Syrian Refugee Opinion Poll

[PhuturePriest]

I wanted to make a poll to see where Phatmassers lie on the issue. 

Personally, I am somewhat split. Originally I was all for allowing all refugees, regardless of religion, to come in. But it cannot be denied this does endanger national security, whether we like it or not. Just yesterday an Islamic State militant was arrested at the Mexican border trying to get in the country.

Here's an article I found very interesting that I would recommend reading before voting. It uses arguments from Saint Thomas Aquinas for its base, and goes less into the fact that Islamic State militants could immigrate and speaks more to the fact that Muslims by the nature of their religion pose social, cultural, and political problems, regardless of their peacefulness: http://taylormarshall.com/2015/11/islamic-refugee-crisis-good-samaritan-or-maccabean-response-or-both.html

tl;dr: Saint Thomas Aquinas says we must protect the common good first and foremost, and since for Sunni Muslims (the large majority of Muslims) it is a core part of their belief that Sharia Law must be spread to every nation, this in itself threatens the common good on both political and spiritual grounds. However, we must help Muslims in the Middle East and provide them with protection and necessities, and treat them with love and compassion. We must be good Samaritans, but being a good Samaritan does not mean we must allow people into our homes and dictate our law system and how we behave.

[Peace]

LOL. That is a pretty tough poll to take because all of the options are at the extremes!  My answer would be none of the above, I think.

[PhuturePriest]

LOL. That is a pretty tough poll to take because all of the options are at the extremes!  My answer would be none of the above, I think.

What would your choice be?

[dairygirl4u2c]

your poll says all or none, so i don't like the options. some of them, preferably christian is my vote. 

i couldn't imagine Jesus as turning away the refugees. and the pope said churches should be taking care of them- they couldn't though if every country took the position of no refugees. 

[Peace]

your poll says all or none, so i don't like the options. some of them, preferably christian is my vote. 

i couldn't imagine Jesus as turning away the refugees. and the pope said churches should be taking care of them- they couldn't though if every country took the position of no refugees. 

Wait a second. I thought you were an atheist? My bad.

[Nihil Obstat]

I voted for Christians, but my opinion is more nuanced than that.

[Anomaly]

I voted Yes, we should have refugees from Syria coming here.  However, attention to safety and security of citizens here is as important.   The principle is the inherent dignity of humans.  Accommodating that Principle must balance the safety of the citizens here that enable this society that "relatively" allows and protects the dignity of persons while also extending opportunity for freedom and dignity to others.  A secure fence with a weak gate.  

The terrorists are relatively weak in their ability to harm, which is why their strongest weapon is fear.   They killed dozens in Paris but instilled fear that diminishes human dignity in hundreds of thousands.    Our hearts and minds can easily defeat them at their worst.  And yes, I am aware it is not a bloodless war.  

Edited November 19, 2015 by Anomaly

[Era Might]

There was a time in this country when they didn't want to let Catholics in, cuz they were Catholic..and dirty.

We must be good Samaritans, but being a good Samaritan does not mean we must allow people into our homes and dictate our law system and how we behave.

The Good Samaritan did not stop to ask the man whether he was Samaritan or Jew. A religious test for refugees, whatever it is, is not the work of a Good Samaritan.

 

[dominicansoul]

I'm a woman.  I drive down dark country roads at night.  I see a man stuck on the side of the road with car trouble, I'm calling someone to come help him, I'm not doing it myself.  I'll drive right on by.    Is that being unChristian and uncharitable?  I doubt Jesus will say, "hey, you didn't stop to help that strong hairy man on the side of the road in the dark when you were out driving by yourself, you ought to be ashamed."  He wants us to protect ourselves.  Same in this situation, and its a very tricky situation because we're dealing with evil and wicked terrorists who disguise themselves in ways we never think to look.  But, we are a very charitable people and we want to help, they will definitely take advantage of that...or will they?  Its so difficult...

 

[Luigi]

There was a time in this country when they didn't want to let Catholics in, cuz they were Catholic..and dirty.

The Good Samaritan did not stop to ask the man whether he was Samaritan or Jew. A religious test for refugees, whatever it is, is not the work of a Good Samaritan.

 

The man who was helped by the Good Samaritan was weak, beaten up, bleeding, and no threat to the Good Samaritan. While some of the Syrian refugees may be weak, beaten up, bleeding, and no threat to anyone, a very large number do not fall into this category.

[Spem in alium]

None of the above. I would be open to accepting, providing that there are detailed and regimented processes of acceptance and admission. As mentioned, while some Syrian refugees are legitimate refugees in need of help and compassion, not all are.

[Didacus]

Being Christian is not a synonym to being stupid. 

[Era Might]

The man who was helped by the Good Samaritan was weak, beaten up, bleeding, and no threat to the Good Samaritan. While some of the Syrian refugees may be weak, beaten up, bleeding, and no threat to anyone, a very large number do not fall into this category.

He had no idea whether the man was a threat to him, but merely helping a stranger (who had been beaten and left for dead) was putting himself at risk. The priest and the Levite were the sensible ones...they left the man alone; not only was he a stranger, but they were on a road to Jericho where brigands beat people up and leave them for dead. The miracle of the Good Samaritan story is precisely that the Samaritan stepped outside human consideration...he stepped outside religion, outside society, and outside his own risk of safety and money. He transcended Samaritan-Jew and created a simple I-Thou.

The Good Samaritan is, ultimately, the embodiment of Christian love. That's not why I object to religious tests for refugees, because I don't think a government acts out of Christian love in any circumstance. There is no I-Thou for a government. I object because it is loathsome even from the purely secular ideals of the United States, whether we're demonizing Syrians today, Salvadorans in the 1980s, Mexicans always, Catholics in the 1800s, Communists, in the 30s-50s, or anyone else. The purpose of a free country is not to create a scapegoat of fear that politicians can then use for political gain.

[beatitude]

The man who was helped by the Good Samaritan was weak, beaten up, bleeding, and no threat to the Good Samaritan. While some of the Syrian refugees may be weak, beaten up, bleeding, and no threat to anyone, a very large number do not fall into this category.

I once heard some interesting exegesis on the Good Samaritan story. Not only were the priest and Levite afraid to help the wounded traveller for fear of ritual contamination, but because of the possibility of a ruse - the fear that highway robbers might be hiding near the injured man and using him as bait to draw in more victims. The Good Samaritan still stopped. Thankfully, in the same spirit, Francois Hollande has declared that France will take in 30,000 refugees - even more than he pledged to accept back in September. He received a standing ovation from the mayors who were gathered to hear him speak.

All but one of the attackers identified so far are native-born citizens of France. One is suspected of having posed as a refugee, but his identity is not yet confirmed - the only thing that's known is that he was using a counterfeit passport and that he has been in Greece. Given that IS has already shown itself to be capable of recruiting and radicalising people over the Internet and the known ringleaders of this attack were born in Europe, cracking down on refugees is unlikely to insulate Europeans from attack, but it will definitely jeopardise more lives in Syria. In the Second World War there was a risk that Nazi agents would infiltrate disguised as Jewish refugees (and this was exactly the scenario invoked by people who opposed giving asylum to Jews). It was a possibility. But it was an absolute certainty that if Jewish people remained where they were, they were going to get slaughtered. In this situation we are once again balancing a possibility against a certainty.

And it's a pretty horrific certainty. A few days ago, I participated in a conference for humanitarian practitioners. On the final day I had to excuse myself from the discussion and leave the room to pray and calm down for a while, because after three days of hearing from the Syria relief workers my own resilience had started to crumble. And it's not that I'm particularly sensitive - you need a tough stomach in my field. The contribution that made me need to pause was from a practitioner who is working with Syrian refugee boys in Jordan who are selling sex for the equivalent of one dollar a time in order to support what's left of their families. In the words of one eleven-year-old boy, "I'd rather it was me than my sisters." They feel that's their only option now - and let's face it, how many other options do they have? Starve? I struggled to cope with three days of hearing about it; for them, that's their reality, and they deal with it every second of every day. There is no time-out. This is what we are dealing with when we talk about refugees. It is a greater risk to human life and dignity to turn such people away than it is to take them in.

I think people in Paris understood that. On the night of the attacks, Parisians were using the Twitter hashtag PorteOuverte ('open door') to invite people who were stranded and scared into their homes. The gunmen were at large and nobody even knew how many gunmen there were at this point, so there was a possibility that a terrorist could have taken advantage of PorteOuverte and killed a family. But once again, a possibility was balanced against a certainty - the absolute knowledge that there were people on the streets who were panicked, unfamiliar with Paris, and with nowhere to go - and a just, compassionate response was made.

[veritasluxmea]

First of all, America can't afford to solve its homeless problem or take care of its vets. Where we will get the money to help these people? is it even realistic for us right now?

Secondly, I suspect taking in men from Syria will increase the rape culture in America. (http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape) Countries that are facing this problem (like Sweden) are putting money into teaching refuges not to rape, but again, where will we get this money for this (and frankly, how effective will it be?)

I would like to take in as many refuges as possible. If we give a high and quick priority to children, women, and men with families (preferably all together), I think that minimizes the concerns on terrorism and rape and helps the people in serious need first. 

Edited November 20, 2015 by veritasluxmea