My first thought was discount the
comparison of Pilgrims with Syrian refugees altogether. The Pilgrim’s plan was
to start anew with a set of rules they believed were necessary to the proper
arrangement of society. They wanted it based on the principles of their
religion. They wanted civil government that mirrored their religious beliefs.
If you reread those last three sentences and replace “Pilgrim” with “Muslim”
there is a frightening likeness.
When I saw the similarity, I
began to see things differently. Perhaps Obama was right. Perhaps the Syrian
refugee situation is more like the Pilgrims’ than I realized at first. The
Pilgrims landed in territory occupied by an established society which had
divided opinions about whether to accept the “refugees” or drive them away. The
Pilgrims forced their way onto a beachhead and defended their stand with the
language of divine right. Eventually the European settlers who followed the
original Pilgrims drove the indigenous people from their ancestral lands and
claimed them for their own.
How like the current situation in
Paris, France or Dearborn, Michigan or Minneapolis, Minnesota this is. Muslim
pilgrims have taken over large segments of real estate in Western cities and
planted civil/religious communities which have become colonies of sovereign
Muslim settlement. Sharia law dominates in these areas almost completely. The
police in these cities have for all practical purposes abandoned these zones to
the Muslim pilgrims. While this may not be what Obama was trying to say, it
sounds like a reasonable comparison to me.
There is one contrast that is
quite stark: the Native Americans who faced the Pilgrims were technically
backward compared to the invading Europeans. Quite the opposite, we have the
technological superiority over the “invading” Muslims, but their crude ways can
be strikingly effective. Simply hijack a plane, for example, and fly it into a
building. Or build a simple bomb and leave it on a train. It is proving
difficult to thwart this intrusion with technology; we must fight it with
policy.
If the American natives had favored
a policy less like Massasoit in his original acceptance of the invaders from
Europe and more like his son, Metacom, who tried
to resist with force, perhaps the Pilgrim landing would have been a disaster
instead of a miracle of survival. If the tribes of the Eastern coastal regions
of America had stood together against the Europeans, perhaps the wave of
immigration from Europe could have been thwarted or at least substantially
delayed.
I am not suggesting that as
Christians we should take up arms against any refugees, Syrian, Mexican, Cuban,
who legitimately seek refuge here. As individual Christians, as the Church of
Christ, we have the example of the Good Samaritan; we have Jesus Himself. But
as a nation, we have a culture to protect and preserve by whatever means,
practical and moral, we can devise. (For more see Man the Lifeboats) What I would propose sounds horribly
un-politically-correct: accept a predetermined number of immigrants year by
year who pledge to assimilate. By this I mean learn English, obey the laws, and
respect the beliefs of others. The great American melting pot experiment has
only worked because assimilation was the goal. We cannot be African-American,
Mexican-American or Muslim-American; we must all be -Americans.
We will never know what might
have resulted had the Americans who greeted the Pilgrims adopted a different
policy position. However, from Metacom to Tecumseh to Sitting Bull there were
“Americans” who doubtless regretted their ancestors’ actions. Their society was
overrun and ultimately destroyed. I hope our great grandchildren don’t have
similar regrets.