[–] Zardoz 3 points 67 points (+70|-3) ago 

Trump brought up something I have been talking about for years and I believe it came from a UKIP or British MP but its not 'Muslims'. Its Shariah Law.

Trump started this by asking if anyone knew 'Shariah Law' and the idea is simple and one the USA, UK, Canada etc did FOR DECADES with those loyal to Communism. (or the Emperor Hirohito or Nazism for that matter).

Simple: You cannot be loyal to Shariah Law AND Western Values and Laws at the same time. You have to concede one to another. Its a 'contradiction'.

If someone applying to enter, immigrate, travel etc claims to be loyal to Shariah Law then they have just essentially 'lied' about their claim to be loyal to US Laws.

This is absolutely NOT unusual. I just spoke to an American friend about this today. BTW: Hes quite the 'Democrat' but we were just saying how amazing the media-party tried to create a false narrative of shock and outrage over Trumps suggestion which actually was:

  • Until we figure out why these mass-murderer terrorist muslims keep getting through the border we put a temporary ban on Muslims loyal to 'Shariah Law' AND THEN FIX OUR SYSTEM.

And again, we did this for decades during the 'Cold War' and in other times. not long ago you couldn't pledge loyalty to the Queen of England above all else AND loyalty to the USA. So you moved to Canada. SHOCKING!!!

But to the American friend - we just kinda felt amazed because we both travel all around the world. Muslims are NOT ALLOWED in other countries. China has Muslim populations and will NOT ALLOW Shariah Muslims in the country. Period.

Now get this, he tells me that there are Muslim countries who DO NOT ALLOW OTHER KINDS OF MUSLIMS. Muslim countries that have 'bans' on whatever other Muslim 'denomination' they feel cannot square with their version. Get that: Muslim countries ALREADY ban Muslim based on their Muslim ideologies!

What Trump proposed is actually so common, so ordinary that the only real story might be why we've become so far crazy the other way that we actually count this as 'shocking' at all. Its a very normal thing the USA did for a long long time and many countries still do and started doing!


[–] William_Wallace 1 points 17 points (+18|-1) ago  (edited ago)

"the only real story might be why we've become so far crazy the other way that we actually count this as 'shocking' at all."

Great post, well said.


[–] der-sert 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

Interesting I never heard what Trump said as I simply didn't care enough to look. It's actually a fairly rational proposal. It's possible that he could have worded it differently but I see what he meant.


[–] sp00kygh0st 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

You word it too nicely (Rand Paul) and the media won't talk about it. Trump is just using the media to get his ideas out there


[–] novictim 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Well said.


[–] [deleted] 2 points 27 points (+29|-2) ago  (edited ago)



[–] William_Wallace 1 points 11 points (+12|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Great statements. And I believe the reason "many Americans assume Mr.Trump's plan is unconstitutional", is due to the none stop propaganda pushed by the media and politicians.



[–] FishBoneFredd 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Well written!

I was trying to figure out why US laws should protect non-US citizens, and then my head exploded that courts need to "catch up with the times" concerning law interpretation. I dove into the comments, as I thought I lost my sanity reading that article.


[–] Minori6kaemon 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

What would you say speaking of the US' origin in immigration. We are at least partly respected abroad for being such a diverse melting pot that brings forth the best in people.


[–] Gracchi 3 points -3 points (+0|-3) ago 

My understanding of the constitution is that it is intended to protect the rights of the citizens of the United States of America.

And your understanding is completely wrong. There have been rulings that certain clauses apply only to people inside the US (and that was some awful creation of law by those courts, thought you conservatives didn't like that) but not just citizens.


[–] guinness2 2 points 21 points (+23|-2) ago  (edited ago)

The only reason Muslims have infiltrated the civilized world as much as they have is because our psychology and our laws are simply unprepared to cope with how disgusting Muslims are.

We are unprepared to recognize the fact that EVERY Islamic sect and mosque and imam promotes terrorism (quran 25:52, quran 3:151, etc) and bashing and raping women and raping children and human rights atrocities against homosexuals and blasphemers and apostates because they all claim the quran is perfect and the quran promotes these horrors.

We are unprepared to recognize the indoctrination of children into Islam as an act of child abuse that is no less fucked-up and abusive and dangerous as encouraging children to light bush fires or throw bricks from an overpass.

We are unprepared to recognize that the only Muslims who truly oppose terrorism are those who abandon their terrorist ideology and dump their quranic book of horrors in the trash with the other garbage, rather than those who promote it.

We are unprepared to enforce immigration and refugee application quality controls because needful questions such as "is your inspiration and moral guide a terrorism-promoting, sex-slaving, homosexual-murdering, child-raping, war criminal from the dark ages?" and we are unprepared to tell people who are proud of their pedophilia and domestic violence and human rights atrocities to fuck off because they are too disgusting and their savagery is incompatible with civilized culture.

The entire civilized world needs to come to terms with the fact that being disgusted by Muslims and their beliefs is not racism, it's the duty of every civilized person who respect the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

We need to abandon political correctness and instead have some difficult debates on how to cope with how disgusting Muslims are... and then we will likely need to build walls and revise laws and prepare ourselves against the biological and economical weapon that are Muslims.


[–] William_Wallace 1 points 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

"it's the duty of every civilized person who respect the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights".

Spot on. Voat is on fire this morning


[–] Minori6kaemon 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Just a quick question, what of religion in general? The bible was used for decades by plantation owners in the south to justify that if slaves were fine by God they were right by man. With verses such as Ephesians 6:5-6, Colossians 3:22 and 4:1, and 1 Peter 2:18. There is clearly grounds to argue slavery is condoned by the bible, but I can't say I know many church going Christians that support slavery. Similarly, it's rash to ban all Muslims cause a few verses in their holy book are violent (old testament anyone?).


[–] guinness2 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Just a quick question, what of religion in general?

That is a tricky philosophical question: my opinion is that you can only judge a religion based on it's actual scripture, it's rational and informed interpretation and it's official dogma. For example, you can't accuse most Christians of promoting the murder of gays because of Leviticus 20:13 because the book of Leviticus is part of the Torah and has only every applied to the ancient Levites and the Jews. Additionally, most Christian denominations, including Catholics, claim the laws of the Torah were invalidated by Jesus' death. Things get more complex when a religion attempts to have it's cake and eat it too by making contradictory claims. In those cases, I believe it is responsible to recognize that both are valid but to also recognize that neither are invalid which doesn't lessen the horrors or consequences of following the least civilized choice of scripture but it also doesn't invalidate

Yes, the biblical quotes you provided do seem to support slavery, however most Catholic denominations do not promote slavery, so making generalized and sweeping accusations isn't necessarily valid. For example, regarding slavery: you can't claim that the Catholic church promotes slavery but you can claim their bible is morally disgusting.

My opinion is largely based on the fact that almost every Christian denomination recognizes that the bible is subject to human error in it's initial record and it's initial compilation and in it's translation. Most Christian denominations, including Catholicism, only claim that the bible was inspired by god, but must not be followed without careful analysis of it's potential errors.

My opinion about Christianity would change dramatically if ALL Christian denominations claimed their scripture was perfect because that would render all of the horrors in the bible to become socially dangerous irrespective of what contradictory excuses were made.

Similarly, if some guy were handing out Nazi promotional pamphlets that called for the murder of the Jews, blacks and gays... and when confronted he claimed that "but we don't really mean that", then I'd tell that prick to go and fuck himself with a broken bottle.

Similarly, it's rash to ban all Muslims cause a few verses in their holy book are violent (old testament anyone?).

That is incorrect because ALL Muslim sects and ALL Muslim imams and All mosques DO teach that the quran is the perfect, verbatim word of god. Because of this, the full "rainbow" of human rights atrocities that the quaran claims are good should be recognized as valid social dangers and any official teachings that contradict the quran's horrors should be recognized both as teachings and as apologetics that make the promotion of rape and terrorism and pedophilia no less valid.




[–] Donald_Trump 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

Of course I abide by the Constitution. It's my favorite document, and the reason that America was so great.

Now?- the problem is that people just don't care about it. That beautiful piece of parchment-- let me tell you-- it's why we forged greatness as a country for over 200 years.

Now??- we are more concerned with the feelings of a bunch of nincompoops who pull tantrums in their dorm rooms than the liberties afforded to us by our forefathers.


I appreciate your support, and look forward to making America great once again.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)



[–] dodgesbullets 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

unless we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that what they can offer the US is greater than a potential risk they pose.

Thank you! This debate seems to be framed in such a way that it insinuates we're missing out on godlike super-humans by not admitting muslim immigrants. That is entirely not the case. If we miss out on a few thousand cheap laborers, a hundred taxi drivers and few dozen doctors to keep out three terrorists that's fine by me.

These people aren't bringing anything new or superior to this country, they are however at a greater risk of bringing murderers and rapists. (Looking at you Sweden)


[–] sinjinsmythe 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 



[–] mcwilshire 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Open borders will be the method by which western culture commits suicide.

One in three babies born in France is a Muslim baby, and this rate is steadily increasing. It's a mathematical certainty that this cannot go on forever.

Third world population is going to explode over the next 100 years. Africa alone will go from one 1/6 of world population to over 1/2. Open borders will result in every western nation looking like something between Brazil, South Africa, and Pakistan.

Any culture that results in a suppression of the birth rate to below replacement levels while at the same time demanding open borders and immigration is a culture in the process of killing itself. That's what modern western liberalism is.

Trump is right. We need to get our heads right when it comes to this issue.


[–] Rabidfish88 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

"Violates political correctness"

Violates a mental disorder.


[–] ScientiaPotentia 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The Philosophy upon which the Constitution was based is in literal opposition to Islam. The Founding Fathers read the Quran so that those principles enshrined in the Constitution would be able to stand against Islam. It was a menace to the world then. It's a menace to the world now.

load more comments ▼ (6 remaining)