Skittles or immigrants?
I'm not sure what the fuss is about. Was the analogy flawed? Of course: all analogies are, by their nature, flawed, or else they wouldn't be analogies.
Was the analogy "disgusting" or inhuman, as Democrats and liberal Catholics are claiming?
I'm not so sure. Such criticism just continues the public dialogue's habit of talking past opponents.
Trump's entire campaign revolves around one thing: What is best for America? Or, put alternatively, what is best for Americans? What is safest for Americans?
By that test, the analogy is far from disgusting. In fact, the analogy is spot on. No person can reasonably claim it's in America's best interests to admit Muslim refugees, unless he starts to rely upon intangible factors, like "world opinion" and "making America morally better" (the latter is laughable, by the way, as long as we keep promoting the slaughter of the unborn).
Now, if the test isn't "What's best for America," but rather, "What's best for the Syrians" or "What's kindest" or "What's the best Christian response to this crisis," then the analogy is disgusting. These are, after all, humans we're talking about.
The problem is, I and many other Americans are tired of policing the world and worrying about what's best for people X, Y, Z; we are not a kind nation and it's no use pretending we are (I'm tired of the "Bomb everyone; invite everyone" hypocrisy), and we haven't formulated a Christian response to anything since before the Mexican-American War, so I see no need to start now and, if we are going to formulate a Christian response, let's not forget the history of its relationship with Islam.
