Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
On Refugees: a Plea for Compassion
Note: This is directed primarily to Christians. I intended to post this as a comment on another post, but it got too long.
Reading Ricochet, I am occasionally reminded that an American-centered and even conservative worldview is not necessarily synonymous with a Christian worldview. In other words, not every position that might be considered “conservative” – or that is based on the mantra of “America First” – is compatible with a truly Christian worldview, which I consider essential to being right.
There is an enormous, unprecedented refugee crisis in the world today, affecting over 60 million people. In Syria alone, over 11 million out of a population of 22 million have been displaced or killed.
And yet, many professing Christians here in America would rather prioritize their own material comfort and safety, putting up literal and metaphorical walls to keep out these people who are fleeing terrorism. They are seen as a threat and a burden.
This should not be so. Instead, this is an opportunity. An opportunity to carry out Christ’s commands to love our neighbors, especially “the least of these,” and as James said, to minister to widows and orphans, which is essential to true religion. (I am a passionate pro-lifer and we conservatives do a great job on compassionately opposing abortion, but we should also consider how the same principles of compassion, the sanctity of life and the value of every human being, also apply to the refugee crisis). An opportunity to witness to lost souls (many of whom were trapped in repressive regimes with little opportunity to hear the Gospel), and to show the love of Christ to rest of the watching world – how the love of Christ transcends borders and cultures, and casts out fear.
The command to “be not afraid” is one of the most repeated instructions in the Bible. It is certainly legitimate to have concerns and to expect the government to practice prudence. But many of the concerns that have been raised (economic, legal, religious, and security-related) are based on misconceptions, and the fears are overstated.
First, the fact is that the U.S. screening process is one of the strongest in the world – thorough and very strenuous. The likelihood of being killed by a terrorist attack from a refugee in the United States has been calculated at 1 in 3.6 billion.
No refugee, of the three million admitted through the resettlement program since the late 1970s, has committed an act of terrorism within our borders.
Of the domestic terrorist attacks inspired by extremist Islam since 2001, 70% of them were committed by U.S. citizens. In the same time period, about as many people were killed by white supremacist terror attacks as by radical Islamist attacks, and more were killed by dog attacks.
And even if the concerns and fears weren’t overstated or based on misconceptions, the command would still apply. “Be not afraid”, not because there is nothing to fear, but because God says, “I am with you.”
Putting America first over being disciples of Christ is great folly for Christians. To me, it’s astonishing and sad to see so many putting their own fears ahead of helping those who are desperately in need. Please, open your hearts and have compassion for the strangers.
In the Chronicles of Narnia, Mr. Beaver was asked if the lion Aslan – the Christ-figure of the stories – is safe. He replied, “Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good.” What’s true of Christ is also true of the Christian life. Safety is fine, and reasonable actions can be taken for protection; but safety can never be the main concern if we are following Christ.
This thought-provoking blogpost by a friend of mine really hits hard:
Published in GeneralIf we truly loved, as Christ loved us, we wouldn’t be arguing about whether or not we should let refugees into our nation. People’s lives are at stake, and we could do something about it. Many of these people aren’t walking in relationship with the Father, and we could show them how.
Instead, we are afraid of losing our freedoms or being blown up in our own land. As “disciples of Christ,” we are arguing over statistic numbers while thousands are ending up dead.
Can you really call yourself a follower of Christ and refuse refugees?
Then there is no reason for you to engage in politics at all. Why even bother with the conversation if words are meaningless? If laws aren’t followed or enforced?
This cynical path seems quite empty to me. It certainly leads to no where. Literally.
But I wish you well.
Numbers like these are curious things.
My brother personally knew people who died in New York on 9/11 and was just blocks away from the attack when it happened. (He used to get coffee at the bottom of the WTC on his way to work.) My son went to college for a while and was friends with the lance corporal murdered by a Kuwaiti-born terrorist in TN. My husband knew the American from Texas who was killed with his 11 year old son in a terrorist attack in Nice.
That’s just my family’s random connection to multiple, random events involving terrorism.
What are the odds?
Me, too. I’d like to see the source as well.
A clear majority of Middle Eastern Muslims believe in Sharia law. Let’s be generous and say that moderates are over represented among the refugees and say that Shariatists only make up 25% of the refugees. That’s 27,500 people. Let’s further concede that even the Shariatists are overwhelmingly peaceful, and the number of actual jihadists is as low as 1%.
That’s 275 violent radicals.
9/11 took 19 people to pull off.
Dismiss this as mere “statistics” at your peril.
This website was put together by the LDS church of which I am a member: https://www.lds.org/refugees?lang=eng
Brother Matt, I share your heart, but not your conclusions. I wrestle with dual citizenship – USA and Heaven, and what that means for my decision making as a US Citizen. I have arrived at the place where I do not believe Islam is compatible with the American experiment of government. My faith demands that I love refugees that are in my community, I do not think it demands that I ask for more. It is not a matter of fear – but simply common sense policy. I once research Islam carefully for an adult Sunday school class. I interviewed Imam Khan of Baltimore. I asked if Islam proscribed a particular form of government. He said that, yes, it did. The Qu’ran established consensus among the leaders of the Muslim community as the chosen form of government – not just for the Muslim community, but for entire region where they reside. I asked if Muslims would support the government. He said, yes, until we have enough votes to install Islam. This is not fringe Islam, it is mainstream. For the moment, I still favor sending missionaries to Islamic countries rather than inviting mass settlement of those who fundamentally oppose our institutions and government system. I do not think that is un-Christian, though I do think it is un-Christian to reject those refugees who actually arrive in your community.
DrJekyll
Matt, first I want to applaud your Christian ethic. Yes, we have an obligation as Christians and human beings to help the refugees. It is amazing how many citations to not be afraid are in the Bible. For a list, here.
However, prudence is also a virtue. There are many places in the Bible where central figures took a prudent course of action. The most memorable to me is when King Herod is informed of Christ’s birth and sends in soldiers to slaughter the infants. St. Joseph ahead of time takes the holy family out of Bethlehem and into Egypt.
So what is the prudent course in this case? First, the sheer numbers of refugees requires a in situ solution. Western countries cannot take in several million refugees. The real solution is finding a way to protect the dislocated. Second, the problem of vetting is serious. You have to be able to ensure that those seeking refuge are doing so legitimately. Third, this gets wrapped up in a more general problem of Muslim immigration and what that does to the host countries culture. I think it would be more palatable to accept refugees if it were offset by deductions in future Muslim immigrants.
By the way, I object you implying that conservativism is amoral. American conservatism is based on Christian roots. It’s one of those things we are trying to conserve.
If interested, Joseph Pearce at The Imaginative Conservative supports Trump’s EO with reasons from Thomas Aquinas.
Read how American mosques respond to Jasser’s Muslim Reform Movement at Hot Air.
I’m not as worried about terrorism showing up with Muslim refugees as I am cultural aggression and supremacy. The reaction of Muslims already here to the notion of “reform” is evidence enough of the imprudence of further resettlement.
When I was young I was influenced by this poem of J.R.R. Tolkien, set after the Battle of Maldon
THE HOMECOMING of BEORHTNOTH BEORHTHELM’S SON
From the preface:
Basic idea:
The idea that, even when a religion becomes a declaration of war against all others, it is still part of freedom of religion is not rational. The freedom of religion comes with the responsibility of the religious to be good citizens. I would argue that an ideological test would be appropriate for those immigrating or seeking refuge in America.
It is necessary that any immigrant or refugees be of the character than Americans wish to support. Islam is not of the character that I wish to support. Therefore, I am justified in saying that I do not want nor will I support the immigration and naturalization of people who believe in islam.
The non ideological preference is wrong considering how we implement our refugee policy.
From Breitbart
This. Over twenty years ago, several years before 9/11, I read a magazine article by a Muslim American woman. Can’t remember which magazine it was in, but she was talking about Muslim women, and she kept repeating “Assimilation is not a goal” over and over again. At the time, I though nothing of it-this was before 9/11, and I didn’t know much or anything about Islam, and I just figured that if a handful of Muslims didn’t want to assimilate, then so what? But I never forgot that article.
Maybe America has just been lucky so far. Up until now, virtually everybody who came to America seemed to love America and wanted to assimilate. That makes it very easy to be welcoming, but when people tell us that they hate us and want to destroy us, we should listen. We should take them at their word. To do otherwise is incredibly naive.
Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s practical, given the doctrine of taqiyya. We’re going to have to fight Islamic supremacism all the way down. Minds, hearts, and bodies.
Maybe its own thread, Chauvie?…You may be diluting one message or the other by putting them both here…
I totally agree with the person who cmmented earlier that we should be good to the refugees who are here, but not allow in any more. I totally recognize that most Muslims are good people, and I am friendly with Muslims in real life. I actually believe that those who want Muslims to speak out more about terrorism are being very unfair, and do not seem to understand what is going on. I am of Irish ancestry; I don’t remember very many people condemning Irish Americans for not speaking out against the IRA. For some reason, when it comes to terrorism, the Irish have always been given a pass, and it is very unfair. But then, we didn’t have Irish Americans yelling “Death to America”.
I grew up in a very political Irish American family, but for some reason, no one ever breathed a word about the IRA. Our elders didn’t defend or oppose the IRA: they just acted as though it didn’t exist. My father actively encouraged me to question him about anything and everything, but for some reason that I can’t explain, I never asked him about the IRA: my Scottish husband has since informed me of what was done to Irish people who spoke out against the IRA. Even thinking about the IRA makes me nervous.
The majority of Muslims who are decent people are in a terrible position, and we must help them, but they can’t all move here.
I know you’re uncomfortable with airing our dirty laundry, N, but I see these as the same message — Life is tragic. A series of trade-offs. We follow Christ imperfectly. But, as Chesterton noted, the figures of our saints aren’t like the serene Buddha in his pose of silent meditation. They have their eyes wide open, with almost a crazed appearance at times. They see the world as it is and look through it to the Beatific Vision.
Dennis Prager isn’t right about everything, but he has a lot of wisdom. Today, I heard him refuting Al Gore’s statement in the 90’s that the greatest threat we face is environmental catastrophe. Dennis, said, “No, the greatest threat we always face is human evil.” And I would add, our seeming natural tendency to close our eyes to it.
Prager also says, “Those who would be kind to the cruel will be cruel to the kind.” I see that in the Left’s persecution of Christians and violent riots against people who simply disagree with them. That’s the domestic battle we face. I’d rather we not add to it by resettling Muslims here when we can be helpful to them in other ways (safe zones and shows of foreign policy strength).
Lots of comments I could add to this. But like you, the subject is and always was verboten.
We are refular customers of a convenience store owned by Muslims; the present owner comes from Egypt. He is a very nice guy, and though he told me that he was voting for Hillary, he had no problem with the fact that many of his customers including me supported Trump. Very laid back, congenial guy, and all of the Muslims who work there are laid back and congenial. One day, my husband went into the store, and a weird looking guy with a jacket that had Arabic writing all over it was trying to engage the owner in conversation; the owner wanted nothing whatsoever to do with the guy, and even tried to convince the guy that he was not Arabic at all; he insisted that he was from Puerto Rico. We never saw that wierd guy before, and have not seen him since. But that is the kind of stuff Muslims, most of whom just want a decent life, have to contend with.
When I lived in Scotland in the late 70s I managed to convince an unruly group that I was Jewish; I used the name of my neighbor from childhood.
I was always blown away by my relatives who could figure out if someone was Catholic or Protestant with just a few key questions: Where do you live? Where did you go to school?
For the reasons you state, my husband always totally refused to be a fan of either Celtics or Rangers; even in America, he still occasionally runs into people who ask him which team he supports. He always tells them that he just isn’t into football. It’s sad, for many reasons, one of which is, his experiences have left him with very negative feelings about any kind of religion.
My relatives still take very serious the Celtic/Ranger -Catholic/Protestant divide. Odd as none of them have seen the inside of a church (except for weddings and funerals) in a generation
Do you understand that there are reasons for this? It’s not just that Christians have decided we don’t want it to be that way anymore. Do Muslims have a similar theological basis for deciding that their rules on conquest of infidels no longer apply?
Thank you for your link. I listened this weekend to various experts explaining how Trump’s order would undermine the outreach and support we get from moderate Muslims. I knew beforehand that that police and the FBI people familiar with this issue will tell you, off camera and away from microphones, that they get virtually no support from moderate Muslims willing to report on their more radical congregants. Likewise the canard of Muslims flocking to the armed forces to fight for America – the percentage of Muslims enlisting, in proportion to their percentage of the military age population, I believe is the lowest of any religious or ethnic group other than the Amish.
“If this is the way some of these cultures feel, this is the way that these countries feel about Americans, why would you be so naive to believe that if they came to the United States, they would do anything any different than what they would do right here in their own country.”
More on his You Tube channel, some [CoC] language violations.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQAxqCBPPIUNroi5wkW80dg
I’m of Irish descent, and I’m Catholic, and I’ve lived in England, but I had no idea that this had anything to do with the Troubles. Clearly I hadn’t thought about it. That makes a lot of sense. But I was not aware of politics or history or culture abroad until much later than the 70s…. It’s interesting.
Since we’re posting related videos…
How does inviting Jew-hatred into our culture help the widows and the orphans — or the Jews?
I understand the point you’re making; of course, one is the Old Testament and the other is the New; the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, and once the New is instituted, the Old is vanishing away. (Paraphrasing Galatians/Hebrews). Do Muslims have a similar rationale? I doubt it. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t sincere. The existence of radical views doesn’t mean that non-radical people are dangerous. It would be insulting to tell them that we’re going to treat them as if they believe something they don’t. A total ban treats them that way; accepting refugees with vigilant vetting doesn’t. That was my point.
Totally agree; the problem is, how can know who is radical and who isn’t? If we can’t, then how can we justify bringing thousands of radicals into our country? This isn’t hypothetical: ISIS has promised to put terrorists in with innocent refugees. If innocent refugees are offended by our concerns, that’s unfortunate, but I don’t care. So much of the world is a basket case; I don’t want America to become just one more basket case.
Watched both of the videos dropped in here. As for the Marine’s video, I wonder if the people in that local town had witnessed unspeakable cruelty and been driven from their homes by their fellow Muslims; I wonder if they had then been offered refuge, greeted in the airport, helped to establish a new life by local Americans. (Obviously not). And I suspect he exaggerated the overall situation, not necessarily intentionally (or maybe the angry guys he was talking to exaggerated it to him). I’m sure there are dangers, especially in certain areas, and he could have been speaking completely honestly. But I suspect there are many who would contradict his portrayal of the situation. For example, Mindy Belz, reporter for evangelical conservative World magazine, traveled often and extensively in the Middle East. Here is what she says in this interview:
Now, she may have been talking about Christians in the overall interview, although she said “always” used the general terms Arab and Iraqis in this one sentence. But furthermore, she endorses the book that I quoted from earlier, apparently agreeing with my view, in a tweet I will post in the next comment.
It doesn’t make one lick of sense that ISIS would try to infiltrate us this way. It is way harder and more time-consuming – and much, much less likely to be successful – than, for example, just sending someone via tourist visa. If ISIS said this at any point, I suspect they did it to get your exact reaction: they want to pit the West against Islam to entice further resentment against the West so that more people will join them. This is just one reason why Trump’s EO is counterproductive.
And even banning Muslims wouldn’t stop radical Muslims from coming here, if a terrorist group really wants to send them. They’ll just pretend to be Christians or something. And keep in mind, one of the top lieutenants in ISIS right now is a former Baptist born in Texas, Yayha Abu Hassan. Not blocked bythe EO.
A couple more:
In case you think her outrage is unfair to Trump or something: