Open books, open borders

While vigilance is required in our post-9/11 society, we must be

careful to not swing the pendulum of security in the direction of

absurd extremes. A modicum of common sense should inform our

reactions to individuals who enter and live in our country. Of

course, bureaucracies often intrude and apply ludicrous standards.

While any ties to terrorism must elicit a swift and appropriate

response, concocting artificial determinants to curtail residency do

not speak well of America. Surrender to a siege mentality, blindly

treating all foreigners as potential terrorists, and the building of

a fortress America are ineffective and unrealistic responses to the

dangers we face.

The American Immigration Law Foundation counsels: “Policies and

practices that fail to properly distinguish between terrorists and

legitimate foreign travelers are ineffective security tools that

waste limited resources, damage the U.S. economy, alienate those

groups whose cooperation the U.S. government needs to prevent

terrorism and foster a false sense of security by promoting the

illusion that we are reducing the threat of terrorism.”

America’s ability to thwart further terrorist assaults must depend

on correcting failures of intelligence. If the government casts too

wide a security net over the entire foreign-born population, rather

than actually identifying terrorists, we will not have enhanced our

security. In the process, we will forfeit various principles and

liberties that are hallmarks of our country.

Yes, we must suppress threats of domestic terrorism and must adapt

to a heightened state of alert. But overreaction may produce more

harm than good. We should be measured and responsible and not yield

to the temptation of jumping to unwarranted conclusions. All we may

achieve through radical responses is the perception of greater

security, without the reality of any substantive protection. The

consequences of the response may well exceed the power of the threat;

the treatment may be more injurious than the threat. One observer

wrote: “Even the most dramatic mobilization of capacities cannot

produce the total security most people desire. If the goal is the

complete elimination of a terrorist threat on American soil, even the

most draconian measures will fail.”

The times insist on urgent measures, and yet we ought not be

panicked into overblown defenses. The creation of a garrison state is

disproportional to the peril. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in

Federalist No. 8: “The violent destruction of life and property

incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state

of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty

to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a

tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more

safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of becoming less

free.”

RABBI MARK S. MILLER

Temple Bat Yam

Newport Beach

I fail to understand why current visa and immigration laws should

apply differently to religious scholars than they do to everyone

else. I fail to understand how our U.S. Citizenship and Immigration

Services, a bureau of the Department of Homeland Security, formerly

known as INS, is qualified to evaluate who is and who is not a

religious scholar and/or what is and what is not a religious

institution.

I do understand that religious scholars/leaders do not receive the

respect, or have the status, they (we) once apparently enjoyed. Once

upon a time, I am told, persons easily identifiable as leaders in or

of faith communities were initially viewed positively as contributors

to American society as a whole. Such is no longer the case. When

wearing clerical (priestly, clergy) clothes in public, I have been

sneered and spit at, cursed and given obscene gestures. (To be fair,

I have also been smiled and waved at and spoken to kindly by people I

don’t know, just because they identified me as a priest/pastor by my

outfit.) Perhaps our current immigration processes reflect changed

predispositions.

I learned long ago not to travel in clerical garb as it inevitably

attracts both extra scrutiny and conversations. When traveling, I do

not identify myself as a “priest” because it draws negative responses

and requires excessive explanations especially when I am traveling

with my spouse and son, such as: “Yes, I am a ‘priest,’ an

Episcopalian/Anglican. We can marry and have children as well as be

ordained.” There are consequences of being a religious leader and/or

scholar. Some are easily understandable, some are not.

THE VERY REV. CANON

PETER D. HAYNES

St. Michael & All Angels

Episcopal Church

Corona del Mar

Universities and seminaries need to attract faculty from around

the world so that students may learn from well-qualified teachers,

benefit from international perspectives and be exposed to various

points of view. The real issue is whether our immigration laws are

good ones and whether they are applied fairly -- or if they are being

used as a political football. As politics and religion intermingle,

foreign theology professors may become unwelcome if they present

challenging perspectives.

After Pearl Harbor, many Americans of Japanese descent were forced

out of their homes and into internment camps in the name of “national

security.” This appalling chapter in our history has yet to be fully

acknowledged or remedied. “National security” was used by President

Richard Nixon to cover up Watergate. For some, the “war against

terrorism,” “the nation at war” and “homeland security” are

fear-inducing slogans that justify compromising or even abandoning

our freedoms.

We need increased public awareness of Islam and especially a

better understanding of its diversity. Muslim scholars should be

welcomed, as well as Pentecostal or any other religious teacher a

school chooses to hire to assist with preparing students to

understand the world in which we live. Unless the individual is

engaging in criminal activities, all points of view, ideologies,

religious and political beliefs, including radical or extreme ones,

should be regarded as free speech in the United States and should not

be used as the basis for denying visas or deporting faculty.

REV. DR. DEBORAH BARRETT

Zen Center of Orange County

Costa Mesa

There is a difference between sidestepping the law and the law

being irrationally practiced. No, a religious scholar should not be

able to sidestep immigration laws.

That being said, these two situations are different questions. The

government has legitimate terrorist concerns related to Tariq

Ramadan. However, in the case of Karkkainen, some caseworker has

decided he or she has a better understanding of correct doctrine than

Fuller Seminary. The government should never be in the business of

clarifying theology.

Fuller Seminary has a great vision of Christian unity, and dozens

of different yet Christian theological perspectives are taught and

debated, at the same time holding firm to basics of the faith. Thus,

a Pentecostal scholar from Finland is a welcome addition to the

faculty that also includes Evangelical Orthodox, Southern Baptists,

Korean Presbyterians and many others.

Whoever took on this case for the government has no understanding

of Christian theology and unity, nor should they. However, they

shouldn’t be making judgments with the assumption that they do.

SENIOR ASSOCIATE PASTOR

RIC OLSEN

Harbor Trinity

Costa Mesa