The Better Bibles Blog points to a new series by David Plotz, deputy editor of Slate, who is reading through the Bible for the first time and recording his impressions. As he explains in his introduction, he is not entirely ignorant of the Bible, being Jewish and having attended a Christian school with Bible classes, but he hasn't ever actually read the whole thing. However, a recent reading of the bizarre story of Dinah prompted him to examine the whole thing. A lot of his impressions so far are the kind of things you may have heard before from people who are not especially familiar with the Bible, but what's different here is he's doing the whole thing from the beginning. It's a good opportunity to see how truly bizarre the Bible we often take for granted can appear to someone not as familiar with it, even someone who comes out of a religious tradition that embraces it.
One thing I keep seeing Christians write about immigration is that there is that they feel a tension between the need to uphold law and order and the need to show compassion. I am no fan of the "law and order"-style Christians usually because the vast majority of the time that is merely an excuse to get their own way or to give in to fear, whatever. But I can appreciate that on the immigration issue, some people are really having trouble with this. Let me then suggest to them, hopefully to their benefit of their conscience, that they have made a false dichotomy.
Entering the country and remaining and working without approval from the proper authorities is against the law. But (1) so are many other things which we do not consider serious problems; for example, I've met precious few Christians who don't speed, for better or for worse. And, more importantly, (2) there is nothing inherently immoral about immigration. Although there are policy implications, some of them moral, for immigration on the whole, no single act of immigration could ever be considered immoral. This is absolutely critical because it means that in the context of the current debate, where we are discussing comprehensive immigration reform, we can choose what is and is not illegal. Technically we can make anything not covered by the Constitution illegal - but we don't need to, and usually we don't, and we can do the same thing to a lot of immigration. When all these leaders are sweating that being compassionate will require us to not show proper respect for the law, they are getting everything out of order. First, let's decide what immigration should and should not be legal. Increase the immigration limits already - there is absolutely no reason for them to be as low as they are. Even from the American perspective they seem to be too low (though admittedly this is difficult to establish, given all of the biased parties involved in the debate - it benefits certain economic interests to claim that there are not enough working immigrants). Then, only after we have decided what should be illegal, should we talk about what punitive measures are appropriate. Finally, the debate about what to do about immigrants already here for some time should happen in conjunction with this or last after all those things have been settled. And then, most of the problem has already disappeared, hopefully. No one has to choose this sort of dichotomy yet.
Yet - see, the time has not yet passed when we can make a difference by advocating for a fundamental change in our approach to immigration. The Judeo-Christian tradition, American history, and civil libertarian ideals all favor a more permissive position on immigration. For those worried about making laws upholding their moral tradition, this is a perfect opportunity. And for a change everyone can be on the same side even! But if we take a hands-off approach, and let Congress debate this on their terms (which has from the outset been determined by the worst, most xenophobic tendencies in our society), then we may risk having to choose between respect for law and compassion. For now, we still have a choice, so let's not give in to paralysis.
(Incidentally, it may seem strange to some that I am so quick to defend those who break the law on immigration, but so quick to condemn corporations and persons of power for breaking other laws. But that word is the key: "power." I defend immigrants in part because I think that immigration should not in general be illegal, but also because the vast majority of immigrants in this nation are precisely not the rich and powerful. Although the Bible condemns favoritism, it also upholds the principle that we need to protect the vulnerable.)
To go with the bibliography on New Testament books, since I am also doing a lot of reading on the relationship between church and state, I am posting a bibliography on that too. I have barely had a chance to do any reading yet, so at the moment it does not contain much, but I will add more as I go. Meanwhile, if you know of any books on the topic that either you found to be interesting or even just thought sound interesting and would like me to check out, please let me know.
I have finished reading all but the appendix of The Search for Christian America (as of a couple weeks ago almost) and I will post some thoughts on it and some quotations from it soon, hopefully.
Finally, NASA/ESA have released a movie of the Huygens descent. It is a downward-looking, fish-eye view starting from above Titan's thick, hazy atmosphere. It ends with the probe's landing and view of the surface. Quite thrilling (cool background music, too!).
A. K. M. Adam has an interesting post up about, well, I'm not sure how to describe it, I guess about the dangers in trying to fix problems, namely that we can never (and thus should never assume that we can) perfectly fix any system, and that ultimately we can only affect positive changes by not relying on our own abilities to fix them but rather by relying on grace. It's not a finished statement on anything, but more a beginning apparently. Anyway, I've heard people say similar things before, but this one sort of just hit me in the right way at the right time. I am one of those people who is especially prone to assuming I can fix things, no matter what (even when I frequently don't have a clue how to do so), so I found it esepecially relevant. (And, hey, it even references MacGyver, though you will have to forgive his not-entirely-accurate description of the concept, apparently he doesn't watch it.)
