You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

3
67

[–] 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!

1
17

[–] 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.

1
6

[–] 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.

1
2

[–] 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

0
2

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

Well said.

7
-4

[–] piv0t 7 points -4 points (+3|-7) ago  (edited ago)

Trump proposed refusing all Muslims, not just Shariah. This is the opposite of freedom of religion

0
7

[–] Zardoz 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Trump doesn't talk in isolated soundbites. He starts a conversation that may get more information later. He isn't releasing official legal platform quotes but having open town hall spontaneous conversations. The established premise was Muslims who follow or are dedicated or loyal to Shariah Law.

Shariah Law opposes freedom of religion. BRUTAL OPPRESSION the likes of which you probably (and hopefully) have no fucking idea what and how. You should be so thankful you have no idea what real opposition to religious freedom means under Shariah Law however..

..a lady in California does. She escaped it. She escaped Shariah Law and came to America where two obeying Shariah Law made sure she didn't escape it by gunning her down.

Which brings us to what Trump really did say. What 2 of us in China knew. What the Democrat college professor knew halfway across the world by simply listening to Trump and this is what Trump asked for:

  • He criticized the USA screening process. He clarifies there are Muslims that are/would be loyal to the USA but the problem is that something is wrong with the screening process and its not working.

  • That process needs to be shut down until someone can get their shit together and figure out what are the good Muslims and what are the problem Muslims (who Trump previously mentioned follow this bad thing 'Shariah Law'). And whos in ISIS and who isn't.

As for 'freedom of religion'. Foreigners who aren't even inside the USA don't have a right to 'freedom of religion' in the USA. I don't even know why you'd say such a thing?

*For what its worth, two other religious ideologies have been uninvited in the recent past. Nazis 'Thule Society' theosophical religion. Hirohito's 'Emperor Worship' cult.

But you do have a dilemma I suppose: Why are you FOR allowing in a people who oppose freedom of religion. Those loyal to Shariah? Isn't that a kind of screwy contradication for you?

0
4

[–] jxfaith 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I only just read of this today, but read the court's logic in Fiallo vs Bell. Congress's ability to expel or exclude immigrants is "largely immune to judicial control", specifically referring to powers of judicial review, wherein the constitutionality of a law is assessed. This means that congress can pass laws which would otherwise be unconstitutional when applied to American citizens at large, but only when the scope of such laws applies to immigration.

Basically, congress could pass laws similar to what Trump is asking for. The problem being that I don't think the GOPe will be going along with anything Trump might do in the event he does get the presidency. More to the point, I think that the GOPe's nomination game is only just getting started. Everything so far has just been the opening act.

1
0

[–] 3475442? 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Does anyone else feel like we should be suppressing religion? I mean isn't that all what we want but don't say? If we are an evolved society then we dont need religion and it simply causes more harm than good. To protect society from harms we should simply enforce a no religion policy.