When He's Wrong He's Really Wrong, But When He's Right He's Fantastic
Embryo Parson Posted on Monday, March 14, 2016 at 03:17PM "It's not racist to oppose refugees." - Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby
For the last several years I have been telling my liberal-lefty friends that calling us "racists" doesn't work anymore, hence why the editorial statement in this article resonates with me: "The fact is, I no longer give two hoots whether standing up for my country is seen as racist." Fewer and fewer people care when they are labelled as such, and that's largely because they view liberal-lefties along with their stupid PC opinions, and worse, policies, with increasing contempt. And now that we have Justin Welby++ saying it, we can be reasonably confident that the magnitude of that contempt is beginning to saturate even that part of Western society that isn't ideologically conservative. Know hope.
Too bad we can't discern the same degree of realism in neo-Anglican jurisdictions such as the Anglican Church in North America, which carries on with the shoddy "stranger" theology that underlies its Anglican Immigrant Initiative. One of ACNA's sons, Governor John Kasich, is currently running for president. If elected, here's the kind of said shoddy theology that would inform his immigration reform program:
Though it has transpired without much attention, Kasich has quietly amassed a string of bizarre, peculiar, and extreme statements on immigration that places him to the furthest leftward reaches of not just the Republican President field, but the Democratic Presidential field as well. This perhaps underscores an element of seriousness to Kasich’s previous declaration, which he had intended in jest: “I ought to be running in a Democrat primary.”
Below are just some of Kasich’s most bizarre and radical statements on immigration, which have flown under the radar.
1) “God Bless” Illegal Immigrants
Illegal immigrants are a “critical part of our society,” John Kasich told the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce last October. “For those that are here that have been law abiding, God bless them,” Kasich said—arguing that illegals “should have a path to legalization.”
2) “I couldn’t imagine” enforcing our current immigration laws: “That is not… the kind of values that we believe in.”
On the GOP debate stage in February, Kasich told millions of American voters that enforcing the nation’s immigration laws is not “the kind of values that we believe in.”
“I couldn’t even imagine how we would even begin to think about taking a mom or a dad out of a house when they have not committed a crime since they’ve been here, leaving their children in the house,” Kasich said. “That is not, in my opinion, the kind of values that we believe in.”
3) Kasich likened deporting the illegal population to Japanese internment camps
“To think that that we’re just going to put people on buses and ship them to the border—look at our World War II experience where we quarantined Japanese—I mean it’s a dark stain on America’s history,” Kasich said in November.
“We shouldn’t even think about it,” Kasich said of the “nutty” idea:
“I don’t know many people that believe we should deport 11 million people—just because people shout loud doesn’t mean they’re a majority. I think most Republicans would agree that you can’t deport 11 million people. We shouldn’t even think about it. What are you going to do? Break their families up?”
4) Illegal immigrants “are some of the hardest-working, God-fearing, family-oriented people you can ever meet.”
As Newsmax reported in August, when a New Hampshire town-hall attendee asked Kasich about illegal immigration and the burden illegal immigrants place upon the nation, Kasich dismissed the voter’s concern.
“A lot of these people who are here are some of the hardest-working, God-fearing, family-oriented people you can ever meet,” Kasich said referring to illegal immigrants. “These are people who are contributing significantly.”
Kasich made no mention of the fact that 87 percent of illegal immigrant households with children in 2012 were on welfare, according to a 2015 report based on Census Bureau data.
Kasich similarly made no mention of last year’s report from the liberal Migration Policy Institute which found that there are nearly one million illegal aliens in the United States with criminal convictions (820,000). This figure was not an estimation of total crimes committed by illegal immigrants—which would be a much higher number—but only those illegal aliens successfully identified, arrested, tried, and convicted.
5) Allowing ICE officers to do their jobs is not “humane”
Kasich told CBS last year that he does not support deporting the illegal population: “I don’t think it’s right; I don’t think it’s humane.”
Kasich also compared illegal immigration to cutting in line at a Taylor Swift concert: “I don’t favor citizenship [for illegals] because as I tell my daughters, you don’t jump the line to go to a Taylor Swift concert, you just don’t do it,” Kasich said.
However, Kasich has made clear that he is open to giving illegal immigrants citizenship. Moreover, a report from Columbus Dispatch suggests that Kasich favors green cards for illegal immigrants, which is the main pathway to citizenship.
6) America can’t deport illegal immigrants because they are “made in the image of the Lord”
In June, the Columbus Dispatch reported on a meeting that took place between John Kasich and an illegal immigrant and her son. After their meeting, Kasich said: “They’re just good people. They’re made in the image of the Lord, and you know, there’s a big element of compassion connected to how we treat people who are trying to find a way to a better life.”
If being “made in the image of the Lord” provides an exemption to America’s immigration law, then that would mean that all of the world’s seven billion people would be free to violate America’s immigration laws.
7) Kasich has called for implementing an open borders-style policy where workers can come and go as they please.
In July, Kasich told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that we need to “have a guest worker program so people can come in, work, and then leave. Our program is too narrow now.”
Kasich claim that the nation’s guest worker program, which admits an unprecedented number of foreign workers into the country, is “too narrow” is astonishing—and places him squarely in the tiny minority of the Republican electorate, only seven percent of whom want to increase immigration.
Moreover, Kasich’s call for a guest worker program that will allow workers to come and go as they please represents the central pillar of the open borders philosophy. Under this global one-world theory, any willing employer should be able to hire any willing worker regardless of the country in which they reside—thus removing any right that American workers be entitled to get American jobs. This is similar to the policy European countries have within the European Union—namely, people are entitled to move freely from one country to another. Kasich is essentially laying out how the same legal structure could be adopted for the United States and all the foreign countries of the world.
8) Kasich would enact amnesty within his first 100 days.
In last Thursday’s CNN debate, Kasich told voters that he would enact the largest amnesty in U.S. history within his first 100 days in office. “For the 11 and a half million who are here, then in my view if they have not committed a crime since they’ve been here, they get a path to legalization. Not to citizenship. I believe that program can pass the Congress in the first 100 days,” Kasich said.
9) America shouldn’t address ending birthright citizenship because it’s “dividing people”
Kasich has made clear that he does not want to discuss birthright citizenship as an issue. While Kasich previously supported ending birthright citizenship, he has since reversed his position—meaning he now supports giving citizenship to all children of illegal immigrants, or of tourists and guest-workers, who are born on U.S. soil.
“I don’t believe it should be a fundamental part of this whole thing because I think it remains dividing to people, to be honest with you,” Kasich said trying to take the issue off the table. “Let these people who are born here be citizens and that’s the end of it. I don’t want to dwell on it.”
“If you are born here, you’re a citizen. Period. End of story,” Kasich told the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce last October.
10) Illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay because “they’re here”
“With the 12 million—they’re here,” Kasich said explaining why he supports a path to legalization. “If they have been law-abiding, then I believe they should have a path to legalization… look, they have become a very important part of our society.”
When PBS’ Gwen Ifill pressed Kasich on how his position on the issue “rubs a lot of Republicans the wrong way,” Kasich said: “Well, what do you think we’re going to do? Go chasing them down? And put these big lights on top of cars? And go into neighborhoods hunting them down? That’s not—that’s not what America is.”
Kasich again repeated his talking point likening illegally entering the United States and residing here in violation of U.S. immigration law, to cutting in line at a Taylor Swift concert: “Look, nobody likes that they broke the law, they ditched the line. I have told my kids, as much as you love Taylor Swift, you don’t ditch the line to get into a concert.”
You'll notice that all these statements are emotional, platitudinous, and marked by an extremely superficial understanding of Holy Scripture as it pertains to the issue of illegal immigration. As noted here, in the final analysis the Bible does not provide arguments for amnesty at all, but fully recognizes the God-ordained nature of sovereign national borders. What's more, illegal immigrants are lawbreakers of laws that are legitimate not only from a divine point of view but one grounded in the kind of canons derived from rational and natural law on which political legitimacy is based. The strict enforcement of immigration laws is well within the scope of what St. Paul infers in Romans 13:1-7, and for Anglicans or any other Christians to go against this biblical grain is to acquiesce in this lawlessness.
All of this is why it isn't "racist" to oppose either the onslaught of Muslim refugees into Europe or the onslaught of Latinos illegally entering the United States. What's more, it is positively wrong from both a biblical point of view and a rational one NOT to oppose it.
Reader Comments (28)
Looks to me that if John Kasich is pro-immigrants then the ACNA is housing Liberals. I think there must be 'creeping liberalism' in the ACNA. Since the ACNA was only founded in 2009 and only has 100,000 members it hasn't taken long for the rot to set in.
Time to jump ship (again)?
The ACNA is undoubtedly liberal, they allow priestesses for those parishes which want them. John Kasich, formerly a Croatian-Czech RC, is typical of the average ACNA member. When interviewed by a Fox reporter he still claims he can win the nomination. Are those flying pigs I see circling his headquarters?
Heh, you know, Stefano, it's amazing to me how benighted you can prove yourself to be almost every time you comment here. It's like you either don't pay attention to what I write or you willfully ignore it. First, I'm not a member of ACNA, so I certainly wouldn't be jumping from that ship. While there are many good conservatives in ACNA, I have consistently agreed, here at my blog and elsewhere, with the assessment that ACNA is merely TEC 1976. As Mr. Pryor notes above, not only does ACNA countenance priestesses (who no doubt enjoy reading the good ladies at St. Nina Quarterly), I have observed some of its members, including priests (and priestesses), supporting gay marriage. ACNA also includes a goodly number of "emergent" hipster types. So yes, there is creeping liberalism in ACNA, and that's one reason I would never join it.
Second, I have consistently defended an essentially Continuing Anglican viewpoint here. If I "jump" anywhere, it will be back to the Anglican Continuum, where I was received into Anglicanism.
And where there is no St. Nina Quarterly.
"Are those flying pigs I see circling his headquarters?"
:)
Well, the results of today's primaries will be interesting. Quinnipiac has Trump and Kasich neck and neck in Ohio. If Kasich wins, it won't be by much.
Maybe it's different in the USA, but I don't think liberals go around accusing anyone who questions immigration of being racist any more. Public discourse in that area has moved on and worrying about racism is regarded as pretty mainstream.
Both Labour and Conservative politicians express concern about immigration (whether sincere or not) without getting accused of racism by their opponents. There are articles published all the time in newspapers criticising immigration without their authors getting investigated by the police for racial hatred.
Time for me to learn - Embryo Parson.
Which version of Anglicanism in North America are you part of? I don't have a score card so I'm finding it hard to keep track.
"Maybe it's different in the USA, but I don't think liberals go around accusing anyone who questions immigration of being racist any more."
LOL, what universe are you from, sir!? Welcome to ours!
The obvious question for you, Mr. Matthew Clarke, is that if "liberals (in the UK don't) go around accusing anyone who questions immigration of being racist any more", then why did Welby say what he did?
Before you answer, I'm going to warn you: don't insult our intelligence, because if you do, I just might have to start commenting extensively at your blog. And that would be painful for you, I assure you.
:>)
"Time for me to learn - Embryo Parson.
Which version of Anglicanism in North America are you part of? I don't have a score card so I'm finding it hard to keep track."
Kind of the way I feel about "canonical" Orthodoxy and all the trad Orthodox miscellany. :>) - Stefano
I am currently a member of the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA), a Jesuit-like missionary society whose diocesan ties are with several African dioceses in the Anglican Communion. My diocesan bishop is Mathayo Kasagara, Diocese of Lake Rukwa, Anglican Church of Tanzania. My mission society bishop is Philip Jones, who ordained me.
This makes me, canonical residence-wise, a member of the Anglican Realignment. (Google it.) However, as I intimated previously, theologically and temperamentally I am a "Continuing" Anglican. (Google it.) As I've indicated, I came into Anglicanism from Orthodox through the Continuum. The Rt. Rev. Rommie M. Starks, Ordinary of the Diocese of the Midwest, Anglican Catholic Church, OP, received me in November of 2011.
It's a long story about how I went from the Continuum to the Realignment; if you search around diligently, you'll find it here. One of the reasons I sought ordination through AMiA is because it does not ordain women to the priesthood, though it is unfortunately partnered with jurisdictions in Canada that do so. For this and other reasons that I won't go into here, I may end up back in the Continuum.
Now that I've answered your question, Stefano, maybe you'd like to share some thoughts about my post below challenging liberal-left Greek Orthodox to repent of their liberal-leftism. And I'd really like to know your thoughts about St. Nina's Quarterly. Do indulge me. :>)
"If Kasich wins, it won't be by much."
Embryo Parson is good, Embryo Parson is wise. ("Twister") ;>)
Thank you for the information. It's all very confusing. You forgot to mention that the AMiA are 'ministry partners' ( whatever that means) with the ACNA.
You are right that the Old Calendar Orthodox schismatic groups can be confusing but the Anglican realignment/ Continuing movement is far more confusing. The idea of territorial diocese doesn't seem to really apply and everyone ends up being in communion with everyone else. For example, you are in communion with Rwanda and they are in communion with Canterbury, who is in communion with the ECUSA but the ECUSA is not in communion with you. Does the AMiA have open or closed communion?
I'll take a look at the St. Nina's Quarterly website. I saw an article complaining about the OCA hierarchy banning altar girls. I hope that is as bad as it gets.
Can I point out that not a single Orthodox Church (the 14 autocephaleaus churches) has ordained any women as priests. For the claim of 'creeping liberalism' to stick I need to see one or more of these churches to succumb. If not the claim is hollow and just excuses. You will find the Orthodox Church a tougher nut to crack.
Why did Welby say what he said?
To an extent, he needed to say something along these lines. The Church of England has spent a lot of time talking about the rights of asylum seekers and refugees and the need to make immigrants welcome. While I don't necessarily disagree with that message, it is a bit un-balanced and gives the impression that the Church if England simply dismisses the concerns of your average British person who has genuinely felt concerns about immigration. The Church of England, rightly or wrongly is out of touch with popular opinion on immigration.
So his basic point in this message was a sensible one and possibly quite refreshing.
My objection to what he said is his repetition of what is basically a cliche. It's a cliche that gets repeated constantly both by your ordinary bloke down in the pub and by journalists and politicians, so you can't blame him that much.
The cliche is basically the idea that there is some taboo about talking about immigration, that get one labelled as racist. This is despite the fact that people are constantly talking about immigration and that the issue is brought up in newspaper columns and political manifestos.
I would suggest, trying as hard as I can not to be patronizing, that if there is a taboo over talking about immigration, it is a taboo that gets broken an awful lot.
"The cliche is basically the idea that there is some taboo about talking about immigration, that get one labelled as racist. This is despite the fact that people are constantly talking about immigration and that the issue is brought up in newspaper columns and political manifestos."
Yes, well, I seem to run into a basis for the cliche almost every time I read pertinent articles in the English press. I'll try to get OJC reader Roger du Barry, your fellow Englishman, to comment.
From Stefano, above:
Thank you for the information. It's all very confusing. You forgot to mention that the AMiA are 'ministry partners' ( whatever that means) with the ACNA.
You are right that the Old Calendar Orthodox schismatic groups can be confusing but the Anglican realignment/ Continuing movement is far more confusing. The idea of territorial diocese doesn't seem to really apply and everyone ends up being in communion with everyone else. For example, you are in communion with Rwanda and they are in communion with Canterbury, who is in communion with the ECUSA but the ECUSA is not in communion with you. Does the AMiA have open or closed communion?
I believe that present, actually, AMiA is not a ministry partner of ACNA. That is, unless I've missed some recent developments. How old is your source?
AMiA once was a ministry partner with ACNA but backed out of that a few years back. There is talk, however, of re-establishment of that partnership in the future. AMiA and ACNA have been at odds for quite some time now, but reconciliation talks have been taking place.
It really doesn't appear to me that Orthodox miscellany, canonical and Old Calendarist, is any less "Byzantine" than that of the Anglican world. There may be differences, but I don't think they're substantial.
AMiA is not in communion with Rwanda. That makes me think that you are indeed looking at old sources. The relationship with Rwanda came to an end in 2011, prompting a split in AMiA. Two-thirds of its churches formed PEARUSA, and a third stayed with AMiA.
ACNA is also not in communion with Canterbury at present. Canterbury has opined that ACNA is not part of the Communion, but the majority of Communion primates say otherwise. However, ACNA Archbishop Beach was invited to the recent gathering at Canterbury, which may signal the latter's change of mind down the road on the matter.
AMiA, like most if not all churches in the Realignment, will admit any baptized Christian to Holy Communion. The Continuing Churches generally require that a communicant be confirmed by a bishop in the apostolic succession, and may have policies concerning belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and that a communicant come adequately prepared for it.
Can I point out that not a single Orthodox Church (the 14 autocephaleaus churches) has ordained any women as priests. For the claim of 'creeping liberalism' to stick I need to see one or more of these churches to succumb. If not the claim is hollow and just excuses. You will find the Orthodox Church a tougher nut to crack.
Well, as they say, there are no data on the future. The Anglican Church was once where you are; you may be in the same place in 500 years. Who knows? But I did acknowledge in my first article here at OJC about Orthodoxy is that the Orthodox is the least "Episcopalianized" of the three "branches" of the Catholic Church (as we see it). Of the Orthodox Churches, the Greek Orthodox Church in the West seems to be the most liberal. The leaven that you've allowed in your church just may come back to bite you in the butts one of these days.
Looking forward to your thoughts on St. Nina Quarterly. That's a radical little nest of feminists you have, right there. :>)
You know, when I was a teenager in the 1980s I met a Greek Orthodox Charismatic /Pentacostal type. I remember we had a long conversation about tongues, spiritual gifts, etc. I was really unconvinced by what he had to say as I thought it was incompatible with Orthodoxy, even though I was a fairly simple believer at that stage.
One of the things he said was that the Holy Spirit (by which he meant the Charismatic Movement) would sweap ( yes, he did use the word sweap) the Orthodox Church and we would drop all our human traditions and all become better spiritual Christians. Now, I never kept up my contacts with that guy but if I saw him today I'd say he didn't predict the future well as all. Orthodoxy has weathered the storm better than the rest.
The few like Eusebius Stephanou who were infected became a marginalised and irrelevant few. When I see how the Roman Catholic Church has hundreds of millions of Charismatics and lots of other mainstream Protestant basically surrendering to the Charismatics I see that Orthodoxy is a tougher nut to crack.
As I said, this was 40 years ago. I think this is a good example of how people think Orthodoxy will just follow the crowd. But that didn't happen, did it?
I forgot to say, if you are in communion with a bishop who is a member of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America then you are a member of the Orthodox Church. If your bishop is not part of this then you are not part of the Orthodox. How simple is that?
See, it's simple to know where and who is Orthodox despite some of those tricky labels the 'traditionalist' schismatics might use. I don't even need a score card to keep track. The situation is the same worldwide. If you are in communion with the Patriarchs, Archbishops, etc then you are Orthodox.
With the Anglican Realignment it is much less clear cut who is in communion with whom - if this is even the right term since you all seem to practice open communion.
I think this is a good example of how people think Orthodoxy will just follow the crowd. But that didn't happen, did it?
No, but it's starting to "follow the crowd" in the ways I've mentioned (e.g., feminism). Give Orthodoxy another 200 to 300 years of interaction with the liberal West, and we'll see what happens.
I forgot to say, if you are in communion with a bishop who is a member of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America then you are a member of the Orthodox Church. If your bishop is not part of this then you are not part of the Orthodox. How simple is that?
Too simple. Many of those Old Calendarist bishops don't think you "modernists" are Orthodox because of your relationship with "ecumenism", your fiddling with the Calendar, etc. Who's right? I think it's a good guess that the Fathers might have been more in agreement with them rather than the bishops of "canonical" Orthodoxy.
I know perfectly well that the schismatic groups think. And you know that they are tiny groups with loud voices who are often in conflict with each other. They give themselves pretentious titles and loudly proclaim themselves the true church. When ROCOR became Orthodox in 2007 it showed me that much of what they complain about like modernism is just rhetoric. I think that Orthodoxy is right, and as I pointed out I know clearly who is Orthodox and who is not.
I could throw the question back at you? Who is right? Which flavour of Protestantism? Which version of Continuing or Realignment Anglicanism? I know you have made your choice but for an outsider it is impossible to figure out.
Tell me, does the AMiM subscribe to the decrees and canons of the Seven Ecumenical Councils?
I know perfectly well that the schismatic groups think.
So do I.
And you know that they are tiny groups with loud voices who are often in conflict with each other. They give themselves pretentious titles and loudly proclaim themselves the true church. When ROCOR became Orthodox in 2007 it showed me that much of what they complain about like modernism is just rhetoric. I think that Orthodoxy is right, and as I pointed out I know clearly who is Orthodox and who is not.
Perhaps so, but I note that you are mute on the question of whether the Fathers would have supported them or your "canonical" Orthodoxy. Telling, this.
I could throw the question back at you? Who is right? Which flavour of Protestantism? Which version of Continuing or Realignment Anglicanism?
I could care less about Protestantism. As for Anglicanism, well, the Continuers don't participate in the ecumenifests of the WCC and other apostate groups, unlike the "canonical" Orthodox. Nor is there any St. Nina Quarterly associated with them.
Tell me, Stefano, since you haven't yet, though I have invited you to do so twice now, I believe: what think ye of St. Nina Quarterly?
Tell me, does the AMiM (sic) subscribe to the decrees and canons of the Seven Ecumenical Councils?
Most in AMiA, following the lead of Lancelot Andrewes, would affirm the first four. Continuing Anglicans affirm all seven, as do I.
Does that help any?
Do you know that Arius had been condemned by his bishop but still attended Nicaea? There were a number of meetings in Constantinople between Orthodox and monophysites in the 5th Century, most notably in 533. Saint Photius wrote a number of conciliatory letters to the Armenians. Mark of Ephesus attended the Council of Florence even though he considered Roman Catholics heretics. Patriarch Jeremiah corresponded with the Lutherans. So yes, I think the Church Fathers wouldn't have minded a little dialogue. Would the Church Fathers have tolerated the current watered-down social Christianity of the World Council of Churches? No.
Over the last 25 years Orthodox have realised the futility of the WCC and have subsequently lessened their involvement. A number of churches have pulled out all together while others just send lay theologians. But then you know this already, don't you?
Glad you accept the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Should you bring the group you are currently up to speed?