To this, the official Western response has been to cry “racism!” Barack Obama, for instance, once called
such a suggestion “shameful,” loftily adding: “That’s not American.
That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.”
Meanwhile, it was later revealed that his administration was doing precisely that—but in reverse: discriminating against persecuted Christian asylum seekers, while favoring Muslims.
All emotionalism and name calling aside—that is, the stuff of
American politics—there are, in fact, several objective reasons why the
West should give priority, if not exclusivity, to Christian refugees
from the Muslim world—and some of these are actually to the benefit of
Western nations. Consider:
Christians are real victims of persecution.
From a humanitarian point of view—and humanitarianism is the chief
reason cited in accepting refugees—Christians should receive top
priority simply because they are the most persecuted group in the Middle East.
As former Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop once put it, “I
think that Christian minorities are being persecuted in Syria and even
if the conflict were over they would still be persecuted.”
Indeed. While they are especially targeted by the Islamic State and
other professional jihadists, before ISIS, Christians were and continue
to be targeted by Muslims—Muslim mobs, Muslim individuals,
Muslim regimes, and Muslim terrorists, from Muslim countries of all
races (Arab, African, Asian, etc.)—and for the same reason: Christians
are infidel number one. (See Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians for hundreds of anecdotes before the rise of ISIS as well as the Muslim doctrines that create such hate and contempt for Christians.)
Conversely, Muslim refugees are not fleeing direct persecution, but
chaos created by the violent and intolerant teachings of their own
religion, Islam—hence why violence and intolerance follows Muslims into
Muslim persecution of Christians has been further enabled by Western policies.
Western nations should accept Christian refugees on the basis that
Western actions in the Middle East are directly responsible for
exacerbating the plight of Christian minorities. Christians were not
terrorized in Bashar Assad’s Syria, or Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, or Muamar
Gaddafi’s Libya. Their persecution grew exponentially only after the
U.S. and other Western states interfered in those nations in the name
of “democracy.” All they did is unleash the jihadist forces that the
dictators had long kept suppressed.
Unlike Muslims, Christians are easily assimilated in Western countries, due to a shared Christian heritage. As a Slovakian official once explained,
Muslims would not fit in, including because there are no mosques in the
Slavic nation. Conversely, “Slovakia as a Christian country can really
help Christians from Syria to find a new home in Slovakia.”
This too is common sense. The same Christian teachings that molded
Europe over the centuries are the same ones that mold Middle Eastern
Christians—whether Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant. As San Diego’s
Father Noel once said,
Mideast Christians “who come here [America] ‘want to be good citizens’
and many who came here a decade ago are now lawyers, teachers, or other
productive members of society.”
Meanwhile, Muslims follow a completely different blueprint, the
Koran—which condemns Christians by name, calls for constant war (jihad)
against all non-Muslims, and advocates any number of distinctly
anti-Western practices. Hence it is no surprise that many Muslim
migrants are anti-Western at heart.