Asylum vs. Assistance

Wednesday, August 15, 2007
In connection to Acton’s recent coverage of the New Sanctuary Movement, which shelters illegal immigrants in churches to protect them from deportation, see this fascinating Christianity Today piece that explains the history of the church sanctuary concept.

A few excerpts....
“As a product of a time when justice was rough and crude,” law professor Wayne Logan summarized in a 2003 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review article, “sanctuary served the vital purpose of staving off immediate blood revenge.” If the church could be convinced that the sanctuary seeker’s life was not in danger, it would turn him over. “The church, in short, played a foremost role as intercessor,” Logan writes. Fugitives in medieval English sanctuaries, about 1,000 a year, were able to negotiate financial compensation or a punishment like scourging or exile.

In other words, sanctuary properly understood is not about protest, but about offering refuge and help. Medieval churches providing sanctuary didn’t argue that the broken laws were unjust or that sanctuary seekers were heroes. They just wanted to save lives, show grace, and offer room for repentance. Sanctuary as political protest undermines the moral authority that it invokes, for it is just a form of hospitality to like-minded allies. “If you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others?” someone once asked. “Do not even pagans do that?”

Bookmark Asylum vs. Assistance  at del.icio.us Digg Asylum vs. Assistance Bloglines Asylum vs. Assistance Technorati Asylum vs. Assistance Bookmark Asylum vs. Assistance  at YahooMyWeb Bookmark Asylum vs. Assistance  at Furl.net Bookmark Asylum vs. Assistance  at reddit.com Bookmark Asylum vs. Assistance  with wists Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Trackbacks

  1. No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

  1. jurisnaturalist says:

    I am concerned that Acton is giving too much authority to the state.
    It is imperative that we recognize the difference between Natural Law and Legislated arbitrary law.

    The natural law protects life liberty and property and enforces contracts.
    Arbitrary law is primarily a vehicle for privilege. Laws restricting immigration are no different from laws restricting trade in that they are anti-competitive protectionist measures which award a privilege to incumbant citizens. Such laws are unjust due to their arbitrary and pre-judicial nature. They are pagan, and there exists no justification, moral or consequentialist for such evils.

    Nathanael Snow


Add Comment


Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.