I understand that. I am so glad that I get to share the ride with all the @sslicking Democrats and Liberals!
Lets go.
doesn't matter what you voted for him for. i'ts not like all you are going to get are his SC appointments and avoid the rest.
you voted for the whole shitlicking package at once, so enjoy the ride
Nobody is talking about disparaging Muslims I'm talking about being smart about who gets extra screening. You're right though, people can use the bible to justify, to themselves, to do whatever. Problem is they would have to take things out of context to do so. The Quran can legitimately be interpreted to justify violence. God didn't tell modern people to march around Jericho.
I'm not equating all Muslims with ISIS, that would be absurd. I don't think every Muslim interprets the call to violence found in the Quran the same way. I don't think it is "fair" to treat people who haven't done anything wrong as if they might. I'm not concerned with fairness however. I'm concerned with being idiots and treating Granny from Wisconsin as just as likely to be carrying an underwear bomb as some guy on a visa from Saudi Arabia.
I don't think people from Saudi Arabia are "probable" to be terrorists, I think they are more likely to be terrorists than some guy coming in from Sweden. To act differently is stupid and ineffective.
There have been polls taken where a large percentage of Muslims from certain countries have very extremist views. High percentages think it is sometimes ok to kill apostates. Poll was done by Pew which has been discussed here before. These are people who publicly admit these things, the number is probably higher.
Now that I have disabused you of some of your assumptions can we have a discussion now?
Do you think it is ok to treat (as in immigration policy) people from different parts of the world differently?
Yes, I am.
Since the republicans seem to think that they are God's party (ROFL) lets see what the bible calls liberal shall we, now remember this is Jesus: God in the flesh speaking to us and then consider some of the attributes of our president-elect whom big religion endorsed. In the Cliff notes version Donald is a flaming liberal so put your pseudo righteousness cards away.I understand that. I am so glad that I get to share the ride with all the @sslicking Democrats and Liberals!
It isn't racism! The term is inappropriate. I'm not redefining anything, anybody who calls it racism is.
Funny that...
Thank you for that.Do you realise that where you came into the discussion to oppose my point of view makes absolutely no sense (unless of course you subscribe to the same strawman that pcgeek11 does): I was saying that the shutdown on Muslim immigration that Trump announced is racist (or xenophobic, or bigoted, as there is no specific word for hate and ignorance directed at followers of a particular religion AFAIK, and frankly I think that such hate is likely a mixture of racism, xenophobia, etc).
You then chimed in saying that racism is the wrong word, and when challenged on that point, you then went on to apparently justify Trump's policy in a similar way to pcgeek11. Now, do you subscribe to the same strawman that pcgeek11 does, being that for reasons best known to himself he instantly swaps out "Muslim shutdown on immigration until Trump has a clue what to do" for "Muslim immigrants should be vetted", or do you believe something different? If you subscribe to the same strawman as pcgeek11 does, then this discussion is a pointless waste of time. If you don't explicitly answer this question, I will ignore any further posts from you on this topic.
In case this isn't a pointless waste of time, let my state my position explicitly: IMO, advocating a shutdown in Muslim immigration until Trump gets a clue is an action borne of opportunism, hate and ignorance and probably has racism somewhere in the root of the matter (which is why I feel no problem whatsoever using the word racism to describe it). That is what my original point was, and that's what you chose to argue with me about. What do you think of Trump's advocacy on this point? Do you think racism has no part to play in it? If so, please elaborate.
As for your question: I sincerely hope that border control people do not rely on probabilities (such as the likelihood that one is a terrorist based on which country they're from), to decide who to pay more attention to, that would be moronic and would be more subject to personal biases, as well as extremely easy to bypass for those who feel a need to. For example, if country X is deemed a likely candidate for terrorists to come from, then prospective terrorist comes along with a passport for country Y.
Furthermore, I think it is fine to treat people from different parts of the world differently, border control agents have been doing it for a long time now for reasons that have nothing to do with terrorism. Hopefully it isn't based on the idea that I've already criticised (or something equally stupid, e.g. based on ignorant assumption). I've never been a border control agent, and I sincerely hope that they have better and infinitely more refined policies (due to years of practice) than I could come up with here, but I suspect that anyone wanting to immigrate to a given developed country is subject to background checks. AFAIK for example if you have been convicted of a crime in your own country, I think it affects your chances of being allowed entrance to another country, but I could be wrong.
I can double-check with two British friends of mine that emigrated to the US in the 21st century (one pre 9/11, one post), but IIRC both have commented that the bureaucratic hoops that they had to jump through were pretty complex. One of those friends had thought about emigrating to the UK from the US and encountered similar levels of resistance. The US and UK are supposed to be "friends", yet it's hardly as if they were given a free pass to enter without scrutiny, and I very much doubt that the forms they filled in were simply stuffed into a filing cabinet somewhere without a moment's thought. Taking those stories into account, why on earth would I believe that any other immigrants (AFAIK the US does not have any free right of entry policies like EU member states do with other EU states, but I could be wrong) to the US get it any easier?
I think he used the wrong term...Wall Of Incoherrent Text...
I have no strawman.
When was the last time you went to church and felt welcome in their assembly? How many times did the offering plate get passed around? Can you show me in the bible where Jesus and the apostles conducted one service where a collection of money occurred? When the church was being initially established the parishioners were commanded to bring their things to the church so they could raise money but it didn't happen again.
In case this isn't a pointless waste of time, let my state my position explicitly: IMO, advocating a shutdown in Muslim immigration until Trump gets a clue is an action borne of opportunism, hate and ignorance and probably has racism somewhere in the root of the matter (which is why I feel no problem whatsoever using the word racism to describe it).
Christians aren't out there blowing themselves up. The bible doesn't command any violence for believers, it does however contain specific commands for specific people to wipe another group of people out. There are zero commands in the bible for me as a believer to commit any violence.
Okay, if you're going to make a statement you should back it up.
Okay, if you're going to make a statement you should back it up.
The new testament is all about "love thy neighbour, even love thy enemies".
The old testament has examples of the same God commanding his Israeli army to wipe out certain peoples entirely, women and children included for being "evil". Maybe they were, maybe they were'nt... hard to tell 3-5000 years later. Whether Christians should follow the old testament's rules about clothing, not mixing meat & dairy, not eating seafood without fins & scales, no pork... Judaism, essentially.
...really, the accusations should be leveled against Jews instead of Christians... but that target comes with a penalty for attacking so progressives don't do it often. Christianity has no penalty - so attack freely!
Luke 19:27:
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Yeah, there's others too. There's quite a few 'icky' passages old and new that just aren't followed because most people want peace instead of violence.Well, YOU said "bible". You did not specify new or old. And if you want:
You know which other major political figure of the past 100 years asked everyone from one religion to register in the belief they were a threat?
Are we talking Americans or immigrants? I'm thinking the practical implementation here is simply looking at folk's visas and doing "something" vague with that. Now that's a stretch and I'm generally going to be opposed to whatever crap Trump has in mind for Muslims if it isn't something mind numbingly mundane with an existing "database".
Thank you for that.
No I do not think banning Muslims from entering the US has anything whatsoever to do with racism. In my view the ideology is a problem and why there are so many Muslim terrorists, it has nothing to do with their "race" or anything else. Granted, it is a tough stance to take but not racist or bigoted. I'm not talking about border agents either, immigration doesn't happen at the border it happens at the State Department (AFAIK). How border agents treat people is beside the point.
All that being said, the "Muslim ban" is off the table so that is why pcgeek and I have brought up the vetting point since that is what is on the table. The original tough stance has been softened.
I think he used the wrong term...
There isn't a problem, you're making one basing it on your own subjective opinion.So yes, you are part of the problem. Trump backpedalling from that idea does not improve the situation at all. He didn't apologise for being an ignorant ass.
Where have I said I support a ban on anybody, I'm trying to explain to you why it could be a good idea. My view is we should look at people coming from certain parts of the world a little more closely. You incorrectly called that a strawman.IIRC the percentage of terrorists claiming to be Muslim compared to the total Muslim population is something like 0.03%. You support banning a multitude of people from entry based on the actions of that percentage. If you were deemed as being a 0.03% risk because you're say white, or Christian, or American for example and so were banned from doing something, would you think that's a fair assessment?
As with "racism" you're using the wrong term. If I or anybody else were "strawmanning" you we would be presenting a position that isn't your position as if it were and blasting it. That hasn't happened here. We've brought up what Trump's current position is as that is what is important not what he said 9 months or so ago.
Where have I said I support a ban on anybody, I'm trying to explain to you why it could be a good idea.
My view is we should look at people coming from certain parts of the world a little more closely. You incorrectly called that a strawman.
As with "racism" you're using the wrong term. If I or anybody else were "strawmanning"
Because you're unhinged about it.Ok, wow. You're going to have to explain the distinction and why on earth you felt like making it.
Since the ban is off the table there really isn't much use in arguing if it is fair or not. I've done the same thing because the ban isn't going to happen. To me that isn't a strawman since he wasn't trying to beat up on a misrepresented view of your point.Wrong. What I called a strawman was that when I was talking to pcgeek11 about Trump advocating a shutdown on all Muslim immigration, every time he responded he would argue about vetting of Muslims in an attempt to change the topic of the argument to something that suited him.
I believe a ban isn't going to happen so I've been talking about what IS going to happen (if Trump can make it happen) not something that isn't.Actually I haven't accused you of erecting a strawman, I asked you whether you subscribed to the same straw man that pcgeek11 does.
In case this isn't a pointless waste of time, let my state my position explicitly: IMO, advocating a shutdown in Muslim immigration until Trump gets a clue is an action borne of opportunism, hate and ignorance and probably has racism somewhere in the root of the matter (which is why I feel no problem whatsoever using the word racism to describe it). That is what my original point was, and that's what you chose to argue with me about. What do you think of Trump's advocacy on this point? Do you think racism has no part to play in it? If so, please elaborate.
Because you're unhinged about it.
I don't think a total temporary ban is as bad of an idea as you do but it isn't what I'd say my position is. In fact it isn't anybody's position right now. It isn't going to happen, mkay?
Since the ban is off the table there really isn't much use in arguing if it is fair or not.
He never called for All Muslim immigration
I've done the same thing because the ban isn't going to happen. To me that isn't a strawman since he wasn't trying to beat up on a misrepresented view of your point.
Your opinion is that banning all muslim immigrants from entering the US (temporarily) is bad, my opinion is that it isn't necessarily bad and could be a smart idea if targeted properly.