- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 1223 Hour
- Reading permission
It is incredible how the Trump compaign has fallen into the quagmire of fighting the father of an American Muslim Purple Heart hero, and the slogfest is turning into a sinkhole where practically all politicians seeking election will be sucked into. Pretty soon, every candidate will be asked his bona fides on this issue. Unfortunately, there is no logical conclusion to this blame game, because both sides are wrong.|
The Trump point of view is that because most of the terrorists who attack the West are Muslims, which is true, that therefore, to most efficiently prevent such an attack on America during his term of office, he will screen all Muslims coming to America more carefully and stringently, to minimize the number of innocent victims of what he called "Radical Islam" terror. Is that religious or racial prejudice? It would be, if would be terrorists are equally likely to be Christians, Buddhists, Hindi, or Shintoists, and Trump out of his hatred for Islam, decided only Muslims are going to be prevented from entering the USA until the screening process is set up and ready to go. Trump did not say he will never allow any Muslim to migrate to America, he only said he will impose a temporary ban (which is a "moratorium") on admitting Muslims, and then they will be allowed to live in America, only if they pass the security tests which are yet to be decided on.
The Clinton point of view as enunciated by their guest speaker, who is the father of an American Muslim soldier who died fighting for America in Iraq, is that if Trump's policy were in place at the time that the father of the hero immigrated to America, he might have failed the test, and his son would never have become an American soldier, who turned out to be an outstanding hero at that, sacrificing his life for his country. While this might be true, it might also not be true, unfortunately. If the father had excellent credentials for migrating to America, he might very well have been admitted even if Trump's policy were in place then. And, due to that delay of 3 to 6 months, his son might end up still being a hero, but due to chance, could have survived his tour of duty and come back alive as well, and be no less heroic or honorable. So, one could ask, what has Trump's proposal to screen Muslim applicants for immigration more stringently anything to do with whether his son is honored or not by the American government and people? None. There is no water tight connection between Trumps Muslim immigration moratorium and the creditability and merit of acts of heroism by those admitted who then went on to die for their adoptive country - they can still do that, and they will still be deeply honored and thanked by the American people. And if both can indeed occur, there is no contradiction. To then allude to Trump not knowing the constitution of the US, as if his policy were proven somehow by this situation to be unconstitutional, is actually to demean the honor and respect that any American war hero deserves. They do not deserve to be dragged into a political non sequitur that makes them look somehow paradoxical or controversial. Trump did not attack their honor or worthiness of national gratittude. Using their name to attack Trump stains their honor with the dishonor of politicians throwing mud, eggs and anything that sticks on each other, and is actually very disrespectful of their stature as American heroes. For example, you would not drag George Washington into the debate about Black Lives Matter just because he might have had a black slave in his plantation. That is unfair to the hero. Even if the scion of the Washtington lineage were to use his name for such purpose, it does him no honor to be so treated.
Let the heroes rest in peace and honor, that they deserve. Nobody has the right to use them as tools for electioneering and mudslinging contests. Both sides erred. One used a hero's name, and the other responded to this act of disrespect at their level of insensitivity.