Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Why the Romeikes Should Lose Asylum

Several days ago, I asked my facebook friends if the Romeikes should lose their asylum status, and further prodded that the family should indeed lose asylum. Kudos to Attorney General Holder for this bold move. I applaud you, sir. Now for everyone else, DO NOT TUNE me out. KEEP READING, please. You will see why I have taken my stand as it is.

To save time, let me give you the timeline. The Romeikes are Christians from Germany. In 2006, they withdrew their children from the public school system because the German culture, along with most of Europe, is sans Christianity. The family wanted to have an education for their children that harmonized with their strong faith, not battling against it.
Now mind you, it is illegal to homeschool children in Germany. Seems that was a gift from Adolf Hitler, and one of the few laws not revoked by the government when the Third Riche fell. And because the Romeikes withdrew their children, they had been harassed and threatened by the authorities, so in 2008, the Romeikes left their beloved Germany and came to the United States in hopes of a truly free start in our great nation.
They applied for political asylum based upon their homeschool desires as well as their religious freedoms, or lack thereof. In 2011, a federal immigration judge in Tennessee granted the Romeikes the sought and prayed for asylum. There was much rejoicing, until Eric Holder, Attorney General, along with the weight of the Obama Administration sued for the revocation and immediate deportation of the Romeikes.  The case continues today in the court system.
Now that you are caught up to speed on the Romeikes, let me give you three reasons that the Romeikes should lose their asylum status and go back to Germany. Please be open and give me fair hearing as I shall gladly give fair hearing to your comments at the end of the article.
Reason One: The Romeikes came here under the legal procedure of the Immigration Laws. They sought to immigrate here with altruistic motives. Since they did this legally, and did not steal into our country through cracks and holes along the border, their motives are automatically altruistic. Since this method has met with great success, initially at least, one must ask, “How many more legal immigrants will find their way to our fair shores?” There are no political benefits to the administration for legal immigrants. History shows they tend to be less frivolous.  So the family must lose their case and return immediately. This is a leak in the dam that needs to be plugged immediately.
Reason Two: The key to this appeal by the Administration is that the family has “no FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to homeschool their children” (emphasis mine), and since our courts are looking for precedent set by European courts for our rulings, then NO PARENTS, immigrant or free-born US Citizen has the fundamental right to homeschool. By having the court address this point in particular, then the administration can turn around and go after other homeschool families such as my family.
My family would be prime targets since my eldest still has 8 more years of school and there are 4 siblings in tow. Because of this, I can see myself being arrested for my views. No offense to my friends who are educators in the public system, but I will NEVER trust any school official who is higher than a school principal, and even they are on a case by case. I know there are a good many good educators, but your top brass are to blame fully for the qualities of both education and teacher pay.
Now for Reason Three: The Romeikes have the right to asylum on two counts: First, they desire to instill an education that dovetails with their faith, not fights their faith. And their faith in Christ Jesus is the second count to their right of asylum. Because of the second count, Holder must battle the Romeikes because by allowing them to stay, we are in essence acting the part of a Christian nation, something that this present administration claims proudly that we have moved beyond and away. No longer do we see ourselves as Christian. We must prove it by denying a family asylum.
So there you have it. These were my three reasons that the Romeikes must return to Germany: One, the administration needs to protect the status quo of a tyrannical regime by preventing the lawful immigration of others. Two, to further their totalitarian control of the people by removing the rights of American parents. Three, by denying a Christian appeal, the administration is able to further sear the moral conscience of this nation. And a fourth came to mind: By denying them asylum, the administration is telling the family that they cannot stand up to their tyrants. Because if they stand up to Germany and also to the administration by winning their case, then they might become a contagion. Their example might spread to others who would then stand up to Obama’s tyranny.
And yes, I truly believe that President Obama is a totalitarian tyrant.  The moves he is being allowed to make is changing our nation quicker than we ever have seen. The Romeikes are just a small stone in the pond whose ripples will continue to affect all Americans who agree, but stay silent. There is an axiom that for evil to prevail, good people need do nothing.
It is time to express our opinion. But in doing so, remember that we are also ambassadors for a greater kingdom than Obama will ever rule. Let us also see the opportunity to offer hope of Jesus to those who are not yet prepared for the changes taking place.
Hey, thanks for listening! 

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Should Christians Use the Bible in Public Debate?

As I was looking through facebook, I saw this link: 

This article inspired today's Question of Provocation, though I did mis-label it on facebook. I asked the question a little differently than did Brother Russell. My question was a wee less political. I was enjoying seeing the different responses I received, and then another friend seemed to have happened by the same link that inspired my question. He then posted the link, kinda letting the air out of my balloon, so to speak. 

If you haven't read the article yet, take time to read it. What inspired his article was something that Bill O'Reilly said on Fox News channel. (Really, regardless of the label, we need to be careful what we digest and accept as truthful, be it conservative, mainstream, and especially Christian media.) I am also coming from listening to the words of one world leader saying how great it is to have a Christian faith, but when we enter the public sector, we need to leave the faith at home. (Personally a person can no more separate himself from his faith than a scuba diver would dive without his airtank. It's not possible, or the person is not truly a Christian. But more on this for another time.)

From this article, as well as some personal reflections during the days prior to this article, I've come to the conclusion that I need to bring up the Bible a bit more, not just in discussions with people whom I come into contact, but also with other preachers as well. I think perhaps we tend to assume that the other person has some or a great deal of Bible knowledge, and we may assume even that the person we are talking to, be we know of his faith or no, knows that we are coming from the point of view of God's Word. I say 'we' but I definitely mean me. 

I know that there are ways in which we need to do this, to be clear on our approach. Sometimes we need to be blatant. I don't mean to be hateful and ugly, but when someone says that "same gender marriage is good because we've evolved", then I will stand up and say no. The mere usage of the word 'evolve' assumes there is no God. We become no better than animals. We lose purpose, we lose hope. (Oh, and no! There is no compromise on this point. God and evolution cannot exist together. You have the One, reject the other.)

But I am fair. I cannot prove Genesis 1.1. But the person who brings up this silly argument must also be fair. Neither can he prove that we have 'evolved'. Once he broaches that subject, I am able to stand on the Word plainly, overtly.

There are times, however, that we must be wary of waving the Bible. Some people do not like to hear from the Bible. They instantly put up walls and close their ears, even if what is in the Word speaks perfectly to their situation. For example, I used to work for Child Protective Services for Arizona. Being that it's the State government, I had to mark my words. Then at one counseling session where one parent had a substance abuse problem and the other parent was having trouble coping with the addicted spouse, I told the worrying spouse that "there is an old saying about worrying. Do not worry about tomorrow, for today has enough problems of its own. Today {your spouse} is sober. Celebrate it. Focus on this victory. Then by focusing on today, then perhaps tomorrow will continue to remain tomorrow." That was my advice. I gave it, and still stand by it. It's great advice! After all, who can argue with Jesus? But I never cited the quote. I was being innocent in my quote.

I was feeling good at my desk later that afternoon, giving the Word of God in a covert way. Then my supervisor called me in. He asked me where the advice I gave came from. I asked him if it was bad advice? He focused on the source instead of answering me. I told him and gave him the direct context of the reason for quoting the Scripture in a "state meeting" that was held at the privately owned counseling center. I told him and then he told me I can't even do that much. He apologized but he had to give me a written reprimand and then I would have to apologize to the people in the meeting the next day, a meeting that was specially called for my apology.

Now mind you, I was upset. I was ticked. Only 5 people knew what I said. Of those 5, 2 (just TWO) knew where my quote was from. One of those wasn't even in the meeting. Because I told (this person) too soon before the supervisor called me in (this person) wasn't on my list of suspects. But both people are what they confess to as being "solid Christians". So why do I have to apologize for using the word?

Sorry, didn't mean to vent on you. But it still irked me that I could be so easily turned in for my indiscretion. But here is Romans 8.28 comes into play: The day of the meeting, I stated that the reason they were all called to the meeting was because "I had used the Bible to give solid advice and that I must apologize for it. So for quoting Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount, I apologize." I don't regret stating that statement. From there, the addict and the counselor, who loved quoting Buddha and the Native American icons, both gave me opportunities to share the Bible and God's love with them.

My point is that we need to be more intentional using the Word in the public realm. (Let me encourage you to further rely upon it with your family members who "believe but not quite the same as you".) There will be times we need to make it clear that it's our faith in the Word that shapes our views. But then that all comes back to being as "innocent as doves but as shrewd as serpents." 

Thanks for thinking with me. I appreciate your feedback, your comments. --smh