Paris-based Center for the Analysis of Terrorism has released a very preliminary report citing some of the reasons that terrorists were able to carry out the multiple attacks that left 130 dead on November 13^th, 2015.  Among the issues they found were “poor information-sharing among intelligence agencies” and “an unmanageably long list of homegrown extremists to monitor”.  What a surprise.  The first, poor information sharing among intelligence agencies, was the most prevalent reason that the attacks on the U.S. on September 11^th, 2001 were not detected and prevented before they happened.  Fourteen years and who knows how many billions of dollars later, and what has really changed?  Not much, apparently. The second serves to prove the point that rejecting refugees from Middle Eastern nations such as Syria on the basis that there is a minute possibility of terrorists entering the country disguised as refugees is nothing short of ridiculous.  Not a single one of the perpetrators of the Paris attacks has been proven to have entered France disguised as a refugee.  Frankly, with the “vetting” process that all western countries engage in for immigrants from the Middle East, terrorists can find multiple means of entering either Europe or the U.S. that are faster and more efficient than posing as a poor refugee.  So, who were the Paris attackers?  One, Salah Abdeslam, was a French national born in Brussels.  Another was his brother, Brahim Abdeslam, who had “appeared in several Belgian police files”.  Omar Ismail Mostefai was a French national of Algerian descent.  Samy Amimour was also a Frenchman who had been charged with terror offenses in 2012.  And so it goes.  Does it seem to a reasonable person that banning refugees from Syria would have prevented these attacks?  No.  So … where is the justification for the United States to ban Syrian refugees using the intention of preventing terrorist attacks as an excuse?  There is none.  If next year were not a presidential election year, my guess is that at least a bit more common sense would prevail, but the fact is that 2016 is an election year, and with uneducated clowns like Donald Trump leading the circus, how can the voice of reason possibly be heard over the ringmaster?

On another related front, USA Today and Huffington Post report that a number of states have moved to “ban Sharia Law”.  HUH????  How do you ban from your state something that does not exist, has never existed, and cannot possibly exist under the current U.S. Constitution?  My first response to this was that this country has lost its blooming marbles. My second is to ask if lawmakers are really that damned afraid of a single religious group, or are they hoping to drive their constituency into an even bigger Islamophobic frenzy than the media has already done?  Scare people, then offer them a “solution” to their fears.  Let us set the record straight here.  What is Sharia Law?  It is, quite simply, a legal system based on Islam.  Since the U.S. Constitution requires a separation of church and state, ANY religious legal system is already “banned” in this nation at the federal level which takes precedence over the state level wherever there is conflict between them.  We do not live under Sharia Law, we do not live under Christian Law, and we do not live under the laws of Judaism.  We live in a secular republic where every individual is free to practice their own religion, but the law of the land remains the U.S. Constitution and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of it.  There is no Sharia Law in the U.S., never has been, and never will be unless we lose a war to another nation.  Folks, this is nothing more or less than an attempt on the part of certain politicians using the media as their bullhorn to create mass hysteria in order to achieve their own political goals.  Period.  It is silly and pointless.  We, as a nation, are smarter than to fall for this rhetoric.  At least we once were.

If you don’t like the rites and rituals, the belief system, of a particular religion, then fine … don’t practice that religion.  If you don’t like any religion, that is also fine … don’t practice any religion.  These are your rights.  However understand that you absolutely do not have the right to judge those other religions and insist that those who do follow them be banished from the nation.  If you do not like a specific person based on their behavior, that is fine … don’t associate with that person.  However it makes absolutely no sense to hate an entire race, an entire culture or ethic group because you do not like one person.  I know a number of Christians whom I do not like, but that does not mean I hate all Christians.  I do not call for them to be banned from the nation.  There is absolutely no evidence that we are any less safe if we allow Syrian refugees into our nation.

Have we then become a nation of cowards?  The people who are talking the loudest about this issue certainly do not have the same level of courage that their ancestors had when they headed west with only the few things that would fit into their Conestoga wagon, not knowing what trials, dangers and tribulations faced them.  No, in fact we would likely still be colonies of England today if it had been left up to the people I am hearing talk the loudest, as it took a whole lot more courage to fight and win that war than anybody seems to have today.  Fortunately I understand that there are calmer, cooler heads who will use reason, who have humanitarian values, and who will ultimately prevail in the common sense arena.  They are just quieter because they are busy doing the right things, helping people, promoting peace and good values rather than screaming, ranting and yelling and trying to alpha-dog their way to the top of the heap.  The cowards raise their voices while the rest of us raise our pens.