Tim Keller, Max Lucado, and Hundreds of Evangelical Leaders Oppose Trump’s Refugee Ban (Christianity Today)


Three key takeaways from the executive order’s implications and evangelical reactions so far:

  1. Evangelical leaders overwhelmingly oppose the four-month refugee freeze and resettlement reduction.
  2. American evangelicals at the grassroots are much more evenly split.
  3. Regardless of the court fight, fewer persecuted Christians will find refuge in America under Trump’s plan.


I’ll constantly repeat this quote from the author and journalist Peter Hitchens (the younger theologically conservative Anglican brother of Christopher Hitchens) whenever the opportunity arises because it’s true and no one else in the mainstream and fringe media are saying it. Too bad celebrities, predominantly anti-Christian, who oppose the executive order are too thick and/or arrogant to see they are part of the reason why there is fear of growing Islamic (or more precisely Islamist) influences.

[If] the ‘west’ really wishes to limit the influence of Islam over its societies, it needs to rediscover the Christian faith in a big way. And that crude, ignorant attacks on Muslims themselves naturally make any intelligent open-minded person come to their defence when he can, whatever he thinks of their faith.
And as long as the ‘west’ doesn’t rediscover Christianity, it flails dangerously about, mistaking strength and wealth for virtue. It puts its faith in reeking tube and iron shard, in bigger weapons, and in ‘tougher’ ‘security’], in consumer goods and in its own luxurious hedonism. This will not work. As I’ve said before, when George W. Bush used to say that Muslim militants ‘hate our way of life’, I could not forebear to chime in ‘But I also hate our way of life!’.
For I do. The ‘West’ only exists as a coherent part of the world because of the Christian morals, and the extremely high levels of trust and lawfulness based upon them, which allowed Europe and the Anglosphere to develop as they have. Islam has virtues (they have much, for instance, to teach us about hospitality and the care of the old). But Islamic societies have simply not managed to achieve levels of trust and law comparable to those in Christian lands. This could explain why Islam (if you discount oil) has not achieved any great economic success, why education, publishing, freedom of speech and thought do not greatly flourish under its influence - and I am sceptical of claims of Islamic paradises in the distant past.



And if they supported the President we’d be hearing how we’re Catholics and not Evangelicals. Oh well, tomorrow I imagine will have between 5-10 new anti-Trump threads.


Why do you like him so much? What do you see in him?:shrug:


This could explain why Islam (if you discount oil) has not achieved any great economic success, why education, publishing, freedom of speech and thought do not greatly flourish under its influence - and I am sceptical of claims of Islamic paradises in the distant past.



Freedom of speech though, Ok. According to Islamic law, it is a criminal offense to speak ill of Islam, its Prophet, and its holy Scriptures (Qur’an and Hadith). Blasphemy is punishable by death. There was once upon a time the Catholic Church had the same view. The most common punishment for blasphemers was capital punishment through hanging or stoning, justified by the words of Leviticus 24:13-16.

Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Bring out of the camp the one who cursed, and let all who heard him lay their hands on his head, and let all the congregation stone him. And speak to the people of Israel, saying, Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin. Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death."

The last person hanged for blasphemy in Great Britain was Thomas Aikenhead aged 20, in Scotland in 1697. He was prosecuted for denying the veracity of the Old Testament and the legitimacy of Christ’s miracles.

Freedom of speech is arbitrary anyways. Some countries take it to extremes more than others. What is considered ‘‘freedom of speech’’ in the US for example, is NOT permitted in the UK and elsewhere in the world. For example, in the US you can basically say whatever you want under the guise of freedom of speech. In the UK however;

Public Order Act 1986 prohibits, by its Part 3, expressions of racial hatred, which is defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group’s colour, race, nationality, sexual orientation (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. Section 18 of the Act says:

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) they intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 inserted Section 4A into the Public Order Act 1986. That part prohibits anyone from causing alarm or distress. Section 4A states:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.


Why is it that if a person disagrees with a politician on a single issue or even number of issues instantly branded as anti-whatever his/her name is even if that person may support him or her on other issues? Is there anything particularly wrong with not liking a politician’s character but supporting the campaign platform in part or the whole thing?




Much as I am considering going to a non Catholic church (60 years born and bred) as result of CAF, these preachers are the reason.


As it would most likely exceed the purview of this thread to launch into a sustained discussion regarding the fundamental differences between the Christian, Hellenistic, Chinese or Indus Valley civilizations and the so-called “Islamic Golden Age”, I will content myself with only briefly noting that sources which attempt to defend, among other things, Islam’s “enlightened capture and use of slaves,” and fail to provide references for their claims on a consistant basis probably do not number among the most credible. That being said, the main reason I’m replying is to clarify the following:

The Church has never taught that blasphemers must receive the death penalty. Countries and cities have enforced this punishment in their civil law, but it has never been determined by ecclesiastical law. As we read on Catholic Encyclopedia:

Medieval canon law punished the blasphemer most severely. By a decree of the thirteenth century one convicted of blasphemy was compelled to stand at the door of the church during the solemnities of the Mass for seven Sundays, and on the last of these days, divested of cloak and shoes, he was to appear with a rope about his neck. Obligations of fasting and alms-giving were likewise imposed under heaviest penalties (Decret., lib. V, tit. Xxvi).

The (self-designated) Church of Scotland and Catholic Church are two distinct entities. Surely the actions of Calvinists have no bearing on the beliefs of Catholics; and neither do the beliefs of civil authorities reflect those of the Church. We cannot say the same for Islamic laws however as Sharia is a direct product of the Qu’ran and the Hadiths, whereas Christian laws are informed but not determined by Scripture or Tradition.


I remember seeing a documentary years ago in which an elderly person was astounded that the person interviewing him could not see the wonderfulness of a certain recent historical leader.


That’s real easy. He’s not a politician!


I hate to be cynical, but “World Relief” is an arm of the Evangelical Movement, and is a “VOLAG” which gets money from the government to resettle refugees. That supports a lot of church activists and sub-organizations.

I am sure the evangelical movement means well in this, just as the USCCB (another VOLAG which does the same thing) does. Still, and no matter what, it’s a conflict of interest in this issue.


Of course he is, that whole ‘Outsider’ gambit is wearing thinner than a supermodel at this point. He may have been able to say he was outside the field of professional politics at one point but the longer he stays in the game the less true this claim is.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.