Love Casts Out Fear, Not Common Sense

If you haven’t yet, please check out Part 1 of this series, which talks about the United States’ duty as regards immigration and refugees. Having laid out the government’s lack of moral responsibility in this area, I want to speak to a family of objections I’ve heard which condemn certain political stances on immigration or refugees.

First, one may object that a travel ban or reduction in the number of refugees accepted is not a question of good policy; it is simply an act of hate or fear, a gut reaction that is causing many to lash out against ‘them,’ against vulnerable groups in the world around us. This would of course be wrong. But while a policy’s motivation may be wrong, the policy itself may still be acceptable when suggested for other reasons. It is not morally acceptable to attack Japan because you hate all Japanese, but it is allowable to go to war after an attack by Japan on US soil. I am not going to speculate as to the motives of those who support the ban; I will only say that we must be very careful when judging policies to not always assume that those who disagree with us are motivated by hate or prejudice; that leads to dangerous levels of self-righteousness on our part and an utter inability to communicate. (I discuss this in my short book, which I’ll send you for free if you subscribe for weekly email notifications!)

Second, it’s been argued that we have a duty as a democratic nation or as human beings to let in refugees who need our help. To discuss this, I must return to the purpose of a country, as delineated in Part 1 of this series. The safety and well-being of the country (meaning its citizens) must override all other concerns. This does not mean that we ignore the needs of others to squeeze out a slightly better standard of living for ourselves, but it does mean that we need not ignore threats because there exists a need. In addition, this argument implies, perhaps without meaning to, that we must urge our country to do everything in its power to solve all the problems of all the world, because it is our Christian duty. This, as I explained in my last post, is based on an incorrect view of government, and is simply impossible. (Check out my youtube video involving ought-implies-can, Spiderman, and assigning blame.)

The final objection, and perhaps the most important one, is more specific: to turn away those in need because a threat exists is unchristian. Now, this point lends itself very well to rhetoric and the slide toward self-righteousness I have mentioned, but it makes a valid point: sometimes we are required to risk our own safety in order to help others. I would argue, however, that while this is very much the case for specific individuals in specific times and places, it need not be the basis of our foreign policy (see also this video on Cinderella and sentimental policy-making.)

This reasoning has two parts: first, individuals are those called to step out in faith, not countries. It is true that we are to love our enemy and wish him good, but that does not mean we should adopt a “kill them with kindness” policy as regards ISIS. What is right for an individual, who has an eternal soul and follows universal rules, is not always an option for a government, which is a temporal entity dealing mainly in gray areas. To say that our government policy needs to come out of “love, not fear” is nonsensical; we need our government to act out of well-reasoned judgement, not by taking one virtue or sentiment out of context.

Similarly, dramatic declarations that voting against sanctuary cities violates the golden rule are next-to-nonsensical; a state cannot follow the golden rule, and when we talk about policies, we are talking about governments and states and cities, not individuals. It makes little sense to ask if a policy “loves our neighbors,” and so we cannot judge by a person’s vote on the issue how he treats his neighbors. Each person should vote for the policy he thinks will be best for all; every policy will have drawbacks, but that only makes them finite or fallible, not sinful.

Second, even in individual cases, we need not eschew all precautions because “perfect love casts out fear.” It is true that Christian women have risked their safety wandering through the slums at night to help the forgotten. All the same, as a young woman alone, it is not unchristian of me to, say, not pick up hitchhikers after dark. There is such a thing as a reasonable precaution. Sometimes Christ may call us to step out on the water, but if we make water-walking our general life policy, without a word from God, we are not liable to get very far.

These are complicated topics, with numerous unknown factors, conflicting information, and clashing priorities only adding to the confusion. I’m not sure what would be best to do. But because this is such a complicated topic, I would ask everyone to stop using rhetoric to oversimplify the situation. It is possible to be against sanctuary cities and for travel bans without hating anyone and without forsaking your Christian duty. You may be wrong in the assumptions or prioritizations that led you to that decision, but it falls well within the gray area where reasonable people can disagree, without, I think, reducing one side’s positions to hate or bigotry.

“immigrants” by JessicaMasulli is licensed under CC BY 2.0