I'm a secular individual and I want to the right and freedom to exercise my secular rights in peace and security. The presence of people who call me a murderer because I support reproductive rights is deeply disturbing to me as these people favor and increase the likelihood of violence to people like me I feel I should have the right to oppose entry of these people into my country as a necessary measure to keep us safe and preserve the peace. I also think that those of our citizens who charge me with murder are breaking the law by threatening me with harm and should be prosecuted for inciting violence.
Free speech is one thing, especially as it applies to speech we may not like. Speech which advocates a condition or process which might ultimately compromise free speech may be quite another thing altogether. It seems to me that there have been rulings to this effect in the US Supreme Court.
Side note: any chance we could use variations on those rulings to deport Donald Trump ... PLEASE? [wry grin!]
Isn't it still legal for the Koran to continue to possess numerous passages that require followers of Islam to kill nonblievers?
This is something that people get mixed up. The Bill of Rights covers citizens and to a large extent, other legal inhabitants. It does NOT guarantee that anyone who wants to come in has a right to do so. It's good to give a homeless man a meal, or help him, but you do NOT have the obligation to bring him into your house and endanger your family
This is one area where the liberals are running off the rails, and Europe is startig to see the the problem. Larger and larger pockets of immigrants there are not attempting to be part of these liberal democracies (unlike many of the earlier waves of immigrants to the US) and these groups openly want to change the places they move to including sharia law. There is no reason to bring in people fundamentally opposed to your core values. Large numbers of Muslim migrants are NOT looking to escape their horrendous society, they want to expand it.
jay, most of the Muslims causing problems in Europe were born in the country where they did their killing. For example, in the recent Paris attacks not one perpetrator was from outside France. Also, for a dangerous idea to rise in popularity in a country it is not necessary for somebody to move to that country; the very internet that we use to communicate is used by others to communicate sometimes dangerous and subversive ideas. Keeping outsiders out is no guarantee of safety; nothing is.
This is true, which is one reason why the danger is deeper. These cultures come into a 'tolerant' society but rather than adopt secularism, liberal enlightenment values, they use those freedoms to work against those same values.
Many of the ISIS volunteers ARE INDEED 2nd generation, well educated, employed people in these adopted countries. The progress we've been making in places toward a secular society can easily be undone by large numbers of medieval thinkers (and often voters).
Earlier migration waves, and even a good number of Mexican immigrants do not want to destroy the US democracy, they want to become part of it. Other than language, the typical (non criminal) central American is much closer to our culture than the typical ME immigrant.
Eric, I agree with you, but most likely none of this is going to happen in America. We will still continue to bring them in and mostly because nobody knows for sure who is a religious fanatic. Jay H appears to have a good take on this whole idea, but the USA is too involved in "not wanting to offend" and being "politically correct." I suppose the bottom line on who we allow into our country is sort fo like "I cannot act against you until you have shown me that you are acting against me."
As far as the religions themselves are concerned, I think that any that has as one of its precepts the harassment or harm to nonbelievers, is one I would classify as fanatic. Of course, this is true of virtually all of them which I think is the best reason for becoming an atheist.
I would not, of course, apply this to any member of a religious group excepting if they publicly are inciting violence against people. That however is true of virtually all leaders of fundamental religion and to many who lead non-fundamental ones also. It is also true of some hard line lay groups that are not officially part of the religion.
We have been letting these groups literally get away with murder. It's high time we stopped.
One thing we should think about doing is to gently ask children who are being swept up into religion by social pressures what they are being told should happen to people who don't believe. Even young children know it is not right to hurt people because they believe different things than we do. When we see these kids being sold by the pretty Xmas songs, decorations and festivities into something we adults know is basically slavery, we can gently dissuade them by asking that question: What is the religion saying should be done to kids or their parents who don't believe in it?
It's a tricky one. There's a campaign in the UK to have Donald Trump refused entry citing his remarks about Muslims, but the real suicidal maniacs are very often faceless or only marginally known to the security forces. The disadvantage with secularism is also its great strength in that it doesn't excite the passions, meaning a largely atheist society like the British are generally indifferent and ignorant of the blood boiling discontent of people with ideological illusions. The national secular society along with ''church and state'' lobby the government on behalf of a majority consisting of many who simply have no idea what all the fuss is about; they just want to get with their lives. A typical example of the effects of having superstitiously minded people in a majority in parliament~ 60%, can be seen in the options the government are looking at following a campaign to have the bishops thrown out of the house of lords, due to their superfluity in a secular society. It seems the answer to the problem, as far as parliament is concerned, is to keep the bishops in place but bring in Rabbi's and imam's to make it more ''representative'', not of the population at large but rather of the superstitious minorities. Side-lining the democratic principle without even realising what their doing is no more than one more delusion, as Loren says once the first superstitious toe is dipped in the water you can forget sanity. One of the main things still on the Muslim agenda in the UK is the unfinished business with Salman Rushdy. Maybe secularism will need to be a bit more forceful with these peace-loving model ''citizens''.
I agree Gerald.
How do you -- okay, how do we -- cope with the fact that the great majority of such opponents arrive in our country through birth?
Not sure if this is to my post, but I'm arguing that we make it illegal for religions to incite the harassment or harm of nonbelievers. In my view, it is the faiths, not the faithful, who are ultimately responsible should be prosecuted.