@arcanephoenix
"1. Is the legislation absolute, or does it need to be justified? If it needs to be justified, do you really think that it will stand up to scrutiny? If it doesn't - and let's be honest, no one is really going to ban people with blonde hair and blue eyes, or those born on a Tuesday in 1990, if it's going to be used, it is going to be used against brown people - do you really think it cannot be abused by a President? If this legislation were to be reviewed by a court, through any sort of case brought before it, do you believe it would stand up to scrutiny? (I understand that any sort of person who would have standing in a case like this would almost certainly not be able or willing, as an alien, to stand up to the US in the US Supreme Court, but getting away with a violation of the Constitution is not the same as following the Constitution.) "
I think the law is justified and should be applied better, maybe even expanded. As for aliens outside US soil, they cannot claim the protection of the US Constitution in order to get admitted. Consider for example the 5th amendment, you actually don't have a right to remain silent if you're applying for a US visa, you have to answer all of their questions, you have to do it truthfully or you're declined. How about 2nd? The entire point of the 2nd amendment is so the people can protect themselves from THEIR OWN government if need be (if it ever becomes tyrannical for example), a non-citizen has no claim to own a gun since it's not his government. He has no right to participate in a revolution. It's not his fight, it doesn't concern him, he's merely a guest in the country and should leave if things go bad.
I'm not worried about presidential abuse, the US public is very sensitive to actual racism so that wouldn't pass. Public opinion would stop it dead in its tracks. Just because he has the power to enact a ban on immigration on racial grounds, doesn't mean he will and in any case it wouldn't affect any US citizen or legal resident who isn't breaking the law.
"2. The Muslim Brotherhood is a party that typically takes hold in already Muslim-majority countries. The US can hardly be considered a Muslim-majority country, with 1% of the population being Muslim, the average Muslim being far more likely to be black or Hispanic than Arab,"
Nobody cares about the racial make up so you can stop the race baiting. You know what else? Most blacks in the US are Christians. Most Hispanics are Christian Catholics. It would be a really really stupid strategy to go after Islam in order to hurt minorities and in any case it doesn't apply to US citizens, it's about immigration.
Parties like MB are the very reason why countries should be worried when their Muslim populations are on the rise, especially from immigration, something that can definitely be controlled.
"and even Muslim immigration from, say, the current crisis in Syria, does not really contribute to immigration as much as, say, the other immigration bogeyman that is Roman Catholic Mexico. Do you really believe that, say, within the next ten years, there is a significant risk of there being enough Muslims in the United States (and enough radicalised Muslims, at that) to allow for the kind of Constitution-amending, nation-changing actions required to bring the US in line with Sharia law? If so, why so? And why should other people believe you?"
Something on that scale would be impossible to achieve in a country as big as the US without mass migrations and higher birthrates over a period of many many generations.
Other smaller countries like Sweden or countries like France that have already gone up to almost 10% Muslim or Britain (over 5% with a 50% increase in just the last decade alone when just after WW2 they had almost 0 Muslims) it's more likely in those places. (Europe also has a much lower birthrate than the US, thanks in no small measure to leftist deception about "overpopulation".)
Why should the US have to get to that level before action is taken? Even if they'll never take over the US, it only takes a small group of people to do immense damage and I don't mean just terrorism, although obviously that's an important part too. If another 9/11 style attack happens, the economy will be set back for years to come. HUNDREDS of billions were lost just from 9/11 alone.
Keep in mind that the communists were a small minority as well. They still took over Russia. I won't happen in the US any time soon, but you can totally see it happening before the end of this century in certain European countries that the US considers "allies".
"3. The US is not an Islamic country, therefore, by definition, it does not conform to the supremacist political system of Islam as mentioned in the Qur'an and the Hadiths. Typically, most Muslims who immigrate to, or are born in, the US are aware of this. To argue that there is a sustained campaign by every Muslim on the planet, or even a significant percentage of the Muslims on the planet, to destroy the US and make it an Islamic country, is paranoia unless evidence is brought forth. The Islamic State calling on people to do so doesn't count, for the simple reason that the IS isn't the central authority governing all Muslims (fortunately or not, there is no Islamic Pope, meaning that a lot of the religion varies a lot depending on where you are)"
The percentage of Muslims who openly support Sharia law is quite high according to the Pew polls. And those are just the ones that admit it. Islam allows for deception in its jihad against unbelievers. Not saying there are NO moderate but they're hard to distinguish from liars who are just trying to trick you into believing Islam is a peaceful religion.
So far the only way I've managed to distinguish genuine moderates from lying pseudo-moderates is that the left hates them LOL. Way to stick up for reformers. Like, take for example Zhuddi Jasser. He claims to be Muslim, he claims to want genuine reform, why then does the left demonize him as an "Islamophobe"? LOL! Why is Maajid Nawaz on an "Islamophobe" list? LOL
"4. To argue that Islam is an organisation which seeks to overthrow the US government runs into the same problems as the argument as the people who believe that America is a Christian nation, or that God loves America best - the simple fact that the US, being a somewhat new country compared to many, isn't mentioned in any holy book of the religions of Palestine, be they Judaic, Islamic or Christian. To argue that the US has become a target of the entire religion of Islam is a great claim, and such a claim requires evidence. I agree that such a claim must not be rejected outright, but that doesn't mean accepting it blindly is a solution. "
Verse 9:29. It doesn't matter if you're an old or new country. Islamic doctrine says the entire world must be run by Sharia and the only place for a non-Muslim is that of a dhimmi who's forced to pay the jizya tax just to stay alive. Unlike regular tax evasion, this can be lethal by the way since the jizya tax is a protection tax.
"5. I certainly do not believe that Islam should be free of criticism or scrutiny, god knows many of my more liberal friends look askance at me when I call out Muslim leaders and politicians for the bullshit that they spout."
The thing is criticism has practical implications, so I'm not really buying the whole "you can criticize Islam but you can't be what I think is a bigot". You're basically saying I can only criticize it if I do it within a leftist worldview which sets the parameters.
So for example the typical regressive leftist will accept criticism along the lines of:
- Islam isn't true
- Islam has problematic doctrines towards women
but won't accept things like:
- we need a change in foreign policy to deal with Sharia/terrorism
- Islam is more violent than other religions
- Muslims mistreat women in worse ways than Christians or atheists
"However, this does not mean that Islam is not a religion,"
It's both religion and political system. I don't see why one excludes the other.
Communism can be made the same if you take out the part about atheism and replace it with the Communist God or whatever and say Marx is his son or prophet or whatever, but he just got the atheist part wrong. See how easy it is to disguise a totalitarian ideology under the guise of religion?
I'm not anti-religious, I'm just saying religion isn't a valid cover for things you wouldn't get away it if you did them for secular purposes.
"and one could make the argument that Christianity, going purely by the word of the Bible, is as much a political system and a system demanding 'complete submission to Yahweh'. As long as the mosque stays out of the government (and I somewhat understand your concern given how much the church has not stayed out of the government), there should not be any reason to fear Muslim citizens, and therefore, Muslim immigrants, by virtue of them being Muslim. Do you believe otherwise? If so, why?"
The difference is that Christianity doesn't have a full fledged out political system. In fact it has none. You cannot use Christian doctrine alone to form a government and it's not explicitly stated how Yahweh wants society to be governed (You can point towards the Torah as similar to Sharia, but Christians scholars agree those were just laws for the Jews of that time and are largely irrelevant for Christians). You can however use Islam. It has detailed instructions for virtually anything, trade, foreign policy, family law, criminal law, even banking (Sharia finance).
