Churches increasingly feel need to offer sanctuary to undocumented migrants

originally posted by: FHomerK
a reply to: JinMI



Shhh.... don't try to quote something from the Constitution to these drooling idiots... their delusional ideas are so charming.

Umm..that's a bill that is sitting in the House, not the Constitution. I don't agree with Gryph on a few things but the guy isn't delusional.

originally posted by: bender151
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Only 400? I wonder how many atheist groups there are? Or really any faith. Secondly, they help immigrants and refugees as far as getting housing, food, jobs, any government benefits that might be available to them. Also, it's not new. TheYves been doing this for a long time. Do they help illegal immigrants? Possibly. They run food banks, and I don't think they check ID's. Homeless people often don't have valid ID'so though. So I guess they just stick k to Obama's vetting process when it comes to that. Much of what they do is helping them navigate federal and state benefit programs... which obviously aren't available to undocumented immigrants. It's kinda my job.

Just remember this next time some idiot goes on about the horrors of religion and simultaneously defends abortion mills because they also happen to hand out condoms and paper smears.

Most of us in this thread have no problem with religious groups doing what they are commanded to do by their book. We have issues with others, while claiming to be Christian, violating Christ with their words, thoughts, and deeds a 100 times a day. The hippocrisy is what is being called out.

a reply to: JinMI

You know what, you're absolutely right:

The so-called defense of the First Amendment is only directed at religious beliefs that (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.

I guess Congress can make any laws they wish subverting religious faith, as long as it doesn't regard marriage equality or ... sexual relations outside marriage.

On the latter point, someone should warn the President (and Newt).

originally posted by: FHomerK
a reply to: JinMI



Shhh.... don't try to quote something from the Constitution to these drooling idiots... their delusional ideas are so charming.

LOL ... now that's pure comedy gold there.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: FHomerK
a reply to: JinMI



Shhh.... don't try to quote something from the Constitution to these drooling idiots... their delusional ideas are so charming.

Umm..that's a bill that is sitting in the House, not the Constitution. I don't agree with Gryph on a few things but the guy isn't delusional.

Well, jeez.... I was wrong.

But, if he is religious, wouldn't that make him delusional too?


Just curious

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: FHomerK
a reply to: JinMI



Shhh.... don't try to quote something from the Constitution to these drooling idiots... their delusional ideas are so charming.

LOL ... now that's pure comedy gold there.

Hey, considering how much I've laughed at you tonight, it's the least I could do

originally posted by: FHomerK

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: FHomerK
a reply to: JinMI



Shhh.... don't try to quote something from the Constitution to these drooling idiots... their delusional ideas are so charming.

Umm..that's a bill that is sitting in the House, not the Constitution. I don't agree with Gryph on a few things but the guy isn't delusional.

Well, jeez.... I was wrong.

But, if he is religious, wouldn't that make him delusional too?


Just curious

Is he religious? Did you ask him? It's not as if he's not here participating in the thread.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: JinMI

You know what, you're absolutely right:

The so-called defense of the First Amendment is only directed at religious beliefs that (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.

I guess Congress can make any laws they wish subverting religious faith, as long as it doesn't regard marriage equality or ... sexual relations outside marriage.

On the latter point, someone should warn the President (and Newt).

It's been sitting right where it is for two years. I'm guessing for good reason.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

The LAW of the land is that these 'migrants' are here unlawfully and any church that refuses to submit to the God given authority of that law is no longer in communion with the Word of God.

That's a very dramatic, ill-considered pronouncement by you based on a whole mess of assumption and hubris!

Acts 4:18-21

18 So they called them back and ordered them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus.

19 Peter and John, however, said to them in reply, “Whether it is right in the sight of God for us to obey you rather than God, you be the judges.f

20 It is impossible for us not to speak about what we have seen and heard.”

21 After threatening them further, they released them, finding no way to punish them, on account of the people who were all praising God for what had happened.

Acts 5:27-29

27 When they had brought them in and made them stand before the Sanhedrin, the high priest questioned them,

28 “We gave you strict orders [did we not?] to stop teaching in that name. Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and want to bring this man’s blood upon us.”h

29 But Peter and the apostles said in reply, “We must obey God rather than men.i

Also, let's remember the midwives in Exodus 1.

15 The king of Egypt told the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was called Shiphrah and the other Puah,

16 “When you act as midwives for the Hebrew women, look on the birthstool:* if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, she may live.”

17 The midwives, however, feared God; they did not do as the king of Egypt had ordered them, but let the boys live.

18 So the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and asked them, “Why have you done this, allowing the boys to live?”

19 The midwives answered Pharaoh, “The Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women. They are robust and give birth before the midwife arrives.”

20 Therefore God dealt well with the midwives; and the people multiplied and grew very numerous.

21 And because the midwives feared God, God built up families for them.

a reply to: JinMI

The only reason is that they didn't have the votes to overcome a veto.

Trump's on record in support.

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
Nothing to see here..just more liberal nonsense. Liberals attack the churches when it comes to homosexuality and deviant behaviour, but applaud them for this. Remember the liberal mantra.. " the ends justify the means"

It's odd how the Religious Right primarily injects religion into politics when it comes to denying other people fundamental rights. When it comes to fundamental aspects of Christianity like charity and egalitarianism? They go all Ayn Rand.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: BubbaJoe

I agree that we need to do something about the illegal aliens in this country.

I agree that we need to rapidly kick out the ones that are violent, rape,. . etc.

But hiding the fact that some churches "just now" found religion when they conveniently ignored their religion when Obama was in office is disingenuous.

I do not have a soft spot in my heart for churches, think most of them suck. My wife is not real political, but she thinks every church needs to support a number of homeless families based on the size of the congregation. Churches have offered sanctuary and asylum for 1000's of years, to invalidate this concept, is to go against 1000's of years of history.

a reply to: BubbaJoe

Nobody is saying churches shouldn't help the homeless or the downtrodden. If they want to take in and harbor illegal immigrants, let them.

But, if they are harboring the criminal elements among those immigrants, i.e., felons, then ICE should go in and get them and charge the church personnel harboring them with aiding and abetting.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Snarl

Why would The Church help people break the law?

People do not view violating laws they feel are immoral in the same way they do other laws.

As a rule, I don't go around breaking the law.

What kind of society would we be if they did?

A law abiding one. ☜ note the dot.

We can't go around picking and choosing which laws we follow and which laws we flaunt. If I'm speeding, I'll be respectful to the cop, take my ticket and pay the fine.

a reply to: BubbaJoe

Again, you throw numbers around with nothing to back it up. That makes you, say it with me, ignorant. Are there people who pass judgement for no other reason than because that's how they interpret something. Sure! I mean, that's exactly what you just did.

originally posted by: FHomerK

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: FHomerK
a reply to: JinMI



Shhh.... don't try to quote something from the Constitution to these drooling idiots... their delusional ideas are so charming.

Umm..that's a bill that is sitting in the House, not the Constitution. I don't agree with Gryph on a few things but the guy isn't delusional.

Well, jeez.... I was wrong.

But, if he is religious, wouldn't that make him delusional too?


Just curious

If you were actually able to comprehend english, you would be able to determine that he is not.

a reply to: JinMI

Lets try this.

A man who was due for court decided to skip it because he knew he would be jailed so he fled to a church hoping for safe haven.

Is this ok as well? This is how others, myself included, see it. Picking and choosing whom gets to break the laws and what laws we can overlook is becoming too common.

How about a couple other hypothetical scenarios:

1. A family that is due to be sent to a concentration camp seeks refuge in a church and the church hides them.

2. A slave runs away from his master and is being hunted. He is granted asylum by a church that protects him in contradiction of the law of the land in that time.

The question I would argue is really not one of if churches should ever defy the state but when.

John Chapter 8

1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

a reply to: JinMI

Here's the scoop.... are you listening?

I don't care what he/she/it is (I mean, a gryphon [just as real as God] is an it, right?). Christian, atheist, or even if they believe the color purple is liquid ecstasy. I honestly don't care.

What I do care about, is that our laws...laws that I abide by every single day, but these "undocumented immigrants" don't... are followed. It's only fair. Every country has a legal means by which people are allowed to immigrate. I can't decide to up and become French and expect to waltz in and be given special rights above and beyond what the average French person enjoys.

So, that being said...why are some exempt? Why are those who believe in a rather cruel individual in the clouds allowed to violate the law?


What gryphon said, doesn't matter. What he believes, doesn't matter. I simply don't care.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: BubbaJoe

Nobody is saying churches shouldn't help the homeless or the downtrodden. If they want to take in and harbor illegal immigrants, let them.

But, if they are harboring the criminal elements among those immigrants, i.e., felons, then ICE should go in and get them and charge the church personnel harboring them with aiding and abetting.

The only time I have heard of churches sheltering felons, is to negotiate a peaceful surrender, to ensure there is not further loss of life. I have no problems with Christians being arrested and charged with crimes, the media impact is awesome.