The terror attacks last Friday in Paris thrust the civilized world into a time of great mourning and grief, with many of us praying for the victims and their families. French President Francois Hollande displayed great leadership as he addressed his nation telling the people of France that the savagery was an “act of war.” Further, President Hollande vowed to attack ISIS without mercy for orchestrating the deadliest attacks in France since World War II. On both Sunday and Monday, French military jets dropped bombs on Raqqa, Syria, where ISIS has its de facto capital, along with other targets in areas under ISIS control. The targets included a command center, a recruitment center, an ammunition storage base, and a training camp for the terror group. (Hasn’t Mr. Obama been bombing ISIS for two years? Why were these targets even still functioning? But I don’t think that anyone will ask that question to Mr. Obama.) In contrast to President Hollande, Mr. Obama did not want to rush to judgment, saying, “I don’t want to speculate at this point in terms of who was responsible for this.” As he has done repeatedly, Mr. Obama refused to call the murderers Islamic terrorists. But he was not alone. All three contenders at Saturday night’s Democratic presidential debate, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senator Bernie Sanders, and former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, refused to say that the slaughter in Paris was the work of Islamic terrorists, though the word “Islamic” appears in the term ISIS. Senator Sanders then claimed that “climate change” presented a greater threat to the planet because it makes poor people into terrorists (presumably by interfering with their crops or some such thing). He was asked no follow-up question regarding his assertion.

Will the events in Paris curtail the arrival of millions of the so-called Syrian Moslem “refugees?” I suppose that only time will tell, but Mr. Obama has no intention to reduce the flow of Moslem “refugees” from the Middle East to the United States. The White House said that it would not let its plans to bring the Moslem “refugees” to the United States be derailed by the events in Paris. Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes insisted that American authorities know how to weed out potential problems within the “refugee” community, and he observed that the Obama Administration has a complete plan to both contain ISIS overseas and keep its recruited fighters out of the U.S. in a way that France is unable to do. Mr. Rhodes’ comments, however, have been repeatedly contradicted by Homeland Security officials who have admitted that the U.S. does not have access to the kinds of records and databases in the Middle East that would allow immigration officers to screen out terrorists. But then again, it just might be that ideology trumps national security, practicality and safety. Presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson has asked Congress to stop Mr. Obama’s plan to bring the tens of thousands of Syrian “refugees.” Dr. Carson said, “[Mr. Obama] took an oath to protect and defend this country. There is simply not a way to vet these refugees. . . . but until we can sort out the bad guys, we must not be foolish.” Indeed. Presidential candidate and Texas Senator Ted Cruz said he plans to introduce legislation banning Moslem Syrian refugees from entering the United States. As of this writing, governors of at least 26 states say that they will not accept Syrian “refugees.” (Incidentally, Alaska does not oppose the resettlement of Syrian “refugees;” after all, Alaska needs people.) Although authority over admitting refugees into the United States rests exclusively with the federal government, individual states can make the acceptance process much more difficult without their cooperation. And FBI Director James Comey has said that he presently has more than 900 on-going ISIS-related investigations in all 50 states.

And what about the Christians from the Middle East? Are they part of a resettlement plan into Europe or the United States? Sadly, the Department of State does not support a “special” category to bring, for example, Assyrian Christians into the United States, even though private donors have offered complete funding for the airfare and the resettlement in the United States of Assyrian and other Iraqi Christians. It is a particularly absurd irony for U.S. government officials to say that Christian refugees from the Middle East will not be supported because of their religious affiliation, even though it is precisely their religious affiliation that makes them candidates for asylum based upon a credible fear of ISIS persecution.

To the consternation of the United States and European Union officials (and much of the mainstream media), several EU countries have said that they will admit refugees from the Middle East, but only those who are Christians, and no Moslems need apply. Slovakia is one such country, and I have been informed that intra-governmental task forces in at least two other European nations are contemplating similar action, though no official actions have been announced. However, EU Commission spokeswoman Annika Breithard has stressed that EU states are banned from “any form of discrimination.” Thus, Christians from the Middle East have been driven out of their homes by ISIS and other terrorists, but are given little protection or safe havens as refugees, notwithstanding international law. Yes, we should watch and pray, but we must also remember our obligation from Galatians 6:10, which reads, “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.”