A True Spring Cleaning

Be careful what you celebrate. This week is often known in Christian circles as Passion Week, a period that starts with Jesus and his disciples entering Jerusalem and ending with his death and resurrection. For Jews, this is the week of Passover. Both are steeped in stories of lore, mystery, and a divine, father-like being who rescues his ‘chosen’ people. There are songs. There are meals. There are serious conversations. There are secular celebrations as well, with brightly colored eggs, bunnies, and delicious things from Cadbury. Hooray for Spring!

We miss what was actually happening at the time of the historical events. Sure, Jewish people in Jerusalem celebrated Passover as they had done for a couple of thousand years. For the sake of the story, let’s even go with the possibility that Jesus and his disciples were entering the city, with Jesus sitting on a donkey, as a parody of Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor, entering the city on the other side of town. While no historical data supports the legend, the story kind of falls apart if we don’t include it.

Now, let’s have another fun fact: Jerusalem was full of tattle-tales. Jerusalem has been a city of conflicting societies for centuries. While Jews claimed the city was theirs because of the temple, Palestinians, Syrians, Egyptians, and Romans all lived there as well, and they loved tattling on the other groups to get them into trouble with Pilate.

Oh, but there’s more to the story. Maybe you’ve heard of a guy named Simon the Zealot. No, this isn’t the same Simon as the one whose name was changed to Peter. Simon was part of a loosely organized group that saw Jesus as The Dominator. Simon was almost always carrying a sword with him should Jesus suddenly decide, “Okay, this is it, we’re taking over now.” While we know of Simon’s place within Jesus’ inner circle, no mention is made in the approved Canon that tells how large the group of Zealots was. Historical data shows that there could have been anywhere from several hundred to a few thousand Zealots in Jerusalem, ready to take on the Roman legions at any moment. The disciples were ready for a fight, Simon most fiercely among them.

Here’s the kicker: if Jesus was at the temple (again, no supporting data), it most likely wasn’t just for show or out of religious obligation. They had just made fun of the Roman Governor. They had drawn a crowd. Within minutes, word of the insult would have gotten to Pilate, and an order for their arrest would have been declared. This creates the likelihood that Jesus and his gang were at the temple to request Sanctuary.

The concept of sanctuary represents a long-standing tradition of providing refuge and safety, often within sacred or protected spaces, to individuals fleeing danger, persecution, or the enforcement of laws perceived as unjust. Rooted in principles of compassion and the protection of the vulnerable, sanctuary implies a place where those in power, historically secular authorities and more recently immigration enforcement, might voluntarily limit their reach out of respect for the space or the moral claim of the person seeking refuge. This was true during the entirety of the Roman Empire, and a large number of people consider it valid today.

US District Judge Dabney Friedrich ruled this week, over the complaints of both Jewish and Christian groups, to allow federal immigration officials and those acting on their behalf to enter those ‘sacred’ places. Judge Friedrich claims that there were only a handful of instances in which enforcement actions were taken inside places of worship, and the suit had not shown the kind of legal harm that would justify a preliminary injunction.

The usefulness of sanctuary operates on multiple levels. Most directly, it offers immediate physical safety from detention or deportation, buying invaluable time for individuals to pursue legal avenues, such as appeals or stays of removal, often with enhanced community and legal support organized around their case. Furthermore, sanctuary serves as a powerful act of moral witness by faith communities, allowing them to live out tenets of compassion, justice and welcoming the stranger, even when it conflicts with government policy. These highly visible acts often attract significant media attention, serving an advocacy role by highlighting the human impact of immigration policies and specific cases of perceived injustice, thereby educating the public and potentially influencing policy debates. It also provides crucial emotional and spiritual support within a caring community for individuals enduring immense fear and uncertainty.

Still, Judge Friedrich wrote: “At least at this juncture and on this record, the plaintiffs have not made the requisite showing of a ‘credible threat’ of enforcement. Nor does the present record show that places of worship are being singled out as special targets.”

We looked annnnnnd no, the concept of sanctuary does not require a ‘credible threat’ of enforcement. Neither does it mean that any specific place is being targeted. Sanctuary doesn’t come with caveats. Sanctuary simply is, always, forever, or it isn’t.

This idea has deep historical roots, stretching back to ancient Greek and Roman temples and finding expression in the Hebrew Bible’s designation of “cities of refuge.” It became a particularly strong tradition in medieval Europe, where Christian churches offered temporary protection from arrest to fugitives within their consecrated grounds, a practice recognized to varying degrees by secular powers for centuries. In the United States, the concept gained modern prominence during the 1980s Sanctuary Movement, when hundreds of congregations across the country defied federal law to offer shelter and support to Central Americans fleeing brutal civil wars, whom the government largely refused to recognize as refugees. This movement re-emerged in the 21st century as the New Sanctuary Movement, with places of worship again offering physical refuge to undocumented immigrants facing deportation, particularly those with deep community ties or facing humanitarian crises if returned to their home countries.

Yeah, this is a BIG deal. So much so, that media companies, especially college-focused media, consider changing their editorial policies about revealing sources. On Friday, an alert was issued by Associated Collegiate Press, the College Media Association, the Journalism Education Association, the National Scholastic Press Association, the Quill and Scroll, and the Student Press Law Center — recommends student journalists and campus media leaders revisit their policies, “particularly for those whose immigration status may make them targets for their lawful speech,” per the SPLC.

“Recent detentions and deportations of international students by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) demand urgent and unprecedented attention from student media in the United States,” the alert reads. “News reports make clear that non-citizen student speakers, including those who have published legally protected speech in student media, have faced severe consequences, including visa revocation, detention, deportation or bans on reentry.”

Quite simply, there is no sanctuary anywhere in the United States. Therefore, it becomes our resposibility to not make any stupid mistakes by using an immigrant’s name, or posting a pictures that might reveal someone’s location. We are in dangerous territoy here. We have to be careful.

This week, Todd Lyons, the acting head of ICE, said that he hopes to streamline the deportations of illegal immigrants to look like “[Amazon] Prime, but with human beings.” The statement is disgusting on its own. Who in hell even thinks of making a statement like that?

An order explicitly authorizing routine entry into churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, or other places of worship for immigration enforcement shatters ou understanding of sanctuary. Imagine an undocumented member of your community, perhaps volunteering at their church’s food pantry or attending services, being apprehended by agents within that sacred space. This would not only physically remove the individual from the place they sought safety but would also violate the profound sense of sanctity and protection associated with houses of worship across faiths. It would directly contravene the historical and ethical underpinnings of sanctuary, likely be viewed by religious communities as a grave infringement upon religious freedom and practice, and could instill widespread fear, potentially deterring people from seeking spiritual solace or community support. The contrast is clear: sanctuary aims to create a space of refuge based on compassion and respect for sacredness, while such invasion permissions prioritize enforcement by breaching those very spaces and principles.

In the Jesus story, it was while he was there seeking sanctuary that he chased out the people who were looking to make a buck off fellow believers. He cleaned house. He emphasized that such places are sacred to those who believe. No admission should be charge. No duty tax should be taken. All should be welcome, even if they don’t understand the language, the liturgy, or the traditions.

There is a sacred demand within every religion or body of faith that we minimize harm, not seek it out. If our immigrant neighbors are not safe, especially at places of worship, then none of us are safe. This permission from Judge Friedrich comes at a time when more people are naturally drawn to religious observances. In many cases, this opens a special opportunity for ICE agents. They don’t have to actually go inside a place of worship if they have access to parking areas. They can detain a person, or an entire family, much easier out in the parking lot, where there are fewer people to witness what they’re doing.

Those who believe, and those who don’t, are bound by the ethics of human dignity to clean house. No place, no church, no synagogue, no temple, and no shrine should be safe for ICE and their hooded lackeys. Going to an Easter event should never put someone at risk. There should always be a community gathered around to keep foolish people from doing stupid things.

No, it really doesn’t matter what the law says in this regard. Our obligation lies first with humanity. US law is third or fourth down the list. This is a time for ‘good trouble,’ tossing away those looking for profit, and defying those who would endanger others.

We can stop them. We can overwhelm them. We do not have to let the federal government, in the ragedy-ass shape it is in, into sacred spaces, and yeah, that includes parking lots.

If you believe, you have no other option.

If you are human, you have an obligation.

Stand up. Be loud. Flips some tables. Throw ICE the fuck out.