Muslim migrants burn own housing over lack of CHOCOLATE

Another demonstration of your inability to properly assess threat level.

 

I never said it was. Equal treatment regardless of general religious identity is.

 

Today is a bad day to be a Muslim immigrant apologist, when Abdul Razak Ali Artan, a Muslim immigrant born in Somalia used a car and knife to injure 11 people on the campus of Ohio State University.

 

But if coming to the United States is not a human right, we need not concern ourselves with whether it's "right" to discriminate against Muslims. Personally, I would trust a thousand Buddhists before I'd trust one Muslim. Buddhism really is a religion of peace. Islam is a religion of war and oppression. I've asked this of others here, perhaps you'd like to tackle it: Hindus consider cows sacred, and there are approximately half as many Hindus in the US as Muslims, and yet we haven't seen a single instance of Hindu terrorism, while there have been 47 (now 48 counting yesterday's) attacks on US soil by Muslims just since 9/11. Why is that, when we have restaurants serving beef on practically every street corner? Do you think it could have anything to do with their religions, the one (Hindu) teaching not to kill and the other (Islam) teaching to kill for the sake of Allah?

 

Of course we do. Discrimination doesn’t only apply when you’re exerting a human right. It’s not a human right to claim a tax rebate but if the government said Christians weren’t allowed to you’d soon (and correctly for once) complain. Policies regarding refugees and immigrants can’t (and shouldn’t) be defined simply of the basis of the individuals declared or perceived religious grouping.

We’re not talking about cardboard cut-out stereotypes here though, we’re talking about individuals. Individuals should be judged on their own merits and flaws, not the actions of some strangers who happen to claim to follow a similar faith.

Not to great extent. There is Hindu violence elsewhere in the world, in places there Hindus feel threatened or put upon (legitimately or not). There’s even been Buddhist violence in some places. The reason this has occurred in the US is because the US hasn’t had any great interaction with Hindu populations. The US has had interactions with many large Muslim populations and a lot of those interactions have been quite negative. That certainly doesn’t justify any terrorism but it explains some of the motivation and inspiration behind it. A lot of Muslims in the Middle East and Arab world have been brought up to hate Americans in exactly the same way you have been for Muslims.

 

Yes, they can, and should be. And will be under President Trump. Islam is not just a religion but a political ideology fundamentally at odds with and incompatible with Western values, including all those human rights you seem to be terribly fond of.

We're not talking about letting in a few individuals, we're talking about letting in thousands or millions of people, of whom one in a hundred or more are potential terrorists, and 50 in 100 or more support Shariah law.

Actually, no one brought me up to hate Muslims. I knew nothing of them until 9/11, when I started digging for information, including sitting up one night for five hours straight reading the Koran. Then I hated them. Knowledge is a powerful thing.

You misunderstand Islam if you think the violence against Western nations has anything to do with those nations' actions in the middle east. Violence against non-Muslims is required by Mohammed in the Koran.

Generally speaking (there are Hindu attacks on Christians in India), the only times Hindus and Buddhists engage in violence are in battles with Muslims. You won't find any war between Buddhists and Confucians, for example. Self defense is always justified.

Would you be equally welcoming to, say, a million neo-Nazis? Because Naziism and Islam were mutual admiration societies in the 1930s and 40s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Arab_world Part of the article downplays the appeal of Naziism to the Arab world, but notes that only the Westernized liberal elites opposed it while the fundamentalists embraced it. Islam and Naziism share(d) the same views on Jews, the use of force, and the role of the state in people's lives. If one is a dangerous and repressive ideology, so is the other.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The US government can refuse people on the basis of specifically identified threat or risk but they can’t refuse solely of the individuals perceived religious grouping. You might want them too, they might want to, but the only way they could do so legally would be to first leave the Human Rights Convention and amend your own Constitution.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s one person or a million, we’re still talking about individuals. Most of them pose no threat. Some non-Muslim immigrants do pose a threat. On simply practical terms, focusing on identifying specific threats will be more effective that simply refusing people you’ve identified as Muslims. After all, those Muslims who actually do pose a threat will just lie when you ask what their religion is.

Have you actually met any real Muslims? In real life, for any length of time in a normal domestic environment. Most Muslims, especially in the West, don’t reflect the fire-and-brimstone interpretation of the Koran promoted by some extremists (on both sides!).

There are two sitting across the desk from me right now in fact. One of them made me a cup of tea earlier and I’ll be getting a lift home with the other at the end of the day. It’s almost as if they’re like normal human beings in fact.

The major conflict for Buddhists is with China over Tibet. That’s a classic example of such conflicts being primarily political rather than religious.

I think the Wikipedia makes it perfectly clear that it isn’t anything like as simple as you’d like to believe. Some Muslims supported the Nazis ideologically (at least in part) and some supported them simply on an enemy-of-my-enemy basis, hoping they’d force out the colonial powers of Britain and France. Plenty of Muslims supported and indeed fought for the Allies though and I’m sure many simply kept their heads down and survived as best they could. Again, most of them wouldn’t have been responding on a purely theological basis but on a much more grounded, practical, human survival one.

 

You seem to be completely unwilling to consider the idea that Islam as an ideology is a threat, both physically and culturally, to the West. But look anywhere in the world where Islam is and you'll see terror, violence, repression, and cultural destruction. Your personal experiences with two Muslims is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. We had "cultural exchange" programs during the Soviet Union era when good people from Russia would come to visit the US. Did that mean that communism was good? Did that mean that the Soviet Union wasn't expansionist and repressive? No, it did not. There are good Muslims and bad Christians, good Hindus and bad Shintoists. What is at issue is the ideology and those who follow it. Christianity (by and large) is a good ideology. It promotes civilized behavior and the brotherhood of man. Islam is a BAD ideology. It promotes violence, terror, and repression, and calls Jews and Christians less than dogs and pigs, which are also anathema. Every nation on earth with a sizable minority population of Muslims has problems with violence. Every nation on earth with a majority population of Muslims moves inexorably toward Shariah law. Only the occasional ruthless dictator who can suppress Muslim fundamentalism moves his country toward Western and liberal values. (See Ataturk, Nasser, Saddam Hussein, Assad Sr., the Shah of Iran, etc.) And these are the people you want to bring into the United States? I say no.

 

As President Obama has shown us, non-enforcement of immigration law is at the discretion of the President. So President Trump can ignore any portion of immigration law that doesn't suit his whim.

Not that he needs to in this case because Muslims present a clear, credible and demonstrable threat to the American people, so he can exclude them on that basis.

 

Congress, with Trump's support, ought to pass draconian language stating that the president does NOT have the authority to ignore, circumvent, or rewrite the law to suit himself, that the Congress MAKES the law and the president's job is to ENFORCE the law, whether he agrees with it or not. Obama's failure to do so is in clear violation of his oath of office and he should have been impeached for it.

 

I’m unwilling to accept Islam is a singular ideology at all or that all Muslims are defined exclusively by it. There are most certainly plenty of negative aspects to Islam, including some that can pose actual threats.

Not everywhere and there’s plenty of that where Islam isn’t too. They’re as much wider cultural issues as specifically religious ones – religion becomes the excuse for bad actions rather than the reason.

It’s very relevant to them. If your image of Islam is the only factor we’re considering here, my colleagues should be in prison or deported. This returns to my primary point. Even if you’ve identified bad elements to Islam, if you’re can’t identify bad elements in individuals who are (or you believe are) Muslim, it doesn’t seem legitimate to condemn them on that basis.

That’d be like saying because Americans are fat, we shouldn’t give them food, even if we’re faced with a starving American child.

 

HonestJoe,

The basis of your argument for allowing continued Muslim immigration to the United States is founded on 2 points.

1. Descrimination against Muslims is wrong, period.

The rebuttal to this argument is that entry to the United States by foreign nationals is a privilege and not a right. The grantor of the privilege may restrict the privilege in ANY way they deem fit.

2. The number of Muslim murderers/terrorists/lawbreakers is small. The basis of this argument is based on a ratio.

You say we should allow Muslim immigrants.

Among these Muslim immigrants x number will be law abiding and peaceful, y number will be terrorists/murderers and law breakers.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be fine with whatever that ratio turns out to be. Based on your prior posts you think this ratio is very high,(meaning you think the risk is small).

Other posters and myself think this ratio is much lower,(meaning the risk is much higher). In truth we can never know the exact ratio is because we can only measure it as a trailing indicator, after the events have happened. We do know the risk is real because we can observe the murderous rampages in Europe and here.

Muslims are the only immigrant population that I am aware of that has a significant sub-population of terrorists. There is no way to tell the peaceful Muslims from those that are terrorists and want to cause MAXIMUM mayhem in our communities.

That being the case, then the prudent course of action would be to end all Muslim immigration and student visas immediatly. Then we could observe the European countries that have allowed large numbers of Muslim immigrants to determine how beneficial the Muslim immigrants are to the societies that graciously allowed them to integrate.

 

I completely agree with this, I was just trying to yank a lefty's chain.

 

Y'all might notice that the "moderate" Muslims shelter the radical Muslims. Deport them all.

 

Only a mind-reader can know what Muslims believe; certainly not westerners.

 

Good post BD, and it's good to know your new president isn't going to make the same disastrous mistakes that European leaders - particularly the German and Swedish ones - have made. I see the Australian loony left are getting restless though; looks like they're gonna make that mistake. Even with all the evidence stacked against them they still don't get it. I guess every country has got its own useful idiots though.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...isrupt-parliament-and-shut-down-question-time

 

A fence around Parliament House is apparently now the answer to keep the aggressive loony left out.