Suffer the little children: What would Jesus say?

In a world where children are suffering, including one in five living in poverty or near poverty in the United States, why is there not a major movement among Evangelicals to offer hope and concrete help by supporting those who do?

Politically Evangelicals vote rightward on social issues involved in the political maelstrom that is part of politics today.  But this movement is coming in many directions, across Europe, in response to immigration.

Some of that fear comes from the Muslim immigrants, but it spells into the move of other groups, especially when there is economic concern from uncertainty.

There is also an element of racism and nationalism in much of it, as the gypsies have been an outcast group that was seriously outcast from France in very recent times.

Nationalism comes into prominence when people feel they are being attacked and their media, that represents their country--even in the more extreme ways---catapults news into areas that otherwise might mean little more than a laugh or two.  But step on the ground of one's country with the heavy boot of criticism, and the sensitive toes that are hurt will remember to get you later.

 Americans were polled right after Arizona's introduction of its immigration law several years ago and the lawsuit against the US Justice Department made by the State.  support of Arizona's new immigration law and against the U.S. Justice Department lawsuit involving it by a 50% to 33% margin, according to a recent Gallup poll, and the Rasmussen poll result has similar results.  But what would Jesus say?

Years ago it was the "in" thing to ask the question, "What would Jesus do" or "What would Jesus say," when speaking of any serious issue where there might be division or a decision has to be made about doing the right thing in a Christian way.

Certainly Christians often speak of rendering to Caesar what is his and to God what is His, but is this the rest of the story.  Let's take a look at what one group of Christians has to say about the topic of immigration and what it does to the human spirit, then reflect on the Christ message of love and see if that encompasses immigrants.

A posting ona blog of the Sojourner Christian group was titled, "Deportations that destroy the Human Spirit."  

A story of what happened to one man who was deported some months ago is part of the blog narration on immigration.  A man by the name of David is quoted as saying, "May I would be better off just crossing again and going to prison for many years.  He had been stopped by police and subsequently turned over to the immigration officials, then deported and now lives on the streets of Nogales, Sonora.

This story, like that of David, the article tells us,  goes on more often than people think, with different details told by individuals who are given heavy criminal sentences for no other crime than being paperless and stealing into the country, sometimes in desperate moves to avoid the kind of poverty that can bring people to their knees.  These same people hear the debates about immigration, and the American public view, and become even more concerned about their relatives or friends in this country who could be caught.

The Sojourners are not attesting to their belief in illegal immigration, nor supporting it; although there may be some who think so.  What they have done in their article is outline the consequences and the harshness of being caught.  Is this the kind of outcome Americans want and is this the reflection of Christ's message?

The problem is, according to Sojourners, that the way immigration is handled violates Christ's message of love in its punitive stance with laws like those of Arizona that single out people that are different and that stir up hatreds and bad feelings.

Eight months ago Green Heritage News interviewed one of the owners of an employment firm in Yuma, Arizona.  When asked about the crime rate, this woman, who asked to be anonymous for this article, said, "We don't have an problem here (Yuma).  Our police do a very good job at the border."

Just months later when asked the same question after the Arizona law on immigration was signed by the Governor, Green Heritage News asked the same employment firm owner about crime in Yuma.  "We have a terrible time here," she said.  "The police are ineffective about it.  We especially have problems at the border."

This contradictory message was likely not considered by the remarks made, especially the second time; but these statements of cognitive dissonance allow many people to continue to support laws that target immigrants all the while they speak of how they love the legal immigrants, have Mexican friends and need to uphold the law.  They also tell of a low crime rate on the one hand and a high one on the other, sometimes in the same conversation.

As an aside, the crime rate in Arizona was lower than average during the past several years before enactment of the Arizona law, according to national crime statistics; so the effort to use the crime rate has been effective in that people believe false information in order to support erroneous beliefs.

Sojourners points out most of these people who are deported have no criminal background, have been doing honest work in the country and have led modest lives.  Yet they face harsh punishment if caught without papers.  The author of this most recent article,  cited here, is Maryada Vallet, who is working on a humanitarian initiative to handle immigration in a faith-based way.

Vallet ends her article with this, "I am convinced that God’s good vision is for us to be the church by living as one, free of barriers and in compassionate abundance. But I ask your prayers for those who are beaten down and need that strength and hope now more than ever, and prayer for all of us, complicit in these deportations."

Given the high rate of Christian belief in the United States and the high rate of belief in Arizona doing the right thing with its new law, it is important in the mix to read what some Christians think--and think what Christ would do.

And thinking about what Christ would do would not just be good for Arizona.

The term 'racist' no longer holds as much impact

The world of politics cannot function without one major rule recorded by the late Saul Alinsky.

 "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

This previously unwritten rule was and is used frequently by both sides of the political isle. Politicians and blowhards have often used emotionally charged words to lob at opponents as paper bullets of the brain. The words usually fit in with immediate culture and the latest news.  One insult often used by the left and the right in tandem is to compare a person to Hitler or the Nazis. The comparison used to carry weight. It was a dreaded idea that one would do to his or her country what  Hitler and the Nazi’s promoted such as genocide and eugenics. The insult has been used so often that it has become a very recognizable as an ad hominem that is not taken seriously.

The lack of shame in America is an example of using a strategic attitude or word to the point that its potency is diluted. Public shame, or ‘the shame finger’ was a strategy that drew attention to the immoral actions of an individual. The left and the right have used this tactic ad nauseam with the result that people now have little shame. Their heart strings have been plucked to the breaking point and caring comes only after a huge emotional investment. The shame finger has backfired causing a fight reaction instead of a flight reaction.  Whether it is a Christian, a Pagan, a promiscuous girl, or a member of the LGBT community, they all have responded to the label of shame by standing up and declaring loudly that they will be accepted and if not then tough.  Shame is a universal trigger word that has been cheapened. While shame is a universal trigger each party also has its own unique phrase to hurl at a political opponent

In recent years since President Obama has taken office the old insults of the Red Scare era have come to the forefront in conservative circles. Most debates, arguments, and campaign attack ads have either insinuated or outright referred to a liberal opponent as a communist or a socialist. The word invokes caution and suspicion towards big government and a Brave New World type of outcome.  Typically liberals and Democrats attempted to thwart this label by ridiculing the term because if the label of socialist stuck it could mean losing independent voters. The ridicule of those using the phrases of socialist or communist and the frequency in which those words are used have diminished the effect and numbed the public to the ideas.

Liberals are not innocent of using an idea, term, or insult to death.  However the term they picked to bastardize and cheapen is far more serious, it is the term racist. Now it is accepted that there are racists just like there are socialists and communists, but the truth behind the statement no longer holds the impact it once held. Being labeled a racist or a bigot, until recently, was not only a high insult it could ruin your life. In some ways it still can, but because of the misapplication more people have been counteracting the accusation. Again, people have chosen fight as opposed to flight and in doing so further misused the term racist.

During the Obama campaign pretty much anyone who did not support him was labeled a racist. This accusation took many people, who legitimately opposed his ideas, off guard. People asked how they could be called a racist for not agreeing with his stances.  The answer is simple, the conservative agenda has been labeled racist. If a conservative calls for less government involvement the liberal stance is to accuse the person of being racist and mislabel the small government stance as an anti-minority stance. Big government means laws and programs that help the poor and minorities. Conservatives began to fight back by labeling big government programs as racist because conservatives claim these programs are designed to keep people poor and voting for the liberal supported party. They liken welfare and social programs as tools of the ‘Democrat Plantation,’ alluding to these programs as modern tools for enslavement and subjugation. Conservatives and whites began to cry racism against programs that were designed to teach tolerance, granted some of those programs did cross a line but many were appropriate. Finally, Obama was called a racist for attending a black liberation theology church and for many of the ideas he expressed or agreed with in his books.

Now the claims of racism against a person are holding very little weight when perhaps there are legitimate concerns.  Just like the little boy who cried wolf, our society has cried racist so many times that we can no longer trust the word. Even though more people have become numb to the accusation it seems it has been brought up again in the Presidential race and a legitimate concern about a candidate may be swept under the rug because the media has gone overboard.

Ron Paul was the publisher of a newsletter in the late 80’s and early 90’s. These newsletters at times held articles that were racist and bigoted. Paul has disavowed the newsletters claiming he did not read them and that he was a poor publisher for not reading them. His money was behind the newsletters and enabled racists statements to be published unfettered. Every year that Paul runs for political office these newsletters and the support of various extremist groups are brought forth as a brand new discovery and that he is not fit to run for being a racist. Are these claims legitimate? That would be up to the reader to research and decide.

The claim of racism against Ron Paul seem legitimated to Jonathan Capehart  a writer at the Washington Post who recently published an article about the inherent racism of the Republican party.  His accusations piled one on top of the other with some being legitimate and others being ridiculous. The worst statement he made was to accuse voters in the Iowa caucus of inherent racism. During his rant he claimed the Republican party must admit to how racist it is because Ron Paul has a chance at winning the Iowa caucus the admission will not come anytime soon.

Sooner or later, a major candidate for the Republican nomination will have to give the equivalent of President Obama’s speech on race during the 2008 campaign. A frank assessment of the issue that discusses the party’s role in exacerbating tensions and sowing division, the state of race relations from his or her perspective and how they see their role in making this a more perfect union. That Ron Paul rides high in Iowa demonstrates how far off that day is. -Jonathan Capehart 

If one reads between the lines he is saying that the voters in Iowa are racist and voted for Paul because of his racist newsletters.

The accusation of racism towards these voters is one more example of the tactical usage of racism. People who may not know about the newsletters, or are not sure what to believe, but do agree with the minimalist federal government stance with more powerful state governments, want to vote for Ron Paul. Mr. Capehart has turned their consideration of the platforms of many Republican candidates into a simple mindless action of a group of troglodytes who have not moved forward into enlightenment.

There was a time a racist was a person who denied a minority a job and made them ride at the back of the bus. Racists made people drink from separate water fountains based on skin color and condemned mixed unions for being unclean. Racists made minorities enter from the back of buildings and dine in separate dining areas. Racists killed black men for looking at a white woman.  Those are examples of racist actions.

Jonathan Capehart and many other people have slapped American society in the face by not acknowledging how far we have come. They call people racist who have been raised better and who have never had a racist thought. They will not let some matters drop and insist black and white children be introduced to victimizing and blaming one another. They have changed the word racist so now it is only a menial insult and so it has little meaning. The word ‘racist’ is now akin to the words ‘Hitler’ and ‘Nazi.’ From now on when a person says racist they will lose the argument just like they would if they said Hitler or Nazi. It is a sad day when a word that helped shine the light on the pain and suffering endured by many people becomes nothing more than a logical fallacy.

People have listened to Saul Alinsky with how to polarize a target, but perhaps they have forgotten another rule that is just as important.

“A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”

Scaring white people

by Willie Jones - The political strategy called “Scaring White people” is far and away the most often used and the most successful in the post 1960’s era inAmerican history.  And it's happening again.

Popular similar strategies like, “they’re coming for our guns,” “abortion kills babies,” and “homosexual marriage will destroy the institution of marriage,” can’t hold a candle to “Scaring White people.”  

Brilliant in its simplicity, here’s an analogy.  A lighted cigarette is tossed out the window of a moving car onto the dry grass just beyond the shoulder of the road. Who is driving the car is not important.  The burning cigarette starts a small fire, first bright, then diminishing into embers, unnoticed by anyone, except the wind. The wind, in a gust, lifts the embers, carrying them beyond the next hill, into the next valley, touching down in the dry tinder and starting the next fire, and the next, and the next, until much of the forest is ablaze.

For the past 18 months we’ve seen small fires here and there, we’ve seen them repeated here and there.  I’m certain they will continue, with increasing intensity, until election day, this November. Some say the American people are smarter than that; they won’t fall for it; not this time.  I say, hogwash, the American people will fall for it, just like they did the last time, and the time before that, and the time before that. This stuff works!!

The Scaring White People strategy requires shameless hyperbole, outrageous  dishonesty, and a serious, thoughtful look on your face as you address the camera . A kernel of truth will do if one is handy, if not, don’t worry about it, just tell a lie and make it sound like the truth. Chances are the reporter doing the interview will either say nothing or give a discerning nod, an indication that you may continue.

Recently a U.S. Senator said violent crime is up in Arizona, while on another channel, another U. S. Senator said Arizona is the kidnap capital of the United States.  Neither statement is true but both will serve the purpose of Scaring White People.  The recent incident involving the New Black Panther Party, was, in name only, a JACKPOT. Stevie Wonder could see there was no story here, however, with a name like New Black Panther party, who needs a story, just keep saying the name, over and over and over and over. Scares the hell out of White people. 

It is possible that you think I’m dissing White People, or that I’m saying White people are easily spooked, pun intended. I declare that I am not saying any of that.  The Scaring White People strategy is designed to stir White People, rouse them, energize them and shape their thinking as the election approaches. 

This is a call to action.  

Your next question is probably, do I think White People are stupid enough to fall for this scurrilous approach to politics?  Here is my honest, sincere answer. Each time I become aware of one of those small fires, talk radio, television, the internet, in print, I pause and I whisper, to myself, maybe, just maybe, it won’t work this time, maybe the truth will prevail. 

We’ll know soon.