Regardless of where you are on Trump’s recent executive order on immigration, it’s important to have a well-thought-out explanation of your position. Politicians especially should have a well-thought-out position. Here, Senator Murphy from Connecticut explains his stance in opposition.
Notice that he is for having no screening whatsoever for the United States. How would that prevent terrorism? He has two points. First, he says that because most Muslim terrorists come through Europe, then Europe should do the vetting . Then we won’t have to. That’s not an absence of screening. It’s just moving it over to the Europeans. And it ignores the fact that terrorists could just as easily come through other countries.
The second point is that he says once terrorists get to the United States, then we should prevent them from getting an assault weapon. So he’s perfectly okay with them making it to American soil, but he simply doesn’t want them to have an assault weapons. Pistols are fine. Machetes are fine. Explosives are fine. But not assault weapons.
A prime example of how not to think.
I understand why this is being considered, and I know that it is intended to help save human lives. But it’s the stuff out of science-fiction horror novels.
What could go wrong?
How about a complete loss of the distinction between human life and animal life? Once we begin mixing the growth of human tissue with animal tissue, we begin to change the actual nature of that creature. At what point do something like this become human? Or semihuman?
If our worldview is based on a Darwinist view of nature, then there’s nothing to see here. But if human beings are something different from animals, and this is very troubling indeed.
Europeans lost a lot of their fighting spirit after WW1, and again after WW2. You can see it in their war movies. There is little patriotism, just a lot of angst about having to fight. It’s good that they don’t want to fight each other, but they may need to fight someone else.
The alliance between feminists and Muslims has always been quirky. Here, a Muslim cochair of the women’s march advocates sharia law. We all know that the vast majority of the women at that March would oppose sharia law. So what gives?
Sharia law does not work well with other worldviews. It is an attempt to silence all other viewpoints then Islam. Those who promote tolerance and place Coexist bumper stickers on their cars would find them silenced in a sharia society.
This approach always seems to go with a worldview that believes that anyone who does anything bad is actually a victim. The idea is that, as long as people are going to do this bad thing, let’s keep them safe while they are doing it. The idea is that if no one is getting hurt and the actor is not killing himself, then it’s okay.
After all, who hasn’t been strung out for a few days on an opioid high? Actually, I never have been.
And that is a clash of worldviews. One worldview is that people are basically good and will always do the right thing if you give them that opportunity. Another worldview says that we all do bad things and will continue to do bad things until we one day wake up and decide to do right. The first worldview says that if a person finds a wallet with a lot of cash in it , they will try to return it to its rightful owner. The second worldview says that if someone finds a wallet with cash, they will probably try to keep it for themselves unless something compels them to do the right thing, such as their conscience, believe in God, or the law.
Which one of those works in the real world?