The morality of allowing Syrian refugees into the USA

  • Thread starter Thread starter AFerri48
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Great bible passage. But I was hoping you could also address the concerns of the opposing view. Is Jesus words absolute even at the cost of harm to nation, community, family, & individual? I agree that Jesus words are absolute from an “act” and “intention” perspective. **But are they absolute in all “circumstances”? **
The opposing view is based in fear. Fear is the devil’s tool.
We are people of Faith, Hope. Love. There is no room for fear because this is not our home. It is but a temporary place where God has placed us, for the time being, to share the Good News. Our job is to bring souls to Christ. We must trust in His divine providence.
 
No. The Great Commission (Matt 28:16-20) is about evangelizing to peoples everywhere. We Catholics evangelize first and foremost by our actions, be extending God’s love and mercy in tangible ways to those He brings to us. He is sending the refugees here. We must respond according to His will.
Not of it means putting our lives and our children’s lives at risk with terrorist attacks.

These terrorists want us dead. They can stay home or head over to one of the border countries instead.

Martyrdom should be a choice we make ourselves…not something that is forced upon us by someone else.

This has already happened.

The Tsarnaev brothers were refugees from the Chechen conflict.
They thanked us for our hospitality by bombing the Boston marathon and killing/injuring scores or people.

You want this to happen again? It is not an if…it’s a when.
 
I’m curious to what your opinions are on this as of right now. On one hand, we have reason to believe that any of these Syrians could cause a terrorist attack, while on the other… they are refugees.

How do you feel about this?
A nation has a right to self-defense. I am absolutely opposed to letting these refugees in. They can’t be adequately vetted and it’s inevitable that some of them will be radical and violent. Between 30-40% of Mideastern Muslims think violence against America is justified.The same percentage thinks Sharia law should be the law of the land. They don’t share our values. To let them in is to invite trouble.
 
Not of it means putting our lives and our children’s lives at risk with terrorist attacks.

These terrorists want us dead. They can stay home or head over to one of the border countries instead.

Martyrdom should be a choice we make ourselves…not something that is forced upon us by someone else.

This has already happened.

The Tsarnaev brothers were refugees from the Chechen conflict.
They thanked us for our hospitality by bombing the Boston marathon and killing/injuring scores or people.

You want this to happen again? It is not an if…it’s a when.
You are assuming we have the ability to thwart the actions of ISIS. This is a different kind of war we are in. It is being waged via the internet, recruiting people from within their own home borders. It is not the refugees and immigrants we need to focus on, it is the terror cells already active.

What’s with the ‘should’? Martyrdom is the result of someone else imposing their will upon the victim. The victim doesn’t get a choice. Your Boston marathon example proves that. 9/11 proves that. None of those people choose to die for their faith, they were selected to die for their faith, basically for believing in anything other than Islam.

Doesn’t matter what I ‘want’ to happen. The bigger picture is not within my realm to control. I can only deal with that which is before me. Right now God is providing those who claim to be His this opportunity to live according to His teachings.

Since you value ‘choice’ as much as you do, here are your options:

Accept the refugees into your country, your town, your home, whatever applies. Treat them as God’s children, with care, kindness, love, mercy.

Refuse the refugees entrance, protect your own home, town, country. Leave them to seek help elsewhere, or to starve, fall victim to thieves, rapists, or just angry scared people who look at them and see only ISIS, not God’s creation. They persecute them, imprison them, beat them up.

Terrorists attack. You die. In which scenario would you die a martyr?

I’d even venture to say that if the terrorist happened to be the very person you cared for directly, all the more would God be pleased with your choice. Is this not what he demonstrated when he was given up to Pilate?

If we act according to His will we do not need to be afraid. It’s that simple.
 
1.) No one seems to be addressing the “break-even” point in moral theology regarding “circumstances” surrounding the action. At what point, do the negative consequences out weight the moral obligation to help someone in need?

2.) Is a third option available? Can we put Syrian refugees in a high-density camp, guard the camp, and relocate the individuals when the Syrian war is over?

Thanks,
 
1.) No one seems to be addressing the “break-even” point in moral theology regarding “circumstances” surrounding the action. At what point, do the negative consequences out weight the moral obligation to help someone in need?

2.) Is a third option available? Can we put Syrian refugees in a high-density camp, guard the camp, and relocate the individuals when the Syrian war is over?

Thanks,
There is no break-even in Catholic moral theology. We don’t hold the balance of the scales. He does. Our response must always be His. To choose otherwise is to side with Satan.

You do realize that the concept of ‘break-even’ in moral theology is why so many abortions have taken place over the years? THAT’s what ‘break-even’ moral thinking leads to.

As for your third option, that didn’t work so well for the American Japanese during the internment years. No, that is not an option.
 
1.) 2.) Is a third option available? Can we put Syrian refugees in a high-density camp, guard the camp, and relocate the individuals when the Syrian war is over?
,
War in the Middle East will NEVER be over. Too much hate, too much certainty your side is right, I could keep going…
 
Trust, but verify! With extreme vigor.
I agree. Certainly we have the obligation to do everything in our power to screen and vet any refugees, but given the circumstances, acknowledge there is no fail safe method to do so at this time, and in this scale. Do all that we possibly can, and trust.
 
A nation has a right to self-defense. I am absolutely opposed to letting these refugees in. They can’t be adequately vetted and it’s inevitable that some of them will be radical and violent. Between 30-40% of Mideastern Muslims think violence against America is justified.The same percentage thinks Sharia law should be the law of the land. They don’t share our values. To let them in is to invite trouble.
I admit to mixed feelings here. You are right, we cannot adequately vet them. But then, if ISIS wants to get someone into the country, they will get them in. The border is little guarded with Mexico, and not at all with Canada.
Mideast Muslims who migrate to the US are far less likely to be those who would support violence against the US (unless they were specifically recruited to do so).
In terms of them “don’t share our values”: well, how many native born Americans today share our values? (abortion, same sex marriage, etc). My guess is that most average Muslims today coming to the US share as much or more of my overall values as the Americans running the media, or the colleges, for instance.

So we have risks with the impoverished immigrants from Syria, and we also are at risk with powerful Americans, too. Keep in mind prolifers are getting “vetted” out of some American schools of Medicine, and other professions. Prolifers have reduced chances of advancement in politics and human services fields. Syrians aren’t the only ones getting vetted. I am a little worried that immigrants who come here will learn to learn to “share our (2015) values”. The USA is not the land of my childhood.

So maybe we should err on the side of compassion, but monitor the immigrants from Syria as best we can.
 
Since you value ‘choice’ as much as you do, here are your options:

Accept the refugees into your country, your town, your home, whatever applies. Treat them as God’s children, with care, kindness, love, mercy.

Refuse the refugees entrance, protect your own home, town, country. Leave them to seek help elsewhere, or to starve, fall victim to thieves, rapists, or just angry scared people who look at them and see only ISIS, not God’s creation. They persecute them, imprison them, beat them up.

If we act according to His will we do not need to be afraid. It’s that simple.
What about a third choice?

Refuse to allow potential rapists, terrorists, thieves, murderers and people who see us a evil westerners who deserve to be executed into our homes and our country.
Refuse to allow our children to exposed to these people.

We have absolutely every right to say no…enough is enough…our citizens deserve to not be in harm’s way.

So…is it fine that hundreds of people are brutally slaughtered and millions are terrorized?

That’s God’s will right?

We shouldn’t be afraid or do anything to prevent this from happening?
 
There is no break-even in Catholic moral theology.
Have you ever heard about the double-effect? Material cooperation with evil? Formal/informal cooperation with evil? The Act, Intention, & Circumstance around all moral acts. This is my focus.

BTW, I don’t disagree with what you are saying.
 
We shouldn’t be afraid or do anything to prevent this from happening?
Everything you listed were some very real consequences. So, then…

Can Christians ignore immediate suffering due to the possibility that a negative consequence may later arise from it?
 
What about a third choice?

Refuse to allow potential rapists, terrorists, thieves, murderers and people who see us a evil westerners who deserve to be executed into our homes and our country.
Refuse to allow our children to exposed to these people.

We have absolutely every right to say no…enough is enough…our citizens deserve to not be in harm’s way.

So…is it fine that hundreds of people are brutally slaughtered and millions are terrorized?

That’s God’s will right?

We shouldn’t be afraid or do anything to prevent this from happening?
Due diligence is part of the moral code. We don’t roll over for the slaughter. We take what precautions we can, but always moving forward according to His will, and trusting in His loving care.

God’s will is that each and every one of us return home to Him as saints. There are a million ways everyday that this can happen, all of which are out of our control. Some can be anticipated, avoided. But in the end, we will die. One way or another. What we DO control is how closely we lived every moment God granted us according to His will.

Where, in any of Jesus’ teachings, do you hear him teach his disciples they have rights to put themselves above others? This is why he was killed, you know, because his teachings were so radical - then - and now.
 
This is something that has been on my mind all day. I have very mixed feelings about this. I just can’t seem to pick a side on this. However, I believe that I am leaning more towards allowing them to come to USA. When I see these poor women and children, it is so heartbreaking. I am sure God would want us to accept them. I think we just need to trust in God and do the humane thing.
 
Have you ever heard about the double-effect? Material cooperation with evil? Formal/informal cooperation with evil? The Act, Intention, & Circumstance around all moral acts. This is my focus.

BTW, I don’t disagree with what you are saying.
That’s a topic for another thread, sadly. And no, I haven’t heard about double effect. Material cooperation with evil, yes.

With regard to this topic of Syrian refugees, the act, intention & circumstances would have to be sincere…to take them in because we see them as people of God, as Jesus Himself, and thus tend to them with love, kindness and gratefulness.

I suppose taking them in to put them into camps would border on that double effect thing. Take them in, providing only the bare necessities, food, water, shelter, but not tending to their physical and emotional well being. That’s kind of like the pharisees who want everyone to see them fasting, while in their hearts they cast judgement on those ‘beneath them’. We’d be taking them in for appearance sake.

Is that what you mean?
 
Would this be a bad time to point out that the Tsarnaev brothers were “refugees”?
The Economist For our readers wondering whether the Boston bombers were refugees: the Tsernaev brothers came with their parents to the US on a tourist visa in 2002—and then asked for asylum. They didn’t go through the refugee resettlement process described in the article above. They were not refugees but asylees (though the two terms often get confused).
 
Everything you listed were some very real consequences. So, then…

Can Christians ignore immediate suffering due to the possibility that a negative consequence may later arise from it?
Except why is it that Moslem migrants are the ones being permitted to exit from Moslem countries like Turkey, while very few Christian refugees – the very ones who are being targetted by radical Islamists are being left in horrid conditions in refugee camps in Syria, Jordan and Iraq, if they can even make it there?

The Syrian “refugees” are 97.5% Moslem and 2.5% Christians, but Christians made up close to 10% of the population. Through Turkey the numbers are vastly more Moslem than Christian and very few were persecuted in their home countries to the extent that Christians were.

stream.org/us-christian-groups-prioritizing-muslim-over-christian/

The American government has refused to recognize Christians as a persecuted group in the Middle East.
Their plight involves a nightmarish catch-22. When Christians flee as refugees they cannot go to UN-run refugee camps because there they face the same persecution and terror from which they fled. If they are not in the refugee camps they are not included in the application process for asylum. The U.S. State Department knows this, but continues to allow the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to select refugees for asylum with no regard to the endangered Christians and other religious minorities. According to statements in the Sunday Express from an ISIS defector and aid workers in the UN camps, ISIS is sending teams of trained assassins disguised as refugees to kidnap and kill Christians.
And we’ve just learned that the State Department is poised to rule that Yazidis but not Christians are likely to be designated as victims of genocide in Iraq.
stream.org/us-christian-groups-prioritizing-muslim-over-christian/
Something is fishy here. I think every western nation has the responsibility to question and even doubt our “leaders” who are taking us into a very questionable position in terms of national security.

Jesus said, “Be gentle as doves, but wise as serpents.”

And it is time to educate ourselves (and wise up) into what is happening around us and who, really, is looking out for the common good in modern western “liberal” societies.

youtu.be/ASUnosseuEI
 
Is that what you mean?
Yes, we understand each other. You have a good heart. I have wrestled with this for an hour now, it’s a good mental exercise in moral theology. I’m currently leaning to allow the refugees because the immediate suffering outweighs the reasonably certain negative consequence that may later arise from it.

Double-effect is a principal that says it is morally permissible to perform an action that has good outcomes and bad outcomes. Given certain criteria are met.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top