In Theory: Religious leaders weigh in on ‘Muslim ban’

Many religious groups and leaders have criticized President Donald Trump’s executive order to indefinitely ban Syrian refugees from entering the United States, as well as temporarily stopping entry for refugees and visa holders from seven predominantly Muslim nations.

Religion News Service compiled a list of statements from some of the leaders and organizations, representing the Catholic, Jewish, Muslim and Protestant faiths.

“Any attempt to ban Muslim refugees based on their religion betrays our values and sends the un-American message that there are second-class faiths,” writes Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.

“This weekend proved to be a dark moment in U.S. history,” said Cardinal Blase J. Cupich, archbishop of Chicago.

Farhana Khera, executive director of Muslim Advocates, said: “Today, President Trump took a wrecking ball to the Statue of Liberty.”

Q. Where do you stand on President Trump’s executive order?

As a humanist, my highest priority is treating other humans as individuals, with kindness and respect. I don’t have faith beyond proof but, if anything is axiomatic, this truth is as close as it gets.

Here are some facts. Most victims of Islamic terrorism are Muslims. A large majority of terrorist acts in the U.S. are committed by white nationalist Christians. Trump did not ban people from Muslim majority countries with whom he and the U.S. are connected as financial and/or political allies. Trump’s primary advisor is an alleged white supremacist and advocate of dismantling the constitutional wall separating church and state, in order that our country become a Christian theocracy.

I could go on with facts proving why Trump’s action is wrong, but there are a few primary reasons they stand out. First, it is completely ineffective and counterproductive. It does nothing to end terrorism, and will actually serve to encourage more terrorists. The goal of terrorism is to send its victims into turmoil and make them recoil with fear. Trump has, in this ultimate act of cowardice, handed terrorists a victory.

More importantly, this action deals a blow to our ability to hold the moral high ground. We are a country of immigrants who supposedly welcome tired, poor and huddled masses yearning to breathe free. If we turn away those in dire need of assistance, we have betrayed our own values. Trump exemplifies the new American dream of acquiring money and possessions, and the American propensity for shallow blathering about how great we are, while proving the opposite. This executive order is another nail in the coffin of the original American dream, which was to support each other so that every human may live comfortably, free, and safe from harm and religious tyranny.

Joshua Lewis Berg
Humanist Celebrant
Glendale

..

Banning the entry of all people of a particular faith or all people from a particular country is a very extreme measure. It should be used only in the instance where it is known that a specific attack will definitely be made by some unknown member of one of those groups trying to enter our country, and then be in effect only for the shortest time possible. Short of that I believe that our efforts are better focused on accurately screening the people who are trying to enter our country legally and blocking those who are trying to enter it illegally. And yes, we should either uphold immigration law or remove/reform it. Allowing people to violate the law is hypocritical and unacceptable.

In issues of faith and of civil matters I believe that raw pragmatism is often an enemy of the soul, a violation of who we are at our core. The ends do not justify the means. I may have financial needs, but stealing to meet them will leave me morally bankrupt, whether or not I “get away with it.” I might be able to do great deeds that impress large groups of people, but if I do not do them out of love for others I have missed the point of serving others in the name of Christ (see 1 Corinthians 13:3). We might theoretically, possibly stop terrorists using the tactic of denying entrance to refugees, but do we really want to become the kind of nation that lets innocent, suffering people die on our doorstep? I don’t think so.

Loving others as we love ourselves is a core tenet of the Christian faith, and welcoming immigrants and refugees is a core tenet of our national identity. We should thank God that our immigrant forefathers were allowed to enter, despite how our family’s faith or ethnic identity was perceived by American citizens at the time. Yes, we need to be vigilant about identifying and stopping terrorists, and yes many come from the countries in question. But we dare not lose our souls in the process. The ban possibly might stop a terrorist or two. Maybe. But it definitely will stain the fabric of our national identity.

Pastor Jon Barta
Burbank

..

Istand with the trial judges who have ruled that parts of the order are illegal, and with the federal appeals court judge who has issued a temporary restraining order stopping enforcement for now of the entire ban. That judge then immediately rejected the administration’s appeal. Arguments on the case will be held later today, as I write, followed by the judge’s decision, and both coming after our “In Theory” deadline for this week.

President Trump’s original order so clearly discriminates against Muslims that I believe it is doomed to be overturned by the appeals court, and will eventually end in a tie vote at best in the U.S. Supreme Court, meaning the lower court decision will stand, as I understand it.

It is well known that no one from the seven countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen) has perpetrated a terrorist killing since 2001 in the United States. Not coincidently, they are the countries in the Middle East and North Africa where President Trump has no business interests, unlike Saudi Arabia for instance, home to most of the 9/11 attackers and many Trump investments.

The ban on already well-vetted Muslim refugees and legal immigrants holding visas and green cards seems so ill-conceived, even by this administration’s low standards, that I suspect it was only a smoke screen to distract us from other horrible decisions. Maybe allowing energy companies to resume polluting, or loosening ethics requirements on Wall Street? Cabinet appointees ignorant of or actively hostile toward their agency, or both? Unfortunately, there are many to choose from.

Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose

The Statue of Liberty welcomes those who come for a better life, who join our culture and marry the national family, but not terrorists who crash planes into skyscrapers or murder Olympic teams, kill innocent marathon runners or exploit our other American vulnerabilities. Look, I’m a Christian, but if the Christian countries of my ancestry were determined to send terrorists here, I’d be first in thanking Trump for keeping them out until they’re properly vetted. We owe them nothing, and our Constitution guarantees rights that only pertain to us living under its purview. Citizens have rights not necessarily granted to outsiders, just as foreign benefits do not rightfully pertain to us when abroad.

Now, Lady Liberty’s famous plaque welcomes those “yearning to breathe free.” It’s a poem verse, not a legal statement, yet it beckons those of goodwill and we believe its sentiment. So how do we determine the “yearners?” Do we just open the floodgates? We don’t personally admit every knocker on our own front doors, and we wouldn’t release whole populations of convicts back into society and merely hope there aren’t too many murderers in the lot. Do you realize that 2016 had nearly daily terrorist attacks all over the world? Guess which countries and religious demographic were most responsible?

So I find it absurd when Amanda Tyler gets up and spouts “Any attempt to ban Muslim refugees based on their religion betrays our values …” Really, “any” attempt? There isn’t “any” responsible thing we can do to keep out a dangerous plague that many traveling here carry? Imagine if a killer disease was causing death by the thousands in some country. Would it be prudent to welcome the scurrying masses into our uninfected midst just because some with similar religious philosophies already reside here? If anyone’s paying attention, those countries where refugees have been landing have experienced little assimilation and plenty of transported rape and crime. Refugees in Germany were quoted saying, “Allah gave us Germany as a refuge, not the Germans.” Hmm, who gave the Germans Germany?

It’s not that we shouldn’t help people from wherever they’re fleeing with whatever faith they esteem, it’s that we must be smart about it, and as any mother, Ms. Liberty needs to protect her own children above all. The Bible does teach us to be kind to foreign residents, but nowhere does it encourage blind acceptance of Trojan horses.

Rev. Bryan A. Griem
Tujunga

..

The day after the executive order was signed, the church expressed its concern about “violence, war and religious persecution” and urged governments to seek solutions that relieve suffering.

Although the statement, issued in response to media inquiries, didn’t specifically mention President Trump’s order, it follows a series of comments LDS leaders have made during the past year emphasizing the importance of addressing the needs of refugees here in the United States and in other countries. Among the first was a statement, issued the day after then-candidate Trump suggested a ban on Muslim immigration, calling for religious tolerance. In the past 18 months the church has committed more than $10 million in cash and supplies to assist refugees and has counseled members to help refugees in their communities. The church worked with a variety of relief organizations, including Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services, UNICEF and Catholic Relief Services.

The LDS church’s concern stems in part because of its own history. Mormons became refugees in the 1830s and 1840s amid religious persecution in Missouri and Illinois. Moreover, Dieter Uchtdorf, second counselor in the First Presidency, was a refugee twice: first when his family fled their home in Czechoslovakia during World War II and again in 1952 when they escaped from East Germany. He and other church leaders have been outspoken during the past year about the refugee crisis.

“We were not always welcome,” Uchtdorf said of his family’s arrival in West Germany. “They even had names for us as refugees, so as a child it felt pretty sad at times.” However, many showed love and generosity toward his family and other refugees. The church’s efforts in the U.S. and elsewhere marks an effort to show similar compassion.

“There were so many who were willing to help regardless of religion, of race, of background,” Uchtdorf said. “And that’s what we’re trying to do now.”

Michael White
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
La Crescenta

MORE IN THEORY

On the spiritual benefits of admitting weakness

What should be said at Trump’s inauguration?

Would India’s new rule work here?