I began this as a comment to my post on culturism, but decided to make it a separate post so it wouldn’t get lost.
Jake, I appreciate your thoughtful posts even when I disagree with you. You write:
I work with refugees and speak up for refugees because I am motivated by my faith. I make a serious and honest effort to live out an ethic consistent with the teachings of Jesus as they relate to the Old Testament. My values include helping people who need help, honoring the risen Jesus with my words and deeds, living in purity from personal and communal sins, loving people who are not easy to love, caring for people on the fringes of society, and studying, understanding, and applying the Bible.
I would not accuse you of deliberately trying to destroy western values, or our culture. And I respect your living out your Christian faith. Yet we need to look at the results as well as the motivations of our actions.
First of all, there are probably billions of people around the world who need help. We cannot help them all. So shouldn’t we make an effort to help those most worthy, or those who will most benefit from our help? Certainly we should examine whether our efforts will really help, or will make things worse. Unfortunately many efforts at help fall into the latter category, as with the many billions of foreign aid that have been sent to Africa from the west, enriching despots and enabling them to increase their power at the expense of their suffering subjects.
We need to look at our refugee policy in the same light. This is the reason that Ann and I harp on Iraqi refugee policy so much. We are harming many of the Iraqis we bring here, and until very recently the government has refused to consider other options. I believe this is because many of those involved in refugee policy and refugee work are motivated by their wish to do good. They are less concerned with the implications of policy and more concerned about their own self-image. (I am not accusing you of that Jake, because I do not know you.) Some of them also feel guilty because of America’s role in creating the Iraqi refugee situation and want to atone in a personal way — that is, by bringing as many refugees here as possible.
But our responsibility is to do what is best for these suffering refugees, not to bring tens of thousands here as we are doing, which number will hardly make a dent in the total yet inflict harm upon both the refugees who come here and upon our society.
Similarly, it does not matter whether or not you are motivated by a desire to harm our culture. You say you are not, and I believe you. Yet what is important is the objective result of your actions, not your internal motivation. Of course, you are not responsible for refugee policy, and if you work to help those whom our government has brought here, that is admirable. But you are concerned with wider issues than personal assistance, since you began this dialogue with an attempt to refute those who claim our culture is superior to other cultures.
You have not succeeded in that. You simply say that we have flaws and other cultures have virtues, which no one would deny. But you also say this:
For example, our nation was founded with the assertion that all men are created equal and endowed by God with the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All Americans should be grateful for that conviction of our founding fathers. Indeed, the very notion of accepting refugees for resettlement is consistent with this ideal, if America really believes that these rights belong to all men and women. These are American virtues.
Non-western cultures do not believe that all men are created equal and endowed by God with unalienable rights. If they do believe it, they adopted it from the west. In believing this, and in using it as a justification for resettling refugees, you are asserting the superiority of our culture. If we didn’t believe it we wouldn’t care about refugees from other places.
I take that belief as one of the foundations of Judeo-Christian culture, and especially of American culture, since it is in the Declaration of Independence. (If you respond, you do not need to go through all the instances of our not living up to it, which is just the standard fare of American history courses nowadays.) I think it would be fair to sort possible refugees according to whether they accept that belief, or at least hold beliefs that would not prevent them from adopting it as Americans.
Of all the people in the world, those who most obviously cannot accept that belief are Muslims. It is part of the Muslim religion that they are superior to others and entitled to suppress, repress, tax, lie to and (for some) even kill those who are not Muslims. The motivation of many Muslims today is to spread Islam through any means possible, including both the sword and deception.
It goes without saying that not all Muslims follow this jihadist ideology. Yet we cannot distinguish those who do from those who don’t, for two reasons. One is that those who do follow it lie as a matter of course. The other is that within the Muslim community there is a shifting of opinions, so that those who do not care about jihad can be recruited to it, and radical Islamists are making a strenuous effort to do so.
So even if certain Muslims are sweet, gentle, kind, generous, etc., we need to look at whether their culture is one that allows assimilation to our values or whether it precludes it. Statements from Somalis that they are assimilated because they work and pay taxes show that they have no idea what assimilation would consist of. (And how would they, given the dominance of multiculturalism? We really need the kind of education in our culture that Ann suggests.)
And we need to look at the overall effect of bringing Muslims into our country who either already believe in jihad or who may be recruited in the future. This is only common sense.