Different Risks for Different Faiths Suggest That Religious Consideration for Refugees Is Reasonable

justin-katz-avatar-smiling

This Perry Chiaramonte article on FoxNews provides an important reminder both to Western Christians and to our non-Christian peers who see us as the enemy:

The report comes on the heels of another study by the Center for Studies on New Religions that showed nearly 90,000 Christians were killed for their faith in 2016 and that as many as 600 million were prevented from practicing their faith through intimidation, forced conversions, bodily harm or even death.

“These numbers underscore what we already know,” Robert Nicholson of the Philos Project, an advocacy group for Christianity in the Middle East, told Fox News at the time of the report’s release. “There are many places on Earth where being a Christian is the most dangerous thing you can be. Those who think of Christianity as a religion of the powerful need to see that in many places it’s a religion of the powerless. And the powerless deserve to be protected.”

The reality of different degrees of risk around the world for people of different religions shines a different light on domestic arguments about policy.  In discussion of who can come to the United States in order to escape persecution and danger — refugees, which derives from the word “refuge,” let’s not forget — I have to confess that I find religion to be an absolutely appropriate criterion.  A blanket ban on a particular religion goes too far, in my view, but if left-wingers scream about a “Muslim ban” based on geographic restrictions, they’d obviously find religious-preference rules beyond the pale, even though it would arguably be more reasonable and humane.

Taking a step back, progressives should understand that a great many people agree with me on this point, and harassing them into silence only hardens positions and makes problems more difficult to solve.



  • Mike678

    In their emotional zeal to import people from failed/failing nations people often ignore the long-term ramifications of their actions–and fail to ask questions such as:

    What gap in the US requires more refugees to fill? How many is enough? When do we stop? It will, of course, stop naturally when conditions in the US equal those in other nations… Do we really want this?

    Is the role of the US Gov’t to improve the lives of other countries people? Or is it to protect US lives and interests?

    What has the refugee influx done to Germany, France, Sweden and Norway? Has it made these countries better/stronger?

    Do people really understand that Islam isn’t a religion as we understand it–but more a way of life? A way of life inimical to current US culture? You are correct in your portrayal of non-Muslim persecution by Muslims. Once their population gets over 40% in an area, it starts. Research “dhimmi.”

    If we vet parents, does that mean their kids won’t become radicalized, e.g, the Boston Bomber? Yes–small numbers today. But if we double or and triple our immigration… What amount of terror do progressives accept?

  • Rhett Hardwick

    Not all Muslims are Islamic Terrorists;
    But all Islamic Terrorists are Muslims

    Could someone point out the facts underlying “Diversity is our strength”. Haven’t we always struggled toward homogenization?

    • Mike678

      I’ve asked the diversity question several times. It seems that our progressives can’t defend or talk to it, so they put their heads in the sand and ignore it.

      • Rhett Hardwick

        Well, George Washington Carver gave us peanut butter.

Quantcast