Evangelical Diablog

Illegal Immigration Discussion

The illegal entry of millions of people into the United States has created many challenges and problems. Many solutions are being debated. Below are several poll questions regarding immigration. You can answer the polls and view the results. You can discuss your answers or leave other thoughts in the comments section.

Free polls from Pollhost.com

Should being present in the U.S. without permission be considered a crime?

Yes, a felony.   Yes, a misdemeanor.   No.

In what areas should the efforts to solve illegal immigration problems be focused?
	Controlling the borders.
	Deporting people here illegally.
	Prosecuting people here illegally.
	Prosecuting employers of people here illegally.
	Helping those present now gain legal status.
Free polls from Pollhost.com

What should be done with people already here illegally?
	They should be deported.
	They should be prosecuted.
	They should be required to register now.
	They should be provided a means to gain legal status.
	Nothing.
Free polls from Pollhost.com

Should churches and charitable organizations be required to report or screen those they help for immigration status?
	They should be required to determine immigration status before helping someone.
	They should be required to report illegal immigrants if they happen to discover them.
	They should not be required to take any action regarding the legal status of those they help.
Free polls from Pollhost.com

Free polls from Pollhost.com

If laws are passed that require churches to report illegal immigrants, should churches comply with the law?

Yes.   No.   I don't know.

ee polls from Pollhost.com

Should children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants be granted automatic citizenship?

No.   Yes.   I don't know.

What people should NOT be eligible for U. S. citizenship? (You may choose all that apply.)
	People who arrived here illegally.
	People with criminal records of any kind.
	People with felony or violent criminal records.
	Adults who cannot speak English.
	Adults who are illiterate.
	Adults who cannot pass a basic test of U.S. history and form of government.
	Adults who do not have a means of support.
Free polls from Pollhost.com

At one time, applicants for naturalization had to have a sponsor, that is, someone who would promise to help support the person should they fall into hard times. The sponsor assured that the person would not become a recipient of government welfare programs.

Free polls from Pollhost.com

Would you support a sponsorship requirement?

Yes.   No.   I don't know.

Some argue that illegal immigrants help to keep prices low for things such as food, hotels, restaurants, landscaping, and other products and services.

Free polls from Pollhost.com

Are you willing to pay more for groceries, hospitality services, etc., in order to control illegal immigration?

Yes.   No.   I don't know.

Leave your comments below!

Conversation Starter: End of Life Decisions

One year ago today Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was removed amidst a firestorm of public outcry both for and against the decision. What criteria should be used to determine whether medical care should continue? Is food and water given by some means other than by mouth considered to be medical care? Why was Terri Schiavo's case handled differently than people like, for example, Christopher Reeve, whose sustenance required far more medical intervention (including a respirator) than Terri Schiavo?

Leave your comments here. Be nice.

Conversation Starter: In Vitro Fertilization

The United States House of Representatives has just passed a bill which would loosen restrictions on the use of human embryos in stem cell research. The bill will soon be considered by the Senate. President Bush has said he would veto any such bill, and it is doubtful the bill has enough support to override his veto.

The argument for this use of human embryos usually goes something like this: The embryos that would be used are already slated for disposal. If they are to be destroyed anyway, why not use them for research that has great potential to alleviate human suffering? Advocates of embryonic stem cell research often point to specific diseases and injuries which might be cured by therapies resulting from embryonic stem cells.

Those opposed to the use of embryos in research point out that non-embryonic stem cells, which are harvested without harm to any person, have actually proved to be more promising in research than embryonic stem cells, and so the claims of greater potential for embryonic stem cells is just conjecture unsubstantiated by evidence. They also argue that even if embryonic stem cells could be used for therapies, it is still unethical to sacrifice one human life to benefit another.

The argument that these embryos are slated for disposal brings up a question as to why this is the case. In the United States there is very little regulation on the process of in vitro fertilization. Since it is more cost effective to produce a large number of embryos and then select the most promising one(s) to implant, this is the process most US clinics use.

Other nations, however, regulate the process. In Italy and Germany, for example, all embryos must be implanted rather than stored long-term, so fewer embryos are produced. In Italy it is not permissible to conduct genetic testing to screen out the embryos of the handicapped. As a result of these regulations, there are not large numbers of embryos in storage, slated for disposal, as in the USA. (I heard on television recently that in Germany there are about forty embryos in storage nationwide, and all of those are the result of the unexpected death of the mother before the implantation could take place.) However, as a result of these regulations, infertile couples may face a much longer and expensive process, fraught with disappointments, before an embryo is successfully implanted.

So the discussion starter question for today is this: What kind of regulation of the in vitro fertilization process would you consider reasonable and favor for adoption in your country? Be sure to tell us why.

Conversation Starter: Secular Education

There's a lot we could talk about in the field of education, but for starters, let's talk about whether the secular government education system can be religiously neutral, as they claim to be. What do you say?

To promote clear communication on this, when Britons and Americans talk about public and private schools, they use those terms oppositely. Therefore, it would be helpful to refer to government and non-government schools in this discussion, or at least make it clear how you are using the terms public and private.

Don't get into sending our kids to government schools or working there as a teacher quite yet. We can discuss those things later. Let's just stick to the theoretical question of whether or not it is possible to have a religiously neutral secular education. If it is possible, what would it have to look like?

Conversation Starter: The Death Penalty

Today's conversation starter is this question:

Should Christians support the death penalty?

Give Scriptural support for your answers.

Defining Crime and the Limits of Civil Government

Below are links to a conversation between Margaret Romao Toigo of Land of the Free, Home of the Brave and Dory Zinkand of Wittenberg Gate. Margaret does not state her religious affiliation. Dory is a Reformed Evangelical and a member of the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA).

A major theme of the posts is finding that balance in which civil government has the authority necessary to effectively safeguard the rights of the people, and yet is limited enough as to not intrude into their personal lives. Each writer takes a different aprpoach to solving the problem.

Traditional Judeo-Christian Morality, by Margaret Romao Toigo.

Excerpt: The most important among America’s primary founding principles are freedom of religion and the separation of church from state. However, one needn’t be a Christian — or even believe in God — to understand that the profound wisdom in Matthew 7:1-5 is essential to our progress toward the goal of realizing the promise of liberty as it was laid out by the Framers a little over two centuries ago. And as we pursue that goal, we must be careful not to confuse universal truths with religious and other dogma, lest we forget that it is our God-given (or natural) free will that places the onus of seeking truth on human conscience, which is what should allow us to separate church from state without sacrificing our moral clarity.

On Judgment vs. Discernment and Sin vs. Crime, by Dory Zinkand.

Excerpt: Margaret speaks of a free will. If she means that in the sense of a freedom of conscience, (as opposed to the theological understanding of those words), I heartily agree. This concept, too, is entirely Biblical. Biblical government (both church and state) is very limited on what areas it can judge. For example, coveting is a sin, but no church or state authority is ever seen in Scripture to have the authority to find someone guilty of it. That is a matter of individual conscience and God will ultimately judge.

The Difference Between Crime and Sin, by Margaret Romao Toigo.

Excerpt: The question of whether any given law protects or infringes upon civil and human rights is the fundamental difference between the prosecution of crime and the judgment of sin, which is why we must guard our rights by recognizing the distinction between transient social conventions and the unchanging, unalterable truths of conscience as well as the difference between the mortal humans we elect to protect and defend our rights and the institutions we turn to for guidance in matters of conscience.

By What Authority and By What Standard?, by Dory Zinkand.

Excerpt: I'm with her for the gist of this, but there are two concepts here that I'm sticking on. One is that I question the existence of, "unalterable truths of conscience," or the practicality of  using such a standard to determine what should or should not be civil law. How does one determine if something is an unalterable truth of conscience? Is it by doing a survey of current thinking or by looking at cultural trends historically? Do we have experts who can decide these things? ...All any tyrant would have to say is that this or that standard is an unalterable truth of conscience and that would be that. By what concrete standard could anyone object?

Conversation Starter: Eschatology

There are several eschatological views that are prevalent in the Church today. (Eschatology is the study of the "last things", including the "end times" of history and the eternal state that follows them.) The three main divisions are premillennial, (Christ's return will precede a millennial reign of Christ), postmillennial, (the Church will prevail in history prior to the return of Christ), and amillennial, (there will be no literal millennial reign), with sub-categories dividing these three even further. One could also divide eschatological views on the basis of optimism or pessimism, in the sense of whether one believes that the Church will ultimately prevail in history, or that things will get very bad until Christ returns and rescues the Church.

So my question is, How does your view of eschatology affect your Christian walk in terms of such things as evangelism, discipling, goal-setting and planning, or career choices? If you are a blogger, how did your eschatology affect your decision to blog or how you approach that work?

You can answer in the comments section.

He Said, She Said: Evangelism

There is a discussion that started in February over at MoltenThought on evangelism. The conversation is actually rather loose, covering topics such as whether or not evangelism is necessary, how evangelism is defined, and how ideas about predestination and free will apply to the topic of evangelism, and the role of living a Christian life as a witness to Christ. So many points are covered that I think you will find something about which to comment or ponder. (I did!) Both of the main participants, who write under the names WordGirl and Teflon, profess Christianity, but I do not find a more specific doctrinal or denominational description. (They can let us know that, if they wish, and I will add that information in an update.)

Thanks to WordGirl for alerting me to the discussion.

UPDATE: WordGirl adds, "Teflon and I bring Episcopal, Presbyterian, Church of God, and Methodist influences to the table. Neither of us now professes to be affiliated with any 'denomination' other than the body of Christ at large."

Introduction to Evangelical Diablog

Purpose of Evangelical Diablog

The mission of this blog is to promote understanding through highlighting thoughtful dialog in the blogosphere as Evangelical Christians engage others in respectful conversation. Hopefully this site will help Evangelical Christians understand the perspectives of others, help others understand the thinking of Evangelical Christians, and serve as a model of a higher level of discourse for all of us.

My Motivation

It is frustrating for me to read broad, condemning comments about Evangelical Christians that reveal a  deep misunderstanding of the way we think or reveal a deep-seated prejudice against us. What is even more frustrating is when I read Evangelical Christians engaging in the same sort of rhetoric against others. Let's face it, we don't bring honor to Christ or persuade anyone to change their minds by attacking them or their intentions. We can't answer their objections unless we first take the time to understand them. In fact, when we take the time to understand another point of view, we may actually find out they are right on some things where we are wrong or that we already agree on more than we expected. Likewise, we can't expect others to understand and relate to us unless we can winsomely express our point of view.

Finding two reasonable people discussing an issue in a thoughtful way is a glorious thing, and when I see that happening in the blogosphere, I want to highlight it here. I hope that doing so will not only be instructive as to the issues discussed, but also instructive on how we all (of every persuasion) can raise the level of our own discourse.

Policy and Procedure

This is all subject to revision, but this is how I see this working out right now:

When I find (or others alert me to) thoughtful, respectful dialog on or between blogs, I will link to it on this site or, if both parties agree, republish the conversation here. If both parties agree to allow me permission to republish the conversation, I will still link to the original posts and also one other post of their choice to promote their sites.

Alternatively, I will host the conversation or formal debates here, if two participants agree on a format and procedure. Email me to issue open discussion or debate invitations.

I encourage readers to alert me to good dialog in the blogosphere, whether on your site or on other people's blogs.

When possible, I will index the dialogs by beliefs/religion of participants and the topic of conversation. For example, Evangelical & Agnostic on The Existence of Evil; Evangelical & Roman Catholic on Church Authority; or Evangelical & Evangelical on Capital Punishment.

Biographical information about the participants will be included if they agree to it, and if I think it will be helpful to understand where people are coming from. (I will encourage, but not require participants to disclose their religion or philosophy as clearly as possible.)

I will introduce the dialogs with my own summary description.

What Dialogs Will Be Included in Evangelical Diablog

As site mistress, I reserve the right to decide what I want to include and whether or not I want to explain my choices. However, these are the things I will be considering as I decide:

• Is the conversation useful to those seeking to understand another person's point of view, rather than just entertain and rally those who already agree with them?
• Is the dialog thoughtful and respectful? I'm not going to reject a conversation because of one unfair comment, but name-calling, personal attacks, broad brush insults, such as, "All [fill in the group of your choice] are arrogant fools!" will definitely decrease the chances of the conversation being featured here. I will not edit pieces, I will simply form an opinion as to whether its value outweighs the problems. I often find that if one party is disciplined enough not to engage the other on any unfair or insulting comments that are made, a meaningful conversation can still take place. In fact, observing how such comments are handled--when they are handled well--can be helpful to all of us.
• Are the posts well-written and easily understandable?
• I will not link to anything that promotes a group, business, or mission--even if I think it's a good one.

I will not normally highlight conversations that do not involve at least one Evangelical Christian, though sometimes I might. There is nothing wrong with such conversations, and I find them interesting reading. They don't fit in with my purpose for this site, however.

My purpose here is not to make Evangelicals look good at the expense of others, so I am not going to reject dialogs in which a non-Evangelical participant does a better job making his case than the Evangelical participant.

The conversation need not be confrontational or based on a disagreement. Perhaps an Evangelical Christian is asking questions of an Orthodox Jew as he explains how his family celebrates the holy days. I'm not trying to promote disagreements, I'm trying to promote understanding.

I am using the term Evangelical Christian rather loosely for the purposes of this site. Basically, I am thinking about members of conservative denominations which hold to orthodox Biblical doctrine, and which regard the Scriptures as the inerrant, infallible, ultimately authoritative, Spirit-breathed Word of God, and who regard themselves as saved only by the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, applied to them by the Spirit of God, because of the grace of God and not because of their own works, and through the means of a God-given faith.  I am distinguishing between such Christians from our brothers and sisters of mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox churches, and from members of such unorthodox groups as the Watchtower Society or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. (By using the term in this way, I am not implying it can't be used any other way;-)

How Can You Participate?

You can let me know, by using the email link in my sidebar, when you come across or take part in meaningful dialog on the Web.

You can invite someone to debate or converse on a topic and I will consider hosting the debate or conversation here.

Continue the conversation by commenting on the posts. (Comments will remain closed on formal debates until the debates have been completed.)

Comment and TrackBack Policy

Offensive or inflammatory comments or trackbacks will be deleted.

Comments that slam other commenters will be deleted. I don't want people to be intimidated about conversing here.

Comments must be on topic.

Trackbacks must lead to an on-topic post on another site that contains a link back to the post that is trackedback.

Comments and trackbacks may not be used for advertising purposes, no matter how worthy the product or cause.

Folks who can't follow these rules will be banned from commenting or tracking back at my discretion.