The Devil can cite Scripture for his own purpose

Oh, Lordy, I feel a screed coming on.  And all it takes is this title: The American Left Finds Religion

It’s a homey little piece by Congressman Steve King, who, we are reminded is:

Congressman Steve King (R-IA) is the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law. He is also a member of St. Martin’s Church in Odebolt, Iowa.

Which, btw, is a Catholic Church.  Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it’s an odd omission if you’re going to tout your home parish.

The article is at ToRenewAmerica.com, which, despite the URL, is labeled as ReAL: Renewing American Leadership. Their mission is to “preserve America’s Judeo-Christian heritage by defending and promoting the three pillars of American civilization: freedom, faith and free markets.”

Yes, Jesus and Moses were all about free markets.  I’m sure you’ll remember all the relevant Biblical passages.

Anyway, on with the show.

Recently, the Democratic Chairwoman of the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law …

Let me just say that’s just one crazy Subcommittee name.  I mean, really.  How do they fit that onto meeting room agendas?

Oh, and btw, that would be Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA).

… held a hearing on an unusual topic: whether Christianity compels policymakers in Washington DC to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants residing in this country.

Surprised by the topic? I know I was. After all, when conservatives make reference to either the Holy Bible or to America’s rich Judeo-Christian heritage, Democrats usually are the first to object! Was this hearing evidence that the liberal/progressive movement in America had suddenly found religion?

It is, in fact, a bit unusual (and I suspect, not quite what the topic of the day was).  To be honest, in the halls of government, I’m not particularly thrilled with Congresscritters debating what “Christianity compels.”  I’d suggest that’s up to the individual believer, if they believe, not the national government.

By the way, I used that Newfangled Informational Thang, the Internet, to see what was really up at the hearing in question.  Surprisingly enough, it wasn’t about Christian Compulsion. On 14 July, the subcommittee met to discuss “the Ethical Imperative for Reform of our Immigration System.”

I’m sure it’s a shock to Rep. King that there might be ethical considerations beyond “our rich Judeo-Christian heritage” — though the witness list does look heavy on the Christian.

The witness statements are available to download, as is a webcast of the meeting.  But let’s hear what Rep. King thought was going on.

I think you know the answer to this question.

Right. It’s impossible for liberal/progressives to be religious. Because they think differently than we do, so they must be wrong, therefore it is all a bit lie.

Sorry, I skipped ahead.

The Democrats at this hearing approached their analysis of the Bible’s laws much the same way as they approach the U.S. Constitution’s provisions: as a living document subject to activist interpretation on behalf of radical policy initiatives.

Because Democrats could only be proof-texting the Bible to support their (radical, activist) political position. No Republican would ever do that.

Think about it: what was the basic idea that the Democrats who organized this hearing hoped to prove? It was the notion that the only Biblically-acceptable immigration policy is open borders.

Is that true?

Is that the only Biblically-acceptable policy?  Well, it certainly sounds like something we could debate.  I’d hate to assume up front that’s the case.  It’s not like Jesus preached specifically on immigration policy (no “Samaritans go home!” or “Judea for Judeans!” in his parables, as I recall). Which means that we need to interpret from Scripture, figure out what might apply, use a bit of nuance and prayerful consideration and …

It certainly doesn’t sound like any version of the Holy Scripture that I’ve read.

… or maybe not.

It certainly doesn’t sound like any version of the scriptures the Israelis (who have built a border security fence and have an active deportation program) have read.

Well, the Israelis are missing out a bit on the “Christian” side of “our rich Judeo-Christian heritage.”  Their Biblical — er, Torah perspective is all about invasions, counter-invasions, conquest and re-conquest, genocide and ethnic cleansing.  Which is perhaps informative of their motivation but not necessarily of the ethical basis of immigration policy.

And I’m confident it doesn’t match up with your own church’s teachings either.

Yes, not only is Rep. King the arbiter of what Scripture means, but he knows everything about what my church teaches.  Um, not.

How could it? The Bible is very clear not only on the subject of borders, but also on the importance of obeying the Rule of Law.

And also about the uselessness of the Law vs. dependence upon God’s grace and love. But let’s not muddy the waters.

Since the Democrats at the hearing greeted these two points with silence, I can only assume that they regarded the following passages of the Bible as “inconvenient truths.”

I really need to watch that webcast, since Rep. King gives the impression that Good Godly Biblical Christians Preached To Them, And They Were Struck Dumb.  Seems … a bit dubious.

For example, take Deuteronomy 32:8. That passage reads: “When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.” How can that possibly be read as an invitation to believe that God remains neutral on the subject of borders? It can’t be.

Wait. The US borders have changed many times in the 200+ years of our existence.  Does that mean the Westward Expansion was ungodly?  That the Louisiana Purchase was un-Biblical? That violating the lands of the Native Americans over and over again was against the will of God?

Well, that’s certainly something I’d be willing to discuss, but I suspect  Rep. King would somehow grant a magical exception to the United States.  For some extra-Biblical reason.

Neither can the passage in Acts 17:26 which says that “God made all nations who live on earth, and he decided when and where every nation would be.”

Well, one could argue that this particular passage of Acts has nothing to do with immigration and borders, and was actually Paul preaching to the Athenians that Jesus had a message for folks beyond the borders (!) of Palestine.

Perhaps this explains why the Democrats at the hearing ignored both passages.

Because they were stray quotes, taken out of context, and really don’t inform the debate?

Or how about Jesus’ teaching to Matthew that one should “therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” That is a clear directive to Christ’s followers to respect the rule of man-made law in secular, as opposed to spiritual, settings.

Oh, that more Christians of Rep. King’s ilk would take that rule to heart, and stop trying to make Caesar enforce God’s law.

Rewarding illegal immigrants with amnesty clearly violates this provision, as it can not possibly be argued that rewarding illegal immigrants for their lawbreaking promotes a respect for man-made immigration laws. Again, the Democrats’ silence on this passage speaks volumes.

Similarly, declaring independence from the one’s God-appointed monarch is clearly a violation fo this provision as well.  We owe Queen Elizabeth II an apology and our fealty.

I suppose, however, that Jews and Christians throughout America should be glad that in trying to re-interpret the Bible to meet their political needs, the Democrats offered such a superficial view of Old and New Testament teachings.

Which view you don’t bother to mention.  Why muddy the waters when you can present all your own proof-texts and ignore those of your opponent, waving them off as “superficial.”

Can you imagine what the Democrats at this hearing would have done had they gotten around to analyzing the Exodus story? Moses would have gone from demanding that Pharaoh free Moses’ people so that they could return to the Promised Land, to demanding that Pharaoh grant a “path to citizenship” that would continue to allow Moses’ people to stay in Egypt in order to build Pharaoh’s temples at below market wages.

The Republicans, on the other hand, would be rooting for Pharaoh to put the hurt on those uppity furriners who were stealing good jobs from Egyptians who would have been more than happy to make bricks without straw, right?  They should be kicked out — certainly they shouldn’t be allowed to send all those “jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment” (Ex. 12:33-38) south to their layabout relatives over the border!

Clearly, I don’t think that this is the message that the Bible intended to convey.

Clearly you don’t think that.

So what should conservatives, as defenders of America’s Judeo-Christian heritage,…

Hubris, much?

Gosh, remember when all those conservatives were busy keeping Jews out of their country clubs?

… do now that the liberals are signaling their willingness to throw their traditional over-heated “violation of church and state” principles overboard in the name of political expediency?

Or, conversely, now that they are signaling that they are tired of conservatives wrapping themselves up with cross and flag and claiming the religious high ground?

I say we welcome them to a public discussion of the Bible’s meanings. If we do, I believe we will have a very interesting impact on American policy. In the near run, I believe that a fuller discussion of Biblical teachings in the wake of the Democrats’ show hearing would move the illegal immigration debate in a direction that proponents of amnesty never expected. It would further galvanize public opposition to the proposal.

Because we have more experience at proof-texting out of context in order to make our point.  Besides, we’re right, and they’re wrong, thus, we must automatically win. Yay, Jesus!

For instance, do the Democrats really relish the idea of being cast as Pontius Pilate? In seeking to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants at a time when unemployment rates are already unacceptably high, can’t the Democrats be said to be “washing their hands” of the negative consequences their economic policies have wrought?

I think so. And the last time I checked my Bible, Pontius Pilate was regarded as anything but a hero.

Yes, attempting to deal with the reality of millions of illegal immigrants already in this country, most of whom work jobs that most citizens would never dream of taking, is the equivalent of killing Jesus. Thanks for that rational, non-inflammatory, and lovingly Christian analogy, Rep. King.

I’m sure you already knew that. I’m equally sure that if they continue promoting amnesty, the Democrats will learn the same lesson.

Yes, God will smite them for not believing the Gospel According to Rep. King.  Thus endeth the lesson.

Yeesh.