“These Christians cannot offer a clear proof of the truth through demonstrations, but demand those who approach them to focus on faith alone. They cannot convince them any more than they can convince themselves, who, in the manner of a mindless herd, firmly shut their eyes and bravely follow without examination everything they are told. Reasonably, Christians call themselves “believers” because of their mindless belief.” Porphyry

More evidence Christianity is a matter of convenience, not conviction, in this country.

I do not adhere to any religious faith. The longer I live the more I see the hypocrisy, or at best mere habit not practice, behind organized religion. And I see an inherent danger in those who would impose their “Christian” Nationalism on the country as a whole.

Many in this country do embrace their faith in a manner consistent with its teachings but not all. And in my experience, it is those who scream the loudest that are the least devout.

I’ve written this and a previous piece to point out this clear disconnect between the words and the actions of these self-proclaimed Christian Americans.

The Sermon on the Mount stands as one of the most morally compelling teachings in the Christian tradition—an invitation not merely to believe differently, but to live differently. At a time when immigration remains a deeply divisive topic in the United States, the sermon offers principles that can challenge, elevate, and reshape the way Americans think about undocumented immigrants. Its teachings urge a shift from fear-driven reactions toward a posture rooted in compassion, justice, and human dignity.

From the very beginning, the Sermon on the Mount calls listeners to reconsider whom they honor and protect. The Beatitudes bless the poor in spirit, the meek, and the persecuted. These are not the powerful or the privileged but those who stand vulnerable. When applied to the reality of undocumented immigrants—many of whom flee violence, poverty, or instability—the Beatitudes become a persuasive reminder: moral leadership begins with seeing and valuing the humanity of those society often overlooks. Americans who take these teachings seriously are encouraged to consider whether their attitudes reflect the compassion Jesus praised.

Equally transformative is Jesus’s teaching on love. When he commands, “Love your enemies” and “pray for those who persecute you,” he calls his followers to a love that surpasses instinct, politics, and tribal loyalty. This principle does not label undocumented immigrants as enemies; instead, it eliminates any excuse for withholding goodwill from people perceived as outsiders. For Christians and others who respect the teachings of Jesus, this command pushes beyond mere tolerance. It demands active care, even when complicated debates about law and policy surround the issue.

The Golden Rule—“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”—offers perhaps the most powerful moral lens. If Americans imagine themselves in the shoes of an immigrant parent seeking safety for a child or a worker escaping desperate circumstances, the moral calculus changes. Compassion becomes not a political stance but a human obligation. The Golden Rule makes it harder to justify indifference and easier to advocate for humane treatment, even while acknowledging the need for functional immigration laws.

Justice also plays a vital role in the sermon. Jesus warns against a rigid, punitive interpretation of righteousness, emphasizing mercy and integrity over legalistic judgment. This perspective does not dismiss the importance of law but instead demands that laws—and the attitudes supporting them—reflect the dignity of those affected. Policies shaped or supported by people mindful of these teachings would prioritize fairness, prevent abuse, and avoid reducing human beings to stereotypes or statistics.

Finally, the sermon’s call to resist judgment—“Judge not, that you be not judged”—reminds Americans to approach others with humility. Immigration debates often rely on assumptions about motives, morality, or worth. The Sermon on the Mount challenges these assumptions, urging individuals to look inward before casting moral verdicts on others.

In a nation wrestling with how to treat undocumented immigrants, the Sermon on the Mount provides more than spiritual insight—it offers a persuasive moral framework. It asks Americans not simply what is legal, but what is compassionate; not merely what is political, but what is right.

What Would Jesus Say About Undocumented Immigrants Who Commit Crimes?

While Jesus never addressed immigration law—ancient societies did not have modern border systems—his teachings offer guiding principles for how to think about people who do wrong, regardless of their status.

Here are the themes most relevant to the question:

1. Jesus consistently held people accountable for wrongdoing.

Jesus did not excuse harmful actions. When people committed clear moral wrongs—violence, exploitation, theft—Jesus called them to repentance and change.
But importantly, he always combined accountability with compassion.

2. Jesus separated a person’s dignity from their wrongdoing.

The Gospels repeatedly show Jesus caring for individuals whom society saw as criminals or outcasts.
He ate with tax collectors (viewed as corrupt), spoke with the accused, and treated the marginalized with humanity even when they had done wrong.
His message:
A person’s wrong actions do not erase their human worth.

3. Jesus rejected collective judgment.

He did not support condemning entire groups based on the actions of a few.
Instead, he confronted individuals for their own behavior.
Applied to today, that would mean:
one person’s crime cannot be used to morally indict an entire category of immigrants.

4. Jesus emphasized justice that is fair, not vengeful.

Jesus supported just consequences for wrongdoing, but warned against disproportionate punishment or hatred.
His teaching “judge not” doesn’t forbid accountability—it forbids self‑righteousness, cruelty, or assuming you know another person’s heart.

5. Jesus repeatedly spoke about treatment of the stranger.

While not about criminal behavior, Jesus’s teachings on the “stranger” matter here.
In Matthew 25, he praises those who welcomed the stranger and warns against hardening one’s heart.
This does not mean ignoring crime, but suggests that even those who break the law must still be treated with dignity rather than dehumanized.

So what would Jesus likely say?

Based on his recorded teachings:

• If someone commits a crime, they are responsible for their actions.
• They should face just consequences—fair, not vindictive.
• Their immigration status does not change their humanity.
• Hatred, dehumanization, and collective blame would contradict his teachings.
• Compassion and justice must work together—not in opposition.

Jesus’s consistent pattern was this:
condemn the wrongdoing, not the person; offer accountability, but never deny human dignity.

That is what a truly Christian nation would do. I’d say the hypocrisy is overwhelming and that the inherent danger of those who insist on a Judeo-Christian foundation intent on bringing about an American Theocracy is self-evident

Just look at their choice for savior, it should give one pause. No one could be less Christian than the demagogue in the White House and his cabal of conspirators.