In a perplexing twist of modern rhetoric, we often witness the untrained attempt of some public figures to invoke biblical teachings in arguments that hold about as much water as a sieve. Cue the latest spectacle from the Minneapolis police chief, who seemed keen to weave a Christian tapestry around the issue of ICE raids during a recent speech. Our valiant chief, raised Catholic by his own admission, appealed to the spirit of the Christmas story. Unfortunately, his narrative positioned Mary and Joseph as outsiders, equating them with illegal immigrants—playing a not-so-creative game of biblical Telephone where the message got hilariously distorted.
This interpretation is akin to claiming the sky is green, despite what our eyes see. The scriptural account clearly states that Joseph and Mary were in Bethlehem due to a census, a legal requirement. Bethlehem was Joseph’s ancestral home; he was not some hapless foreigner wandering into uncharted territory. The real reason they ended up in a manger was due to overcrowding, not some inhospitable anti-outsider sentiment. There’s a distinct difference between following a decree to go back to your roots and hopping borders unlawfully.
Skipping over the factual misfire from our resident biblical scholar, there’s a palpable irony here that deserves addressing. It highlights a curious phenomenon: selective scriptural deployment. On immigration, they bring out the old leather-bound book, but use it sparingly, as if we’re all supposed to marvel at their theological dexterity. But what about other teachings that actually come with explicit instructions? When it comes to issues like marriage, gender, or the sanctity of life, it seems the volume of the Bible is conveniently muted. Suddenly, dog-eared copies of scripture disappear, lost in the shuffle of political correctness or personal biases.
One can’t help but notice that the open-borders camp turns to the Good Book only when it’s politically expedient. And, predictably, they get ruffled when others suggest that religious teachings should consistently guide one’s conscience and principles. It’s almost as if there’s a designated space where biblical teachings are welcome—such as defending fumbled immigration analogies—but elsewhere, folks decry any moral guidance as unwanted and archaic.
Doesn’t the selective application of biblical passages conveniently align with an agenda rather than a faith? The Bible isn’t a buffet line where one can pick and choose according to the daily special. Wouldn’t it be refreshing if there were a consistent application of its teachings across the board? Alas, much like seasonal trends, the Bible’s relevance appears fashionable in some debates but unpalatable in others.
Ultimately, the frivolous use of religious discourse to push certain narratives ends up achieving the opposite of its intent. Instead of a heartfelt plea rooted in genuine belief, it becomes a transparent strategy subject to parody. Perhaps the next time someone brandishes their vague religious upbringing to reinforce a point, it may bear remembering that a little consistency goes a long way. Otherwise, it’s just another episode of playing fast and loose with faith, and frankly, most of us have seen better shows.
