The fatal flaw in Trump’s policy on Muslims

JC Wilcox’s latest pontification is somewhat rambling and verbose, but basically he wants a way to tell whether a Muslim’s allegiance is primarily to what he perceives to be the demands of his faith or to the laws of the country where he lives. The ancient Romans had a similar problem. The primary allegiance of the early Christians was to their religion rather than to the state. The Christians refused to pay homage to the emperor, so they got fed to the lions. Even today, if you ask any devout Christian if his primary loyalty is to his religion or to his country, he will be in an awkward position and might feel compelled to equivocate. The same applies to any religious believer in any country. Which comes first – church or state? What do you do when the demands of your religion clash with the demands of your country? 

If we were inclined to totalitarianism, we might require all citizens to take an oath that might read something like this: “I solemnly swear that my primary allegiance is to my country and its laws, which I will always faithfully support, defend and obey, regardless of any other subordinate loyalties I may have.” But that would be dictatorial. Besides, people would lie.

Even if Trump were to become president, ban all Muslim immigrants forever and kick out all Muslims currently in the United States (even if they are fourth-generation natural-born citizens), that would still not solve the problem of Islamic extremism. From outside the country, extremists would seduce Americans to their cause through the Internet and social media by promising bored and unhappy youth a life of romance and adventure abroad. Until you can solve that problem, you’re firing blanks.

Not a Fan of Islam