Yes, we're seeing this theme a lot in the news. "X was a refugee too!"
Unfortunately, it's pretty much the same class of statement as "Hitler (hated smoking|loved his mother|was a vegeterian|built good highways) too! How about that!" albeit with a more sympathetic group of people.
actually, it's incredibly relevant. it's to show that refugees are people too, and are not incapable of leading to good and prosperous things. that you think they are trying to say he did what he did because he was an immigrant, or that all immigrants will be great, shows you fundamentally misunderstand the point; or maybe you have other feelings about the matter that cloud your perspective.
That's stacking the deck just the same. You could likewise frame it was a comparison between "everything Hitler liked was bad" and "every refugee should be admitted" (and no matter how much you like refugees, you're eventually going to get to the point of turning one down).
Anne Frank was a refugee, ergo all refugees are Anne Frank. Cultural values and religious duties do not in any way influence the risk undertaken by a host country. ISIS in no way reflects a quite textual interpretation of Islam, and any assertion of European cultural superiority to virtually any part of MENA is to assert racial supremacy of Europeans.
I support a strong immigration program, including refugees. However, immigration should be limited to compatible cultures and high-reward immigrants. Can we institute an incredibly basic filter to exclude cultures that boast popular support of the murder of homosexuals? (Or apostates, or heretics, or blasphemers, or...)
> Can we institute an incredibly basic filter to exclude cultures that boast popular support of the murder of homosexuals?
You don't think people leaving those places do so because those places support the murder of homosexuals? They recognise that country is fucked and they want to go somewhere better?
You do know that of the US refugee process is incredibly complex, takes 1-2 years to complete, and something like less than 1% are accepted into the US?
Actually, ISIS/Daesh quite clearly DOES reflect "a quite textual interpretation of Islam", as you put it - and that's the problem.
This is why Islam can never be subject to a meaningful "reformation": unlike Christianity, where Sola Scriptura dragged the church back onto a MORE peaceful, tolerant (after a time) and LESS abusive path, applying a "back to the scriptures" approach to Islam strengthens the "radicals and extremists", because the false prophet of the Koran* makes it quite clear that killing infidels is both good and necessary. It is, in fact, the highest good, and grants the Jihadist instant admission to paradise regardless of any previous sins. (*Mohammed was right about one thing: he was most certainly possessed by Satan when he wrote the Koran - not just the Satanic verses, but all of it, in its entirety...)
> This is why Islam can never be subject to a meaningful "reformation": unlike Christianity, where Sola Scriptura dragged the church back onto a MORE peaceful, tolerant (after a time) and LESS abusive path
I don't think that there is any plausible argument that "Sola Scriptura" did that (the Protestant Reformation may ultimately have, but not so much because of its theology -- and certain not the particular doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but by triggering a series of international and civil wars which in the long term forced governments to give up most direct enforcement of sectarian religious rules, even if they retained an established church, in order to maintain civil order.)
Anne Frank and the other (mostly Jewish) refugees of that time had no marked, large-scale habit of beheading or blowing up anyone who didn't agree with them. Welcoming Anne Frank and other Jewish refugees would not produce a threat to society. Welcoming hordes of militant Muslims is most certainly suicidal by comparison.
Don't forget that the last century has seen Islam be less of a threat than any other century since its founding, but that is due to the forcible destruction of the Caliphate by Muslims themselves with the unprecedented support of Kemal Ataturk.
> Anne Frank and the other (mostly Jewish) refugees of that time had no marked, large-scale habit of beheading or blowing up anyone who didn't agree with them.
Neither do Syrian refugees.
The people from whom the Syrian refugees are fleeing do, but then, that's kind of why they're fleeing.
(Equating the Syrian refugees with Daesh, et al., is like equating the 1930s European Jewish refugees with the Nazis.)
> Welcoming hordes of militant Muslims is most certainly suicidal by comparison.
The screening of refugees by the UNHCR before referring to a country for resettlement, and, in the case of the US, by the numerous US agency responsible for screening before admission, makes it extremely unlikely that any substantial number of the refugees admitted to the US for resettlement would be "militant Muslims", so the idea that "welcoming hordes of militant Muslims" is even on the table for discussion is misguided.
Thirty years from now, some Americans will mourn the death of America as they know, a country of freedom where you could rant how Islam is the work of the devil all day long, without getting slapped with "Seriously, shut up grandpa, my girlfriend is Muslim."
16 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 36.4 ms ] threadUnfortunately, it's pretty much the same class of statement as "Hitler (hated smoking|loved his mother|was a vegeterian|built good highways) too! How about that!" albeit with a more sympathetic group of people.
"this is an overall good quality" is not disproved by the existence of one bad person who happens to possess that quality.
But "all refugees should be sent back to where they came from" is disproven by the existence of one virtuous refugee.
Only if you also accept that "we should admit everyone who is virtuous". That is not a universally accepted assumption...
I support a strong immigration program, including refugees. However, immigration should be limited to compatible cultures and high-reward immigrants. Can we institute an incredibly basic filter to exclude cultures that boast popular support of the murder of homosexuals? (Or apostates, or heretics, or blasphemers, or...)
You don't think people leaving those places do so because those places support the murder of homosexuals? They recognise that country is fucked and they want to go somewhere better?
This is why Islam can never be subject to a meaningful "reformation": unlike Christianity, where Sola Scriptura dragged the church back onto a MORE peaceful, tolerant (after a time) and LESS abusive path, applying a "back to the scriptures" approach to Islam strengthens the "radicals and extremists", because the false prophet of the Koran* makes it quite clear that killing infidels is both good and necessary. It is, in fact, the highest good, and grants the Jihadist instant admission to paradise regardless of any previous sins. (*Mohammed was right about one thing: he was most certainly possessed by Satan when he wrote the Koran - not just the Satanic verses, but all of it, in its entirety...)
I don't think that there is any plausible argument that "Sola Scriptura" did that (the Protestant Reformation may ultimately have, but not so much because of its theology -- and certain not the particular doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but by triggering a series of international and civil wars which in the long term forced governments to give up most direct enforcement of sectarian religious rules, even if they retained an established church, in order to maintain civil order.)
Don't forget that the last century has seen Islam be less of a threat than any other century since its founding, but that is due to the forcible destruction of the Caliphate by Muslims themselves with the unprecedented support of Kemal Ataturk.
Neither do Syrian refugees.
The people from whom the Syrian refugees are fleeing do, but then, that's kind of why they're fleeing.
(Equating the Syrian refugees with Daesh, et al., is like equating the 1930s European Jewish refugees with the Nazis.)
> Welcoming hordes of militant Muslims is most certainly suicidal by comparison.
The screening of refugees by the UNHCR before referring to a country for resettlement, and, in the case of the US, by the numerous US agency responsible for screening before admission, makes it extremely unlikely that any substantial number of the refugees admitted to the US for resettlement would be "militant Muslims", so the idea that "welcoming hordes of militant Muslims" is even on the table for discussion is misguided.
Similar language ("vermin", "cockroaches"); similar themes ("they want to kill you"; "they want to rule you with their law").