• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

VA. Man Arrested For Plotting DC Attacks.

Grant said:
Because PeteEU was attempting to emphasize the fact that this Muslim terrorist was American and lessen the fact that he was a Muslim.

While PeteEU has no compunction in tying this Muslim to Americans he feels that connecting him to Islam is an insult to Muslims.

What about having this Muslim terrorist being tied to Americans? Isn't that a slam against the American people?

We should keep in mind that the religion is a choice whereas those born in a particular country have no choice. Ergo, tying this Islamic screwball is an insult to Americans. Who really cares if its an insult to Muslims? They should grow up and not be treated like children.
Click to expand...
Fair point. However, keep in mind that he chose to be an American, too.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
I'm conducting a study, I'm going around threads to see if every topic eventually melts down into a conservative/republican vs liberal/democrat debate instead of staying on the topic. This one is one of the few that have not...so far. Let's see how long that last.
Click to expand...

Just what I would expect from a Liberal . .


JK
 
SE102 said:
Yes, I'm sure they are mentally retarded... :roll:
Click to expand...

You said it dude, not me. I was asking for clarification.

(PS... I know damned well it was a typo on your part... I was trying to lighten things with a little.. apparently very little.. levity).
 
Grant said:
Sure, but I said those born in the country.

If it was up to me I'd disallow Muslim immigration immediately.
Click to expand...

Well thankfully it isn't up to you. Disallowing an entire religion to immigrate to the U.S. because of a small number of people isn't something I would want my country to do.
 
soccerboy22 said:
Well thankfully it isn't up to you. Disallowing an entire religion to immigrate to the U.S. because of a small number of people isn't something I would want my country to do.
Click to expand...

Can you explain why not?
 
Why not what? Why I don't want my country disallowing people of a certain religion? I don't buy into the whole just because moderate Muslims don't denounce terrorism means they support it. My roommate is Muslim and I never once question him. He is as American as I am. And pretty much every Muslim I have met has been the same way.
 
soccerboy22 said:
Why not what? Why I don't want my country disallowing people of a certain religion? I don't buy into the whole just because moderate Muslims don't denounce terrorism means they support it. My roommate is Muslim and I never once question him. He is as American as I am. And pretty much every Muslim I have met has been the same way.
Click to expand...

So you're willing to risk the lives of innocent Americans because your Muslim roommate isn't, as far as you know, a terrorist?

I'm against it because one Muslim terrorist is too many. Why take the chance? They can live elsewhere quite easily, and have done for centuries.
 
Grant said:
So you're willing to risk the lives of innocent Americans because your Muslim roommate isn't, as far as you know, a terrorist?

I'm against it because one Muslim terrorist is too many. Why take the chance? They can live elsewhere quite easily, and have done for centuries.
Click to expand...

And even more have lived here peacefully. You are trying to evict an entire religion based off of a few.
 
soccerboy22 said:
And even more have lived here peacefully. You are trying to evict an entire religion based off of a few.
Click to expand...

I never mentioned anything about "evicting" Muslims. I said no more should be let into the country.

Why should any Muslims be allowed in? Do you have a good reason?
 
Grant said:
I never mentioned anything about "evicting" Muslims. I said no more should be let into the country.

Why should any Muslims be allowed in? Do you have a good reason?
Click to expand...

Not really, but you are the one that wants to keep them out which would require making a law saying so. So, do you have a good reason?
 
Grant said:
Sure, but I said those born in the country.

If it was up to me I'd disallow Muslim immigration immediately.
Click to expand...
Let's see, there are 1.57 billion Muslims worldwide. So far about thirty have attempted (either successfully or not) to carry out attacks in the United States. If my math is correct, that is about 0.000001%. What sort of sense does it make to judge a group based upon that small a percentage of bad actors?
 
soccerboy22 said:
Not really, but you are the one that wants to keep them out which would require making a law saying so. So, do you have a good reason?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do. It's because some of them, although few in number, are terrorists. Their presence is simply not worth the risk involved.
 
Grant said:
Yes, I do. It's because some of them, although few in number, are terrorists. Their presence is simply not worth the risk involved.
Click to expand...

Sorry your fear isn't a good reason to not let an entire group come to this country.
 
Coronado said:
Let's see, there are 1.57 billion Muslims worldwide. So far about thirty have attempted (either successfully or not) to carry out attacks in the United States. If my math is correct, that is about 0.000001%. What sort of sense does it make to judge a group based upon that small a percentage of bad actors?
Click to expand...

But why take any risk at all? Why should any group of people be under constant surveilance? Are they really worth the hassle involved?

Can you give me a good reason why they should be allowed entry?

In fact there is none..
 
Grant said:
But why take any risk at all? Why should any group of people be under constant surveilance? Are they really worth the hassle involved?

Can you give me a good reason why they should be allowed entry?

In fact there is none..
Click to expand...

That's not how it works though, you need good reasons to NOT allow them to enter. There's good reason why you should not not allow them though.

One, precedence. Once you allow the banning of a particular religion from immigration policy you set legal precedence to then begin denying entry into the country for other teir one discriminatory type status's such as race, ethnicity, etc. Should our law be able to say that no Jews may immigrate in, or no Japanese? By doing this law in the name of "protection" you're opening up the legal likelihood of these things being able to be done.

Two, persecution of a religion that is held by citizens. An American Muslims marrying a foreigner whose a muslim is going to be denied his spouse entering the country based on religious beliefs. People attempting to have family members immigrate into the country are having it denied due to religious beliefs. While you may be allowing those IN the U.S. to remain you're essentially having the U.S. government take a stance that MUSLIMS as a whole are dangerous and thus must not be allowed into the country, creating an antagonistic atmosphere towards a religion from a federal level.

Inefficiency and huge governmnent waste. How is one going to verify that someone is muslim? If the policy is known why would they not just claim to be a different religion? You'll spend all the time passing the law, changing the paperwork, changing protocols, for something that can easily be gotten around.

Denying immigration ability to Muslims just isn't intelligent to do.
 
Grant said:
But why take any risk at all? Why should any group of people be under constant surveilance? Are they really worth the hassle involved?

Can you give me a good reason why they should be allowed entry?

In fact there is none..
Click to expand...
By that logic, in order to eliminate all risk we should not let anyone in at all ever again. Do you find that acceptable?
 
Why is it that those who are so busy commenting on "religious bigots" never seem to get around to voicing any disapproval for those whose religious bigotry is burning so fiercely that they seek to murder people en masse because of it?

You know -- like the subject of this thread?
 
Zyphlin

That's not how it works though, you need good reasons to NOT allow them to enter. There's good reason why you should not not allow them though.
Click to expand...

No, you don't. Many countries have certain criteria before allowing entry. Perhaps the best known, in fact, are the Muslim countries themselves. You can't even wear symbols that represent any other religion than Islam.

One, precedence. Once you allow the banning of a particular religion from immigration policy you set legal precedence to then begin denying entry into the country for other teir one discriminatory type status's such as race, ethnicity, etc.
Click to expand...
S

Religion is a set of beliefs taught in a book. It is not a race. No one is advocating the disallowing of entry because of race, but of beliefs. And some of the Islami beliefs are obviously contradictory to a free society.

Should our law be able to say that no Jews may immigrate in, or no Japanese? By doing this law in the name of "protection" you're opening up the legal likelihood of these things being able to be done.
Click to expand...

If Jews or Japanese were the source of terror than you might have an argument, but they are not.

Two, persecution of a religion that is held by citizens. An American Muslims marrying a foreigner whose a muslim is going to be denied his spouse entering the country based on religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

I have no problem dealing with any anti Social belief system, whether it is racism, anti women, or any other anti social behaviour. To claim religious freedom for anti social beliefs and beaviour is a concept that should have disappeared long ago.
People attempting to have family members immigrate into the country are having it denied due to religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

Right.

While you may be allowing those IN the U.S. to remain you're essentially having the U.S. government take a stance that MUSLIMS as a whole are dangerous and thus must not be allowed into the country, creating an antagonistic atmosphere towards a religion from a federal level.
Click to expand...

No, it is admitting that there are a sufficient number of Muslims out there who could be a danger to the well being of the general public. This is clearly true, and there are not enough 'moderate' Muslims taking on those who would be supportive of terrorism, or other anti social behaviour.

Inefficiency and huge governmnent waste. How is one going to verify that someone is muslim?
Click to expand...

That shuldn't be too difficult.

If the policy is known why would they not just claim to be a different religion? You'll spend all the time passing the law, changing the paperwork, changing protocols, for something that can easily be gotten around.
Click to expand...

Certainly they can lie, in fact lying is a part of their religion, but we needn't concern ourselves with that at the moment.
Denying immigration ability to Muslims just isn't intelligent to do.
Click to expand...

Perhaps a vote should be taken. I don't think Muslims add too much to any community that others couldn't fill more peacefully.
 
Whovian said:
To piss of religious bigots like you.
Click to expand...

I'm actually a bigot against terrorists, and those who support them.

I never cared much about Muslims one way or the other until a significant number of them turned to terrorism. I don't care what people believe so long as they don't try to change society, or expect special treatment, as a result of these beliefs.

You don't win a debate by calling people 'bigots', by the way, though the thick of head would win a lot of debates if they could.
 
Last edited:
Coronado said:
By that logic, in order to eliminate all risk we should not let anyone in at all ever again. Do you find that acceptable?
Click to expand...

No, I do not. The main problem in the world today, politically, is militant Islam.

Other religions, or races and ethnic groups, are causing no such problems.
 
Grant said:
Certainly they can lie, in fact lying is a part of their religion, but we needn't concern ourselves with that at the moment.


Perhaps a vote should be taken. I don't think Muslims add too much to any community that others couldn't fill more peacefully.
Click to expand...

the more you speak, the more you prove your intolerance and bigotry. Please do continue.
 
Grant said:
No, I do not. The main problem in the world today, politically, is militant Islam.
Click to expand...
Militant Islam ≠ all Islam.
Grant said:
Other religions, or races and ethnic groups, are causing no such problems.
Click to expand...
You said you wanted to eliminate all risk. The only way to do that is to disallow all immigration, especially considering that Muslims live in pretty much every country in the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom