The church suffering on african lands

[Thomas_muntzer]

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.

Interesting facts
Regarding your last assertion about Islam being a colonialist force in Africa, I could only add the historical fact that the largest slave owner in human history was a Muslim from the island of Zanzibar, Hamad bin Muhammad al-Murjabi, usually known by his nickname Tippu Tip

[Thomas_muntzer]

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

I know I'm not the one you asked the question to

Personally, I do believe that Christians in America should be given advantages in immigration matters, but not in the asylum process.

[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.

Interesting facts
Regarding your last assertion about Islam being a colonialist force in Africa, I could only add the historical fact that the largest slave owner in human history was a Muslim from the island of Zanzibar, Hamad bin Muhammad al-Murjabi, usually known by his nickname Tippu Tip

Well, you can call it an assertion if you like. But the history of Islam is one of military conquest and colonization everywhere from Spain and the Balkans in Europe to India in the east and the northern half of subSaharan Africa. Europe was really the only place strong enough to eventually stop the encroachment of Islam and drive it back in Spain and in the Balkans. So Nigeria is basically just the latest battleground on that front and today is going through the same thing that Spain did in the 15th Century. The Muslim Hausa-Fulani people of northern Nigeria were nomadic Muslim tribes from the Sudan area who conquered and settled in that part of Nigeria over the course of several centuries, displacing the local Black animist tribes in that area (Christianity came much later with European colonization).

[Szdfan]

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

I find the accusation of fear of Islamophobia a bit odd considering all the wars that the "liberal West" has fought in and against Muslim countries over the past twenty-five years. And I also find the accusation odd that the West is morally bankrupt for not doing enough to help Nigerian Christians while also simultaneously saying that they shouldn't come here as asylum seekers but go elsewhere if they are truly in danger.

Honestly, this doesn't make sense to me.

[Szdfan]

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?

Well, I think the implicit has been made explicit.

I've watched this conversation go from "How dare you accuse me of this!" to "Actually, I do believe these things"in record time. Thank you. I don't care for euphemisms and prefer things to be laid directly out for all to see.

Honestly, I don't really believe that you don't know anything about Great Replacement Theory, because we've had this conversation before. It might have been in a conversation about whether the children of immigrants can be political candidates or the criteria for which children of immigrants were Americans. I don't remember the specifics. But we've had this discussion before and I recall a similar reaction to my point.

But also honestly, it doesn't matter to where you got this or whether you made it up on your own. My understanding is that the structure of the belief (demographic change = invasion = replacement = existential threat) is what defines the framework and versions of this have circulated in American culture since the 19th Century (the Know-Nothings, various nativist movements, anti-Catholic panic, Chinese Exclusion, the Immigration Act of 1924) long before white supremacists formalized it as a conspiracy theory. But whatever its form, it embodies the same xenophobia grievance logic that you're describing here.

So you're free to bring up and argue whatever flavor of replacement theory you want. Again, I prefer it out in the open instead of hiding between euphemisms. So thank you for making it explicit. But just as you're free to argue these things, I'm also free to push back on you every time, because I think it's a dangerous ideology that shouldn't be legitimized or made respectable.

And to answer your question -- no, I don't think that Christian asylum seekers should be privileged over other groups. I think that anyone who is escaping violence or persecution should have the opportunity for asylum.

[JohnH]

Szd,

I made an explicit choice not to learn more about this specific conspiracy theory ever since the original accusation, and I am continuing to choose not to do so.

You are projecting something on to me that is simply not true; specifically, adding “existential threat”, which I never said. I left it open for debate if demographic change (or replacing a people) is good or bad. Was replacing Native Americans and First Nations peoples and states with European settlers good or bad? That’s a separate topic to discuss.

But did the replacement happen? Absolutely it did. Are you denying that it did? Is it wrong to call that “replacement”? Where I live, the original peoples of this land remain only in the names of rivers and towns.

[Bootstrap]

So what should we be doing for our persecuted brethren in Nigeria? How does this affect what we do as Christians?

Does the Bible have any guidelines?

[Thomas_muntzer]

I find the accusation of fear of Islamophobia a bit odd considering all the wars that the "liberal West" has fought in and against Muslim countries over the past twenty-five years. And I also find the accusation odd that the West is morally bankrupt for not doing enough to help Nigerian Christians while also simultaneously saying that they shouldn't come here as asylum seekers but go elsewhere if they are truly in danger.

Honestly, this doesn't make sense to me.

I have never stated that Nigerian Christians should not come to America. In fact, I believe there should be facilities for Christians of different nationalities to immigrate to the United States

What I have stated is that if they truly wanted to leave Nigeria, they could do so, but they want to stay and live in their homeland, but only under decent living conditions and without suffering violence

[Thomas_muntzer]

So what should we be doing for our persecuted brethren in Nigeria? How does this affect what we do as Christians?

Does the Bible have any guidelines?

This is the most important thing.

The Bible Guidelines: Prayer

What should we do? If it's possible make a short mission there spend a couple months in nigeria

We can make more people aware of this terrible situation; the more people know, the better bring the topic on a conference if you can, talk with your brethren about this

[JohnH]

So what should we be doing for our persecuted brethren in Nigeria? How does this affect what we do as Christians?

Does the Bible have any guidelines?

This is the most important thing.

The Bible Guidelines: Prayer

What should we do? If it's possible make a short mission there spend a couple months in nigeria

We can make more people aware of this terrible situation; the more people know, the better bring the topic on a conference if you can, talk with your brethren about this

Yes, praying for suffering people and persecuted Christians is something we should be doing.

My own denomination isn’t experiencing persecution in Nigeria and considers the gravest threats to their spiritual well being to be outside higher education (hence they opened their own high school and college), and the lure of wealth both in the bigger cities and in the UK. They operate a mission in the UK now with an eye towards helping wayward members who have migrated there.