[Yacht Rock]

You earlier asked for any anecdotal evidence of this. I'd honestly say my parents, along with my brother's in-laws would fit in with this data. I've seen it a lot in the last four years personally. This data wouldn't surprise me if it was accurate, which is sad.

[paradox]

The data claims that it's a majority opinion. In other words, a majority of Christians value anti-immigration views over right to life. Of course, there are some people who fit that category, probably even more so in a border state. But a majority? That's a huge stretch. Majority opinions tend to be more obvious to those on the inside. But then again, who are we even talking about? Who even says "white evangelical?" Sound like Irish Catholic or Russian Orthodox. You know, some nominal thing that you're born into. Who are the "white evangelicals?" Where is the data on that? For all we know, it could include a sizable amount of individuals who simply identify in a cultural sense with no real affiliation.

[cruzan_flame13]

Charts that help maintain division or in proper terms, ordo ab chao.

[Yacht Rock]

The data claims that it's a majority opinion. In other words, a majority of Christians value anti-immigration views over right to life. Of course, there are some people who fit that category, probably even more so in a border state. But a majority? That's a huge stretch. Majority opinions tend to be more obvious to those on the inside. But then again, who are we even talking about? Who even says "white evangelical?" Sound like Irish Catholic or Russian Orthodox. You know, some nominal thing that you're born into. Who are the "white evangelicals?" Where is the data on that? For all we know, it could include a sizable amount of individuals who simply identify in a cultural sense with no real affiliation.

You asked if anyone knew people in church who fit the data so I shared that I did. I know a lot of others who do as well. I wouldn't doubt that it's a majority.

However, I also agree that "White Evangelical" is a label that includes a lot of people who really aren't "evangelical" at all and probably couldn't explain the gospel if asked.

But, at least from people I know, there are a lot of folks who would consider themselves strong Christians who fit this data.

It's anecdotal, but that's what you asked for. I don't know whether this data is accurate or not. I'm skeptical of a lot of polling data and statistics. But based on what I've seen over the last several years where I live (Lynchburg area) and where my family lives (Northern California and North Carolina), it seems plausible.

There are huge issues facing the church body today and a lot of them have to do with how people are reconciling the messages from their political leaders with the messages from the Bible and/or the biblical teaching from their pastor.

On both the left and right, political leaders love to tell us what we should be caring about. They have influence and people change what is important to them based on that influence. Is this a failure of church leadership? Probably.

We're in a dangerous place anytime we allow our priorities to blindly follow the priorities of political leaders.

[Purple Haize]

That’s a pretty cynical take. I think most people genuinely do things because they think they are right and the exceptions are those who are trying to take advantage.

@Purple Haize , here’s your data:

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 91549.html

Here’s some data about refugees and crime: https://research.newamericaneconomy.org ... ime-rates/

Of 3 million refugees admitted to the US since 1980, not one has killed an American in a terror attack
https://worldreliefseattle.org/informat ... gee-crisis

The PRNewswire data seems to encompass anyone who is not a Muslim of Jew as “Christian”. It seems to be a very vague title for purposes of this survey
I did notice you went with a super qualifier about Refugees and Terror Attacks. That’s very well done verbiage. What if does not take into account is the conflation in the Public discourse of “Refugee” and Illegal Immigrant” and “Legal Immigrant”.
None of that however answers my original point, but at least does give me the data set you are working from

[thepostman]

Trump started calling illegal immigrants refugees at his rallies. The 2 are not one of the same and it made no sense to me why he did that.

[Purple Haize]

Trump started calling illegal immigrants refugees at his rallies. The 2 are not one of the same and it made no sense to me why he did that.

It started well before that. I however know why the distinction was never made.

[stokesjokes]

Yeah, honestly I went specifically with refugees in my original post because immigration policy as a whole is less cut and dry.

On the verbiage point, I just used World Relief’s verbiage. I did not want to misrepresent their claim. The fact is Ballcoach’s neighbor in Gretna is much more likely to commit a terror attack than a refugee.

So to your point on whether the right may have different ways of caring for refugees- what are they? What are the right’s policy positions other than stopping them from coming here?

[thepostman]

Trump started calling illegal immigrants refugees at his rallies. The 2 are not one of the same and it made no sense to me why he did that.

It started well before that. I however know why the distinction was never made.

But there is a clear distinction and to lump the two together you make an already convoluted issue even more decisive than it needs to be. To me, it seemed he was just interested in being shocking. Which is what he does best.

So Jerry Jr....I wonder what he is up to these days

[Purple Haize]

Yeah, honestly I went specifically with refugees in my original post because immigration policy as a whole is less cut and dry.

On the verbiage point, I just used World Relief’s verbiage. I did not want to misrepresent their claim. The fact is Ballcoach’s neighbor in Gretna is much more likely to commit a terror attack than a refugee.

So to your point on whether the right may have different ways of caring for refugees- what are they? What are the right’s policy positions other than stopping them from coming here?

“Terror Attack” is misleading. I would say what the MS-13 fellas did to the local kid here in town would be an act of terror. But it’s probably not categorized that way. So yes on the very very narrow point of “terror attack” you are correct. On the definition of Christian Refugees I’m not sure World Reliefs definition and what most Evangelicals definition are would be the same. I’ve worked with a lot of “Christian Arabs” who were only labeled Christian because they were not devout Muslims.

[Purple Haize]

Trump started calling illegal immigrants refugees at his rallies. The 2 are not one of the same and it made no sense to me why he did that.

It started well before that. I however know why the distinction was never made.

But there is a clear distinction and to lump the two together you make an already convoluted issue even more decisive than it needs to be. To me, it seemed he was just interested in being shocking. Which is what he does best.

So Jerry Jr....I wonder what he is up to these days

Probably just sitting back watching this thread come undone.....

[Just John]

Nice colorful charts and graphs. However, I've seen even nicer presentations that turned out to be deeply flawed once you evaluate the all the variables, view how the data was collected, and investigate relevant particulars and how they were defined.

Data coming from academics, politicians, and journalists sometimes needs to be approached with a healthy dose of suspicion because their presentations have a tendency to coincidentally to confirm their positions. Some tend to have agendas as well.

I spent some time this evening learning more about the author of this study.

• He is bi-vocational. He is also a pastor at a small American Baptist Church in Mt. Vernon, IL. Unfortunately they don't have a website so I was unable to see the specifics of that church beliefs but in general they hew to the fundamentals on inspiration, the Trinity, sin, salvation through Christ alone, etc. but tend to be more liberal on some social issues, having formed over anti-slavery.

• He writes for a Koch-funded religion website called Religion Unplugged which looks pretty even-handed with a number of conservatives.

• According to his CV, he has only taken two grants for a total of $15,500. http://ryanburge.net/wp-content/uploads ... 4.2020.pdf

• In 2019 he presented before the SEND Institute, a joint venture of the SBC North American Mission Board and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.

Doesn't sound like a Christian-hater to me. Probably not even a "white Evangelical" hater.

[stokesjokes]

Man, I picked the refugee issue because I thought it would be the least controversial issue for me to suggest that Christians should lean left on. Glad I didn’t pick a controversial topic

[gerb]

@gerb , how is caring for refugees socialism?

@Purple Haize , caring for refugees is more Christian than not caring for them. I’m not saying the left’s policy on the matter is *explicitly* Christian, but it’s definitely closer than the right. Caring for the foreigner and the oppressed is everywhere in scripture. We’ve seen a 90% reduction in acceptance of persecuted Christian refugees in the past 4 years as well as a giant reduction in acceptance of refugees overall, despite zero evidence that refugees pose any kind of danger to citizens (the facts are the opposite- resettled refugees are the most vetted people in the country). Biden has already set a goal of getting that number back up, that is a goal which plainly aligns with our Christian mandate to care for the foreigner and the oppressed.

@stokesjokes I used the label Christian Socialist because Christian Pinko didn't have quite the same ring to it.

As believers we should absolutely help those in need. My wife and I have done so in a very real and personal ways in Africa, China and the middle east. Individuals, groups, churches, charities are certainly within their rights and in many cases should do so if they decide to.

To take the property of others (American Citizens) under threat of confiscation and arrest for non-compliance (or to borrow the money on behalf of the citizen) and to give it to a group deemed in need (refugees) regardless of how noble the aim, is the textbook definition of socialism.

If you're a fan of that, that's cool.

But while your at it, you should also amend the enumerated powers in the constitution to allow for that activity otherwise its kinda breaking the 8th commandment regarding stealing. Not very Christian.

PS A legitimate use of federal power that wouldn't be socialist and would be constitutional is use the power of the federal governemnt to prosecute and confiscating the property of all those responsible for criminally turning turning these countries into third world poop holes to begin with and providing restitution to the refugees that were created.

[Just John]

@gerb , how is caring for refugees socialism?

@Purple Haize , caring for refugees is more Christian than not caring for them. I’m not saying the left’s policy on the matter is *explicitly* Christian, but it’s definitely closer than the right. Caring for the foreigner and the oppressed is everywhere in scripture. We’ve seen a 90% reduction in acceptance of persecuted Christian refugees in the past 4 years as well as a giant reduction in acceptance of refugees overall, despite zero evidence that refugees pose any kind of danger to citizens (the facts are the opposite- resettled refugees are the most vetted people in the country). Biden has already set a goal of getting that number back up, that is a goal which plainly aligns with our Christian mandate to care for the foreigner and the oppressed.

@stokesjokes I used the label Christian Socialist because Christian Pinko didn't have quite the same ring to it.

As believers we should absolutely help those in need. My wife and I have done so in a very real and personal ways in Africa, China and the middle east. Individuals, groups, churches, charities are certainly within their rights and in many cases should do so if they decide to.

To take the property of others (American Citizens) under threat of confiscation and arrest for non-compliance (or to borrow the money on behalf of the citizen) and to give it to a group deemed in need (refugees) regardless of how noble the aim, is the textbook definition of socialism.

If you're a fan of that, that's cool.

But while your at it, you should also amend the enumerated powers in the constitution to allow for that activity otherwise its kinda breaking the 8th commandment regarding stealing. Not very Christian.

PS A legitimate use of federal power that wouldn't be socialist and would be constitutional is use the power of the federal governemnt to prosecute and confiscating the property of all those responsible for criminally turning turning these countries into third world poop holes to begin with and providing restitution to the refugees that were created.

This has been going on for decades under all administrations, often times to protect people threatened by persecution in authoritarian regimes. It is also done at times to protect Christians, to destabilize global bad actors, buy goodwill, etc. It's seldom as easy as making a statement that applies to all situations. The world is a big and convoluted space.

[thepostman]

Here is some anecdotal evidence for you all. Some really amazing friends of ours were missionaries overseas. They worked directly with refugee families, often worked in refugee camps and overall did some amazing but tough work. 2 or 3 years ago their organization asked them if they'd be interested in working with refugees in the United States. Through much prayer they decided that is what God called them to do. What happened shortly after broke my heart. They sent out an update to all of their supporters about their exciting new ministry opportunity and what happened? They lost over 75% of their support. The main reason given was because of poltical beliefs about refugees coming to this country. 2 or 3 years later and they are close to being back where they once were but mainly because the supporters they had left startrd supporting them more. They could no longer go to the same churches because they were told that those churches could no longer support such a ministry. I was shocked at the time but the more I have heard people talk and seeing some of the things said on here in recent years. It isn't surprising anymore.

I am not saying we need to allow a free flow of refugees into the country but we have some amazing groups here in this country that can provide these people the kind of support they need to get on their feet. We send millions, if not billions, of dollars overseas all the time to help with the refugee problem in other nations. Rarely does that money actually help those need it. Why not focus more at home where we can control things a bit more and probably save a ton of money in the process.

But even if you believe that government shouldn't be putting money into refugee programs, why make it even harder for refugees to come to the United States? Why send refugees out of our country? Finally, and most importantly, why do Christians feel so strongly against helping refugees to the point they won't support some amazing Christian leaders trying to provide refugees a chance at success here in America?

[Class of 20Something]

I think we have to consider these polls don't account for a major variable. In most of these issues the "white Evangelical Republican" is being asked what should taxpayer money be used for. Most of the responses are going to line up with fiscal conservatism. Delegating my own funds to tithes and other organizations is my best mechanism to fulfill those callings of compassion. Legislating how the income of others is allocated for those causes isn't compassion, it's theft. If you don't agree it's theft, don't pay your taxes and find out. The IRS has plenty of well trained and incredibly equiped arresting officers.

Again, I don't lack compassion, I tithe and give in other ways, but legislating compassion is an oxymoron.

[Purple Haize]

Here is some anecdotal evidence for you all. Some really amazing friends of ours were missionaries overseas. They worked directly with refugee families, often worked in refugee camps and overall did some amazing but tough work. 2 or 3 years ago their organization asked them if they'd be interested in working with refugees in the United States. Through much prayer they decided that is what God called them to do. What happened shortly after broke my heart. They sent out an update to all of their supporters about their exciting new ministry opportunity and what happened? They lost over 75% of their support. The main reason given was because of poltical beliefs about refugees coming to this country. 2 or 3 years later and they are close to being back where they once were but mainly because the supporters they had left startrd supporting them more. They could no longer go to the same churches because they were told that those churches could no longer support such a ministry. I was shocked at the time but the more I have heard people talk and seeing some of the things said on here in recent years. It isn't surprising anymore.

I am not saying we need to allow a free flow of refugees into the country but we have some amazing groups here in this country that can provide these people the kind of support they need to get on their feet. We send millions, if not billions, of dollars overseas all the time to help with the refugee problem in other nations. Rarely does that money actually help those need it. Why not focus more at home where we can control things a bit more and probably save a ton of money in the process.

But even if you believe that government shouldn't be putting money into refugee programs, why make it even harder for refugees to come to the United States? Why send refugees out of our country? Finally, and most importantly, why do Christians feel so strongly against helping refugees to the point they won't support some amazing Christian leaders trying to provide refugees a chance at success here in America?

That’s where definition and clarification of the term “Refugee” comes in to play As Christians we should have love and compassion on them all. But a family fleeing a war zone in Syria is not the same as a family crossing the border from El Salvador.

[paradox]

Human trafficking is huge issue as well.

[stokesjokes]

I think we have to consider these polls don't account for a major variable. In most of these issues the "white Evangelical Republican" is being asked what should taxpayer money be used for. Most of the responses are going to line up with fiscal conservatism. Delegating my own funds to tithes and other organizations is my best mechanism to fulfill those callings of compassion. Legislating how the income of others is allocated for those causes isn't compassion, it's theft. If you don't agree it's theft, don't pay your taxes and find out. The IRS has plenty of well trained and incredibly equiped arresting officers.

Again, I don't lack compassion, I tithe and give in other ways, but legislating compassion is an oxymoron.

I used to think this way, but I’ve seen that relying on “true” compassion is woefully inadequate. God gave us government as a tool, and, especially in a representative democracy, we can decide to put people in place who can allocate our taxes to things that benefit the poor, marginalized, and oppressed.

And something like refugee resettlement requires government cooperation, so advocating for policies that enable refugee resettlement should not be a controversial christian position.

[Purple Haize]

Once you force someone to do something it is no longer Compassion or Biblical.

[thepostman]

In order for refugees to come here you have to have some government involvement. I totally understand the mindset that we should leave a lot of charitable work to charitable organization that can do it far better than government organizations.

But none of it is possible if the government doesn't allow true refugees into the country. It has now been given this stigma is some circles which has been experienced first hand by organizations that help refugees.

[stokesjokes]

To take the property of others (American Citizens) under threat of confiscation and arrest for non-compliance (or to borrow the money on behalf of the citizen) and to give it to a group deemed in need (refugees) regardless of how noble the aim, is the textbook definition of socialism.

PS A legitimate use of federal power that wouldn't be socialist and would be constitutional is use the power of the federal governemnt to prosecute and confiscating the property of all those responsible for criminally turning turning these countries into third world poop holes to begin with and providing restitution to the refugees that were created.

I wanted to put these ideas together to show some contrast. You’re saying you’d be ok with using our giant, bloated, military budget to play world police and invalidate the sovereignty of other nations, but you wouldn’t be ok with using a tiny fraction of what that would cost to directly help people because “that’s socialism.”

[stokesjokes]

Once you force someone to do something it is no longer Compassion or Biblical.

It may not be “true” compassion from everyone, but let’s not get carried away. When God is setting up his government for Israel in Leviticus/Deuteronomy, there’s plenty that the Israelites were required(you could use the word forced) to do, so “Biblical” is a weird word to throw around here.

So are you saying that if I vote for someone based on their promise to use government funds to help the poor, that’s not compassion?

[Tnobes]

If you vote for someone who promises to use government money to help the poor you are doing something that is the opposite of Christianity, you might as well be holding the gun up to your neighbors head demanding their wallet. Jesus never said vote to force your neighbor to help the poor, he said YOU help the poor.