Posted on 04/21/2006 5:42:07 AM PDT by Dane
WASHINGTON -- The Rev. Samuel Rodriguez Jr., president of a group he says represents 15 million Hispanic evangelical Christians, said his fellow social conservatives are making a historic mistake. By spurning proposals to give illegal immigrants a shot at citizenship instead of deportation, they are making it easier for supporters of abortion and same-sex marriage to win elections. Article Tools
''This is a watershed moment for the Republican Party," said Rodriguez, digging into a steak at an American flag-festooned restaurant near the US Capitol, where he had been lobbying GOP leaders last week. ''Hispanics are social conservatives. Their votes can determine the next 25 years of national elections. But all that is in jeopardy, based on what is happening."
What is happening is that the GOP-led Congress is on the verge of making sweeping changes in border-security laws this year that could shape political alliances in the Southwest for decades.
Snip
More than a year ago, Rodriguez led the closing prayer at a rainy rally on the National Mall of more than 200,000 evangelicals opposed to gay marriage. At that rally, he proudly stood alongside Focus on the Family's James Dobson. But Dobson's office said last week that the influential religious right leader had ''no comment" on the immigration issue.
Rodriguez said he hopes to convince leaders like Dobson that letting undocumented immigrants work toward citizenship is not only the Christian thing to do, but it's in their movement's political self-interest. This week, he'll face his biggest test yet.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
BTW, did a search using the quick and archive search engine on FR using the keywords "Hispanic evangelical" and nothing showed up.
Wasn't that the same fear in 1986? What will we be told in 2016, in 2026? People who want more entitlemetns will always suck off the Democrat teat. People (including Hispanics) who want their paychecks left alone will think twice. Nothing new.
I'll risk it.
Actually the new part is such people as weiner(savage), tancredo, etc.etc., using bombastic rhetoric and ethnic animus to push these evangelicals away.
If we let these people vote, rather than protecting our vote, we deserve what get. Even if its Hillary!.
Such people have always been around. If we continue policies that essentually say..."I know we had these laws but never mind..." we will continue to have people doing the things you fear. It's the left that tries to shift the focus to "ethnic animus". The issue isn't because they are Mexican, the issue is because they are illegal.
This evangelical Christian has read the bible. THATS the problem!!
In the Old Testament Israel was told by GOD to secure it's borders!
Romans 13 talks about obeying the law as if it was given to you by GOD himself!
Focus on the Family had already come out a year ago saying he disagreed with the President and we needed to secure our borders!!
Scripture perverted again..................
April 12, 2006
Dear Editor:
In the current debate over immigration policy, we must speak to a couple related issues. We do this humbly and before the Lord as pastors of Wheaton Bible Church, a church that is far from perfect, but one with a thriving and sizeable Hispanic ministry.
We believe that the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ is that our heavenly Father offers both divine forgiveness and divine amnesty through the shed blood of Jesus Christ to all who believe. This is the message of Good Friday; Christ died for all sins.
As co-laborers for Christ, we reject any legislation that would require us as a church to “report” illegal immigrants because this would hinder our ability to lovingly minister this gospel. In our 15 years of multi-cultural ministry, we continually affirm that the gospel, lovingly applied, is the only long-term solution to breaking down any and all barriers that so quickly divide. We are thankful for our progress, small as it is.
Finally, while we certainly affirm the priority of protecting our national borders, in the spirit of Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan, we also support a comprehensive immigration policy that would allow Hispanic immigrants the opportunity to work legally and to become citizens of the United States through a measured process.
Rob Bugh Alberto Guerra
Senior Pastor Senior Pastor Iglesia Biblica de Wheaton
Wheaton Bible Church Wheaton Bible Church
rbugh@wheatonbible.org aguerra@wheatonbible.org
Great article..................
THE BIBLE AND THE BORDER: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION FROM A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE
(CHICAGO--7 Nov. '05) Most social observers agree that the United States is a very religious country. By all measures of religiosity, the U. S. ranks high. At least 85 percent of the U. S. population claims they believe in God. Church attendance is high in the U. S. and so are donations to religious groups. With such a large number of citizens holding religious beliefs, it is little wonder that these beliefs are beginning to enter the debate over illegal immigration. To some observers it may seem that God and the border patrol are going to meet head-on.
If the U. S. is a very religious country, then it is also a predominantly Christian country. Some 80 percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Yale professor S. P. Huntington argues that Anglo-Protestant Christian beliefs are at the core of traditional American values. Anglo-Protestant beliefs, however, have changed and developed through the centuries since the founding of the nation. From the doorway of a storefront church on the south side of Chicago to the stained-glass windows of New York City's St. Patrick's Cathedral, the U. S. offers multiple expressions of the Christian faith.
Many Christians are now caught up in the debate about illegal immigration. Some do not know what to do to stop illegal immigration while at the same time living a faith that asks its believers to practice charity and forgiveness. Other Christians mistakenly believe that groups who are against illegal immigration, groups like the Minuteman Project, are immoral and dangerous. These Christians believe that illegal immigrants should be seen as people who need our assistance and compassion, not our judgment and condemnation.
Does the Bible and Christian theology have anything to add to the illegal immigration debate? Are Christians supposed to act one way or another on this social issue? I think Christianity does have some answers to the moral questions raised by illegal immigration. These answers are to be found both in Christian scripture and theology. In my view it is possible to be both a good Christian and have secure borders. It is also possible to demand illegal immigrants be deported and to practice Christian charity.
In chapter 13 of the apostle Paul's Letter to the Romans, the English translation reads, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed..." (Romans 13:1-2). Clearly, this is advice to Christians to follow the laws of their nation and to respect the laws of other nations.
When people come to the U. S. illegally, they are committing a crime. They are doing something that is against the governing authorities of the U. S. Illegal immigrants are not good Christians from Paul's perspective. Illegal immigrants may have reasons for breaking U. S. laws, but those reasons do not excuse their illegal actions. We should not let charity and compassion blind us from the criminal act illegal immigrants commit.
Those who work in a law-abiding way against illegal immigration and those who ask that the laws of the U. S. be enforced are being good Christians in doing so. Likewise, those who demand that illegal immigrants be detained and deported respect the governing authorities of their nation. In line with Paul's argument, they are doing what good Christians ought to do.
This is not to say that illegal immigrants should be treated badly. Christians practice charity and respect for the individual, but they do not condone law breaking. Law-abiding citizens of the U. S. have every right to make sure their borders are secure and that illegal immigrants are removed from their country as quickly and humanely as possible.
There are ideas implied in Paul's other writings that also shed light on the contemporary issue of illegal immigration. In his Letter to Philemon, Paul address the issue of what is to be done about a runaway slave. In short, Paul sends back the runaway slave, Onesimus, and encourages his master, Philemon, to accept and forgive him. This may seem an unusual act by Paul to those who know that under Roman law, the master had absolute authority over the life and person of the slave.
Although illegal immigrants are not slaves the way Onesimus was a slave in the apostle Paul's time, we can see illegal immigrants today as persons running away from their moral obligations to improve their own country and not run down ours. If that is the case, then it is certainly a moral and Christian thing to encourage illegal immigrants to return home and make life better in their own country.
Moving from scripture to the domain of Christian theology, we learn that moral actions have both an objective and subjective component. The theologian Thomas Aquinas held that both subjective intention and objective consequence are necessary in making a moral judgment. In one of Thomas's examples, while out hunting it is better to kill your father believing he is a stag, than to kill a stag believing it is your father.
>From the point of view of the moral theology of Thomas Aquinas, we may judge illegal immigrants from Mexico from both a subjective and objective point of view. Objectively, illegal immigrants are breaking U. S. immigration laws, but do these criminals have a subjective intention that outweighs the objective criminal act? Is breaking U. S. immigration laws justified because it is the only way poor Mexicans can feed their families, or do illegal immigrants who come to the U. S. have another choice?
Coming to the U. S. illegally is not the only choice poor Mexicans can make to improve their lives. They could also choose to stay in Mexico and work to make Mexico a better country. In fact, as good Christians it is their moral obligation to do this. It is better to improve Mexico than to be a criminal in the U. S. Illegal immigration may be the easy way out, but it is not the moral way. Christians are supposed to do what is good, even if the good is difficult to do.
Although Christianity encourages acts of charity, we cannot be both charitable and law breakers. We cannot rob Peter to pay Paul. The Archbishop of Mexico City should be encouraged to prevent Mexicans from coming illegally to the U. S. He should encourage Mexicans to work for Christian social change in Mexico instead of criticizing U. S. immigration policies. Unless the Mexican state changes, many Mexican citizens will never be able to have a fulfilled life. Nor can they find fulfillment by breaking U. S. immigration laws. To push the poor from your door to your neighbor's door is not an example of Christian charity.
It remains to be seen what other religious questions will be raised about illegal immigration to the U. S. It seems clear for the moment that as the debate over illegal immigration grows, so, too will the theological and scriptural debate over this issue grow. It may very well be that just as liberal Christianity in the U. S. inspired the civil rights movement of the late 20th century, so, conservative Christianity will inspire the secure border movement of the early 21st century.
The ones I saw marching in the streets giving us the finger didn't look very socially conservative to me.
They'll be the unelected "Mayor" of your small town very shortly. Who needs a democracy when you have a jefe?
And refusing them at your door(especially a Christian Church) is not an act of Christian charity, either.
I agree that change has to come to Mexico, but the ethnic animus and stereotypes that are spouted off must also stop and building a wall with sharpshooters and mines and wishing it would go away isn't an answer either.
This problem has been festering for 40 years and bombastic rhetoric from both the left and right does nothing to get the situation under control or provide a solution.
Maybe nothing came up on the search of "Hispanic Evangelicals" because the assimilate.
Is ignorance born of prejudice or prejudice born of ignorance? It isn't just protestant Hispanics. In my Catholic church, the declining "Anglo" membership is overwhelmingly pro-abort, pro-gay marriage. The rapidly rising Hispanic membership is overwhelmingly pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-2d amendment, for low taxes, etc.
Check the Latino Coalition Survey conducted for them by some other outfit. It is consistent with my experience in IL. Hispanics who don't vote are much more conservative than those who do vote. The difference is that the Democrats register and get to the polls the Hispanics who will vote their way.
The Democrats intentionally do not register or get to the polls Hispanics who will not vote their way... and in IL Hispanics who will not vote their way are purged from the voter lists. For example, in the Lopez election, every single Hispanic name in the Republican leaning precincts was purged from the voter lists by the Dems.
In most areas, the fault lies with the GOP for not presenting a friendly image and for not recruiting the Hispanics who lean their way.
It is no different with the Hispanics than with other groups. At a local GOP organization dinner only a few of the tables had empty chairs when a conservative Black precinct captain friend of mine walked in. I waved him over to the empty chair at the other end of my table. He walked to the empty spot and asked the white precinct captain next to the empty chair if it was "taken". The white precinct captain tilted the chair up against the table on its front two legs as if the spot were "taken", which it wasn't.
The Black conservative said nothing and walked away. He ended up in the chair of the township committeeman at the front table of VIPs as the Township committeeman had a chair on the platform.
The white precinct captain commented "I have to work with them all day. I'll be dammed if I'm going to eat with them." That white precinct captain was also pissed that the Black conservative was given a "token" chair at the head table. Well, stupid, whose action was it that prevented him from sitting at our table at the back of the room?
That white precinct captain and a small number of others left our GOP faction and joined the rump faction whose sole issue in the recent primary was that the Township committeeman was letting Hispanics into the GOP organization. The rump organization lost 28% to 72%.
But the image presented by the rump organization remains with many Blacks and Hispanics in the community that they are not welcome in the GOP. This was reinforced by the leading conservative candidate for governor making them feel unwelcome in the GOP, which is one of the reasons the conservatives lost the primary to the cross-dresser.
Nobody wants to attend any event and be told, "You are not welcome here", even if the new person is told that by only one of the many people at the event.
Not closely enough. "When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the Lord your God." - Lev. 19:33-34.
That is dispositive.
Well duh, the demonstrations were organized by ANSWER, but of course you know more about evangelical hispanics than a preacher who was at the anti-homosexual marriage rally last year.
Exactly. The 1986 Amnesty was a Republican deal pushed through by Ronald Reagan and Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY). Where are the political benefits?
Prior to that time, California had been a reliably red state and had voted Republican in 9 out of 10 elections between 1952-1988. After the amnesty which took a few years, California, where a large percentage of those Hispanics lived, swung blue and a Republican has not had a chance there since. The only winning strategy there for Republicans is to be tough on illegals. It worked for Pete Wilson and it worked for Arnold when he promised to repeal Gray Davis's drivers licenses for illegals pandering.
If Hispanics are God's gift to conservative Republicans why is the best we have ever done with them about 40% and more typically 30%?
What part of Illegal is not understood?
All the illegals are liberals, the proof is in their willingness to break the law for their own selfish gain.
If ever given the right to vote they will go for the socialist dems and anyone else who's willing to give them handouts.
Giving legal status to illegal trash would sound the death knell for the GOP.
And also during that time, another border state, Texas, has turned into a reliably red state.
They'll be the unelected "Mayor" of your small town very shortly. Who needs a democracy when you have a jefe?
That is pure hearsay and innuendo on your part and it is weiner(savage) rhetoric like that, that pushes people away and into the bosom of hillary.
Uh isn't that the goal of every Christian church, to spread the Gospel to as many people as possible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.