The church suffering on african lands

[Szdfan]

Yes, it's a shame that so many frauds in the asylum system have led to these Christian brothers and sisters having more difficulties applying for asylum in the United States.
However, I think if you asked them, most would tell you they prefer to live in their own country in safety and peace rather than emigrate.

I think that if we'd actually believed our rhetoric about persecuted Christians, we'd be more concerned about whether people lived or died than hypothetical fraud.

The US didn't shut down the asylum program because of fraud, it shut it down because people scapegoat foreigners.

Perhaps that's the reason the government shut down the asylum program.

If they wanted to leave Nigeria, they could go to more than 50 other countries with very good living conditions similar to the United States. I still insist they would prefer to live in their country of origin with peace and tranquility rather than emigrate. As Christians, while I believe that welcoming immigrants and helping them is an excellent decision, if we want to go a step further, we should do some missionary work in those countries

So it’s simultaneously “the liberal West turns a blind eye to Islamist violence, and many Christians ignore this reality” and “they could go to more than 50 other countries with very good living conditions similar to the United States.” In other words, the US is bad for ignoring the persecution of Christians, but please don’t come here. Got it.

[Szdfan]

I think that if we'd actually believed our rhetoric about persecuted Christians, we'd be more concerned about whether people lived or died than hypothetical fraud.

Are you saying that, as Christians, we should be lobbying the government to show other Christians special favors that they aren't extending to non-Christians?

The US didn't shut down the asylum program because of fraud, it shut it down because people scapegoat foreigners.

Thanks for sharing your political opinion.

Oh, my opinion isn’t just political. It’s also moral.

A few posts ago, you wrote-

do you think maybe that's what the natives in this land thought when the white people started invading their lands?

Yes. I doubt it feels good for any group of people to essentially be invaded and replaced by another group of people.
[/quote]

Once again, you invoke the Great Replacement Theory, which as we previously discussed, is a conspiracy theory that believes white people are being replaced by non-white foreigners. And as I’ve pointed out before, it’s a conspiracy theory that originates with neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups.

Whether or not you’re comfortable with the origins of this conspiracy theory is up to you.

So yes, my opinion is both political and moral.

[Ken]

I think that if we'd actually believed our rhetoric about persecuted Christians, we'd be more concerned about whether people lived or died than hypothetical fraud.

Are you saying that, as Christians, we should be lobbying the government to show other Christians special favors that they aren't extending to non-Christians?

The US didn't shut down the asylum program because of fraud, it shut it down because people scapegoat foreigners.

Thanks for sharing your political opinion.

Under US and International law, everyone is entitled to an asylum hearing. Which if we spent half as much money funding immigration courts and judges as we do private detention prisons would operate quickly and efficiently. The fact of the matter is that we (Congress) have chosen not to adequately fund every aspect of our immigration system that isn’t enforcement related (walls, prisons, etc.). And so here we are.

And by the way, refugee status is different from asylum. Refugees and asylum seekers enter under different laws and procedures.

[JohnH]

A few posts ago, you wrote-

do you think maybe that's what the natives in this land thought when the white people started invading their lands?

Yes. I doubt it feels good for any group of people to essentially be invaded and replaced by another group of people.

Once again, you invoke the Great Replacement Theory, which as we previously discussed, is a conspiracy theory that believes white people are being replaced by non-white foreigners. And as I’ve pointed out before, it’s a conspiracy theory that originates with neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups.

Whether or not you’re comfortable with the origins of this conspiracy theory is up to you.

So yes, my opinion is both political and moral.

Szd, what on earth are you going on about? justme asked me what I thought about the existing inhabitants of North America being invaded by foreigners. I said I doubt it felt very good to be invaded and ultimately replaced.

How on earth do you get from that to accusing me of being a neo-Nazi and believing in conspiracy theories?

Seriously - what is wrong with you?

[Ken]

Back to the thrust of the original post. Nigeria has been on the State Department’s annual watch list as a country of particular concern for religious freedom. But the State Department is understandably reluctant to elevate the country because that would invoke various economic sanctions and penalties. And the circumstances with Nigeria are somewhat different. In Nigeria it isn’t the government that is engaging in religious persecution unlike in other countries like China that are also on the list. Rather, it is Muslim extremists in the north of the country that are actually engaged in open rebellion against the government. So sanctioning the Nigerian government when it is in the middle of a civil war against the forces engaged in religious violence would serve no purpose and would be counter productive.

Also the history of this region is that the Muslim groups are more or less colonial invaders from the north. That is also the story in Sudan. In Africa, Islam is as much of an invading imperialist force as White Europeans. Perhaps more so.

[Szdfan]

A few posts ago, you wrote-

Yes. I doubt it feels good for any group of people to essentially be invaded and replaced by another group of people.

Once again, you invoke the Great Replacement Theory, which as we previously discussed, is a conspiracy theory that believes white people are being replaced by non-white foreigners. And as I’ve pointed out before, it’s a conspiracy theory that originates with neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups.

Whether or not you’re comfortable with the origins of this conspiracy theory is up to you.

So yes, my opinion is both political and moral.

Szd, what on earth are you going on about? justme asked me what I thought about the existing inhabitants of North America being invaded by foreigners. I said I doubt it felt very good to be invaded and ultimately replaced.

How on earth do you get from that to accusing me of being a neo-Nazi and believing in conspiracy theories?

Seriously - what is wrong with you?

John,

Let's not play coy.

Earlier in this thread, you wrote:

In practical terms, it's far more likely Islamic militants would have been admitted as "refugees" and would end up threatening Christians in the U.S., too, which is exactly what has been going on with the Somali community in my region. The people who are the most violent and powerful often hav

This isn't neutral language that describes a flawed refugee system. It's a claim that Black Muslim communities are a threat and infiltrating the country.
And then, a couple of posts later in response to a justme's question, you wrote:

I doubt it feels good for any group of people to essentially be invaded and replaced by another group of people.

So yes, you were answering a question about Native Americans, but you're using the same framework as your previous comments about Somali refugees. Justme didn't use the word "replaced." You did.
Whether you realize it or not, this isn't a disconnected historical comment, it's a coherent worldview where immigration is framed as invasion, changes in demographics as replacement and entire groups of people (like the Somalis in your community) are reduced to existential threats.

And I want to be clear here: you have said comments like this before on this forum and I've called them out before.

And no, I'm not calling you a Nazi. I'm pointing out that the Great Replacement conspiracy theory which you've invoked more than once over the years originates among neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups. That's not an accusation. That's a fact about the origins of that language. It's up to you whether you're comfortable using it.

I don't have patience for pietistic games that bemoan the persecution of Nigerian Christians and then turns around and argues that they shouldn't be allowed to come to here as asylum seekers.

[JohnH]

Back during the Obama administration, an extremist group kidnapped a bunch of girls from a girls' school. There were many entreaties on social media and other feel-good kind of proclamations, but the Nigerian government wasn't having any luck figuring out where the kidnappers had even taken them. (As Ken pointed out, the government doesn't have much control over the northern regions.)

Eventually (after a year or so) the Nigerian government got tired of being embarrassed by this and hired a group of South African commandos who used to be military special forces and now run a private mercenary "fix it" service. The girls were quickly located and they assisted the Nigerian military with counter-insurgency tactics. The U.S. government pressured the Nigerians to stop working with the mercenaries (I am not clear on the reasons why), but by then the Nigerian government had gotten the upper hand and the girls were released shortly thereafter.

[JohnH]

John,

Let's not play coy.

Earlier in this thread, you wrote:

In practical terms, it's far more likely Islamic militants would have been admitted as "refugees" and would end up threatening Christians in the U.S., too, which is exactly what has been going on with the Somali community in my region. The people who are the most violent and powerful often hav

This isn't neutral language that describes a flawed refugee system. It's a claim that Black Muslim communities are a threat and infiltrating the country.

I never made such a claim, and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth. I also did not bring up the race of the people involved, and am not sure why you feel the need to do so.

It is certainly true that Islamic militants have entered Western countries (including America) under bogus asylum applications as "refugees" and then continued militant, violent behavior in the new countries they have entered, such as honor killings. That's a problem because of an "asylum" process which basically lets anybody in without any vetting.

And then, a couple of posts later in response to a justme's question, you wrote:

I doubt it feels good for any group of people to essentially be invaded and replaced by another group of people.

So yes, you were answering a question about Native Americans, but you're using the same framework as your previous comments about Somali refugees. Justme didn't use the word "replaced." You did.
Whether you realize it or not, this isn't a disconnected historical comment, it's a coherent worldview where immigration is framed as invasion, changes in demographics as replacement and entire groups of people (like the Somalis in your community) are reduced to existential threats.

I answered justme's question honestly and fairly. Are you saying it wasn't a replacement of Native Americans in America and wasn't an invasion?

And yes, what you euphemistically called "changes in demographics" often definitely is replacing the people who already live there. Why is there pretending that it isn't? When you import thousands or tends of thousands of people into a small town, it replaces the people who currently live there with the new people who have been imported.

Whether or not this is good or bad is a different discussion, but that's certainly what has happened. And an open question is if the people who currently live some place should have any say in overwhelming "demographic changes" being imposed on them.

And I want to be clear here: you have said comments like this before on this forum and I've called them out before.

Yes, you've accused me of neo-Nazi rhetoric and white supremacist rhetoric multiple times. I'm sick and tired of it and I want you to stop doing that.

And no, I'm not calling you a Nazi. I'm pointing out that the Great Replacement conspiracy theory which you've invoked more than once over the years originates among neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups. That's not an accusation. That's a fact about the origins of that language. It's up to you whether you're comfortable using it.

I don't really know what the "Great Replacement" theory is, I don't care, and I don't keep up to date on every conspiracy theory. I think what I said above is perfectly reasonable and are conclusions I came to on my own. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't make false claims that my viewpoints are neo-Nazi or white supremacist viewpoints. Just stop.

I don't have patience for pietistic games that bemoan the persecution of Nigerian Christians and then turns around and argues that they shouldn't be allowed to come to here as asylum seekers.

Did I ever bemoan the persecution of Nigerian Christians in this thread?

You didn't answer my question, either: do you think Christians should be given special privileges to seek asylum in America?

[Thomas_muntzer]

So it’s simultaneously “the liberal West turns a blind eye to Islamist violence, and many Christians ignore this reality” and “they could go to more than 50 other countries with very good living conditions similar to the United States.” In other words, the US is bad for ignoring the persecution of Christians, but please don’t come here. Got it.

The liberal west turns a blind eye just like many wars on africa because doesn't fit their narrative and because they can't criticize islamist violence because they consider that islamophobia

And my point about the other 50 countries they could go is because if they really want to seek an asylum they could do it but if they continue living on nigeria is not because trump wrongfully stopped asylum seekers from this part of the world but because they really want live in nigeria that's my point

[Ken]

Honestly, the reason you don’t really have much in the way of Nigerian Christians seeking asylum in the US is because they have no need to do so. Nigeria is split 50/50 between Islam and Christianity with Islam in the north and Christianity (and the largest cities) in the south. The religious conflicts are mainly in the north so Christians fleeing persecution really only need to travel south to the Christian half of the country. Because the conflict is inter-religious and not one of government-led religious persecution. There is no reason other than economic to seek to travel all the way to North America. Southern Nigeria has some of the biggest and most vibrant Christian churches on the planet.

This is in contrast to countries like say Iran or Afghanistan where Christians are a minority everywhere in the country and may face actual religious persecution from the government. And would have legitimate reasons to flee the country seeking religious asylum elsewhere.