How far does the Christian duty to help others go?
[NOTE: I have a busy day today and not too much time for blogging at the moment; maybe more later. This is a huge topic and one requiring a fair amount of research to treat properly in a post.
This is not that post. This is a quick introduction to the question.]
A great many Christians seem to be arguing that we Westerners have a duty to accept all the refugees coming from war-torn countries such as Syria, or those in economic distress such as illegal immigrants from Mexico, whether the “we” be individuals here or in Europe. I’ve read many such arguments on blogs in posts and comments, and have seen them offered by talking heads on TV.
To me as a non-Christian, it is a puzzling argument. To me it seems that the prescription to give to charity, to help the needy, never requires that one help all the needy to the point of beggaring yourself. Nor does it require putting yourself in personal jeopardy. In other words, although Christianity has long admired the saintliness of martyrdom, it does not require it of individuals and certainly not of societies.
There is a saying, “charity begins at home” that has these origins:
The notion that a man’s family should be his foremost concern is expressed in 1 Timothy 5:8, King James Bible, 1611:
But if any prouide not for his owne, & specially for those of his owne house, hee hath denied the faith, and is worse then an infidel.
John Wyclif had expressed the same idea as early as 1382, in Of Prelates, reprinted in English Works, 1880:
Charite schuld bigyne at hem-self.
So it seems clear that helping everyone in need is not possible in the real world. Nor does helping people require that you take them into your own home, either in small numbers or large.
Another principle to remember is that generally any behavior that is rewarded will increase in frequency. So, issue an open invitation to your house saying that all who come will be fed and clothed there and given money, and see what happens if you broadcast it throughout the entire world.
In the case of immigrants from a country such as Syria, the current refugee crisis is a golden opportunity for a significant number of terrorists to come in among them. The more immigrants arrive the more difficult it will be to properly vet them (if indeed there’s any effort at all to do so). In addition, a great number of bona fide refugees fleeing a harsh situation in Syria are nevertheless sworn to the cultural and religious overthrow of the West through the demographic change of which they will be part.
So, how far does your obligation to help go, and to accept the stranger into your home? Does it extend to those who want to take over your dwelling?
I am not completely familiar with the tenets of Christianity, to be sure. But I can’t imagine that it requires such self-destruction in the name of good. To me, it seems that limits are necessary, and the proper topic for debate is the question of where to draw those limits.
Kurds, Copts (Syrian Christians) and Yazidis == good.
Sunni and Shiite = not great.
Take the ones that are a net plus to America.
If we need room for them, deport the South American and Mexican illegal aliens.
According to Barack, we are not a Christian nation.
Therefore we have no duty.
That was easy.
“To me as a non-Christian, it is a puzzling argument.”
That is because you are listening to your Christian friends that are also progressive by philosophy… and they are not claiming that based upon Christian beliefs but by their mixed up secular/religion that they have used to replace Biblical Christianity.
The pressure put on Christians to take in immigrants feels the same as the pressure Obama applies to Christians to support the ever-growing host of entitlements and socialist dreams like Obamacare (“brother’s keeper” blah blah blah).
On the one hand, we’re lectured to confine our religion to Sunday worship for things like same-sex marriage and abortion, yet when it pleases progressives, we’re supposed to pretend that it drives policy issues related to immigration and care for the poor.
I think charity is best when it is private and local, not through government. So for immigration, I would, as a Christian, support private religious organizations that are already assisting these refuges in their home country (or camps nearby). For example, Mother Theresa didn’t invite the poor of Calcutta to Vatican City, she lived among them and helped them where they were. There are charitable organizations, religious and secular, already able to assist.
*Note: What the Left doesn’t want to acknowledge is that helping them at home isn’t an option because Christian missionaries (and those they employ) are being slaughtered by religious people of another stripe. But they never get around to lecturing Muslims they should take care of their own, do they? (see: Palestinians)
They aren’t Christians, they are leftists. They love to help somebody by giving them the shirt off your back. They believe that spending other peoples money doing good is an act of charity.
I agree with you completely, Neo. However, if we or anyone else are to save these people, are there no isolated spots where large numbers can be accomodated comfortably with the clear understanding that this is done only until the situation in their home countries is deemed safe and that absolutely no “rights” are extended no matter how long the stay? Of course, the place that comes to mind first is Guantanamo! Since there is good reason to believe that the hand-back of the island to Cuba is in the works, how would that be for irony? – leftists would scream bloody murder (at the refugee settlement, not the hand-back). Further, there might also have to be some separate colonies to protect, for example, Christians. In today’s world the crazies would rather punish and destroy the West and anything so kind hearted as the above would be scorned as ……..(fill in the blank).
But they never get around to lecturing Muslims they should take care of their own, do they? (see: Palestinians)
Why Syrians are fleeing to Europe (and not to Arab countries):
The answer to that lies in the ‘Palestinians.’
The Syrians can see how the ‘Palestinians’ have been treated by their Arab brethren for the last 67 years. They are confined to ‘refugee camps.’ In most Arab countries, they do not hold citizenship, cannot travel, cannot hold any job that requires any kind of license and do not live in permanent housing. Instead, they are left to languish to await the (God Forbid) demise of the State of Israel.
Many of the Syrian refugees are likely ‘Palestinians.’…
[insert demented laughter]
Let’s not kid ourselves.
Nobody is vetting anybody.
And the overwhelming percentage of ‘migrants’ are MILITARY AGED MALE MUSLIMS.
From the official Catholic perspective.
In January, 2003, the U.S. bishops issued the pastoral letter, Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope. U.S. bishops articulated five principles which govern how the Church responds to public policy proposals.
1. Persons have the right to find opportunities in their homeland.
2. Persons have the right to migrate to support themselves and their families.
3. Sovereign nations have a right to control their borders.
The Church recognizes the right of the sovereign to protect and control its borders in the service
of the common good of its citizens. However, this is not an absolute right. Nations also have
an obligation to the universal common good, as articulated by Pope John XXII in Pacem in
Terris, and thus should seek to accommodate migration to the greatest extent possible. Powerful
economic nations, such as the United States, have a higher obligation to serve the universal
common good. In the current global environment, in which there are jobs in the United States
which immigrants fill, the United States should establish an immigration system which provides
legal avenues for persons to enter the nation legally in a safe, orderly, and dignified manner.
4. Refugees and asylum seekers should be afforded protection.
5. The human rights and the human dignity of undocumented migrants should be respected.
Persons who enter a nation without permission should be treated with respect and dignity. They
should not be detained in deplorable conditions for lengthy periods of time, shackled by their feet
and hands, or abused in any manner. They should be afforded due process of the law and
allowed to articulate a fear of return to their home before a qualified adjudicator. They should
not be blamed for the social ills of a nation.
As to #3, I am assuming that “seek to accommodate migration to the greatest extent possible” does not necessitate fundamentally altering the meaning of ‘common good’ and ‘citizens’. I’m also assuming bankrupts, whether individual or sovereign nations (such as the U S) are under no obligation to borrow from the future to pay for the present let alone comfort the world’s fastest growing demographic – victims.
As to #5, it does not say they must be, ultimately, accommodated.
And I hereby acknowledge that a great many Catholic bishops have been lately waxing as rapturously as some of our whacko SCOTUS pontificators… so beware deeper meanings from darker places.
neo-neocon, I have to agree with jack burton.
Progressives act as if Catholic social justice teaching allows one to only arrive at a particular conclusion. And all Catholics must arrive at the same conclusion.
These are the same progressives who would argue Catholics can have different opinions on abortion.
In fact, the opposite is the case. Catholic social justice teachings allow people of good will to arrive at a host of different conclusions. It is not a suicide pact.
While abortion is always intrinsically evil.
My Catholic upbringing leads me to believe that the Christian thing to do would be to take action against the violence and injustice that is causing the refugee crisis to begin with. At the source. That would be the moral course.
To do otherwise, to sign up for national suicide, would be to consent to evil destroying two countries. The nation that is producing the refugees, and the nation that must absorb them.
This is madness, not Christianity.
“I think charity is best when it is private and local, not through government.”
This is the word: subsidiarity
/sÉ™bËŒsɪdɪˈé¦rɪtɪ/ noun
1. (in the Roman Catholic Church) a principle of social doctrine that all social bodies exist for the sake of the individual so that what individuals are able to do, society should not take over, and what small societies can do, larger societies should not take over
2. (in political systems) the principle of devolving decisions to the lowest practical level
Legal migrants need a sponsor and are not allowed to be on the Federal dole, but that law has been bypassed. People-of-illegal-immigration-status are put on the dole. Having a sponsor means the lowest level is helping one person. If the idea is to destroy the country, by all means, bring in as many as possible.
In general, and based on centuries of historical evidence, Muslims are not keen on assimilation. Surely they could go to Muslim majority countries. But Muslims aren’t all that great at this charity thang, as witness the plight of the Palestinians.
I’m quite sure that if I called my local Bishop I would find that his home is locked at night, and I’m not welcome to sleep on his sofa or snack from his refrigerator. We are asked to be generous and support widows and orphans. We are not asked to beggar ourselves.
The pattern of Muslim infiltration is consistently clear. With a low percentage of the population, they appear to assimilate. As the proportion grows, so to do demands for Muslim things: that taxi drivers not have to drive people with alcohol, or halal food in the prisons, and so on.
neo: ” To me it seems that the prescription to give to charity, to help the needy, never requires that one help all the needy to the point of beggaring yourself.”
When the charitable have beggared themselves, who will provide for the needy?
Charity should always be a hand up, not a hand out. Give a man a fish and you keep him alive for another day. Teach a man to fish and you allow him to feed himself. The Christian world has mostly got that wrong.
I have been involved in Christian charity organizations on the local level. Unfortunately, many Christians are performing charitable works as a way to assuage their guilt about their good fortune or as “works” to buy their way into Heaven. Not many see their role as instruments of change to show the needy how to help themselves.
Christian missionaries to Africa began as a move to bring the Good News to the benighted savages. However, once they observed the poverty, they soon seized upon the idea of bringing the natives food, medicine, potable water, and better shelter. The UN and other NGOs have also gotten into the act, which has resulted in an explosion of the population in Africa. (Even in the face of the AIDs epidemic.) This population explosion has produced a continent where most countries cannot feed themselves and have no prospect of doing so until, by some miracle, they adopt the ways of the Western world. This issue is well described in the book, “Dark Star Safari,” by Paul Theroux.
Much of the chaos in MENA is due to the struggle over resources and the battle between Islam and other religions. Thus, the movement of people looking for salvation from what was once a bad situation made worse by an output of Western charity and the intolerance of Islam.
The U.S. is all but broke now. Unlimited acceptance of refugees who bring nothing but need to our shores will quickly dissipate our ability to provide any charity. For without success and wealth, there can be no charity, only an existential struggle over diminishing resources and the sustenance of life. Too many, both liberals and Christians do not grasp this concept.
they never get around to lecturing Muslims they should take care of their own, do they?
The majority of Syrian refugees are living in Jordan and Lebanon. Jordan’s Za’atari refugee camp is home to approximately 81,500 Syrians.
More details on the Syrian crisis here.
I’m so very far from having any sympathy for the “thinking” and selective emotive blackmail of these posers and liars on the Left that it’s hard for me to bother to respond anymore other than with ad hominems, as such represents my most sincere first second and third thoughts.
Ann, I agree – what about the Middle East itself? What are the neighboring countries, I am looking at the Gulf States whose butts we have saved, doing to help? The Gulf states have the money to take in, feed, cloth, and house some of these refugees.
So, instead of donating money through bogus charities which are really fronts for terrorists, how about those Gulf States do something real for a change?
In my opinion, they do OWE us something.
“To me as a non-Christian, it is a puzzling argument. To me it seems that the prescription to give to charity, to help the needy, never requires that one help all the needy to the point of beggaring yourself.” (Sigh.)
I blame Kant. Because Nietzsche, via Ayn Rand, was correct.
Another enemy is Auguste Comte, who coined the term “altruism.”
A buddy of mine is in the thick of writing a history of the idea of altruism, from the point of view of Comte.
He’s a ex-Christian, doing his own translations from six languages – it’s a formidable effort, and future academic best-seller.
Why is this history so important? Because all the social sciences and some natural ones like biology use the concept a lot – but heedless of the many varying usages of “altruism,” much less the changes over time.
My most basic object to Christians is that altruism destroys the root of having anything worthy at all. Epistemologically, one must be and do for oneself before one gains anything worth sharing. Thus, the self must come first.
Too many well-meaning but dangerous Christians cannot think their way out of the Christ’s Kierkegaardian sacrificial lamb dumbness.
The worship of self-destructiveness perpetuates destruction.
From Here’s why rich Arab Gulf states won’t welcome Syrian refugees:
The “charity is a Christian duty to all needy” argument is one made by the atheistic Left to hoist Christians on their own petards, much like Islam uses the First Amendment against us in the US in order to infiltrate and destroy in the name of Allah and the “rights” of the Ummah.
But you have to love the “migrants” in Hungary and elsewhere. They have their eyes set on the Euro Horn of Plenty, aka Germany, and some of these have threatened a hunger strike unless they get to Germany! You can’t make this sh*t up!
@Ann
The majority of Syrian refugees are living in Jordan and Lebanon.
Jordan or Lebanon are basically the same population than Syria. Frontiers were artificial constructs that don’t reflect the reality. Talking about Syria and Jordan is like talking about Pennsylvania and Virginia.
You won’t see Arabia Saudi, Qatar, Iran, or other similar Muslim countries taking the most of refugees.
Liberalism is a Christian heresy, which makes it difficult to discuss the issue, as so much time must be devoted to making sure we all mean the same things with our terms. Especially as many of the Christians readily and unthinkingly adopt the liberal secular definitions of terms.
There is no evidence that Jesus’s intent was for his followers to try and influence the Roman government – or even the Jewish authorities – to be just, or generous, or merciful. Out obligation to those God has put in our path is enormous, even unto death or impoverishment. Governments, even well-meaning ones, stepping in to explain to us how that should best happen is not their function. They are at best a sort of intrusive adviser and at worst a disguised theocratic substitute.
Neo said:
“I am not completely familiar with the tenets of Christianity, to be sure. But I can’t imagine that it requires such self-destruction in the name of good.”
In my opinion Neo does as good job in describing Christian theology as anyone else. The problem in defining Christian theology is that it is so diverse. Since the Protestant Reformation which promotes the “priesthood of all believers” there is no single authoritative source for orthodox theology.
The left has taken Christian theology out of context and have established a secular (godless) replacement for Christianity which has ripped Christian charity and social justice out of its context and have distorted them to an ugly caricature of the original Christian doctrines.
In the book of ACTS, the early believers sold fields, etc. and shared their possessions amongst themselves to help spread the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They weren’t blindly giving handouts and asylum\shelter to people looking to take advantage of them, or who had no desire to share their beliefs.
When Jesus spoke to the young rich man and told him to, “sell all of your possessions and give to the poor”, he was speaking to a fellow Jew, and following the tenets of Judaism, Jesus would have known that the young man understood that to mean helping fellow Jews. Yes, Christians have a duty to help the poor, suffering, refugees, etc. but also to make judgments about good & evil, and help increase the spiritual well-being of those around them (or travel and spread the Gospel. AKA The Great Commission). Allowing legions of law-breaking people who practice a false religion that encourages the murder of Christians & Jews is totally insane, and would have been viewed that way by the Apostles. Loving your enemies does not mean you make it easier for them to destroy you. Love involves being willing to express displeasure when Truth is trampled on.
Remember, Jehovah\Yaweh is a God of Law & Order who takes both those things very seriously. He will more-than-likely judge those refugees for failing to do their part in securing their own homes and causing others to pick up their mess. Look at all the military aged males who aren’t fighting! It is a disgrace!
And I seriously doubt it is just liberal Christians who are saying we have to let them all in. The Christian right gets a lot wrong too, especially immigration policy. Orderly systems are required. The poor have their responsibilities too. Fleeing and illegally entering countries is not a way to engender support empathy from the citizens of your new home. The Christians that stayed behind in Iran and other Muslim countries (albeit a small number, but true believers) are helping to spark a revolution of mass conversion in those countries. The true face of Islam is being revealed, and God is raising up a standard against it. Much blood will be shed in the end, but true believing, born-again Christians (like myself) understand that this is part of the deal when you are working to subvert Satan.
Personally, I discriminate when it comes to who and where I am willing to donate to those in need, and where I volunteer my time locally. I can feel pity for the children in this sorry exodus, but over all my inclination is to turn all of them away. When you believe in things you don’t understand you suffer and that suffering extends to your women and children. Time to give social devolution a chance.
“So, how far does your obligation to help go, and to accept the stranger into your home? Does it extend to those who want to take over your dwelling? ”
No.
“Be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.”
Also, “The poor you will always have with you.”
Liberalism is a Christian heresy, which makes it difficult to discuss the issue, as so much time must be devoted to making sure we all mean the same things with our terms. Especially as many of the Christians readily and unthinkingly adopt the liberal secular definitions of terms.
Bingo!
My cousin’s husband is of German ancestry with deep roots in Germany. They have led a Reformation tour to Germany for many years. I was privileged to accompany them on one of their tours. The conclusions I took away from the tour were much different from those my cousin and her husband were trying to present. The German Christians whom we met told us is that there are almost no practicing Protestant Christians in Germany and that there are only a few Catholics. The sections of Germany in which Martin Luther was most active are the most Godless parts of Germany. Luther did unleash the creative genius of Europe but much of the creative genius he released was very destructive. He himself was often quite crude in his speech and he was very hateful towards those whom he regarded as his enemies.
German universities were the primary source of higher Biblical criticism beginning in a big way in the mid 18th century and continuing relentlessly until the present. Higher Biblical criticism presents itself as a “historical” or “scientific” approach to understanding the Bible which means that anything miraculous is automatically discounted a priori. While that approach is perfectly valid if the assumptions are properly stated from the beginning, the higher Biblical critics usually hid their starting premises and then presented their skeptical conclusions as if they were breakthrough discoveries derived from the data rather than what they really were a restatement of their assumptions which they held when they went into the study.
Angelia Merkel herself is the daughter of a Protestant pastor, so she clearly has some understanding of Christian theology. However, her claim that German Christians must take in Muslim settlers because that is Christian theology is obviously an innovation which has no relationship with historical Christian belief. After the initial onslaught by Muslims across the Middle East, North Africa, and Spain the Christian nations had no religious qualms in battling Islamic aggression relentlessly and in protecting their citizens from the rape, plunder, and murder which are intrinsic to the Koran and Hadiths. The New Testament was written when the Roman Empire was at the height of its power. Christians had no inkling that someday they would be in power so they did not produce any blueprints for a national government. Thus the morality of the New Testament is exclusively a personal morality which is not designed to scale up to the national level. The only blueprint in the Bible for a national government is in the Old Testament and the nation of Israel. The ancient Jews were not pacifists or suicidal by any stretch of the imagination.
Orson Says:
September 5th, 2015 at 6:01 pm
… My most basic object to Christians is that altruism destroys the root of having anything worthy at all. Epistemologically, one must be and do for oneself before one gains anything worth sharing. Thus, the self must come first….
Pathological Altruism
A simple concept that could revolutionize scientific and social thought.
Posting this for the common good …
Many good thoughts posted here.
A minor aside:
The three year-old Syrian kid who was allegedly washed up, drowned, on a Turkey beach with the photo that caused much weeping and wailing, was returned for burial in evil Syria, along with his drowned mother and sister, by Papa, the family’s only survivor.
Waitaminnit! Syria was so bad, they were so endangered, they fled for Europe, but somehow the same place is safe enough for funerals and burials? Daddy got a way to get the bodies back to Syria from Turkey?
Also, the captain of the boat these Syrians were on allegedly jumped overboard because the sea was too rough? The seaman jumped into a raging sea?
Why do I think this entire story is a fraud?
As one raised Catholic it is a puzzling argument.
Dennis wrote:
” Thus the morality of the New Testament is exclusively a personal morality which is not designed to scale up to the national level.”
Absolutely. New testament morality is not a call to create a better world through helping the poor or any other means, the primary aim of charity is the giver not the receiver. Our Creator has the responsibility of making the world better if that is His wish, we are merely called to let go of our self centeredness and leave ourselves open to whatever role He wants us to play in that.
I suppose you could say that personal charity only extends a couple of hundred yards from your home. Anything beyond that is a matter of aggregated impulses and resources which become impersonal and, to the extent of the removal, less and less efficient.
Whatever Christian charity demands, the assertions we help the refugees means imposing them on…other countries.
It is said that Lesotho is the worst place in the world for rape. Sweden is next worse and north of 90% of the perps are from the Muslim immigrant communities.
I would think, as a Christian, that we should take into account the interests of the people–particularly the women–of the nations implored to take these folks in.
Freeing Iraqis and Afghans was always a pipe dream, given how many blacks and minorities are enslaved under Democrat plantations here in good old America. It’s something I realized around 2007. That there was a strategic miscalculation in Iraq and it had nothing to do with Shinigami Shinseki’s desire for more troops (so his VA could get them killed).
In my experience as a Conservative Christian , some of the open borders people like to quote some of the old Mosaic Jewish Scriptures about the alien. Example ” 17 Do not deprive the alien or the fatherless of justice or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge.
18 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you from there. That is why I command you to do this. 19 When you are harvesting in your field and you overlook a sheaf, do not go back to get it. Leave it for the alien, the fatherless and the widow, so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.
” Deuteronomy 24:17-19 NIV Translation
One thing I would like to point out is that the Mosaic Code was the code for a Nation, and clearly the greater context of the scripture was that the Law of the Land was to be Jewish. Hence, the alien had to adapt to the Jews, not vice-versa. Example: “Say to the Israelites: ‘Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him.” Leviticus 20:2 NIV Translation (Molech was a false god to whom people sacrificed children, hence sometime the comparison in Christian circles between abortion and worshiping molech.) Although there were some limits apparently, though I wonder how long/ many generations an alien had to adapt to some things: Example : “Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your God.” Deuteronomy 14:21 NIV
and “”An alien living among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat of it.” Exodus 12:48 NIV
And certainly there is a difference between Aliens among you and invaders. The Jews were allowed to fight invaders. Example : “When you go into battle in your own land against an enemy who is oppressing you, sound a blast on the trumpets. Then you will be remembered by the LORD your God and rescued from your enemies.” numbers 10:9 NIV
That last quote from Numbers 10:9 might apply to the alien who began oppressing them as well. My deepest instinct is that the “alien” was never meant to become a threat to the Jewish people if the Jewish people did as they were supposed to. The alien would convert in time to the Jewish system and become a Jew (Assimilate). I don’t think “Multiculturalism” was the goal of the Mosaic code…..
….” 15 However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:…..43 The alien who lives among you will rise above you higher and higher, but you will sink lower and lower.
44 He will lend to you, but you will not lend to him. He will be the head, but you will be the tail.” Deuteronomy 28: 15, 43 and 44 NIV
….Something along those lines is probably happening to the Western World. We have abandoned our Judeo -Christian roots and have become so confused we think its “bigotry” to not go along with things like Bruce Jenner and call him a “she”…meanwhile the Muslims and Mexicans are taking over……
I mentioned in my previous comment how all the charitable aid given to Africa and the ME have contributed to the flight from that area. Guess who saw all this coming? In 2011, no less. Gaddafi, that’s who. From a speech he gave in 2011:
“Now listen you, people of NATO.
You’re bombing a wall which stood in the way of African migration to Europe, and in the way of Al Qaeda terrorists. This wall was Libya. You‘re breaking it. You’re idiots, and you will burn in Hell for thousands of migrants from Africa and for supporting Al Qaeda. It will be so. I never lie. And I do not lie now.”
Read it all:
http://www.radixjournal.com/blog/2015/9/5/gaddafis-revenge
Prophetic. I call it the law of unintended consequences. Who dreamed that doing good could turn out so bad?
Rule 4: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
J.J. Are you sure it was an unintended consequence? Is even Obama that stupid?
J.J. Are you sure it was an unintended consequence? Is even Obama that stupid?
All according to plans.
Further, the plan:
According to sources in the State Department and the CIA, and intercepted communications from the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama “staged” the attack in Benghazi in order to create a monumental “October Surprise” that would guarantee him re-election.
Yes, you read that right, and no, I’m not making this up. Obama, we now know, is and has been working with the Muslim Brotherhood secretly to engineer the release of the “Blind Sheik,” Omar Abdel Rahman, the mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center attack.
In Obama’s October Surprise, he intentionally set up the consulate to have no security so that Chris Stevens could be kidnapped, and held for ransom by Al-Qaeda (and the Muslim Brotherhood). Then, several days before the election, the plan was to trade Chris Stevens for the Blind Sheik, making himself look like a hero, and all but guaranteeing re-election.
This was one of the top reasons why Obama was so insistent on the Muslim Brotherhood getting $1.2 Billion in U.S. Aid. They were to have a primary role in getting Obama re-elected. That is why, even though they knew days before the attack that it was going to occur, no effort was made to bolster security. It was intended to be non-existent. The Libyan security forces were intended to quietly slip into the night when the attack began. And they did, just as planned. That is why, even though 2 C-130U gunships, which were built SPECIFICALLY for this kind of attack, and which could have saved the lives of our people there and were a mere 45 minutes away, were never scrambled at any time during the attack.
There was to be no resistance whatsoever. That is why there were not one, but TWO armed drones flying over the consulate during the conflagration… our CIA operatives on the ground were painting targets because they knew air cover was available. That is why, even though requesting support and backup three times, their requests were NOT ignored, but were intentionally, specifically DENIED three times, and they were told to “stand down,” which basically means to “surrender.” That was part of Obama’s plan….
I blame the voters ….
All of the comments were interesting, and I agree on the duplicity of the Left here:
Lizzy Says:
September 5th, 2015 at 1:09 pm
“The pressure put on Christians to take in immigrants feels the same as the pressure Obama applies to Christians to support the ever-growing host of entitlements and socialist dreams like Obamacare (“brother’s keeper” blah blah blah).
On the one hand, we’re lectured to confine our religion to Sunday worship for things like same-sex marriage and abortion, yet when it pleases progressives, we’re supposed to pretend that it drives policy issues related to immigration and care for the poor.”
The Left is very selective in when it thinks the Right should be religious — the only principle is “does it further our agenda?”
That said, the LDS scriptures contain several practical applications of charity in the national sense (be smart about it) and in the personal sense, including this counsel in two similar but widely-separated situations: (1) charity is good, but “all things must be done in wisdom and order”;
(2) charity is good, but “behold, it is not requisite that a man run faster than he has strength.”
Related to rule 4, the manipulative assertion of leftist policy as “Christian duty” is a variant of “When we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope we use.”
AesopFan: “The Left is very selective in when it thinks the Right should be religious – the only principle is “does it further our agenda?””
Of course. They’re competing and they’re pragmatic. They don’t need to practice what they preach. They want you to practice what they preach.
“J.J. Are you sure it was an unintended consequence? Is even Obama that stupid?”
I was referring not to the overthrow of Gaddafi by Obama and NATO. I was referring to all the charity that has gone into Africa and the ME, which has only exacerbated their problems. Much like those hooked on welfare here in our inner cities, many of the countries of the ME and Africa have become unable to feed themselves. They are dependent on the good will of others. If you reside in such a country and someone; a cousin, brother, or friend; contacts you and suggests you come to a place where there’s welfare, some semblance of law and order, and no warfare, there is a great temptation to move to that place.
So, the unintended consequences to which I refer are all those years (1964 – present) of good works by missionaries, NGOs, and the UN. They have been carrying out the international version of LBJ’s War on Poverty, which has brought about many unintended consequences. Unless, of course, you think LBJ, the UN, Christian missionaries, and various NGOs intended to create poverty and anarchy. IMO, it’s not a vast conspiracy as much as the culmination of years of policies that don’t work.
I’m not sure why JJ is lumping in missionaries with the left. The left has managed to infiltrate some churches but traditional missionaries were diametrically opposed to leftism.
In the mid 19th century Islamic jihad against black Africans was in full force. The Muslims had invaded central Africa and were killing and enslaving Africans on a massive scale. They would march the newly minted African slaves out to the coast in chain gangs. These poor sick undernourished Africans were forced to march with elephant tusks on their heads. Many of the men were castrated out in the field. The castration often involved more than just testicles since the entire penis was removed.
The Britisher who was most influential missionary in fighting Muslim depredations in Africa was a Scottish missionary named David Livingstone (19 March 1813 — 1 May 187). The primary mission of the early British missionaries to Africa was to protect the Africans from Islamic jihad. David Livingstone and the other missionaries fought Islamic jihad against Africans primarily through education both in England where the English were alerted to the tragedy which was unfolding in Africa and in Africa where the Africans received the education necessary to enable them to repel the Muslim invaders. It is ironic that leftists accuse missionaries of destroying traditional African society and to some extent they did however since Christian missionaries relied on education and persuasion to win converts rather than by force they ended up saving much of what is uniquely African from the impending destruction by Islamic jihad.
The name of the modern day Islamic jihadis in central Africa, Boko Harem (roughly translated – Western education is a fraud which is forbidden in Islam) is not a fluke. The Islamists know exactly what the missionaries hoped to accomplish by establishing schools and hospitals throughout Africa and they hate them because they stand as bulwark against their violent jihad.
Dennis: I’m not sure why JJ is lumping in missionaries with the left.”
The Christian missionaries had and have good intentions. Their first impulse was to bring the Good News of Christianity to the mostly animist natives in Africa. When they got there, they were appalled by the poverty. Their mission then evolved into trying to convert people and save their lives from hunger, disease, illiteracy,and warfare. For several hundred years they have been successful in converting many Africans to Christianity. Their efforts to fight poverty and disease have succeeded in increasing the population of Africa, but have failed to improve their ability to feed and care for themselves. There are great examples of this in “Dark Star Safari,” by Paul Theroux. He was a Peace Corps volunteer in Africa in the 60s. He went back in 2000 to travel from Cairo to Capetown to see what had transpired in the days since his time in Africa. What he found was that all the idealism of his days in the Peace Corps had been dashed by retrogression in almost all areas of life in Africa. He found that the missionaries (and he encountered many), UN workers, and other NGO operatives had corrupted most of the recipients and even contributed to conflict within the continent. He found that most Caucasians working to provide aid were blind to the unintended consequences of their good intentions. It seemed enough for them that they felt morally good about trying to help the poor people of Africa. The good intentions were all that counted.
I have been to Africa and seen its poverty up close and personal. It breaks your heart. It especially breaks your heart because in most countries in Africa they have enough farmland, natural resources, and hard-working people to at least feed themselves and be relatively self sufficient, if not wealthy. What holds them back is tribalism in the form of dictatorships, oligarchies, and kleptocracies. The foreign aid only encourages and solidifies their inability to help themselves. It is pretty discouraging.
You mention Dr. Livingstone as an example of a missionary to look up to. Yes, he was a giant of his time, but he was more of an explorer than missionary. He contributed much to the knowledge of the Dark Continent. He loved the African natives and they loved him. He could not have foreseen what was to come. An outstanding book about Stanley and Livingstone and that period in Africa is, “Into Africa: The epic adventures of Stanley and Livingstone,” by Martin Dugard. Dugard is the historian who has been the co-author on Bill O’Reilly’s “Killing” series. His historical research and writing abilities are, IMO, why O’Reilly’s books have been so successful.
Terrific editorial in the Washington Post — “Obama’s Syria achievement”:
You can read it all here.
“A great many Christians seem to be arguing that we Westerners have a duty to accept all the refugees”
A great many Christians would be wrong. What you are describing is Leftism defining Christianity for the lukewarm Christian who gets their religion & theology from the main stream media.
Christians hold God and Jesus Christ as their ultimate liege authority. The Left holds Hussein their God Emperor as the ultimate authority.
Who is the Left and their heretical Christians, to tell real Christians what they should or shouldn’t do?
Jon Baker — you stated the Jewish position on charity (in Hebrew, a cognate of justice) very well: yes, you must help the alien — but only if he comports himself with the Law. Polytheists could live in ancient Israel, but could not build their temples or practice what the Jews regarded as the abominable practices of human sacrifice, idol worship, and fertility rites.
We can respect the Muslims as fellow monotheists, we can help them by fighting (over there!) the tyranny of their kleptocrat leaders and mass murdering emirs, imans, and ayatollahs, but we are under no obligation to allow them into our country to preach and practice the modern day abominations of their religion.