December 4, 2015

San Bernardino, ISIS, Islam & Refugees

Some church groups have pushed hard for the U.S. to accept large numbers of Syrian and other Mideast refugees.  The Evangelical Immigration Table has a recent advocacy statement, although commendably, unlike others, it cites the unique plight of Mideast Christian refugees, against whom U.S. policy implicitly discriminates.

The horror in San Bernardino perpetrated by a Muslim couple of Pakistani background adds to this debate about immigration and Islam.  He was the U.S. born son of immigrants from Pakistan (and had a brother who reportedly served honorably in the U.S. Navy). His wife was a Pakistani national who resided in Saudi Arabia and whom he brought to the U.S. on a fiancé visa.

For some Christian advocates, the issue of immigration and refugees is simply one of hospitality and generosity.  What would Jesus do?  Their intent and motivations are admirable.  Our country is blessed by the many (but never enough!) who seriously ponder the will and love of Jesus.  Part of the complexity is that Jesus Himself never asked the civil state to model its duties on His ministry.

According to traditional Christian teaching, government’s chief duty, in every country and age, is to protect its people, not to extend hospitality.  Mothers and fathers have a special calling to look after their own children.  They certainly should wish well for all other children.  But parents who prioritize other children while neglecting their own are not typically admired.  So it is true for the state, which must be unceasingly vigilant on behalf of its own people.

The percentage of refugees from the Mideast who might be violent undoubtedly is small, but what number would be acceptable?  What if only one refugee were violent but perpetrates an horrific act that kills dozens or even hundreds?  Would his murders mitigate against accepting many thousands who aren’t violent?  Should our government take this risk?

There are other issues beyond the possibility of violence that are less directly discussed.  The Syrian refugees have no experience with democracy.  One poll says 13% support ISIS.  Some support other Islamist militias in Syria.  Still others support the Assad regime, a vicious dictatorship.  To what extent would these refugees adapt to Western pluralism and democracy?

Some Western European nations have large Muslim populations of 5-10%.  Often this demographic is ghettoized and not mainstreamed.  Many Muslims in Europe lack attachment to their nation state.  Some are attracted to radicalism.  Some have joined ISIS or journeyed to the Mideast to join other extreme Islamist movements.  Since the Paris attacks, the French government has been closing dozens of radical mosques, an option not possible under the U.S. Constitution.

As being American is not tied to ethnicity, and America has a long illustrious tradition of immigration, American Muslims are in general more integrated into the mainstream.  Many Muslims in America model how Islam can operate in a pluralistic democracy, an example instructive globally, and helpful to American interests.  But some American Muslims radicalize and even support violent jihad.  It seems the San Bernardino couple likely followed this route.

Should Christian political witness lobby for U.S. policy to increase immigration from predominantly Muslim countries that increases the American Muslim demographic, currently at about 1%, to European levels?  How would American culture and politics change under that dynamic?  What if many Muslim immigrants and their children adhere to traditional Islamic political theology by opposing legal equality for women, favoring civil punishments for homosexuals, and advocating policies against blasphemy and other free speech?  How would American pluralism incorporate large numbers of people who reject pluralism?

At the very least, Christian immigration advocates should urge U.S. immigration policies that strongly prohibit persons who reject American democratic principles.  Over one hundred years ago immigration policies screened against anarchist sympathies, which murderously raged in Europe.  Later U.S. policies screened against Bolshevism.  Of course, the U.S. screened against Nazi and Fascist sympathizers.  So too it should protect against adherents of Islamist theocratic political supremacy.

Often practitioners of Christian political witness base stances on complicated issues like immigration policy on a few Scripture verses rather than the prudential wisdom of the whole counsel of historic Christian teaching.  Despite high-minded intent, sometimes the intended recipients of Christian political advocacy are caricatured as romanticized victims without their own complex cultural, political and religious histories.  Sometimes Christian witness expects government to perform like a church worship service or potluck dinner, offering endless, unquestioning welcomes that will result in universal gratitude and even evangelistic success.

But government is not like church.  And our government is ordained to tenaciously protect and advocate the interests of over 320 million American people, of different faiths and backgrounds, but bound together by our commitment to democracy, liberty and legal equality for all.  The American experiment is unique, unusual in human history, and possible only thanks to the sacrifice of many millions across several centuries.  There should be no reluctance by Christian political witness to  support and defend the security and integrity of a great nation that benefits so many and which is, at its best, an example to the world.


 

46 Responses to San Bernardino, ISIS, Islam & Refugees

  1. Dan says:

    Unfortunately, the Protestant liberal mainstream denominations have become Obama’s reichskirche. This is a big part of the problem in trying to come to a considered and effective response to the refugee problem as well as other societal issues.

    • dogged says:

      Since ole Jeremiah Wright is “unavailable”, Obama uses leftist social activist Jim Wallis as his “spiritual adviser”. Like the OT “court prophets”, Jim tells Barack what he wants to hear.

  2. Curt Day says:

    I would say that our government is ordained, like all other governments are, to pursue justice, not mere tribal interests. Otherwise, traditional Christian teaching, as described above, implies that all foreign policy is fair game.

    We should also note what God held both Israel and Judah accountable to in the OT as well as its neighbors. In fact, those who live in poverty are described as living in a state of injustice. And that description is extended to the alien, refugee in our world, as well.

    We should also note with regard to how gov’t should respond to refugees that the gov’t should not pursue policies that create refugees. Such policies consist of interventions, coups, and wars.

    • Charles says:

      Providing justice doesn’t necessarily mean bringing thousands of people here. There are other solutions where the U.S. can be in the forefront of the refugee crisis and at the same time ensure that its’ own citizens feel safe and actually are safe. Obviously no one can be completely safe until ISIS is either worn away into submission or completely eliminated, so that should be a priority along with providing help for those who need it now.

      • Curt Day says:

        Charles,
        But neither does practicing justice leave the vulnerable in dire straights. And here we are talking about a numbers game. And with numbers game means that some will have to come here. And if our first concern is justice, then we just can’t keep pursuing policies based on the promise that they will keep the world’s problems from being with us up close and personal. That is one of the false promises the invasion of Iraq was offering according to some of its supporters. Remember, ‘we are fighting the terrorists there so we do not have to fight them here.’

        So the real question here is numbers.

        • Charles says:

          I’m not sure what you mean by a numbers game. Are you referring to the 1% remark I made in a previous comment?

          • Curt Day says:

            Charles,
            By numbers game I mean discerning and acknowledging how many Syrians will need refuge here. We can’t slough that off on the rest of the world

          • Charles says:

            I don’t suggest that we do. But bringing so many of them here doesn’t make very much sense. We are thousands and thousands of miles from Syria. And as we have heard from many Syrians, they simply want to be able to stay at home. The solution is much more simple and will move much faster when we approach it by providing help for Syrians where they are to the maximum extent, and making their Syria a safe place for them.

          • Curt Day says:

            Charles,
            Where are you going to put them? Of course many want to stay home. What do you expect? But refugees are refugees for a reason.

            Also realize our past history in making nations safer. The Syrians accepted 1,000,000 of the mulitiple millions of Iraqi refugees that fled their nation as we were making it safe for democracy. And what is the state of Iraq today? How about Afghanistan?

            Again, refugees are refugees for a reason. And there are so many players countering each other who are making the people there refugees.

          • Charles says:

            Curt,
            There are a number of countries close by who are not at war and who have similar cultures. But obviously what you point out is correct; we cannot continue to send people to other countries promising to make their homes safe only to make matters worse by intervening in fruitless ways.
            And once again, just because we made mistakes in the past with regards to foreign policy does not mean that we should feel obligated to take in thousands upon thousands of people when the majority of our population doesn’t feel safe with us doing so. After all, it isn’t my or your fault that we are in this situation.
            If we want to truly help, we will do everything we can to either force ISIS into submission or eliminate them completely. Hopefully during that process, we can make durable relationships with these countries and earn their trust back.

          • Curt Day says:

            According to Wesley Clark, a former general I think, the Pentagon people told him that Syria was targeted for a regime change. So if some of that unrest is due to us, we have a responsibility.

            And I wouldn’t use the word ‘mistake’ to describe our foreign policy blunders. As one of the characters from the show ‘Happy Days’ said: ‘2+2=4 is a mistake. What you did was mean.’

            But why are you so resistant to having Syrian refugees come here?

          • Charles says:

            I agree with you that we have an obligation to help these people. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that we have to take in so many people.
            My ultimate reasoning is that it is not safe to do it. It’s not because they are Muslims or they are Syrians, but unfortunately, ISIS is based in Syria. And ISIS has explicitly threatened to exploit this very thing in order to kill more innocent people. With the money we would use to bring all of these refugees here and sustain them, we could support other countries and help create a more sustainable and, realistically, acceptable living situation for these people. People who may have never dreamed of coming to the U.S. now have the opportunity. Don’t get me wrong, that is great. But when you take into account that most of them really just want to be home, it doesn’t make a lot of sense for them to be here.

          • Curt Day says:

            Charles,
            It isn’t safe to act militarily in other parts of the world. The Iraq invasion is such an example. But we knew that beforehand because the 9-11 atrocities were are response, in part, to past militatry interventions or support. So how many people protested the Iraq War partially because it wasn’t to do conduct such a war?

            What you are saying is to send these refugees to other countries because it isn’t safe to bring them here. But aren’t repeating a mistake in doing that? After all wasn’t one of the reasons for the Iraq invasion so that we could fight the terrorists there instead of here? So now, pending the money we supply, other countries are going accept the numbers of refugees that you deem would pose a danger here without sharing your concerns?

          • J999 says:

            Even if the unrest in Syria were down to the US in some way, for which I am aware of no evidence, the outcome of the unrest appears to be down to the fact that too many Syrians preferred to join Islamist armies rather than pro-democracy ones.

          • Curt Day says:

            J999,
            You have no evidence for your claims about the desires of Syrians. But there is evidence regarding the US involvement in Syria from the testimony of Wesley Clark and the conversations he had with those in the Pentagon to the opinions of experts tying the Iraq invasion, which, btw, caused Syria to take in over 1,000,000 Iraqi refugees, to the creation of ISIS. In fact, there is disturbing evidence that indicates that the US may have been arming ISIS. This comes from the number of American weapons they had prior to ISIS’s capture of weapons in Iraq.

          • J999 says:

            I think the existence of ISIS is evidence of the desire of many Syrians to join an Islamist army, or are you of the view that they were all coerced, or that ISIS is entirely composed of foreign fighters?
            For what it’s worth, I have always been completely opposed to the US led overthrow of Saddam Hussain, nasty piece of work though the latter was. However, that overthrow does not make the US or the coalition responsible for everything that has happened in the Middle East or the Muslim world since then. There are many other actors involved, including in particular the people of the region themselves.

          • Curt Day says:

            J999,
            But american actions in other countries at least makes them partially responsible for what happens afterwards.

        • J999 says:

          If you want to be proportionate, then you could argue that Germany has accepted in the best part of a million, and counting, the population of the US is 4 times that of Germany, so the US should take 4 million, immediately. Or, Jordan has about a million refugees within its borders, its population is 6 million, so the US should take 50 million, which is more than the population of Syria, but there are plenty of other places to take refugees from. On the other hand, comparing with Saudi or China, you would take zero refugees. In the end, you just have to set your own policy, based in what you think is right.

          • Curt Day says:

            J999,
            If you want to oversimplify it and base it on population alone, you could follow that formula. Or if you want to base is on the ranking in wealth, you could use another formula.

            But how about this, from early on in the Bush administration and after 9/11, Syria’s regime was targeted to be overthrown by those in the Pentagon according to the conversations Wesley Clark had. So how about assigning refugees based on each nation’s responsibility for how those refugees came about?

          • J999 says:

            Have you got a source for Wesley Clark’s comments?
            Even if it was US policy to effect regime change in Syria, of which I remain to be convinced, that would not prove that the actual uprising against Assad was instigated by the CIA or some other US government agency. It’s perfectly possible that the policy of the US (if such it was) happened to align with the desire of a substantial portion of the population of Syria for the overthrow of Assad, some because they wanted democracy, and others because they wanted a Sunni theocracy in place of Assad’s Alawite dictatorship.

          • Curt Day says:

            The source fo Clark’s comments is below:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

            What we need to note about American foreign policies and democracy is that democracy is a convenient goal. We have, since WW II, intervened in over 30 democracies or democratic processes and, in the vast majority of cases, replaced it with dictatorships. Note, for example, our gov’t’s support for the gov’t of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Yes, there was a democratic movement in Syria. But we have all too often supported terrorists in the overthrow of gov’ts for strategic and/or business interests.

          • J999 says:

            Interesting clip. When was it recorded? I’m always more impressed when people predict things before they happen than after they happen. Though I see that there’s been a lot of slippage in the 5 year plan hatched in November 2001. Guess by the time they get to Iran it will have been 15 years, not 5. CIA’s losing its touch.

          • Curt Day says:

            J999
            Not sure when it was recorded. You can check the Youtube clip again and see if it is documented below the screen part of the site.

            As for the CIA losing its touch, did you ever consider that its touch caused a host of problems in 1953 when it overthrew a democratically elected gov’t and installed a dictator?

          • J999 says:

            Indeed, I have no particular brief for the CIA. Just that I don’t believe it is omnipotent. Clark may have his own agenda (he has interests in selling his books, and he may still have political ambitions), but if there was as he implies a plan at the Pentagon to invade 6 more countries after Iraq with a view to regime change, I imagine it was quietly shelved when the aftermath of the Iraq invasion turned out so differently to how the Neocons had imagined.

          • Curt Day says:

            J999,
            The CIA doesn’t have to be omnipotent to do significant damage. In fact, no one said it was omnipotent. For example, it was most like involved in the attempted coup in 2002 in Venezuela. But that coup failed But itwas definitely involved in coups in Iran (’53) and Chile (’73). And either it was involved in the coup in Guatemala (’54) or some other US gov’t group was.

            And regarding Clark’s testimony, you automatically wave it off without any evidence. And yet the evidence of history is right in front of us. So if you this is how you are going to treat evidence, why discuss things?

          • J999 says:

            Well, if I’m understanding you aright, you have your mind made up that the current uprising against Assad was instigated by the US government, based on the testimony of one man that there was in 2001 a plan by the then Secretary of Defense to “take out” Syria (among other countries). If you don’t want to discuss things with me because I subject your viewpoint and the evidence on which it’s based to some critical scrutiny, then don’t discuss with me. But then neither of us can learn from the other. By the way, I did not “wave off” Clark’s testimony if by that you mean that I am asserting that it is false. I genuinely think that it may be true; however, I cannot be certain that it is. None of us is omniscient, so we often have to live with uncertainties. At least, that is a conclusion that I came to years ago, after sitting in on a court case where both sides seemed completely believable, and yet both could not be true. I would like to know the truth in every instance, but I do not have the power to do so.

          • Curt Day says:

            J999,
            You have no clue as to my take on the Syrian uprising. That the US freely intervenes to overthrow gov’ts though is shown throughout history. And most of those actions are not for the benefit of others.

          • J999 says:

            No, I can’t know what your view is unless you tell me. I was trying to infer it from what you’ve said, but I’m happy to be corrected.
            I don’t disagree with what you say above, except that “throughout history” is too broad. The US has not existed throughout most of history, but assuming you mean “throughout its [the US’s] history”, I would think in its early years the US was not strong enough to overthrow any other country’s government, unless you include those of native Americans where, however, the process was more one of destroying entire peoples rather than just changing their governments. Outside of that, I don’t know what the first foreign government was that was overthrown by the US, but I would be interested to know.

          • Curt Day says:

            J999,

            Make up your mind. Either you believe that you understand what my view is and have my mind made up as you wrote below:


            Well, if I’m understanding you aright, you have your mind made up that the current uprising against Assad was instigated by the US government, based on the testimony of one man that there was in 2001 a plan by the then Secretary of Defense to “take out” Syria (among other countries)

            or you don’t know my view until I tell you.

            In addition, since “throughout history” follows the line about US intervention, it would seem inferred that I am talking about American history.

            And yes, though the US didn’t overthrow any forieigh gov’t early in its history, it did have the strength to keep moving the Indians off their land while breaking agreement after greement.

    • J999 says:

      Justice in the narrow sense means that crimes are punished, the punishment fits the crime, and virtue is rewarded. In a broader sense, justice can mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean. Helping the poor is more often described in the Bible as mercy than as justice, but either way it is important. There are billions of very poor people in the world, and the rich countries of the world can accept in as many of them as they want, not just those from Syria. There are as many very poor people in Africa as there are citizens of the US, and if the US wants it can double its population by accepting all of those in, and then double it again by inviting in the poor from the rest of the world. Maybe that would be just. Maybe it would be foolish. Maybe it would be both just and foolish. You can’t decide such matters by quoting proof texts.

      • Curt Day says:

        J999,
        Actually, helping the poor is just as much, if not more, described as justice in the Old Testament. From Deuteronomy 24: 17-22 to Malachi 3:8-10 coupled with Deuteronomy 14:28-29 to Jeremiah 22:16 to Isaiah 10:1-2 to Isaiah 58:6-7 to Leviticus 19:33 point to, in one way or another, that providing for those in need is as much a justice issue, thus caring for the vulnerable is what is owed, as it is a mercy or charity issue.

        Here we should note the difference between the two. Whereas charity focuses more on the giver, justice focuses more on the receiver.

        Finally, who was quoting texts? And why raise the question unless the quoting of the scriptures challenges one of your points?

        • J999 says:

          For what it’s worth, most of the passages to which you refer do not use the word “justice”. One does, and another uses the verb “to judge”; neither of these passages equates helping the poor to justice, though they (and many other passages) state that the poor in particular must not be deprived of justice. I am not disputing that there are many Biblical passages that mandate helping the poor.

          It is true that you did not in fact quote any texts: I should have said “alluding to texts”; that would have been more accurate on my part. Thank you for now referring explicitly to some of the passages you had in mind.

          Yes, your application of scripture does challenge one of my points. I am concerned that some Muslim migrants will, if they are in a non-Muslim country in substantial numbers, undermine vital apsects of that country, in favour of the imposition of Sharia law. I don’t believe any passage in the Bible actually states that the poor of one country have to be taken in by another country. I think it is the primary responsibility of those in each country that have enough to share with those who don’t, and to build up such a society that as many people as possible have the opportunity to provide for themselves and their families. That does not mean that it is not a good thing to help poor people in other countries, including taking them in to one’s own country, just that this does not trump every other consideration.

          • Curt Day says:

            J999,
            For what it’s worth, the study of the Scriptures isn’t about the study of the use of specific words as much as it is a study about concepts. Thus commands for farmers to harvest their fields so that the vunerable of sources for subsistence, along with one of uses of tithes, imply justice. In fact, one of the most mentioned issues in the Old Testament is justice. And outside of idolatry, it is perhaps the most prominent sin committed by Israel.

            Finally, it is fear that much opposition to allowing Muslims refugees into the country is based–afraid that too many Muslims will make possible the institution of Sharia law. And it is the same kind of logic used by Israel for not pursuing a one-state solution. But here, we have to ask if our tribal concerns are trumping biblical concepts of justice. And the less we follow Biblical ccncepts of justice, the more we will act in ways that increase the number of those who would institute Sharia law. For more people will see such a change in our law as the only way by which we do not oppress them.

          • J999 says:

            Well, you are trying to force certain concepts to be called by certain names, e.g. helping the poor has to be called “justice”. I presume the reason is that no-one is going to argue for “injustice”, so once you win the terminology battle you have won. (More specifically, you want the concept of helping Syrians impoverished by civil war, by allowing them admittance to the US, to be called “Justice”. Then no-one can argue against it.) Look, you can call it what you want, but I don’t have to call it the same thing.

          • Curt Day says:

            J999,
            Helping the poor isn’t called justice because one is helping the poor. Rather, helping the poor is callled justice when it is commanded by God and described by God as something we owe the poor. THat is the point of citing Deuteronomy 24. And when one combines the verses from Malachi and Deuteronomy 14, we note that not providing food for God’s storehouse by not paying the tithe is called stealing. This is a point that the Church Father Chrysostom makes in preaching about tithes and helping the poor. And he cites the Old Testament as his grounds.

            Helping the poor was a justice issue for Josiah as recorded in Jeremiah 22. Or note what is associated with undoing injustice in Isaiah 58:6-8.

            So with regard to Syrian refugees, what is justice is removing injustice. That is to say what they are suffering from now is a state of injustice that can be, at least partially alleviated, by admittance and and relieving them of their current status of deprivation. That would be related to what was commanded in Deuteronomy 24.

            Finally, are you saying that all Muslims want to install Sharia law throughout the world?

          • J999 says:

            You are assuming that Malachi is referring to the tithe for the poor, rather than the tithe for the Levites of Numbers 18. Be that as it may, you can’t just extend that to a command to admit the poor of the world to your country. There is no such command in the Bible.
            I’m afraid that referring to Chrysostom, whose diatribes against the Jews were so beloved of the Nazis, won’t cut much ice with me.
            No, not all Muslims want to institute Sharia, but those who take their religion seriously do, and a lot of Muslims take their religion seriously, because most Muslim countries are a lot less secularised than are most traditionally Christian countries.

          • Curt Day says:

            J999,
            And are you assuming that it isn’t? Tell me, what is the referene for the Lord’s storefhouse for? And have you read what John Chrysostom preached on thas very subject? Because Chrysostrom was wrong to preach against the Jews does not imply he was wrong 9n what he said about helping the poor. Those subjects are unrelated and thus to use one to discredit another doesn’t show an objective view here. By your standards, not only should we reject everything Chrysostom said, we must do the same with Martin Luther.

            That a tithe was used to feed the poor in Israel is the issue. That, in Israel back then, both individual and corporate efforts to feed those in need were employed. And those efforts didn’t revolve around the charitable nature of the givern, they were commanded. And that Isaiah, in chapter 58, also links justice with caring for those in need. And then there is Jesus’ parable of the sheep and the goats.

            Finally, how would your prove that ttrying to institute Sharia law is a necessary condition for Muslims taking their religion seriously?

          • J999 says:

            It’s either the storehouse where they kept the tithe for the Levites, or the one where they kept the tithe for the poor. And no, I haven’t read Chrysostom on the subject. Maybe I’ll get round to it some day.
            I wouldn’t try to prove anything about Muslims and Sharia law. Talk to some Muslims yourself and form your own view. My view, from talking to my Muslim friends and acquaintances, is more or less as I’ve said – it’s an oversimplification, of course, but accurate as a generalisation, I think. Maybe the Muslims you know have a different take on their religion, and what its salient features are, and what that implies about how society should be organised. If so, and if the Muslims you know are typical of Muslims worldwide, then that’s good news, at least in my view, since I’m not a fan or Sharia law, from what I know of it.

          • Curt Day says:

            J999,
            That tithe served both at the same time. can’t separate them.

            BTW, by your method of proof, you failed in your point. I have talked to Muslims

          • J999 says:

            The Talmud I understand takes the view that there are two tithes commanded in the Torah, for different purposes, but obviously it’s a matter of interpretation.
            Yes, we will no doubt both fail to convince the other because we have different life experiences. We can both however continue to experience and learn, and update our views of the world, because the world is always going to be more complex than our mental maps of it.

          • Curt Day says:

            J999,
            But the Scriptures I cited did not make that distinction regarding the storehouses.

  3. Kingdom Ambassador says:

    There was time in America when her border and immigration policy began with the First Commandment.

    CLUE: There were no practicing Muslims, no Mosques, no Sharia, and no Islamic terrorism in 17th-century America whose governments of, by, and for God were established upon His unchanging moral law, beginning with the First Commandment.

    Biblical immigration and border policy begins with the First Commandment, which, in turn, demands all immigrants leave their gods, their culture, and their laws at the border or suffer the consequences. No Muslim would ever agree to such law.

    QUESTION: So, WHAT was it that changed America from what it was in the 17th-century to what it is now–arguably the most polytheistic nation to exist, including Islam?
    ANSWER: The First Commandment was replaced with the First Amendment’s First Commandment-violating Free Exercise Clause.

    It’s one thing to allow for individual freedom of conscience and private choice of gods (something impossible to legislate to begin with). It’s another matter altogether for government to enable any and all religions to proliferate through the land evangelizing our posterity to their false gods.

    For more, see online Chapter 11 “Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt11.html.

    • Grundune says:

      America is all about giving folks choices. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is all about choice, “choose you this day…”. It is Islam that would deny anyone “evangelizing” folks. It is Islam that would prevent choice.

      True Christianity, properly taught, is a beacon to all the righteous. Teach it and they will come.

      So, Pastor Weiland, why are you spending so much time on your fringe theole logy? A pastor preaching that it is God’s will that the U.S. Constitution must be abolished isn’t attracting the righteous. You have a lot of Muslims, Communists, progressives, socialists, Obamaites,
      Clintonites and most Democrats cheering for you, but not the righteous.

      Spend what little time we have left, preaching Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Not down with the U.S. Constitution.

    • MarcoPolo says:

      If plurality is to be maintained as a standard for a Free country, Who then, determines what is a “False God”?

  4. Michael Giere says:

    If we knew that 10%, or even 5%, or even 1% of imported Toyota’s might blow up, we’d not let any Toyota’s into the country. America has taken the vast majority of the refugees in the post-WW11 world. It is the time to fix our immigration and visa programs and return to a system that requires self-sufficiency, education, and the intent to assimilate..

  5. rt90k says:

    What is referred to as “radical Islam” is the Muslims who practice or aspire to the literal interpretation of the Koran. This is the Islam that is practiced in Saudi Arabia, the cradle of Islam. Islam is hardly a cafeteria religion where adherents are free to pick and choose which tenets they follow. The head of ISIS has an advanced degree in Islamic education.
    Obama recently called upon Muslims to sort out the problems they have with those Muslims who are departing from the Islam he thinks they should practice. Well for hundreds of years and now in Syria and in Iraq that is precisely what is going on. Muslims are attacking and murdering Christians, Jews, other religious minorities and other Muslims as they “work out” Obama’s mission to achieve the Islam that will prevail, which is the Islam of the Koran instead of the imaginary Islam Obama and other US Muslim apologists use to anesthetize our national security apparatus. Whoever does not follow the Koran, including those who call themselves Muslim, is dealt with by those who do because that is precisely what is called for in the Koran.. The demographic conquest represented by mass Muslim immigration to the US is not to be thought of as the opportunity for some docile service to God or humanity, but quite the opposite. Consider the history of Islam where it dominates. Why would you want that here if you are a patriot?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *