Trump’s Muslim ban

[Desk trauma]

Why not just ban them?

Because the first amendment is a thing.

 

[durangodawood]

The problem I see with Islam is that the political aspects are so baked into the cake, it stops being about a single individual or even small group of individuals.
.....

Many Christians in America have been making the case that political domination is built in to the fabric of their religion too.

I do think its more so with Islam. But Christians here are trying to erase that distinction.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

So you’re just gonna post ambiguous nonsense. Got it.

Am I now?

 

[essentialsaltes]

How is it unconstitutional? Trump did it back in his first term.

Trump's first two 'Muslim bans' were found unconstitutional by courts. His 3rd try was narrowly found constitutional by SCOTUS.

However, it's important to remember that (despite many things Trump said) the Trump Administration denied that it was a 'Muslim ban'. Ostensibly, it was about banning people from certain countries (including non-Muslim countries like North Korea).

As SCOTUS noted, the policy "says nothing about religion".

But the policy you have outlined in your OP, to ban people "because the underlying motive is to keep Muslim numbers very low" is about religion on the face of it. And would be unconstitutional.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Many Christians in America have been making the case that political domination is built in to the fabric of their religion too.

I do think its more so with Islam. But Christians here are trying to erase that distinction.

With Christianity it's liberalism that's baked in - "give me liberty or give me death" - that's a very Christian mindset.

Muslims are anything but liberal in the main. Here's from a Rubin report clip a British Muslim woman talking about how immigration and the Muslim population mixed with this liberal multiculturalism is beginning to fundamentally change British culture:

Right now the most extreme are raping women who aren't covered (hijab) and stabbing people, the very next thing they will do is to start killing gays...

This changes everything about the way people behave, women who aren't Muslim will start having males to escort them in public or start covering, gays will be more closeted etc.

A strong Islam in the face of a weak to non existent Christianity will completely take over Britain and the country will never be the same.

Look at the middle east, at one point there Christianity flourished, until Islam.

 

[essentialsaltes]

With Christianity it's liberalism that's baked in - "give me liberty or give me death" - that's a very Christian mindset.

Is it?

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority,
14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Trump's first two 'Muslim bans' were found unconstitutional by courts. His 3rd try was narrowly found constitutional by SCOTUS.

However, it's important to remember that (despite many things Trump said) the Trump Administration denied that it was a 'Muslim ban'. Ostensibly, it was about banning people from certain countries (including non-Muslim countries like North Korea).

As SCOTUS noted, the policy "says nothing about religion".

But the policy you have outlined in your OP, to ban people "because the underlying motive is to keep Muslim numbers very low" is about religion on the face of it. And would be unconstitutional.

I understand this isn't to me, but I would like to use this opportunity to preface I am not talking about law, just the moral issues to look at and examine.

 

[SJP51]

Immagration is a privilege. No person belonging to a faith, culture, sect, or whatever that wants to destroy the US and/or subjugate infidels should be allowed to immigrate. If Muslims fall into one of those categories, then so be it.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Is it?

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority,
14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Yep, all true. But in the Christian faith following any precept is based on your will...

My portion of Christianity doesn't believe in libertarian free will for salvation, but we do believe that what the unsaved do is absolutely between the unsaved and God on a personal level.

On a social level liberties are debated in context of what's positive for society writ large and liberals and conservative have a gap that at times seems large, but in general not one of them actually care about your personal sin outside of wishing for you the same joys they found in Christ. Which in the end it's not bad.

It's certainly not public flogging for not wearing hijab properly in public.

 

[SJP51]

Trump's first two 'Muslim bans' were found unconstitutional by courts. His 3rd try was narrowly found constitutional by SCOTUS.

However, it's important to remember that (despite many things Trump said) the Trump Administration denied that it was a 'Muslim ban'. Ostensibly, it was about banning people from certain countries (including non-Muslim countries like North Korea).

As SCOTUS noted, the policy "says nothing about religion".

But the policy you have outlined in your OP, to ban people "because the underlying motive is to keep Muslim numbers very low" is about religion on the face of it. And would be unconstitutional.

I'm not a consititutional scholar. But, I do know that Islam is not just a religion, rather it is faith, a cult, world view, a political system, an ideology that says ALL must become muslim or be subjugated. Banning or preventing such in our lands is wise. The underlying motive is to protect America, which is the job of the POTUS.

 

[Desk trauma]

I'm not a consititutional scholar. But, I do know that Islam is not just a religion, rather it is faith, a cult, world view, a political system, an ideology that says ALL must become muslim or be subjugated. Banning or preventing such in our lands is wise. The underlying motive is to protect America, which is the job of the POTUS.

That option isn’t going to pass a first amendment challenge.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I'm not a consititutional scholar. But, I do know that Islam is not just a religion, rather it is faith, a cult, world view, a political system, an ideology that says ALL must become muslim or be subjugated. Banning or preventing such in our lands is wise. The underlying motive is to protect America, which is the job of the POTUS.

POTUS swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, which forbids the policy you are promoting.

 

[comana]

I'm not a consititutional scholar. But, I do know that Islam is not just a religion, rather it is faith, a cult, world view, a political system, an ideology that says ALL must become muslim or be subjugated. Banning or preventing such in our lands is wise. The underlying motive is to protect America, which is the job of the POTUS.

Muslims are not allowed to go against our laws same as anyone else residing in the US. This is just baseless fear to marginalize a specific group. The first amendment protects their right to follow their beliefs up to the point their beliefs go against our laws.

 

[Adam56]

Because the first amendment is a thing.

tell tell me how this violates the first amendment

 

[Adam56]

Muslims are not allowed to go against our laws same as anyone else residing in the US. This is just baseless fear to marginalize a specific group. The first amendment protects their right to follow their beliefs up to the point their beliefs go against our laws.

It doesn’t prevent us from blacklisting their countries.

 

[RileyG]

But you do realize that they breed children more than Christians?

If they grow in numbers, they will use their numbers to force society into becoming more Islamic.

Maybe Christians child rise up and have more than 2 children then? Eh?

I don’t even know how to respond to that.

 

[RileyG]

Why not just ban them?

Not all Muslims want sharia law, nor are they all fanatical.

 

[SJP51]

POTUS swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, which forbids the policy you are promoting.

So the option is to let Muslims overrun the country, and begin the stabbings and rapes that have taken hold across Europe? How long before women are raped because they down have the heads covered (ocurred last week in Germany). How long before someone in the crowd yells 'Allah Akbar" and starts stabbing infedils? Well, at least we're upholding the Constitution, until there are 5 of 9 Mulims on the Court.

 

[SJP51]

Not all Muslims want sharia law, nor are they all fanatical.

Sharia is Islam. Islam is Sharia.

 

[comana]

It doesn’t prevent us from blacklisting their countries.

And what countries do you propose blacklisting?