Posted on 12/08/2015 2:29:20 PM PST by MacNaughton
Donald Trump is at it again. This time, the Republican presidential frontrunner suggests that the United States should close the border to all Muslims—including Muslim-Americans traveling abroad. Anyone who cares an iota about religious liberty should denounce this reckless, demagogic rhetoric.
Trump, of course, is a master at knowing and seizing a moment. The country is reeling from a terrorist attack by two Islamic radicals. Moreover, the president seems to many to have little plan to eradicate the threat of the Islamic State from building a massive caliphate in the Middle East and exporting terror all over the world. Enter the Man in the Trump Tower with a plan to “get tough†by closing the borders to Muslims, all Muslims, simply because they are Muslim.
As an evangelical Christian, I could not disagree more strongly with Islam. I believe that salvation comes only through union with Jesus Christ, received through faith. As part of the church’s mission, we believe we should seek to persuade our Muslim neighbors of the goodness and truth of the gospel. It is not in spite of our gospel conviction, but precisely because of it, that we should stand for religious liberty for everyone.
The Revolutionary-era Baptist preacher John Leland repeatedly included “the Turks†in his list of those included in the sorts of religious freedoms he was demanding from the politicians of his time (including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison). This was despite the fact that there were virtually no Muslims to speak of in the colonies or in the new republic. Leland included them specifically and intentionally anyway. He wanted to make it clear that his concept of religious freedom was not dependent on a group’s political power. He chose the most despised religious minority of the time, with no political collateral in his context, to make the point that religious freedom is a natural right bestowed by God, not a grant given out by the government.
The governing authorities have a responsibility, given by God, to protect the population from violence, and to punish the evildoers who perpetrate such violence (Rom. 13:1-7). The governing powers, as with every earthly power, have a limited authority. The government cannot exalt itself as a lord over the conscience, a god over the soul.
The United States government should fight, and fight hard, against radical Islamic jihadism. The government should close the borders to anyone suspected of even a passing involvement with any radical cell or terrorist network. But the government should not penalize law-abiding people, especially those who are American citizens, for holding their religious convictions.
Muslims are an unpopular group these days. And I would argue that non-violent Muslim leaders have a responsibility to call out terror and violence and jihad. At the same time, those of us who are Christians ought to stand up for religious liberty not just when our rights are violated but on behalf of others too.
Make no mistake. A government that can shut down mosques simply because they are mosques can shut down Bible studies because they are Bible studies. A government that can close the borders to all Muslims simply on the basis of their religious belief can do the same thing for evangelical Christians. A government that issues ID badges for Muslims simply because they are Muslims can, in the fullness of time, demand the same for Christians because we are Christians.
We are in a time of war, and we should respond as those in a time of war. But we must never lose in a time of war precious freedoms purchased through the blood of patriots in years past. We must have security and we must have order. But we must not trade soul freedom for an illusion of winning.
How about closing the border period, for the time being? Let us regroup, assess our policies and decide who should be here and who we should be letting in. We need to revisit the 1965 immigration act. The American people never had a say.
I t was only yesterday that he came out with this position. Maybe it feels like more.
Yes.
If the Soetoro regime can close the doors to CHRISTIAN refugees - none of whom are waging a jihad against anyone throughout the world, than we SHOULD shut the same doors on the Muslims.
“What’s the procedure? Ask them if they’re muslim? “
To come here legally requires a visa. Visas are obtained at the local consulate. I would imagine if we wanted say, Christians and Druze, we’d ask them to prove they are either, which should be easy enough. If they can’t prove that then no visa.
Don’t let anybody in without documentation.
As an aside, I was at the DMV in Tampa getting the runaround because my 98 year old mother could not prove her married name was legitimate. She’d given up her driver’s license and they wouldn’t issue an identity card because she didn’t have a driver’s license. At the next window was a man who spoke no English. The clerk simply asked him to raise has hand and swear he wasn’t lying about his name. They gave him (I think a driver’s license) and he was on his way. Can’t tell you how annoyed that made me. The clerk gave my mother a fishing license and used that as her identity document. Apparently this identity requirement at the clerk level is a huge joke. I no longer believe in anything the government does.
100 percent correct.... OK so what is more extreme.....
A. Refusing to enforce standard immigration laws and then bringing in thousands of Muslim refugees when your own intelligence has informed you that ISIS has infiltrated them, seeing first had that a terror attack happened at the hands of an Islamic terrorist that your own ICE department failed to identify or stop and having your own FBI commissioner admit that the vetting process for these people is flawed...
B. Asking our government to halt the influx of Muslims until we can be assured that any radical Islamic Jihadists are not infiltrating our immigration programs.
That is what we are up against... Obama and Liberals have traveled so far to the left that reasonable suggestions are now being labeled as some king of racist far rightwing attempt at isolationism.
If you follow islam in America you need a GPS, listening device and un-hackable means of being monitored 24*7.
islam is a concurring brainwashing device and can not be trusted in a free country.
Yes and hell yes!!!
When he amends it to suspending immigration and refugees from certain countries, and we'll have to be a bit careful here, then it works. Of course it also bars Christians, but it's a firm standard. When he amends it to bar people holding certain ideologies, sure. Of course that will require distinguishing radical from non radical Muslims. We once banned socialists, we can ban those who support radical Islam. But the State Dept makes the decision, so it could be problematical. Partial country bans are also possible, only admit immigrants who are non ideological and whose presence benefits the United States. Is that a bizarre concept, do something that benefits our country. But banning based on religion, that won't work. Besides, they'll lie. Or "convert", LATEST MUSLIM ASYLUM SEEKER SCAM: Quickie Conversions of Convenience
According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that "Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah." When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).
Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, "It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed."
Phony strawman. Trump never suggested American citizens would be affected.
Carter did it to Iranians.
Excuse me, but I see a Constitutional problem with refusing entrance to the United States to American citizens returning home, who are not accused of anything, never charged, never even suspected. This is one of the things about Trump that makes me uneasy. He’s too quick to speak in overly broad terms. Makes for a good sound bite, but bad policy.
You need to remember that there are millions of secular Muslims who have never set foot in a Mosque, never read a word of the Koran, and hold no Muslim beliefs.
A more narrowly targeted policy like the one proposed by Ted Cruz makes a lot more sense to me.
Minor correction. The that 51% supporting sharia is of American Muslims, not worldwide, where I’m sure it’s much higher. 24% in the US advocate violence for insulting Mohammed, and 54% say there are violent jihadists already in the US. Only 15% say know. Wonder what they hear around the Mosque.
I wonder if Kipling had Islam in mind when he wrote “The Mother Hive” ?
Yes he is, and the Gope can kiss my grits
All he really said was to stop Muslim immigrants UNTIL our representatives figure out what is going on. Read his actual comment not the BS twist presented by the media.
Any Muslim who travels to a terrorist nation should not come back. Look at what Farook returning did for San Bernadino.
So this is a false statement?
Do you have any evidence to suggest that he is wrong? I don't mean to be confrontational, I know that Trump has been badly misquoted and misconstrued by the press on many occasions and this may be one of them. But what I heard Trump say was very broad-brush. I didn't hear any exceptions.
Use the reverse method that ISIS currently uses.
We ask them to recite a passage from the Koran.
If they do, they can't come in.
If they try their hardest, and still cannot... then they can enter.
/sarcasm
All for barring entry by nationality, or complete moratorium. Using religion is just going to lead to more problems, as it is unworkable.
More stupid people who didn’t read Trump’s press release. It’s a stand down, a moratorium - “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.