Muslim Refugee Moratorium

cropped-bob-shapiro.jpg   By Bob Shapiro

One reader reminded me of the terrific positive effect on the US Economy of the couple of hundred years of the US allowing immigrants into the country. He is absolutely right!

In recent articles, mostly re-blogs, US-Issues.com has called for a halt (or at least a slowing) of the importation by our government of so called refugees from Muslim countries, most publicized in the media from Syria.

President Obama has bragged about bringing in his 10,000th Syrian refugee (how many Muslims in all?), and federal judges have ruled that individual states cannot prevent settlement with their borders. President Obama even has imported foreign Muslim Imams to teach the refugees proper Sharia!

The refugees have been overwhelmingly young Muslim men. There have been few women, few children, and few of the really persecuted Christians. To many Americans, to varying extent, this military age influx poses a National Security Emergency.

Image result for syrian refugee

But immigration has been so beneficial, and if you talked with some of them you’d see they’re good people,” I’ve been told. Yes, you’re right. So how do we balance these opposing viewpoints?

Firstly, not all immigrants and refugees are created equal. Some are thankful to have escaped from an intolerable situation, while others want to bring that anti-American atmosphere with them. Some may have training in medicine, engineering, software and IT, while others main learning has been Sharia Law.

We need to recognize that, while the vetting process for refugees looks good on paper, the truth is that even the Department of Homeland Security admits that there are so many refugees that it’s been impossible to do proper vetting.

Also, it’s important to recognize that refugees are not people who have applied for legal immigration into the US. Applicants have a long process to go through and American sponsors to vouch for them. Refugees, by their very nature, need rapid decisions.

We have two candidates for President with opposing views. Hillary Clinton, as far as I can tell (she seldom gives specifics about what her policies would be), would continue President Obama’s importations of refugees. Donald Trump has stated that he would put a moratorium on refugees from terrorist hotbed countries until a proper, well staffed, vetting process can be put in place.

Image result for trump clinton

Historically, immigration has been beneficial for the US. But, we’re not discussing immigration here. This piece deals only with refugees some of whom may want to terrorize us.

Terrorize us?!! Is there evidence for this?” Absolutely, if you’re willing to look beyond the news blackout and deception proffered by our President and by the news media. Mr. Obama can’t even get himself to use the words “Islamic Terrorists.”

Look at the numbers of terrorist type attacks, both in the US and in Europe, where the number of refugees accepted is much larger than in the US. In Germany and several other countries, women routinely are gang raped, and the Police are powerless to do anything about it.

Image result for boston marathon massacre pictures

In the US, there have been an increasing number of terrorist acts – in my home state of Massachusetts, the Boston Marathon Massacre still is fresh in our memory. “That’s not terrorism! That was an individual act.” Horse hockey! Your not having the honesty to call it what it was does not change fact that it WAS terrorism.

So, the bottom line is that I lean more closely to the moratorium argument for refugees from terrorist sponsoring countries. As vetting catches up to what US National Security needs, I likely would want unskilled, single men (didn’t care to bring your family?!) to not be accepted. Refugees with skills which could benefit our country might get preference to stay.

Again, this does not refer at all to the legal immigration process. These are very different questions and very different processes for US entry. So, don’t make the mistake of lumping them together.

Yes, there are humanitarian concerns. But, there also are National Security concerns. I’m an American first. How my opinions would affect people wanting to enter the US must take a back seat to how admitting refugees would affect my country and the American people.

Advertisements

45 thoughts on “Muslim Refugee Moratorium

    • Yes, Hillary wants to keep importing Syrian refugees. Though she says vetting is important, she doesn’t address the fact that the current vetting process is crap, nor does she acknowledge the growing number of Islamic terrorist acts, both in the US and in Europe. Instead, she offers broad platitudes about who we are as a society. Thanks for the link which shows just that.

      If a government policy is a danger to Americans, you STOP that policy. You don’t continue to endanger Americans while you say you’re trying to work out the bugs. Job 1 for our leaders is America and Americans.

      Like

      • “[…]she doesn’t address the fact that the current vetting process is crap[…]”

        “If a government policy is a danger to Americans, you STOP that policy.”

        Evidence, please? Evidence that the vetting process is “crap”? Evidence that allowing refugees is, as you were claiming, the proximal cause for an increase in Islamic Terrorism?

        I’ve not seen any such evidence – but we read different sources. I subject my sources to “extreme vetting”. 🙂

        What are your fact-based sources?

        Like

  1. Quote: “In the US, there have been an increasing number of terrorist acts – in my home state of Massachusetts, the Boston Marathon Massacre still is fresh in our memory. “That’s not terrorism! That was an individual act.” Horse hockey! Your not having the honesty to call it what it was does not change fact that it WAS terrorism.” EndQuote

    I think you are confusing several things here. For one – was the Marathon Bombing an act of terrorism? Definitely. Was it committed in the name of Islam? Absolutely. Was it performed by immigrants from the Middle East? Not at all: the men who performed that attack were born in the USSR, in what is now an Asian nation. Both of whom were educated primarily in the United States.

    The background of recent attackers within the US have some similarity: Minnesota Mall, Somali, in the US for well over a decade. New York bombings, Afghanistan, in the US well over a decade. The “Neo Nazi” shooter in Houston seems to be white, and have been born here. The attack in Tulsa in August was an American attacking a person of Arabic descent. The stabbing in Virgina was from a person hearing voices (albeit with a foreign name). (I am working backward through lists of world-terrorism attacks…)

    You may be seeing my point.

    As we’ve discussed in person – it isn’t that there is zero reason to fear. What’s important, so that we don’t let our fears get exaggerated or override our good sense, is to try and temper that fear with facts.

    It’s easy to lose sight of the tremendous human toll of suffering that the people from Syria (and other war-torn areas) are suffering. Sometimes that’s a valid coping mechanism – we can’t walk around with tears in our eyes the whole time. Neither should we put all of them in a bucket labeled “potential terrorist”, and cut ourselves off from our humanity. There is a lot of good America can do in this world.

    The facts simply don’t support your point. The fear does… Let’s urge US Policy based upon fact-based and reality-centered concerns. Not fear. Not dehumanization. Facts and reason.

    On this particular issue in particular, the distinction between the two major Presidential candidates couldn’t be clearer. One is using brain and facts, the other is drumming up deep-seated fear. We can’t pick our favorite candidate on single-issue politics. But on this issue, there’s only one viable candidate.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. You should view the youtube video I shared today regarding this same topic. It is evidence. There are people who refuse to see even after you give them evidence. Sometimes it’s quite pointless. Some people need to see something horrific happen to their family before they believe it.

    Like

  3. I only watched about a third of that video, skipping around.

    It was remarkably free of facts. It’s a nakedly emotional play.

    Neither you, nor our host, have provided actual citations or facts. Just fear (or in the case of the video, propaganda).

    The facts suggest otherwise – do you want to be ruled by facts, or emotional fear? Your choice.

    I’m very aware that emotional plays and propaganda work very well – look at the rise of most nationalist and anti-democratic governments. (The history of the rise of the Third Reich being the one I’m most familiar with.)

    This is what most concerns me about, for example, Trump. While I’m not a conservative there are certainly parts of classic Truman-style Conservatism that appeal to me. There are smart things to learn on both sides of the aisle. But candidates like Trump are not consistently Conservative, nor are they intellectually rigorous. They do not seek votes based upon what is best for America. They seek votes based upon emotional scare tactics, nationalism and demagoguery.

    Such tactics and people profoundly weaken our nation.

    However you feel, wherever you stand – do so smartly, and without being stampeded out of fear and emotion.

    I’m waiting for useful facts. I’m rejecting pandering or fear. I urge others to do the same, so they won’t be manipulated into voting against themselves.

    Like

    • @ Mark – You can consider everything as fear mongering but seeing you yourself mentioned you didn’t bother to view the whole thing which is basically a collation of video footage from all over Europe where this ideology has spread and by the way coming from sources which are NOT conservative is clue enough that you yourself choose to neglect the facts.

      People can malign the Trump Campaign for bringing in these important points that actually concern national security, whereas the whole Clinton campaign has done nothing but ride on an emotional play with “Women gropping” scandals which if you ask me will eventually blow up against her favor being that she herself condones (from her own husband) what she claims to be despicable and publicly denounce yet actually has the audacity to quote, “When they go low, you go high.” Apparently, her campaign has done the complete opposite of that.

      I just hope the women she so wants to appeal to will see through all this manipulation. I’m sure not all women, or people for that matter are dumbed down to see through the hypocrisy.

      Like

      • Thanks for the additional distractions about Clinton. 🙂

        Bob’s point was about National Security, Syrian refugees (or other Islamic refugees) and the quality of US background checks and vetting of immigrants/refugees.

        Your referenced video was nothing more than propaganda about how refugees to Europe are behaving. It’s well-worth noting that European’s problems are not our problems – unless those refugees are swimmers strong enough to cross the Atlantic. 🙂

        I do not “consider everything fear-mongering”. I consider fear-mongering to be fear-mongering. The US has a rigorous process for vetting legal immigrants and refugees. The relevant questions are: “Is that process being applied, and applied properly”, “Is the process sufficient for all immigrants and refugees” and “Are special measures beyond what we do now, necessary for Syrian immigrants/refugees”.

        The answer to my first question is “apparently, yes”.

        The answer to my second question is that I do not know, but that experts in the field of national security feel that it is generally appropriate and is near the maximum that can be Constitutionally applied.

        The answer to my third question is “no one seems to have a factual basis for saying so, and that nations that have used ordinary vetting for Syrian immigrants don’t seem to be having a problem”.

        Europe, of course, is not in a situation where they can vet immigrants before they arrive, and theirs is a difficult refugee crisis. In some ways, it highlights that our security process is working and superior.

        For those who point to pro-Islamic terrorists, the data suggests that within the US there is little to actually fear. Not because we completely lack in native terrorism acts, but because the predominant problem is with people who are here, legally, becoming radicalized. Whether those are radicalized for religious reasons, racial ones, or political ones. (Some of who are Islamic, some are Christian, some are just racist.)

        Your “be scared” video really doesn’t address any of this.

        Separately – your “defense” of the Trump campaign is also highly emotional. There is little defense to Trump’s personal conduct over the years – in fact he’s bragged for years about his behavior. If Bill Clinton’s behavior was despicable in 1998 and prior, then Trump’s behavior is also despicable. That knife cuts both ways. You can’t hate Bill for his behaviors, and forgive Trump’s.

        But there is a failure of equivalency. Bill isn’t running: his wife is. Nor has she condoned Bill’s historical behavior, as far as I can tell. She vigorously defended him while there was doubt, and vigorously denounced him when there was no longer any doubt.

        But she didn’t divorce him. Plenty of women stay with cheaters – that doesn’t make them bad people. Plenty of women divorce cheaters – that doesn’t make them bad people. I, myself, divorced a cheating wife. Her short-comings are not my own. A marital therapist we saw at the time told us that “marriage is a deal, and when one of you changes the deal, you have to decide whether to keep the marriage or not”. The Clinton’s kept their marriage. You might not have, I might not have. Or maybe we would have. Who is to say?

        There is a “hypocrisy of forgiveness” on the Right. It forgives its own, but forgives nothing among non-Conservatives. (Read the interviews with people willing to forgive Trump for his groping behaviors, but who cannot forgive Clinton – Trump denies his behaviors, while Clinton has apologized and admitted error. But human cognition being inconsistent, people forgive the one and not the other. Why? Because it confirms their prejudices.)

        I try to fight my biases. If there is evidence that our immigrant/refugee vetting is not being applied, is insufficient, or that Syrian refugees require exceptional treatment – I’ll change my position.

        Got facts?

        Like

      • “Bill isn’t running: his wife is” True. But it is inconsistent for her campaign to use the groping especially coming from her. That’s undeniable. She condones that kind of behavior. You can argue she forgave him, but you can’t easily toss the obvious reason why someone would stay in a marriage like that, to stay in power, not motivated by forgiveness and how easily liberals use conservative lingo especially if it applies to them. It only really furthers the hypocrisy if you ask me.

        Your fact-finding appearance is not quite convincing. But have a nice day anyway.

        Like

    • Yes, our electoral process has deteriorated over the last couple of generations. There is way too much emotional posturing and too little description of actual positions on both sides. I recall that LBJ to his reelection team to spread the rumor that his opponent had had sexual relations with a pig. He said, yes I know it’s false, but I want to hear him deny it.

      Like

      • The quotation has been ascribed to a number of people… but the story still carries weight.

        So, apropos only of that, have you heard of a UK television show called “Black Mirror”? The first episode is called The National Anthem. Wikipedia summarizes the plot this way:

        “Prime Minister Michael Callow (Rory Kinnear) faces a huge and shocking dilemma when Princess Susannah, Duchess of Beaumont (Lydia Wilson), a much-loved member of the Royal Family, is kidnapped. For her safe return, the Prime Minister must have live sexual intercourse with a pig on national television, with a list of technical specifications designed to make it impossible to fake.”

        The resulting show is an unnerving exploration of what happens… and the results are unpredictable.

        Recommended. I watched it on Netflix.

        Like

  4. Caeli, there are some powerful differences here. Bill Clinton didn’t brag about sexual assault, whereas Trump has both on and off the record in that recording.

    There is little difference in this regard between the general revulsion between Bill Cosby’s antics, and Trump’s braggadocio and the resulting testimony by many women. And Trump’s previous comments about his treatment of women are the same.

    BUT – even assuming that Bill Clinton and Trump are exactly the same (which I do not agree), blaming Hillary Clinton for it, or suggesting that she is hypocritical for condemning both (which she has) is not internally consistent.

    Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women. Something Hillary Clinton has never done, and never bragged about. The difference is visible.

    If the electorate and the commentariat are also noticing that Trump has acted inappropriately, well… even if Hillary Clinton is a hypocrite (which I do not grant) – Trump’s still not particularly defensible.

    If the best you’ve got is that Trump’s done bad things, and one particular woman is in no position to condemn him, you’ve still got the rest of America to deal with. Do you want to actually defend his words and actions toward women (over the course of his lifetime)? Or do you want to distract by saying “Clinton’s husband was not so great either”?

    Weak defense, if it is even a defense at all.

    Like

    • Trump is the last person I would expect to be defending, believe me but I will be voting for him because he is WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). Believe it or not, it is more appealing for people to hear someone who is not politically correct than someone who would say ANYTHING to get elected.

      I am not buying Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric for the fact that she fails to see the evils in infanticide and calls it a woman’s right. She talks about the children’s future yet she is a proponent of robbing the unborn of their future.

      Not only that, she is a proponent for Islam, obvious with her political ties and her policies, and Islam happens to have Sharia which legalizes the actual mistreatment of women, LGBT, and Non-Muslims but of course someone would really have to make the connection. You can call me Islamophobic if you want, but just to get this straight, I don’t hate Muslims per se. It is their ideology that is problematic. I read about Sharia and listen to people who have fled that oppressive rule of law whose lives are in danger by exposing it to educate people of its implications.

      You can imply I am distracted by her husband’s failings and franky, that has very little bearing with my decision in this upcoming election. I choose to look at the facts that DO matter, Real facts, not the disinformation they dub as facts on mainstream and liberal sources. It doesn’t help that she pins all the blame on Russia for everything, let’s not forget about her role in Benghazi, fabricating and lying straight faced to a whole nation her accounts in Bosnia, generalizing a host of Trump supporters whom she doesn’t personally know as bigots etc…

      I’d rather have a person who tells it like it is than a deceiver. This is where we differ. This is where I stand and I am not trying to sway you from yours.

      Mark, this will be my last reply as I do not want to hijack Mr. Shapiro’s post into a chat room. Have a great weekend 🙂

      Like

      • Caeli, let me just share with you something I shared with Bob as a friend.

        Get to know more Muslims. Meet them, play with their kids, talk to their families, learn about their lives.

        You’ll get a lot more comfortable.

        FYI, one of my best friends is an Orthodox Jew. You can certainly read the tenets of orthodoxy and state that Judaism denigrates women to a second-class status, that it relegates second-class status to LGBTQ and non-Jews. The text, and the reality diverge.

        Same for Catholicism and most Evangelical Christian groups: you can see the Bible calling for disparate roles for men and women, killing gays, treating non-Christians as inferiors. The reality, of course, is different.

        People are lovely. My Islamic friends, Jewish friends, Christian and Catholic friends – are wonderful people.

        There is much more that connects us, than divides us. Don’t allow yourself to be scared. Make more friends. Everyone can use more friends.

        Like

      • Hi Caeli. Feel free to continue commenting as much as you like. I enjoy the back and forth.

        As for Mr Trump, I also like the WYSIWYG vs the scandal ridden Hillary. I tend to care more about her positions on the Economy & CAGW.

        On the Minimum Wage, if it’s a good idea with no job losses, then why be a piker? Why not give all of us $100 an hour? Oh, maybe the Minimum Wage does cost jobs! At $15, or even the current $10 in my home state of Mass, those who are hurt most are the poor, who get priced out of their first jobs, where they might learn the skills and get the experience needed to get higher pay next time around.

        On the FED, why would you allow a private organization to continuously print money out of thin air and then buy up America? Why would you allow one of the most important price signals – the price of money – to be manipulated for the benefit of a favored few? Isn’t it long past time to stop bailing out the big money center banks with ZIRP? They screwed up. If they would fail without zero interest rates, then let them fail. The assets of their companies won’t disappear, they just would get transferred to less stupid new owners.

        On Energy, why would you allow a war on the cheap, reliable energy from fossil fuels & nuclear which were instrumental in giving the US our high standard of living? Wind and solar may have niches where they are the energy of choice (like on my nephew’s ranch miles from a grid connection for wind, and in calculators for solar). But to make it law that you have to use much more expensive sources, which are unreliable, is the height of idiocy.

        There’s much more, but you get the picture. I know Hillary will hurt the country. From a WYSIWYG perspective, I have hope that Trump actually may do some of what he says.

        Like

      • Not to sound pessimistic about the Economy but even economists talk of an impossible recovery but like yourself, I believe in Trump more than Hillary to get things done. This is more of an election that will determine whether there will still be an America. It has gotten so bad even politicians from Europe are sending their support for Trump as a cry for help. See the < 2 minute clip.

        He couldn't have put it more eloquently and lastly, I will not vote for a closeted Socialist. I appreciate you laying out your perspective and have a great weekend.

        Like

  5. I watched that clip with great amusement. The author has never held elected office, and his political party has won only two minor elections, and has no real influence in Belgium. He carries no weight.

    If this is the sort of “political support” that Trump has in Europe, he has very little indeed.

    I’m minded of some of the interesting discussions in the Libertarian legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy in an article by David Post – who is affiliated with the Cato Institute, as wel as the Center for Democracy and Technology.

    He recently asked two questions which I think every Trump supporter should be able to answer – I’d appreciate knowing yours.

    1. “In light of Trump’s shall-we-say “erratic” behavior (I originally called it “unstable”), what gives you any confidence that he will behave responsibly when he is in command of U.S. armed forces and the U.S. nuclear arsenal?”

    2. “[W]hat makes you think, given his rather long history of conning people, that he’s not conning you now, that he won’t be both unwilling and unable to deliver on any of the things he is promising?”

    I think these are valid questions, and are separate from the more frequently asked questions where people challenge Conservatives for being Conservatives.

    I’ve been following Trump’s biography for a long time – and I think these are excellent questions. Questions that need answers.

    What are your answers?

    Like

    • @ Mark – I don’t know why I bother to even reply since like I said, your so called objective stance is far from being convincing.

      You can say the man in the video has no influence but even a man, deemed insignificant by the world, who happens to carry and speak the truth, believe me, that truth will be heard from all corners of the world but then the mainstream media has done its job in stifling truth.

      You have previously claimed to “try to fight your biases” but it’s so obvious its stays exactly just that, a claim, as you obviously have already made up your mind. I don’t see the point why some people lie to themselves. Don’t try to convince anyone. Believe it or not, some people still have discernment.

      Lastly, respect my desire to disengage especially when the questions being asked are not asked with genuine intent. I for one don’t like wasting my time but if you feel you must have the last word, you can have it.

      Thank You and have a nice day.

      Like

      • Honestly, why would I heed someone who fails to see the blatant evils of an ideology that plagues almost a third of the world in present day? You ignorantly tell people to make more friends with Muslims when the Quran mandates the opposite. By the way, look up the word “Taqiyya.”

        Like

      • Caeli, it is not necessarily blatantly evil. Or if it is, it is no more so than any other major religion.

        I’m not a scholar of religion, but I do read about it consistently. It hardly matters WHICH religious ideology you choose – religion has been used to justify invasions, massacres, lies, coercion. I can provide relevant examples from Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism… the list is long.

        I’m familiar with Taqqyah. Many religions have a similar concept. Taqiyah is relevant NOT as a means of dissimulation toward unbelievers, but as a means of preserving one’s life when one is in fear of religious persecution or death. Judaism has a similar construct, that was used most famously by a sub-group in Spain known as the Marranos or Conversos. This was during a period of Catholic ascendancy in Spain during the 15th century, when Jews were forced to either convert, flee or die. The same principle was used during the Holocaust in the 20th century – many Jews denied their religion to avoid internment, loss of property, or death. There are areas of the world now, where Christians are in similar straits, and often will misrepresent their beliefs in order to avoid death or persecution.

        That is how the overwhelming majority of religious adherents to Islam consider Taqiyah. Just as with Christianity, I have no doubt that there are crazy people who misinterpret their religion in order to use it as a shield for hate, and as a justification for hate-group style activity. (For example, historically the KKK and the John Birch Society were known to use lies and subterfuge to support their mission of white Christian dominance. A quick look at the work of the Southern Poverty Law Center can provide countless contemporary example of bad people abusing religion as a justification to be bad.)

        When I say that people should get to know members of the Islamic faith, it is not from “ignorance”. It is with a peaceful spirit of love and co-existence, informed by a tremendous amount of reading and education. I think you would find, should you open yourself up to knowing people in person, that Islamic peoples are in no real way different than Christian peoples – most are really nice, making their way in the world as best they can.

        Mathew 7:1-3 “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

        You shall be judged by the measure you use against others. (Assuming that you believe in the New Testament… which of course not everyone does.)

        Like

  6. Mark, two points.

    To the extent that Islam is a religion, I’d expect most people to be OK with it and it’s adherents. But, to the extent that Islam is a philosophy calling for world domination, convert or die, and jihad, then I’d hope most people would not be OK with that facet. Yes, there are historical examples in many other religions that were totalitarian and hateful to outsiders, but those are … historical, while there is some evidence that the Islamic version is contemporary. I wouldn’t want to go back to those hateful periods for other religions, and being cautious about current Islamist extremism just seems to be common sense.

    The John Birch Society, from what I’ve read, is not like the KKK. Lumping them together is a tactic that liberals have used for generations, so I suggest that you may want to refrain from using guilt by association. Just being conservative, and wanting to return to the America that the US Constitution actually supports, is not a reason to hurl epithets. If there is something you’ve read (by them – not detractors) that you’d like to criticize, by all means put it out there (here).
    —————

    resterrestern – I hope Assange is safe as well.

    Like

    • Perhaps the JBS wasn’t the best example.

      I find the line between religion as religion and religion as an expansionist philosophy to be a little too subtle to draw.

      One can easily argue that a relevant portion of the current American electorate is Dominionist, and they make no bones about it. The GOP has been more than happy to refine its messages to appease those voters. Depending upon the state you live in, the US is certainly a Christian place. In other states, much less so.

      Point being – it’s probably impossible to draw a line between most major religions on the basis of tolerance, peacefulness, or attempts at national or world domination.

      Like

      • Yes, US policy has been to try to dominate the world – no arguments there. But my point is that there is enough evidence which points to the same coming from people who don’t separate out into nationalities but rather are identified around the world as Islam. When you here of the Califate, that clearly is a dominance philosophy of Islam.

        Like

      • Bob, I was not pointing to US International Policy.

        I was pointing to domestic US Policy by Christian Dominionists, and the way the GOP is more than happy to be their instrumentality.

        I do not want to live in an ISIS Caliphate. Neither do I want to live in a Dominionist “Caliphate” in the US.

        My point was that there are evil factions in every religion. Coloring all co-religionists with the same brush is unfair. Doing it for one religion only, is hypocrisy.

        Like

  7. From experience, people who push for tolerance are the most intolerant… By the way, quoting the bible as if to win a point coming from someone who questions its veracity is the most hypocritical thing a person can do. The verses you quoted contextually applies to when a person is guilty of doing the same thing, like a person who tells his friend to stop smoking when he himself smokes behind his back etc. People use this verse, especially liberals out of context and think they can get away with it. Carefully looking at evidence and considering the ramifications is not judging. Discerning is not the same as judging but apparently, some people have a hard time distinguishing one from the other.

    Also, the Quran substantiates the validity of the Old and New Testament. The Muslims attack Scriptures because it has truth that condemns and shows their false prophet for who he really was, a deceiver.

    It is ignorance to try to appear diplomatic when History proves the inner workings and tactics of such evil ideology and to think they will somehow change when their goal is world domination is nothing more than plain naivete and any consequence from such lack of discernment is well deserved. How can one coexist with someone who wants to kill them? There will be peace alright when everyone else has been converted and subjugated. I sure hope America won’t get to that point.

    P.S. Don’t quote the Bible if you don’t believe it. It makes you look bad.

    Like

    • Caeli – you wrote: “By the way, quoting the bible as if to win a point coming from someone who questions its veracity is the most hypocritical thing a person can do”.

      I am amused.

      First of all – if YOU believe the Bible and observe its precepts (which you have implied you do), then whether I quote it or not is irrelevant. It’s not like you would suddenly get a free pass because an unbeliever quoted the Bible to you.

      And, of course, just because I don’t think it is divinely inspired wisdom, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t contain some common sense or useful aphorisms. I’ve quoted lines from novels that I think are insightful – that doesn’t mean I think Michael Valentine Smith lived on Mars…

      The rich and almost painful irony of you choosing to ignore a Biblical warning on hypocrisy, and then calling me hypocritical, was a great laugh. Thank you.

      The reason I quoted Mathew to you, was because you are treating Islam as being substantially different in every way from the other major religions of the world. It isn’t. All of them have historic (and sometimes current) factions that use those religions as justification to kill, to dominate others, to treat non-believers as lesser than believers.

      All of them. Christianity included.

      In all cases (including Christianity), the overwhelming majority of practitioners are good and decent people that seek to do well to all.

      So, “Judge not, lest ye be judged”, etcetera. And, importantly – do not judge all by the worst, because that is unfair to them. If it were done to you, would be unfair to you.

      Also, when it comes to people in need, let’s look at another famous quotation from Mathew 25:35 “For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in.”

      If you believe, do not be inconsistent in your beliefs. Whether it is I that point out the need, or our Pastor/Minister/Priest or otherwise.

      The Old and New Testament are filled with imprecations to be kind, to be charitable, to be good to those in need. Do you pick and choose your faith like at a buffet table?

      (Next up: 1 John 4:20, Mathew 7:5 (again), Mathew 15:7-9, Romans 2:1-5, 1 John 2:9.)

      And especially James 2:14-26: “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”

      One of my favorite quotations, for decades, has been this one attributed to Saint Francis of Assissi: “Preach the Gospel unceasingly. If necessary, use words”.

      Your words, and your defense of lack of deeds towards people in need – are remarkable.

      I, who do not believe, most frequently act the way Christians or Muslims who believe, are taught to act.

      You, who profess belief – could start acting the part. Or, as you have done here in this discussion, choose not to.

      If you are correct in your beliefs, it’s not my judgement you should be concerned with. “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.” (Mathew 6:1)

      And you called me a hypocrite…. funny.

      Like

      • Again, a blatant misapplication of scripture coming from someone who does not believe in its inerrancy and veracity. People have no business quoting something they don’t believe in, although I get some people quote something to debunk something but this here is obviously not the case. You are using something you DO NOT believe to try to argue your case… Wow. I don’t know how exactly you can justify that but as for myself, I will not be quoting something I do not believe in… Apparently the word hypocrite struck a nerve.

        People may see my stance as a lack or compassion for refugees but even God knows that is not the case. But do heed my advice. Don’t quote scriptures if you do not believe it… It will only seal your hypocrisy.

        Lastly, Jesus himself spoke out against hypocrisy of the men who appeared to be oh so righteous but guess what? Not even lip service can fool a discerning spirit.

        Like

      • @ Mark, This is really embarrassing on your part, because the last quote you have there Matthew 6:1, only proves that I am NOT the hypocrite you paint me to be since it implies that if I were to do something for God, it should be done in a way not to call attention to myself for people to say how noble a deed I have done. So whatever good thing I do for God towards other people, no one will ever know since it will not be blared with a trumpet to say, “Ooooh, look how righteous I am.” That is what the hypocrites do.

        Read on to Matthew 6:2, the very next verse of what you quoted,”So when you give to the needy, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be praised by men.”

        This is why I keep telling you to stop quoting scripture. Even scripture itself points to your hypocrisy. Sorry.

        Like

      • How does scripture point to hypocrisy on my part?

        Note that it is the Syrian refugees that most require aid and assistance… which you would withhold.

        Like

      • First of all Mr. Shapiro, I sincerely apologize for not being able to hold my response to Mark in defense as they clearly needed to be addressed and this will be my last reply to clarify where I truly stand.

        The US can help the refugees by building a safe zone and settlements somewhere else in the Middle East. The Syrians do not need to be airlifted to far lands which by the way cost money when they have Arab countries nextdoor who happen to believe in Muhammad as well but the sad part is, even Muslims don’t get along with the moderates, a problem these people need to resolve within their own religious sect.

        If they are going to waste money to bring the refugees by the droves to the US, why not spend that money on settlements rather than bringing them to the West? These same refugees are placed on welfare and housing in a country that is already in deep debt who can’t even take care of its own homeless people and taking on more debt ignoring fiscal responsibility.

        But I suppose that is exactly what they want to achieve and the Muslims are not scant in making their agenda known via cell phone video footage from people who share it on social media, Islamic people who make their boasts about what they plan to do. The goal is to Islamisize the West. Most people want to play blind.

        I don’t know if any of you believe in Bible prophecy but I do. There will be a resurgence in Anti-Semitism, and not just that, also anti-Christian sentiments and Islam happens to have utmost hatred for both groups and it is in their Quran.

        So in the end, it is a sad thing about the refugees. But if bringing them here would mean the onset of the end of America, I choose my country over the refugees. It is the prudent thing to do.

        Like

  8. I expect that lying is of two forms. One is for self-protection, and that doesn’t give me a problem. The other is for fraud, and that could be commercial (“my product has x property”, but it really doesn’t), or it could be political (“I’ll be your ally”, but then I attack you or steal your secrets). That’s not OK, since it is intended to hurt another, not ust to protect you.

    Like

  9. Under no circumstance is lying ever okay but being that everyone is fallible, lying comes naturally as a defense mechanism to preserve one’s reputation as in the case we see in Hillary Clinton. The latter you mentioned is the one strategically employed in Islam’s Taqiyya and as you can see, it has been an effective tool in the Islamization of Europe and they are using the same tactic here with the mainstream media disseminating the whitewashed version of the religion of peace. With all the suicide bombings unabashedly claimed by Islamists, it would not be judging when you call them terrorists since they proudly own and claim the terror attacks. It would be reiterating a fact. The sad thing is, Muslims who do want to live in peace are not really even considered as real Muslims by the Islamic fundamentalists that even they would not think twice in attacking them. How truly sick is this ideology and it’s being shoved to Americans.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s