Refugee crisis

[SporkUK]

I really need to educate myself on the US and our policies regarding those seeking asylum. Also, regarding Icelanders offering their homes, does Iceland actually offer asylum to these refugees thereby making the offer something that can actually be followed through?

 

Yes, Iceland is actually offering asylum. The offering of their homes came after the Icelandic public found the number Iceland's government was officially stating they were taking in too low which pushed their government to discuss raising it and pushed several other European countries to do the same. But then, the EU isn't exactly known for enforcing it's own rules on member states which is why the camps and crisis has gotten as bad as it has (there have been camps in the EU well before this and groups being kicked from country to country within the EU that should have EU citizenship and right of movement and in some places communities being walled off and many other things that is causing the crisis in those camps and areas to be far worse than if the EU enforced it's own rules properly). Whether or not the offers are actually used is not clear, but it has pushed Iceland and other European countries to start talking which will hopefully lead to come follow through. 

[MBM]

The International Rescue Committee is asking the US to take 65,000 Syrian refugees but so far we are committing to only about 8,000 at this point.

 

[Sarah CB]

.

 

 

 

[Sarah CB]

Surely something can be done?

 

What is the rest of the worlds responsibility in situations like this?

 

Is everyone aware that one of our board members began making a huge difference in Syria with her organization, NuDay Syria, in 2011?  

 

http://www.nudaysyria.net

 

She's done amazing work over the years, so if you're looking for a way to make a difference I'd suggest offering some support to NuDay.

[mommaduck]

Is everyone aware that one of our board members began making a huge difference in Syria with her organization, NuDay Syria, in 2011?  

 

http://www.nudaysyria.net 

 

She's done amazing work over the years, so if you're looking for a way to make a difference I'd suggest offering some support to NuDay.

 

Need to fix the link...it links directly back to this thread.

[Sarah CB]

Need to fix the link...it links directly back to this thread.

 

Thanks - weird.  I fixed it.

[Bluegoat]

I don't know about what to do concretely, except vote thoughtfully and speak up to your political reprsentatives.

 

I think a mental change helps though about the idea of migration. (And I think maybe the left sources use that word because it is more generally, and includes people who don't technically meet the requirements for refugee status.)

 

I think a lot of people think of it in terms of a private ownership of land.  This is my land, my country.  If you really can't stay where you are, I might let you in as a matter of charity.

 

I don't think land and resources really belong to people, except as a kind of legal fiction.  I think the land is there for itself, and  people have the right to live off of it.  If there is more land than is needed to sustain people, than it should, in an ideal world, be open to others who do not have enough to sustain them.  This is the fundamental human right IMO - the right to work for your food by the sweat of your brow.

 

In practice of course it is much more complicated.  Hw do you keep the land from being over-used and damaged?  How do you keep more powerful people from claiming the best land, or pushing people into more marginal holdings?  What do you do when there isn't enough for everyone?  How do you decide who gets access?

 

So - we have systems that give access, and to manage things, and so on.

 

In terms of immigration, this means deciding how many people can come at any one time without overwhelming the society, and figuring out who to let in.  Not an easy or enviable task.

 

But - I think if we have the attitude of administering a common human resource, rather than giving someone a gift which they have no innate right to, it helps us to keep the right perspective.

[Audrey]

 In this world of PC run a muck, I am going to say THIS OFFENDS ME!!

 

 

 

 

It's spelled "amok," from the Malay amuk.

[Audrey]

I've recommended them before, but the Mennonite Central Committee does great work for refugees from Syria and Iraq. They are a Christian organization firmly committed to peace and justice.

 

 

I will second that recommendation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shocking, I know. ;)

[No More Perfect]

Yes, Iceland is actually offering asylum. The offering of their homes came after the Icelandic public found the number Iceland's government was officially stating they were taking in too low which pushed their government to discuss raising it and pushed several other European countries to do the same. But then, the EU isn't exactly known for enforcing it's own rules on member states which is why the camps and crisis has gotten as bad as it has (there have been camps in the EU well before this and groups being kicked from country to country within the EU that should have EU citizenship and right of movement and in some places communities being walled off and many other things that is causing the crisis in those camps and areas to be far worse than if the EU enforced it's own rules properly). Whether or not the offers are actually used is not clear, but it has pushed Iceland and other European countries to start talking which will hopefully lead to come follow through. 

 

 

Thank you for explaining that! There is so much to think on with all of this and I'm getting a huge education through all of this. 

[Amy in NH]

[sNIP]

 

More recently, the White House has been criticized for eschewing the term ‘‘Christian’’ altogether. The issue of Christian persecution is politically charged; the Christian right has long used the idea that Christianity is imperiled to rally its base. When ISIS massacred Egyptian Copts in Libya this winter, the State Department came under fire for referring to the victims merely as ‘‘Egyptian citizens.’’ Daniel Philpott, a professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame, says, ‘‘When ISIS is no longer said to have religious motivations nor the minorities it attacks to have religious identities, the Obama administration’s caution about religion becomes excessive.’’

 

 

This complaint is interesting to me because I am reading The Muslim Next Door for a graduate course.  The author makes the point that while the news media is quick to point out when terrorists are Muslim, they do not mention the fact that most of the victims are also Muslim.  Even when terrorists are Christian and victims are Muslim the media does not point out either of those facts (ie Kosovo), only when Muslims are the aggressors (which is against the Quoran) is the religion mentioned.

 

[Katy]

This complaint is interesting to me because I am reading The Muslim Next Door for a graduate course.  The author makes the point that while the news media is quick to point out when terrorists are Muslim, they do not mention the fact that most of the victims are also Muslim.  Even when terrorists are Christian and victims are Muslim the media does not point out either of those facts (ie Kosovo), only when Muslims are the aggressors (which is against the Quoran) is the religion mentioned.

 

 

I think it's interesting too. What's also interesting to me is that members of ISIS are very apocalyptic. They think they are bringing about the end of the world.  To them this is a VERY religious war, and America are the Christian crusaders even if that isn't our intent AT ALL.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

[Amy in NH]

This image haunts me, especially as a mother of a toddler. For those of us who are Americans, I would love more information on how to get our government to give refuge to Syrians who need it.

 

Before this thread was a thing I actually googled for Syrian refugee organizations in the US.  I looked all over the IRC website and couldn't find anything in the Northeast.

[MBM]

We have heard eye-witness accounts from friends and relatives who've lived in the Middle East that did not match at all what was published in US newspapers. It is wise to get your information from other, foreign sources as well.

[TranquilMind]

Why does it matter if drowning children are Christian or Muslim?

 

Disgusting.

It doesn't, and no one says otherwise. 

 

Perhaps others are sponsoring Muslim families? If not, why not? 

 

I know I get mailings to help Jewish families in poor countries all the time.  The sender does not disparage other poor families or think they are unworthy of assistance.  This is just a special cause to this organization, I suppose. 

 

 

 

 

[BrookValley.]

It doesn't, and no one says otherwise. 

 

Perhaps others are sponsoring Muslim families? If not, why not? 

 

I know I get mailings to help Jewish families in poor countries all the time.  The sender does not disparage other poor families or think they are unworthy of assistance.  This is just a special cause to this organization, I suppose. 

 

When there's an acute crisis happening in which most of the people are Muslim, and someone posts about helping and sponsoring specifically Christian families, yes, they are saying otherwise.   

[mommaduck]

I will admit that I try to post about the Christians living in highly Muslim areas, because I'm trying to dispel the myth that many Americans have that these are ALL Muslims. I'm trying to get them to connect and make it personal. However, I do also try to mention that it is BOTH Muslims and Christians being persecuted and even other minority groups.

[BrookValley.]

I will admit that I try to post about the Christians living in highly Muslim areas, because I'm trying to dispel the myth that many Americans have that these are ALL Muslims. I'm trying to get them to connect and make it personal. However, I do also try to mention that it is BOTH Muslims and Christians being persecuted and even other minority groups.

 

I can understand that. And I don't think religion is irrelevant to the discussion, not at all, and my comments are not meant to make light of the persecution Christians are facing in this part of the world. It's just that it's atrocious to tie religion to offers of aid, especially in this instance.  

[TranquilMind]

When there's an acute crisis happening in which most of the people are Muslim, and someone posts about helping and sponsoring specifically Christian families, yes, they are saying otherwise.   

Baloney.

[mommaduck]

I can understand that. And I don't think religion is irrelevant to the discussion, not at all, and my comments are not meant to make light of the persecution Christians are facing in this part of the world. It's just that it's atrocious to tie religion to offers of aid, especially in this instance.  

 

I didn't take you as making light of things :) You just gave me a moment to check myself, that is all. Honestly, these conversations are good for such.

[No More Perfect]

We have heard eye-witness accounts from friends and relatives who've lived in the Middle East that did not match at all what was published in US newspapers. It is wise to get your information from other, foreign sources as well.

Do you have any suggestions for other sources?

[BrookValley.]

Baloney.

 

No thanks, I'm a vegetarian. 

[Amy in NH]

I will admit that I try to post about the Christians living in highly Muslim areas, because I'm trying to dispel the myth that many Americans have that these are ALL Muslims. I'm trying to get them to connect and make it personal. However, I do also try to mention that it is BOTH Muslims and Christians being persecuted and even other minority groups.

 

I think, though, that when it is only the Christians that are mentioned (not saying you, personally, do that), it marginalizes the other affected groups.  Particularly when Christians are a minority of the persecuted, it gives the idea that they are the only ones who matter. 

 

But I also have to ask how Christian it is to only desire to help suffering peoples when they are other Christians?

[MBM]

Do you have any suggestions for other sources?

 

For the Middle East, European and Middle Eastern media outlets are a good place to start.

 

Also, for different, more detailed perspectives, blogs can be interesting. A friend of mine who married a Lebanese man and who lives there now, has written about how in the more rural areas, like hers, people of different faiths get along and they all work hard to develop good relationships like they had years ago. One building has been set aside to settle differences or work out problems. Cities are a different situation. Major outlets do not always provide this sort of perspective or level of information but it helps to see that it's not all so black and white.

[TranquilMind]

No thanks, I'm a vegetarian. 

I didn't offer you bologna. 

 

I hope you understand the difference. 

[Guest]

I think, though, that when it is only the Christians that are mentioned (not saying you, personally, do that), it marginalizes the other affected groups. Particularly when Christians are a minority of the persecuted, it gives the idea that they are the only ones who matter.

 

But I also have to ask how Christian it is to only desire to help suffering peoples when they are other Christians?

It's not a matter of being more or less Christian - Christians are told to help brothers, other Christians, after assisting their own families. Then they can expand to help others outside of those two closer circles. It's triage of limited resources to those to whom one has higher responsibility. And that is a biblical principle repeated often throughout the Old and New Testament, both.

 

It would be like saying that if your cousin is starving, and a person a town over is starving, and you have one extra loaf of bread - is it more loving and responsible to help the stranger or family? Is the one who ignores the need of family but assists a stranger a better or more caring person?

[mommymilkies]

 In this world of PC run a muck, I am going to say THIS OFFENDS ME!!

 

My ancestors are english (as well as a few other nationalities but for this argument they are English). They came here in the 1630's after America was claimed for the british. My guess is they were God fearing people that were escaping to worship the way they saw fit. A few other ancestors from England joined them before the American Revolution. Now 3 of them fought in the American Revolution (that I know of, there could be others), however that is beside the point. My point is you CAN NOT immigrate within your own country. I do not immigrate from Washington to Connecticut. I do not immigrate from Florida to Texas. I do not immigrate from South Carolina to Guam or any other US territory. That isn't called immigration. So it is possible that we are NOT a nation of immigrants. Some of us have just been here long enough to not be. 

 

And while we are on the subject, I thought science has proven that even Native Americans probably came from Asia, so if you want to jump down that rabbit hole unless you are an animal, you are an immigrant, by your definition. (Insert rolling eyes here)

 

The rest of this thread is just off the tracks. I know I am probably not helping but this always makes me mad when I see it. BTW the other part of me is Norwegian so I do say that MY people (vikings) found this continent for Europe first. English just settled it. :p

 

So we are all immigrants, doesn't that just prove the whole point that it's not Us vs. Them?

 

And my ancestors are a mix of Aboriginal, African, English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, French, Prussian, Finnish, Swedish, Swiss, Italian, and very possibly even Spanish (some arriving in the 16th and 17th centuries). Guess what? I still say anyone who is not Aboriginal. Yes, I understand what you are saying. Some of us have had our European ancestors here long enough that we are a mixed, American breed, but that isn't the point of why it is worded the way that it is. The point is that people ought to look at their own history BEFORE screaming about immigrants or refugees. If anyone has a right to scream, it's those of us with Aboriginal ancestry. Oh, and three of my siblings? Their father came from Mexico (they honestly have more claim than other European descended people that want to scream high and low). And there is good argument to be made that some Native Americans came across the Atlantic, not the Pacific.

:iagree:

[Stacia]

Revealed: How the five wealthiest Gulf Nations have so far refused to take a single Syrian refugee

 

An interesting article. It has a heartbreaking & scathing political cartoon in it. I wonder where the cartoon originated/was published? 

 

More related articles & opinion pieces:

 

The Arab world’s wealthiest nations are doing next to nothing for Syria’s refugees 

 

Migrant crisis: Why Syrians do not flee to Gulf states 

 

ETA: I posted these article because, until I saw them, I did not realize how many 'neighbor'/nearby nations were not letting in refugees.

 

[TeacherZee]

Do you know if she reads the boards?

 

I live in one of the countries many refugees pass through as they try to access the EU. They don't want to stay here, that much is clear. Local people are offering them stuff (clothes, toys, etc), but I can't help but feel that they don't want more stuff to lug about on an arduous journey that involves sneaking under barbed wire fences, having trouble with the Hungarian police, etc. I would love to know what people here can do that would actually help.

okay so I've typed up several responses and each one sounds more condescending and it is getting later in the day and so I am just going to post some ideas and please take them as ideas of things you could do where you are and not as lecturing :)

 

Offer a safe place to sleep/rest for a few hours

A hot meal

A place to wash clothes

A bathroom to wash up in

[BrookValley.]

It's not a matter of being more or less Christian - Christians are told to help brothers, other Christians, after assisting their own families. Then they can expand to help others outside of those two closer circles. It's triage of limited resources to those to whom one has higher responsibility. And that is a biblical principle repeated often throughout the Old and New Testament, both.

 

It would be like saying that if your cousin is starving, and a person a town over is starving, and you have one extra loaf of bread - is it more loving and responsible to help the stranger or family? Is the one who ignores the need of family but assists a stranger a better or more caring person?

But we're not talking about family; we're talking about people with equal need. Some will be Christian, many will be Muslim. So you would pick and choose the Christians first, because of biblical principle? And not give according to your ability and their need?

 

I find this repugnant, and it certainly only contributes to the reasons I find this whole bible of yours pretty lacking as a guide for morality.

[Penguin]

Here in Denmark, I volunteer at a place that mostly helps refugees after they have been granted asylum. It is not easy to start a new life in a foreign country.

 

If you are looking for a way to help, see if any refugees are being resettled in your local area. I was surprised to discover that there is a refugee resettlement organization in my part of central NC, so don't assume that there isn't one near you.

[mommaduck]

But we're not talking about family; we're talking about people with equal need. Some will be Christian, many will be Muslim. So you would pick and choose the Christians first, because of biblical principle? And not give according to your ability and their need?

 

I find this repugnant, and it certainly only contributes to the reasons I find this whole bible of yours pretty lacking as a guide for morality.

 

Not all of us agree with that line of thinking. Yes, we are to take care of our families, but what does that mean? We have less than most people, but have a roof over our heads. We still took in a homeless family, thinned out soup, etc. Scripture says that if you have two coats and your neighbour has none. The reason is that a person only needs one coat. It nowhere says, make sure that your Christian neighbour has a coat before you give it to a non-Christian.

[BrookValley.]

Not all of us agree with that line of thinking. Yes, we are to take care of our families, but what does that mean? We have less than most people, but have a roof over our heads. We still took in a homeless family, thinned out soup, etc. Scripture says that if you have two coats and your neighbour has none. The reason is that a person only needs one coat. It nowhere says, make sure that your Christian neighbour has a coat before you give it to a non-Christian.

Oh, I know not all do. My apologies for the hasty post and what probably sounds like an unfair generalization. No, the bible ain't my book, but you (and most of my Christian friends and family) and me have a lot more in common than not, I'd wager. The post I responded to just struck a nerve.

[mommaduck]

Oh, I know not all do. My apologies for the hasty post and what probably sounds like an unfair generalization. No, the bible ain't my book, but you (and most of my Christian friends and family) and me have a lot more in common than not, I'd wager. The post I responded to just struck a nerve.

 

Naw, you're fine. It was more for those that may be reading/lurking. I feel the same. I have a lot in common with people that don't share my faith as much as with those that do. 

[LucyStoner]

I'm going to a meeting tomorrow to learn about how/if some of the Syrian refugees can be granted refugee status and assisted to come to my area. That's not much. But it's all I can do right now besides donate a little bit of cash.

[Guest]

If the need is equal and the resources are scarce, each organization and person has choices to make. Sometimes it is first come, first serve. Sometimes it is based on dependents, region, support or lack thereof, and yes, group identity like religion. I think all should be helped as people and nations can. But I am explaining why some groups with religious MOs and organizing principles are triaging as they are, if they are. Most go with a first come, first serve basis as their basic guideline, but not all. They're not less Christian for doing so - that's disregarding that scripture indicates very specifically on the topic of helping kin, clansman, and fellow believer before the rest of the Gentiles, and helping those incapable of helping themselves before helping the able bodied.

[IfIOnly]

It's not a matter of being more or less Christian - Christians are told to help brothers, other Christians, after assisting their own families. Then they can expand to help others outside of those two closer circles. It's triage of limited resources to those to whom one has higher responsibility. And that is a biblical principle repeated often throughout the Old and New Testament, both.

 

It would be like saying that if your cousin is starving, and a person a town over is starving, and you have one extra loaf of bread - is it more loving and responsible to help the stranger or family? Is the one who ignores the need of family but assists a stranger a better or more caring person?

 

I don't agree with your conclusions about Christ's teachings. I don't see anywhere in scripture where it says to help you fellow Christian first and then others. If that's you MO, okay, but I don't see it in scripture. The only scriptures I can think of allude to providing for your very own immediate and extended family. 

[JumpyTheFrog]

The book of James warns very strongly against showing favoritism. In context, it's about favoring the rich vs. the poor, but I think it is reasonable to expand it. I can't think of any verses about giving to other Christians before non-Christians.

[JumpyTheFrog]

I don't agree with your conclusions about Christ's teachings. I don't see anywhere in scripture where it says to help you fellow Christian first and then others. If that's you MO, okay, but I don't see it in scripture. The only scriptures I can think of allude to providing for your very own immediate and extended family. 

 

Yeah, I would think the parable of the Good Samaritan is enough evidence to show that we are supposed to treat everyone as a neighbor, not just "our own kind."

[No More Perfect]

I found this for my state. I'm sure there are other similar offices in other states and countries. It isn't particularly helpful but it is a start.

 

http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/programs/refugee/#special

[Guest]

Scripture is focused first on the chosen people of God, the Israelites, and then on the expansion of that covenant to Gentile believers. Repeated refrains in the early church, especially Acts, point to helping needy members of the congregation and brothers and sisters in Christ suffering persecution, famine, illness, or misfortune (orphans and widows). This isn't exclusionary - the church isn't commanded to not assist any other group. But the clearest elucidation involves the closest circles of relationship. If God ordains the creation of each human and our relationships to one another, then one believes as a logical out working of that in the purpose of God in bringing people into and out of our lives. And if our lives are meant to be sacrifices to the glory of God, then each and every interaction is a ministry opportunity.

 

That would be why many missionaries pass out Mission Balls or tracts along with hot meals, or arrange soccer teams after bible study - one cannot divorce the resources God has provided from responsible, benevolent use of them. That looks different from for every believer and I firmly believe various individuals have strong conviction to help specific people or places. That's all a part of God'd blessed design and the variety of those who serve in the name of Christ. But a group assisting a specific group or area isn't in sin, hypocritical, or in any way less Christian than another who has a numerical quota for help. That's a straw man.

 

Both groups are helping people as they are convicted, based on principles in scripture. Assistance of the body of Chrisf internationally is absolutely the clear scriptural responsibility of the church, and when resources are limited as they always are, some prefer to triage that way. Others feel they are best ministering to others by seeking unbelievers to care for and show the mercy and goodness of the Lord. Still others are compelled to help just one specific family or person, and that's okay too. We are not the judge of the works of others ultimately, God is. But an organization or group focusing just on one set of lives to improve isn't less holy than another, and that is all I am speaking to. Caring for believers, Yazidis, widows, only children between 3-12 year old, etc, is the prerogative of the one helping.

[Guest]

Yeah, I would think the parable of the Good Samaritan is enough evidence to show that we are supposed to treat everyone as a neighbor, not just "our own kind."

No, the parable indicated that the neighbor wasn't just the fellow tribesman, but the ones nearby or in our lives in need. That doesn't disqualify the responsibility of the church to its own members, it goes alongside it in a complementary way.

[IfIOnly]

No, the parable indicated that the neighbor wasn't just the fellow tribesman, but the ones nearby or in our lives in need. That doesn't disqualify the responsibility of the church to its own members, it goes alongside it in a complementary way.

Right. But not in preference to. The whole point of the parable was to show how the people had erred in their thoughts about their neighbor and being too self-focused to the point of self-righteousness (reiterated many times over in scripture), not realizing that God loves and cares for the whole world. I think there is a lot to ponder regarding this parable.

[Ausmumof3]

Not all of us agree with that line of thinking. Yes, we are to take care of our families, but what does that mean? We have less than most people, but have a roof over our heads. We still took in a homeless family, thinned out soup, etc. Scripture says that if you have two coats and your neighbour has none. The reason is that a person only needs one coat. It nowhere says, make sure that your Christian neighbour has a coat before you give it to a non-Christian.

There is a verse that says "do good unto all men, especially those of the household of faith".

 

I think some put more emphasis on the latter part to the exclusion of the first one.

[Matryoshka]

But I also have to ask how Christian it is to only desire to help suffering peoples when they are other Christians?

 

Here's an irony I just thought of... virtually all of the Christians in those countries are likely some kind of Eastern/Orthodox/Coptic variety, that most of the (fundamentalist) Protestant Christian groups most vocal about Christian persecution wouldn't even recognize as being "real Christians" if they were their neighbors here in the US.

 

And further irony, the Muslim groups being persecuted are being persecuted by the Islamic fundamentalists for not being "real Muslims" because they follow a different flavor of Islam.

 

It's never good when one group decides they have the only 'real' path to God.

 

[Katy]

I think there are a couple of disparate topics here.

 

1. Whether GB's charity has a moral right to specifically focus on Christians.
2. Whether Christians have a biblical right to specifically help other Christians first or whether that is immoral.

 

As to the first, if he believes his assertion that Christians are specifically being blocked from receiving Asylum in the United States, he obviously has a very strong moral right to not only proclaim that is immoral, but to encourage civil disobedience by helping them get here DESPITE what he considers an immoral regulation.  But again, except for this narrow point of anger regarding the state department, I am absolutely certain his charity has a goal to help all those who are victims of ISIS.  Maybe his methods are moral, maybe they're not.  I know he's trying to raise money to buy those being ransomed, and is comparing it to Schindler's List.  Some people have written opinion pieces that it is immoral to buy those people from ISIS because it will just encourage them to kidnap more.  I can tell you for sure that I haven't heard horrible stories of Muslim women being kidnapped for sexual slavery by ISIS, only Yazidi and Christian women.

 

As to the second, given that early Christian churches essentially were some of the first recorded communes, it is absolutely biblical to care for those in the church first.  As to whether it is the most moral choice, I suspect that is a one-off situation that depends on the situation of any individual person.  I don't think we're going to be standing in front of God on judgment day defending why we helped the poor person of the opposite religious group given Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan.  Instead I suspect we'll be judged for the times we didn't help those with needs who were right in front of us.  Like the rich man who wouldn't help the poor at his own gate, that is what we'll be judged for.

 

I don't see the point in these petty arguments. Perhaps I've seen too many petty arguments IRL today and my patience is lower than normal.

[Katy]

PSA:  DO NOT spell Asylum wrong when googling.

[Valley Girl]

I think there are a couple of disparate topics here.

 

1. Whether GB's charity has a moral right to specifically focus on Christians.
2. Whether Christians have a biblical right to specifically help other Christians first or whether that is immoral.

 

As to the first, if he believes his assertion that Christians are specifically being blocked from receiving Asylum in the United States, he obviously has a very strong moral right to not only proclaim that is immoral, but to encourage civil disobedience by helping them get here DESPITE what he considers an immoral regulation.  But again, except for this narrow point of anger regarding the state department, I am absolutely certain his charity has a goal to help all those who are victims of ISIS.  Maybe his methods are moral, maybe they're not.  I know he's trying to raise money to buy those being ransomed, and is comparing it to Schindler's List.  Some people have written opinion pieces that it is immoral to buy those people from ISIS because it will just encourage them to kidnap more.  I can tell you for sure that I haven't heard horrible stories of Muslim women being kidnapped for sexual slavery by ISIS, only Yazidi and Christian women.

 

As to the second, given that early Christian churches essentially were some of the first recorded communes, it is absolutely biblical to care for those in the church first.  As to whether it is the most moral choice, I suspect that is a one-off situation that depends on the situation of any individual person.  I don't think we're going to be standing in front of God on judgment day defending why we helped the poor person of the opposite religious group given Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan.  Instead I suspect we'll be judged for the times we didn't help those with needs who were right in front of us.  Like the rich man who wouldn't help the poor at his own gate, that is what we'll be judged for.

 

I don't see the point in these petty arguments. Perhaps I've seen too many petty arguments IRL today and my patience is lower than normal.

 

I agree with you about the arguments. There is, tragically, plenty of suffering to go around. So now we're going to criticize people when they are moved by compassion to help? No one can help everybody, much as they might want to. I think the important point is that people ARE stepping up and trying to do something. Those efforts should be lauded and, if one feels led, supported. If a group is focused on helping a subset of the people in trouble, great. That will make more resources from other groups available to desperate people not in the subset. If the "general you" doesn't like it, find a different group to support.

[Rosie_0801]

Do you know if she reads the boards?

 

 

Her profile shows her last activity here as a couple of weeks ago.

[Amy in NH]

I think there are a couple of disparate topics here.

 

1. Whether GB's charity has a moral right to specifically focus on Christians.
2. Whether Christians have a biblical right to specifically help other Christians first or whether that is immoral.

 

As to the first, if he believes his assertion that Christians are specifically being blocked from receiving Asylum in the United States, he obviously has a very strong moral right to not only proclaim that is immoral, but to encourage civil disobedience by helping them get here DESPITE what he considers an immoral regulation.  But again, except for this narrow point of anger regarding the state department, I am absolutely certain his charity has a goal to help all those who are victims of ISIS.  Maybe his methods are moral, maybe they're not.  I know he's trying to raise money to buy those being ransomed, and is comparing it to Schindler's List.  Some people have written opinion pieces that it is immoral to buy those people from ISIS because it will just encourage them to kidnap more.  I can tell you for sure that I haven't heard horrible stories of Muslim women being kidnapped for sexual slavery by ISIS, only Yazidi and Christian women.

 

As to the second, given that early Christian churches essentially were some of the first recorded communes, it is absolutely biblical to care for those in the church first.  As to whether it is the most moral choice, I suspect that is a one-off situation that depends on the situation of any individual person.  I don't think we're going to be standing in front of God on judgment day defending why we helped the poor person of the opposite religious group given Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan.  Instead I suspect we'll be judged for the times we didn't help those with needs who were right in front of us.  Like the rich man who wouldn't help the poor at his own gate, that is what we'll be judged for.

 

I don't see the point in these petty arguments. Perhaps I've seen too many petty arguments IRL today and my patience is lower than normal.

 

According to the ISIS guidelines for sexual slavery, "The pamphlet, which is presented in question and answer form, lists 21 clarifications on everything from which women are okay to abduct and force into slavery (essentially any "unbelieving" women or girls, which likely translates to any non-Sunni Muslims)"  There are lots of non-Sunni Muslims.  Another article said it was "predominately" Christians and Yazidis, but that doesn't mean only.

 

Does that make you feel better?