Ken: I think the more focused question is whether the CRCNA should, if it is, pitch an open border policy. The CRCNA has been public in affirming the need for "border security" but hasn't defined what that means. Further, the recurring and oft-repeated mantras from the CRCNA are two-fold: (1) we must "welcome the stranger," and (2) "immigrants are a blessing and not a burden."
These two mantras, combined with DoJustice articles, OSJ recommended books, and other CRCNA proclamations (e.g., a recent OSJ political action alert encouraged opposition to any increased border security funding in the upcoming federal budget). So much of what the CRCNA says "around the question" would cause many reasonable observers to conclude the CRCNA did support "open borders," even if it didn't directly say so. After all, how can your "welcome the stranger" (proposed as a biblical mandate) while not allowing them entrance into the United States? And if indeed, the singular thing we say about immigrants (legal or not) is that they are "a blessing and not a burden" then why would we want to exclude anyone? And why would you lobby your members to oppose an increase in border security funding in the upcoming federal budget?
There is an old but still valid saying: Government sponsored lotteries are just a sneaky tax on stupidity.
The good news is that any individual person can opt out of the tax. The bad news is that government sponsored lotteries are also a form of public education, and the lessons taught, as explained in part by this article, are not good at all but rather destructive.
Thank you for the valuable contribution Dan. Nuts and bolts considerations for local churches are, I believe, under-rated, until at least things threaten to collapse for failure to attend to nuts and bolts considerations.
A local church is a number of things, but one of them is an organization of multiple people. And any organization, churches not excluded, benefit from geeky work. I appreciate yours. :-)
Lou. I don't think I'm kidding myself at all. I think you are wrong about the motivation. Sponsoring the two Hmong families we sponsored advanced no anti-communist agenda that my church had or knew about. We were asked to sponsor Hmong refugee families. We said yes.
What has changed between then and now is that "processing" refugee families has become big business (even if big non-profit business). This reflects the general trend toward centralization (e.g., federalized home loan market which buys mortgages at subsidized rates from local banks and non-bank brokers).
Would my church sponsor a refugee family again if asked? I'd guess yes. Do I expect it will be asked to? Nope.
Now, if you ask whether my church would take in a refugee family that was here unlawfully (refugee by their own declaration only), that would be a different question, just as it would have been different had the Hmong families been smuggled here.
Border security is simply a foundational prerequisite to any system of immigration law excepting that of "open borders" ( that is, no regulation of immigration).
In the Reagan years, a fairly extensive amnesty was granted to unlawful immigrants in a promised two-step plan to then "secure the border." Sadly, step two just never happened (and we've been dealing with the dysfunctionality resulting from that in the decades since).
One of the biggest barriers to progress on this is evidenced by California's newly elected Governor Gavin Newsom, whose very recent announcement declared that his state would be open to all. Newsom is an "open borders" guy and not afraid to say it. Germany was that too not so long ago (but since has abandoned that perspective). Many more are also "open borders" advocates but are unwilling to simply say that. Instead, they argue about how a wall might not be the smart way to solve the problem, or that ICE should be abolished because it has been so mean, and then do nothing to secure the border (which is a de facto open border policy).
It is not Trumpian to say that if a nation doesn't regulate entrance to its geographical territory, it is, by definition, not a nation. Germany could do that only so long. If Newsom has the power to open California's border to all (which he may not), he could do that only so long without threatening California's existence as a political sub-entity (a state within a federalist nation).
Yes, it is complicated. Which is why repeating simple mantras like "welcome the stranger" and "immigrants are a blessing and not a burden" are less than constructive. Indeed, repeating mantras like that only increase the political polarization.
My local church did just that, Dan, in the late 1970's for two post-Vietnam war refugee families. This is the tradition of CRCers and CRC churches.
Where we (in the CRC) have departed since then is in two ways: (1) these days we focus much more on the political instead of the personal, trying, it would seem, to make government our proxy; (2) when we do things directly, we tend these days to do it with our own more centralized organizations instead of with our local churches or individual families within a local church.
I don't think "legitimate asylum seekers are being stereotyped as 'illegals' or criminals," Steve, at least by most people, on whatever side of the aisle.
The underlying reality, which may make it seem as you claim, is that most asylum claims, especially from south of the border, are in fact faux. Our immigration laws have created practical but unlawful avenues by which effective admission to the US can be achieved by (falsely) claiming the right to asylum, even if most of those claims are later (assuming claimants show up for later) not shown to be real.
Sure, the fact that so many asylum claims are faux will create for some a sterotype mindset, but the vast majority know there are legitimate asylum claims and asylum seekers. No substantial groups advocates against real asylum seekers, but faux claimants cause legitimate claimants to be hard to see and find.
Keep in mind that the definition of asylum is actually pretty narrow. There are many non-asylum seekers who notwithstanding seek to immigrant. The analysis there is more complex. And the real disagreement is about those people.
Laura: Again, I appreciate the replies, but it seems to me you aren't quite meeting my objections.
Your prior response based its argument on the injustice of burden, including in the case of bisexuals who may be simply burdened with the reduction of a numeric field from which they can choose their mates. In your most recent answer you say the burden for LGBTers is different because "I know I would live my life very differently if I lived with the idea that I might meet someone someday, vs being told I never could." Well, bi-sexuals, even those "less than 50/50," might meet a heterosexual mate someday, not? In that way they are no different than heterosexuals, except perhaps numerically. The bottom line is you are confirming you are relying on an "injustice of burden" argument.
And when gay marriage advocates (A1B and others) make an injustice of burden argument, they themselves, not the other side, open the door for comparison to polyamory, swinging, bestiality and the like, because the injustice of burden argument applies to those who favor those other practices.
In other words, I'm suggesting that gay marriage advocates (A1B and others) need to drop the injustice of burden argument if they don't want to invite the other side to legitimately compare to polyamory, swinging, bestiality and the like. The comparison is argumentatively appropriate so a posited injustice of burden argument.
To say this another way: You ask, "Why is same sex marriage the issue that 'opens the gate' to all other issues?" The answer is because same sex advocates use arguments that in fact "opens the gate" to all other issues. Again, same sex advocates need to drop arguments like the "burden argument" if they don't want to "open that gate."
To draw that out, if same sex marriage advocates would defend their position based only on scriptural exegesis, then a counter argument that says "what about polyamory, swinging and bestiality" would in fact be argumentatively "out of order." It doesn't mean there wouldn't still be an argument to be had, but the argument would be based on scriptural exegesis, not on relative burden.
I think I understand why same sex marriage advocates might choose to posit a multiplicity of arguments for their position. They probably think it is more effective if you posit more arguments. After all, who knows which arguments will be convincing to whom? But the downside of positing some of those arguments is that the argument in fact "opens the gate."
Hey, if A1B can convince me that gay marriage is consistent with what scripture has to say about marriage, A1B will in fact persuade me to come over to its side on this. But if A1B attempts to convince me that gay marriage should not be prohibited (by the church) because of the injustice of burden thereby imposed on LGBT persons, then I will bring up questions about polyamory, swinging, bestiality and the like because those are practices that would also be defended by the "injustice of the burden" argument.
OK Laura, I think our ability to converse about this has come to an end. From my perspective, you want to make an argument based on unjust burden but without then having to defend the logical consequences of that argument, those consequences being that using that argument opens the gates to approving other sexual practices.
I do find it ironic that you conclude that "polyamory, swinging, bestiality and the like" are not "part of a person's born identity," and that "born identity" is a pre-requisite for approving non-heterosexual marriage/sex. I suspect the "scientific conclusions" about the genetic predisposition for these other sexual inclinations are right around the corner; and certainly, there are no definitive studies I know of that say they are not.
I also find it puzzling that you repeat the claim that if bisexuals are prohibited from marrying they have been subjected to "forced celibacy." Relatively speaking, they simply aren't, at least if they are "50/50" bisexual. Indeed, if they are, heterosexuals are burdened by the disadvantage because they only have half the options compared to bisexuals.
Thanks for the conversation, even if we have made little progress. I've read quite a number of books and articles attempting to explain why sex sex marriage is consistent with scripture. I'm frankly quite unpersuaded. I was trying to explain, however, how using an additional argument (that of unjust burden) opens the door to responses SSM advocates don't like to deal with. It would seem that SSM advocates will continue to push the unjust burden argument, in which case they will met by the not-inappropriate argument that other sexual practices would also be justified by the unjust burden argument.
All smoking should be prohibited on church property. I haven't seen anyone smoke on my church's property for decades. I'm not sure it's formally banned but it probably doesn't have to be.
Using marijuana for medicinal purposes? Ok, fine, but still no smoking of it, or anything else, on church property. (By way of explanation, smoking invades the airspace of others).
As a side note, the medicinal elements of marijuana can be extracted and separated from those that create the "high." I know this from a highly qualified bio-chemist who had actually done this for family members for quite some time now. It can also be cultivated to diminish it as a "high producing" substance while not diminishing the medicinal effects.
In general, marijuana use as a mind altering substance should be viewed as roughly the same as the use of other substances (e.g., alcohol, cocaine, ritalin, other prescribed medications of all kinds, etc). If council believes a church member is using any substance to recreationally achieve mind alteration, it needs to pay attention to that person. In what way exactly? The answer to that question depends on a thousand or more variables. Human life is complicated.
One more point: from the perspective of US federal law, the sale and use of marijuana is not "legalized." That fact should not be ignored or overlooked.
Posted in: Immigration Justice Requires Border Security
Ken: I think the more focused question is whether the CRCNA should, if it is, pitch an open border policy. The CRCNA has been public in affirming the need for "border security" but hasn't defined what that means. Further, the recurring and oft-repeated mantras from the CRCNA are two-fold: (1) we must "welcome the stranger," and (2) "immigrants are a blessing and not a burden."
These two mantras, combined with DoJustice articles, OSJ recommended books, and other CRCNA proclamations (e.g., a recent OSJ political action alert encouraged opposition to any increased border security funding in the upcoming federal budget). So much of what the CRCNA says "around the question" would cause many reasonable observers to conclude the CRCNA did support "open borders," even if it didn't directly say so. After all, how can your "welcome the stranger" (proposed as a biblical mandate) while not allowing them entrance into the United States? And if indeed, the singular thing we say about immigrants (legal or not) is that they are "a blessing and not a burden" then why would we want to exclude anyone? And why would you lobby your members to oppose an increase in border security funding in the upcoming federal budget?
Posted in: Since When Does Winning $1.6 Billion Mean You’ve Made It?
There is an old but still valid saying: Government sponsored lotteries are just a sneaky tax on stupidity.
The good news is that any individual person can opt out of the tax. The bad news is that government sponsored lotteries are also a form of public education, and the lessons taught, as explained in part by this article, are not good at all but rather destructive.
Posted in: Assessing Congregational Volunteer Capacity: A Few factors and Limits
Thank you for the valuable contribution Dan. Nuts and bolts considerations for local churches are, I believe, under-rated, until at least things threaten to collapse for failure to attend to nuts and bolts considerations.
A local church is a number of things, but one of them is an organization of multiple people. And any organization, churches not excluded, benefit from geeky work. I appreciate yours. :-)
Posted in: Immigration Justice Requires Border Security
Lou. I don't think I'm kidding myself at all. I think you are wrong about the motivation. Sponsoring the two Hmong families we sponsored advanced no anti-communist agenda that my church had or knew about. We were asked to sponsor Hmong refugee families. We said yes.
What has changed between then and now is that "processing" refugee families has become big business (even if big non-profit business). This reflects the general trend toward centralization (e.g., federalized home loan market which buys mortgages at subsidized rates from local banks and non-bank brokers).
Would my church sponsor a refugee family again if asked? I'd guess yes. Do I expect it will be asked to? Nope.
Now, if you ask whether my church would take in a refugee family that was here unlawfully (refugee by their own declaration only), that would be a different question, just as it would have been different had the Hmong families been smuggled here.
Posted in: "How Could We Say 'No?'" Gateway CRC Responds to Need for Homeless Shelter
I absolutely love this approach to "dealing with the homeless." Kudos to Gateway CRC (and 5 and 2 Ministries).
Can you imagine how much the world would change if more churches did this? This is Micah 6:8 in raw action.
Posted in: Immigration Justice Requires Border Security
Border security is simply a foundational prerequisite to any system of immigration law excepting that of "open borders" ( that is, no regulation of immigration).
In the Reagan years, a fairly extensive amnesty was granted to unlawful immigrants in a promised two-step plan to then "secure the border." Sadly, step two just never happened (and we've been dealing with the dysfunctionality resulting from that in the decades since).
One of the biggest barriers to progress on this is evidenced by California's newly elected Governor Gavin Newsom, whose very recent announcement declared that his state would be open to all. Newsom is an "open borders" guy and not afraid to say it. Germany was that too not so long ago (but since has abandoned that perspective). Many more are also "open borders" advocates but are unwilling to simply say that. Instead, they argue about how a wall might not be the smart way to solve the problem, or that ICE should be abolished because it has been so mean, and then do nothing to secure the border (which is a de facto open border policy).
It is not Trumpian to say that if a nation doesn't regulate entrance to its geographical territory, it is, by definition, not a nation. Germany could do that only so long. If Newsom has the power to open California's border to all (which he may not), he could do that only so long without threatening California's existence as a political sub-entity (a state within a federalist nation).
Yes, it is complicated. Which is why repeating simple mantras like "welcome the stranger" and "immigrants are a blessing and not a burden" are less than constructive. Indeed, repeating mantras like that only increase the political polarization.
Posted in: Immigration Justice Requires Border Security
My local church did just that, Dan, in the late 1970's for two post-Vietnam war refugee families. This is the tradition of CRCers and CRC churches.
Where we (in the CRC) have departed since then is in two ways: (1) these days we focus much more on the political instead of the personal, trying, it would seem, to make government our proxy; (2) when we do things directly, we tend these days to do it with our own more centralized organizations instead of with our local churches or individual families within a local church.
I favor the more distant CRC tradition on this.
Posted in: Immigration Justice Requires Border Security
I don't think "legitimate asylum seekers are being stereotyped as 'illegals' or criminals," Steve, at least by most people, on whatever side of the aisle.
The underlying reality, which may make it seem as you claim, is that most asylum claims, especially from south of the border, are in fact faux. Our immigration laws have created practical but unlawful avenues by which effective admission to the US can be achieved by (falsely) claiming the right to asylum, even if most of those claims are later (assuming claimants show up for later) not shown to be real.
Sure, the fact that so many asylum claims are faux will create for some a sterotype mindset, but the vast majority know there are legitimate asylum claims and asylum seekers. No substantial groups advocates against real asylum seekers, but faux claimants cause legitimate claimants to be hard to see and find.
Keep in mind that the definition of asylum is actually pretty narrow. There are many non-asylum seekers who notwithstanding seek to immigrant. The analysis there is more complex. And the real disagreement is about those people.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Laura: Again, I appreciate the replies, but it seems to me you aren't quite meeting my objections.
Your prior response based its argument on the injustice of burden, including in the case of bisexuals who may be simply burdened with the reduction of a numeric field from which they can choose their mates. In your most recent answer you say the burden for LGBTers is different because "I know I would live my life very differently if I lived with the idea that I might meet someone someday, vs being told I never could." Well, bi-sexuals, even those "less than 50/50," might meet a heterosexual mate someday, not? In that way they are no different than heterosexuals, except perhaps numerically. The bottom line is you are confirming you are relying on an "injustice of burden" argument.
And when gay marriage advocates (A1B and others) make an injustice of burden argument, they themselves, not the other side, open the door for comparison to polyamory, swinging, bestiality and the like, because the injustice of burden argument applies to those who favor those other practices.
In other words, I'm suggesting that gay marriage advocates (A1B and others) need to drop the injustice of burden argument if they don't want to invite the other side to legitimately compare to polyamory, swinging, bestiality and the like. The comparison is argumentatively appropriate so a posited injustice of burden argument.
To say this another way: You ask, "Why is same sex marriage the issue that 'opens the gate' to all other issues?" The answer is because same sex advocates use arguments that in fact "opens the gate" to all other issues. Again, same sex advocates need to drop arguments like the "burden argument" if they don't want to "open that gate."
To draw that out, if same sex marriage advocates would defend their position based only on scriptural exegesis, then a counter argument that says "what about polyamory, swinging and bestiality" would in fact be argumentatively "out of order." It doesn't mean there wouldn't still be an argument to be had, but the argument would be based on scriptural exegesis, not on relative burden.
I think I understand why same sex marriage advocates might choose to posit a multiplicity of arguments for their position. They probably think it is more effective if you posit more arguments. After all, who knows which arguments will be convincing to whom? But the downside of positing some of those arguments is that the argument in fact "opens the gate."
Hey, if A1B can convince me that gay marriage is consistent with what scripture has to say about marriage, A1B will in fact persuade me to come over to its side on this. But if A1B attempts to convince me that gay marriage should not be prohibited (by the church) because of the injustice of burden thereby imposed on LGBT persons, then I will bring up questions about polyamory, swinging, bestiality and the like because those are practices that would also be defended by the "injustice of the burden" argument.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Thanks Joseph. The "B" I was referring to was not "Side B" but the "B" in LGBT.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
OK Laura, I think our ability to converse about this has come to an end. From my perspective, you want to make an argument based on unjust burden but without then having to defend the logical consequences of that argument, those consequences being that using that argument opens the gates to approving other sexual practices.
I do find it ironic that you conclude that "polyamory, swinging, bestiality and the like" are not "part of a person's born identity," and that "born identity" is a pre-requisite for approving non-heterosexual marriage/sex. I suspect the "scientific conclusions" about the genetic predisposition for these other sexual inclinations are right around the corner; and certainly, there are no definitive studies I know of that say they are not.
I also find it puzzling that you repeat the claim that if bisexuals are prohibited from marrying they have been subjected to "forced celibacy." Relatively speaking, they simply aren't, at least if they are "50/50" bisexual. Indeed, if they are, heterosexuals are burdened by the disadvantage because they only have half the options compared to bisexuals.
Thanks for the conversation, even if we have made little progress. I've read quite a number of books and articles attempting to explain why sex sex marriage is consistent with scripture. I'm frankly quite unpersuaded. I was trying to explain, however, how using an additional argument (that of unjust burden) opens the door to responses SSM advocates don't like to deal with. It would seem that SSM advocates will continue to push the unjust burden argument, in which case they will met by the not-inappropriate argument that other sexual practices would also be justified by the unjust burden argument.
Posted in: Is Your Church Ready for Legalized Pot?
Ok, I'll bite. :-)
All smoking should be prohibited on church property. I haven't seen anyone smoke on my church's property for decades. I'm not sure it's formally banned but it probably doesn't have to be.
Using marijuana for medicinal purposes? Ok, fine, but still no smoking of it, or anything else, on church property. (By way of explanation, smoking invades the airspace of others).
As a side note, the medicinal elements of marijuana can be extracted and separated from those that create the "high." I know this from a highly qualified bio-chemist who had actually done this for family members for quite some time now. It can also be cultivated to diminish it as a "high producing" substance while not diminishing the medicinal effects.
In general, marijuana use as a mind altering substance should be viewed as roughly the same as the use of other substances (e.g., alcohol, cocaine, ritalin, other prescribed medications of all kinds, etc). If council believes a church member is using any substance to recreationally achieve mind alteration, it needs to pay attention to that person. In what way exactly? The answer to that question depends on a thousand or more variables. Human life is complicated.
One more point: from the perspective of US federal law, the sale and use of marijuana is not "legalized." That fact should not be ignored or overlooked.