Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The very first point of the First Amendment and the Constitution actually protect people from religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
which part of the First Amendment exactly are you saying "protects people from religion"? Because I'm not seeing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJJersey
The freedom from religion clause has been expanded well beyond Congress' power to establish religion, and for good reason.
...Which part of the First Amendment protects people from religion itself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJJersey
Reasonable people have seen the dangers of dogmatic religion and were wise enough to protect others from its grasp.
Interesting. I should think a reasonable person capable of noticing that the people affiliated with any given religion that are dangerous, are a minority within their religion, and therefore reasonable people are also able to conclude that these religions are not dangerous in and of themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJJersey
One goal of muslimism is to establish their laws based on the Koran, so yes, it does impact the anti-establishment clause.
The government does not have the power to stop people from wanting to make their religion mandatory. So altering the Constitution because some people wish they could do this, is just plain stupid.
Funny thing about "Islamic" immigration! They all came here "legally" including the 9/11 bombers!
More specifically:
Only one of the 9/11 was on a Student Visa, but never showed up at the school he listed for enrollment (violating his visa terms). One was admitted under a six-month Tourist Visa, but started flight school (violating the terms of his visa, and the subsequent entries he made into the United States under that visa). Another was admitted for single month under a Business visa, but he overstayed by months.
Most of the hijackers were admitted for six months under Tourist Visas, and didn't overstay or otherwise violate the visa terms (fully "legal", although in "non-immigrant" status). The "20th Hijacker" was denied admittance at a land crossing from Canada, and was later caught for detention in Guantanamo. Funny thing, the 9/11 Hijackers were all "non-immigrants".
...Which part of the First Amendment protects people from religion itself?
Interesting. I should think a reasonable person capable of noticing that the people affiliated with any given religion that are dangerous, are a minority within their religion, and therefore reasonable people are also able to conclude that these religions are not dangerous in and of themselves.
The government does not have the power to stop people from wanting to make their religion mandatory. So altering the Constitution because some people wish they could do this, is just plain stupid.
The part of the first amendment that says government cannot establish a religion, which would force people to follow such a religion. I emphatically disagree that certain religions are not dangerous in and of themselves. Religion messes with the human psyche and violent, dogmatic religions such as islams have an incredibly negative effect on a person's behavior, and that is not just the "minority" of persons. As for the government not having the power to stop people form engaging in jihad, it sure does. The government has the authority to suppress rebellion and repel invasion. If people are coming to this country from another country to establish their own laws, establish their religion, erode civil rights, bomb things, and kill Americans, then that sounds like a job for repelling invasion to me.
Only one of the 9/11 was on a Student Visa, but never showed up at the school he listed for enrollment (violating his visa terms). One was admitted under a six-month Tourist Visa, but started flight school (violating the terms of his visa, and the subsequent entries he made into the United States under that visa). Another was admitted for single month under a Business visa, but he overstayed by months.
Most of the hijackers were admitted for six months under Tourist Visas, and didn't overstay or otherwise violate the visa terms (fully "legal", although in "non-immigrant" status). The "20th Hijacker" was denied admittance at a land crossing from Canada, and was later caught for detention in Guantanamo. Funny thing, the 9/11 Hijackers were all "non-immigrants".
That's why the immigration ban should include "student" visas. It should also restrict visitors to 14 days, with an ankle bracelet.
There is nothing in U.S. Law which precludes excluding Muslims from being granted residency or immigration into the U.S.
A reasonable expectation of people emigrating to the U.S. is that they assimilate into U.S. society. Muslims do not assimilate; indeed they remain quite insular which is risky to society in general.
The United States is not the only country which faces this challenge. A Pew 2006 poll shows that Muslims in Europe are much more likely to identify themselves by their religion before their nationality.
Muslim ideology is incompatible with the West on issues such as freedom of expression, the rights of women, and the separation of church and state. Indeed, the West finds itself in a tug-of-war with Islam for the allegiance of its Islamic immigrants. And at present, because fealty to Islam supersedes Muslims' loyalty to their newly adopted country, such people are unsuitable for being admitted for immigration or permanent residency into the United States.
A moratorium should be indefinitely implemented.
Last edited by MattOTAlex; 08-02-2013 at 11:32 PM..
There is nothing in U.S. Law which precludes excluding Muslims from being granted residency or immigration into the U.S.
A reasonable expectation of people emigrating to the U.S. is that they assimilate into U.S. society. Muslims do not assimilate; indeed they remain quite insular which is risky to society in general.
The United States is not the only country which faces this challenge. A Pew 2006 poll shows that Muslims in Europe are much more likely to identify themselves by their religion before their nationality.
Muslim ideology is incompatible with the West on issues such as freedom of expression, the rights of women, and the separation of church and state. Indeed, the West finds itself in a tug-of-war with Islam for the allegiance of its Islamic immigrants. And at present, because fealty to Islam supersedes Muslims' loyalty to their newly adopted country, such people are unsuitable for being admitted for immigration or permanent residency into the United States.
A moratorium should be indefinitely implemented.
An excellent post. People have no right to come into this country, it is a screening process and a privilege. There is no reason the US should not exclude a group that is known for failure to assimilate, poor treatment of women, genocide against gays, violence, failure to adopt secular law, and hatred towards this country.
Do you know how many millions of international visitors we have in a year?...
The immigration ban that bans muslims, the one I support. And as for how many people visit the US per year, I could care less, as long as the muslim visitors are subject to a 14 day stay period, and an ankle bracelet. If we run out of ankle bracelets, then the muslim must come back another time.
There is nothing in U.S. Law which precludes excluding Muslims from being granted residency or immigration into the U.S.
A reasonable expectation of people emigrating to the U.S. is that they assimilate into U.S. society. Muslims do not assimilate; indeed they remain quite insular which is risky to society in general.
The United States is not the only country which faces this challenge. A Pew 2006 poll shows that Muslims in Europe are much more likely to identify themselves by their religion before their nationality.
Muslim ideology is incompatible with the West on issues such as freedom of expression, the rights of women, and the separation of church and state. Indeed, the West finds itself in a tug-of-war with Islam for the allegiance of its Islamic immigrants. And at present, because fealty to Islam supersedes Muslims' loyalty to their newly adopted country, such people are unsuitable for being admitted for immigration or permanent residency into the United States.
A moratorium should be indefinitely implemented.
There is nothing in U.S. law that precludes banning Muslim immigrants...
The immigration ban that bans muslims, the one I support. And as for how many people visit the US per year, I could care less, as long as the muslim visitors are subject to a 14 day stay period, and an ankle bracelet. If we run out of ankle bracelets, then the muslim must come back another time.
So we are talking about wishful thinking, or the actual reality of a "ban" on Muslims?...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
