You gotta keep an eye on the illegals who plant and harvest the food legal Americans need to massacre babies and marathon crowds.
So, because a couple of renegade Muslims who were naturalized turned out to be filthy terrorists, we should open our borders to anyone who wants in, is that your point?
Sorry, it doesn’t make sense to me.
My point is that if our immigration laws were designed to treat ALL immigrants the same way, those who enter the country illegally would not have a need to do so. All they would have to do is apply for a visa, the same way prospective immigrants from India, Pakistan, Europe and other parts of the world do. Denying members of a specific culture legal entry into the USA, while issuing as many as 85,000 H1b visas in a single month to attract people from other parts of the world is discriminatory. If our goal is isolationism, let’s make sure it applies to everyone.
We’re not obligated to be non-discriminatory when it comes to deciding whether to admit people who’ve amply demonstrated a proclivity to set off bombs in America. Our government’s obligation is to secure America, not to appear to be the world’s nice guy in spite of ample evidence that Muslims are out to destroy us.
I understand that Saudi Arabia practices exclusion of non-Muslims, although I realize that not many, if any, non-Muslims would want to live there.
I would not admit any Muslims into this country without a thorough vetting of the individuals requesting entry. Further, I would, if I had the influence in Congress, pass a law that would outlaw the Muslim religion in America. If Congress could outlaw the Communist Party in 1954 because it advocated the violent overthrow of the United States government, I believe that it’s Congress’ obligation to do the same now regarding Muslims. Those Muslims in America would have the choice of repudiating their religion or leaving the country.
Congress did not have to outlaw the Communist Party to put it out of business. All that needed to be done was for the FBI infiltrators to stop paying their dues and the Communist Party folded because it went bankrupt.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The Supreme Court (and common sense) has allowed some curbs on the MEANS of exercising religion; performing human sacrifices, practicing polygamy (especially with underage incestuous brides) or using illegal hallucinogens as a sacrament, can be prohibited, but not having services where you TALK about how you would like to do those things. There was an exception in the Volstead Act allowing for sacramental wine, however.
There are Muslims who came to America from Muslim nations already practicing Islam, Muslims who are American born of Muslim ancestry, and Muslims who are American born and converted to that faith here (and their children raised in that faith). If you ban an entire religion because of a few terrorists, you could ban the Catholic faith because of its ties to a foreign leader (one of the reasons we did not have a Catholic President until JFK).
Congress did not outlaw MEMBERSHIP in the Communist Party, it outlawed the illegal ACTIONS involved in trying to overthrow our Constitution. And as someone else has joked, so many Communists quit their party over the years that the only ones left were FBI undercover agents (who were NOT breaking the law by BELONGING to it in order to spy on it).
A First Amendment challenge to your proposed law would be filed so quickly that, even if you COULD get it passed, it would be struck down in six months. All the OTHER religious institutions would join in the challenge to make sure that, if some other idiot tried to do so, THEY could not be outlawed.
And incidentally, Saudi Arabia does not exclude non-Muslims from visiting (I am not sure about immigrating with intent to become a resident), but they have to obey Muslim law while in the country, which is, of course, very restrictive. Kind of like being an agnostic in Utah, but worse.
Adhering to Muslim law seems to be like being in prison. I cannot imagine these people having enough intellectual freedom to be effective scientists. They seem to be doomed to endless intellectual purgatory, something like the Amish.
And yet 1500 years ago, they were the most progressive culture in the world. They PROTECTED Jews from Catholic western Europe and Christian Byzantium, respecting Jews and Christians, promoted science, the arts, technology, preserved Greek and Latin classics both by copying them in their original languages and by translating them into Arabic. Western Europe recovered from the Dark Ages with the help of those manuscripts, replacing those that had been destroyed by the Church. At the height of their empire, merchants in Seville were able to accept a CHECK (!) from a visiting tradesman drawn on a bank in Baghdad! The world’s largest SYNAGOGUE was built in Toledo, Spain. In 1492, before sending Columbus to find more potential slaves/converts, Ferdinand and Isabella finished driving the Moors (Muslims) and Jews out of Spain (this was called the RECONQUISTA), put the ones who couldn’t run fast enough on the rack, forcing many conversions (whose descendants passed on their true family faith in secret), and turning that synagogue into a Catholic church, which it is today.
How did the Muslim downfall and the rise of Europe start? In the 11th century, when Aquinas was assuring Catholics that the investigations of science do not conflict with faith or the Bible as properly understood, Avicenna was telling Muslims that no source of knowledge beyond the Koran was needed; if Allah intended Muslims to know something, it was already in the Koran.
Some large segments of the Christian family are saying the same thing as Avicenna, and like Al Qaeda are calling for a jihad, except they call it a crusade; either way it is a “holy” war and is promoted by hate and bigotry. We have a Christian Taliban in this country, but we know that many other Christians are promoting love and tolerance, opposing that Taliban form of Christianity. And likewise there are more moderate Muslims than extremists. We need them on our side, not insulted by us and driven to go with the extremists.
When the Moors were expelled from Western Spain in 1492, the Jews were given a choice: leave with the Moors or convert to Christianity. Those that converted were called “conversos” and some less complimentary names, like “marannos.”
Some of the “conversos” started conducting Jewish religious services in their homes. For a Catholic to do that is to become a heretic. Eventually, this heresy reached Isabella, who told her Father Confessor, Torquemada, who conveyed the information to the Pope.
The Pope convened a group to inquire into this matter, The group’s activity was called the Inquisition. The rest is history.
The evil is that the “new administration” FORCED people to become Catholic. The inquisition merely compounded that evil. Or are you a reactionary Catholic who feels that forcing baptism and torturing “heretics” is what Jesus would do? Or, as Dostoevsky wrote, is it what the established church would do TO JESUS if they had the chance?
I’m neither a reactionary Catholic or any other brand of religious zealot. I’m just telling you what happened. If you don’t like it, tough! That’s history.
One lesson to be learned is that if you make a deal, be prepared to fulfill your end of it. If you find the deal unconscionable, then don’t make it. I suspect that the heretic “conversos” never intended to keep their end of the deal. I also suspect that their Christian neighbors doubted the “conversos'” sincerity from the start, so when the secret religious services began, their Christian neighbors’ suspicions were confirmed and they snitched to the authorities.
Finally, I think that the “conversos” were pretty naive to think that they could get away with what they were doing.
You are truly pathetic. Saudi Arabia “…does not exclude non-Muslims from visiting….” Baloney.
If a western woman wants to “visit” Saudi Arabia, she must adopt Muslim dress codes. She has to cover her face and body so that she doesn’t overly excite some Arab slob. What an insult. If a western man visits that Middle Eastern stinkhole, he must be careful to avoid crossing his legs and exposing the soles of his shoes to the Arabs around him, because to do so is considered an offense by the Arabs.
Tell me, were you always prone to kissing Arab asses or did you develop it as a diplomatic skill?
I did not say that visitors were not under restrictions, only that they WERE allowed to visit; for decades, high tech companies have imported foreign (i.e. mostly American) engineers, techs and programmers. They do, of course, put restrictions on what they can do there, provide all-foreign enclaves for them to reside, ban alcohol and Bibles, etc. And President Bush the 1st had entire army divisions on their soil (they didn’t like it but they reluctantly agreed to get help against Iraq).
Saudi Arabia is one of the worst examples of Arab rule, but it is at least more rational to deal with diplomatically than Iran or the Taliban rule in Afghanistan. As for the ad hominem arguments, I am not a diplomat (except in the sense that I am a liberal living in a backwards part of Georgia), but I have known Arabs, Israelis, Indians, Chinese and other people personally, not only as an abstract stereotype. A Muslim doctor originally from Egypt some years ago saved me from a blood clot, found the genetic cause, and prescribed medicine I am still taking to stay alive. I have had doctors who were Indian, Chinese, and Persian also. The two doctors I see now are both Indian. If you were to get to know someone from a foreign culture as a person, rather than an image, you would realize that they are people like you. Some people show you hatred, but they can be in any culture, even American Christians! And remember, “Samaritan” in the first century meant, to Jews, the same evil stereotype as “Muslims” mean in our culture, and Jesus used a Samaritan as the example of a good neighbor, not the pillars of the religious community. And he did not choose him at random.
I hope a challenge would be filed quickly, so that the Supreme Court could rule it constitutional and deprive the challengers of ant hope.
The first Amendment is mistakenly referred to as promoting the separation of church and state. It prohibits the establishment of a state religion, but it does not prohibit state recognition of religions.
There is no constitutional barrier to Congress passing a law that safeguards the public from an organization that advocates the violent overthrow of the government.
So you are one of the bigots who feel that the ENTIRE Muslim population of the world is part of a worldwide conspiracy to control all the world’s nations?
The last time someone said that the entire population of a Middle Eastern religious group (and even descendants of members of that religion that had converted away from it generations ago) were part of a worldwide conspiracy opposed to his country … six million of those people were killed and the entire world was plunged into a six year long war.
I assume that you’re talking about Middle Eastern Jews and Hitler, but your post is so confused that I don’t understand your point. Perhaps you could restate it in a few succinct sentences.
Let’s see if i understand your point. Yes, I detest the Muslims. They are a fetid group of medieval clods who have no respect for any opinion other their own, to the point where they claim the right/obligation to murder anyone who’s not a devout Muslim.
With that having been openly admitted, you call me a bigot. Amazing. Are you really that afraid of these bastards that you’d rather suck up to them than see them for what they are?
One can only imagine what technology will look like in the coming decades. Pray tell will there be a constitution left to deal with the new world order.