Donald Trump has now proposed drastic measures to deal with the threat of domestic terrorism, of the kind we recently saw in San Bernardino. His idea is to put a ban on all Muslims entering the country, period, until such time as we get all this “sorted out.”
His idea is, of course, simplistic, unworkable, and obnoxious, rivaled in simplistic unworkability only by many of the outraged responses to him. The status quo is also stupid and unworkable. These responses to him were not obnoxious because that quality is rarely applied to sentiments approved by the establishment, however lame they might be.
So let’s give some background and then offer a different proposal, differing from The Donald’s in that it is serious.
Islam is a public faith, one that does not have the same sacred/secular distinction that we do. Our sacred/secular distinction has a historic Christian foundation, but it also has a godless and apostate version. In other words, historic Christianity is also a public faith, but one which requires and recognizes firewalls between different governments under Christ. The secularist and apostate version maintains that religious devotion of any sort must be exclusively private, while our public life must acknowledge no god higher than Demos.
But in either case, this means that we in the West routinely make distinctions between political and religious commitments, and these distinctions are simply meaningless to hundreds of thousands of Muslim immigrants and/or refugees. They are not operating with the same categories, and a conservative Muslim simply does not treat his faith as the same kind of private and personal thing that a United Methodist bishop does. To ignore this reality is not to respect Islam — rather it is to reveal that you don’t understand the first blessed thing about it. And to pat everybody else on the head patronizingly doesn’t help matters.
This means that we can process Muslim immigrants one of two ways. First, we can recognize that for them politics and religion are intertwined, and that to address the former necessarily entails addressing the latter. We can then go ahead and do that. Second, we could pretend they are separated (when they are not), and proceed onward with a characteristic liberal serenity until a pizza parlor in Tulsa is blown up. And then we will profess ourselves mystified.
How then shall we deport? I merely suggest the outlines of an idea here — understanding that if the task of implementing this were to be turned over to Obama appointees, the execution of all this would spiral down into chaos. So just ask yourself if this is a workable idea if pursued by individuals who saw the justice and feasibility of it.
Make a master list of any and all organizations that wage, support, fund, or argue for, jihad. In other words, I am talking about active forms of violent sedition. Now having mentioned that word sedition, I am not talking about treating as sedition criticism of the existing authority. We need more of that, not less. Neither am I talking about the right of the people to alter or abolish a government that has become destructive of the ends for which government is formed. This is not the Alien and Sedition Acts, Part Two.
I am simply talking about shoot-up-the-Christmas-party-jihad. Anyone who maintains that this kind of thing is a viable option, not to mention a spiritual duty, goes on the list. And anyone who actively supports (e.g. donates, writes for, trains with, signs petitions for) any such organization is thereupon immediately eligible for immediate deportation to their country of origin. Out they go. One Facebook like of the wrong post, and they are frogmarched to the coast.
You are deporting them for political reasons, for reasons of public safety, and you are only doing it to fans of blow-things-up-jihadis. Utterly reasonable, right?
But then run a thought-experiment. If this were being done expeditiously and with enthusiasm, the very first thing that would happen is a test case like the clock-maker kid, and there would be a total hubbub about it. There would be lawyers, and injunctions, and some more lawyers, and CAIR would be treated as worthy of supplying experts to be interviewed on the teevee instead of supplying additional candidates for deportation. In other words, a tough but rational solution to a real threat would be really controversial. Yes, our test-case-kid did share that beheading video, but he was doing it in a spirit of ironic detachment. Plus, he thought it was performance art. And besides, it was a school assignment.
Now when you outlaw rational responses to real problems, at some point in the process you start getting irrational responses to real problems. And enter Donald Trump. This actually explains a large part of Trump’s appeal. Establishment lunacy is the wind beneath his wings.
In all the shouting about Trump, I have heard from the legal battalions on the radio and TeeVee. It seems to me that a legal education in America trains people, not to make good arguments, but to make bad arguments effectively. Hence, the comparisons of a no-Moslem immigration policy to the WW-2 internment of native-born American citizens of Japanese ancestry. As if we owe the Syrians everything we owe our own citizens! Meanwhile, in all the histrionics about how unfair this all is to those who follow The Religion of Peace, bona fide refugees are apparently being systematically screened out… Read more »
Why on earth do you want more Muslims to come into our country?
Because, as it stands, we cannot constitutionally keep people out solely because of their religion. Not that we couldn’t set quotas based on national origin…
Of course you can. You can can keep them out for any or no reason. The constitution does not say you have to let anyone whatsoever in.
It says that congress shall make no law restricting the free exercise of religion, though. I’m not sure how you create a mechanism for keeping Muslims, and only Muslims, out, without doing that.
Constitutional protections actually only apply to citizens. We may stretch the umbrella (as we have done) to include everyone inside the borders. That does not necessitate, that we apply those protections to everyone outside the gate.
If the government has the power to ban muslims then they also have the power to ban christians. I don’t want a government with that kind of power, because the government cannot be trusted with that kind of power.
Trump isn’t calling for a ban on US citizens from being or becoming believing Muslims, but simply for a moratorium on immigration. It’s a big difference. One is perfectly constitutional, the other is not.
You can’t not have a government with that kind of power. Power is what a government has. It’s like wanting a dark flashlight or dry water.
All power is not equal. I didn’t say I want a government without power. I said I don’t want a government with that ‘kind’ of power. Don’t get it twisted yo.
Sure. But it doesn’t matter what you want; this is the nature of government.
Of course it matters. The government is only allowed as much power as people let it have. My voice matters and so does the voice of every citizen.
In a small town, perhaps. In practical terms, this has never been true of a government over more than a few thousand people.
Does nazi Germany ring a bell? Do you think Hitler got into power all by himself? No, it was people that gave him that power by voting him in. America isn’t yet a dictatorship, of course we still have power.
Really? Then why is abortion legal and the sexual perversion of less than 3% of the population celebrated? (Specifically, look up “iron law of oligarchy”.)
There are many people who support homosexuality who are not homosexuals themselves. That is because our culture’s thinking is twisted. That has nothing to do with my argument though,
When the legitimacy of political power is based on public opinion, the actual holders of power will be those who control public opinion (in our civilization’s case, the academy and the media).
They are already not letting in Christian refugees, and favoring muslim refugees.
Generally speaking, the Supreme Court has held that non-citizens have equal protection under the law. The free exercise clause does apply to non-citizens residing here.
However, when I applied for immigrant status, I had to swear that I was not a communist and that I did not support the violent overthrow of the US government. Couldn’t we amend the procedure to include an oath that the would-be immigrant does not support terrorism in any form whatsoever? It would then be easier to deport immigrants (and naturalized citizens) who appear to have lied on their application.
As they say here on the east coast, “wicked smaaaart” Jilly!????
Welcome aboard !
This seems quite a sensible idea.
Why is that better than excluding all Muslims?
Very sensible… except to my knowledge, Muslims believe it is acceptable to lie if and only if you are furthering the cause of jihad. In which case, terrorists would lie about their evil intentions, until it is too late to deport their corpses after they’ve committed (suicidal) terrorist acts. I’d like to think current law sufficiently allows for the deportation of non-citizen immigrants accused of plotting or even indirectly supporting terrorism, though I could be wrong.
When going through that I did find that funny that the ‘I wasn’t a member of the Communist Party’ was still on there.
The First Amendment isn’t a protection of persons, it’s a restriction of Congress. As such, it stands as written: “no law.”
Just ban all immigration from majority Muslim countries. Simple.
Great. Vast numbers of Christians excluded from dozens of countries that have 51% or more Muslim population. Now not letting in persecuted Christians isn’t bad policy, it’s law. Wonderful solution.
Like Saudi Arabia, and much of the M.E. where you cannot own a Bible. Your error, Jane, is that you assume that our principles of freedom are universal. They are not. Those people do not want what we want.
Huh? I don’t know how that relates to my post, and I don’t know why you think I make that error.
I will reread later today. thx.
Excellent point. I like jillybean’s idea of a anti-terrorism pledge in the vetting process – though I’m confused about why there isn’t already such a thing.
The problem is that such a pledge would be essentially meaningless, don’t you think? People who want to commit terrorism would not balk at forswearing themselves.
I’m not trying to shoot down all the possibilities, and I think something needs to be done. I just think “ban all Muslims” or “ban everyone from Muslim countries” doesn’t hit the mark. More creative thinking is required, IMO.
The point of the pledge wouldn’t be to actually stop terrorism, but to give a stronger justification for deporting or detaining immigrants who later engage in terrorist leaning activities – at least that’s what jilly proposed. Not sure if it’s the most helpful option, but it makes sense to me.
I definitely agree that more creative thinking as a whole is required than the left’s “let them all in” or the right’s “keep them all out.”
I trust that exceptions can be made that aren’t subject to just the run-of-the-mill, everyday, visa churning machine.
In case you’ve missed it, those countries that you are referring to have already done a pretty good job in driving out “People of The Book”…
I haven’t missed it, to the extent it’s true. But you probably know that every “majority Muslim country” isn’t Saudi Arabia or Iraq — there are plenty of them with significant, and even growing, Christian populations. Places like Indonesia, for example.
If you’re really open to exceptions, then that objection is withdrawn.
I’ll be the first to admit that Trump’s comment could never be enshrined in an actual policy. But now everyone is talking about practical alternatives that wouldn’t even have been broached by anyone in the Official Government Party a few months (or even weeks) ago. Any honest and competent bureaucracy would be able to sharply reduce opportunistic immigration or apply suitable standards to find true victims of oppression. As for saving Christians from these countries, we have a separate line for them over here at the airport. They stand on a certain “picture” and say “Jesus is Lord”. That would… Read more »
The United States has no interest in admitting persecuted Christians as far as I know. Unfortunately the founding fathers didn’t comprehend how insane their progeny would become and neglected to establish that we were a Christian nation at its foundation. Now we have no leverage with which we could admit only persecuted Christians. Instead we have to committ national suicide by allowing in the Muslim hordes.
I agree we don’t appear to have such an interest.
But enshrining a prohibition against it in law, is even worse than simply not doing it.
If I were going to make the argument, I would do it on two tracks. First, a law which expressly states that citizens and legal immigrants can carry on their religion would pass Constitutional muster on its face. Second, I would argue that simply not rolling out the welcome mat for Moslems currently standing on foreign soil in no way “prohibits the free exercise” of their religion since they are still over there in a spot where they can do so at their pleasure. And you could add that Congress is not in any sense establishing a religion by such… Read more »
Easy. To the Muslim: “You are free to exercise your religion of (ahem) ‘peace.’ Just not those parts that require you to murder, terrorize, torture, rape, enslave, mutilate, vandalize, bribe, or blackmail. Also, your women must be visible; we think they’re pretty.”
There…not hard at all.
U.S. Const.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
It is unconstitutional to import people who are fundamentally unconstitutional.
Communists should live in their “workers paradise”.
Jihadists should live in their caliphate.
Communism and jihadism do not promote the Blessings of Liberty.
Yes! Our constitution is for “ourselves and our Posterity”. If an immigrant wants to become an American, and embrace this constitution, and abide by its rules, then come on down! If they want to destroy it, then we are under no obligation to allow them into our borders.
We have a covenantal responsibility to the original founders to uphold this constitution as written; we are the heirs of their ideas. We are not obliged to allow others in.
While we are at it, we should eliminate all forms of govt welfare to non-citizens first, then citizens second.
Our covenant precedes the Constitution by about 200 years
Well, those old mysoginist, racist, religious white guys did write a pretty good Constitution! ; – )
Let’s make our constitutional and cultural boudaries easier to defend by changing one word of a solgan:
“Boundaries, Language and Culture”
When jihadists try and murder in the USA or anywhere else, they are violating all sorts of boundaries, even liberal ones! ; – )
Its not unconsitutional to ban immigration based on religion, gender, national origin, or eye color. It may be dumb or very bad policy, but it would be Consitutional.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/08/banning-muslims-from-entering-the-u-s-is-a-very-bad-idea-but-it-may-be-constitutionally-permissible/
I see absolutely no sane reason not to ban immigration from any nation that has, as a nation, demonstrated open hostility to the U.S. It’s about safety, national security, etc.–that makes it palatable to those who fear banning a specific religion. At the very least this is a place to start. Get that part right, and then we can figure out how to deal with the raghead chinks who pen “Heil Allah!” on their Facebook posts. Kinda like dealing with Mexico. Why we don’t stop the hemorrhaging of Mexicans (and others) across our Southern border is mind-numbingly bewildering. Get THAT… Read more »
The key phrase is “plenary power doctrine”. There’s more than a century of precedent — immigration was barred for practitioners of polygamy in 1891 (with the intent to turn away Mormons) and in 1907 it was barred for those “who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy”. This latter provision was repealed, but there’s no reason it or any other test for immigrants can’t be made.
Empowering immigration officials to evaluate people’s religious beliefs? What could go wrong?
This, in support of a post that says “One Facebook like of the wrong post, and they are frogmarched to the coast” ?!
In support of what? I was responding to another comment, not giving carte blanche to everything in the post.
You also missed that the line you quoted was part of an extended thought experiment, not a policy prescription.
A silly evasion. Simply stop immigration from the countries that harbor jihadists. That should cover a lot of Muslim dominated countries. If those citizens are inconvenienced, their rulers can make the changes that will remove them from the list.
If our government wasn’t so sand-poundingly incompetent in tagging and tracking newcomers with various visas into our country, we could start removing people here as well.
It stuns the mind to hear our government give the same excuse that the laziest and most unproductive rascals give to their employers: “It’s too hard”.
Enshrining in law a ban against persecuted Christians having any refuge in this country, and calling that an “inconvenience,” is not an end result we should be seeking. Do you think the rulers of those countries care about them? I am not saying that these ideas shouldn’t be considered. I am saying that when you call for something to happen, you need to count the cost and consider what would be necessary to implement your ideas. You can’t just say, “Hey, it would be really great if there were no more violent jihadists in the U.S. The way to do… Read more »
Why is it outrageous to ban all Muslim immigration?
If Trump’s campaign, in a moment of lucidity, distributed “Vote Beeblebrox in ’16” stickers I might just put one up.
He’s just zis guy, you know?
The problem with policing all seditious activity, such as “One Facebook like of the wrong post,” is that it would require a near absolute state to oversee. The nature of jihad being waged cannot be tracked by government. They have yet to intercept any mass-attack.
I agree. From Doug’s previous arguments against a Big Brother conception of government, this “solution” seems unworkable. In addition, I wouldn’t trust any government that was capable of executing that kind of oversight not to misuse it. I haven’t thought of a better way, but policing everyone’s Facebook activity is not the way of freedom.
I think Doug may just be saying “here is a hypothetically possible and mostly reasonable response to the current threat of domestic Islamic terrorism” simply in order to highlight that even THIS solution would be called evil and crazy by the establishment, so of course someone like Trump can step into the vacuum with equally crazy responses and get a hearing among the fed-up masses who hate the establishment. I don’t think he’s necessarily committing himself to being in favor of the government continuously policing your Facebook activity (though even in the example he gives, the govt only has to… Read more »
I don’t think the government would have to monitor anyone. We have many willing hall monitors who would be happy to report these things.
Sure, and that would also fit with Doug’s example (someone could be deported after another person reports their Facebook like to the authorities). My only point is that Doug’s proposal doesn’t necessarily commit him to favoring intrusive government monitoring of all American citizens.
That’s a reasonable observation. Thanks for the point!
I agree. Doug’s proposal is much more outrageous than Trumps. Trump is merely saying let’s no longer import hordes of people who come from a political system/ideology that inherently produces extremists. The best way to actually do this is to have a moratorium on immigration from those countries we deem a threat and severely screen those from nations we do trust.
Trump proposed a moratorium “until we sort this out” which might never happen.
That is optimal.
Until it transitions from nobody gets in to nobody leaves.
Paranoid delusion. How effectively do you think “nobody leaves” can be enforced on a country where the residents own 270 million guns?
Sounds good to me!
We rounded up the Indians and put them on reservations and we rounded up the Japanese and put them in camps. These were terrible human rights violations, but for the life of me I cannot conceive of how else you handle a clash of cultures and ideology that threatens you from within, and still remain the dominant culture. One problem we have right now that is so scary, many people do not believe we have the right to remain the dominant culture with our values shaping the narrative. I don’t mean that to sound racist or anything, but it is… Read more »
Maybe the question to ask is whether rounding up Indians/Japs/Mexicans/Muslims is a “human rights violation” per se. As you rightly pondered, what else can we do without sacrificing our entire culture, which we see happening rapidly across the Pond. If rounding them up is necessary, then we most certainly CAN do it humanely; that is, without creating our own version of Nazi concentration camps. We can be kind, civil, and generous as we hand them a plane ticket and usher them back to their country of origin. Look, when you’re at war, certain things have to be done because they… Read more »
Well, to be fair to the destroyers, our destruction would fix our immigration problem.
The Sweet Meteor of Death parody twitter account would agree. :)
Well said. It’s a terrible situation, and I don’t know what the “right” action is, even while I reject Trump’s lack of integrity and blowhardiness.
Don’t forget Ike’s Operation Wetback. It was a rousing success.
One problem we have right now that is so scary, many people do not believe we have the right to remain the dominant culture with our values shaping the narrative. I don’t mean that to sound racist or anything
You may not intend to sound racist, but, yes, that’s racist. The technical term is white supremacy.
I don’t think so. Our culture is actually made up of refugees, many of them not white. I am speaking of culture here, not race, a culture founded primarily on Christian values. Besides, the majority of refugees we are currently discussing are also labeled white, at least in the US.
Who’s “we”? That’s only a small fraction of people in America.
No, ME’s statement would be better called “culturist.” Culture is not a “protected” status for “minority” groups to hang their hats upon; thus, it is fair game. In fact, culture is truly the ONLY fair game. It’s of dubious merit to make decisions based solely on one’s race, color, age, sex, or national origin. But culture? Oh yeah…I can definitely say I don’t want your culture (or lack thereof) around here.
“Human rights” is an anti-Christian concept and there were very good reasons for internment of Japanese and removal of Indians.
“Human rights” is an anti-Christian concept
How so?
The idea of inherent “rights” as part of mere existence is a product of anti-Christian philosophers such as Thomas Paine and John Locke, and is superfluous to a Christian worldview.
You do realize that John Locke was a Christian right? And you do realize that guys like Patrick Henry and other good Christians are the ones that insisted on the Bill of Rights…. right?
I am not sure who taught you history but it seems to be a bit confused….
don’t feed the troll.
Sadly, I think ashv is sincere and has very carefully thought through reasons for this evil statement.
Let’s bring back McCarthyism…the good kind.
We already have. It’s just now directed more towards Christians, conservatives, gun owners, and other assorted extremists who do not exist as a protected class and status.
But…that’s NOT the good kind.
Yes, dreadful isn’t it? Tyranny would be so much easier if we could just restrain it to the good kind.
There was a bad kind? :)
When it comes to politics, I think that Christians should have a singular focus: freedom. I think that we should support free trade, free religion, free speech, and free immigration. I think that freedom is the best thing for Christians and the best thing for the nation.
I think we should all oppose Trump and everything he stands for.
By the way, I think freedom would include the freedom to be born. Life matters.
Also, I think that gay marriage is actually a violation of freedom because it is demanding that the government do something for people (give them a piece of paper) and it is demanding people accept a new definition and sexual ethic. Asking for freedom means asking to be left alone. Gay marriage is not gay people asking to be left alone. It is gay people asking for licenses, benefits, and general acceptance (and using 5 unelected judges to accomplish these demands).
Freedom is something you cannot have until you have order and peace, neither of which exist within the USA today.
The solution to that is to fix law and order…. not to further restrict freedom.
Wait a minute – I live in Tulsa. And I really like pizza. Especially that of the HideAway variety. Is there something I should know?
Yes, n8. You should pull stakes and move to Idaho right now. There are more trees here than in all of Oklahoma and the air is lots fresher. Oh, and the food’s better here.
I would be closer to Yellowstone…
Time for a history lesson, folks. When the United States formally goes to war, where the president asks for a declaration of war from the Senate, and it is granted, the legal status of every person from the belligerent country becomes Civilian Alien Enemy. Ludecke v. Watkins https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/335/160/ . This is the same of the immigrant who did not naturalize or the international student to the businessman. Everyone. The US, then can restrict the movements of anyone in this class, aged 14 and abovw up to and including deportation. Here is a book describing what happened to German and Japanese… Read more »
“Make a master list of any and all organizations that wage, support, fund, or argue for, jihad. In other words, I am talking about active forms of violent sedition. Now having mentioned that word sedition, I am not talking about treating as sedition criticism of the existing authority. We need more of that, not less…… I am simply talking about shoot-up-the-Christmas-party-jihad. Anyone who maintains that this kind of thing is a viable option, not to mention a spiritual duty, goes on the list….. One Facebook like of the wrong post, and they are frogmarched to the coast.” The obvious problem… Read more »
… Excuse me? ” simplistic, unworkable, and obnoxious”? Obnoxious? I grant that you may find it unaesthetic. Tastes differ. But we are not discussing interior decorating options. Unworkable? Only due to people who wish for it to not work. Certainly that may present an obstacle — but there’s nothing fundamentally impossible about the idea. Simplistic? Why is complication needed? Hang up a sign. “America is closed for repairs. Please pardon our dust, come back later.” Pastor Wilson, I have benefited from your books, sermons, and blog posts for many years, but on this point I cannot understand your reasoning in… Read more »
Trump is a life long proabort. He has been married three times. His wife has shot porn. He supports eminent domain. He has supported single payer universal health care. He supports tariffs. He supports higher taxes. He supported the Clintons. He gave heavily to the democrats and helped them take the congress in 2006. He supports eminent domain.
Anyone supporting Trump is neither a fiscal or social conservative.
Who is to the right of him on immigration?
By “right” do you mean the European right wing (a la Nazi’s) or the USA right wing (a la constitutional libertarians with social conservative leanings)? Those are two quite different things. No one is more Euro-Right wing than Trump. But who wants that?
Why wouldn’t I want that? Nice try calling Trump a Nazi though; leftists have been calling anyone to the right of Ted Kennedy a Nazi for decades. It’s just as delusional now as it was 20 years ago.
That is the crazy part. The left has been calling conservatives racists and fascists for years and they have been wrong. Hitler never wanted a small decentralized government. That is a lie. Reagan (or Paul, Cruz, Walker etc) are nothing like a Nazi…… but the crazy part is that when a real fascist comes about, it is almost like the GOP base cannot tell the difference. Trump goes about supporting big government (the opposite of a conservative principle). He wants the universal health care. He wants eminent domain. He wants more government involvement on immigration.He wants more government on trade.… Read more »
http://thehill.com/opinion/brent-budowsky/250445-brent-budowsky-is-trump-a-clinton-plant
Immigration is the only thing that matters right now. Let’s fix that and then worry about the rest.
(I am not a conservative. There is nothing in the USA system worth conserving.)
Immigration is the only thing? Really? Not babies being chopped up huh? Not the right to live your life without government interference?
You would be happy in a 1984 world so long as there are no Muslims to put your scardy-cat life in danger?
Only white people care about and can do anything effective about those things. Fix the border problem and then we have a chance at the rest.
You do not know any people of color do you? I go to church with and am friends with many people of color that care a whole lot about unborn babies, and freedom.
Further, your stupid comments on skin color somehow determining how much we care about unborn babies and freedom seem to fly in the face of the fact that our nation legalized abortion and became socialist while simultaneously being overwhelmingly white. Obama is no less of a socialist than Clinton or Carter.
Show me a country run by Muslims that respects your idea of freedom and values human life anywhere near European levels.
You do realize that Islam is a religion and not a skin color right? There are middle eastern Christians and European Muslims. I agree that religion matters. I agree that if Christianity does not remain the dominate cultural institution everything falls apart. But that has ZERO to do with skin color. And the danger to Christianity in the USA is from within. Atheists and Agnostics are the problem not Muslims. Sin does not come from the outside of the human heart. A homeschool father is shocked when he realizes his little child has become a sinful teenager even though he… Read more »
So, show him a country run by Muslims that respects your idea of freedom and values human life anywhere near European levels.
Timothy, you obviously did not read about one sentence of my response to him. If you are going to try to show that Trump voters are not uneducated and uninformed, you may want to give it a little effort…. What I said, is that I am not in any way saying that if America had a majority of Muslims we would remain free. I am not saying that religion does not matter. To the contrary, I think our religion is incredibly important. But I do not think Muslim immigration affects our religious make up in any significant way. I think… Read more »
There’s no such sin as “racism”.
Haha. Yes there is. You are evidence of that.
There is a sin called hating someone due to the color of their skin.
Sure. But nobody’s engaging in that here.
For future reference, that thing you just admitted is a sin (hating people for skin color) is what people mean by the word racism. And yes, you are engaging in that clearly. Your many comments using skin color to define who promotes good societies is evidence of that.
You hate innocent Americans and want them to die to preserve your delusions. The word “cuckservative” was invented to describe precisely your mindset. It’s not malicious to observe who does and doesn’t build peaceful and wealthy societies.
Are you fond of Americans now ashv? I remember you saying you’re not one. I do appreciate your new found solicitude for us.
I think good fences make good neighbours and that the various nations in the USA could get along better if they were not constantly fighting each other for control of Washington.
I want Americans to die? No. I do not.
I love that you think I am the political sell out when you are the one supporting the pro abortion guy, who likes higher taxes, universal health care, eminent domain and gave thousands to Hillary Clinton.
I only “support” Trump to the degree that I support the complete destruction of the Republican Party and ultimately, the entire Washington apparatus. But if the USA continues importing voters and parents of voters from Third World socialist countries, what do you think this does for your claimed desire for “small government”?
I think it does almost nothing. Islam is a small percentage of the population. Socialism is a western European idea that has been largely implemented by white people. I think that 60% of white people do not attend church. The idea that it is the foreigners that are the problem is quite blinkered.
By the way, Hispanics often vote republican but thanks to your buddy Trump, they will not this time around.
Certainly socialism and communism in their recent forms originated among Americans and Europeans. America is a communist country.
I’ve heard a lot about what you don’t like. How about you tell me what ought to be done instead?
Electing guys who actually understand how economics work and who believe in freedom would be a good start. I think that both Cruz and Paul are good guys. Almost all of them are better than Trump.
The ultimate solution is the gospel (not politics at all) and race has nothing to do with it. A nation that is converted by the Holy Spirit will be a nation of joy and freedom. But if we are choosing leaders, Trump is one we should all avoid like the big government Hillary supporter he is.
Cruz’s priorities don’t put his country first, he was favouring increases in immigration up until this year. He doesn’t put Christians first either, as you may recall from this incident: http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/10/ted-cruz-booed-off-stage-at-middle-east-christian-conference-video/ The bottom line is that the USA is coming apart either in this generation or the next, and unfortunately I don’t see a way that it can happen peacefully. The question is what can be done now to reduce the body count; and importing foreigners who, at best, have no connection to the traditions of American liberty and governance (and, at worst, violently oppose it) will just make it… Read more »
Trump was supporting increases in immigration until last year as well. Trump said that Romney was too hard in immigrants.
Trump fans always point out the flaws in other candidates while comically ignoring the fact that they are supporting the biggest liberal and flip flopper of them all.
I’ll vote for anyone who’s more likely to restrict immigration than Trump, or restrict it more. But there’s nobody else right now.
Haha. I love your logic. “Cruz was liberal on this issue until recently so I will not vote for him.” Then I point out that Trump was even more liberal than Cruz on this issue (and countless other issues) and you go back to saying “well, Trump is against immigration now!”
Just admit it that you are voting for Trump because of an emotional response to hearing a “strong leader” speak in bellicose tones. It has nothing to do with logic.
Trump will drop this issue like it is hot if by some miracle he got elected.
Cruz is _still_ liberal on this issue.
Trump still supports a path to citizenship for Mexican immigrants. He said so in August 2015 on the O’Reilly show. He wants illegals to go outside the country, then he wants a “big beautiful door” in his wall (that he is going to make mexico build) by which he will let those same people back in and put them on a path to citizenship. Here is Trump throwing Romney under the bus for being too hard on immigrants: “[Romny] had a crazy policy of self deportation which was maniacal,” Trump says. “It sounded as bad as it was, and he… Read more »
Yes, you’ve already established how little you care about the lives of your neighbours.
I don’t actually care if Trump wins or not; the USA is finished, one way or another. I merely want to see the peaceful nationalism Trump represents gain traction, in hopes that it will prevent the rise of violent ultranationalism.
I care very much for my own life and the lives of my neighbors. I just do not think life is the final goal. I will quote ND Wilson:
“Cowards live for the sake of living, but for heroes, life is a weapon, a thing to be spent, a gift to be given …”
It is cowardly to be so afraid of others ashv. It is really unmanly.
By the way, I find it hilarious that the guy pushing for the quick collapse of the USA is pointing fingers at people and saying they do not care about human life. Do you know how much bloodshed would be spilled of the USA fell apart?
You think I want a collapse? The 20th century was, for the most part, a comfortable time for Americans. But the ride is over and the payment is coming due. We’re not voting our way out of this one. Diversity destroys social cohesion and assimilation of foreigners taxes our social capital. Why should we take on this cost, and the risk of even more bloodshed, at this point?
“Just admit it that you are voting for Trump because of an emotional response to hearing a “strong leader” speak in bellicose tones. It has nothing to do with logic.”
No he’s voting for Trump because Trump will destroy the U.S. government.
Not true. He said that he thought trump would preserve the US a bit longer.
If he was a real anarchist, he should vote democrat.
He said Trump may preserve the U.S. a bit longer and I think that was a refrence to Trump maybe doing something about immigration. I’m not sure he’s an anarchist, he’s just rooting for governmemt colapse instead of futile attempts to save the union.
Fine. If he is an anarchist, he should vote for the anarchist party (the democrats). They are also in favor of system collapse.
The downside to system collapse is that rarely does a good stable Jeffersonian republic rise from the ashes. Usually tyrants take over. Everyone was glad to get rid of the Czar right up until Lenin took control. I cannot think of a single case of a system collapsing and the resulting government being particularly good.
“Fine. If he is an anarchist, he should vote for the anarchist party (the democrats). They are also in favor of system collapse.”
I think Trumps version of collapse aligns better with his “elightened self interest”
You really think Trump will keep his promises?
I don’t think he actualy cares.
He who?
Ashv.
If I have to vote, I’d rather vote for someone who promises to do the right thing, than for someone who promises not to.
What’s your alternative?
That’s fair enough. I just happen to think your idea of the right thing, if it’s what Trump is promising to do, is the opposite of right.
Why on earth should Muslims be allowed into the USA?
I am curious to know what your opinion of the percentage of Muslims are terrorists? Because I don’t think your cultural purity argument is one that you can actually make palatable to the majority of people. A small percentage of the population which is made up of part racist people and part people who are justifiably angry at the idiocy of the progressives and part both, but not nearly enough to get that kind of drastic law passed. So, by the numbers, is the threat high enough to justify? And what do you do about the Muslims who are already… Read more »
“Terrorism” is not a useful word here, try “jihad” instead. Muslims believe in jihad the way progressives believe in equality or Christians believe in preaching the Gospel. Sure, some people claim the label while rejecting the core belief, but it’s rare. More importantly, children of parents who don’t embrace it are often even more fervent about their belief than usual. Muslims have been invading Christian countries for a millennium and a half — those who violently attack Westerners are not “radicals”, they’re following tradition. Expelling Muslims already here isn’t as easy as preventing more from arriving, so let’s start with… Read more »
I do not object to “jihad” or “jihadi,” as I do agree that there is a strain within Islam similar to those comparable concepts within progressivism and Christianity. Apparently, you believe it’s a significant majority – is that the case?
I strongly believe that the Muslims who are here will embrace jihad where they would otherwise have remained loyal Americans if we demonstrate that we are not interested in upholding the Constitution. The “easy” part isn’t as easy as you seem to believe.
What does ‘upholding the Constitution’ have to do with it? Muslims were already barred from immigrating once, early in the 20th century; there’s ample precedent for barring them again. Look up ‘plenary power doctrine’.
The First Amendment is still part of the Constitution.
Completely irrelevant to the question of immigration, both in theory and in observed practice.
Even the NY Times thinks it’s constitutional. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/opinion/trumps-anti-muslim-plan-is-awful-and-constitutional.html
If we face Trump vs. Hillary, it’s clear there’s no real difference in integrity or end result.
Once racism comes up and you are talking to ashv or Barnabas, do not engage. They both are very intelligent and have some valuable things to say, but they have a persistent blind spot on this particular issue that no amount of discussion can change.
Christian, God is no respecter of persons; we are all damned without Him and He loves us irrespective of who we are in each others eyes. It is not hatred to look at racial and cultural differences; nor is it anti-Christian. As for your threat assessment, we can recognize more than one threat at a time. It is not an ‘either/or’ it is a ‘both’. Follow Jesus…not trump. You cannot do both. First, shame on you. Second, Trump is a blunt instrument to destroy that inner enemy (Codevilla’s “ruling class” ) while holding off the external enemy. I am afraid… Read more »
You cannot follow Trump and Jesus. Trump is a proabort who funded democrats and now is lying to the nation en masse. Sorry but Truth and Lies cannot both be followed. Trump is a strong man to destroy the communists? Yeah. I agree. That is what I have been saying. We do not need a “strong man”. Do you know what Führer meant? It meant “strong man” and before the rise of Hitler, the Germans started to agree that their nation needed a strong leader. Hitler sold himself as the strong man who could hold off the communists and make… Read more »
yawn.
You yawn at the fact that the man you love so much was all for chopping up babies until he decided to run for president. Nice.
Well said. What Trump says now is clearly valueless, because he has absolutely no integrity. If you vote him in because he is anti-immigration, don’t count on him to actually keep ANY of his promises on immigration. You say he’s the only one who will “fix” immigration – he won’t fix anything. The only thing he will do is posture some more.
http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-06-07
That is a funny comic thanks for sending the link (which I think was intended to call me a dick). That does not explain why you yawn at the fact that Trump (the man you apparently think can make america great again) does not care for the unborn.
The history of the church is, among other things, the history of keeping Muslims out of Christendom. Only the last few generations have had the hubris to ignore history, biology, and sociology to the degree necessary to reverse this. A halt to Muslim immigration is the humane and peaceful first step to returning to sanity. Otherwise: get ready for Reconquista 2.0.
“Biology?” Are you arguing that the people that are Islamic are biologically predisposed to it? You do realize that, in the early days of the church, it was the people of what we now think of as Islamic nations that were the Christians and the Europeans who were the crazy hoards right? Every race has had its butchers. I would rather be a Christian in Indonesia than a Christian under Stalin or Hitler. Christianity is important. But the main threat to the Christian culture (what is left of it) is not the 2% of the population that is Islamic. It… Read more »
Who’s saying Islam is the main threat?
When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Then you can cope with your main problem.
The main problem in your mind is what? Skin color?
Immigration may not be the only thing that matters in the next couple years.
What are you going to replace the U.S. system with?
What makes you think there’ll be a replacement, or just one? What “replaced” the Roman empire?
Well if you want the U.S. to collapse while keeping immigrants out then Trump is your man.
Whatever comes after the U.S. will be more fragmented so what will the fragment you are located in look like?
Glad you understand now.
Let me make sure I understand…not being sarcastic. You would want: A. Trump to be elected because you think he would what is good for the U.S., which would extend it’s existence? or B. Trump to be elected because his election would hasten the collapse of the U.S. ?
Sometimes you say things that make me think A. would be your answer and sometimes you say things that make me think it would be B. Again, not being sarcastic here, just wondering.
Nothing can prevent the collapse of the USA. Trump may delay it, or at least provide a better demographic situation.
Delay collapse is pretty much the same thing as extend existence, so I’ll take it A. is closer to the answer.
Look at his avatar.
I’ll say it again: I don’t trust Donald Trump, and I won’t be voting for him. But if anything, he doesn’t go far enough! While many of us are furrowing our brows and stroking our chins in deep consideration of this issue de jure, there is a population of folks whose belief system, whether they’ll admit it or not, gives us infidels but three choices: 1) Convert!; 2) Dhimmitude (i.e. subjugation); 3) Death!
They need to go!
I would repeat Scott Adams’ question to you, Pastor Wilson, and to the commentariat here:
How many dead Americans are acceptable losses for continuing to allow Muslims into the USA?
How many are dead to continue our ideals of freedom and justice? Not sure. But let me quote Patrick Henry…. “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” Or Franklin: ““They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”” If China was threatening us to set aside our freedoms at the threat of attacking us, how many… Read more »
Answer the question. How many of your neighbours are you willing to see dead as a result of sticking to this principle?
I think that I am willing to fight for freedoms. I think we should all be willing to fight for that. I would rather live in a nation where life expediencies are a little lower but we are much more free than to have the Heir Trump protecting us all.
You don’t answer because you can’t. You would rather continue seeing any number of innocent people killed than lose your holier-than-thou posture.
I cannot speak for my neighbor. I can speak for me and my family. I am willing to die for my freedom. If I was president, I would support freedom over fear.
But let me ask you a question: How much government oversight and involvement in your life would be too much to protect against terrorism? Is there any limit to the tyranny you would accept?
Barring immigration of Muslims requires no extra government oversight or involvement. Border control is a necessary function of government.
The fact remains that you want innocent Americans to die so you can continue to feel good about “freedom”.
No additional government involvement? They are currently asking immigrants religious questions? You really want to give the government power to start getting involved in religion? You want to set that precedent? Maybe you like Trump. Fine. But what if Bernie Sanders or Michelle Obama gets elected after him…. you don’t think that could come back to bite Christians? The idea behind small government and freedom is that big government almost always has major problems. And I like your emotional appeal but yeah, I would fight a war for freedom and I think that blood being spilled so that tyranny is… Read more »
Ask jillybean — those kinds of questions have been standard for a long time.
“Small government” and “freedom” are means, not ends, and if they aren’t producing the desired results then there’s no reason to retain a suicidal dedication to them.
Haha. You sound like every other big government person. “Small government works most of the time…. but this time we need a big law…” That is how tyranny starts. No one says “hey, let’s give all our rights to the government!” They say “Hey, I like freedom too but there is a social services building that got shot up so let’s hand over our rights this time…. “
That is now THREE direct questions you have evaded answering.
I answered them all. Would I prefer a very small percentage of our population be at risk of terror to living in a 1984 world? Yes. I prefer free danger to suffocating safety.
Responding to a comment is not answering the question. So far you have answered one of them (number 2, below) Here are the questions again… 1. Show me a country run by Muslims that respects your idea of freedom and values human life anywhere near European levels.ANSWER: (Insert country name here) 2. That is not what he asked. He asked you if you support open borders for Israel. Yes or no ? ANSWER : YES 3. Answer the question. How many of your neighbours are you willing to see dead as a result of sticking to this principle? ANSWER: (Pick… Read more »
Tim, 1. I said about 3 times that there are 0. I also explained why that does not change my point in the slightest. There are no countries run by atheists that respect my ideas either. 2. Yeah. I answered one. 3. This is a BS question because it presupposes that your policy would save more people than mine (which I do not believe). I think that people can be protected without reducing our freedoms. Keep in mind that the guy who shot up the Christmas party was a US citizen. But you want a direct answer, here it goes.… Read more »
is there any freedom that you find so important you would put your neighbor’s life at risk?
The right to life. The right to keep and bear arms. The right to property. I am the threat to my “neighbor’s” life when those freedoms are threatened.
So, how many of your neighbors would you allow to die to maintain your right to bear arms? Give me a number. 0 to 300 million?
For the record, I support the right to bear arms too (very strongly) but I am just trying to show how your “give me a number” approach to my thoughts on immigration is ridiculous.
So….give me a number. Would you let 300 million of your neighbors die for the right to bear arms?
300 Million and one. Rights are inalienable.
So you agree that to die for freedom is not heartless or “not caring out your neighbor”? So, why are you so willing to support Trump (who is for eminent domain, for government getting involved in religion etc etc)?
To destroy the GOP. If it makes just one Bush scion cry it is worth it.
I’m not afraid of you timothy, I’m afraid for you.
So to say, hey, no more Muslims for a while, until you folks can get your act together and deal with the terrorists among you is “unworkable and obnoxious.”
But it’s easy and not at all obnoxious to have the government monitor the emails, Facebook posts, letters, phone calls, Tweets, locations, associations, and activities of hundreds of thousands of Muslims?
I respectfully disagree with Wilson here for three primary reasons. (1) You can’t exclude Muslims based on radical affiliation. The reason is Muslims are similar to Christians in that their offspring switch “denominations”. A Baptist family with 5 kids will have 3 Baptist kids a Lutheran and a charismatic. In the same way a moderate Muslim family can produce offspring that believe in moderate Islam or more violent Islam. There is variance. This situation is not tolerable in our society. (2) It is more merciful to exclude a group entirely than to deport or imprison a person for following, what… Read more »
It’s interesting to see the range of comments on modern problems. For decades, Presbyterians and all variations of evangelicals have disregarded the basics of the Bible and now are squawking about immigration. Leviticus tells us that we are to have the same law for foreign and native born. Exodus tells us that we are to rest on the Sabbath, even the foreigners in our towns. Well, America isn’t doing so well on just the basics right now. We violate the 10 Commandments as a nation on a regular basis. We don’t keep the same laws for foreign as native born… Read more »
I love how Trump has shifted the debate. We are no longer discussing Bush’s assertion that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’ rather, we are discussing kicking the bastards out of our country.
I look forward to the discussion advancing to the means of repatriation and who should bear the cost of shipping them.
Great post Doug, one of your best.
‘Serious’? You can certainly say Trump’s suggestions are a lot of things…but “not serious” isn’t one of them. Oddly enough, a lot of very fine people are now being able to air their serious alternatives to his off-the-cuff ideas.
Sounds like a win-win to me.
I have more confidence in the salvation of the Zaporozhian Cossacks than I do for any of the “christian” leaders wetting themselves over Trump’s remarks.
Trump is a life long supporter of abortion. He has been married three times. His wife has shot nuddie pics (available to our nation’s youth online). He supports eminent domain (robbing the poor to line his pockets)0. He has supported single payer universal health care (praised Canada). He supports tariffs. He supports higher taxes. He supported the Clintons. He gave heavily to the democrats and helped them take the congress in 2006. He supports eminent domain. Anyone supporting Trump is neither a fiscal or social conservative. Trump is closer to Europe’s idea of right wing (see Hitler) than ours (see… Read more »
Now this is an idea I can get behind. It only makes sense to limit our generosity to the people who don’t explicitly support our enemies.
By the way, does everyone realize that Trump is lying about being tough on immigrants? He is not going to “build a wall” and actually this is not even an issue he really cares about. He flipped his position on this (and everything else) when he decided to run for president. In 2012, he rebuked Romney for being “too hard” on immigrants. Trump supporters are either uninformed (they have no idea what sort of a liberal history this guy has) or they are not actually for conservative policies. Because Trump is not for the unborn. He is not for economic… Read more »
He plays the uneducated GOP base like a stradivarius.
Which is worse, someone who lies about doing the right thing, or someone who openly brags about doing the wrong thing?
The worst thing is gullible people like you who believe idiots who say ridiculous crap (like “I am going to make mexico build the wall”). I mean seriously, how low does your IQ have to be to hear that and say “that sounds good to me!”
Muslims are not the threat in our society. Communists/socialists are. Muslims might blow a few of us up. A few more Obama-esque presidents and we will all be slaves.
“Muslims are not the threat in our society.”
Until enough of them get here.
Yeah. Attacking the muslims is like having a basement that is flooding and opting to focus on the leaking facet in the spare bathroom. It is a distraction and a lie.
We have a nation that is full already (no immigration needed) with people who respect neither God nor our nations founding principles. Build all the walls you want, the problem is not outside our borders.
True enough. Europe is falling to the muslims because it regected God, if the U.S. doesn’t turn to God it will likely suffer the same fate.
http://i.imgur.com/tAZ6HCC.png
Lol
I browsed this expose of cultural differences between Christendom and Islam interesting and thought it would contribute to this discussion http://thosewhocansee.blogspot.ca/2015/12/why-we-culturally-profile.html
What you are talking about is a terrorist threat list right? That could be any belief, any system and not restricted to one religion. The problem with having a list of undesirables is that those composing this list would soon become the chief of all that is undesirable, and who then would have the list for them? Who watches the watchmen?
Looks like most of the Cologne attackers were refugees. See the ZeroHedge article today (1/7/16).
“… to reveal that you don’t understand the first blessed thing about it.”
You mean the first damned thing about it.