Ken Van Dellen

"At the same time that countries around the world are building fences and implementing laws to keep 'the other' out, we are creating new programs to meet the needs of the increasing numbers of migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers."

The above quotation apparently was added by those who posted the article and not by the author of the article, and this comment is in reference to the quotation.

Is the message here that border control is bad and open borders are good? It is possible to both welcome immigrants (migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers) and to have a secure border. These are not mutually exclusive.

Border control attempts to regulate the number of immigrants, which can affect the economy of a country, and keep out dangerous individuals, which can affect the safety of the country's residents. We all would agree, I'm sure, that our immigration policies should be "Christian".

We might disagree on the number of immigrants that should be admitted per year and how they should be evaluated as candidates for admission. In recent years we have seen an immigration experiment taking place in several European countries where large numbers of immigrants have flooded in from a particular region of the world, bringing with them a particular religion that includes distinctive views of women, justice, etc. This seems not to be working out well, and I think that a more diverse group of immigrants, and a smaller number, would have worked out better.

This is not just a U.S. concern. My wife and I live near the Canadian border, and for several decades we enjoyed driving over to Windsor, Ontario, for a meal. We used to be able to do this without showing any documents. We have not done so since 9/11 because of the increased border security, although we have driven across Ontario to New England several times and once spent a week at an Ontario resort.

[Note: I have taught ESL to Arab immigrants with a Christian organization and am on the board of that organization, and am close to some of these immigrants.]

I apologize for my error. I thought it was proper to address my comment to the author of the quotation I cited, and when I hadn't found the quotation in the original source on another website (although I have now found it there) I concluded that someone in your office had written it for your newsletter.

This article begins, "I was shocked when I read reports about Trump’s alleged question posed at a recent meeting in the Oval Office..." Now I'm shocked that Network would publish an article with a title like "Do Trump’s "BLEEP" Remarks Represent American Values?", with that title, even, and wonder if we should ask if the article represents Christian values.

I think it's deplorable to begin with a sentence that cites an "alleged question" and then go on with an article based on what was alleged as if the alleged quotation had been documented. Many of our political leaders use language that most CRC members, or other Christians, would not use, at least not in public, and it's possible that President Trump used this language in a private meeting, but we have no video or audio recording of the purported incident (unlike when another president remarked that his detractors "cling to their guns and Bibles", and it was caught on an audio recording).

Anyone who follows politics at all must have noticed that many politicians, but not all, are less than honest in reporting the position of their opponents on issues. Distortions, half-truths, and misrepresentations regarding opponents are common in politics. Do we look at what someone actually said or what a political opponent reports that the person said? There seems to be plenty of room for false witness issues here.

Then we get into labeling and name-calling based on our interpretation of what someone said or allegedly said. Individuals are smeared as racist, sexist, or something else negative because of a particular statement or act, but when we examine the person's record we find that label simply doesn't fit. I'm talking here just about President Trump. I'm talking about myself and others I know. I tend to give the other person the benefit of the doubt.

I've remarked that it would be great if politicians would reevaluate their standards. My guy should not just expect the other guy to operate with the standards of my guy, but my guy should hold himself or herself to the standards to which he or she holds the other guy. That would be a higher bar. This would work for non-politicians, too.

So many questions. Did the President say this or something like it? If so, what did he mean by it? Does that mean he deserves a derogatory label of some kind? How should a Christian judge him? Should we cast the first stone?

What about telling others about a book I really like? I reviewed the production "manuscript" for The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth: Can Noah's Flood Explain the Grand Canyon? and was very impressed with it. If you like rocks and landscape scenery, along with the rest of the creation, this will give you something to think and sing about.

I agree that we should reach out to show kindness to others, although that may be viewed antagonistically by someone who wants to be "left alone". In the case of the Las Vegas shooter it may be too soon to fully analyze him. While he preferred to gamble alone with a machine, he did have a "girlfriend" and may have hired female companionship shortly before his rampage. There is plenty of room for speculation.

This kind of evaluation is outside of my area of expertise, but I think that the current social divisiveness and dehumanizing may be a factor in motivating mass killers. I agree with MLK that we should judge people as individuals. Today, many judge others by their race, gender, political orientation, social status, age, and even which side of the border (U.S., Canada, or Mexico) they are on, and there is a general denigrating (or extolling) of those in one group or another.

All members of an ethnic group are not criminals, or at least untrustworthy. All members of another group are not "a blessing". All members of law enforcement are not racists. Thinking like this leads to dehumanizing others, and think what dehumanizing has done in the case of the unborn. Not long ago abortion was generally considered abhorrent, now many openly defend "woman's right to choose" (to kill her unborn child), which is "only a blob of tissue" (that has fingers and toes and a beating heart), but can be dismembered for body parts, and if I disagree I'm anti-woman and an evil person. The abortion industry is kind of a rampage, too, but the victims are killed one at a time.

Other mass killings have targeted specific groups of people. The Oklahoma City bombing was a protest against government. The 9/11 attack using airplanes was religiously-oriented, as have been attacks by cars, trucks, and guns in Europe, and the Orlando nightclub shootings. These were perpetrated by people who needed to be loved, but may not have been lonely persons. The killers were all people who simply thought other people should be killed. Now we hear of individuals who weren't concerned about the victims in Las Vegas because of their perceived political orientation. (Check Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 106-107 on that. Are they also killers by that definition?)

I sadly think the CRCNA and the Banner have contributed to the current polarization and divisiveness by official pronouncements and reporting. An example of this is the denominational reaction to the disastrous Charlottesville rally and protest of this summer. Instead of saying, "A plague on both your houses", as I did, the excesses of Antifa and other violent counter-protestors who showed up with masks and weapons were ignored. Freedom of speech applies to all, regardless of how despicable their message, but that does not include physical violence or destruction of property by either side. We can't complain only about misbehavior by the bad guys on the other side and ignore misbehavior by bad guys we agree with.

There has been some history of occupants of the White House disrespecting women. Pres. Clinton claimed, "I did not have sex with that woman!", but most of us would consider what he did with Ms. Lewinsky to be "having sex", and it certainly was an example of using one's position of power to take advantage of a subordinate. He ruined Ms. Lewinsky's life and there is evidence beyond mere gossip that he has a history of sexual predation, and it is puzzling that Mrs. Clinton is so selective regarding which abused women she stands with.

I find it astonishing, also, that the Obamas are selective with respect to whose language they object to. The language in the Trump video was mild compared to the language used by rappers and hip-hop artists who have been guest entertainers in the White House and thus have been given the presidential seal of approval. Mrs. Obama reportedly even cited Beyonce as a suitable role model for their daughters.

Bad behavior is bad behavior regardless of who engages in it and equally deplorable whether it involves one's friends or enemies. In an election year, it would behoove us to look hard at all candidates with the same criteria. I suggest that we judge our favorite candidates with the same standard with which we judge their opponents. There is reason to be embarrassed and ashamed about both major candidates for president this year, and I'm not sure whether some of us are actually blind to the disgusting and disturbing history of our favorite candidate or if we are just trying to divert attention away from our favorite candidate by pointing out how bad the opponent is.

Some believe that whichever candidate wins the country loses. They hope that,  whichever it is, Congress will be in control of the other party so that there will be four years of gridlock and not too much damage will be done before a more honest and sensible president will be elected in four years. God help us!

Since abortion has been brought up here, we might note how often that is an assault on women. Sometimes done in facilities with less safe conditions than a veterinary clinic because pro-choice politicians do not want any restrictions on access, abortions often do not actually involve "choice" because they are coerced by boyfriends, husbands, or even "grandparents". Moreover, approximately half of the victims of abortion, the little ones, would become women if allowed to continue to live and grow, so we could call this an assault on women-to-be. (The women who abort them are often victims in various ways, too.) And Mrs. Clinton has stated that abortion should be legal right up to birth, so no ban on partial-birth abortion or anything like that. Doesn't that give you nightmares?

But wait, there's more. We often get a twofer on abortions because along with infanticide there's something else. I don't know whether to call it genocide or simply racism. The abortion rate is highest among African-Americans, and in some American cities, more black babies are aborted than are born. You can read the shocking statistics here:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/21/j-kenneth-blackwell-black-abortions-a-crisis-in-am/.

What kind of nation have we become when we think something like this is a good thing? It reminds me of the people in the Bible sacrificing their children to Moloch! But a friend of mine at church says abortion is just a "wedge issue" in the political discussion.

I'm disappointed that this has become a "men-vs.-women" discussion. Unfortunately, that feeds into the perception suggested in the title of the topic.

It's also unfortunate that some have resorted to the labeling that has become a strategy at even the administrative levels of CRCNA. Should we ban such labels as anti-immigrant, anti-women, Christian right, and others that unfairly characterize individuals, and are just as hurtful as ethnic slurs, labels referring to sexual orientation, or disparaging references to one's religion? Such labels and the half-truths they convey are used by some politicians, but why here?

As the husband of a terrific woman (my dear wife for 57 years) and the adoptive father of two sweet babies who now are wonderful wives and mothers, I respect women. Participating in a discussion such as this one as I have shouldn't make a man feel obligated to say something like this, but I suspect that such participation may leave me indelibly labeled as one of the bad guys.

Does anyone wonder how many faithful, long-time CRC members feel that their views on issues of the day are not Christian from the perspective of the denominational leadership? I do.

Sorry if this is off-topic.