Modern Joseph and Mary

I've seen some Christians calling the above modern-day Joseph and Mary artwork "blasphemous". They argue it's "blasphemous" due to "political expediency" and because it's "disgusting" to depict the holy family in a plain manner.

1. Political expediency.

   a. I don't know that the artist's intention is about politics at all. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. However, I wouldn't be able to tell based on the art alone. At most, I could see some hints, but it's not entirely clear to me.

   b. If the artwork is about politics, then presumably it's in light of illegal immigration and/or refugees. If so, then I'd disagree that illegal immigrants and refugees across the border are in the same situation as Joseph and Mary. At the very least, the artist arguing for a parallel between the two would need to present an argument, but I don't see any argument presented.

   c. However, even if the artist's intention is to parallel Joseph and Mary with illegal immigration, it's possible to divorce the image from its political connotations. At least it's possible to have the same kind of image which is apolitical.

   d. And even if it's somehow immoral to parallel Joseph and Mary with illegal immigrants or political refugees seeking asylum in the United States, how is that necessarily blasphemous too? It's unethical for me to steal, but theft isn't blasphemous, per se.

2. It's "disgusting" to depict Mary and Joseph as plain.

   a. There's a visceral reaction in the use of the word "disgusting". What's that based on? Besides, something can be disgusting, but not blasphemous.

   b. I don't see what's necessarily wrong with depicting "the holy family" as more homely than we might imagine. Aren't most people average-looking? Nothing wrong with that.

   I take it most Christians believe Isaiah 53 is messianic prophecy. Isa 53:2b describes the Messiah as one who "had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him". As such, it seems Jesus had at best average looks. Typically children tend to look like their parents. If a child has average looks, then it's likely their parents have average looks too. I'm speaking a general rule, but of course there may be exceptions.

   Should we expect Joseph to look as handsome as Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Chris Hemsworth, or Jaime Dornan? Should we expect Mary to look as beautiful as Margot Robbie, Scarlett Johansson, Jennifer Lawrence, or Alison Brie?

   c. Suppose it's somehow immoral to depict Mary and Joseph as plain. Even so, not all things that are unethical are necessarily blasphemous too.

   Let's take me as an example. I don't want to brag, but objectively speaking I'm so devastatingly handsome, tall, and well-built that beautiful women swoon at the sight of me irl. I know, I know, it's a curse. At any rate, it would be inaccurate to have an uglier actor like Henry Cavill play my part. What's more, perhaps it might even be unethical (arguendo) to inaccurately depict me as uglier than I am. Nevertheless, I don't see how it's likewise necessarily blasphemous. For one thing, I'm just a human being.

   Wouldn't that be the case for Joseph and Mary too? Can one commit blasphemy against other humans?

   Does having Jesus as their child somehow change what it means to blaspheme?

Toilet water

1. AOC and Judy Chu are alleging "refugees" are being forced to drink toilet water.

a. On the contrary, I've read these "refugees" are drinking potable water from sinks attached to toilets. That's different from drinking directly from the toilet itself. Apparently this how many US public facilities (e.g. prisons) are set up as well.

b. In addition: "So this is what happened with the migrant and drinking water from toilet: she wanted water, didn’t know how to use the faucet in the cell, and drank from the toilet. She never told AOC that we made her drink from the toilet."

c. Regardless, the water in the US is generally cleaner and safer to drink than water in Mexico and other Latin American nations. (And arguably this includes toilet water in many cases.)

d. Americans are generously providing "refugees" with shelter, food, water, and so forth when in truth "refugees" aren't entitled to shelter, food, water, and other goods from Americans. Granted, what's provided is anything but glamorous, but why should it be glamorous? AOC and Chu act like "refugees" deserve a presidential suite at the Palms Resort in Vegas, a five course meal prepared by Gordon Ramsay, and a bottle of Beverly Hills 9OH2O. Why is their standard the standard that "refugees" should be accorded?

2. Progressives are condemning CBP for "illegally" refusing to process applications in a timely fashion when "refugees" are legally allowed to apply for asylum at the border.

a. I don't know the legal situation, but what's legal isn't necessarily what's ethical. In any case, I'm far more concerned with the ethics.

b. Not all of them are genuine "refugees". Perhaps not even the majority of them. Lots of miscreants in the pack.

c. No one is entitled to camp out on someone's front yard and demand the person has so many days to process their application to enter their house. That's absurd. Why would it be wrong if CBP simply rejected most "refugees" at the border? It's not as if CBP have infinite personnel and resources to expend on processing any and all comers.

d. However, even if they were genuine refugees, it would take a considerable amount of time to vet each of them (e.g. medical checks, re-settlement).

e. How are there suddenly thousands of "refugees" at our border? Isn't this rather suspicious in and of itself?

3. What about AOC's own behavior? She screamed at border patrol in a threatening manner the moment she arrived and didn't even bother touring the facilities. This suggests she doesn't care about what's really happening or not happening at the border. She doesn't care about finding the truth. She's already made up her mind. She's already got her agenda. She's just grinding an axe and preparing to hack away at anyone who disagrees with her.

Soft pacifism

Ray Ortlund

@rayortlund

Why do we think we're Christians at all? "The group least likely to think the U.S. has a responsibility to accept refugees? Evangelicals."

Ray Ortlund

@rayortlund

Moses renounced his social privilege, choosing to be mistreated with God's people (Hebrews 11:24-26). He didn't just decry his privilege; he crossed the line and left it behind, identifying with outsiders. And the Bible calls that saving faith.

Ray Ortlund is a big name in evangelicalism. I don't think I've ever read anything by him. 

Ortlund's position is soft pacifism. He (and likeminded pundits) are using the same logic as the pacifist. Now there are situations in which I can relinquish my right to defend myself. Mind you, if I have dependents, then I may not be at liberty to relinquish that right inasmuch as I have prior obligations to protect and provide for my dependents. In that situation, protecting them is inseparable from protecting myself. 

But even if I can sometimes relinquish my right to protect myself from harm, it doesn't follow that I can relinquish my duty to protect others (the innocent) from easily foreseeable and avoidable harm. I'm not entitled to renounce their right not to die or be harmed. I'm not entitled to endanger them. 

But that's the problem with opening the door to "refugees", which is frequently a euphemism for 20-something Muslim males. That's importing jihad onto American soil. That's importing sharia onto American soil. That's importing a rape culture onto American soil. It's striking how gullible some people are. Just wave the label "refugee" in their face and that instantly deactivates their critical faculty. 

Moses didn't renounce his social privilege. He didn't identify with the outsiders but with his own people-group. His in-group. He made a snap decision to protect a fellow Israelite. He looked both ways to make sure his intervention went undetected. He didn't expect to be ratted out. He didn't expect to become a fugitive. Moreover, he's the quintessential reluctant prophet. 

Take up your cross

From an American physician working with refugees in Greece:

One man I saw this week was openly wearing a prominent silver and gold cross around his neck. I didn't notice it at first, but as I was listening to his heart with my stethoscope the bright golden object swinging in front of me was suddenly hard to miss.

Realizing I wasn't in America, where crosses are so ubiquitous they've become a little trite to me, I exclaimed, "You're wearing a cross!"

"Yes," he nodded.

I pondered the implications of wearing that specific symbol in the Islamic world. A cross is better described as cross-hairs for a man like him. Yet he wore the symbol proudly, unapologetically. Should our roles be reversed, would I have the same courage?

"You are a Christian then." I said, continuing in my new role of Dr. Redundant.

"Yes." He nodded again, smiling.

Through my translator, I learned that a few months ago in Iran he was awoken in the night by the figure of a man calling him to follow Christ. He said he was convinced that the man speaking to him was Jesus, the Son of God. He knew almost nothing of the Christian faith, as he was raised a Muslim.

Still, upon waking the next day, my patient committed himself for following Christ. He felt he had to do this. It was an inner compulsion; he had been called to a new faith, a new life, no matter the cost to him.

But it was indeed a 'costly' decision. Read anything about the Islamic regime of Iran (I recommend the the wonderful autobiography Persepolis as a cursory intro if interested), and you will know that the government of Iran is itself a religious organization. Along with typical functions of any secular government, like providing running water, working roads, electricity and health care (which in many instances, the Iranian government does quite well), it also enforces a highly conservative interpretation of Shia Islam.

How do they enforce such a thing, you ask? How do you get a nation of 77.5 million people to follow extremely strict religious rules? How can you enforce an entire nation to put every woman in robes and headcoverings, to allow no music, no dancing and to enforce frequent observance of Islamic practices like 5x daily prayer?

With "religious police" of course!

[...]

Some version of the above rushed through my mind as I stared at the cross hanging from my patient's neck. An Iranian, 4 months in Greece, wearing a bright silver and gold cross. Wow.

As it turns out, the father of this man was a member of this religious police force. This patient had chosen to convert from Islam to Christianity as the son of a man who is tasked with enforcing and promulgating Islam in the country. More irony.

Imagine the shame on their family for such an act! Aside from endangering himself, my patient was possibly even endangering his own father (and mother).

Many immigrants come to Europe because they think it is rich, with jobs and money flowing like wine at a wedding party. Increasingly, they are finding that Europe is no utopia. Millions are unemployed. Millions are poor. Upward mobility is rare.

But one reality of Europe is that it does remain a place where you can follow a religion in nearly any any way you choose, to include no religion at all. Say what you will about the EU, but it remains a place of tremendous religious freedom, rivaled perhaps by only the U.S.

So it is understandable that this man left Iran. But it is still amazing that he was willing to do it. He left with nothing. No family, no friends. He slunk away in the night, alone. As the son of an important man, his life had no doubt been comfortable and safe. He upended all of that.

My patient arrived at the Pireaus Port of Athens after crossing the Agean Sea from Turkey. He arrived nearly destitute, having given most of his money to a trafficker to get him to Greece. I think he slept on the concrete sidewalk the first night.

The next morning, he says he prayed that the God of his new faith would spare him, and shortly thereafter was approached by members of a Christian church in Athens who offered him a bottle of water. It was through this church that I met him.

Greek authorities soon placed this man in the Elliniko refugee camp, where he made no secret of his faith, sharing it with any around him who would listen. Not long after his arrival, a riot broke out in the camp with Muslims targeting Christians.

The violence carried on for quite some time, as Greek police made no move to stop it, one even pointing out that if some of the refugees died, "there will be fewer of them for us to deal with." My patient was beaten severely in the melee.

It is inhumane, of course, for anyone to think as these police did. But their attitude is understandable nonetheless. Would you wade into the middle of that mess?

Somewhere in this story, my patient picked up his cross. I don't know if it was in Iran or somewhere in Athens. But he wears it daily. It is not merely jewelry to him, given at some Christmas party. It wasn't bought from one of the ubiquitous Christian Book Stores in America, with every possible permutation of "cross trinkets" available for sale. It was bought for a price; worn for a higher one.

No room at the progressive inn