Family Research Council forsakes the Bible, embraces misdirection to support Trump's refugee ban

The Family Research Council abandons 'The Good Samaritan' parable in defense of Trump.

Eager to not lose it's "golden goose in the White House,"   the Family Research Council has forsaken any notions of religious propriety by not even attempting to act as Trump's conscience when he pushes for outlandish things such as his recent refugee ban

Instead, the organization is acting as cheerleader for Trump, even sidestepping the Bible it supposedly holds as a standard.

FRC president Tony Perkins had this to say in a recent Washington Update:

While Obama may have capped certain refugees, he showed unusual hospitality to populations who pose the greatest threats to the U.S. President Trump is determined to change that, putting the brakes on the immigration process until a better, safer vetting protocol is in place. But since Trump issued the order in late January, liberals have been in hyper-drive trying to discredit the idea, which -- ironically -- was based on security reviews conducted by President Obama's own team. Unfortunately, the Left just can't seem to wrap its mind around Trump's protective measures when their only national security doctrine seems to be "inclusivity" and "sensitivity."

That's also the cry of the religious Left. Since Syrian refugees started streaming into America, some liberals tried to use Scripture to suggest we should let anyone and everyone into the country. Of course, these are the same people who claim we're trying to impose a theocracy when we advocate for laws that uphold basic and historical standards of morality. Still, there seems to be a growing chorus of believers who justify these open-door policies on immigration with the Bible's command to "love the stranger."

I agree -- we should love the stranger, but there's no suggestion in the Bible that we should jeopardize our own security and well-being to do so. There are plenty of charitable solutions for refugees that don't involve bringing them to America and letting them abuse our hospitality for ill-intent. Our nation can be caring and benevolent without unnecessarily endangering our own people. What many forget is that loving the stranger is just one component of Scripture's teaching. God also commands foreigners to assimilate and keep the laws of the land. As Exodus 12:49 makes clear: "There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you." The United States' goal should be a safe haven for everyone. And that means protecting the America's welcoming reputation without sacrificing our systems and safety.

That sounds reasonable, until one realizes that Perkins is spinning a huge distortion.

 From Factcheck.org:

Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute . . . produced a 28-page report last year called “Terrorism and Immigration.”

Nowrasteh’s report identified 154 foreign-born people who were convicted of carrying out or attempting to carry out a terrorist attack in the U.S. over a 40-year period, from 1975 to 2015, most of them on or after Sept. 11, 2001. Forty of the 154 were responsible for 3,024 deaths; 114 of them were not responsible for any deaths.

Only 17 of the 154 foreign-born terrorists were from the seven countries covered by the Trump administration’s temporary travel ban. But none of the 17 was responsible for any deaths — even though the seven countries combined represented almost 40 percent of all refugees accepted into the U.S. in the last 10 years.

As of Jan. 31, a total of 255,708 refugees from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen have been admitted to the U.S. since the start of 2008. Those countries account for almost 40 percent of the 642,593 total refugees who have come to the U.S. in that time period, according to the State Department’s Refugee Processing Center.

“The first sentence of his order states that it is to ‘protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States,'” Nowrasteh wrote in a blog post. “However, the countries that Trump chose to temporarily ban are not serious terrorism risks.”

In addition, Steven Goldstein, executive director of the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect, said the following in a January US. News and World Reports column:

Millions of Syrian refugees are fleeing Syria because they are being targeted by the Islamic State group, an enemy of the United States and other democracies the world over. Our nation, and the Syrian refugees who yearn to enter, have a common enemy. The logic is clear: What's good for America's security is good for the refugees' security.

When the United States accepts refugees from countries with a significant Muslim population, we undermine the anti-American hatred that underlies Islamic State group recruitment. Closing America's door to Syrian refugees, therefore, is not only a heartless hiccup in our nation's history, it also validates Islamic State group propaganda, advances the group's agenda and drives refugees back into the arms of dangerous terrorists. 

So it would seem that Perkins made awful generalizations about Syrian refugees to exploit fears of terrorism. He didn't offer any facts about the situation, just blanket statements designed to put people at ease should they feel guilty about abandoning Biblical homilies which speak on helping strangers.

I'm not surprised by Perkins's actions. He has spent so much time lying about lgbts that I guess lying about other communities comes naturally to him.