Skip to comments.Vanity - A question concerning asylum seekers facing deportation.
Posted on 07/10/2004 7:26:56 AM PDT by Jane_N
After having read in Swedish newspapers about another case of asylum seekers facing deportation (this time a group from Irak) that have hidden in a Christian church in the city Malmo, I'm wondering if this also happens in other countries. It seems that everytime asylum seekers face deportation, they go and "hide" in churches.
What I don't understand is as many are muslim, why don't they hide in one of the mosques here in Sweden instead of in Christian churches? Everytime you read about this in Sweden it's almost always a muslim in the church.
How common is it that asylum seekers hide in churches and is it most often muslims that do it in other countries as it is in Sweden?
Most church will allow someone to take aslyum from the state (regardless of which country they are in most times) as long is that person is not wanted for grevious crimes like murder or genocide etc... churches usually operate under the sep of church and state and most countries and as long as the church is willing to host these people the state will not move on them...
Thanks for the reply Americanwolf. I understand that churches do that but why don't the ones that seek asylum (muslim asylum seekers) hide in a mosque? Why is it always a church? As a Christian, I believe if I was in the position of an asylum seeker facing deportation, I would most likely hide in the church of my belief. That's the part I can't understand.
You raise an interesting question. Maybe it is either some official status of the Church (Lutheran?) in Sweden, which would not be the case in the USA; or maybe it is because Mosques do not offer sanctuary. Islam seems to be a religion of violence and death, not sanctuary and "caritas".
In Sweden, as in most of Europe, the churches are state sposored. They receive tax funds, and are simply a de-facto welfare agency of the government. In such places the so-called "Christian" churches are often even more leftist than the socialist regimes in charge. Muslims, including jihadis, would naturally be harbored by these "churches" since such activity is in keeping with left's ultimate goal of destroying the West. If white Christian Zimbabwean farmers fleeing Mugabe's ethnic cleansing sought refuge there, they would be turned away. Christianity is a thing of the past in most of Europe, and has been so for decades.
In olden days the right of sanctuary was absolute. Even a murderer taking refuge in a church was allowed to leave the kingdom by the shortest route to the nearest port, provided he forfeited all his lands and never returned. This was the common law in England and I suspect many other Christian countries. I suspect the same rule of law may continue in the scandanavian countries. Why not a mosque? Not the same status. The christian nations believed that a person received the protection of God by entering a church. They would not have believed the same of a mosque. Hence, even though the culture may have long gone secular, the ancient right of protection could still exist.
My church has a lot of services for asylum and Convention Against Torture (CAT) refugee seekers. We've a lot of practice helping Chrisitians fleeing persecution from China. I've worked several cases pro bono. It would make sense that those Muslims try to get help from those who know how to help. I can understand why they would want to live in the US but I've seen a lot of false asylum and CAT claims from the Mid East.
Thank you all for your very informative replies. I do appreciate the time you all took to explain the principle of sanctuary of the church to me. My next question would be now how common is this in other countries or the country you all live in?
The US approves more political asylum and Convention Against Torture claimants than the rest of the world combined every year. In 2002, the US admitted 70,000 asylum and CAT cases. In 2003 it dropped to 50,000 because of 9-11 and we were called racist, xenophoic, unilateral, etc. even though that lower number was still more than all other countries combined. Go figure.
I forgot to add that during the Clinton reign of terror, that number was a ridiculous average of 145,000 a year.
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.