Friday, February 06, 2026

Facebook Comments: On Renee Good and Alex Pretti's deaths being a result of "the left's manufactured deception"

 

Original post (shared by friend): 

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=26853208760932570&set=a.692547647425372

 

My comment:

You are perpetuating a false state narrative. 
 
Tell me: if no one had filmed their deaths at the hand of ICE, who would know the truth? Would you believe Kristi Noem and Greg Bovino that they were terrorists attacking federal officers?
 
These two, like others, were there to help their neighbors, to stand in the way when others were treated unjustly, to witness and provide the truth to the rest of us. The truth is worth dying for, when lies are used for murder and oppression.
 
The truth about what ICE is doing (violating the Constitution, targeting law-abiding immigrants rather than only the "hardened criminals" that they claim to be after, and dishing out violence to people merely for witnessing them or being nearby) is evident to the whole world, because ordinary people decided that they would stand against it with their neighbors. They did it nonviolently, even when being pepper sprayed in the face, tear gassed, and shot at with rubber bullets. 
 
Nothing could be more American or more in line with what Jesus taught his disciples by his words and example. Watch the videos of Alex Pretti.
 

Summary of OP's response:

The poster asked me to read the following article with regard to a biblical view of illegal immigration:
 

My response:

Thank you for wanting to engage in a discussion. 
 
I read the article, and most of what they say is good and balanced, but the argument they present that the Bible has a category of "legal immigration" and "illegal immigration" does not line up with our modern categories of geographical national borders and citizenship.
 
First of all in OT times, there was no border in the modern sense, only walled cities and unwalled towns, with loose jurisdiction over the farmland and wilderness between them: people in biblical times could move freely to other lands, and the Bible contains no instructions to stop "foreigners" from becoming "sojourners" and eventually "citizens". In fact logically, the only way one could become a "sojourner" is to either start as a "foreigner", settle down, and assimilate, or to start as a Canaanite native to the land but foreign to Israel. Bathsheba was originally married to Uriah the Hittite, for example: one of the Canaanite peoples, but on the way to assimilation under David's rule in Jerusalem.
 
The only exception to this would be for armies from rival cities coming in war to subjugate or exterminate the people living there. (And if you're going to argue that's what's happening in America--an "invasion" at the southern border--then I don't think you'd be arguing in good faith.)
 
That said, I have no fundamental objection to immigration laws and border control. (Neither do mainstream democrats, by the way: the bogeyman of "open borders" is used to scare Republicans by making a false picture of Democrats.) Overall, I would argue that our immigration policy for the past several decades has been out of line with reality, and the result has been that we have taken advantage of undocumented immigrants for their labor without fair recognition or protection. What I mean is that our economy has a demand for immigrant labor not satisfied by our native population, and rather than constructing a system that is able to handle the capacity that we need in an orderly manner, we have created a de-facto system, where immigrants come in and fill jobs, but we don't protect them from exploitation by employers and criminals. They have gotten a raw deal, and meanwhile we have allowed a system of smugglers and of rewarding those who come undocumented over those who go through the legal process.
 
The blame for this is primarily in Congress. Both parties have perpetuated the broken system, and they have abdicated the maintenance of the broken system to the executive branch. Different presidents handle things in vastly different ways, leading to more chaos, unfairness, and human suffering.
 
Regardless, I don't think we have a fundamental disagreement with the idea of maintaining border control. I, and many others, do see our immigration "policy" (or hodge-podge of de-facto policies and uneven enforcement) as a source of injustice. While undocumented immigrants have violated the civil immigration law in coming here, this does not make them evil. This does not make them criminals. This *especially* has nothing to do with their children. Most importantly, this does not make them not our neighbor. 
 
I think your application of John 10:1 is WAY out of context: Jesus is talking about his right to shepherd Israel (and the gentiles) because he does not ask his followers to die so that he can live and exercise self-serving power (as so many zealot revolutionaries did), but he laid down his life for the sheep. It is a property analogy about an enclosure of sheep, and it has *nothing* to do with national borders with walls to control migration (which, again, didn't exist at the time), or even a walled city-state constructed to repel invading armies.
 
This brings us to the point: what did Renee Good and Alex Pretti think they were putting themselves in danger for? 
 
To start, ICE's surge in Minnesota was not *merely* focused on apprehending illegal immigrants with criminal arrest warrants, criminal convictions, etc. Yes, they were doing that, but they were ALSO going on a huge fishing expedition to try and round up as many people as they could, in order to deport them. They were rounding up immigrants, *regardless of their immigration status*: people with valid asylum cases; people with orders from judges saying they were not to be deported. People who looked non-white and started leaving when ICE showed up at a workplace or business that they thought illegal immigrants would frequent and grabbing people. They were rounding up US citizens in the process, even Native Americans. Needless to say, thousands of ICE agents doing this in a city is a recipe for disorder. ICE would smash windows and pull people out of cars, and just leave the cars in the street. ICE would take parents into custody, and either take the children as well, or just leave the children. People were being apprehended, and rather than processing them in a local court, where family and lawyers have access, they would simply disappear to a detention center in Texas, thousands of miles away. Families didn't know where their loved ones were taken, or how to prove to authorities that they had valid documentation or status.
 
And the ICE agents were brutal and undisciplined. They used excessive force. They destroyed property unnecessarily, they covered their faces, wore combat gear, and did not wear identifying badges. They broke into homes in violation of the 4th amendment. 
 
We are only starting to get a picture of what happens in ICE custody, but there have been many, credible, corroborating stories of neglect, torture, and extortion. The torture will stop if you sign a paper consenting to be deported.
 
Rather than sit by while all of this injustice was happening, the people of Minneapolis started warning their neighbors that ICE was in the area by blowing whistles. The people didn't know who had legal status and who didn't, who was a dangerous criminal and who wasn't, but too many people were being taken, and in such a brutal manner, that it no longer mattered: it needed to stop. As people protested, they started recording what ICE was doing on their phones. ICE continued their brutal tactics, not only towards those they were apprehending, but also toward the growing number of people blowing whistles, yelling, and recording them on their phones.
 
After Renee Good was shot by ICE it became clear that ICE was sent to the city specifically to provoke a riot. But the people of Minneapolis did not riot: they resisted, but peacefully. They recorded what was happening and showed the world. Alex Pretti was not causing trouble. He was directing traffic when ICE had caused a blockage in the street. When an ICE agent got in his face, he backed away until he was off the street. Another ICE agent shoved a woman on the street to the ground. He bent to help her, and was attacked with pepper spray to the face. Then he was dragged backwards away from the woman he was protecting and brought to his knees. Several ICE agents started beating him. He was armed, but he never made any move for his holster. In the video, you can hear one of the agents saying "gun, gun". An ICE agent approached, unholstered Alex's gun from his waistline, and walked away with it. Seconds later, while Alex was still on his hands and knees, beaten and pepper sprayed, two ICE agents opened fire on him. They fired 10 shots at point blank range.
 
Being a law enforcement officer is a difficult job, and protecting yourself and those around you from deadly threats in volatile situations is a serious responsibility. Nonetheless, what happened to Alex Pretti was a firing squad. Perhaps the ICE agents heard that he had a gun and didn't know he was disarmed. Still, he had made no threatening move. There are so many videos from so many angles, and none of them show Alex doing anything threatening. This was unjust. Whether because of a mistake or incompetence and poor training (the latter make the former more likely), throwing thousands of ICE agents kitted for war into a city, and tasked with dragging out its residents had the predictable effect.
 
So, was it worth it to resist? I think it was. If ICE was doing in my town what they did in Minneapolis, I would protest. I would record them. I would help my neighbors. And I might get shot doing it. But I would rather put myself in danger to help resist injustice than sit by and do nothing. 
 
Legal doesn't mean right. Government power being "ordained by God" means that the when the government enforces justice that we are accountable to God to respect that as a God-given role, but it also means that government is accountable to God to enforce justice and not injustice. Jesus told Pilate, "You would have no power over me unless it had been given from above." Government does not get to define what justice is: only God does. Many Christians bandy about Romans 13 whenever they approve of the government, but it is a two-edged sword.
 

My follow-up comment:

 You mentioned an investigation, and I think it's important to point out that right now the only "investigation" of these incidents involving ICE is by ICE. The same people who, minutes after these events, LIED to the nation and the world about what happened are claiming that they can perform an impartial investigation into their own actions that they lied about. This, by the way, is out of the ordinary. Normally external agencies such as the FBI and state investigators would be involved, but they have been cut off and have no access. Nonetheless, the state of Minnesota is gathering evidence and testimony from citizens, and members of Congress with oversight over ICE are calling for an independent and open investigation. There is no statute of limitations on murder, so I believe eventually (perhaps after Trump is out of office) a more trustworthy investigation can take place.
 
Kristi Noem has shown that we cannot believe anything she tells us. She claims that she was only doing as she was directed by Stephen Miller and Donald Trump, and in that, I believe her. Stephen Miller is the designer of Trump's immigration approach, as well as the push for the vast expansion of executive power and the removal of checks, balances, and transparency.
 

My further follow-up comment:

Here's an interview of one of the people who witnessed Alex Pretti's killing. She is an ordinary person from Minneapolis, not a paid agitator. I find it particularly insulting to my intelligence when people assert, without evidence, that someone they disagree with is a paid performer.


Facebook comments: On Deportations of LGBTQ+ asylum seekers, and the response of Evangelical Christians

 

Original image (shared by a friend with a comment about personal history growing up in an evangelical environment, and a current bisexual identity)



https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1355750756588756&set=a.348964100600765

Note: This post contains my comments only, without the context of the original post or comments by others I was responding to.  I have removed the names of any mentions.

 

My comment in response to the original poster's response to someone else:

 
First of all, what the government is doing to these people is unjust and wrong. Especially after having taken them in as asylum seekers because of the threat on their life because of their LGBTQ+ identity, to reverse that and seek to send them back, washing our hands of the consequences, is a betrayal of our word as a nation and our hospitality. It's part of a larger pattern of mistreatment of immigrants and vulnerable people that this government, especially under Stephen Miller, has pursued.
 
We absolutely are right and in line with God’s love to seek to rescue our fellow human beings, and to welcome them into our society, even if we believe that their practices and identity are not in line with God’s calling for His people. A society which is built on the (very Christian) principle that our own religious beliefs should not be imposed on others who believe differently using the power of the state.

I don’t think it’s fair to be dismissive of [commenter]’s “rhetoric” regarding what the Bible says about how God views homosexuality and transgenderism. 
 
To disagree with you about the moral standards that God has for people who claim His name is not the same as to agree with the betrayal of such people to their deaths. Similarly, refuting an inarticulately made argument you were given growing up does not mean that the position it was defending is incorrect. We all *do* have desires that would draw us away from what God has given for human flourishing. We all *do*, make choices about what we define as good and evil, and our choices shape our future desires: our desires grow where they are watered, though obviously we know that each of us has weeds in our garden that we do not intentionally water, but still persist. 
 
You have concluded that “consensual adult relationships can look different ways and be OK in God’s eyes”, yet you accuse others of refusing to confront their cognitive dissonance. You say, “Love is love” as if it’s a tautology, but what you mean is [sexual expression and relationship, including expressions that the Bible says are abhorrent to God’s character] is [a fulfillment of God’s ideal for humanity]. I’m sure you’re familiar with the passages in Leviticus 18 and 20, where God tells the Israelites not to engage in homosexuality or gender-fluid cross-dressing (Deut 22) because such things are an “abomination to the LORD your God”. 
 
These prohibitions are repeated in the New Testament in several places. In 1 Cor 6:9-20, to Christians who said “All things are lawful unto me”, Paul counters with: “All things are not helpful”, and “I will not be dominated by anything”. Christians who wanted to exercise sexual “freedom” with their bodies said, “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both”, but he counters, “The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.” He points to the future resurrection of the body, our body’s membership in Christ’s body, and the indwelling Holy Spirit in our present bodies. “You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.”
 
You’re my friend and I love you. I don’t want to see you deceived or trapped in sin.
 

A follow-up comment responding to a different person who responded to my comment: 

 
It doesn’t sound to me like you take the Bible very seriously beyond repeating what others have said about it that you like, but I will go ahead and address your arguments anyway, in case someone who does care, but doesn’t know much about the Bible, sees your comments and takes them as accurate.

In the OT law, there are 3 categories of regulations: moral, ceremonial, and civil:
  1. Moral laws are universal prohibitions on human behavior that is considered wrong in any context: murder, theft, false witness, rape, adultery, etc.  
  2. Ceremonial laws have to do with cleanliness/uncleanliness, worship, and cultural markers for Israelite society, e.g., sacrifices, dietary restrictions, circumcision, sabbath observance, etc.
  3. Civil laws have to do with the particulars of how Israelite society should be governed, e.g., how trials are conducted, sanctuary cities, how to conduct a divorce, etc.
You assert that ALL of the Levitical law is in category 2, which is not the case. Wearing clothes that are all of one material, and adding tassels, etc. is ceremonial. Failing to do these things is never called an “abomination”, and it is never required/expected/judged of non-Israelites.
 
The prohibition on cross-dressing is not culture-specific. It does not say for Israelites that “women must wear X and men must wear Y.” Deuteronomy 22:5 says that men and women must not to dress in the garments of the opposite sex (whatever that entails), and it says that “whoever” does these things is an “abomination” to the LORD. Clearly what is meant is dressing with the intent to appear as a member of the opposite sex or as seeking attraction from the same sex. Israelites reading this would understand that even foreigners who did this were under God’s judgement, even those who did so in non-Israelite contexts with non-Israelite clothing customs.
 
Beyond the Old Testament arguments, though, the New Testament clearly re-iterates the prohibitions on cross-dressing and on homosexual intercourse of both male-male and female-female varieties. Someone further down on this thread mentioned a documentary that supposedly debunked one of the words translated ‘homosexual’ in modern English translations, but the argument given does not stand up to scrutiny. ἀρσενοκοίτης is a contraction of the phrase from the Septuagint of Leviticus 20:13 “ἄρσενος κοίτην”, meaning “with a man lie in bed” and is best understood in the context of that verse. Besides which, there are other Greek words and descriptions of homosexual sex in the New Testament, all of which are forbidden to Christians.
 
You say that Paul is against all sex, and I have heard others try to characterize him that way as well, but the evidence we have in his New Testament writings does not support that claim.
In 1 Corinthians 7 (the passage which immediately follows the one I summarize in my comment above), Paul is *responding* to a question from the Corinthians as to whether as they put it, “it is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” (v1), and he instead recommends that each man have a wife and each woman have a husband (v 2), that husbands and wives *not* deprive each other of conjugal rights, except for limited times and by mutual consent (v3-5), and that it is up to unmarried widows whether or not they should be remarried. 
 
He refrains from giving a rabbinical ruling applying to all about celibacy, but instead gives his personal recommendation that those who are able to live in celibacy are choosing something “good”, but it is, again, NOT a commandment from God that all should do so. 
 
In Ephesians 5:22-33, Paul uses the marriage of a husband and wife, as instituted by God in Genesis 2, as a typological picture of Christ with the Church.
 
Does that *really* sound like a man who is against all sex?