No they didnt have Islam in mind. If fact they had no particular religion in mind. The simply made it a right to exercise whatever religion you believe in. Its a pretty simple concept.
Have they found the Orlando shooters motive yet?
- Thread starter wildchild
- Start date
No they didnt have Islam in mind. If fact they had no particular religion in mind. The simply made it a right to exercise whatever religion you believe in. Its a pretty simple concept.
The US Constitution is totally incompatible with islam. Islam is a repressive system of government, like communism, only with some religious overtones made up by a murderous warlord. We should stop treating it like a traditional religion because ti isn't.
It's doubly ironic that the progressives who fret endlessly that Evangelicals want to impose a theocracy on the US are demanding we import large numbers of people who actually do want to do that.
Thank you, but the founders did not have a single religion in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights. I know the progressive populists are not into the Constitution, but I am.
The religion that best describes your definition is the Catholic church. They ruled Europe for over a thousand years and were 100% a system of government, much more than modern Islam. I don't see you trying to ban them.
Don't mischaracterize what I wrote. I didn't call for a ban on islam. I object to the exaggerated deference our leaders and the media give it.
People have the right to associational freedom under the First Amendment, yet that didn't stop the FBI from a large-scale effort to infiltrate the KKK. It would be an obvious first step to do the same thing with mosques, yet we are told they can't even be listened in on for fear of upsetting muslims. If the objective if such surveillance was to punish muslims for their religious beliefs, that might make sense. It makes no sense when we are talking about uncovering terrorist plots.
Dealing with radicalized American citizens is tricky. Non-citizens however do not have the same rights and should be deported immediately for jihadist rhetoric. That's a problem for this administration however, since they refuse to even recognize the existence of jihad.
We know for a fact that some percentage of muslim immigrants are terrorists or will become terrorists. It is not a trivial concern. We know from the experience of Belgium and France, among others, that when the number of muslims in a country increases, the task of tracking them increases exponentially, as does the risk. Our FBI has proven itself incapable of handling the number of muslims we have already. Don't forget, they had the 9/11 terrorists in their sights, the Boston bombers were well-known to them, as was the Orlando shooter. They should have picked up the San Bernadino shooter's wife's radical connections and refused her entry. Yet all slipped through their fingers. DHS' response is to further restrict our rights rather than address the actual problem.
People have the right to associational freedom under the First Amendment, yet that didn't stop the FBI from a large-scale effort to infiltrate the KKK. It would be an obvious first step to do the same thing with mosques, yet we are told they can't even be listened in on for fear of upsetting muslims. If the objective if such surveillance was to punish muslims for their religious beliefs, that might make sense. It makes no sense when we are talking about uncovering terrorist plots.
Dealing with radicalized American citizens is tricky. Non-citizens however do not have the same rights and should be deported immediately for jihadist rhetoric. That's a problem for this administration however, since they refuse to even recognize the existence of jihad.
We know for a fact that some percentage of muslim immigrants are terrorists or will become terrorists. It is not a trivial concern. We know from the experience of Belgium and France, among others, that when the number of muslims in a country increases, the task of tracking them increases exponentially, as does the risk. Our FBI has proven itself incapable of handling the number of muslims we have already. Don't forget, they had the 9/11 terrorists in their sights, the Boston bombers were well-known to them, as was the Orlando shooter. They should have picked up the San Bernadino shooter's wife's radical connections and refused her entry. Yet all slipped through their fingers. DHS' response is to further restrict our rights rather than address the actual problem.
You were for Trump's ban. Now that Trump has dumped it, so have you.
I don't have a problem with banning muslim immigration.
Good, because you are out of line with Trump.
Based on what? What is the source? Another Huffington Post article from Ricter?
For the record the HP posted facts gathered by several other sources.