Perhaps read more of what the Popes have written and what is in the Catechism, and less of what Trump has to say.
You are not making a like comparison, refugees and an army attacking Vienna are not the same thing.
Additionally, you greatly oversimplify the analogy relate to “invading Muslims”. European powers fought a number of defensive wars over the millennia, most of which were fought against fellow Christians. And hint: some of the Muslim dynasties’ successes came through conspiring Chiristian princes seeking their own gain.
If Christian princes could have put the common good first this whole problem would have been solved 1300 years ago.
This is what happens whe complex issues become campaign fodder. One liners solve no problems.
He should have said that “we have to suspend migration from the Middle East indefinitely and tighten all migration security procedures”. Perfectly sensible and in the interests of US citizens. The more outraged people are the more they admit to supporting Globalism and the aims of the Frankfurt School and the less they care about US safety.
I’m not American. I don’t support Trump, his party or it’s politics.
To be fair, he did ask for a “temporary ban on refugess until their screening processes were reviewed and adjusted if required.”
After it was found that one (maybe more) of the Paris terrorists gained access to France posing as a “fake” refugee then it’s probably prudent for your authorities to do so.
Our government reviewed their procedures for refugees. Additionally, two days ago the Parliament passed a new law giving them the legal authority to remove Australian citizenship from dual citizenship holders who engage in terrorist activities or fight for a foreign militia.
If he is not a refugee, why is he coming here? Japanese saw their Emperor as not only their head of state but also as their god. We did not take Japanese in when war was declared. It would have been stupid for us to have done so then as it is now. Ditto for the Germans. This politically correct stuff is going to get us killed. Let us use some common sense.
And please don’t go off on a tangent. Let’s look at the Boston bombers who came here because their father was in fear of his life and pleaded political asylum on those grounds. Then the US allowed the oldest to return to his homeland which is a hot bed for Muslim terrorists. AND we allowed him back into this country. On the basis of that, any Muslim returning to his “homeland” can forfeit his right to return to this country. If the US had done that, there would not have been a Boston bombing.
The Greeks experienced the Trojan Horse. Please do not tell us this cannot happen. We and the rest of the world are the victims of many bombings. I don’t know what more it will take for people to realize we are in danger.
Put them into camps abroad and start a process no matter how long it takes. We cannot turn over our country and lose our lives and the lives of our children because we want to be “nice”. Most of the European countries know they are losing their countries. They’ve been telling us to be aware for years. Heed the message!
It’s their own fault. Most Muslims in European countries come from their former colonies that those European countries exploited for a long time. So maybe they’re getting what they deserve.
Most Muslims in France, for example, probably come from Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, etc. France invaded Algeria in 1830 and it didn’t gain its independence until 1962. Tunisia became a French protectorate in 1881 and didn’t achieve independence until 1952. Most Muslims in Britain probably come from its former colonies in what is now India and Pakistan. :shrug:
Trump is not suggesting we bar religious freedom. He proposed a temporary ban on any Muslims being allowed to travel to the United States.
I do not see how it can be reconciled with Catholic Social teaching. If it is possible, then it would need to be done in a way that treats those wanting to travel with respect and dignity and does not involve unjust discrimination.
[quote=LoveOfLife1990]Donald Trump supports banning Muslims from entering the United States. Is this a practice Catholics can agree with?..
I can see the Church’s opposition to this on its refugee stand but if a Muslim is not a refegee, can a Catholic support barring religious freedom?
Yes, I think a Catholic could agree with such an immigration ban.
The Church has certainly changed its approach over the centuries to religious freedom, and is quite a bit more supportive of the idea than it once was. However, where and how this religious freedom should apply, and when it should be limited is a matter on which reasonable people may disagree. For example, most of us would agree that the Church should not extend full religious freedom to candidates for Holy Orders. Practicing Muslims need not apply. Similarly, I don’t think any Muslims have been permitted to move to Vatican City. So there is precedent for the Church supporting such a religiously restrictive immigration policy. However, to suggest that similar justification can be upscaled to the United States is an enormous stretch.
Secondly, immigration policy is a matter on which people can reasonably disagree. Many Catholic leaders in recent years have supported a permissive approach to immigration, I think mainly on the basis of justice and dignity for the immigrants. However, almost every country restricts immigration in some way. The question is not whether restrictions on immigration should be in place, but what those restrictions should be. The United States has supported a number of countries which restrict immigration on the basis of religion. We may not explicitly endorse these policies, but they apparently have not been exceedingly offensive to our governments.
Having said all that, it’s pretty clear that Catholics who support Trump’s proposal are at a minimum out of step with the Holy Father, as well as the vast majority of Catholic leaders.
Yes, some of these countries were former colonies of European countries and were given citizenship so they were free to enter. No one realized 200 years ago that they would come in and not assimilate into the mother country. We do not want that happening here. We offer refuge to those who flee because of religious or political persecution. We are not interested in refugees enslaving host countries including the US.
The 3 letters are not as smart as we tend to think they are. It is easy for foreigners to get in this country. Especially terrorists with money to pay off cartels to smuggle them in. Of course, the cartels are probably being paid by the 3 letters to try to prevent this. That wouldn’t actually stop it though, because Satan is smarter than 3 letters and cartels put together. It takes God to stop that kind of evil. If we lose His protection, there will be terrorism. If we turn away from Him, we will lose His protection.
Secular America doesn’t even know that the only reason they are half-way safe is because the Church still has faithful souls who love God.
Reasonable restrictions on immigration are fine and I would argue necessary.
I don’t agree with Trumps proposal because it’s too general. But that doesn’t mean I support liberal policies either. Ironically, it’s conservatives who stand between First World post-modern liberalism and the rest of the non-liberal world annihilating it.
The US banned Utah from entering the nation of states until the Mormons gave up polygamy which was their religious practice. Interesting that we refused them but we do not demand the same of the Muslims. Consider that Muslims are allowed to have four wives which some continue to have in the US stating that they are just female relatives. In the meantime, all are having many children. Within 20 years there will easily be a shift in the voting population with Muslims as the majority.