---------------------------------------
It's interesting how the "religious" Left loves to make up rules about what we can say or think or have opinions about, but they chafe under the principles the church has been governed by for centuries. In essence, "they exchanged the truth of God for a lie..." because they prefer their own rules, they are offended by the Bible, and they want to exercise power over people, cheerfully policing peoples' thoughts, bank accounts, and hate level.
This from Sojourners:
--------------------------------------
Editor's Note: In April, Associated Press representatives said they would no longer recommend the term "illegal immigrant" in the influential AP Style Guide used by many in print media. However, the term is still used by many media outlets and in common parlance. Our hope is that more will follow the AP's lead and rethink its usage.
As the Senate recently passed long awaited immigration overhaul and the bill now heads to the House, the long-standing national discourse on the issue of immigration will likely heat up again. As we participate in these discussions, my hope is that we, especially as Christians tasked with peacemaking and reconciling, will find ways to build bridges instead of erecting walls. As a first step in this bridge building, I pray that once and for all, we will stop using the term “illegal immigrant.”
Here's why:
1. The term “illegal immigrant” is a misleading and dishonest term, which violates the 9th commandment.
The term “illegal immigrant” lends one to believe that an individual is currently doing something illegal, (Well, no. Illegality can be either a status or a current action. And having done something illegal [for example, robbing a bank] does not absolve one of responsibility. such persons still need to be prosecuted.)
As the Senate recently passed long awaited immigration overhaul and the bill now heads to the House, the long-standing national discourse on the issue of immigration will likely heat up again. As we participate in these discussions, my hope is that we, especially as Christians tasked with peacemaking and reconciling, will find ways to build bridges instead of erecting walls. As a first step in this bridge building, I pray that once and for all, we will stop using the term “illegal immigrant.”
Here's why:
1. The term “illegal immigrant” is a misleading and dishonest term, which violates the 9th commandment.
The term “illegal immigrant” lends one to believe that an individual is currently doing something illegal, (Well, no. Illegality can be either a status or a current action. And having done something illegal [for example, robbing a bank] does not absolve one of responsibility. such persons still need to be prosecuted.)
or that their presence in our country is an ongoing, illegal act. (It indeed is an ongoing illegal act.)
In regards to undocumented workers, this is simply not the case. The crime (Note the word "crime" has been substituted for "illegal." This is an unstated distinction upon which the author's case rests.)
that undocumented workers commit is a violation of “8 U.S.C. § 1325: Entry of Alien at improper time or place,” a federal misdemeanor. Their crime is crossing the border at the improper time and place; however, they are not currently doing anything that is illegal. (As noted, there is a difference between breaking criminal law and breaking civil law. Illegal aliens broke a criminal law [crossing the border without documentation], and subsequently are breaking civil law [remaining in the country without documentation]. Both are "illegal," but only the first is a crime: "But mere unlawful presence in the country is not a crime. It is a violation of federal immigration law to remain in the country without legal authorization, but this violation is punishable by civil penalties, not criminal."
You'll note that since both situations involve illegality, the phrase "illegal immigrant" is therefore quite accurate.)
Therefore, using this term that has a less-than-honest connotation, is a violation of the commandment to not “bear false witness against our neighbors.” (No, it does not. There is clear and ongoing illegality, regardless if it is criminal illegality or civil illegality.)
2. The term “illegal” singles out those who committed one, specific, federal misdemeanor, but is never applied to other violations.
2. The term “illegal” singles out those who committed one, specific, federal misdemeanor, but is never applied to other violations.
Crossing the border at an improper time and an improper place isn’t the only federal misdemeanor, yet we don’t call anyone else “illegal.” (Language vs. status, a distinction without a difference. There are many examples of a person's illegality being carried on for years. A pedophile, for example, retains his guilt status in perpetuity and is often faced with ongoing restrictions about where he can live and with whom he can associate. And we note that Rush Limbaugh is still to this day referred to as a drug addict, though the actual circumstance happened in 2006.)
Other federal misdemeanors include: a first-time failure to pay child support (18 U.S.C. § 228), refusing to speak to a census worker (13 U.S.C. § 221a), the unlawful transportation of dentures (18 U.S.C. § 1821), transporting fireworks into a state where they are not permitted (18 U.S.C. § 836), mutilating a U.S. coin (18 U.S.C. § 333), defrauding a 4-H Club Member (18 U.S.C. § 916), and using the name or likeness of “Smokey the Bear” without authorization (18 U.S.C. § 711). (more can be found here) (It does not bolster the author's case to cite seemingly innocuous illegality. There are many more illegalities that could be cited that are egregious and worthy of contempt. The author is attempting to manipulate us into thinking that illegal immigrants aren't all that bad.)
The Apostle Paul tells us: “Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners – of whom I am the worst.” (1 Tim 1:15) This means that as Christians, our humility should extend to the point that we view our own transgressions to be more serious than that of others. (Is the author suggesting we should use the Bible as a model for our immigration law?)
In my lifetime, I have: defaced currency (I crushed a penny in a vice to see what would happen), illegally transported fireworks, and a host of other things that are probably against the law somewhere. However, no one calls me an “illegal;” they just call me “Ben.” It would be morally wrong for me to single out and treat differently a group of people who have committed a federal misdemeanor when I have also broken those same set of laws. (This is the "he who has not sinned cast the first stone" argument. It suggests that no one should be able to point out sin [or illegality] because everyone else is doing bad things too.
From this we must conclude that no person should be accused of breaking the law because all of us break the law. Indeed, people were put in jail by people who themselves broke laws. They should be freed, right?
The vacuousness of this is self-evident.)
Even the most egregious criminals in our society are not called “illegals,” so why do we reserve this term just for people who are in the country without documentation? (Well, we not reserved the term for illegal aliens, have we? The author has not established that only illegal aliens are called illegal. Nor has he demonstrated that illegal aliens are being unjustly treated. An finally, the author has not made any case at all for why we should not prevent illegal immigration.
What the author doesn't seem to understand is that the term "illegal" modifies "alien." A person can be an alien without being illegal. Just as identifying an "illegal forward pass" distinguishes it from a legal one. An "illegal bank deposit" is different than a generic bank deposit.
There is no need to identify a trespasser as illegal, since trespassing already includes the idea of illegality. A purse snatcher is already recognizable as illegal, thus needs no modifier. This is what the author can't seem to come to grips with.)
It is because:
3. The term “illegal immigrant” has morphed into a racial epithet.
Other federal misdemeanors include: a first-time failure to pay child support (18 U.S.C. § 228), refusing to speak to a census worker (13 U.S.C. § 221a), the unlawful transportation of dentures (18 U.S.C. § 1821), transporting fireworks into a state where they are not permitted (18 U.S.C. § 836), mutilating a U.S. coin (18 U.S.C. § 333), defrauding a 4-H Club Member (18 U.S.C. § 916), and using the name or likeness of “Smokey the Bear” without authorization (18 U.S.C. § 711). (more can be found here) (It does not bolster the author's case to cite seemingly innocuous illegality. There are many more illegalities that could be cited that are egregious and worthy of contempt. The author is attempting to manipulate us into thinking that illegal immigrants aren't all that bad.)
The Apostle Paul tells us: “Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners – of whom I am the worst.” (1 Tim 1:15) This means that as Christians, our humility should extend to the point that we view our own transgressions to be more serious than that of others. (Is the author suggesting we should use the Bible as a model for our immigration law?)
In my lifetime, I have: defaced currency (I crushed a penny in a vice to see what would happen), illegally transported fireworks, and a host of other things that are probably against the law somewhere. However, no one calls me an “illegal;” they just call me “Ben.” It would be morally wrong for me to single out and treat differently a group of people who have committed a federal misdemeanor when I have also broken those same set of laws. (This is the "he who has not sinned cast the first stone" argument. It suggests that no one should be able to point out sin [or illegality] because everyone else is doing bad things too.
From this we must conclude that no person should be accused of breaking the law because all of us break the law. Indeed, people were put in jail by people who themselves broke laws. They should be freed, right?
The vacuousness of this is self-evident.)
Even the most egregious criminals in our society are not called “illegals,” so why do we reserve this term just for people who are in the country without documentation? (Well, we not reserved the term for illegal aliens, have we? The author has not established that only illegal aliens are called illegal. Nor has he demonstrated that illegal aliens are being unjustly treated. An finally, the author has not made any case at all for why we should not prevent illegal immigration.
What the author doesn't seem to understand is that the term "illegal" modifies "alien." A person can be an alien without being illegal. Just as identifying an "illegal forward pass" distinguishes it from a legal one. An "illegal bank deposit" is different than a generic bank deposit.
There is no need to identify a trespasser as illegal, since trespassing already includes the idea of illegality. A purse snatcher is already recognizable as illegal, thus needs no modifier. This is what the author can't seem to come to grips with.)
It is because:
3. The term “illegal immigrant” has morphed into a racial epithet.
(What race does "illegal immigrant apply to? On the contrary, the phrase applies to anyone of any race, gender, or sexual preference who has entered the country illegally.)
Let’s just be honest for a second — regardless of where you fall in the immigration debate, we should be authentic and admit that when we say “illegal immigrant,” we’re not exactly referring to white Europeans. (Who is "we?" The term suggests that every person has the exact same opinion and motives, and those opinions and motives are racist. Of course this is false. The author is trying to obscure the matter and dismiss every dissenter with a blanket guilt about how they think about this issue.)
Whether this term has non-racially charged origins, the meaning of language in this case has morphed so that it now has connotations of racial minorities, and is offensive to many. (No, the author has simply redefined terms and imputed nefarious motives for those who have a different opinion. As to who it offends, well sir, most people simply don't care about your manufactured offense.)
As Lawrence Downes from the New York Times once wrote, “illegal” is often “a code word for racial and ethnic hatred.” One need not use the word “illegal” in many circles before you see the genuine nastiness and hatred the term often evokes. (I'm sure the author hangs out in these "many circles" and knows exactly what's going on in them. And "code words" is an invention to impugn otherwise innocent people. This vapid conspiratorial status is regularly applied by the Left to those who have no overt hatred. But they have to be haters because they disagree with the Left. Thus, they must be using "secret" code language.)
Don’t think it’s a racially offensive term? Fine, but I’m telling you that many racial minorities receive it that way. (Because they have been conditioned to be hyper-sensitive and offended at the slightest perceived misstep. The goal is to exercise power over people and keep them walking on eggshells, always guilty and never sure that they've ever done enough to mitigate their crime.)
On that factor alone, as Christians we ought willingly stop using this term based upon the biblical instructions to: be kind and tenderhearted toward one another (Eph 4:32), (The full quote is "Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you." The author is taking a command directed to fellow believers and applying it to other people. There may be other scriptures which might tell us what the author is advocating, but this one isn't it.)
and to willingly refrain from behaviors that offend others (1 Cor 8:13). (Once again the author misuses scripture. Here is the quote: "Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall." The author apparently operates on a level of scriptural ignorance that ought to disqualify him from being a pastor or teacher.)
4. The term “illegal immigrant” cultivates hostility, animosity, and mistrust against our neighbors.
(Actually, these two words have no power at all to "cultivate" anything. And we need to note that the author has already leveled these charges, so he apparently needs another bullet point to make his argument seem more important.)
Last week, our local paper posted an article regarding a cash reward for information leading to the arrest of the individual who recently defaced a picture of the U.S. flag.
What was one of the first comments posted under the story? It was this:
(Using a single isolated example to paint with a broad brush, as if this man's opinion belongs to all of us.)
Using offensive terms for racial minorities breeds the type of animosity and mistrust seen here. (The author has not established that we are talking about "racial minorities.)
We, as Christians, are called to be “ministers of reconciliation” (as I wrote about here) but when we use terms such as “illegal immigrant,” it counteracts the type of cultural healing we are supposed engage in. (The author makes a bare assertion.)
There are nearly 100 verses in the Bible commanding believers to care for the immigrants among us (legal or undocumented), (No one is suggesting that we should not "care" for people. And may I ask, why isn't "undocumented" an offensive term? Who gets to decide what is offensive? And why should we kowtow to peoples' offense?)
and we can start caring by refusing to use language that breeds animosity, mistrust, hatred, and violence. For example, as we have watched the illegal immigrant debate ramp up in national discourse, we have also seen an increase in hate crimes against Hispanics as well as an increase in hate groups, as documented by the Southern Poverty Law Center. (Yeah, about that. The SPLW is a leftist extremist group that goes around branding people with "offensive" and "hateful" terms. I guess the offense is only allowed to go one way, hmm?)
We need to realize that the language we use matters. (Of course it does. And the language we must use is the language of the Left, sanitized of "offensive" things and closely regimented so as to control people who have divergent opinions. This is the tactic that creates speech codes and bans words from the language, 1984 style. This is thought policing, for the purpose of ideogly policing. Its intent is to ensure conformity with pre-approved ways of expressing one's self so as to purge diversity of thought. The current phrase in use to describe this is "political correctness." The effect is censorship and authoritarianism.)
Language can be used for healing and restoration or can be used destructively. Regardless of our intentions, the use of this term has resulted in a negative impact on our culture. As Jesus followers, we must be working towards the opposite end: the healing of culture.
We cannot claim to be “loving our neighbors” if we are using pejoratives to reference them.
5. The term “illegal immigrant” is dehumanizing.
(Are there other species on our planet that are referred to as "illegal immigrants? No, only humans are. Therefore it cannot be "dehumanizing.")
Several years ago I worked for an organization that specialized in developing employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities. I remember in those first few weeks, much of the training was geared toward rewiring my brain to always refer to an individual as a “person first.” I had not consciously realized that all too often in society we do not refer to individuals as “people first,” but often reference them in ways that intentionally or unintentionally dehumanize them.
I recently read an online press release about a family down south who had just adopted two children from Africa. I almost spit my coffee all over my iMac when I read the headline: “Couple Adopts HIV Children.”
Really?
They were beautiful children with many great qualities; I have no idea on earth why anyone would want to refer to them as “HIV Children.” The term set aside their humanity and gave them the primary label of “HIV,” which caused readers to primarily see them in light of their HIV status, instead of their status as human beings.
The term “illegal” is no different. It dehumanizes because it causes us to view another individual primarily through the light of something they have done, instead of what they really are: human beings. (I assume that the author will drop words like extremist, hateful, bigoted, and other such terms used to denigrate Republicans and conservatives.)
My friends, my fellow countrymen…
This isn’t a matter of being politically correct; (Yes, that is exactly what it is.)
this is a matter of exemplifying the love of Christ by using speech that edifies instead of speech that tears down.
As Christians, we need to start asking ourselves: is my attitude on this issue motivated by political beliefs and nationalistic attitudes, or is it motivated by a loyalty to the Kingdom of God and the way of Jesus? ("The way of Jesus" as defined by the author, of course.)
Regardless of where we fall on the issue of immigration reform, we should be willing to adjust our language so that we do not speak falsely against our neighbors, so that we do not use language that is divisive, and so that we can contribute to the healing of culture — instead contributing to a culture of resentment and hostility.
Please: join me in embracing our common humanity by no longer using language which drives a wedge between us.
Let’s just be honest for a second — regardless of where you fall in the immigration debate, we should be authentic and admit that when we say “illegal immigrant,” we’re not exactly referring to white Europeans. (Who is "we?" The term suggests that every person has the exact same opinion and motives, and those opinions and motives are racist. Of course this is false. The author is trying to obscure the matter and dismiss every dissenter with a blanket guilt about how they think about this issue.)
Whether this term has non-racially charged origins, the meaning of language in this case has morphed so that it now has connotations of racial minorities, and is offensive to many. (No, the author has simply redefined terms and imputed nefarious motives for those who have a different opinion. As to who it offends, well sir, most people simply don't care about your manufactured offense.)
As Lawrence Downes from the New York Times once wrote, “illegal” is often “a code word for racial and ethnic hatred.” One need not use the word “illegal” in many circles before you see the genuine nastiness and hatred the term often evokes. (I'm sure the author hangs out in these "many circles" and knows exactly what's going on in them. And "code words" is an invention to impugn otherwise innocent people. This vapid conspiratorial status is regularly applied by the Left to those who have no overt hatred. But they have to be haters because they disagree with the Left. Thus, they must be using "secret" code language.)
Don’t think it’s a racially offensive term? Fine, but I’m telling you that many racial minorities receive it that way. (Because they have been conditioned to be hyper-sensitive and offended at the slightest perceived misstep. The goal is to exercise power over people and keep them walking on eggshells, always guilty and never sure that they've ever done enough to mitigate their crime.)
On that factor alone, as Christians we ought willingly stop using this term based upon the biblical instructions to: be kind and tenderhearted toward one another (Eph 4:32), (The full quote is "Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you." The author is taking a command directed to fellow believers and applying it to other people. There may be other scriptures which might tell us what the author is advocating, but this one isn't it.)
and to willingly refrain from behaviors that offend others (1 Cor 8:13). (Once again the author misuses scripture. Here is the quote: "Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall." The author apparently operates on a level of scriptural ignorance that ought to disqualify him from being a pastor or teacher.)
4. The term “illegal immigrant” cultivates hostility, animosity, and mistrust against our neighbors.
(Actually, these two words have no power at all to "cultivate" anything. And we need to note that the author has already leveled these charges, so he apparently needs another bullet point to make his argument seem more important.)
Last week, our local paper posted an article regarding a cash reward for information leading to the arrest of the individual who recently defaced a picture of the U.S. flag.
What was one of the first comments posted under the story? It was this:
(Using a single isolated example to paint with a broad brush, as if this man's opinion belongs to all of us.)
Using offensive terms for racial minorities breeds the type of animosity and mistrust seen here. (The author has not established that we are talking about "racial minorities.)
We, as Christians, are called to be “ministers of reconciliation” (as I wrote about here) but when we use terms such as “illegal immigrant,” it counteracts the type of cultural healing we are supposed engage in. (The author makes a bare assertion.)
There are nearly 100 verses in the Bible commanding believers to care for the immigrants among us (legal or undocumented), (No one is suggesting that we should not "care" for people. And may I ask, why isn't "undocumented" an offensive term? Who gets to decide what is offensive? And why should we kowtow to peoples' offense?)
and we can start caring by refusing to use language that breeds animosity, mistrust, hatred, and violence. For example, as we have watched the illegal immigrant debate ramp up in national discourse, we have also seen an increase in hate crimes against Hispanics as well as an increase in hate groups, as documented by the Southern Poverty Law Center. (Yeah, about that. The SPLW is a leftist extremist group that goes around branding people with "offensive" and "hateful" terms. I guess the offense is only allowed to go one way, hmm?)
We need to realize that the language we use matters. (Of course it does. And the language we must use is the language of the Left, sanitized of "offensive" things and closely regimented so as to control people who have divergent opinions. This is the tactic that creates speech codes and bans words from the language, 1984 style. This is thought policing, for the purpose of ideogly policing. Its intent is to ensure conformity with pre-approved ways of expressing one's self so as to purge diversity of thought. The current phrase in use to describe this is "political correctness." The effect is censorship and authoritarianism.)
Language can be used for healing and restoration or can be used destructively. Regardless of our intentions, the use of this term has resulted in a negative impact on our culture. As Jesus followers, we must be working towards the opposite end: the healing of culture.
We cannot claim to be “loving our neighbors” if we are using pejoratives to reference them.
5. The term “illegal immigrant” is dehumanizing.
(Are there other species on our planet that are referred to as "illegal immigrants? No, only humans are. Therefore it cannot be "dehumanizing.")
Several years ago I worked for an organization that specialized in developing employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities. I remember in those first few weeks, much of the training was geared toward rewiring my brain to always refer to an individual as a “person first.” I had not consciously realized that all too often in society we do not refer to individuals as “people first,” but often reference them in ways that intentionally or unintentionally dehumanize them.
I recently read an online press release about a family down south who had just adopted two children from Africa. I almost spit my coffee all over my iMac when I read the headline: “Couple Adopts HIV Children.”
Really?
They were beautiful children with many great qualities; I have no idea on earth why anyone would want to refer to them as “HIV Children.” The term set aside their humanity and gave them the primary label of “HIV,” which caused readers to primarily see them in light of their HIV status, instead of their status as human beings.
The term “illegal” is no different. It dehumanizes because it causes us to view another individual primarily through the light of something they have done, instead of what they really are: human beings. (I assume that the author will drop words like extremist, hateful, bigoted, and other such terms used to denigrate Republicans and conservatives.)
My friends, my fellow countrymen…
This isn’t a matter of being politically correct; (Yes, that is exactly what it is.)
this is a matter of exemplifying the love of Christ by using speech that edifies instead of speech that tears down.
As Christians, we need to start asking ourselves: is my attitude on this issue motivated by political beliefs and nationalistic attitudes, or is it motivated by a loyalty to the Kingdom of God and the way of Jesus? ("The way of Jesus" as defined by the author, of course.)
Regardless of where we fall on the issue of immigration reform, we should be willing to adjust our language so that we do not speak falsely against our neighbors, so that we do not use language that is divisive, and so that we can contribute to the healing of culture — instead contributing to a culture of resentment and hostility.
Please: join me in embracing our common humanity by no longer using language which drives a wedge between us.
No comments:
Post a Comment