Katie, I agree with this. Was the use of the term “final solution” purposeful or ignorant or just media spin? It was certainly sloppy whatever it was.

I apologise Mike. On reflection, I actually don’t think that banning all Muslims is an appropriate immigration strategy whether it’s because of xenophobia or not. In some situation it might be called for but not now or not yet anyway. Really, I shouldn’t have thrown away MY time by ranting my position to its extreme conclusion. If you read it carefully, I think what I was trying to say is that making immigration policies that restrict a group of people should not be considered xenophobic when there are valid reasons for doing so. This is also separate from the idea that to allow immigrants (not refugees) into Australia to settle is an act of compassion which is not true. And further that this stance lines up with biblical wisdom. My comments on Islam (not Muslims) although true in a sense were purposfully baiting and arrogant and for that I apologise too. I think my Muslim friends might have disowned me if they knew what I said. I rest in the hope that they probably don’t read the comment section of your articles.

Richard, it is OK to talk about immigration and even discuss who we let in. It’s HOW we talk about it that is important. In this blog Mike asks the question, “How xenophobic are Christians allowed to be?” and answers it “Not at all”.
Proof exists in the first chapter of the Bible: God created humans in his own image. There is no place for Christians use arguments that denigrate the value of other human beings. Fraser Annings’ comments about restoring the race-based White Australia Policy and his (unwise or deliberate?) use of the phrase “final solution” signal that he considers some people of lesser value. It’s also so completely embarrassing. A lot of people already think Christianity is dying, irrelevant and living in the 1960s. If conservative Christians want to argue for restrictions on immigration they need to be smarter and more godly than that.

You have way more time on your hands than I do, friend.

By providing opposition to the quote laid out in your opening remarks which is to say that you believe that we SHOULD accept any immigrant that does not reflect the historic European Christian composition of Australian society and embrace the language culture AND values as a people”. Which is essentially open immigration. If you dont know anyone on the left who proposes open borders, then you have spent no time trying to understand what left wing ideology is. If you don’t advocate for open border policy then why oppose the sentiment and then bring up only right leaning leaders who also don’t and attack them for it as being xenophobic?

But you have got me there. I AM afraid of and will discriminate against the crazy leftist ideas that are often in opposition to Judeo-Christian wisdom and culture. However, all people are made in the image of God and deserve love and consideration even when their deplorable ideas present dangers to our shared society under the guise of compassion, so you’re safe.

PS no need to address if you don’t want to.

Where did I espouse “open” immigration? That was your knee jerk reaction to what you assumed was my “leftist” position. That said, I don’t know anyone on the left who proposes open borders. Maybe we could add leftophobia to the list of issues I don’t have time to address.

Respectfully, I’M flabbergasted! You still completely miss the point. Where did I suggest that loving the stranger isn’t a core biblical concept? Rather what you did espouse is open immigration which IS a leftist idea shrouded in the false notion that it constitutes “loving the stranger” when it doesn’t. And then to charge me with islamaphobia for suggesting this is a vile character assassination. But I’ll let that pass. Biblical attitudes to the stranger were irrefutably loving but at the same time conditional. This is my point.

And, yes, you did compare immigration policy to the actions of the Good Samaritan as if the compassion shown to a wounded individual is the same as allowing anyone who wishes to live in Australia to emigrate even if their espoused views are antithetical to Australia’s constitutional standards. It’s implicit in your article.

You should understand the difference between refugees and immigrants. As I said, it’s appropriate to help refugees, period. But restrictions on Muslims immigrating does not mean not loving the stranger. The Bible always talks about loving the stranger ‘in your midst’. Which says more about how we should treat our Muslim neighbours who are here. It says little about foreign immigration except to say that it’s dangerous to allow too many opposing ideas into the general Judaic culture. Eg Solomon and his wives. Is this xenophobic?

However, since you ?lovingly rebuked MY ‘islamaphobic’ ideas which are based on my Jewish understanding of the Bible, I wouldn’t call you anti-Semitic, but since our exchange, I somehow doubt you would enthusiastically allow me over to your house even if I wanted to come. And that would be your perogative.

I’m flabbergasted! To suggest that loving the stranger/foreigner is “leftist ideology” and not a core biblical idea is frankly stunning. I didn’t say the parable of the Good Samaritan was about immigration policy. I said it’s about how to treat the ‘other’, which should inform our attitude to immigrants, especially refugees. As for your Islamophobia, your thoughts on Japan, and your misunderstandings about the Bible’s teaching on the foreigner, they’re too many to address in a comment thread.