Will Liberal Churches Accept Refugees??

[HAPPY2BME]

Published on Feb 20, 2017

Progressive churches demand that we accept refugees with open arms. So in good faith we gave them all a call to see just how many refugees they could house.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9zIzIePjpo[/youtube]

[FlaGator]

A lot of non Liberal Churches support the acceptance and protection of refugees.

[HAPPY2BME]

A lot of non Liberal Churches support the acceptance and protection of refugees.

=================================

Names and places?

[FlaGator]

I am a member of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) that broke away from the Episcopal Church because of it's liberal agenda. We are very, very conservative and it is the belief of the ACNA that the refugees that are truly fleeing persecution need to be allowed in to the US.

http://www.anglicanchurch.net/?/main/page/1391

The conservatives in the Catholic church
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/immigration/churchteachingonimmigrationreform.cfm

The United Church of Christ
http://www.ucc.org/justice_immigration

Can't get much more conservative than the Southern Baptists
http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/1213

Pretty much all Churches, conservative and liberal, are in support of protecting and defending immigrants and refugees. Now Fred Phelps' Westbro Baptist Church might be against immigration but I didn't want to dirty myself by visiting their site.

[SVPete]

I am a member of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) that broke away from the Episcopal Church because of it's liberal agenda. We are very, very conservative and it is the belief of the ACNA that the refugees that are truly fleeing persecution need to be allowed in to the US.

http://www.anglicanchurch.net/?/main/page/1391

The conservatives in the Catholic church
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/immigration/churchteachingonimmigrationreform.cfm

The United Church of Christ
http://www.ucc.org/justice_immigration

Can't get much more conservative than the Southern Baptists
http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/1213

Pretty much all Churches, conservative and liberal, are in support of protecting and defending immigrants and refugees. Now Fred Phelps' Westbro Baptist Church might be against immigration but I didn't want to dirty myself by visiting their site.

A bit of a quibble, 'The United Church of Christ" is very far from being theologically conservative. That's the denomination to which Jeremiah Wright and the Obamas belong(ed).

I see a distinction in what you and H2BM are speaking of. In their public professions, at least, theologically liberal churches speak of all claiming to be refugees as refugees deserving acceptance and entrance. You spoke of "refugees that are truly fleeing persecution", and I agree that most/all theologically conservative would be on board with providing refuge for them.

[FlaGator]

A bit of a quibble, 'The United Church of Christ" is very far from being theologically conservative. That's the denomination to which Jeremiah Wright and the Obamas belong(ed).

I see a distinction in what you and H2BM are speaking of. In their public professions, at least, theologically liberal churches speak of all claiming to be refugees as refugees deserving acceptance and entrance. You spoke of "refugees that are truly fleeing persecution", and I agree that most/all theologically conservative would be on board with providing refuge for them.

I was looking for The Church of Christ, the Pentecostal denomination but picked the wrong one. Most of the denominations I looked up seem to support open borders, both conservative and liberal. The main difference I've found is that the conservatives acknowledge the the laws and enforcement of those laws should be respected by the churches and the liberals ones find it acceptable to defy the authorities. Both sides appeal to scripture as the source of their stance but the revisionist churches are known for playing fast and loose with scriptual interpretation.

[freedumb2003b]

I am a member of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) that broke away from the Episcopal Church because of it's liberal agenda. We are very, very conservative and it is the belief of the ACNA that the refugees that are truly fleeing persecution need to be allowed in to the US.

http://www.anglicanchurch.net/?/main/page/1391

The conservatives in the Catholic church
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/immigration/churchteachingonimmigrationreform.cfm

The United Church of Christ
http://www.ucc.org/justice_immigration

Can't get much more conservative than the Southern Baptists
http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/1213

Pretty much all Churches, conservative and liberal, are in support of protecting and defending immigrants and refugees. Now Fred Phelps' Westbro Baptist Church might be against immigration but I didn't want to dirty myself by visiting their site.

And of course their parishioners have all signed up to individually house, feed and clothe refugees.

Like you, right?

[FunkyZero]

=================================

Names and places?

The Catholic Church is a huge promoter of the refugee scam... just to name one

http://bfy.tw/AENM

[HAPPY2BME]

And of course their parishioners have all signed up to individually house, feed and clothe refugees.

Like you, right?

=====================================

At least he's being honest about it. 

Jesus Christ: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's"  

I tend to believe that Scripture teaches us to obey the law of the land we are planted in, insofar as they does not contradict what is taught there also.

I find nothing in Scripture that teaches a border is an abomination to God. 

"Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people."

[Eupher]

I think the larger issue is allowing those who purport to be refugees into the country in the first place. Once they're here, they're here. You can house them in your house, a church, or under a bridge in a cardboard box if you like, but the fact remains they are here.

It's very difficult to round them up once they go underground, unless they get caught doing something stupid.

We have seen ample evidence of what happens when bleeding heart liberals in Germany and Sweden allow certain refugees into their country. No respect for the rule of law, no respect for private property ownership, no respect for anything at all other than what they want. They'll lie, cheat, steal, beat people up, terrorize their benefactors, all because some of them are truly persecuted.

I think it's naivete personified.

[FlaGator]

And of course their parishioners have all signed up to individually house, feed and clothe refugees.

Like you, right?

I have my own opinions of illegal immigration and the fair treatment of refugees. I would have thought that it was pretty obvious where I stand. I guess not.

[SVPete]

I was looking for The Church of Christ, the Pentecostal denomination but picked the wrong one. Most of the denominations I looked up seem to support open borders, both conservative and liberal. The main difference I've found is that the conservatives acknowledge the the laws and enforcement of those laws should be respected by the churches and the liberals ones find it acceptable to defy the authorities. Both sides appeal to scripture as the source of their stance but the revisionist churches are known for playing fast and loose with scriptual interpretation.

=====================================

At least he's being honest about it. 

Jesus Christ: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's"  

I tend to believe that Scripture teaches us to obey the law of the land we are planted in, insofar as they does not contradict what is taught there also.

I find nothing in Scripture that teaches a border is an abomination to God. 

"Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people."

The curious thing is that the very Scriptures to which the theologically liberal appeal - buffet style, picking what they like at the moment while ignoring or denigrating the rest - recognize a distinction between a nation (ancient Israel) and those not of the nation. Those not of Israel were referred to (in various English translations) as "strangers", "foreigners", or "sojourners".  And while the same law applied to Israelites and "sojourners", that law distinguished between citizens of Israel in regard to some rights and obligations.

What the theologically liberal either don't know or ignore - since they treat the Bible buffet style - is that the same writings of Moses to which they appeal also recognize national territories. Israel was forbidden to attempt to conquer the territories of Moab and Ammon. Further, Israel was instructed to request permission of the kings of those nations to cross through their territories, under the obligation to pay for any food consumed, any damage done, etc.. IOW, the Bible recognizes nations, territories and boundaries, and nations' rights to control their territories. Moab and Ammon both refused the requested permission, and Israel respected that refusal and those nations' territories.

Looked at as an entire entity, the Books of Moses are rather remarkable. An unorganized people group who were powerless slaves in a foreign land were delivered from that slavery and given a national history and identity, a national religion and culture, and a body of laws.

[SVPete]

I have my own opinions of illegal immigration and the fair treatment of refugees. I would have thought that it was pretty obvious where I stand. I guess not.

There is a range of views about "refugees" and immigration, from "Oh, Hell no!" (none at all) to those who believe such laws and borders are immoral. Refusing the acknowledge this, conflating that range of views, or ascribing to someone views they don't hold is less than honest. You've been clear. You favor immigration subject to laws, and are willing to assist true refugees who have been properly admitted to the country through non-governmental means.

[FlaGator]

There is a range of views about "refugees" and immigration, from "Oh, Hell no!" (none at all) to those who believe such laws and borders are immoral. Refusing the acknowledge this, conflating that range of views, or ascribing to someone views they don't hold is less than honest. You've been clear. You favor immigration subject to laws, and are willing to assist true refugees who have been properly admitted to the country through non-governmental means.

Thank you. That is exactly my view of the issue.

[FunkyZero]

Thank you. That is exactly my view of the issue.

I don't see this as a conflict.
In my eyes, we should take *some* true refugees. As far as immigration, it should be limited to the people with skills that WE want and need, and that should be restricted tightly as well.
We have a pretty decent system that matches most of those criteria, except they are not being enforced for the most part, and US business is being allowed to sway the law in regards to things like the H1B programs.

[FlaGator]

I believe that we should take and help the refugees who really need help. The ones experiencing persecution and genocide. Those should be first. Second are economic refugees and their numbers should be controlled as to not stress employment number of citizens. Also economic refuges should not be provided benefits from tax payers. There are plenty of charitable organizations that are capable of helping out when needed. This would be a good area in which churches could operate to provide assistance to those in need. Economic refugees who are not seeking citizenship should be deported if they go with out a job for predetermined length of time. Economic refugees who are seeking citizenship should have their cases reviewed if the go with out a job for a predetermined period of time. If the are found to be mooching on the kindness of charitable organizations then they are to be deported. Refugees who are seeking to escape persecution should be returned to their home country when the situation that caused the to run is resolved. If they wish to stay they should be considered economic refugees and be treated as such. All should be able to speak English fluently and be able to write in English before becoming citizens. They should be prepared accept American culture as their primary culture.

I think this structure would be fair to both refugees and immigrants and would go along ways to integrating them into American culture without requiring them to sacrifice the own cultural practices in their homes.

It's a start.