The Torah & the Talmud; Christ & the Church

Submitted by Robert (United States), Feb 25, 2017 at 22:30

Dear Mr. Carl Goldberg,

I want to direct your attention to the history of religion in the West, among it's Jews and Christians to show you the inadequacy of your proposal.

At the time of the Protestant Reformation, it was Martin Luther who rebelled against the Roman Catholic Church on the grounds that its practices did not correspond to the Bible (Old & New Testament). Whatever was the outcome of that controversy, no one had denied the sanctity of the Holy Scriptures. Obviously, the difference was the Practice, not the Content. Thereafter came Erasmus, and the Catholic Church of Rome came out with the Brilliant Solution: Realm of Faith vs. Realm of Reason. I take that to mean that whatever your Belief was, it was never a denial of the Content of the Book, nor was it a denial of the Secular World were your practice of daily life required conformity to the laws of the local Prince in which one resided.

In Judaism, we have seen, in the 19th century in particular, the rise of a whole rainbow of religious distinctions, all of which were softening of Orthodoxies meant to conform to the Modern World. Furthermore, Jews have lived as a minority for 20 centuries among non-Jews; in that context, one could not expected there to emerge a practice that did not conform to the norms of the dominant "other" culture. In that context, incidentally, no Jew was ever required to deny the veracity of any sentence in the Torah/Tanakh.

I hope this argument has persuaded you to abandon your recommendation to question Muslim on their beliefs as to the truthfulness of passages in the Koran. The correct question should be how exactly would the Muslim believer in the Koran BEHAVE towards the Other in the USA, Muslim or not.

What the Muslim applicant for Immigration, or a Visa, to the USA, should be required to show is prospective conformity to our Constitutions and Laws and Traditions. And we now that these, Today, are not consistent with a substantial portion of the 1.6 Billion Muslims of the World.

And in particular, we have an interest to prevent Muslims who will have Third-Generation Grandchildren who may desire to Amend the Constitution to make certain Sharia violations Capital Offenses. For example, imagine the possibility of introducing a Sacrileges Amendment so than anyone who made a Video of the Life of Mohammad that was deemed especially offensive subject to Execution in the Electric Chair (or maybe beheading). That Amendment would not violate Disestablishment provision of our Constitution, because ANY violation of ANY religion would become a federal crime.

So the issue should be to exclude Muslims whose descendants will be inclined to Amend our Constitution in favor of Islam. That, in fact, is the invidious and corrupting was of ISIS. I have little doubt that there are no "smart" Muslims in ISIS (Dash) who see themselves already victorious because Millions of Muslims have descended on the West as Immigrants and Refugees - precisely because the maintain their Islam with them as they cross the borders of the "blind" infidels - recall that the Infidel wishes to Live, but the Jihad practicing Muslim wishes to Die for Islam ! From that it follows that the number of Refugees granted permanent residency, or citizenship, should be small; all religion is like an infectious contagious inherited disease - you get it from your parents as a child, or a preacher as an adult. So we should look for Muslims who have abandoned Islam first. Or those who have violated it and have been subjected to execution, or maiming (in Saudi Arabia you get your hand cut off for steeling - under Sharia Law). And even that is a problem. An Adulterous in Saudi Arabia is subject to being stoned to death. Will she continue with her Wahhabi Religious sect once granted asylum?

So it is insufficient to have Severe Vetting; we must also have a Quota as to the Maximum number allotted Residence Status and the route to Citizenship in 5 years.

Perhaps we should also consider non-permanent refuge for Muslims - with the goal of re-settlement back home once peace and civility is restored in the Muslim homeland. Nowhere are the Palestinian absorbed as citizens; why should other Muslims today not be made to wait to return to where they came from?

The reason for that I think is the world's Antisemitism against the Jews of Israel; only the Jews of Israel are expected to absorb back the Palestinian Refugees and Displaced Persons? Why should that not be the case for the Muslims now displaced by ISIS?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".