Over the past few years, we have heard the phrases “sanctuary city” and “sanctuary state”
many times. In the US, it has become politically divisive because sanctuary cities and states have traditionally been labeled liberal or “blue states” where the Democratic Party prevails. Depending on the circumstances, undocumented individuals, those who are in need of medications or procedures that have become illegal elsewhere, other forms of care, or others who suffer political, economic, or social oppression, were given legal protection from those who sought to apprehend and repress them.
There is nothing new about this. It is a tradition that dates back some 3,000 or more years to the time of Moses. In the Book of Numbers, we read that there were at least six Sanctuary Cities spread across ancient Israel.
In ancient Israel, if someone died under unnatural circumstances or war, such as an accident that could possibly have been prevented, accidental homicide or even intentional murder, it was up to the family to apprehend the suspect and take the person to a judge for a trial. But it was also up to the family of the deceased to settle for what became known as “Blood Money” or to execute the criminal.
Sometimes, it was far more convenient and even satisfying for the deceased’s family to take their revenge without a trial. This is pure vigilantism at its worst. However, if the accused could flee to one of the sanctuary cities, they knew they would be protected from revenge. A proper trial would be held, and the judges would render a decision.
The concept of sanctuary continued into the Christian era. As in the more ancient past, if the accused could reach the doors of a parish church or cathedral, they could claim sanctuary and be placed under the protection of the church. That was sometimes more theoretical than reality.
When King Henry II turned on close friend, courtier, the Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas a Becket, in 1170, three of his knights attempted to ingratiate themselves with the monarch. They rode from London to Canterbury, broke into the cathedral, and found Becket praying before the altar. There, they killed him. Overall, it does not get much worse than that: Murder in a holy, sacred place.
Perhaps the best-known literary example of sanctuary is in Victor Hugo’s magnificent novel, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, where Esmeralda is surrounded by a vicious crowd wanting her death, simply because she is a Gypsy and not native-born French. Quasimodo, swoops down on a bell rope, scoops her up, and shouts, “Sanctuary! Sanctuary!” as he whisks her away to safety. Her life is now safe.
Claiming and providing sanctuary has always been with us, often in different ways. In the years leading up to the Civil War, there were homes along the Underground Railroad where slaves could find a safe haven as they journeyed toward the Canadian border. In Europe during the Nazi era, individuals and families risked their lives to protect Jews and others who were desperate to avoid persecution and death. The best examples are of Anne Frank, and the industrial Oskar Schindler. Just as significantly, but less well known, were scores of diplomats who risked their lives as they signed documents to allow Jews to escape. All of them violated laws that had serious repercussions. It did not matter; doing the right thing was what counted.
At other times, America acted very shamefully, such as in 1939. The St.Louis steamship departed Germany with 900 German Jews seeking sanctuary, first in Cuba and then in the US. Both countries, because of prejudice and fear, refused permission for the ship to land. Instead, it returned to Germany where most of its passengers were sent to the execution camps.
This tradition of sanctuary is still with us, often in different forms. A year or so ago, a man who was wanted for murder, made his way to a United Methodist Church along the lakeshore. He went inside, sought out the past, and asked for sanctuary so he could safely surrender to the authorities. The minister followed the church’s tradition of helping him.
To provide any form of sanctuary always means taking risks. In America, everyone involved in the Underground Railroad violated the Fugitive Slave Act, which meant imprisonment or fines for those who provided sanctuary. In occupied Europe, giving sanctuary to the Jews and others often meant immediate execution or a one-way railroad ride to the extermination camps. It means breaking evil laws to do the right thing, regardless of the dangers.
Providing sanctuary has always been a dangerous act. The authorities, both secular and sometimes sacred, do not like it. It is inconvenient to them and gets in their way. They want power and control; they want things done their way. When an individual or family made provisions for escaping slaves to stay on their property, they were defying the federal government. In some instances, they were defying the teachings of the church. In those moments, they were not the ‘good guys’ but the law-breakers who were the dangerous radicals taking the law into their own hands.
Today, the whole question of protecting and caring for the most vulnerable people in our country remains with us. Right now, ICE and Homeland Security, and other federal and state organizations are working hard to round up anyone suspected of being in our country without the right documentation. Their propagandists and supporters say it is to remove dangerous, and always violent, dangerous criminals. They use that message to justify sometimes strong-arm tactics and intimidation, such as breaking up families. And yes, some of the “illegals” as they like to call them, have a criminal record. The majority do not because they were trying to escape crime and gang violence in their own country. Others came to America for sanctuary from political repression and violence at home..
Most of the animosity toward immigrants is based on a four-letter word – fear. Fear comes in many different forms. People are afraid they might take jobs away from ‘real’ Americans. They are afraid their religion or denomination might become too strong and take over. People are afraid property values might drop if others move into neighborhoods. Regardless of how we dress it up or justify it, it is still fear.
It comes down to each individual: Are you a person of courage, or of fear?
The problem of sanctuary is far more extended than we might realize. Hitler began his pogrom of terror by attacking an easy target – the Jews. When no one challenged him or said ‘no’ he continued. The union members, socialists, gays and lesbians, gypsies, and then the peasants of eastern Europe became his targets. He tentatively attacked the Lutheran church, and then the Catholics. No one stood up to him and said that his actions were wrong.
He was so emboldened that his own senior military were afraid to say ‘no’ to him. In the late 1930s, Czechoslovakia had the largest and strongest army on the European continent. When Hitler moved in on their territory, he said that if the Czechs fought back, the Germans were to instantly disengage and withdraw. The Czechs did not fire back, and that emboldened Hitler all the more.
This past Tuesday I talked with a good friend who had posted a notice a friend received from her insurance company who protects her house. It was a new list exclusions that would not be covered in case of a civil war. You read that right – the insurance company is planning for a civil war in our country.
We hope and pray it does not come to that. The best way to avoid it is to stand shoulder to shoulder with those who ask for sanctuary and for our connection with them. The reason question is: Do you have the courage to offer sanctuary to those in desperate need?
