Bryan Fischer
Christian refugees and Muslim refugees
By Bryan Fischer
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"
Host of "Focal Point" on AFR Talk, 1-3pm CT, M-F www.afr.net
By history, tradition, and values, the United States is a Christian nation. Our founding documents, for example, are dated from the year of Christ's birth, unlike Muslim countries, which start their calendars from the date of Muhammad's flight to Medina, and unlike Israel, which dates its calendar from the date of creation. Why do Muslim lands and Israel use a different calendar? Easy. They're not Christian countries.
The question of faith and immigration has jumped in the middle of the debate over admitting refugees to the United States. Candidates for president such as Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush have argued, correctly in my view, that refugee resettlement should make admitting Christians our top priority.
The sad reality is that Christians in war-torn Muslim countries have more to fear than anyone else. Upwards of 200,000 Christians have been killed by Muslims in recent years. Christian men have been murdered and their wives and daughters kidnapped, raped, and sold into sex slavery. Their sons have been crucified before their very eyes.
If there are any refugees a Christian nation like the United States should put at the head of the queue, it would be our fellow travelers in the Christian faith.
President Obama was scandalized earlier this week over suggestions that we should use a "religious test" in our immigration policy. But there is no ban in the Constitution on the use of a religious test for immigration, only for a position of trust in the federal government. We are free to use a religious test if we desire. Congress can establish any parameters it wishes in our immigration policy, and is perfectly free to use religious criteria if it wishes.
And, contrary to what Obama has stated, using a religious test in immigration is in fact a very American thing to do. We have given priority to Christian immigrants and refugees repeatedly in our history.
For example, under the 1990 law known as the Lautenberg Amendment, the federal government prioritized resettlement of Jews and Christians fleeing the Soviet Union and Southeast Asia. Obama himself extended this amendment just last year, to prioritize the resettlement of religious minorities fleeing Iran. Who would be the most endangered religious minority in Iran? Christians, of course.
In reality, Obama has been systematically discriminating against Christians from Syria. While they make up 10% of the population, and are at far greater risk than anyone, Christians represent less than three percent of all refugees admitted to the U.S. from Syria.
In fact, if giving priority to religious minorities is our stated goal, then Christians from all 57 Muslim countries should be given accelerated consideration.
Bizarrely, Obama's own administration has stated that its own policy priority is to give preferential treatment to Christian refugees. Knox Thames, the Special Advisor for Religious Minorities in the State Department, recently declared "the State Department has prioritized the resettlement of Syrian Christian refugees and other religious minorities fleeing the conflict" (emphasis mine). But their actions have not matched their words.
What about Muslim refugees? Rather than bring them into a Christian country like the United States, compassion would dictate that we use our resources to help them find a new home in a Muslim land. We are constantly told by the president that Islam is a religion of peace; if we take him at his word, this means that the 57 Muslim nations are all potential havens of peace, stability and tranquility. Let's help Muslim refugees from Syria find a home in one of them.
This almost neurotic insistence that we flood the United States with Muslim refugees is bizarre for another reason. Liberals loudly and insistently proclaim that the United States is the source of all evil in the world. They say we are responsible for tyranny, exploitation, racism, oppression, colonization and any other social and political ill you can name. President Obama can't stop apologizing for America everywhere he goes, at home and abroad.
If that's the view liberals have of America, why in the world would they want poor, innocent refugees brought here, of all places? In fact, according to their worldview, we would be doing Muslim refugees a huge favor by helping them find a home somewhere else. We would be protecting them from being contaminated by the most evil nation in human history.
Bottom line: Christian nations for Christian refugees, Muslim nations for Muslim refugees. It's an idea whose time has come.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
© Bryan Fischer
November 20, 2015
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"
Host of "Focal Point" on AFR Talk, 1-3pm CT, M-F www.afr.net
By history, tradition, and values, the United States is a Christian nation. Our founding documents, for example, are dated from the year of Christ's birth, unlike Muslim countries, which start their calendars from the date of Muhammad's flight to Medina, and unlike Israel, which dates its calendar from the date of creation. Why do Muslim lands and Israel use a different calendar? Easy. They're not Christian countries.
The question of faith and immigration has jumped in the middle of the debate over admitting refugees to the United States. Candidates for president such as Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush have argued, correctly in my view, that refugee resettlement should make admitting Christians our top priority.
The sad reality is that Christians in war-torn Muslim countries have more to fear than anyone else. Upwards of 200,000 Christians have been killed by Muslims in recent years. Christian men have been murdered and their wives and daughters kidnapped, raped, and sold into sex slavery. Their sons have been crucified before their very eyes.
If there are any refugees a Christian nation like the United States should put at the head of the queue, it would be our fellow travelers in the Christian faith.
President Obama was scandalized earlier this week over suggestions that we should use a "religious test" in our immigration policy. But there is no ban in the Constitution on the use of a religious test for immigration, only for a position of trust in the federal government. We are free to use a religious test if we desire. Congress can establish any parameters it wishes in our immigration policy, and is perfectly free to use religious criteria if it wishes.
And, contrary to what Obama has stated, using a religious test in immigration is in fact a very American thing to do. We have given priority to Christian immigrants and refugees repeatedly in our history.
For example, under the 1990 law known as the Lautenberg Amendment, the federal government prioritized resettlement of Jews and Christians fleeing the Soviet Union and Southeast Asia. Obama himself extended this amendment just last year, to prioritize the resettlement of religious minorities fleeing Iran. Who would be the most endangered religious minority in Iran? Christians, of course.
In reality, Obama has been systematically discriminating against Christians from Syria. While they make up 10% of the population, and are at far greater risk than anyone, Christians represent less than three percent of all refugees admitted to the U.S. from Syria.
In fact, if giving priority to religious minorities is our stated goal, then Christians from all 57 Muslim countries should be given accelerated consideration.
Bizarrely, Obama's own administration has stated that its own policy priority is to give preferential treatment to Christian refugees. Knox Thames, the Special Advisor for Religious Minorities in the State Department, recently declared "the State Department has prioritized the resettlement of Syrian Christian refugees and other religious minorities fleeing the conflict" (emphasis mine). But their actions have not matched their words.
What about Muslim refugees? Rather than bring them into a Christian country like the United States, compassion would dictate that we use our resources to help them find a new home in a Muslim land. We are constantly told by the president that Islam is a religion of peace; if we take him at his word, this means that the 57 Muslim nations are all potential havens of peace, stability and tranquility. Let's help Muslim refugees from Syria find a home in one of them.
This almost neurotic insistence that we flood the United States with Muslim refugees is bizarre for another reason. Liberals loudly and insistently proclaim that the United States is the source of all evil in the world. They say we are responsible for tyranny, exploitation, racism, oppression, colonization and any other social and political ill you can name. President Obama can't stop apologizing for America everywhere he goes, at home and abroad.
If that's the view liberals have of America, why in the world would they want poor, innocent refugees brought here, of all places? In fact, according to their worldview, we would be doing Muslim refugees a huge favor by helping them find a home somewhere else. We would be protecting them from being contaminated by the most evil nation in human history.
Bottom line: Christian nations for Christian refugees, Muslim nations for Muslim refugees. It's an idea whose time has come.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
© Bryan Fischer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
