President Trump has proposed three travel bans directed to certain Middle Eastern countries with a record of terrorist activity. These countries are Muslim-majority countries. When the first travel ban was challenged in Washington State and Hawaii, one of the bases for standing in these cases was a loss of money in terms of student tuition and loss of tech engineers who were prevented from entering our country who enabled these companies to be profitable.
In the first instance, I find a loss of income to be an extremely weak reason for opposition to the travel ban. The reason for the travel ban was national security and the issue was not profits or loss of profits. Second, the district courts in Washington State and Hawaii and the 9th Circuit in California referred to some extent to the president’s campaign statements as to Muslim community. However unwise these statements may have been, they had no relation to a court case. So, I find that reason also weak to oppose the ban. The outstanding and seminal reason given for opposition to the ban was the president’s alleged racism or prejudice against Muslims. First, this is misleading. Racism and prejudice hark back to the days of the civil rights movement and do not have a relationship to the issue here which is preventing terrorist attacks on our soil. The reference to racism in my view is an act of manipulation directed to people who were victims of race prejudice in our society and somehow connecting those past offenses with this particular set of events. The most important point to make – and the obvious point – is that these travel bans were a response to many internal attacks from terrorist countries.
I do want to say here that I myself have no prejudice or feelings against any Muslim since I well know that the vast majority of Muslim people are law-abiding and simply concerned with supporting their families. However, it is a fact that within the Muslim, religious, cultural system, there is a minority of people that engage in these jihadist, violent attacks. They are a minority, if not a thin minority. These attacks have occured in Florida, directed to the gay community; in South Carolina where five servicemen were murdered; in New York most recently; in Boston and California. There have been other attacks in other places such as Minnesota and Texas. In addition, this particular minority group within the Muslim cultural, religious and political system have conducted attacks in Yemen where six missionary sisters were killed; in Pakistan where Easter service was subject to attack; in Nigeria where a number of young girls were abducted and violated; in Somalia most recently; in Spain, Belgium, France, United Kingdom in Manchester and London, and in Germany. Most recently, there was a terror attack in Palm Beach by a jihadist convert in which one person was knifed and killed and two other severely injured. Also, most recently in France, there was a very serious attack in which several people were killed including a police officer.
The president’s travel ban does not make him a racist. He is responding in a practical manner to a national security issue. These attacks do stem from a minority in the Muslim religious political community. The president has responded appropriately to this security situation. To call him a racist for doing this is to call a person a racist for opposing any evil or acts of war or violence directed to our society. Without this travel ban, we are all at risk. In lower Manhattan, almost ten persons were run over by a truck. These are undeniable facts… To the extent that these attacks emanate from a minority in the Muslim political religious system, the president must appropriately deal with that fact.
The use of the term racism is a red herring. It has no basis in fact. I support the president’s travel not because I dislike Muslims since I do not as a Christian, but I realize this ban is a necessary action to prevent further deaths. If the left ideology wishes to analyze this travel ban as racist, they may do so but they must understand that without extreme vetting and some sort of ban in place, further deaths may and will inevitably happen.
I must note that there has been a vast number of students demonstrating in favor of gun control. I cannot disagree with the necessity for gun control although I do say that a criminal or law-breaker can easily obtain illegal weapons. I note further that despite all the incidents above described here and abroad, there has been no student demonstration. In fact, the academic community has completely failed to address this issue and declined to protest these attacks. I grieve for all who suffer and die whether as a result of a school shooting or terrorist attack. Finally, the argument that these are the acts of sole law-breakers and lone wolves begs the question, given their consistency over many years. It is clear that these attacks represent an agenda within the political, religious system in certain countries, but as I said, a minority within those countries. Let me add that there was a recent horrific stabbing and burning of an elderly woman over 80 years old in France. This horrible crime was committed by a neighbor who was reported in the press to have shouted “Allah Akbar”. Again, I exhibit no prejudice or attack against the Muslim community but I know that the left and the academic community have been silent over the significant issue of this jihadist attack. That silence and inaction offers no solution to the consistency of these attacks worldwide by a minority political, religious group in that culture.
I welcome interfaith discussion with the Muslim community and I will always regard any and all persons as bearing the image of Christ and worthy of His Love. If you have any questions on this issue, please feel free to email me at firstname.lastname@example.org. For more information, subscribe to my blog/podcast at www.schatkinshow.com.