Ted Cruz’s Religious Test for Syrian Refugees

If there are Syrian Muslims who are really being persecuted, he said, they should be sent to “majority Muslim countries.” Then he reset his eyebrows, which had been angled in a peak of concern, as if he had something pious to say. And he did: “On the other hand,” he added, “Christians who are being targeted for genocide, for persecution, Christians who are being beheaded or crucified, we should be providing safe haven to them. But President Obama refuses to do that.”

The next day, at a middle school in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, Cruz spoke even more openly about those whom he considers to be the good people in the world. He told reporters that we should accept Christians from Syria, and only Christians, because “There is no meaningful risk of Christians committing acts of terror.” This will come as a profound surprise to the people of Oklahoma City and Charleston, to all parties in Ireland, and to the families of the teen-agers whom Anders Breivik killed in Norway, among many others. The Washington Post noted that Cruz “did not say how he would determine that refugees were Christian or Muslim.” Would he accept baptismal certificates, or notes from pastors? Does he just want to hear the refugees pray? [Source]

Honestly? I have no words.

ETA: For once, I'm 100% certain which forum this belong in.


I guess some people just want to keep things homogenous. Which is a particularly odd thing for someone of Cruz's background. I guess religion trumps all? (I didn't intentionally say trump, either, so let's let that ride please.

More on what the President thought about this. Seems Bush got in on the action too.

1:04 p.m. ET

Chris McGrath/Getty Images
In a speech Monday closing the G20 summit in Turkey, President Obama criticized the Republican presidential candidates who have said they want to close U.S. borders to Syrian refugees, unless they are Christian.

"When I hear folks say that maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims, when I hear political leaders suggesting there should be a religious test for which a person fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted... that's shameful. That's not American. That's not who we are," he said.

Both Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz heralded this point of view over the weekend. Cruz said Muslim refugees from Syria should be barred, but Christians are OK. "There is no meaningful risk of Christians committing acts of terror," he said in an interview.

On CNN Sunday, Bush said that with careful screening, the U.S. could take a limited number of Christian refugees from Syria. "We should focus our efforts as it relates to the Christians that are being slaughtered," he said. [Source]

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

Christians who are being beheaded or crucified, we should be providing safe haven to them.

Honestly? I have no words
.

If they have already been beheaded or crucified, and a I may be wrong here, but is it not a bit late to be providing them a safe haven?

And this guy wants to be Leader of the Free World? Can you imagine a Cruz/Huckabee administration?

Mercy...

a reply to: ~Lucidity

He's right. It makes perfect sense for Muslims to immigrate to Muslim nations where they OUGHT TO be welcomed, but for some reason this isn't happening. Some of the most prosperous nations ON EARTH, with untold extravagant wealth, are Muslim nations - yet they are not doing anything to beckon the refugees. And it DOES make sense for Christian refugees to emigrate to "Western" nations, since even if a Christian escapes Syria and enters a peaceable Muslim nation they will still be Dhimmi, they will have to pay the Jizya, and (especially the women) have no legal standing and are at risk for rape and further persecution.

originally posted by: OuttaHere
a reply to: ~Lucidity

He's right. It makes perfect sense for Muslims to immigrate to Muslim nations where they OUGHT TO be welcomed, but for some reason this isn't happening. Some of the most prosperous nations ON EARTH, with untold extravagant wealth, are Muslim nations - yet they are not doing anything to beckon the refugees. And it DOES make sense for Christian refugees to emigrate to "Western" nations, since even if a Christian escapes Syria and enters a peaceable Muslim nation they will still be Dhimmi, they will have to pay the Jizya, and (especially the women) have no legal standing and are at risk for rape and further persecution.

Then why does it make sense for the Christians to come here? We're not a Christian nation, if it doesn't make sense for the Muslims it doesn't make sense for the Christians.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: OuttaHere
a reply to: ~Lucidity

He's right. It makes perfect sense for Muslims to immigrate to Muslim nations where they OUGHT TO be welcomed, but for some reason this isn't happening. Some of the most prosperous nations ON EARTH, with untold extravagant wealth, are Muslim nations - yet they are not doing anything to beckon the refugees. And it DOES make sense for Christian refugees to emigrate to "Western" nations, since even if a Christian escapes Syria and enters a peaceable Muslim nation they will still be Dhimmi, they will have to pay the Jizya, and (especially the women) have no legal standing and are at risk for rape and further persecution.

Then why does it make sense for the Christians to come here? We're not a Christian nation, if it doesn't make sense for the Muslims it doesn't make sense for the Christians.

Did you really ask that question?

How about they will not be persecuted here as they would in a Muslim nation. That cannot be hard to grasp.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Well he's a strict literalist remember (in his Bible and Constitutional interpretations) therefore, I must assume that he is literally saying the only refugees we should let in are Christians who are in the process of being decapitated or nailed to a cross.

originally posted by: OuttaHere
a reply to: ~Lucidity

He's right. It makes perfect sense for Muslims to immigrate to Muslim nations where they OUGHT TO be welcomed, but for some reason this isn't happening. Some of the most prosperous nations ON EARTH, with untold extravagant wealth, are Muslim nations - yet they are not doing anything to beckon the refugees. And it DOES make sense for Christian refugees to emigrate to "Western" nations, since even if a Christian escapes Syria and enters a peaceable Muslim nation they will still be Dhimmi, they will have to pay the Jizya, and (especially the women) have no legal standing and are at risk for rape and further persecution.

You're not saying Muslims should only seek refuge in Muslim nations and Christians should only seek refuge in Christian nations, are you?

You also don't seem to realize that these propserous nations have only two classses...a very, very small disgustingly rich class and the poorest of poor who have to scramble for a drop of water to drink. You really believe that that rich 1% is going to help refugees?

It's not happening? Really?



And let's take this tidbit from the article about what he said.

He told reporters that we should accept Christians from Syria, and only Christians, because “There is no meaningful risk of Christians committing acts of terror.”

a reply to: ~Lucidity

And let's take this tidbit from the article about what he said.

He told reporters that we should accept Christians from Syria, and only Christians, because “There is no meaningful risk of Christians committing acts of terror.”

What is untrue in that statement? Seriously?

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: ~Lucidity

And let's take this tidbit from the article about what he said.

He told reporters that we should accept Christians from Syria, and only Christians, because “There is no meaningful risk of Christians committing acts of terror.”

What is untrue in that statement? Seriously?

Who said there was anything untrue in it? It's what he said. Only Christians?

Okay. All Jews to Israel. All Muslims to the ME. All Buddhists to Asia. And all atheists to Mars. Seriously, Cruz?

originally posted by: OuttaHere
a reply to: ~Lucidity

He's right. It makes perfect sense for Muslims to immigrate to Muslim nations where they OUGHT TO be welcomed, but for some reason this isn't happening. Some of the most prosperous nations ON EARTH, with untold extravagant wealth, are Muslim nations - yet they are not doing anything to beckon the refugees. And it DOES make sense for Christian refugees to emigrate to "Western" nations, since even if a Christian escapes Syria and enters a peaceable Muslim nation they will still be Dhimmi, they will have to pay the Jizya, and (especially the women) have no legal standing and are at risk for rape and further persecution.

America isn't a Christian nation though. Send them to Vatican city that is a Christian state.

originally posted by: OuttaHere
a reply to: ~Lucidity

He's right. It makes perfect sense for Muslims to immigrate to Muslim nations where they OUGHT TO be welcomed, but for some reason this isn't happening. Some of the most prosperous nations ON EARTH, with untold extravagant wealth, are Muslim nations - yet they are not doing anything to beckon the refugees. And it DOES make sense for Christian refugees to emigrate to "Western" nations, since even if a Christian escapes Syria and enters a peaceable Muslim nation they will still be Dhimmi, they will have to pay the Jizya, and (especially the women) have no legal standing and are at risk for rape and further persecution.

You're just full of misinformation. Turkey has over 2 million Syrian refugees, Lebanon has over a million and Jordan has around 700,000 for instance. What country are you referring to where Christians are paying jizya?

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: ~Lucidity

And let's take this tidbit from the article about what he said.

He told reporters that we should accept Christians from Syria, and only Christians, because “There is no meaningful risk of Christians committing acts of terror.”

What is untrue in that statement? Seriously?

Aside from the fact that Christian terrorist have killed more people in America than Muslim extremist?

a reply to: ~Lucidity


Apparently Cruz isn't very familiar with the 1st Amendment and the fact that it prohibits the Federal Government from favoring any one particular faith. Accepting only Chrisian refugees and singling out Islam as a group to exclude is just that, a violation of the 1st Amendment. Ironic that he's an outspoken critic of what is referred to as the Activist Supreme Court by those who claim the court is makin defacto law or reinterpreting the Constitution yet he is now ignoring aspects of the 1st amendment because he's a xenophobic head case.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: ~Lucidity

And let's take this tidbit from the article about what he said.

He told reporters that we should accept Christians from Syria, and only Christians, because “There is no meaningful risk of Christians committing acts of terror.”

What is untrue in that statement? Seriously?

Aside from the fact that Christian terrorist have killed more people in America than Muslim extremist?

I guess that takes the heat off of the Mexicans....They're Catholic...kinda Christian maybe.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: ~Lucidity

And let's take this tidbit from the article about what he said.

He told reporters that we should accept Christians from Syria, and only Christians, because “There is no meaningful risk of Christians committing acts of terror.”

What is untrue in that statement? Seriously?

Aside from the fact that Christian terrorist have killed more people in America than Muslim extremist?

LOL,

Show me some of those specific "I KILL YOU FOR JESUS" massacres and suicide bombings here in the US please.

Let's see that enormous body count from say 9/10/2001 to today

a reply to: olaru12

Funny you should mention that...was thinking exactly the same thing earlier today.

The pendulum just keeps swinging...back and forth and round and round...and eventually it'll hit everyone.

originally posted by: Aazadan

Then why does it make sense for the Christians to come here? We're not a Christian nation, if it doesn't make sense for the Muslims it doesn't make sense for the Christians.

Because unlike Muslim nations, Western nations are not going to make Christian refugees into second class citizens. And Christian refugees are not a threat to our national security in the same way that the Muslim refugees are.

originally posted by: buster2010
Aside from the fact that Christian terrorist have killed more people in America than Muslim extremist?

Name ONE Assyrian Christian terrorist event.