- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Trump Trashes Religious Freedom

Here’s a formal statement — not an off-the-cuff remark, but a formal statement — by Donald J. Trump. [1] Excerpts:

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing “25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad” and 51% of those polled, “agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah.” Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won’t convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.

Mr. Trump stated, “Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again.”

This is disgusting. I believe that it is reasonable to be restrictive about Islamic immigration to the US, and I despise the way the mainstream media has always gone out of its way to avert its eyes from domestic Islamic radicalism. But there is nothing reasonable about banning travel to the US on the basis of religion. What kind of respect does Trump have for religious freedom? It’s a relief to know that should Trump become president and try to implement such a plan, the Supreme Court would shoot it down in a heartbeat. Still, that a leading presidential candidate would take such a stand is profoundly disturbing.

Religious freedom matters, and not just for people who pray like the rest of us do. It is within the realm of possibility that one day in the far future, the US government will be compelled to implement such an extreme measure for the sake of national security. But if we do arrive at such a day, America as we know it will be over anyway. Conservatives would be fools to hasten the day by cheering for Trump’s radicalism.

UPDATE:

And this from Southern Baptist leader Russell Moore: [4]

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.

Folks, I still don’t believe Donald Trump will be either the GOP nominee or the next president, but let me tell you, you will remember how you responded to him at moments like this.

UPDATE.2: Six years ago, the conservative Catholic philosophy professor Frank Beckwith reminded friends and colleagues arguing for ending Muslim immigration to the US of how Protestants here once regarded Catholic immigrants.  [5] Keep extremists of all kinds out, he said, but don’t make all members of a religion suffer for the sins of a few.

Also, here’s a three-minute video of US Sen. Ben Sasse responding to the San Bernardino massacre. There are parts of this that I would quibble with — maybe I’ll blog about them tomorrow — but this is pretty much the ideal Republican response. It’s far stronger and more convincing than what President Obama said last night, and it’s indescribably better than Trump’s rabble-rousing. Ben Sasse could take Trump apart in debate, I bet:

Advertisement
249 Comments (Open | Close)

249 Comments To "Trump Trashes Religious Freedom"

#1 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On December 8, 2015 @ 9:43 pm

I would be totally in favor of returning to an ethnically pure pre-1840s Anglo-Saxon America if it means we can deport Antonin Scalia.

Point. Joseph Story was a classic bigot, who didn’t like Catholics, Italians, or Jews, at a time when mention of Muslims was a gratuitous theoretical whipping boy.

Research shows diversity undermines social capital and trust.

My life experience is quite the opposite. IF Robert Putnam wants to bowl alone, he can, but a full ten frames go by awfully quickly, leaving one with a sense that one has not got one’s money’s worth. I can’t remember the last time everyone I bowled with looked like me.

#2 Comment By TinaM On December 8, 2015 @ 9:47 pm

Wake up America and know what you are! The NewBostonPost published a column on the importance of religious freedom and pluralism in America today:

[6]

#3 Comment By Michael Heraklios On December 8, 2015 @ 11:00 pm

I was listening to Michael Savage earlier today, and he brought up an interesting point.

I took it as borderline religion bashing, but he essentially shifted away from Islam for a moment and said that we need “to reevaluate religion altogether in this country”. This came in the context of his rant about how the Catholic Church and other religious institutions (including Jewish ones) are all for the immigration, since they need more people to fill in the increasing number of empty seats (not to mention the whole “compassionate religion” angle). No idea if there is truth to his statement, but it got me thinking.

I can see a lot of this right-wing rhetoric eventually morphing into a general hatred against all religion.

It will begin with Islam, but eventually all religion will be seen as a potential problem. They will peddle the idea that religion has to fit the norms of secular morality, or it has to go. There will be little room for any kind of common ground.

[NFR: This is exactly what I worry about in this episode. — RD]

#4 Comment By KD On December 8, 2015 @ 11:34 pm

Of course Islam is a religion. But religious freedom is primarily a right of CITIZENS of America. We have historically favored and disfavored religious groups in immigration policies. This is not interfering with anyone’s “right to religion”, its is a decision about who we want to admit, and who we don’t want to admit.

Further, unless you really are libertopian open borders, because there are more that want to come than we want, we have to make choices on the basis of something.

But the reality is that Protestant theology was based on sola scriptora combined with individual conscience (in contrast to the Pope acting as a spiritual monarch). Because Protestantism was highly individualistic, it was also highly sectarian, lots of sects.

So you are founding a Protestant country settled by an assortment of Protestant dissenters, trying to create a Federal government out of a patchwork of States (something like 4 of which had different established churches), you get the “Non-Establishment Clause” and the “Free Exercise Clause”.

These were intended to prevent sectarian/political battles between Protestant sects in the first sense, not to require Americans to accept immigrants who practice polygamy or Hindus who practice human sacrifice and cannibalism:

[7]

[8]

The fundamental “core” of the Free Exercise Clause is the protection of Protestant modes of religion and spirituality, based on a Protestant/individualistic understanding of “Faith”. What is or resembles Protestantism is protected (e.g. Catholicism), whereas what does not (polygamy, peyotism, etc.) is not protected. At least, that is a gross oversimplification of the jurisprudence, but a decent rule of thumb.

Further, even if you say that this approach is wrong, what are you going to use as a concrete paradigm as a basis of comparison if you reject Protestantism? Catholicism? Orthodoxy? Islam? Buddhism (not very well understood in the West btw)? Same problem of particularity and “bigotry”. You have to start with a concrete paradigm as a basis for analogy, and whatever particular paradigm you select will be open to a charge of bigotry. Further, trying to find a tradition that resembles the polar opposite of Protestantism (say Aztec reconstructionism) will problem not produce judicial outcomes that seculars will appreciate.

Traditional Islam is pretty different from American norms, which are all mostly derived from Protestantism. Issues like wife beatings, consummated child marriages, hijab, rules that a woman’s testimony is worth 1/2 of a man’s, polygamy, will not go over well.

Stack on more ethnic customs like honor killings, female genital mutilation, acid attacks, and much greater tolerance of relationships between men and children (see William S. Burrough’s work on this point), well, you may have problems between the natives and the new comers.

Then you throw on the House of Saud’s attempts to push a very fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, on top of the above features, as well as the trend toward revolutionary Islamic movements.

Let’s not forget America’s own special relationship with Israel, and the effects of a significant Muslim demographic on that relationship.

From a practical perspective, you are really taking on quite a tall order, and for what, to prove to your friends you are not racist or Islamophobic? Trump oversimplifies, and everything is a nail in search of a hammer, but knee-jerk liberal/libertarianism on this issue is even more naive and stupid. People from other cultures are not all secular liberals ready to flower (some might be), they are mostly very different, more different in many ways than conservatives and liberals, who share an European Enlightenment tradition.

#5 Comment By KD On December 8, 2015 @ 11:57 pm

Scott in PA:

I think I was misunderstood. Justice Story provides a sound understanding of the First Amendment with respect to religion and state, which I may not agree with entirely, but it provides a foundation from which to build.

In contrast, rather than viewing the First Amendment as a generalization from a particular set of social forms, what we get today is an abstract and universal understanding of the First Amendment, which is totally useless to law, because law is all about making exceptions and distinctions. Further, I see no way to make “principled” exceptions save based on historical practice via analogy.

After all, the primary distinction/exclusion in a Nation-State is between citizens and non-citizens. Citizens are entitled to legal admittance, non-citizens can be deported or denied entry. What distinguishes the two?

Essentially, historical accident, this one was born here or to these parents, and that one was born there to those parents. Totally arbitrary, but based on precedent. (This is why case law and not a priori philosophy is important to law, which is closest to theology in this sense.)

#6 Comment By M_Young On December 9, 2015 @ 1:28 am

“This came in the context of his rant about how the Catholic Church and other religious institutions (including Jewish ones) are all for the immigration, since they need more people to fill in the increasing number of empty seats (not to mention the whole “compassionate religion” angle). ”

Google ‘volags’, the refugee resettlement contractors who do pretty well by doing ‘good’. They get tax dollars to inundate communities with refugees, and the biggest are affiliated with churches (US Conference of Bishops, Luther Social Service, Hebrew Aid society).

To me, this is very different than private spirituality or morality. It is different than causing ‘harm’ by denying, say, the use of the parish hall for a lesbian wedding reception. It is direct participation in government, not to inform morals or spiritual well being, but in ways that actually transform communities in ways that the existing residents don’t particularly care for. It is different to even trying to inform the debate over immigration in moral or spiritual terms. I don’t appreciate the moral blackmail that I believe the churches exert on this issue, but at least they are not directly benefiting from my tax dollars in that capacity. Serving as an agent of the government in order to transform America, and getting paid, is quite another matter.

#7 Comment By William Dalton On December 9, 2015 @ 1:30 am

Trump is no threat to get the Republican nomination, despite what the press will tell you about polls (at this point they are a gauge only of candidate’s celebrity, in which Trump is the acknowledged winner, not their desirability to be the Party’s Presidential candidate). What he does is expose the other “serious” candidates for the frauds and fools they are, as their prescriptions for handling the “threat” of Islamic terrorism are no less reckless and hardly less offensive than those of Trump himself. In fact, the present policies of President Obama regarding drone attacks on suspected terrorists, the attempt to censor such speech from the internet, and the desire to break into anyone’s encrypted email communication and read it on the chance it may reveal a terrorist plot are unconstitutional on their face. Nothing Trump proposes should be considered more scandalous.

#8 Comment By Lise M. Niesen On December 9, 2015 @ 3:58 am

Do you remember this article Rod wrote about lynchnings in the South?

Heading: “When ISIS Ran the American South”

[9]

#9 Comment By Fran Macadam On December 9, 2015 @ 4:47 am

“[NFR: This is exactly what I worry about in this episode. — RD]”

Not to worry.

It was just the previous news cycle that folks hostile to Christianity posited that every traditional Christian was really a secret sympathizer of the schizophrenic abortion clinic attacker.

Now we’re in the reaction phase of the radical Muslim ISIS sympathizers’ mass terrorist attack. These folks, so completely normal to their community (except for the neighbors afraid to report their suspicious activities for fear of being labeled bigots) were able to build bombs and plan even more devastating attacks. If the groundless arguments of being terror-symps against Christians are credible, why do these same folk regard suspicions that there may be some sympathy among Muslims for the terrorists’ cause as groundless bigotry?

The facts are, as the numerous FBI stings reveal, with 15,000 paid informants claimed to be in the field, there really is a considerable number of sympathetic, if hapless and incompetent individuals willing to be entrapped into trying their hands at attacks. The number of western recruits, including from the United States, of domestic self radicalized would be recruits to ISIS, is considerable – if that’s not sympathy to their cause, what is?

So it appears that those who are hostile to Christianity in America, as benign as it is, are equally committed to portray Islamists, as covertly hostile as some may understandably feel, and a significant number have proven to be, as universally benign.

#10 Comment By HP On December 9, 2015 @ 4:59 am

“They hate us for our freedom”, really? Give me Obama any day, at least he doesn’t think that he’s talking to morons.

#11 Comment By Isidore The Farmer On December 9, 2015 @ 5:17 am

I do have to agree with DSP that Russell Moore is maddening since he is clearly NOT in favor of seeing Southern Baptists disengage from politics, but instead merely wants to see the denomination swap one set for another. He really should be more honest about that.

#12 Comment By Clint On December 9, 2015 @ 6:34 am

Rand Paul introduced legislation last month,which would require the Department of Homeland Security to suspend the issuing of visas to nationals of countries with a high risk of terrorism until additional security screening could be implemented.
The high risk of terrorism comes from approximately 34 countries and a pause in immigration would be placed on those countries.

Rand Paul’s legislation is constitutional, as opposed to Trump’s unconstitutional badly thought out plan.

#13 Comment By MH – Secular Misanthropist On December 9, 2015 @ 6:46 am

[NFR: This is exactly what I worry about in this episode. — RD]

Which would be ironic because it isn’t the evil atheist conspiracy starting the attack. Trump’s support is high among right wing Christians.

#14 Comment By Glaivester On December 9, 2015 @ 8:25 am

Talk of Rafael Cruz, Mario Rubio Reina, Oriales Rubio, and Abdulfattah “John” Jandali (Steve Jobs’ biological father), ignores the fact that each of them came to America during the 50s, in the late middle of the “immigration pause” of 1924-1965 (all three of the Cubans came in before Castro came to power and we created the generous anti-Castro refugee policy). So these were people who came in as exceptions that were allowed in under a quite strict immigration policy.

None of these cases make a good argument for post-1965 policies.

As for Trump’s specific policy, as I understand it he is already backing away from the more extreme portions of it, suggesting as others have said that this was a negotiation ploy (I tend to think that his tax plan is also thus, and that he ultimately would work for something more moderate – I don’t think his first offer should ever be seen as what he is actually angling for).

#15 Comment By Franklin Evans On December 9, 2015 @ 9:51 am

Red Alert!! Dangerous argument by analogy!!!

Ahem.

The violations of our Constitution during the World Wars happened under a declared state of war. One can (and probably should) quibble about timing, but in the end there was de facto and sometimes de jure martial law in effect.

Comparing that to our present slide towards the same violations is like comparing the deliberate detonation of a dirty bomb in an urban place to the eruption of a volcano in the North Atlantic.

Suspicion (and yes, paranoia) during war is unavoidable. This in no way justifies it, of course, but does adequately explain it beyond any endemic prejudice towards the target groups.

Actually, a better comparison point was provided by G. W. Bush. An act of war on American soil was answered by his ordering an act of war against the perpetrators in Afghanistan. A politicized opportunity to profit from our paranoia at the time resulted in his immoral and I assert unconstitutional invasion of Iraq.

I was going to label Trump a fascist, but I’ve provided more than enough fodder to call me Mr. Obvious. Ahem.

#16 Comment By JDinsSR On December 9, 2015 @ 9:52 am

@Michael Heraklios
“I was listening to Michael Savage earlier today, and he brought up an interesting point.

I took it as borderline religion bashing, but he essentially shifted away from Islam for a moment and said that we need “to reevaluate religion altogether in this country”.”

. . . .

“It will begin with Islam, but eventually all religion will be seen as a potential problem. They will peddle the idea that religion has to fit the norms of secular morality, or it has to go. There will be little room for any kind of common ground.

[NFR: This is exactly what I worry about in this episode. — RD]

Interesting point.

Michael Savage is an outlier on Talk Radio when it comes to religion, but yes, the ties between the Religious Right and Economic/Corporate/Tax Cut Right and Rebel Yell Right seem to be fraying more and more.

#17 Comment By JDinsSR On December 9, 2015 @ 9:56 am

@KD
“Traditional Islam is pretty different from American norms, which are all mostly derived from Protestantism. Issues like wife beatings, consummated child marriages, hijab, rules that a woman’s testimony is worth 1/2 of a man’s, polygamy, will not go over well.”

I agree the things you list above are problems — they don’t mesh well with American society/culture.

However, to this point, what percentage of Muslim immigrants can be characterized from the above list? I don’t know the answer to that question exactly, but my impression is that a large portion of Muslims coming to this country want to escape the things you list above.

#18 Comment By ADCWonk On December 9, 2015 @ 10:07 am

Do we wish we had prevented Cruz’s and Rubio’s parents from immigrating

Uh, from an American point of view, yes?

Wow. So, which nationalities do you wish we had excluded? My father-in-law is a typical Midwestern WASP. As I am into genealogy, I see that, going back far enough, I see, in his ancestry, some Mayflower folks, as well as English, Welsh, Irish, Norwegian, French, German, and Dutch. How do those rate “from an American point of view”?

#19 Comment By KD On December 9, 2015 @ 11:09 am

JDinSR:

I agree with you completely, many Muslims immigrating to America want to escape their own societies and cultures, and many don’t care much about Islam and are simply interested in being somewhere where they can get ahead faster.

But the problem is that even a small group (500) of operatives can cause major problems.

I don’t think there is an easy answer here. Trump lacks nuance, but so do his critics. I don’t think the Trump critics are doing a very good job of reassuring people that the security concerns are being sufficiently addressed, nor are they expressing why accepting these refugees are in the national interest, rather than based on sentiment and/or neoliberal class warfare.

#20 Comment By ADCWonk On December 9, 2015 @ 11:15 am

It’s “us” against “them”.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Because it’s not correct. Look, world politics isn’t simple. For starters, who is “them.”? All Muslims? Do you think that alienating allies such as Egypt and Jordan will help us defeat Islamic jihadism? Are five year old orphans who are *victims* of ISIS part of the “them”? Does alienating the quarter-billion-person-size country of Indonesia help our foreign interests?

Or is “them” every non-American? If we can’t even “fix” Iraq, do you think we can defeat 1+ billion Muslims?

#21 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On December 9, 2015 @ 11:55 am

Of course Islam is a religion. But religious freedom is primarily a right of CITIZENS of America.

Many of whom are indeed Muslim. If you consider the main point of the Supreme Court ruling in Holy Trinity v. United States of America (Holy Trinity being an Episcopalian church, not the Big Three in persons), if a church of American citizens can import a priest from England without going through all the immigration hoops, so can American citizens who are Muslim.

E.g.

Trump’s support is high among right wing Christians.

This has been denied by another commenter (I remember because he was responding to a question I had somewhat facetiously raised about the religiosity of Trump’s base). At this point I would like to see some stats if anyone is going to make such an assertion.

#22 Comment By KD On December 9, 2015 @ 12:27 pm

It needs to be understood that in the 18th Century, “No Establishment of Religion” was contrary to Roman Catholicism in the same way “Marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman” is contrary to gay rights activists.

In the mid-19th century, a conservative Catholic arguing for a secular state would find themselves ex-communicated. The change between the 18th century and today has been in Roman Catholicism, especially after Vatican II, but we lose the historical (anti-Catholic) context of “no Establishment of Religion” and how it is integrally connected to the extreme reform wing of Northern European Protestant theology.

That is to say, it is not universalist, it is a consequence of Protestant self-understanding.

#23 Comment By KD On December 9, 2015 @ 12:32 pm

#24 Comment By JDinsSR On December 9, 2015 @ 12:33 pm

@KD

“But the problem is that even a small group (500) of operatives can cause major problems.

I don’t think there is an easy answer here. Trump lacks nuance, but so do his critics. I don’t think the Trump critics are doing a very good job of reassuring people that the security concerns are being sufficiently addressed, nor are they expressing why accepting these refugees are in the national interest, rather than based on sentiment and/or neoliberal class warfare.”

I agree.

Five, 50 or 500 actual terrorists entering the country is a problem, and it’s not a good argument to say, “Well, most of [insert group] are peaceful and loving.

That said, how do we best combat the overall problem?

If Trump’s near-blanket ban on Muslims entering the country exacerbates the problem (by radicalizing those already here, encouraging ISIS recruitment, etc.), then let’s not do stupid things.

That said, I don’t believe for a second that Trump’s primary objective is fixing the problem. He’s trying to boost his poll numbers. If it hurts our efforts combatting actual terrorism, oh well.

There’s a legitimate debate that can and should happen; Presidential primary politics (especially in the age of Trump) ain’t helping, in my view.

#25 Comment By JonF On December 9, 2015 @ 2:08 pm

Re: But religious freedom is primarily a right of CITIZENS of America.

No, Emphatically. The rights guaranteed in the Constitution are the rights of Persons (all human beings without exception, insofar as they happen to reside under American jurisdiction), unless they are limited by language explicitly noting that.

Re: A politicized opportunity to profit from our paranoia at the time resulted in his immoral and I assert unconstitutional invasion of Iraq.

And even so among Mr. Bush’s better deeds was the fact that he flat-out refused to play the bigotry card against Muslims in general.

#26 Comment By M_Young On December 9, 2015 @ 2:26 pm

“If Trump’s near-blanket ban on Muslims entering the country exacerbates the problem (by radicalizing those already here, encouraging ISIS recruitment, etc.), then let’s not do stupid things.”

What evidence that it will lead to more ‘radicalization’ ? Significant numbers [10], despite the entry of more than one million Muslims since 9/11. Despite ‘Dubya’s’ islamophilia. Despite a quasi-Muslim president for the last six years.

As a counter example, look at Japanese-Americans. There was substantial support for imperial Japan among that population; their removal from the West Coast sort of beat it out of them. They are now just about the best group in America — and were so long before the Reagan payoff — and unfortunately are intermarrying so much they are disappearing.

#27 Comment By JDinsSR On December 9, 2015 @ 3:14 pm

M_Young

1) “the entry of more than one million Muslims since 9/11”

Do you happen to have a non-partisan source for this claim? Just curious.

2) “Despite a quasi-Muslim president for the last six years.”

Quasi-Muslim? And you expect to be taken seriously? Why not just go all the way and call him the n-word?

3) “As a counter example, look at Japanese-Americans. There was substantial support for imperial Japan among that population; their removal from the West Coast sort of beat it out of them. They are now just about the best group in America — and were so long before the Reagan payoff — and unfortunately are intermarrying so much they are disappearing.

So much to love in this:

— “beat it out of them”
— Intermarrying! I know, doesn’t anybody care about pure blood lines anymore!

#28 Comment By KD On December 9, 2015 @ 4:19 pm

I guess I would distinguish between political judgments and categorical judgments, and state I think immigration is, must always remain, a political question.

As far as categorical judgments, I mean something like torture is categorically wrong, rounding people up on the basis of ethnic or religious status and putting them in concentration camps is categorically wrong, etc. You could also characterize these as ideological judgments.

In contrast are political judgments, are African-American’s oppressed by our current immigration policies. You can make a judgment, pro or con, and probably make an argument in favor of your judgment, pro or con.

Who we deem to admit to America is in essence a political question–someone just has to make a decision, and someone will always be able to second guess it. We will never agree on political questions, because if we did, the question would cease to be political (most people who are not perverse in Western societies reject the Divine Right of Kings-it is no longer really political, you are just an eccentric if you want to resurrect it.)

Obviously, the question of what is a categorical question and what is a political question is itself a political question, and therein lies one of the limits of ideology, others will start from another place, even if your system is relatively coherent.

The benefit of Trump is he is politicizing the question of immigration policy, which has been treated basically categorically since 1965. Like all policies, immigration policy has winners and losers, and so Trump is giving a voice to some of the political losers under the status quo. (And this begs the existential question of who you identify with and what side you are on, which can only be answered by the individual.)

At the same time, mass politics is a pretty crude and vulgar sport, Trump gets that, but I understand other’s revulsion, just tell me a better way to precipitate change in a mass democracy. . . certainly not through a campus debating society.

#29 Comment By KD On December 9, 2015 @ 4:38 pm

There is an important difference between policing and soldiering.

Wars are fought between groups, generally nation-states, and one acts against a collective, often taking what we would consider to be the lives of innocents. One is killed, wounded, tortured or imprisoned in a war based on your perceived status (membership in some kind of group).

In contrast, from an English common law perspective, crimes are committed by individuals, and criminal sanctions are based on individual actions and surrounding context. You are punished for actions you choose to take, not on the basis of your belonging in some group.

Revolutionary politics, of the left or right variety, is about essentially politicizing difference, breaking down individualized justice and fomenting a civil war against members of the evil status group, on the basis of their perceived status. Ergo, Pol Pot.

I understand the humanitarian urge to want to legally treat non-citizens in accordance with an individualized legal framework. But I think it is unfeasible, as it is maintaining a boundary between an inside and an outside that keeps out war. Sure, if you could expand a global hegemonic system unified under one power based on individualized justice, you could do it. But you can’t have a system of law unless it is backed by a unified power to enforce and interpret what it means. So my fear is that failing to distinguish between citizen and non-citizen rather than export individualistic norms of justice, will rather import collectivist norms of warfare.

#30 Comment By John Leland On December 9, 2015 @ 7:38 pm

Way back in the days when tens of thousands of Europeans were first preparing to go to America ~ roughly 1604 ~ the King of Spain, Filipe II/III carved the place up ~ some to Scotland, some to France, other places to Portugal, a huge portion to Russia ~ primarily because NOBODY KNEW how huge North America was!

Then, there was this desolate wasteland on the Eastern Seaboard that’d been abandoned by the Indians ~ it was trapped in a decades long drought ~ he gave that to his Protestant subjects throughout the many lands he, as a Hapsburg Monarch ruled, or influenced.

He made rules that would separate the Catholics from the Protestants, and vice versa.

Those rules were held inviolate until 1791 with the promulgation of the United States of America’s Bill of Rights guaranteeing religious freedom.

A more detailed analysis indicates that the first three amendments were specifically directed at keeping the USA open for Protestants ~ but others were welcomed.

So, in response to the claim that the USA has been hard on Catholic immigrants, total BS ~ even the King of Spain directed that there be NO Catholic immigrants going to what became the core area of the USA ~

The USA liberated itself from the Old World. Catholics came.

That’s why they are here in large numbers to kvetch about being kept out, but they’ve got the actors wrong. His Catholic Majesty, King of Spain, Filipe II/III kept them out!

Now, about Moslems ~ they need to REJECT several of the fundamental tenets of the Koranic belief system. The first one is about MURDER.

They have to openly pledge to reject the belief that they must murder Apostates, Atheists, Pagans, Jews, Yazidis, Hypocrites, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, …… and a myriad of other people who adhere to just all sorts of religions.

Possibly they need to post bond against engaging in the act for any reason, or providing support and assistants of any kind to anyone acting on that belief.

There’s no reason whatsoever to be soft on these guys. They won’t be soft on you!

#31 Comment By Hector_St_Clare On December 10, 2015 @ 9:24 am

DC Wonk,

I’m not sure what your father in law has to do with anything. Cruz and Rubio are both part of the Cuban exile lobby, which has had an extremely negative impact on foreign policy. On the other hand, Cuba being able to rid itself of subversive elements through immigration to Miami is probably a good thing for Cuba, so there’s that.

I don’t actually know what an ideal immigration policy for the United States would look like. It depends partly on whether we want to define ourselves as an ethnostate or a state united by a particular culture, or whether we don’t. In general, though, I’d say that I’m worried by East Asian and South Asian immigration at least as much as I am by immigration from Muslim countries, not least because I’m worried by the thought of market-dominant minorities emerging. And that I think societies are generally healthiest when they don’t have either a great deal of immigration or emigration going on.

#32 Comment By genotypical On December 10, 2015 @ 10:42 am

Trump’s support is high among right wing Christians.

This has been denied by another commenter (I remember because he was responding to a question I had somewhat facetiously raised about the religiosity of Trump’s base). At this point I would like to see some stats if anyone is going to make such an assertion.

According to this recent Quinnipiac poll, Trump has the support of 24% of white evangelicals.

[11]

#33 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On December 10, 2015 @ 11:42 am

I think societies are generally healthiest when they don’t have either a great deal of immigration or emigration going on.

Hector is intelligent and insightful enough to recognize that there is a certain NIMBY quality to this statement coming from someone of his family background.

When my Presbyterian mother married my non-religious Jewish father, that was considered a mixed marriage. Her next youngest sister married an Irish Catholic. (The most religiously motivated of their offspring is Episcopalian.)

#34 Comment By M_Young On December 10, 2015 @ 12:55 pm

“Do you happen to have a non-partisan source for this claim? Just curious.”

Yes. Or actual not ‘non partisan’ (which I take that you mean ‘unbiased’), actually one of the leading cheerleaders for the demographic makeover of America, [12]*

The estimated number of new Muslim immigrants varies from year to year but generally has been on the rise, going from roughly 50,000 in 1992 to 100,000 in 2012. Since 2008, the estimated number of Muslims becoming U.S. permanent residents has remained at or above the 100,000 level each year. [do the math, that’s a million in 10 years]

Between 1992 and 2012, a total of about 1.7 million Muslims entered the U.S. as legal permanent residents. That constitutes a large portion of the overall U.S. Muslim population (estimated at 2.75 million as of 2011). [do the math, 1.7 of 2.7 — Islam is by and large a totally new religion (and yes, a political system), here in the US]

*BTW, its strange that you doubt that figure, unless you consider that few Americans actually realize the massive scale of current immigration. People think — oh, a million a year, that’s not so much. But of course over six years — the time a newborn today will take to reach first grade — that more than the population of the Pac NW states combined. By the time a newborn today reaches employment age (roughly 20), immigration alone, not counting children of new immigrants, will add half a California to the population. That means half a California worth of houses, half a California worth of new jobs that must be created, half a California of water use and carbon emissions etc.

#35 Comment By M_Young On December 10, 2015 @ 1:08 pm

“Quasi-Muslim? And you expect to be taken seriously? Why not just go all the way and call him the n-word?”

Really, you consider ‘Muslim’ to be equivalent to the word that must never be spoken by non-blacks under pain of [13]?

Barack Obama has an Arabic first name and a specifically Muslim middle name. His father was Muslim, he was raised partially in a Muslim country, and occasionally accompanied his step-father, also a Muslim, to mosque services. He certainly shows more concern for Muslims after each terrorist incident committed by the [14] than he does for the general (mostly xian for the time being) population. Just count the minutes of his last speech devoted to dealing with terror v. those devoted to castigating those who might look cross-eyed at a woman in a niquab.

Quasi-Muslim fits.

#36 Comment By M_Young On December 10, 2015 @ 1:20 pm

“— Intermarrying! I know, doesn’t anybody care about pure blood lines anymore!”

Fact remains that Japanese-Americans, as an identifiable group, are dissappearing. Intermarriage is driving that, and so is the ‘development’ of land that they used to farm (or course they benefit by selling it off). These things might be good, bad, or indifferent; as a small-c conservative I am kind of bummed by it. It’s funny that the EPA and Interior department and native-plant enthusiasts can worry about intermarrying (e.g. is the Southern Red Wolf really a species or ‘just’ a hybrid wolf-coyote, or trying to get people not to plant [15] because it hybridizes so easily with the local [16], effectively wiping out the latter as a unique species.

#37 Comment By JonF On December 10, 2015 @ 1:31 pm

Re: even the King of Spain directed that there be NO Catholic immigrants going to what became the core area of the USA

The King of Spain in 1604 no more controlled what later became the US (Florida and New Mexico excepted) than he controlled the moon. The English already had a claim to the region (and had for over a century after Henry VII sent John Cabot hither, in order to show Ferdinand of Aragon that England too could attain and claim alien lands beyond the ocean). English law actually forbade the public practice of Catholicism in its colonies. That was in abeyance briefly in Maryland, but then the Puritans took charge, both in Annapolis and in London, and that ended that.

#38 Comment By JDinsSR On December 10, 2015 @ 2:03 pm

@M_Young
” It’s funny that the EPA and Interior department and native-plant enthusiasts can worry about intermarrying (e.g. is the Southern Red Wolf really a species or ‘just’ a hybrid wolf-coyote, or trying to get people not to plant india fig because it hybridizes so easily with the local opuntia litoralis, effectively wiping out the latter as a unique species.”

Good point.

It’s weird how you can buy and own fig trees, saw off their limbs and spray pesticide on them, but you aren’t supposed to do that to people.

It’s like they’re different things.

Puzzling.

#39 Comment By JDinsSR On December 10, 2015 @ 2:11 pm

@M_Young
“Between 1992 and 2012, a total of about 1.7 million Muslims entered the U.S. as legal permanent residents. That constitutes a large portion of the overall U.S. Muslim population (estimated at 2.75 million as of 2011). [do the math, 1.7 of 2.7 — Islam is by and large a totally new religion (and yes, a political system), here in the US]”

I actually was just curious.

So, Muslims constitute roughly 1-2% of the U.S. population, right? And they are a “new political system”? Not sure about that.

And these “Muslims”, we should view them as a single block, and single class? They all share common characteristics? And, from your previous posts, they are not to be trusted? All of them? Is that the gist?

#40 Comment By JDinsSR On December 10, 2015 @ 2:18 pm

@M_Young
“Barack Obama has an Arabic first name and a specifically Muslim middle name. His father was Muslim, he was raised partially in a Muslim country, and occasionally accompanied his step-father, also a Muslim, to mosque services. He certainly shows more concern for Muslims after each terrorist incident committed by the ghazi than he does for the general (mostly xian for the time being) population. Just count the minutes of his last speech devoted to dealing with terror v. those devoted to castigating those who might look cross-eyed at a woman in a niquab.

Quasi-Muslim fits.”

But . . . um . . . he identifies himself as a Christian. And he has ordered the deaths of a lot of Muslims (if that helps with his bona fides).

My father was a Baptist. I’ve travelled to Muslim (and Buddhist and Roman Catholic) countries. My middle name is Germanic. I empathize with Jewish travails in Israel. But I now call myself a member of the Episcopal Church.

What am I?

Certainly not Episcopalian, by your logic.

#41 Comment By Hector_St_Clare On December 10, 2015 @ 2:57 pm

It’s funny that the EPA and Interior department and native-plant enthusiasts can worry about intermarrying (e.g. is the Southern Red Wolf really a species or ‘just’ a hybrid wolf-coyote, or trying to get people not to plant india fig because it hybridizes so easily with the local opuntia litoralis, effectively wiping out the latter as a unique species.

+100.

JD in SR really lives on the same planet as you, but in a very different world.

#42 Comment By Hector_St_Clare On December 10, 2015 @ 6:49 pm

To make it clear, I agree with M_Young on these sorts of cultural issues (e.g. with figs and red wolves) a lot more than I do with JD.

It’s hilarious to me to hear peple extol ‘diversity’, and seemingly be unaware that things like mass migration promote homogenization, i.e. the opposite of diversity. Which they actually seem to get, when it comes to red wolves.

#43 Comment By Hector_St_Clare On December 10, 2015 @ 7:01 pm

It’s weird how you can buy and own fig trees, saw off their limbs and spray pesticide on them, but you aren’t supposed to do that to people.It’s like they’re different things

Ummm, what?

What does this possibly have to do with whether phenotypic diversity is a good thing or not, in humans or in figs? Or for that matter, whether it’s a good thing if Japanese culture, ethnicity and physical phenotypes (or as M_Young mentioned in the past, the traditional Dutch phenotype painted by Rembrandt) disappear or not?

It’s almost as if you don’t have a good answer. Or maybe you can’t think of a good reason why blue-eyed Dutch people should be encouraged to disappear, but you feel like you should because, you know, evil white people, so you prefer to make some vacuous argument about how figs aren’t people. No, they aren’t. Now, do you care to actually address M_Young’s point that he is ‘bummed’ that the Japanese ethnic group is disappearing through marriage? Are you also bummed, and if not, why not?

#44 Comment By JDinsSR On December 10, 2015 @ 10:49 pm

@Hector_St_Clare
“Now, do you care to actually address M_Young’s point that he is ‘bummed’ that the Japanese ethnic group is disappearing through marriage? Are you also bummed, and if not, why not?”

Nope.

You guys win.

#45 Comment By M_Young On December 10, 2015 @ 11:33 pm

“It’s weird how you can buy and own fig trees, saw off their limbs and spray pesticide on them, but you aren’t supposed to do that to people.”

1)India fig is actually a cactus
2)If the plant was endangered, you couldn’t do that.
3)You can’t do that to animals under any circumstances.

So…not so different. It’s funny how people who claim to love ‘diversity’ are for intermarriage, which necessarily reduces ‘diversity’. BTW I am not for laws against intermarriage, but I am certainly personally opposed to it.

#46 Comment By M_Young On December 10, 2015 @ 11:38 pm

Ooops, I see Hector has beat me to the point, not for the first time.

Gonna have to start scanning for his comments before opening my trap (figuratively).

As to Japanese-Americans, it really is the growth in population and the loss of farm land in their main areas that is leading to them pretty much disappearing as an ‘insular minority’ or whatever the Supreme Court’s phrasing was. Then again, so are old school Chicanos. The immigration from Mexico has been so vast that it really has swamped what used to be a unique culture right here in the US. Los Lobos were an American band with Chicano roots (including ones derived straight from Mexico). Los Tigres del Norte are just another Mexican conjunto that happens to be based in what we still call ‘the United States of America’.

#47 Comment By M_Young On December 10, 2015 @ 11:43 pm

BTW with all the talk of plagiarism, I should make clear that it was Sailer who first (a long long time ago) raised the point about the Left’s and officialdom’s concern over whether the coastal gnat catcher was ‘pure’ genetically (apparently the endangered species act doesn’t cover hybrids), but thinking that folks opposed to mass migration and/or intermarriage are EVIL. He also made the useful distinction between internal and external diversity.

#48 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On December 12, 2015 @ 1:53 pm

Most species on earth reproduce sexually because it is a superior reproductive strategy to simple fission or budding, although at least in the case of one-celled organisms, there are mechanisms to exchange germ plasm from time to time.

Thus, the value in “diversity” is not a sequence of mutually exclusive endogamous groups, but the constant exogamous exchange of genetic material so that new possibilities are always opening up, and, in the event of a cataclysmic change in environment, there will be some combinations that do well enough to survive.

The problem with invasive SPECIES is that any species is connected to a rather complex ecosystem, and when a single new species is dropped into a different ecosystem, it throws everything out of whack… e.g., the zebra and quagga mussel do not have natural predators in the Great Lakes, as they do in the Black Sea, and there is no extant mechanism to balance their consumption of the algae, while spitting out the blue-green algae that poison the municipal water supply.

On the cultural level, there is something to be said for preserving the vast variety of human languages, musical schools, even most of the extant religious faiths, as part of the patrimony of mankind. But our genetic material will always be around, and always mixing and matching, which is a net benefit for the species, and not a problem for any two individual who fall in love.

#49 Comment By Hector_St_Clare On December 13, 2015 @ 12:22 am

M_Young,

For what it’s worth, I have zero problems with intermarriage. I pretty much only date interracialy (I have zero attraction to people of my own race, so it would be pretty hypocritical if I did). I just think that if you care about preserving distinct phenotypes, there is an optimal amount of intermixing, and it isn’t 100%. At least until such time as we can use gene editing to perpetuate blue-eyed Rembrandt beauties (for that matter, if gene editing lives up to its promise, we could create a world full of violet eyed Daenerys Targaryen lookalikes). That may really render your concerns about blue eyed people disappearing (which I’ve found some of the most thought provoking material in these comboxes) as it were, moot.

JD in SR,

If you can’t even furnish an argument, why do you even bother commenting?