Giving hope to persecuted Christians since 1995
Select Page

ICC Note: Christians in the Middle East face a terrible dilemma. Do they remain in a land where they face genocide and are now living in desperate conditions, struggling just to find shelter from the elements and dependent on aid for their next meal? Or do they risk traffickers, dangerous sea crossings, and attempt to immigrate to Europe or the United States? What should those looking to help do? Some propose rescuing them and granting asylum in the West, but this carries out ethnic cleansing by a more humanitarian means. Here Chris Seiple gives five reasons for why Christians should stay in the Middle East. Those being: Evacuation would be based on bad logic, removal would be bad business, it would be bad geopolitics, leaving would be bad theology and Middle Eastern Christians don’t want to leave. It is not a clear-cut situation, and the realities for each individual and family are different, but it is a situation worthy of serious consideration – and action.

07-07-2015 Middle East (National Catholic Reporter) :A well-intentioned argument is developing among some Westerners, urging the evacuation of Christians from the Middle East. These Westerners reason that because no one will defend the Middle Eastern Christians, they should be resettled elsewhere.

Such an approach is naive at best, and complicit at worst, accomplishing the religious cleansing desired by the Islamic State group. Here are five reasons why Christians should not be removed from the birthplace of their faith.

Evacuation would be based on bad logic.

Western countries do not want Syrian and Iraqi refugees. As Hans Rosling explains: “Today the European Union does everything it can to stop more than 99 percent of the Syrian refugees to apply for the asylum that they are legally entitled to in EU countries.” Meanwhile, to date, the United States has taken in fewer than 900 Syrian refugees in four years.

Engaging the U.S. Congress and European parliaments to strike emigration deals and accept Christian-only refugees would require an enormous amount of time and money. Such an effort would ask these countries to discriminate against non-Christians — Muslims are the overwhelming majority of Islamic State refugees — violating most international covenants and domestic laws.

Removal would be bad business.

Let’s assume the resources are there to evacuate Christians to Western countries. These resources could attract the wrong people, who would not otherwise come. For example, during Sudan’s civil war, well-intentioned Christians bought slaves their freedom, inadvertently creating a market for more slaves and making the situation worse. And if evacuating Christians from their homes is the best option, why don’t Christians from northern Nigeria and North Korea get the same chance?

[Full Story]