Connect with us

If You Support Trump’s Muslim Ban, You’re Simply Not A Real Christian

Published

on

Bible Implores Us To Welcome Foreigners, Refugees 

Around the country, millions of Christians gathered to pray this morning. They listened to homilies, sang hymns, read devotional texts, and prayed for the health and safety of our leaders and our world. Countless pastors and preachers undoubtedly spoke from the pulpit on the necessity of President Donald Trump’s executive order banning refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries. 

They likely praised Trump’s action because the order prioritizes members of “minority religions” from those places and grants them special privileges that other refugees don’t enjoy. In practice, the executive order places a higher priority on Christian refugees. Sure, there are adherents to other minority religions who will be affected, but the primary focus is Christians.  

I’m not now nor have I ever been a Christian. I’m pretty sure I’ve said more than a few times here that I’m an observant Jew and I often approach the world from that perspective. I have a master’s degree in Jewish education from one of the best programs at one of the best universities in the world. I’m most definitely not new to religion, scripture, and theology, and even though I’m not Christian I’ve devoted a bit of time to studying it in order to learn more about my friends and neighbors. 

Considering how much I’ve studied scripture and theology, I’m absolutely racking my brain trying to figure out how someone who calls themseves a Christian can support a ban on refugees. I don’t understand how anyone can say that the Bible is the word of God while simultaneously saying they’re commanded to deny sanctuary to vulnerable refugees.  

Exodus 22:20 says, “Do not persecute and do not oppress the foreigner, because you were foreigners in the land of Egypt.”  It doesn’t get more explicit than a blatant prohibition on persecution and oppression directed at refugees.

Numbers 15:15 tells us that strangers and residents should be treated equally before the law and before God. If we take a step back into the larger context, there are four (four!) different commands that make it clear that the law should be exactly the same for foreigners and residents found in Numbers 15:14-16. 

Exodus 12:49 makes it even more explicit: “There shall be one law for the citizen and for the foreigner who resides among you.” That’s a direct translation.

Exodus 23:9 commands believers not to oppress the foreigner because we know the feelings — literally, because we “know the soul” — of the foreigner, because we were also foreigners (refugees) in the land of Egypt.

What Christians call the Old Testament — and what us Jews just call the Bible — is absolutely filled with references to foreigners. Abraham was explicitly called a refugee. The Israelites were refugees from their homeland as they left and went down to Egypt, and in no uncertain terms, Leviticus 19:18 commands us to “love your neighbor as yourself.”

When discussing Christian theology, many are quick to point out that Jesus negated much of the law contained in the Jewish Bible, and they’re right. It’s why Christians don’t observe the dietary laws or many of the other customs that observant Jews follow.

Because of this disparity between Jewish theology and Christian theology, I decided to go a bit farther in my research and look at some of what’s written in what Chrisians call the New Testament. Here’s what I found:

In Mark 12:31 Jesus directly quotes Leviticus 19:18 saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater.” That’s pretty clear, huh?

Matthew 25:35-46 warns very explicitly that people who do not feed those who are hungry, clothe the naked, or welcome the stranger will “go away into eternal punishment.” (Can you get more clear than the threat of eternal damnation for not welcoming the stranger? I don’t think you can.)

In Romans 12:13, Paul declares that the mark of a true Christian is shown in one who is quick to “extend hospitality to strangers.” A few verses earlier he warns those listening not to “be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God — what is good and acceptable and perfect. (12:2) He continues, “Welcome one another, therefore, just as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.” (15:7) 

Hebrews 13:1-2 begs to “Let mutual love continue. Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angles without knowing it.” Who knows what potential we’re denying by refusing to extend a welcome to the vulnerable.

This is certainly not an exhaustive list of all Biblical sources from either the Hebrew or Christian Bibles that show how strongly believers are commanded to welcome the refugee who is in need. According to the scripture, it is not just a duty but a moral imperative to welcome the stranger. 

I’ll certainly be the first to say that religious beliefs should never mix with government policy. Specifically as an religiously observant person, I want the government to stay far, far away from my religious practices and theology. But I’d also be naive to say there aren’t many, many people who believe their religious positions deserve a place of superiority both within our law and within our government. Many of these folks are consulting and advising President Trump and specifically recommended this executive order. They’re also the same people who have made a living by being professional Christians in the Evangelical and other fundamentalist churches have often said that one cannot claim to be a true Christian if they willingly ignore what’s in Scripture.

So I return to my original question: How can anyone who claims to believe the Bible is the direct word of God support President Trump’s executive order banning refugees? How can you call yourself a Christian and so blatantly ignore these verses? I honestly don’t understand. 

Robbie Medwed is an Atlanta-based LGBTQ activist, educator, and writer. He’s absolutely sick of people using their religion as an excuse to persecute and harm those they dislike. Follow him on Twitter: @rjmedwed

To comment on this article and other NCRM content, visit our Facebook page.

Image via Unvirtuous Abbey on Facebook. 

 

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘I’m Not Suicidal’: Kari Lake Pushes Hillary Clinton Murder Conspiracy Theory

Published

13 hours ago

on

April 22, 2024

By

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Kari Lake is promoting a conspiracy theory suggesting Hillary Clinton wants to assassinate her. Her remarks came just one day before she lost her attempt to have the Supreme Court review what some have called her conspiracy-theory fueled lawsuit about electronic voting machines.

“Lake, who filed the lawsuit during her failed campaign for governor in 2022, challenged whether the state’s electronic voting machines assured ‘a fair and accurate vote.’ Two lower courts dismissed the suit, finding that Lake and former Republican state lawmaker Mark Finchem had not been harmed in a way that allowed them to sue,” CNN reported Monday.

Also on Monday Law&Crime reported that when she filed her lawsuit, a Dominion Voting Systems spokesperson “rejected Lake’s cybersecurity claim, telling Law&Crime it was ‘implausible and conspiratorial.'”

Democracy Docket, founded by top Democratic elections attorney Marc Elias, called it “the end of the road for a conspiratorial lawsuit,” and Lake and Fincham, “election deniers.”

READ MORE: ‘Old and Tired and Mad’: Trump’s Demeanor in Court Detailed by Rachel Maddow

Lake, a far-right conspiracy theorist who has yet to concede the 2020 election, which she lost to Democrat Katie Hobbs, has a history of pushing exaggerated and baseless claims.

On Sunday, as MeidasTouch Network reported, Lake promoted an old, anti-Clinton conspiracy theory but twisted it to try to make it appear she was in danger from former U.S. Secretary of State and former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

Lake on Newsmax listened to a clip of Secretary Clinton calling Trump’s fondness for Russian President Vladimir Putin a “bromance,” and saying the ex-president is “just gaga over Putin, because Putin does what he would like to do: kill his opposition, imprison his opposition, drive, you know, journalists and others into exile, rule without any check or balance.”

Then Lake promoted a thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory by responding, “Oh, boy. Oh, that’s really rich coming from a woman like Hillary Clinton, who’s, how many of her friends have just like, mysteriously died or committed suicide?”

“I mean, honestly, that’s rich of her. What President Trump wants is to root out the corruption and deliver our government back to We The People and she looks very nervous. She talked about her friend Mark Elias, Mark Elias has meddled in in his and his cohorts have meddled in the elections.”

She called Democratic policies, “destructive, deadly and frankly, in some ways, diabolical,”and added, “it’s almost comical that Hillary Clinton is talking about Trump wanting to kill his opponents.”

READ MORE: ‘Election Interference’ and ‘Corruption’: Experts Explain Trump Prosecution Opening Argument

“I just want to say as I’m as I’m speaking about this topic, I want everyone out there to know that my brakes on my car have recently been checked and they work. I’m not suicidal. And Hillary, I don’t mean any harm to you. Please don’t send your henchmen out to me. We understand what you’re about. ”

Watch below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Rally Behind MAGA’: Trump Advocates Courthouse ‘Protests’ Nationwide

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Old and Tired and Mad’: Trump’s Demeanor in Court Detailed by Rachel Maddow

Published

16 hours ago

on

April 22, 2024

By

MSNBC top host Rachel Maddow, inside Manhattan’s Criminal Courthouse on Monday declared Donald Trump appeared “old and tired and mad,” as she delivered observations about the ex-president on trial for 34 counts of falsification of business records alleged in the alleged pursuit of election interference to protect his 2016 presidential run.

Trump “seems considerably older, and he seems annoyed. Resigned, maybe, angry. he seems like a man who’s miserable to be here,” the award-winning journalist told MSNBC viewers Monday afternoon.

“I’m no body language expert,” she conceded, “and this is just my observation. He seemed old and tired and mad.”

The New York Times’ Susanne Craig, from inside the courthouse Monday morning reported: “Trump is struggling to stay awake. His eyes were closed for a short period. He was jolted awake when Todd Blanche, his lawyer, nudged him while sliding a note in front of him.”

The Biden campaign was only too happy to pick up and report Craig’s observation, adding “feeble.”

Former Obama senior advisor David Axelrod, pointing to his piece at The Atlantic, wrote of Trump: “He has charmed & conned, schemed & marauded his way through life. He was bred that way. But the weariness & vulnerability captured in courtroom images betray a growing sense in Trump that he could wind up as the thing his old man most reviled:
A loser.”

Watch Maddow’s remarks below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Election Interference’ and ‘Corruption’: Experts Explain Trump Prosecution Opening Argument

Continue Reading

News

‘Election Interference’ and ‘Corruption’: Experts Explain Trump Prosecution Opening Argument

Published

19 hours ago

on

April 22, 2024

By

Prosecutors for the State of New York in their opening statement drew a direct line between the October 2016  “Access Hollywood” leaked audio and Donald Trump’s alleged “hush money” payoff to two women, including the adult film actress Stormy Daniels, telling the jury it was “election fraud, pure and simple.”

Legal experts are dissecting the prosecution’s opening argument. Professor of law, MSNBC contributor and former FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann summed it up, saying New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg “squarely places the NY criminal trial in the election interference/corruption bucket– exactly what the DC and GA indictments allege, just 4 years later.”

“And the NY alleged ‘cover up’ is reminiscent of the two MAL [Mar-a-Lago] alleged obstruction schemes post-presidency, to keep prosecutors from uncovering evidence of that scheme,” Weissmann added.

Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo late Monday morning in his 45-minute opening argument told jurors, “This case is about criminal conspiracy and a cover up,” according to MSNBC’s Joyce Vance.

READ MORE: ‘Rally Behind MAGA’: Trump Advocates Courthouse ‘Protests’ Nationwide

“The defendant, Donald Trump, orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election,” Colangelo told jurors, CNN reports. “Then he covered up that criminal conspiracy by lying in his New York business records over and over and over again.”

“This was a planned, coordinated long-running conspiracy to influence the 2016 election, to help Donald Trump get elected through illegal expenditures,” Colangelo, a former U.S. Department of Justice Acting Associate Attorney General, told jurors.

“Another story about sexual infidelity, especially with a porn star, on the heels of the Access Hollywood tape would have been devastating to his campaign,” Colangelo added. “’So at Trump’s direction, Cohen negotiated the deal to buy Daniels’ story,’ and prevent it from becoming public before the election.”

“It was election fraud, pure and simple.”

Vance, an MSNBC legal analyst, professor of law and former U.S. Attorney, explains: “The scheme the prosecution is outlining is catch & kill to elect Trump-awful but lawful. Trump crossed the line into illegality when he created false business records to conceal his payments to Cohen to cover up the payments to Stormy Daniels.”

READ MORE: Fox News Host Suggests Trump ‘Force’ Court to Throw Him in Jail – by Quoting Him

“It’s always the cover up,” she adds.

Professor of law and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman adds, the prosecution told jurors “a straight election-interference story.”

Colangelo, Litman says, told jurors that Trump’s then personal attorney Micheal Cohen “then discussed the [Stormy] situation with Trump who was adamant he did not want the story to come out. Another story…on the heels of the Access Hollywood tape would have been devastating to his campaign.”

MSNBC legal contributor Katie Phang describes Colangelo’s opening argument, saying he is “working methodically and chronologically through the conspiracy, identifying the main characters and their involvement. He speaks clearly and succintly [sic].”

Trump has been criminally indicted in four separate cases and is facing a total of 88 felony charges, including 34 in his New York criminal trial for alleged falsification of business records to hide payments of hush money to an adult film actress and one other woman, in an alleged effort to suppress their stories and protect his 2016 presidential campaign, which could be deemed election interference.

Watch an MSNBC clip below or at this link.

 

READ MORE: Gaetz: ‘Corrupt’ Republicans Could ‘Take a Bribe’ and Throw House to Dems, Blocking Trump Run

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.