Does it violate the first amendment to not allow muslims in here?

yankintx said:

Deal with religious people? Your giving us inclusive atheist a bad name. Live and let live, this country is an experiment in Democracy, obviously your not happy, maybe you should leave if all those religious folks insult your idea of America.

Click to expand...

Yea, but the thing is... religious people already live in America and that's fine.
However, those ones from foreign countries are far more devout than standard American christians and muslims

whateverdude said:

Can being anti-religious really be comparable to racism. Different races aren't harmful, religion is.
secular culture is inherently superior to religous culture, whereas one race isn't superior to another

Click to expand...

It's not being anti-anything that is bad. It's the rhetoric. It's the calls to action. In your case, your rhetoric and the things you are calling for are no different than the bigotry of the skinheads.

Mycroft said:

It's not being anti-anything that is bad. It's the rhetoric. It's the calls to action. In your case, your rhetoric and the things you are calling for are no different than the bigotry of the skinheads.

Click to expand...

Not really, because I don't support ANY acts of bigotry against my fellow countrymen.

whateverdude said:

Not really, because I don't support ANY acts of bigotry against my fellow countrymen.

Click to expand...

Personally, I wish would could remove Christians from America by force, and exile them...

Click to expand...

You were saying?

whateverdude said:

I wanna preserve our cultural identity, and an excess of Muslims, even moderate Muslims would be a bad thing. I'm no theocrat.
Personally, I wish would could remove Christians from America by force, and exile them...
It's just too bad many Christians already reside here in America as US citizens. However, we can prevent more Christians, Jews, and Muslims from polluting our secular culture.

Here's the thing, a lot of people support my position becuase they think that there's gonna be undercover ISIS and radical islamists infiltrating the refugees and spreading violence
I don't but that theory. However, I think the best court of action is to deny entry of refugees of faith... not to keep America "safe" but to keep America "secular"

However, I'm a big believer in the non-aggression principle and I want to find ways to deal with religious people without breaking non-aggression... So I support things like removing all private sector discrimination protections for people of all faiths, giving the private sector the right to deny religious people services, and denying them entry into the US

(I'll be honest here people... i'm an anti-religious bigot)

You don't hold an entitlement to being a US citizen, therefore to deny access does not violate non-aggression

Click to expand...

Major logic fallacy with your position. Since our culture is based upon and continues to, overall, be one based (not solely, but still a major foundation) upon religious freedom, both in the ability to have none or any by individual choice, you cannot preserve the cultural identity, by removing part of it.

whateverdude said:

Can being anti-religious really be comparable to racism. Different races aren't harmful, religion is.
secular culture is inherently superior to religous culture, whereas one race isn't superior to another

Click to expand...

Since superiority is a value judgement and is thus subjective, your position has no objective support.

whateverdude said:

Yea, but the thing is... religious people already live in America and that's fine.
However, those ones from foreign countries are far more devout than standard American christians and muslims

Click to expand...

There is devout and there is radical, and they are not the same. Why should a country that was founded upon the principle of religious freedom, be denying people entry on religion alone?

whateverdude said:

I wanna preserve our cultural identity, and an excess of Muslims, even moderate Muslims would be a bad thing. I'm no theocrat.
Personally, I wish would could remove Christians from America by force, and exile them...
It's just too bad many Christians already reside here in America as US citizens. However, we can prevent more Christians, Jews, and Muslims from polluting our secular culture.

Here's the thing, a lot of people support my position becuase they think that there's gonna be undercover ISIS and radical islamists infiltrating the refugees and spreading violence
I don't but that theory. However, I think the best court of action is to deny entry of refugees of faith... not to keep America "safe" but to keep America "secular"

However, I'm a big believer in the non-aggression principle and I want to find ways to deal with religious people without breaking non-aggression... So I support things like removing all private sector discrimination protections for people of all faiths, giving the private sector the right to deny religious people services, and denying them entry into the US

(I'll be honest here people... i'm an anti-religious bigot)

You don't hold an entitlement to being a US citizen, therefore to deny access does not violate non-aggression

Click to expand...

Interesting question and I can see both sides.

First, the first amendment is a prohibition on congress making laws which prohibit the exercise of religion. Thus they can not make a law saying you may not practice islam (so long as it doing so doesnt violate others rights, of course). But they can make laws regarding naturalization and defending sovereignty. I dont see how keeping out a specific religion is enforceable, but certainly we can keep out any individual aliens we want for any reason.

However, this isnt really in the spirit of the first amendment, and I think it should inspire our immigration law to allow in anyone who will respect our culture, law and order, and not be a hindrance on the country.

Removable Mind said:

Abso-****ing-lutely! As an atheist I have just as many rights under the Constitution as religious people. If I open a bakery and don't want to sell wedding cakes to religious persons - aren't I entitled to deny sales because of my beliefs...just like they can because being an atheist is considered to be against their religious tenets?

Click to expand...

Thats a tricky one. Its not so much about religion but commerce. Our societies consensus is that commercial activity should not discriminate on any group attribute unless its vital to your business (like hiring hot chix0rs at Hooters). Then again, religious practice is specially protected.

jonny5 said:

Thats a tricky one. Its not so much about religion but commerce. Our societies consensus is that commercial activity should not discriminate on any group attribute unless its vital to your business (like hiring hot chix0rs at Hooters). Then again, religious practice is specially protected.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately a lot of people believe that they're being personally attacked because other people won't bend to their religious tenets.

The unique thing about being a person of any religion is a person has the ability to communicate with the god of their understanding 24//7/365, completely uninterrupted. The human mind has amazing abilities.

no but it violates common sense.

Our law is based on precedence. Not allowing Muslims to immigrate sets a legal precedent that further down the road can be used to bar anyone who follows a any religion, or no religion.

maquiscat said:

There is devout and there is radical, and they are not the same. Why should a country that was founded upon the principle of religious freedom, be denying people entry on religion alone?

Click to expand...

That's not the reason, and there's plenty of precedent and good reason to bar them. They are violent.

American said:

That's not the reason, and there's plenty of precedent and good reason to bar them. They are violent.

Click to expand...

Yes because Christians aren't violent at all. *cough*Inquisition*cough*abortion clinic bombers*cough*

maquiscat said:

Yes because Christians are violent at all. *cough*Inquisition*cough*abortion clinic bombers*cough*

Click to expand...

Rare vs common occurrences. Get yourself a perspective.

American said:

That's not the reason, and there's plenty of precedent and good reason to bar them. They are violent.

Click to expand...

So how did sacking Constantinople help fight Muslims again? How did massacring Jews in the Rhineland help fight Muslims again? Hell, how did attacking Russia/Novgorod help fight Muslims?

That's not even getting into the kind of **** they committed once in the Holy Land itself.

This fantasy that the Crusades were a "defensive war" is hilarious.

American said:

Rare vs common occurrences. Get yourself a perspective.

Click to expand...

The Inquisition could hardly be viewed as "rare". As Christians we have our violent history, and we have shifted away from that. Muslims are are in that process. Radical Islam will die away as radical Christianity has. No, neither will never go away altogether, but just because there

maquiscat said:

The Inquisition could hardly be viewed as "rare". As Christians we have our violent history, and we have shifted away from that. Muslims are are in that process. Radical Islam will die away as radical Christianity has. No, neither will never go away altogether, but just because there

Click to expand...

And in the meantime we protect ourselves. Stop fighting off policies to protect us from radical practices like beheadings, honor killings and bombs.

American said:

And in the meantime we protect ourselves. Stop fighting off policies to protect us from radical practices like beheadings, honor killings and bombs.

Click to expand...

You seem to mistake my goals and intents. I am all for making sure Sharia law is never enacted and that any Muslim who does not want to be bound by Sharia law, is not. I have no problem with extra scrutiny to those who wish to come here from countries where there are unusually high potential for trouble. In the same light I would never have had (assuming I was more worldly knowledgeable at that young age) any problem with extra scrutiny being given to those coming over from Ireland due to the number of terrorists that were coming out of there. But in that same light, simply because one is a Muslim is not a reason, in and of itself, to deny an individual access to this country. If they are more moderate Muslims, then I see no reason to reject them.

maquiscat said:

You seem to mistake my goals and intents. I am all for making sure Sharia law is never enacted and that any Muslim who does not want to be bound by Sharia law, is not. I have no problem with extra scrutiny to those who wish to come here from countries where there are unusually high potential for trouble. In the same light I would never have had (assuming I was more worldly knowledgeable at that young age) any problem with extra scrutiny being given to those coming over from Ireland due to the number of terrorists that were coming out of there. But in that same light, simply because one is a Muslim is not a reason, in and of itself, to deny an individual access to this country. If they are more moderate Muslims, then I see no reason to reject them.

Click to expand...

Do you realize the countries listed in the so-called "ban" were put together by the Obama administration?

American said:

Do you realize the countries listed in the so-called "ban" were put together by the Obama administration?

Click to expand...

Yep. And I really don't agree with an outright ban, unless there is a huge and imminent threat. And I most certainly do not agree with a selective blanket type ban, such as Muslims only. I do agree with increased scrutiny on those wanting to come here from high threat countries, and simply ignore what one claims as their religion. Israel does it right. They look for behaviors that say trouble, and don't get bogged down in details like race, religion and such.

maquiscat said:

Yep. And I really don't agree with an outright ban, unless there is a huge and imminent threat. And I most certainly do not agree with a selective blanket type ban, such as Muslims only. I do agree with increased scrutiny on those wanting to come here from high threat countries, and simply ignore what one claims as their religion. Israel does it right. They look for behaviors that say trouble, and don't get bogged down in details like race, religion and such.

Click to expand...

It wasn't an outright ban, and if you don't understand the exact nature of this EO, then no need to talk until you do.

American said:

Rare vs common occurrences. Get yourself a perspective.

Click to expand...

Northern Crusades[edit]
The Christianization of the pagan Balts, Slavs and Finns was undertaken primarily during the 12th and 13th centuries, in a series of uncoordinated military campaigns by various German and Scandinavian kingdoms, and later by the Teutonic Knights and other orders of warrior-monks. It involved the destruction of pagan polities, their subjection to their Christian conquerors, and frequently the wholesale resettlement of conquered areas and replacement of the original populations with German settlers, as in Old Prussia. Elsewhere, the local populations were subjected to an imported German overclass. Although revolts were frequent and pagan resistance often locally successful, the general technological superiority of the Crusaders, and their support by the Church and rulers throughout Christendom, eventually resulted in their victory in most cases - although Lithuania resisted successfully and only converted voluntarily in the 14th century. [26]

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Paganism#Scandinavia

whateverdude said:

I wanna preserve our cultural identity, and an excess of Muslims, even moderate Muslims would be a bad thing. I'm no theocrat.
Personally, I wish would could remove Christians from America by force, and exile them...
It's just too bad many Christians already reside here in America as US citizens. However, we can prevent more Christians, Jews, and Muslims from polluting our secular culture.

Here's the thing, a lot of people support my position becuase they think that there's gonna be undercover ISIS and radical islamists infiltrating the refugees and spreading violence
I don't but that theory. However, I think the best court of action is to deny entry of refugees of faith... not to keep America "safe" but to keep America "secular"

However, I'm a big believer in the non-aggression principle and I want to find ways to deal with religious people without breaking non-aggression... So I support things like removing all private sector discrimination protections for people of all faiths, giving the private sector the right to deny religious people services, and denying them entry into the US

(I'll be honest here people... i'm an anti-religious bigot)

You don't hold an entitlement to being a US citizen, therefore to deny access does not violate non-aggression

Click to expand...

I guess you could have potential immigrants sign a form that promises they have no religious affiliation. That should do it, huh?

American said:

That's not the reason, and there's plenty of precedent and good reason to bar them. They are violent.

Click to expand...

The main crusades spanned more than two centuries (1096-1300 CE). These extended military raids stemmed from changes hat had taken place outside Europe before the time of the Crusades, most notably the growth and expansion of Islam. Christian holy wars such as these bear a striking resemblance to the Muslim practice of the jihad, which by then had become a very successful Islamic institution. By translating the notion of a "holy warrior" into Christian terms, Medieval popes created the crusader, a "knight of Christ." and new religious orders composed of fighting monks most notably the Knights Hospitaller and Knights Templar.

Popes who promoted the Crusades used their authority to muster an army, appoint its military leaders, and send it on its mission. (Part of the reason for the failure of the crusades was bishops acting as field commanders and choosing the wrong military targets, the wrong battles, and the wrong military maneuvers).

These Church-sponsored wars brought some benefit to Medieval Europe. For instance, crusading allowed westerners to take advantage of the much richer East for the first time since the days of ancient Rome. It served as an outlet for Europe's youth and aggression as population exploded during the High Middle Ages (1050-1300 CE). Sending young men off to fight in a holy cause temporarily stifled the internal wars that had afflicted the West since the collapse of Roman government . That a few of the early Crusading skirmishes produced victories helped Europeans regain a sense of self-confidence, after centuries of losing on nearly every front, they temporarily turned the tables on their military and cultural superiors to the east.
The Church regarded crusaders as military pilgrims. They took vows and were rewarded with privileges of protection for their property at home. Any legal proceedings against them were suspended. Another major inducement was the offer of indulgences for the remission of sin. Knights were especially attracted by what were effectively Get-Out-Of-Hell-Free cards allowing them to commit any sins throughout the rest of their lives without incurring liability in this or the next world.

Crusades