I’ve been following the stories about ICE lately, separating parents from children, and recently in the city where I live, an unarmed Black teenager was shot by a police officer.
There have been the usual displays of awfulness from Christians trying to put the teenager on trial after the fact, and of course the general remarks that “If they didn’t want to be separated from their children, they shouldn’t have crossed the border illegally.”
Pause for a minute.
Since when was failure to follow instructions from a police officer a capital crime, punishable by death?
Since when was having your children ripped from your arms a reasonable consequence for crossing a national border illegally?
As I thought about this, it occurred to me that these defenses sounded familiar. They were essentially,
You didn’t obey, therefore you deserve whatever punishment you get.
I think this idea comes straight from hell.
Literally. For two reasons:
- Getting used to hell has made us comfortable with draconian punishments, like eternal torment for finite sins.
- Defending the doctrine has trained us to justify draconian punishments as appropriate.
Following are a few examples of ways people try to defend hell, and their parallels as defenses of the US’s evil actions against people who are either caught here illegally or caught trying to enter illegally.
“They chose it.”
This is popular. Hell isn’t so bad, and also the people who are there, are there because they didn’t want to be with God.
In the same way, being separated from your kids isn’t so bad – after all, we do it to other kinds of criminals (as if this was a defense!), and the people who are there, are there because they tried to cross the border illegally. Continue reading