In light of the dustup with James White, it's important not to lose sight of the big picture. What's the larger issue? Speaking for myself:
1. Islam produces dangerous, pathological cultures. When Muslims migrate to the West, we see a pattern that keeps repeating itself like a self-replicating disease. The Muslims bring their social mores with them. This isn't confined to terrorists masquerading as refugees. Rather, this includes honor-killings, a well-documented rape culture, &c.
In addition to Muslim immigrants who are already terrorists, Muslims form ethnic enclaves that foment domestic terrorism. Their youth are taught to hate the host country.
Moreover, you have collusion between Muslim communities and the authorities. Instead of protecting innocent men, women, and children from Muslim aggression, the authorities protect Muslim aggressors. Here's one example:
The authorities make it a hate crime to even criticize Muslims. It's not the Muslim thugs who get in trouble, but whistleblowers.
2. This is an utterly predictable and preventable problem. We see the same pattern beginning to replicate itself in the US. This is avoidable. It doesn't have to happen.
Immigration policy ought to be selective. We should not invite people-groups into the country who despise the host country. We should not allow people into the country who oppose freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association. There's no legal or moral obligation to import subversives into your country. Indeed, there's a duty not to expose the innocent to gratuitous harm. Not to put the innocent at foreseeable, unnecessary risk.
3. Are all Muslims terrorists? No. Are most Muslims terrorists? No.
Keep in mind that this isn't just about terrorism. See point #1.
Let's take a comparison: the KKK used to be a major domestic terrorist organization. But I doubt all Klansmen participated in lynch mobs. I expect you had many businessmen and aspiring politicians who joined the KKK for social advancement. That was a way of networking. Expanding their customer base. Getting a foothold in elective office.
And yet it would be entirely appropriate for anyone who belonged to the KKK to share the stigma of what it represents. If you resent the odium that comes with membership in the KKK, don't join in the first place.
4. Consider another example. Christians who do prison ministry need to take precautions. For instance, they need to conceal their contact info so that inmates don't have access to their home address, Social Security numbers, &c. It's good to evangelize prisoners, and some become genuine converts. But you don't know which is which.
5. With that context in mind, let's go back to White. Here's how he's cast himself in this drama. His critics attack him because he tries to be accurate. He refuses to broadbrush Muslims. His critics attack him because he tries to be consistent. His critics attack him because he doesn't resort to double standards. His critics attack him because he has civil debates with Muslims.
Of course, that's a ridiculous straw man. Are people like me saying: "You know what's wrong with White? He tries to be accurate! You know what's wrong with White? He tries to be consistent! You know what's wrong with White? He eschews double standards!"
White is doing a bait-n-switch. Instead of engaging actual criticisms, he caricatures what people like me are really saying, then defends himself against caricatures of his own devising.
In fact, White is conspicuously inconsistent. Conspicuously inaccurate when dealing with critics.
Let's take a few examples of his real modus operandi:
i) In the June 15 DL, he began by accusing people of jumping the gun on Omar Mateen's motives. Pushing their preconceived agenda.
Yet on June 12, right after initial reports of the Orlando shooting, he went on Facebook to post an instant reaction piece, pushing his own agenda.
ii) On the one hand, White tells us that if a Muslim says he repudiates jihad, we should take his word for it. We should credit the testimony of Muslims who say they deplore jihadist atrocities.
On the other hand, when it comes to Mateen's stated motives, White told viewers that we should discount Mateen's testimony. What if that was just a "cover" story?
Keep in mind that there's much more evidence than Mateen's 9/11 call. He has a history of sympathetic statements and associations with militant Islam.
The fact that White began to spin some very speculative conjectures about Mateen's real motives is an example of his Muslim partisanship. When your first impulse is to make excuses for a Muslim terrorist, that reflects a telltale bias.
iii) White rationalized skepticism about Mateen's testimony because there's evidence that Mateen was homosexual. The implication, apparently, is that since homosexual activity is incompatible with Muslim ethics, Mateen wasn't a real Muslim, or his motive for shooting up the gay nightclub wasn't religious.
One problem with that explanation is that what seems inconsistent to outsiders doesn't seem inconsistent to insiders. For instance, Muslims constantly rail against the immodesty and licentiousness of Western culture. Yet various Muslim cultures have polygamy, concubinage, sex slaves, pederasty, gang rape, and adult men who marry adolescent or even prepubescent girls.
That's glaringly at odds with their sanctimonious attacks on Western sexual mores. But they don't see it that way. The fact that Muslim sexual mores are so blatantly hypocritical doesn't mean they aren't real Muslims.
iv) White accuses his critics of "broadbrushing" Muslims or "lumping" all Muslims together as terrorists. Yet in saying that, White himself is guilty of broadbrushing his critics. He lumps all his critics together, as if every critic takes the position that all Muslims are terrorists.
v) Then there's the question of whether White has gone soft on Islam. I'm not a regular viewer of the DL, so I can't say if White's position has changed.
However, White did another bait-n-switch. The question isn't whether White is soft on Islam in the sense that White is a religious pluralist, or that White might convert to Islam. Critics like me aren't suggesting that he's soft on Islam in that sense.
Rather, he's soft on Muslims from the public safety and security aspect.
My view is this: say what you want about this or that Muslim, when large groups of Muslims come to the West (and in particular live in large numbers in a small area, such as Molenbeeck) all the worst elements of Islamic culture reassert themselves.
ReplyDeleteTake the recent attacks in the USA (Boston, San Bernadino, Orlando, etc.). Here you have people who - for whatever flaws there are in the USA - have an opportunity for a much better life here than they have in Checyhna, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.
It's not just religion, it's ethnic in the most blatant sense of being anti-white. Years ago I had a girl friend whose sister (Irish American) married a Muslim from Palestine. He hated America and beat her. What a shock.
An accurate outline of the real issues and of White's wrong-headedness.
ReplyDeleteJames White would do well to listen to Nabeel Qureshi, an ex-Muslim who is far saner and makes no bones about Islam and jihad.
ReplyDeleteYou make a lot of good points; and with this post of yours, I finally understood what you were getting at. I admit I could not understand what you were getting at in the earlier posts about your disagreement with Dr. White.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that would be helpful to us all, and I don't know if this would ever happen; is that if American Muslims, who are scholars and who seem to sincerely repudiate Jihadism and Islamism (political Islam as the desire to dominate the world through military might and Sharia law) and Islamic terrorism and vigilantism, (and honor killings, etc.) like Yasir Qadhi and Hamza Yusuf (Mark Hanson), - is if they would be willing to have a moderated reasonable debate with Nabeel Qureshi (an ex-Ahmadi Muslim; the Ahmadis are considered heretics by all Sunnis and Shiites) and David Wood, then maybe their might be some kind of progress in this whole issue; this is what Trump says in the most basic and simple language - "until we figure out what the hell is going on". What he is saying is what we all want the Muslim world to confess about themselves - to admit they have a problem within their own culture and religion and clean it up and stop blaming the west or Israel for their own internal guilt and shame and anger and violence. Because their religion denies the Fatherhood of God, the love of God, the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the incarnation, the atonement, the resurrection, and the intercession of the one mediator who can give them true peace and true forgiveness; some of them will continue to do the violence (and secret sins of beating their wives and rape, etc. and blame it on western women not dressing right or blame it on their own women adopting western sensual and promiscuous ways, etc. - because the only remedy for their internal sins of guilt and anger and hatred is the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Islamic denial of original sin in the heart of man, and the focus on the legalisms of external religion, yet without assurance of salvation, which comes from peace not based on works, but based on grace and faith alone in Christ alone, the very denial of the gospel of peace and the benefits of salvation and sanctification and assurance of salvation - actually leads too many Muslims to commit suicide and violence and honor killings, etc. The Islamic denial of the gospel, coupled with the human heart of anger and guilt and shame and vengence, etc. coupled with the doctrine that those that die in Jihad will go straight to paradise, is the root of the problem. Many Muslims live without giving into that suicidal and violent tendency, but too many cannot, because of what Islam teaches taken to its ultimate extreme. The denial of real guilt and trying to "atone" for it by their own good works, and seeking to cover their shame leads to honor killings, violence, wars, terrorism, etc.
Yasir Qadhi admitted that early Islam had sex slaves/concubines/"sex maids" - if you listen carefully, he said that most of the Abbasids and Uthmaniye are the offspring of taking sex slaves / concubines in war. Basically Islam expanded and killed most of the men and took the women as their concubines and wives. The Abbasids are the dynasty that build Bagdad (750-900s AD) and the golden age of Islam and the Uthmaniye means the Ottoman Turks. the modern Turks are the result of both the Seljuk Turks (1071 AD onward, battle of Manzikert) and the Ottoman Turks (1200s to 1453, conquered Constantinople, and 1453 - 1924 (abolishion of the Caliphate) killing most of the men of the original peoples in Anatolia (what is today called Turkey) and taking the women as their concubines and wives.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEa-cM2lS_E
If someone does not know what the Abasids and Uthmaniye are, for he says it in their Arabic form, one does not notice that. That is why western governments have to know Arabic and Farsi and Urdu and other Muslim languages (and also their metaphors, poetry, and symbolic language, etc. ) in order to understand what they mean and take appropriate steps to stop them. Political correctness will kill the ability to fully comprehend what is going on.
ReplyDeleteYasir Qadhi at the 9:00 minute mark - "if you look at our own history, the majority of the Kholafa (plural of Caliphs; Caliphate dynasties -) . . . "go back and check it, check the history, . . . "the majority were born of slaves; the majority of the Abasids and Uthmaniyeoon were the offspring of slaves, and what does that indicate? "that their lineage from the mother's side is not something that brought a stigma to them. " He is presenting it as something positive - like treating Ishmael (the child of a concubine) as equal to Isaac, but in the process, he is admitting that Islam expanded by killing most of the men and taking the women as their sex slaves/concubines.
ReplyDeleteI still agree with Dr. White in emphasizing the kingdom of God and evangelism first before as a higher priority for Christians on the security / immigration issues; but there needs to be an additional challenge to Muslims to clean up their house first; and this is maybe a way to bring those issues to light.
ReplyDeleteIt is not either / or ; but both/and.
I don't know what you think that means. In the past you've said the Gospel takes priority over "politics". Yet the security/immigration issue isn't primarily a political issue, but an ethical issue. There's a duty protect the innocent from foreseeable, gratuitous harm. It's only political inasmuch as social ethics mandates certain positions in law and public policy.
DeleteSuppose a husband and father converts to Christianity. He's the breadwinner. Does he have a right to abandon his family to go onto the mission field? No. He has a prior obligation to discharge. If he were single, that would be different. But as a husband and father, he now has prior obligations which he can't just abdicate because evangelism is more important.
I don't know what your position amounts to in practice. Are you suggesting that we should continue importing thousands of Muslims into the USA every year, with the predictable result that there will be jihadist atrocities every so often, killing and maiming however many innocent targets? Or a spike in the incidence of rape and gang rape?
Are you suggesting we should continuing importing thousands of Muslims into the USA every year, who can't be properly vetted, then practice counterterrorism on American soil to offset the domestic terrorism that our immigration policy is breeding? Why should we create an unnecessary problem that then requires a crackdown by law enforcement? What does that have to do with evangelism and the kingdom of God?
The state is not the church. Is it not the duty of the gov't to protect citizens from violent crime?
Suppose a husband and father converts to Christianity. He's the breadwinner. Does he have a right to abandon his family to go onto the mission field? No. He has a prior obligation to discharge. If he were single, that would be different. But as a husband and father, he now has prior obligations which he can't just abdicate because evangelism is more important.
DeleteI agree with you; of course.
I don't know what your position amounts to in practice. Are you suggesting that we should continue importing thousands of Muslims into the USA every year, with the predictable result that there will be jihadist atrocities every so often, killing and maiming however many innocent targets? Or a spike in the incidence of rape and gang rape?
No; I am not suggesting that at all. Your point about the problems with honor killings, violence, rape, and shame and honor within Islamic culture is right; I thought I explained that.
Are you suggesting we should continuing importing thousands of Muslims into the USA every year, who can't be properly vetted, then practice counterterrorism on American soil to offset the domestic terrorism that our immigration policy is breeding? Why should we create an unnecessary problem that then requires a crackdown by law enforcement? What does that have to do with evangelism and the kingdom of God?
where did I suggest that? I never did.
The state is not the church. Is it not the duty of the gov't to protect citizens from violent crime?
True; yes; I totally agree.
I was responding to your statement that "I still agree with Dr. White in emphasizing the kingdom of God and evangelism first before as a higher priority for Christians on the security / immigration issues; but there needs to be an additional challenge to Muslims to clean up their house first."
DeleteSo what is your concrete proposal? Should we maintain the status quo? Should we change our immigration policy vis-a-vis Muslims? Should we deport Muslim foreign nationals? What do you think gov't officials should be doing differently with respect to domestic policy concerning Muslim immigration, foreign nationals, homegrown terrorism, &c.?
I remember visiting New York City for a summer in 1986, and we stayed in an Evangelical Free Church mostly of elderly Norwegian/Swedish ethnicity; and their church was dying out, and they made the comment that the USA did not allow any more immigration of Scandinavian countries. (I don't know to what extent, etc.)
DeleteI will never forget that. Why did the USA stop allowing Western Europeans to immigrate, and yet now seem to have unlimited immigration from Asian and Muslim countries?
I don't know how accurate that is or what the quotas or percentages are, etc. Granted, that is just a personal anecdote.
IMO, all Muslims could potentially become radicalized just by reading their own sources (not just Qur'an, but also Hadith, Tarikh (history of Islam), Sira (bio of Muhammad, and Tafsirs (commentaries) ; Fiq (Islamic Jurisprudence), (but most of that is left up to the scholars in their countries); and believing them, and then taking the law into their own hands. But most don't want to take that last step, or don't have the courage or resources to take the last step; or they realize that it is wrong unless they have an ideal Caliphate such as the time of Muhammad and the rightly guided Caliphs. (which is part of the appeal about ISIS/ISIL to those Muslims that join them or pledge their allegiance to them.
Some Muslims understand their sources, especially their scholars but they know that they cannot "take the law into their own hands", because doctrinally, there has to be a Caliph who calls for the kind of thing they do. (war and violence)
I also understand that most people in our country are not interested in the details of Islamic source details, etc. and in the face of danger of Islamic terrorism, the urgency is to do some kind of change in immigration "until they figure out what is going on". Liberals and political correctness are part of the problem. By identifying the issue more accurately - it would might force more of the Muslim world to clean up their own house. not all; but perhaps more. Part of figuring out what is going on is for our government to be clear and communicate, and get rid of political correctness. What happened today when Loretta Lynch had to reverse the redacted transcripts is an example of the confusion (and stupidity of thinking that leaving out the information about who the Muslim guy Omar Mateen pledged to (isis and al Baghdadi), etc. was somehow helpful) of our current administration and part of the problem.
Thanks. That's certainly more responsive than we've been getting from White.
DeleteSo what is your concrete proposal? Should we maintain the status quo?
DeleteNo; there definitely needs to be serious evaluation of all the issues with accurate knowledge of Islam, etc.
Should we change our immigration policy vis-a-vis Muslims?
Yes; some kind of change has to be made, whatever that might be.
Should we deport Muslim foreign nationals?
all ? or some? or which ones? How does the government get info on not only foreign nationals living here; but American Muslims. most of them won't "take that last step"; but potentially some can and some will; and one who takes the last step is too much. The American Muslim, Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood Muslim terrorist, a colonel in USA army, - gave an hour lecture Power Point presentation on Islam that basically was a warning that US Muslims in military would potentially turn against the USA - no one said anything because of political correctness and fear. He even admitted that out in the open in the lecture.
One of the most stupid things Obama does is to release Gitmo Islamic warriors who were captured on the battlefield. That is a no-brainer.
What do you think gov't officials should be doing differently with respect to domestic policy concerning Muslim immigration, foreign nationals, homegrown terrorism, &c.?
I honestly don't know exactly everything that should be done. I know the current policies are wrong; and I think the extreme of how Trump communicates it is probably too extreme. Even he had to back off and qualify a lot after he first said that. the evil guy in Orlando (Omar Mateen) was definitely influenced by his father's Afghan heritage, culture, and his father's support for the Taliban. (which came into existance after we helped the Afghans drive the Soviets back into Soviet territory.) Apparently, his father came over in 1979-1980 when the USA was sincerely trying to help the Afghans defend against the Soviets. the problem is it seems the USA government does not seem to understand that Islamic culture that takes their sources seriously will then turn around later and make war against the USA and west, etc. - just like what happened also in Iraq - when the Shiites left and abandoned all the military equipment (the ones we had trained to become the security of their country), it fell into the hands of the ISIS terror group.
Definitely C.A.I.R. (Council on American Islamic Relations) and other Islamic organizations in the USA needs to be investigated. their roots in the Muslim brotherhood and ties to Hamas and their alliance with liberal political correctness and throwing "Islamophobia" in one's face in order to shut down conversation and debate, seem to be clear to me, from what I understand.
DeleteI am watching two of the founders of the Homeland Security Department on Hannity ( ? !) tell of how the Obama administration got rid of all the data base and research that they had compiled after 9-11-2001, and the political correctness rules (taking out words like Jihad, Sharia, Islam, Islamic, etc.).
Deletethey show how CAIR and ISNA and other Islamic organizations in the USA are front groups for Muslim Brotherhood ideology. (They admitted in their own writings that they were doing "Civilizational Jihad" - using democratic and western freedoms and political correctness to take down our culture and get power and elected and eventually subjugate it for Islam.
"Jihad" by itself, does not mean "holy war" (harb moghadas), it does mean "effort", "striving", "struggle", "contend"; but Islamic Jihad is manifested in several ways 1. their efforts in their own Islamic preaching (Da'awa = invitation/call), 2. housing the fighters, giving them money, food, shelter, etc. (why Hamas and Hezbollah can hide among civilians) and 3. actually fighting. the Islamic terrorists have taken it a step further and do attacks when traditionally, without a Caliph, they could not do that, who is the only one who can legally within Islam call for a holy War or general Jihad of war against the west, etc. With the abolishment of the Caliphate in 1924, the "Jihad of war" / war (harb) has been seen mostly as self-defense within its own borders of the new countries that were formed from that time onward. That is why "Mujahadeen" (those who fight in Jihad) can be Afghans fighting the Soviets/Russians and USA helping them in 1979-1980 in expelling the Soviets/Russians, but once they were defeated, then the Islamic doctrines and culture morphs into Taliban and then they fight the USA when the USA went in their to get Al Qaeda.
ReplyDeleteWhat if someone is committed to the idea that the government shouldn't engage in religious discrimination, identifying some religions as good and others as evil? If one has that idea, then surely the political options for responding based on religious affiliation would be pretty limited, no?
ReplyDeletei) I assume your comment is for the sake of argument, inasmuch as your own political philosophy mirrors the view of the Westminster standards:
DeleteThe civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide, that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God (WCF 23.3).
It is required of superiors, according to that power they receive from God, and that relation wherein they stand, to love, pray for, and bless their inferiors; to instruct, counsel, and admonish them; countenancing, commending, and rewarding such as do well; and discountenancing, reproving, and chastising such as do ill; protecting, and providing for them all things necessary for soul and body: and by grave, wise, holy, and exemplary carriage, to procure glory to God, honor to themselves, and so to preserve that authority which God hath put upon them (WLC 129).
ii) I'm discussing immigration policy. The gov't has a duty to "establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." If an immigrant group is antithetical to those aims, the gov't has a duty to exclude it.
iii) It wouldn't be discrimination on the basis of religion, but antisocial activities that happen to be associated with a particular religion, viz. terrorism, rape culture, honor-killings. If a secular immigrant group promoted the same antisocial activities, it would properly be subject to the same exclusion. The proposed gov't policy isn't screening for theological beliefs, but antisocial activities. Whether these activities are grounded in a theological tradition or secular ideology is secondary to the activities themselves.
Suppose you had immigrants who belong to a religious homicide cult. The gov't would have a right and duty to exclude them from entry into the country. Although the members would be homicidal because that was their religious duty (as they view it), the gov't would discriminate, not because they were religious, but because they were homicidal. The motivation of the immigrant cult members is different from the motivation of the gov't to discriminate against them. Their motivation is religious, whereas the gov't motivation is to protect the populace against organized murder. The discrimination is incidentally rather than intrinsically religious in orientation. It would be the same principle if the immigrants belong to a secular homicide cult, viz. ecoterrorists.
Delete"I assume your comment is for the sake of argument,"
Deletea) I do think the Bible teaches that the magistrate has the duties described in the original WCF (as well as those mentioned in the American revision).
b) So, the person in my question isn't me.
c) But the person would be a lot of Baptistic folks I know - and maybe even some of the so-called "two kingdoms" types as well. I'm trying to think this through from their point of view. For the sake of convenience I'll collectively refer to this group as RSCS (for "radical separation of church and state").
"I'm discussing immigration policy."
a) I follow that.
b) I think some RSCS folks would say, "Why does a pastor need to take any position at all on immigration policy?"
c) I suppose my own answer to (b) is that the Bible has something to say on the subject. Nevertheless, I understand they disagree with me on that point.
d) Is it a sufficient answer for your purposes for them to just acknowledge that they are taking an RSCS position?
e) Alternatively to (d), are you concerned that they are actually advocating for bad immigration policy?
f) Or have I entirely missed your concern (I may well be a bit confused).
"It wouldn't be discrimination on the basis of religion, but antisocial activities that happen to be associated with a particular religion"
a) "Happen to be associated" is an undersell of your actual position, right? My impression is that you were saying that these things are intrinsically associated with that religion.
b) Also, I'm not sure whether this would fly as not being religious discrimination. Imagine if someone appealed to crime statistics regarding a particular race to justify a similar policy toward that race. I can't help but think that saying "It wouldn't be discrimination on the basis of race, but antisocial activities that happen to be associated with a particular race" wouldn't rescue the policy at all.
c) Now maybe (b) is just a pragmatic point and people should get over it or look past it (in your view). But it seems like a pretty strong pragmatic point, enough to potentially render the discussion merely academic.
"The proposed gov't policy isn't screening for theological beliefs, but antisocial activities."
I thought that the proposed policy was screening for theological beliefs under a theory that they correlate to antisocial activities. If you can just screen for the antisocial activities directly, then that seems non-controversial.
What I like about your religious homicide cult analogy is that it would be similar to exclusion based on communist party membership. But I suppose the problem with the analogy is that the correlation between being a Muslim immigrant and being a terrorist (or even being supportive of terrorism) is extremely low. I don't have actual numbers, mind you, but on a pragmatic level I think the perception at least is that it's a very low correlation.
i) To use your terminology, suppose the RSCS folks oppose banning members of ISIS, Al-Qaida, or Boko Haram from immigrating to the US because that would be religious discrimination. Surely that would be a reductio ad absurdum of their position.
Delete"My impression is that you were saying that these things are intrinsically associated with that religion."
I'm distinguishing between what motivates the terrorist from what motivates the counterterrorist.
Take ISIS, Al-Qaida, and/or Boko Haram. These are religious terrorist organizations–or, if you prefer, terrorist religious organizations. Now, for the jihadist, the religious motivation is foremost. But for the counterterrorist, the religious motivation is incidental in the sense that the counterterrorist isn't targeting the organization because it's religious but because it engages in terrorism.
For the counterterrorist, it happens to be associated with that particular religion. For the terrorist, by contrast, the connection is essential.
That distinction is underscored by the fact that you can have secular terrorist organizations. Take the Red Terror under Trotsky. Likewise, you might also have ecoterrorists who wish to exterminate the human race. Or anarchists who commit cyberterrorism.
"I thought that the proposed policy was screening for theological beliefs under a theory that they correlate to antisocial activities. If you can just screen for the antisocial activities directly, then that seems non-controversial."
It is targeting the effect of certain beliefs. Effects like terrorism, a rape culture, &c.
The effects are traceable to beliefs. The belief system which sponsors it could be a religious ideology or a secular ideology. It screens for beliefs that instigate antisocial activities. The focus is on preventing the antisocial activities. Insofar as these are traceable to a belief-system, you screen for beliefs. What makes them unacceptable is not their religious character, per se, but their subversive effects. For irreligious beliefs can have the same effects.
ii) The correlation (such as it is) is that while most Muslims aren't terrorists, most terrorists are Muslims.
More to the point, in the context of immigration, there's simply no overriding reason to us to play Russian roulette. That's an unnecessary risk. As a rule, no one has a right to immigrate to the US anyway. So we don't have to give Muslims the benefit of the doubt.
iii) As to the racial profiling comparison, the justification would be that if another ethnic group were offending at the same disproportionate rate, that group would also be subject to heightened scrutiny by law enforcement. Hence, the racial dimension is secondary to behavior. The starting-point is a pattern of criminality, not a pattern of ethnicity. If they intersect, then you can profile for ethnicity, but that's a side effect.
One of the problems with Islam in America is that I doubt the First Amendment was designed to protect a religion that practices jihad, sharia, honor killings, &c. I believe Muslims had a pretty negligible footprint in the early Republic.
DeleteSo Islam places great strain on the First Amendment. And the danger is that it will sink religious liberty in general by discrediting the First Amendment. If all religious must be treated equally, even though they are very unequal in terms of their social mores, then all religionists will lose civil rights on account of Muslims.
a) Balancing public safety and individual liberty is not an easy job. I'm certainly willing to concede, though, that neither concern is absolute. Not every perceived threat to public safety warrants suspending individual liberty, nor does every threat to individual liberty mean that public safety should be compromised.
Deleteb) One of the typical counter-arguments from RSCS folks is that while the impact on religious liberty from this particular policy may not be very severe, it would place us on a slippery slope.
- Level 1: Today it is immigration policy, tomorrow it may be permission to construct mosques, and so on. If suppression of Islam is necessary for national security, it's hard to see why it should be limited to immigration policy.
- Level 2: And if the government can limit Muslim immigration because of Muslim terrorists, why not also Roman Catholic immigration because of Roman Catholic organized crime?
- Level 3: And if we set a precedent on restricting Muslim immigration (etc.), what's to stop a secular government from restricting Christian immigration (citing concerns about abortion clinic bombings, OK city bombing, Olympic bombing, etc.)
- Level 4: And if national security can be used to suppress religious liberty, why not similar but less intense concerns, like concern about "homophobia" etc.
In short, the RSCS folks seem to view the occasional Muslim terrorist event as the cost of avoiding the slippery slope.
i) Keep in mind that I'm not opposed to religious discrimination, per se. I'm just responding to the RSCS proponents on their own grounds.
Deleteii) In addition, there's a crucial distinction between prospective immigrants and American citizens. Citizens have Constitutional rights that cannot be infringed just to make society safer.
By contrast, there is no Constitutional right to immigrate to the US. This isn't a question of suppressing or suspending Constitutional rights. Prospective immigrants aren't at that stage.
Indeed, that's an important reason to have a restrictive immigration policy. If they become citizens, terrorists can game the system. That's something we should try to forestall.
I never made natural security an unqualified priority. That's why I explicitly framed the issue in terms of immigration policy. Where citizens are concerned, the Constitution limits what gov't can do.
iii) There's also a matter of degree. Yes, you have the occasional "Christian terrorist," but that's not on anything like the same scale as jihad.
i) Regarding your Catholic/Mafia example, the connection between Catholicism and the Mafia is adventitious. On the one hand there are organized crime syndicates like the "Russian Mafia" that have no Catholic connections at all; on the other hand, you have Polish Catholics with no tradition of organized crime.
DeleteThe real link is sociological or ethnic: the Mafia emanates from Italy or Sicily. So there's an overlap between religion and nationality.
By contrast, there's a direct link between Islam and jihad.
ii) That said, if we could turn back the clock, the US gov't would be entitled to ban known Mafia families from immigrating to the US.
"Regarding your Catholic/Mafia example, the connection between Catholicism and the Mafia is adventitious. On the one hand there are organized crime syndicates like the "Russian Mafia" that have no Catholic connections at all; on the other hand, you have Polish Catholics with no tradition of organized crime."
DeleteBut surely the RSCS folks would reply that there are terror organizations that not Islamic and there are Islamic sects that have no tradition of terrorism, such as the Ahmadiyya.
"That said, if we could turn back the clock, the US gov't would be entitled to ban known Mafia families from immigrating to the US."
I don't think RSCS folks have a problem with banning known terrorists from immigrating.
"But surely the RSCS folks would reply that there are terror organizations that not Islamic…"
DeleteAnd as I said before, for the counterterrorist, the primary focus is on terrorism and only secondarily whether it's religious or irreligious.
"and there are Islamic sects that have no tradition of terrorism, such as the Ahmadiyya."
Actually, one could make an exception for the Ahmadiyya. To my knowledge, they don't just happen to eschew jihad. Rather, they eschew jihad as a matter of principle. Since, for them, Muhammad is not the last word; since they have a later prophet (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) who can abrogate prior traditions and revelations, they can eschew jihad consistent with their overall belief system.
Of course, that sect is minuscule compared to the totality of Muslims.
In theory, the same thing would be said for modernist Muslims. That, however, would require us to engage in vetting individuals, which is very time-consuming and unreliable. It's easier to have a policy about general groups.
If I'm not mistaken, I believe former president Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from coming to the US durning the hostage crisis. Doesn't seem like people viewed Jimmy Carter's actions as bigoted.
ReplyDeleteCan we have back the democrats from 30 years ago? Jimmy Carter sounded like a conservative:
ReplyDelete"Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly."--Carter