Silly? No, not at all.
For decades we have been involved in a struggle with and defending ourselves against attacks from people who proclaim, strongly and often proclaim, that their motives are religious. The justification for their murders is religious, distorted religion, but religious. If religion was removed from their calculus they couldn't exist as they do. They incorporate it into their actions to the extent they will kill an innocent if they don't know the name of the Prophet's mom, murder for being the wrong religion. Therefore religion suffuses this conflict whether we choose to acknowledge it or not. Religion determines in many cases whether somebody will get the chop, as in throat being cut, blood spurting all over, the victim flopping around and gurgling as they die chop. So since the enemy chooses victims by religion, it stands to reason that it be proper that we can factor the religion of potential victims into the decision about who we offer refuge to.
Whether we openly admit it or not, I think we do recognize the religious aspect of this conflict, at least in the negative sense. For example, this exchange was begun when I asked Bob Jones' opinion of the persecution Christians in some Muslim countries, pretty benign inquiry. A mere solicitation of opinion. I got nothing back, nothing at all. Why? Well I figure Bob works amongst movers and shakers and his words are watched carefully. He couldn't answer because to do so would be to tread in politically incorrect territory. It is politically fraught. It wouldn't be so hot a potato that it couldn't be mentioned unless it is integral to the conflict.
You do the same thing, recognize the importance of religion in all this. Your first response to my inquiry to Bob was this. (By the way Bob, I am still interested in your opinion.)
Notice the first specific examples you mentioned involved religion, the only specific examples you brought up involved religion. You could have left the religion out of it but you chose not to. There is nothing wrong with that. It is only natural given the nature of this conflict.
The conflict has strong religions overtones and those overtones were brought to it by the enemy. They are pursuing a largely religious vision; and whether we like it or not, by defending ourselves we are confounding their religious vision. That is a religious act in their eyes.
So given all that, I see nothing improper at all in offering Christian victims of religious persecution from Muslim countries where it is particularly strong favorable visa treatment. We would not be defending the faith, I think we would be defending victims who are of a faith, chosen by takfiri killers to die because of that faith. Those same takfiri killers by the way, are after us too.
Bookmarks