted. It provides that additional layer of reinforcement, and a means of stopping those who fail to be controlled be either conscience OR law.

I KNOW why people come here to seek opportunity. I AM aware of why people left Mexico to come here. I AM aware of why people left many other places, as well, to better themselves.

I am reminded of a day in court, when I got to watch the proceedings go on and on. A young man was charged with felony destruction of public property. What had he done? He, and a few friends, had driven up one of the moutain roads, and followed several different forks, and had then managed to slide down a short section of the road, and could not get back up it. He then followed the road he was now unable to go back up, down the mountain. At the bottom was two posts, with a locked cable blocking the road.

Now, almost out of gas, having no phone, lost, and no idea how far it was, he used his Jeep to pull one of the posts up and drive through. He did make it to a house, and called to have someone bring gas.

He HAD NO ALTERNATIVE that he knew of to pulling the post. And the judge agreed. Yet, he broke the law, and in that state, it was a felony he had committed. He had no bad intentions and a responsibility to the safety of the younger people in his vehicle.

The judge struggled with this for quite some time and eventually delayed the ultimate sentencing, but did indicate he had no choice to but to place that felony on his record. This would follow him the rest of his life, possibly.

What's the point of all that? Respect for the law does not trump "good intentions". Respect for the law is why we have prosperity, and much of the reason why these people coming here did not. We do not serve them by breaking down respect for law.

So many here are just itching for a chance to condemn other people, yet they offer no valid alternatives, they do not go through the effort to seek the best, merely that which is expedient at providing them accusatory rhetoric to advance political whims.

Do you REALLY want to help? Then ask the authorities. Find those people who are being deported, get the families together. Then work at improving their life back where they came from.

Oh, man...way too difficult and too much work, huh. It's just easier to fling hate at right wingers and then proclaim oneself more righteous while promoting lawbreaking as "generosity and kindness".

Ugh. It disgusts me.

Posted by: The Watcher | March 1, 2008 3:54 PM

Now, just think... the original article is about "intolerable" words. He uses "rhetoric", which is often a signal that the people who are saying something don't really believe it, or say things with deep implications, but said lightly without regard to those implications.

Yet, I find the original posting appears to me to be that 'intolerable rhetoric'.

Why? Because the criticism is broad, yet the proposed solution is not at all thought through in practical implications. The weasel words as I call them, may not be meant as weasel words by the author, but will be used by those who have no compunction about breaking the law to justify it, or justify looking the other way, or even, as is done here, to harshly judge others who DO believe in law and order.

Someone accused me of being simplistic back up there a ways. In no way am I being simplistic. Rather, the insistence that we follow law and not just weasel out of it like Don suggested, where we don't enforce it if it somehow involves "families", invokes both complex and deep implications.

I did not specifically address those, but invited comment... Nobody wants to go that far, which is distressing.

Are you all just satisified with the expedient political win for the moment, at the cost of our natonal legal integrity and as inviduals?

I'm going to guess that most of you are liberals, in the political sense, and that you're just going near orgasmic at the thought of more Democrat policies... Like massive tax increases and racial divisions and preferences in law, and lots and lots of abortion and federal money for it, even.

Then there's the taking away of people's property after they die in the death tax, that everyone claims a moral right about. And of course, raising minimum wage hugely, to the point we become like Europe with its huge and intractable lack of opportunity for young people.

And all those other interventionist things, where you believe hte government ever so much more capable than individuals in choosing how to run their lives.

But all that aside... I know you're salivating over those prospects with glee and an enthusiasm born of hate for Bush... And your contempt for conservatives...

Still, all that being said... You can't just live ignoring the elephant in the living room. REAL answers, not rhetorical slaps need to happen. And while Pastors are welcome to advocate mercy and compassion for our fellow man based on our commonly shared beliefs, it doesn't directly translate to law.

And the failure to address that it doesn't, and to not speak in concrete terms and practical life, is going to haunt us all. I take the injunction of caring for my fellow man just as seriously as you do. Or maybe more so. And I dare say that even those hated "right wing" Christians do too. But Christ said to "render unto Ceasar" as well. We should be shining examples of law KEEPING, not advocates or skirting the law, or outright breaking it, or being complicit in those acts.

While I would in no way suggest that Ministers become law enforcers, they should not endanger their status of a confidant or confessor by even the appearance of condoning breaking the law.

But can you be compassionate while still respecting the law? Can you be a brother in Christ to the illegal who may show up at your church to worship? I hope so.

The guy that calls himself "pastor jeff" really disturbs me. His advocacy for really BAD national policy based on an apparent unwillingness to address any alternative other than to simply state that borders must be unjust because people are hungry is frightening. That's bad judgement, bad Christianity, bad discipleship, shallow thinking, being a bad neighbor, and bad citizen all in one. I find no "good" anywhere, except his claimed justification for it. Yikes. I don't want MY God blamed for people advocating bad things.

So, are you really unwilling to address how to honor ALL our obligations, both as citizens, as utlimately, as citizens of the Heavenly kingdom, even if it is "harder" or requires much more thought and planning and effort?

Or is all that goes on here just a religious justification for the politics that bind?

That question above digs at me. Because more and more, it seems that most of the authors here are political first, and use "faith" to stifle dissent by claiming religious justification of condemnation of the political opposition, rather than using faith to uplift our political discussion, dissent, and what, if any, common ground we might hold.

Posted by: The Watcher | March 1, 2008 4:55 PM

::Unfortunately, those who harbor hatred and bigotry in their hearts will never be convinced no matter what reasoned arguments you put forth.::

And what about those who don't harbor hatred and bigotry in their hearts and yet still disagree with you on the immigration issue, will no reasoned arguments reach your ears?

Posted by: aaron | March 1, 2008 5:32 PM

This was a lot of comments to wade thru. Did anyone point out the enormous and expensive logistical operation we would have to mount to find, detain and deport about 12 million people? How many of us are willing to have our taxes raised enough to actually accomplish the job? Setting aside, for the moment, discussions of "I'm right, you're wrong" and "So's your old man", the practical implications of mass deportation are staggering. Have any studies been done on how many immigration agents it would take to accomplish the task? That's a lot of salary for the taxpayers to fund.

Posted by: prettytexasgal | March 1, 2008 5:57 PM

It would take too much tax money to start deporting illegals?

Yup. Even if we can find them all. And not to mention the harm the deportations are causing to families, businesses, and local economies.

And especially since so much of our government resources are being spent on an immoral, illegal, and unjust war.

D

Posted by: Don | March 1, 2008 6:47 PM

How about we stop looking at it as Americans and start looking at it as Christians? I thought that's what this blog is about, not about what's right according to the rules and standards of the United States. We're Christians first and Americans second.

That being said, I think that addressing it from the Christian perspective we can agree that immigrants should be treated with the same amount of love that we show non-immigrants.

Heck, even addressing it from an "American" standard, how are the current immigration laws standing up against the Declaration of Independence? "All men are created equal." So, where's the equality in making others go through a process that we don't have to simply because they weren't born here?

Those who are against immigration will say "Do you understand what you're saying?" and use scare tactics such as job loss, increased crime rates, and terrorism! True, those are realistic fears. But remember, Christ died showing his love to people who didn't want to accept it, and if we are truly followers of Christ you are supposed to take up your cross and follow Him.

Radical, isn't it? Now you know why so many people hated Jesus.

Posted by: Baumann | March 1, 2008 8:14 PM

"Worse still, we are offered poor uses of our state and county's limited resources that cannot begin to solve this clearly federal issue."

It's a federal issue of different governments. Not the USA. Illegal immigrants should be the people tolerating the intolerance of the citizens of the countries they dishonestly enter. It is not scare tactics when the local hospital has to close because so many illegal aliens use the facilities as a health clinic. This IS NOT A FEDERAL ISSUE . . . it is an issue of honesty and morality. It is dishonest and immoral what illegal immigrants are doing to the United States of America. If they are Christians, they are the ones that need to be considerate to others.

Posted by: Wake up! | March 1, 2008 10:03 PM

As an employer, I have no use for "illegal" people.

But we have HUGE built in financial incentives to pay people under the table, etc. We have a tax structure that punishes success, punishes hiring, punishes productivity, punishes good wages, punishes risk taking, punishes EVERYTHING good.

And when a businessman finds himself staring at the bottom line long enough, sometimes the choice seems like the only answer.

Back when I choose to do something with a group of people, I try to choose to make sure we don't have incentives contrary to what we want to accomplish.

There's a lot of things we could do, tax reform being only one small part. But when you ask if "business really wants them", the answer is "not really". Business merely wants people. And we've created an incentive to break the law.

Seems wrong from all perspectives.

Posted by: The Watcher | March 2, 2008 1:22 AM

All these 'illegal' folks used to be called 'migrant workers' and later 'undocumented'and now a lot of people are all fired up and claiming they're 'illegal'...no more illegal than me when I'm doing 80 in a 70 zone...give 'em a ticket... It's just a label and a concept hammered away at by people who need someone to blame for the current state of affairs..and some who are too proud to admit that the current state of affairs is mostly due to the greed of many who are running the big businesses and corportations as well as politicians in this country...and all of those who support or do nothing about it. We used to get to blame the communists for everything...now it's 'illegals' and 'muslums'.

I've seen with my own eyes those folks trucked (yes, whole families in the back of tarp covered trucks),to fields and orchards all over this country, paid shamelessly low wages and put up in squalor. I've worked in free clinics providing some semblance of health care so they don't have to wind up on an ER doorstep on death's doorstep.
I've known of big companies who've sent their trucks deep into Mexico to lure young men to come work in their factories and of course, those left behind tend to follow...

Show me a hospital or health care clinic that has closed because of 'illegals'..

Ability to survive (and send money home) on very low wages does hit the construction industry...many of the 'legal' Hispanic folks have their own businesses and hire a lot of their 'cousins' and can afford to underbid their neighbors...but the large number of workers in the food industry, child care, road construction, agriculture, maid service and landscaping sure ain't gonna get filled by many white folks...not for long.

God's law trumps 'law of the land'...it also directs me to obey the civil laws of my country until there's a moral question...then my Christianity wins out. Because of that I can't go with abortion but I also can't go with treating people as criminals who have only found whatever way they could (and most have paid dearly) to get to where the jobs are.

If our ecomomy didn't need them and there were no jobs, then they wouldn't be here...simple supply and demand....show me an unemployed 'illegal' and I'll show you a mom with 4-5 kids hanging on her.

There certainly are demands placed on health care and education with the influx of all these folks...however, several statistics (U.North Carolina and Univ. Texas) have shown that there is also significant financial assests in having over 12 million people living, working and supporting themselves in this country...especially in 'no income tax' states that depend heavily on sales taxes... there's a tax paid every time a tortilla gets bought. New York Times ran a recent article on the fallout in a small town in New Jersey that passed laws that pretty much rid them of any and all illegals...their economy sank...landlords don't have renters, grocery stores and gas station sales way down...has the town fathers scratching their heads and wondering if it was really the right thing to do...

So...lets build a 'fence'....any one supporting that concept has no idea what they're talking about...go look at that country...go drive it, or better, go walk it...you gotta be kidding...not my tax dollar thank you...

Lets clean up our immigration policy that doesn't allow for poor laborers (who pay plenty to coyotes to get here and might rather pay our govt. a fee to get in)...

Criminals...everyone has some of those...would be nice if we cleaned up our immigration policy so we could check these folks out. However, I read the papers and listen to the news...the 'illegals' ain't made the 'most' list yet. Most Hispanic gang activity in LA is home grown(not all...but, most).

'Nuff said...just MHO from an old U.S. born white southern, born again, Evangelical woman...

Posted by: GrammaJamma | March 2, 2008 3:32 AM

You have presented a hypothetical that in no way has happened. No need to further address it.

If my 'hypothetical' does not apply, then surely your blanket assertion does not.

Posted by: aaron | March 2, 2008 8:25 AM

"From a distance - half a globe away (12 hour time shift), it would seem that the so called illegal immigrant seems to be a key component of the economic system. A means of suppling labour at very low cost. To do all of those lousy jobs no one else will do. If you need the labour, treat it properly."

Or so the Chambers of Commerce would argue. The problem is that this component only became "key" by virtue of the fact that it circumvents wage laws. Of course they do jobs Americans won't do. American citizens can't even legally take these jobs because they are essentially under the table.

So what do you do? Bring them all above board? That will be as costly as deportation, which is costly and almost impossible.

The only reasonable answer is to make absolutely sure that we are not in this situation again by creating a comprehensive enforcement measure. The last amnesty bill did nothing of the sort, only pledging to deal with the issue some time down the road.

That's what Americans are asking for. The bigotry card (which, you may have noticed, gets bandied about here quite a bit) is a red herring.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 2, 2008 1:10 PM

"Watcher":

You choose to dismiss Scripture as mindless platitudes....
Who invaded whom? We should thank the original owners of the southwest for making us as wealthy as we are. Laying up treasures is strictly forbidden by the Lord Jesus.

Baumann: Amen. America was built by the back breaking effort of underpaid immigrants who, given the opportunity, reinvested in their new homeland. The fear is that we cannot grow (zero sum economics) which most true political/economic conservatives refute. We have, sadly, decided that America is only the land of wealth building for those already here.
BTW, is anyone here Hispanic?

PJ

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 2, 2008 6:27 PM

Wayne:
Agreed. Many who came in the past were fleeing criminal prosecution in their homeland. More recently, the US was the beneficiary of intolerable persecution in Nazi Germany and the Gulags. If we "sent them back and worked to make their homelands better", as some have here proposed, we would be speaking German rather than Spanish. Who knows what blessings we turn away in the name of fear?

PJ

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 2, 2008 7:43 PM

Pastor Jeff. Of course you don't "say" that, you just breath out some platitudes, that if carried out literally, results in precisely what I said. No borders, no control, and danger for all.

You questioend, if memory serves, whether it was "just" to close our borders to non-citizens.

You then went on to reinforce that's exactly what you think. Now, IF you don't think we should have open borders, and IF you think that we should not let illegals remain here, then you have no beef at all.

Ulimately, the only conclusion that can be drawn from your words, is that you believe borders are immoral. This is why I called your words (not Scripture), "platitudes". And mindless, in that you offered no relevant answers to issues that face the nation, no intellectual resolution to the conflict between the emotional reaction you stated, and the reality that we cannot simply be without borders.

No, you chose to attempt to discredit national border laws or security, and to make some fuzzy statements about 'caring' for our fellow man, and then bailed on anything concrete.

So, either laws that prohibit uncontrolled influx ARE good and just, or they are not. If they are not, then you believe in an uncontrolled and unbordered nation.

Pick one or the other. You can't hold conflicting opinions, then declare your moral authority to be condemnatory of others who DO take a stand.

Posted by: The Watcher | March 2, 2008 11:12 PM

Watcher:
If memory serves, it was I who asked you for the justification of your allegation that the border laws are moral and just. I asked for your basis in Scripture that would support the assertion that the laws are just. You are the one who is setting the parameters and I am questioning your "platitudes". All just law is religious at it's core. The rest are administrative applications which are subject to the whim of the ruler(s). Our policies should be to invest more money in Immigration "services" and less in "enforcement" against "criminals". It is not my place to delineate the specifics of implementation. That would be presumptuous and arrogant on my part. I do feel that I should speak to the general direction and tenor of the conversation. We obviously disagree with whether we should be open to others coming to our nation. You seem to believe that immigrants need to wait in a 10 year line to get the honor to be US citizens. I think we are making a big mistake by not welcoming them with only minimal restrictions and partnering with those who want to join our nation.

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 3, 2008 12:04 AM

I somewhat agree with Kevin about whether there is discussion to be had (although productive discussion is within the range of hypotheticals).

For me there is just a failure of governance--to create and administer just immigration flow in concert with the varied needs/goals of the nation and global realities.

Presently we just have a profoundly dishonest system of "Come but don't come. We'll control the borders by never processing some people in while telling millions of others to come illegally because we need you; but we'll keep a lid on by coming down on you when and how we please."

The President and EVERY person sitting in the House and Senate knows there is need for complex/comprehensive reform (in law, policy, and practice). Because they couldn't agree--they packed their bags and went home.

Leaving us to shout at each other about borders, crime, jobs, blah,blah,blah.

And to translate this profound dysfunction and failure to do their jobs--into us shouting at each other or at immigrants opens the doors of our hearts and minds to be manipulated or taken down all kinds of paths.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 3, 2008 10:24 AM

I would think a better response Kevin would be to respond to Jeff's request that you justify the allegation that todays laws are in fact just.
They are dysfunctional and do not represent the needs of the current situation. The fact that we did not enforce them only made things worse.
To say that the answer to the problem is to create even more unjust laws and then enforce them with a heavy hand is not logical.
To create new laws that both insure the integrity of the border and allow for the free and safe flow of labor as it is needed should be our goal. Then we need only find a just and humane way to deal with those who are here. To insist that they return after nearly thirty years of building a life here cannot be logical or just, unless your desire is mere retribution and not justice. Fines should be enough if they are part of a border enforcement system.
To insist on the return of these people is always going to be seen as mean because it is mean. If you insist on being mean why do you cry so when others liken you to other mean spirited people. To keep on that path aligns you with their ilk and I am afraid that the old adage about "Birds of a feather" will be the least of the consequences you will be made to bear.
Again History is on the side of those who desire a more humane and kinder approach to the problems of immigration.
Either insist that the Government come to some compromise on these issues and be ready to accept that none of us will probably get everything we think is right, or admit that you actually do not actually care about the problem, but would rather make the poor immigrant a scapegoat for the nations ills.

Posted by: wayne | March 3, 2008 11:19 AM

"If you insist on being mean why do you cry so when others liken you to other mean spirited people."

Do you really think I cry, when you call me "mean"? If I really were mean, wouldn't I delight in the designation? Moreso, I would ask you to re-evaluate your own rhetoric.

"I would think a better response Kevin would be to respond to Jeff's request that you justify the allegation that todays laws are in fact just."

A better response would be to ignore these threads entirely and carry on these discussions elsewhere, which is what I will do henceforth.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 3, 2008 11:45 AM

Kevin this is the problem. Those who only wish to eject the immigrants already here defend their wishes by arguing that the only way those who oppose them can do so is by calling them racist.
This is not true but it can seem so.
For instance I have stated over and over that history is on the side of the immigrant yet no one ever argued against that statement. No one has ever tried to defend the current laws or give reasons for their being just, as Jeff requested.

I also posted information refuting the claim that immigration is responsible for our jails being full. Again no response.

I submit that by your lack of responses to the other facts and arguments presented, you are the one leaving race as the only talking point. You do this by leaving everyone with the logical assumption that since you seem to have no argument yet remain opposed to immigration reform, you may indeed be racist. It is you who have boiled the subject down to this not us or your other progressive friends.

Posted by: wayne | March 3, 2008 12:20 PM

But more importantly, Scripture is to guide MY relationship and how I personally treat others I come in contact with.

That's not good enough. For openers, you are essentially saying there is no "ultimate truth" and that everyone has the right to his/her own belief system, which contradicts the very idea of religion. Second, related to this, you never answered Jeff's question.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 3, 2008 12:48 PM

That's not good enough. For openers, you are essentially saying there is no "ultimate truth" and that everyone has the right to his/her own belief system, which contradicts the very idea of religion. Second, related to this, you never answered Jeff's question.

No, I am saying that there IS an "ultimate truth" and that no denomination can claim to dispense it. It comes from God, not a church. And that the only means of achieving salvation IS personal relationship with God. All other concerns are extraneous to this.

Oh, so you're finding that personal salvation contradicts the type of religion you believe in? Good. You're learning. It does. "Religion" is influenced by man. "Truth" and "Salvation" come solely and only from God. Understanding comes SOLELY from the Holy Spirit. Even the Bible, with it's inspired writers, was written by men, and is expressed in the medium of the language of men, which fails to both express perfectly and to communicate perfectly. Perfect understanding can only come from God.

Oh, and Jeff's question is pointless and meaningless. His assumptions are faulty.

I lost all respect for Jeff, when he proceeded to wax venonous and vindictive for the "sin" of disagreeing with him. I dunno what he's a "pastor" of, but he is not mine. I disagree with almost everything he says, and find it completely unbiblical and often terribly unreasoned.

Posted by: The Watcher | March 3, 2008 1:03 PM

Watcher/Mark, Do you understand that reasonable, genuine Christians can disagree on important issues?

I'm troubled by the way you label your opinions and those of others. Your opinions are "obvious," "no-brainer," "cold, solid, thoughtful judgement, carefully applied reasoning and logic."

The opinions of those you disagree with are "unbiblical," "unreasoned," "pointless," "meaningless," "emotional," "naive."

There is an arrogance that, whether you intend it or not, is off-putting and stifles genuine debate. But perhaps you're not interested in those things?

Posted by: carl copas | March 3, 2008 1:41 PM

Whenever anyone's going to another country, they're never turned back. Israel itself was told to welcome the stranger...

A long time ago (or so it seems) on Rev. Rodriguez' thread, I noted that 100 years ago we made no distinction between 'legal' and 'illegal' immigrants. Our immigration policy was designed only to keep out known criminals and people with infectious diseases.

But during the 1920s, the nativists prevailed on Congress to pass restrictions on immigration. With a few modifications in the years since, we've been living under that system ever since. One would have to be quite advanced in years to remember what it was like before.

ST is right. God doesn't recognize national borders, which are a relatively modern invention anyway. That's not the same as saying we don't have any right to secure borders as a nation. But in order for our border policy to work, it has to be humane. We aren't going to solve the border problem by trying to make it more secure. Those who are desperate to get in will still find a way. And even now, 40% of undocumented immigrants did not enter the country "illegally," so any border policy leaves 2 out of 5 undocumented immigrants untouched.

IMO, our border policy should still be focused on keeping out those who might do us harm. We must find a way to allow those who want to come here to work or to reunite with their families a way to do so legally. If we don't do that, any attempted increase in border "security" alone will just create more injustice.

Carl, lloyd, Pastor Jeff and others: the best strategy re. Mark/Watcher is to ignore him. If the moderators are unwilling or unable to keep him off this forum, then it's up to us to refuse to engage his poisonous rhetoric. Maybe then he'll give up and go elsewhere to spew his toxic vomit.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | March 3, 2008 2:00 PM

Actually Jesus commands us to "love your enemy."

If we limit it to "neighbor," as Jesus says even the good pagans do, then we're no different from their worldly fallen behavior.

You can always redefine "neighbor" by moving away, planting a burning cross on someone's lawn to get them to move away or by building walls, redlining, demolishing or bulldozing to eliminate neighborhoods, and therefore, legalistically speaking, "neighbors."

Jesus knew of that propensity - and so did the young ruler who asked him, "But who is my neighbor" after Jesus told him he was not far from the kingdom of God by knowing that loving God and one's neighbor as oneself was the essence of the commandments.

Not far - but not yet there. There can only be love for one's neighbor lived out for such a heardhearted bunch when there's no wiggle room - when we Christians are commanded to love God, then all as self, with no exceptions for race, sex, religion or national origin.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 3, 2008 2:24 PM

"Among men age 18-39 (who comprise the vast majority of the prison population), the 3.5 percent incarceration rate of the native-born in 2000 was 5 times higher than the 0.7 percent incarceration rate of the foreign-born. (Source: Rumbaut, R. G. & Ewing, W. A., “The Myth of Immigrant Criminality and the Paradox of Assimilation.” http://www.ailf.org/ipc/special_report/sr_022107.pdf

posted by Wayne

Wayne you are missing a big point here with statistics . Would you use these same stats to indicate Afrian Americans are more dangerous since their rates ar the highest ? First , all illegal immigrints have already broken the law .
Most of us here belive the law is unjust or needs to be changed . But the underground life illegals live in is also leads to a climate of illegalities , also with their employers.hence the very forced envirnoment thet hav to live in is detrimental to communities , themselves , and all our families.I really think if the debate is expanded to all of us , people will see making immigration easier for folks will make us all be better off .

Don sorry you feel insulted , but you seem to do more then your own these days . You have not stated unjust laws should not be obeyed ?Well then again , your previous post on the subject seemed very logical in my opinion . Thanks for the history of immigration , that helps put things in perspective .

God Bless you , your a good man and add much to the dialogue here .

Posted by: Mick | March 3, 2008 2:59 PM

A better response would be to ignore these threads entirely and carry on these discussions elsewhere, which is what I will do henceforth. Posted by: kevin s.

With The Watcher so forcefully representing the conservative position in most discussions on here these days, I guess some of you other conservatives must be feeling kinda overshadowed right now.

Still, I'm sure most of you are more than happy to sit back and give centre stage to such an outstanding demonstration of Christ-likeness. If I could only touch the hem of his garment.

Posted by: Bruce | March 3, 2008 3:22 PM

aaron;

The apostles were arrested for preaching the Gospel; they were released with a warning not to do it again. Their answer was a question: 'Is it right to obey God or man?"

The next day they were back preaching again, and they were arrested again. They stated 'It's right to obey God, not man.'

They preached the word of God rather than the laws of man to the point that they all, except maybe John , died for their faith.

'"I love how people like to focus on other Laws of the Old Testament but totally ignore this one."

I love how people focus on the OT and NT Laws and ignore the Law of the land.'

The truly ironic thing, Aaron, about your comment is that you're apparently unaware that in seven short arrogant years the party of the hate-mongers has almost completely abrogated the Constitution of the United States,the self-defined law of the land, and all Anglo-Saxon legal history since well before 1215, the Magna Carta.

This Administration has seized most of the powers allotted to Congress, and they haven't left you any of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights but the right to keep and bear arms.

Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | March 3, 2008 3:55 PM

Mark/Watcher:

Congratulations on your stand for the right of supervised attendance at worship for child molesters! He must be a US citizen to have rights like that. Can an openly gay person worship with you also, or do they need chaparones (sp?) as well? Maybe we can agree to just keep a real good eye on all child molesters and illegal aliens so we can all worship together in America. I like your posts. They are very entertaining and expose the theology that leads to your alleged conservatism. I have to admit that I have to go back to my originals to make sure I didn't say what you said I did. Maybe you are one of the moderators providing a foil for the rest of us.

Rick: Thank you for the gracious words

Don: I couldn't help myself.

Pastor Jeff (PJ)

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 3, 2008 4:12 PM

"Historically no group of immigrants to this country have been responsible for increases in crime rate, yet historically they are always accused of doing this. It was an old lie, a big lie, and it is still a lie"

Wayne posted

Okie doke Wayne . I did not follow what you were replying to . I get it . The scapegoating of illegals is a bogus argument . In fact immigartion is the strengh of America , has been; always will be . Mark is off base here .

Posted by: Mick | March 3, 2008 5:11 PM

The Watcher and others talk about how illegal immigrants are law-breakers, and how they know they are breaking the law and the potential risks of doing so.

I'm not at all sure I agree. We tacitly permitted a large influx of people from Mexico for many years, essentially turning a blind eye to what was going on. Why? Cheap labor sources for small businesses is the most likely reason. They were providing a benefit and so, even though technically illegal, very little was being done. Therefore, I'd say it's actually not a guarantee that people being encouraged to come across the border were aware that it was illegal. It's also possible they were being told that it was technically illegal, but nothing is ever enforced.

We as legal citizens have to accept our culpability in that. Our federal government basically sold many of these people a line. Maybe not directly, but indirectly through their actions, or inactions.

Do I believe we need to enforce our borders if that's what we as a nation have decided is important? Absolutely. Was the United States making it clear that we wanted those borders enforced? Until recently, not really.

Therefore, the arguments that "those" people knew what they were getting in to doesn't necessarily wash. You can't go back after the fact and say we really meant to be securing our borders so now you're all criminals. We need a solution that recognizes that we were responsibly, through inaction if not outright encouragement, for many of the people who crossed the border over the last 20-30 years. A solution that doesn't do that is, from any reasonable standard, an unjust solution.

Posted by: Dan Barber | March 3, 2008 6:41 PM

"Who here argues that once you manage to steal, that what you have stolen, is now yours and you get to keep?" -- Mark

This would be, contrarily, a good argument for 40 acres and a mule, since the people who came here that are the dominant culture did just that - steal. Most of those who've received the stolen property have up to now claimed just that eminent domain of "finders keepers" - having found they can keep their fenced booty, they find they can dispense with brother's keeper.

"Soujouner truth , your so off base I will not even answer your assumptions . I usually do not read your posts , mainly because they are so puffed up with self righteous Bibical Dogma" -- Mick

Well, Mick, I give you this - I try to puzzle yours out.
There's wheat in there, I acknowledge. If I think there's chaff, I analyze what you posit to make sure I'm not missing something important.

Guess nine are not for you - let he who has ears to hear, hear. I guess that might sound like puffery to you.

I do think, as a Christian, it ought to be a starting point for me to ask, "What would Jesus do?" rather than invoke the world-weary common-sense wisdom of a narrow cultural perspective and dispensationally pronounce what Jesus teaches, "Not for us." And go blithely down the well-trod path of ash-can history, deja vu, repeating the same moral errors again.

I would ask you to question if your own assumptions are based on fact - real faith, or are simply founded on what you wish to be true, but have never allowed to be put to historical test. My old Dad, who lived to regret it, left me with this advice only: don't believe what people tell you, but find out if it's really true, for yourself."

That can give you quite a BS meter and it's not advised for those with a sensitive proboscis. As Thomas Szasz, the famous psychiatrist, warned, the truth is not going to make you either popular or rich, but despised. Playing to the crowd can get you accolades, while telling unpopular truths gets you a glass of hemlock - or the Cross.

Wouldn't it be great if we all had that courage to face the truth, especially about ourselves? But then, our fate would assuredly be that of the prophets, as in the Bob Dylan lyrics, "Everybody Must Get Stoned."

You think majority moral blindness is not as prolific in modern America as it was in imperial Rome's biblical Palestine?

It's a given that in any particular culture, the majority strongly express that their own nation and leaders are always favored by the gods. This could be termed the "God takes care of drunks, babies and the United States" fallacy, once attributed variously to Churchill and humorist Stephen Leacock, but applicable to a similarly blind belief in the righteous destiny of any nation.

Most people in most countries, after all, follow almost entirely blindly and are made merchandise of by those who wield wealth and power, purchased by enchanting lies. A consumerist, materialist, self-indulgent people with a penchant for eye-candy entertainment 24/7 find this an irresistably delectable temptation.

I can't blame you for wanting to hold onto the messianic myth of American history - it is one of my greatest sorrows to have believed in and then lost faith in, and to have confused it with Christianity at the same time.

Facts are hard things.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 3, 2008 7:13 PM

I can't blame you for wanting to hold onto the messianic myth of American history - it is one of my greatest sorrows to have believed in and then lost faith in, and to have confused it with Christianity at the same time.

Facts are hard things.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth

What are you talking about ? American History tells a great story , not because of the myths , but because of deeds and greatness done by flawed people . We have never been a Christian nation , far from , but we have been a nation that has embraced Christianity .

Thank God

Posted by: Mick | March 3, 2008 7:29 PM

Carl,

I have to give him credit he sounded human in his last post . Almost willing to have a dialogue .
But the assumptions go beyond my patience . From knowing what we know about each other , I would be very surprised to hear Mr Truth attack people based on race , for him to assume this about me or others that we have somewhat gotten to know , or assume a differing opinion is not good enough because its not based in his religious view , or/and stereotypical conservative caricatures shows he is not listening , just preaching .

When I get called on sterotyping , I actually appreciate it most of the time . I guess it depends how you call someone on it . It is what promotes a deeper understanding . We all fall to those stereotypes sometimes I think . Mr truth has a problem seeing his;

Which Is why I will go back to ignoring him Carl , think of him as a Mark to the right of center thinkers .

I only read Mr truth to begin with because I was missing out to the one way conversation it appears mark has with everyone and makes the over all conversation somewhat off kilter I think . . And not to my surprise , his assumptions were derogatory.

Posted by: Nick | March 3, 2008 7:47 PM

"I will eluct towards Hemingway economy more in the future, but why stop there, how about Mickey Spillane?"

LOL. Hemingwayesque sentence structure always preferable to Melvillian! Of course you could always go for the Newspeak of Orwell's "1984." Doubleplusgood.

Posted by: carl copas | March 3, 2008 7:50 PM

Mick, what IS the unvarnished great story?

Being Thank full for some of the people in our history books is not such a bad thing . For example regarding Lewis and Clark, getting through the winter of 1805 caused them many problems. All members of their expedition were awarded one "equal" vote on where to locate their winter camp: To go back upriver or south of the Columbia River. You see the first vote included a African American slave , and the Native American woman Sacagawea. It would be over 60 years for African Americans to even be free of slavery, over a hundred years for women to even be allowed to vote in this country. Yet on one cold winter morning in 1805, some brave Americans chose to do what I love about this country. The first vote west of the Rockies included different races, genders and religions. It represented America at its best — freedom to be treated as an equal, not measured by the group but by who you are. Taking a shot at Reagan here ? He took a shot for all of us already , his politics bother you , Lincoln's politics bothered many , big deal . King's politics bothered many , so did Frederick Douglass, Kennedy , and so on . We did not rape Japan after they raped the Chinese and tried to so to us , or Germany , or have we always been right . But we have moved ahead .

Posted by: Mick | March 3, 2008 8:13 PM

Hmm. Interesting that rape is mentioned in regard to Japan as something our boys are never guilty of. Nice to know that unlike the Japanese and me (who you say is only"almost human" because of my opinions) Americans are a race of angels, not men!

Recent news stories have riots by the people of Okinawa over the behavior, yet again, of some of the unwanted 50,000 American troops still stationed there, 63 years after hostilities ceased, on another democratic nation's sovereign soil against their people's will.

The latest uproar is, once again, over the rape of an Okinawan girl - an underage girl, to boot - by an American soldier. And, as usual, the American military has made sure that the soldier, just as in the case of so many others, is never prosecuted.

Picture the hundreds of American bases (almost 900), worldwide on foreign soil, with their prostitute districts built around the American base entrances. Just who do you think these huge numbers of prostitutes service, and do you think the commanders don't know it and tacitly approve?

Yes, this has always been the behavior of imperial soldiers, since antiquity. The "service" has physical needs that must be "serviced." There is nothing especially egregious about the moral depths that American soldiers sink to, over those of any other nation. But we certainly have a greater number of these immoral infestations, that do not produce anything good from a Christian standpoint, and for a longer period, than ever before in human history.

Would you say when an Okinawan girl has her clothes removed by a horny US serviceman, she is "embracing Christianity"? And if she does it for money, is she embracing our capitalistic form of it? And if it's promoted and tolerated by our government - which it is - are these the real American ideals - morally degraded domination - that we Christians have been duped into spreading worldwide?

Let's wake up about the hypocrisy that others see about us but we don't want to, because it's convenient to our national ambitions, not those of Christ.

And we wonder why Christianity has such low penetration in Japan. It's because other aspects of ourselves have a much higher penetration.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 3, 2008 8:45 PM

Sacawagea was the slave of a white man, bought to be one of his concubines. After the Lewis and Clark expedition, she was given nothing, but the white man was paid for the use of his slave's services. Sacawagea herself sought desperately any opportunity to return to her people in the only way available to her.

She was deemed important because the presence of a woman of her tribe would protect the expedition from the accusation that it was scouting as a part of a war party to conquer Indian lands.

However, despite assurances being given to Indians about the treaties guaranteeing them their land in the West, Manifest Destiny, seeking living room for immigrating Europeans on all Indian lands, was already the religious and nationalistic policy of the American government.

"It will now be proper you should inform those through whose country you will pass . . . that henceforth we will become their fathers, " President Jefferson ordered Meriwether Lewis before the journey began.

A few months after the original “Voyage of Discovery”, Clark wrote of Indians, “These are the vilest miscreants of the savage race, and must ever remain the pirates of the Missouri, until such measures are pursued, by our government, as will make them feel a dependence on its will for their supply of merchandise.”

The expedition was marked by the same purpose as those of the quintessential conqueror Julius Caesar - "Veni, vidi, vici." "I came, I saw, I conquered."

Moreover, Sacagawea's particular tribe, the Lemhi-Shoshone, which was so hospitable to Lewis and Clark because of her presence, were rewarded by being removed forcibly from their lands, had their federal recognition as a tribe stripped from them, and were forced into exile.

More than 490 of their men, women and children were slaughtered in the largest instance to that date of a western massacre by the US military - volunteers who had travelled hundreds of miles to revenge themselves on completely different Indians than those they had committed genocide against elsewhere in their land-grabbing.

Women were raped, pregnant women were cut open and many people drowned as they tried to escape in the freezing river. The tribe’s leader, Chief Bear Hunter, was brutally tortured. The ultimate reason for the massacre, Indians were told, was simply that settlers wanted more land.

Their descendants still live as refugees on the reservation of another tribe to this day.

For their perspective, check out www-dot-lemhi-shoshone-dot-com (substitute "." for -dot-)

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 3, 2008 9:47 PM

Mr truth , you left out the part where Clark actually struck his slave that he took along when he got back , and even though he promised him his freedom he never did . Lewis and Clark however actually got along with almost all natives they met , with exception of the Pawnee.
The Pawness also did not get along with their neigbors , stealing , murdering , taking women and children and making them slaves , obviously future Americans in your eyes . They even tried to steal from the expedition itself .

Your also forgtting about the Code Talkers .
Were it not for the Navajos, the Marines would never have taken Iwo Jima." according to many who fought along side and benefited from them .
The real interesting aspect of the code talkers was the united States government actually tried to take away their native language , if this had occurred , the navajo most likely would not have been able to help us in the Pacific , adding to the casualities , especially AMERICAN CASUALITIES . They were American heroes in the biggest sense , for they had been mistreated far worse then most Americans , and more so then obviously you can understand , and they rose up , for they knew they were at heart part of this American Experiment , they came to their nation's call . Stood tall . The best part of American History are those who were mis treated , and because of the American Ideals , stood above the rest of us , except you of course Mr truth . They were fools , the 54th mass, Code Walkers , th japanese who fought in more campaigns then any other American Fighting unit was made of Japanese Americans . Incredible , and we were imprisioning some of their relatives by an xecutive order based in feal , prejudice , and ys their was some information that showed their were japanese spys in this nation . FDR makes Chenny look like A Nobel peace Prize winner .

Also noticed some errors in your reporting of Lewis and Clark . Will gt back to you on that . History reported inaccurately , well that has been done too many times either covering up people who died , or promoting people to die .

But since we got African Americans , Native Americans , Japanes Americans and a list of other historical accurate moments to treasure for America that celebrates the best in all of us , I figure I will let you chew on that .

Don't worry their is much not too be proud of .
That appears to what make people like you who emulate Jesus happy .

Posted by: Mick | March 3, 2008 10:26 PM

Sojourner Truth; re: "City on a Hill":

Do you see parallels between the Puritan theocracy/divine destiny and the "radical fundamentalist" Muslim plan for the US? (i.e. the dispossesion of "unworthy savages" by force if necessary in the name of a morally superior "kingdom")? "Whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap"

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 3, 2008 11:03 PM

Paysun ,

Really do not see it ? Hostility to a set of values that you do not see or respect either perhaps ? Perhaps condescending viewpoints appear harmless to you .

Socrates, Aristotle, Locke, Lincoln , King , all intellectuals or people most of us see as intellectuals, have played a constructive role in our history . Their wisdom , critical thinking , and respect for the evidence and commonsense have added to truth . When you have some one as Mr. truth , who neglects critical thinking and replaces it with ideology , well I guess only liberals respect his opinions then . Thats what we have here , no Truth , bable to support a pre disposed opinion .

And why does the left have disdain for Jerry Falwell , Pat roberston , etc ? My political view leads to Christ ? At least that is what always bothered me about them .

Of course to those like mr Truth if you do not agree with his pre determined opinion you have a PROBLEM .

I don't reject the American Dream , or do I reject certain American ideals . A philosopher named Karl Jaspers referred to Karl Marx writings as being "one of vindication , not investigation" Mr. Truth appears to rather have his status then show the love of Christin my opinion , if he is showing his Light as the Lord asked us to , he is doing only among those who politically favor his views. Again P , you have told me you do not believe allowing others to see Christ through you is important . Or did I mis understand , or did you remember our Lord asked to do just that ? Its in the Sermon on the Mt.

Be is traditional morality , patriotism , Ronald Reagan, Light Beer , or even Disney Land , these views are all too shallow for Mr truth to grasp or relate to .

Yeah I Love America, The Ideal of it anyway . I know perhaps more in depth and been to more monuments and museums that remind of those tragedies then most Americans I Believe .
We just dedicated a park out here to imprisioning our fellow Americans during WW 2 . Interesting , those folks, liberal to the bone , would say Mr truth was disaparaging their memories .

Being a patriot is like being a dad in a way , you have to take the bad or you will never be there to see the good too . You don't dump on your kid because he steals . I tend to look on the brighter accomplishments of people , perhaps Jesus will forgive me for that ?

I know P you like putting the warts on American history , like how many people know about the Puritans VD rates as liberals such as your self do . I personally think we should remember how much courage and generosity that was shown in so many making through to settle here also , that they were worthy perhaps of being honored as we we should do for all people . I have no problem when reading or honoring our history from all its origins , good and bad .

Science , democracy , and capitalism has helped this nation become the longest Constitutional democracy in the history of the world . We have the highest standard of living with the most DIVERSE citizenry who for the most part , get along , especially compared to some other nations . American Minorities , women , handicapped , and Homosexuals enjoy more liberties and legal protections then any other country in the history of the world .

To acknowledge this is to mr truth , and perhaps you meaning I have a problem in how I view Christ in my life .

Actually because of these freedoms , I should and we all should be blaming ourselves perhaps for not working together better because we have that freedom to .
Actually if he said I was a fool and had no clue of history he might have a point, but to bring in my Relationship with the Lord over a historical matter and cultural difference , shame shame on him .

God Bless ,

Mick

Trying to go off line and make my thoughts easier to understand . Had to much to say so this was very hard , let me know if it was easier for you .

Posted by: Mick | March 4, 2008 12:34 AM

ST: Thank You.

PJ

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 4, 2008 9:10 AM

Roger:

You are correct on all points. I tried to say the same thing, though much less directly, when I talked about the fact that nation states with more or less precise borders is a relatively modern concept.

I don't expect the secular authorities to have any regard for the laws of God, but Christians sure ought to.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | March 4, 2008 10:34 AM

a national vow of poverty

Ha! And put all the BMW dealerships out of business? Couldn't you just hear the hue and cry?

:-)

Posted by: Don | March 4, 2008 11:07 AM

::The truly ironic thing, Aaron, about your comment is that you're apparently unaware that in seven short arrogant years the party of the hate-mongers has almost completely abrogated the Constitution of the United States,the self-defined law of the land, and all Anglo-Saxon legal history since well before 1215, the Magna Carta. ::

The truly ironic thing is you assumed so much in a scant sentence of mine to barf up this total non sequitur.

Posted by: aaron | March 4, 2008 5:06 PM

"described in angry, hateful, even subhuman terms"

Took me a while to figure out this was about immigrants and not gays ;{O)

"And why does the left have disdain for Jerry Falwell , Pat roberston , etc ?"

Um, maybe because of their lies and hate against God's gay and lesbian children? That and their "Well let's just take him out" attitude. Just a hunch.

Posted by: doubter | March 9, 2008 4:56 PM