If America is at war with an ideology, would it not make perfect sense to ban those coming into our country who adhere to that same doctrine? Yet Trump was vilified by the left when he said last December that he wanted, “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”
Some would argue that a religious test to screen immigrants is unconstitutional, but Andrew McCarthy disagrees and points out the religious litmus test was only to be used for those wanting to enter public office. He went on further to verify our right to vet immigrants through what their beliefs are. He said,
“And just as we have a right to consider the religious convictions of candidates for public office, so too do we have a right to require scrutiny of the beliefs of aliens who petition for entry into our country — a privilege we are under no obligation to confer. This includes beliefs the alien may regard as tenets of his faith — especially if such “faith tenets” involve matters of law, governance, economy, combat, and interpersonal relations that, in our culture’s separation of church and state, are not seen as spiritual.”
Trump’s vice presidential running mate, Mike Pence, has tried to soften Trump’s meaning by backing away from that original statement, as the Republican candidate for President has as well. They both seem to go back and forth from barring Muslims temporarily to banning all immigrants from countries sponsoring terrorism. In a recent radio interview Pence said,
“That’s what Donald Trump and I are calling for now, is to have a temporary suspension of immigration from countries or territories compromised by terrorism, and I believe that’s an appropriate action given the horrendous, horrendous violence that we see,”
However, Trump needs to double down on his suggested ban of Muslims. He needs to do this because it makes sense. Trump’s support and following grew huge because he made common sense statements that he didn’t apologize for, and he should continue to do so in the future. Americans, as a whole, are wary of politicians’ apologies. You can’t take one step in the political arena without stepping on them.
When Trump proposed the ban on Muslims he was essentially identifying who the enemy claims to be, something the Obama administration has yet to do. And no wonder, if you name the enemy, which in my mind is the Islamic ideology, then actions should follow that definition. This is why Obama will always steer clear of defining it.
Nobody wants to come out and say all Muslims are the enemy, but the ideology embraced by those responsible for committing terrorist attacks every 84 hours just happen to follow Islam. That is not some crazy coincidence.
The ban suggested by Trump is also why the left has bound together with the Muslim community to defeat Trump. After all, they can’t abide the thought of not coexisting with all the movements in America who are attacking God-given freedoms.
The left has to stick together, you know. Even in the face of all the Islamic terrorism with machetes, buses, knives, bombs and yes, even guns. They cannot allow themselves to come to grip with the fact that all of these attacks are driven and inspired by an ideology that is embraced by Muslims. That just wouldn’t fit their world view.
Wonder if those jumping all over Trump about being xenophobic, Islamophobic, etc., ever consider what is happening across the ocean in Europe? In fact there was a recent debate concerning the delegalizing of Islam in Poland. One of the debaters was Miriam Shaded, president of the Estera-Fund, who gave several points as to why Islam should be outlawed in her country. When asked her reasoning behind the criminalization, Shadad said,
“It is against the Constitution, those who leave Islam have to fear death. Islam calls for violence and its attempts to bring this system and ideology to power in certain countries, into certain structures-with the use of violence…Their approach towards women, discrimination, beatings, molestation, necrophilia, zoophilia, all that is legitimized by the Qu’ran.”
Her supposed opponent, Lesek Samorski, found it difficult to counter her reasoning and ended up agreeing with her as far as characterizing Islam, but differed as far as how to go about discouraging the criminal acts perpetrated by Muslims in Poland. He stated,
“…I am absolutely against what is happening now-the Islamic hordes that want to enter Europe…We had problems with them for centuries and we solved them with fire and sword.”
One thing is for sure, this debate over what to do with the Islamic ideology and Muslims who adhere to it is far from over. From deciding if Muslims should be banned from entry into the country, to deciding whether or not to allow them to legally follow the Qu’ran is a serious issue, and it must be determined.
Further, a discussion and study to whether Islam should even be classified as a religion verses a cult or a major political ideology needs to be happening in the public arena. And our leaders need to define the enemy and act accordingly.
A strong leader says what he means, and makes no adjustments. Winston Churchill said this about the religion, and nothing transformational has taken place within Islam since.
“But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance...It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness.”
Right after the Pulse Islamic attack in Florida the Muslim ban had a majority of support by the Republicans, but has since waned. Americans need to come to a decision about whether they support the ban or not, and stick with it. And if public support continues to be fickle, Trump just needs to wait for the next jihadi attack to propose it again. We all know it is just a matter of time.