in the midst of tigers and lambs: November 2007

One of the major justifications given for the creation of the United States was that all humans were entitled to certain basic human rights that should be placed beyond the reach of any government. Not only did Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence make mention of "unalienable rights," he went on to make the particularly radical statement "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men." For 300 years western governments had been shaped by the ideas of men such as Niccolo Machiavelli, Jean Bodin, and Cardinal Richelieu. These men argued that individuals offered no higher good than service to the state and the sovereign, and that any individual concerns must never take precedence over these. Jefferson's declaration sounded an alarm that this era was over and the western world would soon hold no room for Machiavelli's idealized Prince. Government would now exist to preserve the freedom, happiness and prosperity of the individual.

I am concerned that in the face of the growing tension over immigration, particularly from Central and South America, into the United States, that this part of the American essence is being forgotten. Yesterday in my mailbox at work I received an essay that dealt with that. It compared this issue to feeding birds from a bird feeder. It suggested that if you feed birds from a feeder that they will lose the ability to fend for themselves. They will become dependent on the feeder. The essay went on to suggest that the birds will eventually poop all over your porch and that it is time to clean up the poop.

Certainly there is a valid fear of the ability of the US government to remain effective if the population rises too quickly. In addition, if the government cannot enforce its own laws, what good is it? My fear here is that these issues are not really the source of tension.

What worries me are comments about changing culture as a result of immigration. There are federal laws governing immigration. There are not significant federal laws through prohibiting the spread of culture. If there were, I would imagine they would fail. To oppose the immigrant culture I believe is not a defense of the American vision and system of the Constitutional Framers. I believe it is racist. The above mentioned article made a comment about our kids having to learn Spanish in school. I overheard a conversation at church where someone was complaining about businesses in the area being run by and catering to Mexican immigrants. A man was threatened with a knife at a South Carolina gas station recently merely for speaking Spanish at a gas station. A student of mine recently commented about a pick-up truck full of Mexicans. When I asked her how she knew they were Mexican, she looked at me like she didn't know what I was even talking about. All of this seems to reflect a growing frustration with an entire group of people and their culture rather than the actions of individuals.

In November of 1938, German diplomat to France Ernst von Rath was assassinated by Herschel Grynszpan, a German Jew living in Paris. This action ignited what had become a very tense racial situation in Germany. Five years of Nazi reign combined with economic and diplomatic crises following WWI resulted in significant anti-Semitism. This killing was the catalyst for which the Nazis had been waiting. A night of terror against German and Austrian Jews known as Kristillnacht was the result. Between November 8 and 9, 1938, 8000 Jewish businesses and 1700 synagogues were destroyed, and 30,000 Jews were imprisoned with 2000 of them dying. What had begun as a fear of the destructive influence of a group of outsiders would eventually result in Hitler's "final solution."

I would like to think that both the American system and the integrity of the American people would prevent this from ever happening here. I can't help but wonder if a similar event might cause an escalation in racial tension in this country. I fear that like Germany in the 1930s, the United States could see significant violence against particular minorities if these tensions continue to escalate.

What a sad historic irony that what masquerades as a defense of American ideals actually represents a complete rejection of them. When Jefferson and the other members of the 2nd Continental Congress did in the summer of 1776 was more than just declare independence. The heart of Jefferson's document was a justification for independence. By depriving them of basic human liberties, The British King and Parliament had forfeited their right to govern the colonies any longer. Human beings have dignity and value. These attributes of all men exist beyond any temporal, geographic, or political borders. Americans certainly have a right to advocate defense of their laws. The moment we refuse to afford others basic human dignity however, we have lost touch with the values which gave rise to this great nation. We must always extend to all what Jefferson called "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them."