I was raised Presbyterian. We've always sponsored refugees, fed the hungry, did missionary work, etc. Young me just thought that's what Christians do. We certainly didn't talk or brag about it; that was very gauche.
It wasn't until I was much older that I figured out my congregation was considered liberal.
There are more liberal Christians than not. But we're not vocal or organized. So the fruitcakes have way more influence.
The problem in the U.S. is that such a program of government funded private sponsorship is not even discussed. Instead government officials decide they want to dump refugees into cities and surrounding suburbs and "manage" them as an exercise in bureaucracy.
We've seen this done with Somalian refugees in Minneapolis, for example, with the result that Minneapolis has one of the worst rates of rape in the entire U.S. (They have the 4th highest rate.) [1] This, in fact, is identical to the sorts of problems now facing Europe, and the actual reason for the "growing climate of resentment".
One of the key success factors in this Canadian experiment seems to be one of cultural adjustment. This particular example gives an anecdote of a statement (and acceptance) of values; "we expect you to work and support yourself" / "she lives here, she must know what is right". This tends to be another area where government tax-and-dump fails, as the same officials who want a bureaucracy-only solution also believe that American cultural values, such as they are, are irrelevant at best.
Voicing disagreement of uncontrolled ingest of refugees isn't about being cold-hearted. It is rational concern for our own children and families, and the character of our neighborhoods.
Talk to me about a plan for sponsorship like this one that includes acculturation; I'd vote for a tax increase on my income for that kind of a plan.
> I was raised Presbyterian. We've always sponsored refugees, fed the hungry, did missionary work, etc. Young me just thought that's what Christians do. We certainly didn't talk or brag about it; that was very gauche.
It wasn't until I was much older that I figured out my congregation was considered liberal.
Active, rather than nominal Christians do plenty of that kind of stuff, whether they're conservative or liberal denominations. In the long run the liberal denominations seem unlikely to be relevant. Liberal so-called mainstream Protestant groups have been bleeding members since the 80's at the latest.
This represents much of the church in the USA that is out of the mainline. I don't know who exactly you are calling "fruitcakes" or what you mean by that, but while I've seen some in the rank-and-file be prejudiced, I've also seen leadership speak very strongly in support of caring for refugees.
I was raised Presbyterian. We've always sponsored refugees, fed the hungry, did missionary work, etc. Young me just thought that's what Christians do. We certainly didn't talk or brag about it; that was very gauche.
It wasn't until I was much older that I figured out my congregation was considered liberal.
There are more liberal Christians than not. But we're not vocal or organized. So the fruitcakes have way more influence.
--
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/yazoo/unmarked.html