Refugees, Moral Obligation and the Good Samaritan Parable: Its Abuse by the Mass Immigration Lobby By Pastor Pete
There was the usual moral wailing on ABC Radio National re refugees and so-called moral obligation, featuring Serena Parekh, author of
No Refuge: Ethics and the Global Refugee Crisis by Serena Parekh (Oxford University Press 2020). One could spend days debunking all of this, but really, it has been done for decades. What I find odd in the extreme is that the endless immigration lobby presses ahead with their moral arguments, even though their colleagues in the cultural studies postmodernism departments have undermined almost all of their fundamental assumptions, from their own position. Those debates, such as how one justifies moral claims at all, get forgotten when the emotional issue of letting them in come up. Also, there is no discussion of whether a country, and I am thinking of Europe, which might get nuked, still has an obligation to take in refugees … is this a moral obligation for getting them equally irradiated? Really, this entire debate has been based upon the assumed stability of a world which is now about to be shaken to the core, and I predict that a little while down the track, no-one will be much concerned about these issues, if, and when, the big cannon balls fly, and hunger is the norm for ordinary folks. Oh, after the carnage no doubt there will be another big refugee thing, but somehow I think World War III will be different to the white-replacing World War II aftermath, with its massive destruction. They come, not to culturally enrich us, but to better themselves. And, I suppose I would too, if I was in their shoes. But that does not make it “moral.”
Anyway, to make things manageable, and within my Christian framework, let us consider the main argument that has been lobbed upon Christian to push mass immigration, the parable of the good Samaritan. So, lets quote the parable, as told in Luke 10:25-37:
Luke 10:25-37
New International Version
The Parable of the Good Samaritan
25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he travelled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
This parable has been a favourite of Christian mass immigrationists, an example being Father Anthony Fisher, I am A Stranger – will You Welcome Me? Sorry, don’t have a date; I read it back in the day, then threw it out. Anyway, if you Gooooooooooogle the parable of the good Samaritan, you will find masses of the same argument, that this is about letting in a refugee, and presumably then infinity refugees, something that would have been totally alien and heretical to the culture of Jesus’ time.
Yet, a clear reading of the story shows no such thing. For a start, there was no concept of a “refugee” as understood in our UN-dominated modern world, for this is a creation of the post World War II ideologies. And, even by the modern definition, the man who was injured is not identified as a “stranger,” or even a displaced person. He was probably a local who was attacked. The Samaritan was a member of a group in conflict with the Israelites of the time over differences in worship practices, and apparently hated. So, the real point of the story is to overcome petty doctrine differences, and see the humanity of fellows as neighbours. Jesus says it clearly.
Note as well, that even if the injured man was a foreigner, which he most likely was not, the good Samaritan treated the injured man’s wounds, took him to an inn, and paid the innkeeper to look after him, and the good Samaritan offered to pay more on his return if necessary: early foreign aid! So, there is no implication here about taking anyone in. The parable is completely at variance with the spin given to it by Christian mass immigration apologists.
I noted while reading about this debate on-line, that at least US courts have cut down variants of the good Samaritan argument. Here is one example.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-rejects-good-samaritan-defense-immigration-case-65382332
“LINCOLN, Neb. -- A judge rejected a good Samaritan defense sought by a Nebraska man who is accused in a conspiracy to harbor people living in the U.S. illegally.
John Good is charged with conspiracy to harbor aliens and other crimes in a case involving his interactions with a couple who managed Good's Mexican restaurant in O'Neill, a community of about 3,700 people that has struggled with a shortage of labor since a 2018 federal immigration raid at a tomato greenhouse, potato processing plant and cattle feedlot.
Good's attorney, David Domina, argued in in a legal brief that his client lived out the lesson of the Bible's good Samaritan parable in his dealings with the couple, Juan Pablo Sanchez-Delgado and Magdalena Castro Benitez, who have admitted to profiting off a scheme to supply cheap immigrant labor to farm operations in the area. The two are scheduled for sentencing Nov. 15.
The government alleges that Good helped the couple hide commercial assets and businesses in his name and helped Sanchez-Delgado hide from immigration authorities.
But Domina argued that Good did not harbor, conspire, conceal, hide or launder money in his efforts to help his friends. "He lived the Christian convictions of his upbringing in his faith," Domina said of his client. "Now the government charges that Mr. Good's religious convictions, when put into active expression in life, are felonies."
The Lincoln Journal Star reported that prosecutor Lesley Woods asked U.S. District Judge John Gerrard to bar Domina from raising the free exercise of religion as a defense for Good. She argued that the practice of Christianity doesn't provide a "constitutional shield to conspiring to harbor aliens."
It was irrelevant to present evidence that Good had acted with Christian motivation, Woods said, because three U.S. appellate courts, including the appellate court for the district that includes Nebraska, have ruled that Christian motivation is not a valid constitutional defense.
Gerrard said in his ruling against Good last month that the issue is not whether Good's faith could provide some sort of defense.
"It's whether that defense is a matter for the court or for a jury," the judge said. "And there's no question that it's a matter for the court."
Gerrard pointed to a 2017 appellate decision that barred a man accused of distributing heroin from arguing that the free exercise of his religion required him to do it.”
It is time to lay the good Samaritan argument for mass immigration in its mis quoted grave for good!
Comments