• 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!

Would US Fundie Christians Pass Trump's Ideological Test?

Have you read the title of the thread?

The thread is about the hypocritical bigotry of Christians who want minorities to pass a test in order to become citizens that they themselves would fail, isnt it?
 
Congress can make laws excluding aliens who have not yet entered U.S territory for whatever reasons it sees fit, and the Supreme Court has never even implied otherwise. Quite the contrary--as I have shown by quotations from the Court's decisions, it is very unlikely to question any law regarding the exclusion of aliens Congress may make.

Mindlessly epeating your assertion will not make it any less false. If you have any legal authority to support it, then give us a specific citation to it. You won't, because you can't.

You'd have to sell that to SCOTUS because even if it only affects immigrants, it's still a law of the land. And Congress shall make no law which restricts the free exercise of religion.
 
The thread is about the hypocritical bigotry of Christians who want minorities to pass a test in order to become citizens that they themselves would fail, isnt it?

Yes it is.
 
It's already in English. The premise of the OP is itself a ridiculous negation of the right of America's existing citizenry to continue living in their own country. As socialists always do, this one seems to be insisting that the country doesn't belong to its people, and that some nanny state gets to own the country and decide who gets to live there. Sorry, but the existing citizenry of a country don't need to pass any test or justify in any why why they have a right to live there. That's why such rights are called INALIENABLE - a concept that illegal alien supporters don't seem to comprehend.

"Born in a country for generations" isn't in English.

The Orlando shooter was born here. The San Bernardino shooter was born here. The Fort Hood shooter was born here. They're okay though, is that right? Because they were born here, I mean.
 
"Born in a country for generations" isn't in English.

The Orlando shooter was born here. The San Bernardino shooter was born here. The Fort Hood shooter was born here. They're okay though, is that right? Because they were born here, I mean.


Obviously they wouldn't have been stopped by immigration testing, since they weren't immigrants. Likewise, they wouldn't have been stopped by airport security checks, because they weren't traveling through an airport - doesn't mean we shouldn't still have security checks at airports and tests for immigrants. You're Straw-manning again.

The examples you cited indicate that there may be a need for further types of surveillance against those who may harbor ideologies of concern. It would really help if Muslims get the message and start preaching tolerance -- not mere tolerance towards themselves -- anybody can do that -- but preaching tolerance towards others. It might lower the incidents of violence emanating from their community toward others.
 
Last edited:
Obviously they wouldn't have been stopped by immigration testing, since they weren't immigrants. Likewise, they wouldn't have been stopped by airport security checks, because they weren't traveling through an airport - doesn't mean we shouldn't still have security checks at airports and tests for immigrants. You're Straw-manning again.

The examples you cited indicate that there may be a need for further types of surveillance against those who may harbor ideologies of concern. It would really help if Muslims get the message and start preaching tolerance -- not mere tolerance towards themselves -- anybody can do that -- but preaching tolerance towards others. It might lower the incidents of violence emanating from their community toward others.

So you're okay with American born killers who kill in name of Islam. You just don't like the ones that live elsewhere.
 
So you're okay with American born killers who kill in name of Islam. You just don't like the ones that live elsewhere.

No country gets to declare a natural born citizen to be a non-citizen because of criminal activity. What they do is they lock them up. You can't declare Charles Manson to be a non-citizen because he murdered people.

You seem to be going out of your way to argue that non-Americans have identical status to natural-born Americans. Your beliefs are completely 100% wrong.
 
No country gets to declare a natural born citizen to be a non-citizen because of criminal activity. What they do is they lock them up. You can't declare Charles Manson to be a non-citizen because he murdered people.

You seem to be going out of your way to argue that non-Americans have identical status to natural-born Americans. Your beliefs are completely 100% wrong.

Who said anything about non-Americans having identical status to natural-born Americans, and declaring natural born citizens as non-citizens because of criminal activity?

You aren't a birther, are you?
 
Who said anything about non-Americans having identical status to natural-born Americans, and declaring natural born citizens as non-citizens because of criminal activity?

You aren't a birther, are you?

You and the OP certainly imply it, by defending a specious line of reasoning that immigrants should not be submitted to testing for violent or criminal-minded beliefs unless natural-born Americans are similarly subjected to them before being allowed to live in the USA. Sorry, but for those whom the US is the country of their birth, no testing is required for them to live here. But for those who are foreigners, they can't claim some similar automatic right to live here. Foreigners don't have the same status as Americans, no matter what. Therefore the premise of the OP is preposterous and disingenuous.
 
Bravo!! In a thread about Christians banning Muslims for no other reason than hatred and bigotry, you still manage to make Christians the victim.... that takes skill you should work for FOX news

I guess facing up to the facts about left-wing bias and animosity against Christians disturbs you. Too bad. We're not about to let anti-Christian communists take over our country. In fact, I was proud to take a stand against them in Vietnam.
 
Bahrain is a Muslim sheikhdom - not exactly a gold standard for you to be citing as a benchmark. Nobody cares about arbitrary outliers - cite some meaningful precedent as justification. This isn't a random-fact-citing contest.

You said "no country." One example is enough to prove you wrong. There are others. I wasn't citing a benchmark, just pointing out your ignorance of the world. And, Qassim was stripped of citizenship for his Muslim (Sunni) beliefs.

Now, what exactly are you claiming would prevent U.S. law from being changed to allow revocation of citizenship?
 
I guess facing up to the facts about left-wing bias and animosity against Christians disturbs you. Too bad. We're not about to let anti-Christian communists take over our country. In fact, I was proud to take a stand against them in Vietnam.

Huh? its very rare to hear someone celebrate the Vietnam war, why?
 
You said "no country." One example is enough to prove you wrong. There are others. I wasn't citing a benchmark, just pointing out your ignorance of the world. And, Qassim was stripped of citizenship for his Muslim (Sunni) beliefs.

Your nitpickery only reinforces my argument that Muslims are guilty of gross hypocrisy on the very issues they are most shrill about. Bahrain would screech that Trump is "Islamophobic" for proposing any kind of test, and meanwhile they'll ignore their own record in cases like the one you cited.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Islam promotes a philosophy of "What's Mine is Mine, What's Yours We Share" - the very opposite of the Golden Rule - wherever Muslims are in the minority, they loudly clamor for their "minority rights", but wherever Muslims are in the majority, they aggressively stamp out minority rights. That includes even one sect of Islam against another.

That's why I believe that Islam is simply an AGGREGATOR for people with low-EQ impulse-control problems -- aggregating across many centuries.
You can see it in the emphasis of their religious tenets.

Why make women wear veils and burqas?
Because otherwise they'll pounce on women in the streets.

Why allow 4 wives?
Because they need more women to shag - they're hornier.

Now, what exactly are you claiming would prevent U.S. law from being changed to allow revocation of citizenship?

Bahrain is no benchmark to citing for the US to emulate. Next you'll be saying there's no reason why the US shouldn't use famine as punishment, like Stalin did.
 
I tend to doubt it.

I imagine, what Trump meant was that you could pass the test or be Christian. What he would do in the case of a lesbian Muslim with a Star of David tattooed on her nipple, I am not quite sure.
 
Back
Top Bottom