A Sign of the Times
News item: reports of the Bondi, Australia massacre.
News item: reports of the US government thwarting planned attacks in LA area over New Years.
A church I know has decided to have their traditional Christmas Eve Service, but they are not going to advertise it in the local media because of ongoing threats from the Proud Boys (a far right militia group in the US) and a possible ICE raid if the event were published (They minister to a large group of Hispanic migrants). It will all be word of mouth.
Shaking my head.
Is this congregation doing the right thing for their own safety?
Or should they proudly advertise their Christmas service, come what may?
News item: reports of the US government thwarting planned attacks in LA area over New Years.
A church I know has decided to have their traditional Christmas Eve Service, but they are not going to advertise it in the local media because of ongoing threats from the Proud Boys (a far right militia group in the US) and a possible ICE raid if the event were published (They minister to a large group of Hispanic migrants). It will all be word of mouth.
Shaking my head.
Is this congregation doing the right thing for their own safety?
Or should they proudly advertise their Christmas service, come what may?
Comments
[Seriously, though. The idea that this might constitute a denial of Christ is the only reason I can see for debating the pros and cons of reduced publicity. From a purely utilitarian perspective, if they think that ICE is perpetrating harm against the communities they minister to, and that higher visibility for the Christmas Eve service might aid ICE in their harmful endeavours, then by all means, they should keep that service low-profile.
Though I suppose there might be an issue if the religion in question requires its members to attend Christmas Eve services, and if some of them don't see the ads they won't know where to go?]
Our Place sticks to 1130pm for 'Midnight' Mass, with the Crib Service at 5pm - rather later than some neighbouring churches, who have theirs at around 3pm.
We have a packed and noisy kids Mass at 5.00 with tableaux, processions and dressing up, a more normal one at 8.00, and one at 10.30 in the morning.
Come what may? Like people being abducted and sent to a torture prison in El Salvador? Deported to a country where they haven't lived since childhood? Entirely lost in our detention system? Sent to Guantanamo? Detained indefinitely without access to adequate medical care, lawyers, food, sleep?
I'm shocked that you raise their decision as a question for debate. The Proud Boys are after them. ICE and CPB are after them. What is the argument in favor of advertising their Christmas service? What are we even talking about here?
Not really questioning their decision. They have every right to keep things quiet. I certainly imagine in the time of Nero Christians kept on the down low about their gatherings. To me, it is too bad a faith community has to resort to the tactics of the early Christians in today's world.
*I am in that group but was not present or involved in this.
That is a difficult question. Second amendment people would say this is the very reason why citizens should exercise their right to keep and bear arms; however, if a gunman would want to take on these ICE people actively, the right to keep and bear arms would disappear. You shoot at a government person, they will shoot back with a lot more fire power than your group can muster.
Best advise, in my book, is to use whistles and smart phone cameras. ICE does not seem to have an effective countermeasure against them.
In practice it would give ICE/Border patrol a excuse to kill us and/or our neighbors so even if we could it wouldn't be the best idea. As it is I've already spoken with some people about what it felt like for them to have ICE/BP pull a gun on them and threaten them for a while. All for the crime of following ICE/BP and recording their actions at a safe distance.