From the beginning, I have opposed Western military involvement in the Syrian conflict. I have argued against providing any material support to Islamist fighters in Syria. Liberals and conservatives alike who support the goal of toppling Assad do not grasp the threat Islamism poses to humanity. As we saw with al Qaeda, moral men do not use these people as a means of achieving ideological ends. They are not to be played with. The Islamists represent an existential threat to human freedom, and feeding this monster only makes the likelihood of their success greater. I also opposed military action in Iraq and all of the other countries the US has invaded, occupied, and bombed, as well as military and material support to insurgents in every situation. I am anti-imperialist. If you know me and read my work this should come as no surprise.
I have expressed support for refugees and argued that the nations of the world that can should take them and provide for them, especially those countries whose actions created the refugee crisis. The United States has taken refugees from Iraq, Syria, and many other places and I have supported this. I have also expressed the opinion that it is appropriate for countries to set limits on the number of persons coming across their borders, but if no evidence can be presented indicating that the person is a danger to others (criminal background, involvement in terrorism, carrier of a communicable and deadly disease), they should not be prevented from entering merely on the basis of point of origin. There are exceptions to many of these cases obviously. I am working from principle.
I remind people of these points because there should be no confusion concerning the intent of my argument about the legality of Donald Trump’s executive order. My observation that the administration devised the order to avoid the charge of religious discrimination is based on my interpretation of the text and analysis of the context and represents my thinking about how this order will fair in the courts. It is no way an expression of support for Trump or his order.
Some might be confused because I pushed back on the claim that it was a “Muslim ban.” I strive to make judgments independent of partisanship or ideology. Opposition to Donald Trump should not cause anyone to ignore or misrepresent facts. If distortion in pursuit of political goals is what makes the political right so contemptible, then the left needs to take special care to avoid distorted communication. We need to speak truthfully, and when I see people marching out with a particular (mis)characterization in tow, one that the other side can easily push back on, I thought something needed to be said.
Nothing I am saying here is meant to suggest that anybody be apolitical. I highly recommend you study the difference between neutrality and objectivity. They are not synonyms. What I argue for is objectivity. Reluctantly go beyond the facts you have. And when you have more facts, and your assumptions and interpretation appear wrong, be sure to correct them.
I followed the Quebec shooting in real. The initial sense was that it was a hate crime. I was unsure. When the first police reports came out claiming that the gun man suggesting the gun man was an Islamist, I finally posted about it and noted the troubling fact that victims of Islamic terrorism are often Muslims themselves. When later facts showed that it was a right-wing white nationalist, I made sure to correct the record. This is how one works in an objective fashion.
freedom and reason 