Very enlightening bro, I see many "Christians" walking around with so much hate in their heart for people who they see as violators of a "law" not knowing they're violating the essence of their faith by doing so.

Thank you for your perspective Tyrone.

To pattern my life after Messiah is the only way I know how to improve my life. My own reasoning can easily lead me astray. For example, I can think of a million reasons why it is natural for me to seek to eliminate my enemies and do harm to those who do harm to me. I can even justify it as "helping" them in a way: by punishing their deviant behavior I am helping to shape them into better people, in a Pavlovian manner. Loving those who do evil will only encourage more of that behavior, so faulty human thinking easily goes...

But on the other hand, Messiah teaches us counter-intuitive concepts such as satyagraha. To love those who do evil. Why should I do this? At the end of the day, simply because those who I truly admire (Yeshua, Gandhi, Dr MLK) acted in this way and it worked. If I want to be more like them (especially more like Messiah) then I have to do what they did.

In addition to this, yes, there are several logical reasons why the path of satyagraha is the one we should follow, such as it being the only thing that can transform hearts in a conflict. But these are secondary reasons. The primary is that I want to be a follower of Messiah and become like him, so I must do what he practiced and what he commanded.

If you call yourself a Christian, you MUST do what Messiah said to do. That includes treating immigrants with compassion, love, hospitality and welcoming them to stay in your community.

As a citizen of the world, of a community, of any kind of religion and of a organization it is important for us to understand that we must respect and love others. Aliens, natives, whites, blacks, any type or category existed to classsify a person shouldn't have influence in how we treat people. I am a U.S. citizen, yet I identify with immigrants and as well with third genertion of latino immigrants. It is imperative for people to see others for what the are, for what they think, for what they carry behind, for what they say not for what they represent or seem to like. When assimilating that we are world that works together (or should), we are leaving the baby stage of socialization and finally we are acknowledging we all are humas and we all have the same value as citizens of one world. 

More Kudos for part II.  I, again, agree with you whole-heartedly. 

On a somewhat related note, I saw this great t-shirt the other day.  On it there was pictured several noble looking Native-Americans with rifles in their hands and the caption read: "Fighting terrorism since 1492"   

Not to detract from the wisdom of Jesus, Ghandi and Martin Luther King, for their path is one that is neccessary to overcome emotional obsticals that are keeping people seperate, in the long term.  However people walking this path alone will not take us where we need to go absent those walking the path of say Malcolm Shabazz.  I don't think that turning the other cheek is the right way to go.  It doesn't make your enemy respect you, but instead reaffims their belief that you are weak and not worthy of being treated as an equal.  It's good to try to heal divides, but while doing so we all have to stand tall and not comprimise our self respect. 

In the wise words of Tupac Amaru Shakur,

"No Malcolm X in my history text why is that?

Cause he tried to educate and liberate all blacks,

Why is Martin Luther King in my book each week?

He tolds blacks if they get smacked, turn the other cheek."

Now this is pure speculation cause I've never looked into it, but I wouldn't be surprised if the whole turn the other cheek ideology got played up in revisions of the bible during a time period when those with the power to make and disseminate these revisions had an interest in making those they oppressed more pliable and manipulatable.  In my opinion peace will come about when the elements of society that keep peace from being a reality are removed from said society.

In the wise words of you,

"the struggle is our obligation,

if you ain't fighting for,

then your holding back your people some more.'

No disrespect by any means.

"Now this is pure speculation cause I've never looked into it, but I wouldn't be surprised if the whole turn the other cheek ideology got played up in revisions of the bible during a time period when those with the power to make and disseminate these revisions had an interest in making those they oppressed more pliable and manipulatable.  In my opinion peace will come about when the elements of society that keep peace from being a reality are removed from said society."

The earliest manuscripts for this particular portion of scripture is dated at around 64 A.D. At that time the church was opressed. Note that the early Christians didnt start a violent revolution to overthrow Roman opression. Instead they continued in their teaching and fed poor people, took care of widows that didnt belong to the church, . Rome didnt come to accept Christianity until after it saw Christians dispossesed of their property, fed to wild animals, and, treated spitefully. The church demonstrated that. Sadly the church in many ways has departed from that. And in later centuries we see the church violently taking and using people. But not in A.D. 64

Thanks for mentioning that movie, Ive not seen it and am now making it a point to purchase it.

:)