Freedom of Religion

No Religious Test for Immigrants to U.S.: Freedom of Religion Act of 2016

Thanks Donald Trump for making it clear that we need such a new law

|

TrumpCombOver
popdust

Today United States Representative Don Beyer (VA-8) introduced a bill aimed at preventing immigrants from being denied entry into the United States because of their religious beliefs or lack thereof. The Freedom of Religion Act of 2016 amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to include a new SEC. 220. PROHIBITION ON DENYING ADMISSION BECAUSE OF RELIGION that reads "Notwithstanding any other provision of the immigration laws, an alien may not be denied admission to the United States because of the alien's religion or lack of religious beliefs." The bill has about 50 co-sponsors.

It's pretty clear that this legislation is being proposed to counter presumptive Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's idiotic call in December for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." This week, the billionaire reality TV star relented and said that were he president, he would allow at least one Muslim into the country: Sadiq Khan, the newly elected Muslim mayor of London. The new Lord Mayor declined the offer. On the other hand, perhaps the Brits could re-consider the proposed ban on Trump visiting their country?

It's worth noting in the bill that atheists are welcome too. The American Humanist Association put out a press release noting that Matthew Bulger, legislative associate of the American Humanist Association, attended a press conference today on Capitol Hill to introduce the legislation. "This bill represents a significant step for the humanist and secular movement," said Bulger. "The specific mention of protection for those without any religion demonstrates that Congress is beginning to expand its understanding of religious freedom to include those who do not identify with any religion."

This proposed legislation honors our country's history: The United States was founded in large measure by immigrants who came to these shores seeking freedom of religion and freedom from religion. 

NEXT: FBI Director Says No Deadline on Clinton Probe, Clinton-Trump Tied in New Poll, Sanders Says Nominating Clinton a 'Disaster': P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m at a total loss for understanding how this country has arrived at this point in its political history. I can see everything, but understand nothing.

    Libertarian moment…

    1. In 1789, “different religion” largely meant different forms of Christianity. There was a vague sense that Muslims in Tripoli needed to be killed.

      Franklin mentions the Grand Mufti in his autobiography, but it was used as an extreme example to make a point.

      1. I think one of the founders explicitly mentioned welcoming ‘Mohamedans’ into America.

        1. You think?… Read, “Jefferson’s War”.

        2. Back then, we NEEDED tablecloths.

  2. “The specific mention of protection for those without any religion demonstrates that Congress is beginning to expand its understanding of religious freedom to include those who do not identify with any religion.”

    Under Congressional status, you can be a tax-exempt church, with the same rights as theistic churches, whether you believe in God or not. Unitarian Universalists, whatever.

    1. Congressional *statutes*

    2. A non-theistic religion is different from no religion. Several Buddhist sects recognize no god, but are still religions in a sense that being a Dawkinsian athiest is not.

      1. The guy in the article referred to “those without any religion.”

        He’s a spokesman for the American Humanist Association, which discusses humanist churches on its Web site:

        “The most critical irony in dealing with Modern Humanism is the tendency for its advocates to disagree on whether or not this worldview is religious. Those who see it as philosophy are the Secular Humanists while those who see it as religion are Religious Humanists. This dispute has been going on since the beginning of the twentieth century when the secular and religious traditions converged and brought Modern Humanism into existence….

        “To serve social needs humanist religious communities (such as Ethical Culture societies and many Unitarian Universalist churches) offer a sense of belonging [and other benefits]…

        “Religious Humanists often maintain that most human beings have personal and social needs that can only be met by religion (taken in the functional sense just detailed). They do not feel that one should have to make a choice between meeting these needs in a traditional faith context versus not meeting them at all. Individuals who cannot feel at home in traditional religion should be able to find a home in non-traditional religion.”

        1. And of course there is a Humanist church which got a shout-out in the famous footnote 11 in the U. S. Supreme Court’s decision in Torcaso v. Watkins.

        2. From the first link I provided:

          “The definition of religion used by Religious Humanists is often a functional one. Religion is that which serves the personal and social needs of a group of people sharing the same philosophical worldview.”

        3. Humanist ‘churches’ (and the church should really be in quotation marks for them) are not the same a UU churches.

          UU is a non-theistic religion, Humanist ‘churches’ are completely secular and are intended to serve similar *social* functions as religious churches without providing *any* of the religious bits.

        4. It’s really not clear what point you’re trying to make. Are you denying that there are people out there who are irreligious?

          1. Wait, who are you asking?

            1. Sorry, I should have specified that I’m asking you, Eddie.

              1. The humanist guy was all like, OMG, Congress is recognizing nonreligious people for like the first time ever!

                But Congress’s IRS code recognizes churches which are specifically supported by the humanist guy’s own organization.

                1. And here’s another thing – when debating what became the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress decided to protect atheists as well as other religious groups against discrimination. It was a close run thing, but the atheists won the right to force employers to hire them.

                  1. And look how they spin it at the link I gave – “OMG Congress almost voted against atheists!”

                    Rather than the bottom line result: Congress passed a law forbidding discrimination against atheists as well as against other religions.

                    A narrowly-won victory, but atheists got the right to force themselves on unwilling employers, so I think that counts as a victory.

                    (Except for libetarian atheists, who make up a fairly small minority of the atheist “community.”)

      2. Arguably being a Dawkinsian atheist, or a specific kind of atheist, is religious in a broad, comparative religions sense of the phrase where one requires a metaphysical and historical community of context and meaning for understanding of terms like “materialist”, “god”, etc. (For that matter, Sam Harris’ writings seem to indicate affinity for and precious little separation from Buddhism and the like.)

    3. Even Episcopalian?

  3. I personally think it’s silly to worry about statistical anomalies such as dying from a terrorist attack.

    But the average voter is going to worry about it nevertheless, and platitudes about religious freedom are unlikely to be very effective in easing their concerns.

  4. This helps Trump. The last thing any nation in the west needs in more muslims. BAN ISLAM

    1. Nice name.

    2. not sure if trolling or just dumb squinting

      1. ah so were filtering special characters now, are we reason? to make it look like my previous comment was barely literate? hmmmm?

  5. We already have such a law. It’s called the First Amendment, and it’s pretty damn clear.

    1. Doesn’t apply to prospective immigrants.

      1. True, I’m pretty sure it only applies to citizens.

        1. Actually if you read the first word of the Amendment closely you’ll see that it only applies to Congress.

        2. I’m pretty sure that it applies to *all people, everywhere*, as its considered a *human right*. The US is bound to *protect it* within its borders, including at customs, and should not be allowed to violate people’s right to it outside its borders.

          1. ^ This.

          2. Exactly. Same for the 4th, 6th, 8th and all the rest. The Bill of Rights doesn’t grant special rights to American citizens. It prohibits Congress from violating the basic human rights of anyone, citizen or non-citizen (except during declared war).

          3. Haven’t we been told that the borders are a constitution-free zone for quite some time now?

            1. Technically a 4th Amendment-free zone.

          4. We protect it within our borders. Not at the borders.

            1. Recall that we kill our own citizens in other countries.

    2. Not clear enough. There is a significant majority in this country that believes against all evidence that such rights are meant to apply only to citizens, or at least to people already under the jurisdiction of the US, not to people who want to enter that jurisdiction.

      1. “We hold these Truths to be self-evident; that all ‘Murkins are Created equal, that they are endowed by Jesus (a great guy, by the way, just terrific. Good friend of mine. Calls me up all the time, asks me for advice and stuff. I’m always happy to give it to him. I like helping people, I really do. I love the Jews. Great people, wonderful people, just the best. Can’t cook a pork chop for shit for some reason) with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the purfuit of Happiness. And fuck the Mexicans. Just the swarthy, greasy ones, though. Not the good ones. Offer void where prohibited, terms and conditions may apply. Must be 18 or over. In Jesus’ name we pray, Amen.”

      2. Except that the US has made it pretty clear that a) if you’re inside US territory (and that includes your port of entry) you are under US jurisdiction and b) Us jurisdiction extends pretty much wherever the USG says it does.

      3. Except 1A doesn’t grant a right. It is a prohibition for government, Congress specifically. It doesn’t apply to people. It applies to government and it says nothing about granting exceptions to the rule.

        Congress shall make no law

      4. The US government is not policeman to the world, required to protect the rights of all people everywhere.

        1. Of course not. But it is established to secure the rights of people within its jurisdiction. At the least, it shouldn’t abrogate them.

    3. I think constitutional amendments only apply to citizens though. Someone correct me if I’m wrong.

      1. You’re wrong. The 1st Amendment contains no exceptions, and no other amendments have changed that.

      2. You’re definitely wrong. Constitutional Amendments limit Congress’ ability to pass certain kinds of laws. Nowhere is that more clear than the First Amendment.

        1. I’m aware of that. But my question was whether the 1st Amendment protects said rights of non-citizens as well.

          1. It doesn’t make that distinction.

            1. Good to know, thanks.

          2. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

            Perhaps you could help me out; where exactly in that text do you see the ability for Congress to pass ANY LAW aimed at ANYONE that prohibits the free exercise of religion? Because I’m not seeing it…

            1. You do know I was asking a question and not submitting a premise for argument, right?

              1. It’s not his fault. Anyone who spends too much time here starts to take honest questions as challenges and arguments as personal insults. The atmosphere in this comment section is more toxic than Enchirito night at Warty’s house.

                1. Mind your own fucking buisness.

                2. I surmised as much.

      3. Wrong.

        The Constitution is quite clear. When it talks about persons or people it means persons or people. When it talks about citizens it means citizens.

        1. well it only applies to people within America’s jurisdiction, and if you’re denied entry into the United States, I don’t think the First Amendment applies to you.

          1. If you’re inside a port of entry you’re already inside the US. For example, at the closest POE to me, on the Mexico side there’s a section of sidewalk that leads up to a fence with a gate. On that section of sidewalk you are already inside the US. And you have to go through the gate to deal with the customs officer – by the time you get to the point where you can be denied entry you’ve been within the jurisdiction of the US for at least an hour or more.

            1. Gitlow v. NY

              1. Point being that 1A doesn’t grant a right. It’s a prohibition applying to the government.

                1. Yes, my cite was an example of how the prohibition is a general one because of equal protection.

        2. Glad to see this all finally getting thrashed out. The Founders were neither fools nor sloppy (except on the subject of slavery, and then intentionally). Almost all of what the Constitution recognizes as rights are rights of any human being (within the Federal government’s sphere of influence). This also pretty much inherently means that ‘extraordinary rendition’ for the purpose of torture to gain information, or targeted assassinations of specific individuals even outside of the boundary of the US, are a no-no (for the Feds).

          1. Was that “no-no” the punchline?

      4. Wrong. The 14th ruins everything by insisting you have to be a born person–like counting eggs–and it specifically applies to persons within this jurisdiction. This may have more to do with the “shall not be questioned” part further down. That is the money shot package-dealt into the verbiage. Amending that to please antichoice fanatics cannot be managed without putting the blank check clause in jeopardy. Lysander Spooner devotes a lot of space to that amendment without naming it specifically.

        1. The first ten amendments recognized that people had human rights from birth that it prohibited the new federal government from abridging.

          The 14th amendment sated that anyone born in the US also had civil rights, granted and bestowed by the federal government (in an attempt to prevent states from abridging citizen’s rights, as they had been doing in things such as slavery)

    4. Clear, yes, but is it applicable? If anything, it seems more like an equal protection issue.

  6. Thus removing any responsibility for Trump to defend his statement.

    It’s like he’s got them in the palm of his hand.

  7. Why only religious beliefs? Why not all beliefs? Like say a belief in Sharia law, or a belief in Aryan supremacy for example?

    1. They already turn people down on an ideological basis. Nazis et cetera. Islam is pretty allah damned ideological…

      1. Yes, but because they call Islam a religion it gets an exception. If you would ask people “Should the United States allow a million Nazis to immigrate here?” they would all so no. Why is one supremacist ideology like Islam ok, but Nazism isn’t.

        1. because Muslims tend to be darker, and we can’t have any sign of being “raaaacist”

          that’s the worst thing you can be called.

          1. Thats it in a nutshell. Can’t virtue signal if we’re defending a bunch of blond haired aryan guys.

        2. “they” call Islam a religion?

          That’s kind of bizarre wording. Shouldn’t that be “we”? A person would have to be pretty darn ignorant of reality to not know that Islam is a religion.

          As for why religious beliefs get a pass then non-religious beliefs don’t, there are two reasons:
          1. Tradition
          2. The vast majority of the public is religious and considers religious beliefs to be more significant than non-religious beliefs.

  8. Not enough Hitler references

  9. “Big Ern is finally above the law.”

  10. The United States was founded in large measure by immigrants who came to these shores seeking freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

    But now Europe is experiencing a wave of immigrants who would very much like to establish a religious dictatorship. I know Reason really wants to ignore Rotherham, Copenhagen, Brussels, and all the other places where Europe is being overrun by people hostile to Western civilization.

    This is THE ISSUE of our time. Nothing else comes close. Ignoring it and / or sticking to your Libertarian purity won’t change that. It will just make you irrelevant.

    1. The US isn’t Europe. You would have to depopulate the majority of Muslim countries and move them all over here in order to get them anywhere close to being a majority, let alone able to institute a theocracy.

      1. So we’ll just get enough to enjoy the terrorism and accusations of Islamaphobia but not enough for multiple wives and executing gays?

      2. Where does this “As goes Europe so goes America” bit come from. I listen the Breitbart New Daily on Sirius in the mornings, because I hate myself, and I constantly hear that. Are there examples of this in history? I can’t think of any, but I am not a historian or a follower of european trends.

        1. I think it’s more like when every other western democracy is having the same problem, then it’s naive and arrogant to think the United States will be magically different.

          If it were only a few European countries having issues with Islamic immigrants you would have an argument, but when all them are having problems, it seems pretty foolish to think America will be an exception.

          1. Yep. The UK has successfully assimilated many non-Muslim immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean, but the Muslims they have imported seem completely disinterested in assimilating.

            1. Since when is “assimilating” a requisite for for anything?

              I mean, who fucking cares if the assimilate? This is Murika! You can do/be whatever you want, provided you don’t violate the rights of others.

              You may have run across the term “melting pot” at some point in your education. That means they become somewhat more like the whole and the whole becomes somewhat more like the added part.

              The air of superiority around here is so thick you could choke on it.

              1. Since when is “assimilating” a requisite for for anything?

                It’s not requisite, but it is de facto what happens in American society.

              2. Ever visited a middle eastern Muslim country? You are arguing that people coming from oppressive shit holes shouldn’t change. They should keep on killing gays, beating their wives, and killing non-believers.

                1. You are arguing that people coming from oppressive shit holes shouldn’t change. They should keep on killing gays, beating their wives, and killing non-believers.

                  You missed the “provided you don’t violate the rights of others” part.

                  1. But the fraction of a percent of people who are transgendered are being protected by violating the right to privacy of everyone else, because the govt likes some groups more than others.

                2. Why, as a matter of fact, I have. And the vast majority didn’t kill gays, didn’t beat their wives and didn’t kill non-believers.

                  You are arguing a false premise.

                  1. The vast majority of Americans don’t shoot dogs, beat homeless men to death for fun, or rob minorities with large stacks of cash, but there’s a pretty large chunk of them that certainly considers it an acceptable means to a social end, and if they all move in next to you, say goodbye to your nuts.

                  2. Did you do a survey? Our personal experiences were obviously both anecdotal. I saw batshit stuff – some of craziest people I met were Saudi civilians. Not the Army Officers and bureaucrats in the rear, but the truck drivers and shepherds working near our bases.

          2. Ok, then make that point. I keep hearing that phrase like it’s some proven axiom of western civilization and I am not aware of any proof of it. I’d listen to an argument like yours, but when I hear the hyperbolic unquestionable truth screed I simply tune out the rest.

        2. Essentially our entire class of intellectuals is based on European trends post-WWI.

          Many of our governmental institutions and innovations (public schools, New Deal, etc) are attempts to ape Euro politics.

          Some of our architecture, both neo-Classical and the awful modernist architecture are basically European in origin.

          For the most part it’s concentrated to the type of people who govern our institutions and fashion our media choices, so we probably shouldn’t be worried.

          1. I have no idea what you mean, but if you ever disparage Mies Van Der Rohe again, you sir, are dead to me.

            1. Well played, heh.

      3. You don’t need them to be a majority, you just need enough of them for terror attacks, some SJW types to whine about tolerance, and a enough craven politicians to give into their demands.

        How many media outlets still allow you to draw the prophet Mohamed?

      4. Even in Europe the influx of Syrian refugees (assuming they are all Muslims, which they aren’t) would only raise the proportion of Muslims in Europe from 4% to 5%.

        1. A 1% increase in population within a very short period of time can be difficult for a society to accommodate. It’s also not an even dispersion across the continent, as some aggregate in certain countries more than others.

          1. Most of Eastern Europe is not taking any of them.

        2. “Even in Europe the influx of Syrian refugees (assuming they are all Muslims, which they aren’t) would only raise the proportion of Muslims in Europe from 4% to 5%.”

          Sure, but individual countries are going to have massive Muslim populations. The reason the overall percentage is low is because there are very few Muslims in Eastern Europe. France could be a majority Muslim country in 30-50 years depending on immigration rates. That won’t be a big deal if they heavily secularize, but it will be a very big deal if many of them don’t.

          1. “France could be a majority Muslim country in 30-50 years depending on immigration rates. ”

            No it can’t. That is an impossibility.

        3. Differentials in birth rates among different populations do change future demographics significantly.

      5. The US isn’t Europe.

        But, in a fit of category error, pants-shitters love to refer corporately to “The West.” The US is indeed different and not just because of size. As soon as someone ropes Europe in to make an argument about the US, you know you’re dealing with a moron or a bigot or both.

      6. let alone able to institute a theocracy.

        We already live in a Progressive Theocracy.

    2. This is why an open border state like the ones many here advocate has never existed in all of human history, and never will.

      1. The USA in much of the 18th and 19th centuries was pretty darn open. Passports hadn’t even been invented yet. If you wanted to go to America, you went to America.

        1. The whole country was pretty darn open then as well, and there was no welfare state.

          1. and there was no welfare state.

            Oh, the old “We’ve got this bad thing that forces us to do other bad things” argument.

      2. Closed borders are a fiction, and have been throughout all of human history. The only even slightly closed borders have been ones where countries prevent their citizens from getting out.

    3. SHIT YOUR PANTS HOLY SHIT MUSLIMS ARE INVADING HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT NUKE THE SANDS HOLY SHIT KILL KILL KILL

      1. Ah yes when you can’t refute something, just act like a retard.

        This is the open border argument folks, does it convince you?

      2. You’re right, Warty. There is no possible reason to be concerned

        “Pro-Palestinians Muslims in Britain attack people for drinking beer while shouting “Free Palestine””

        1. But beer is sacred! They really wanted to piss people off.

        2. So the point is, don’t go to Great Britain? Or is it to not drink warm beer? Or are you pissed off because some of them might be black?

          1. For people who complain about people who disagree with you arguing based on fear and emotion, you guys sure do spend a lot of time avoiding the point while screaming slurs and insults at people.

            1. “Why aren’t people more receptive to my totally reasonable proposal to kick out all the darkies?”

        3. Why am I supposed to shit my pants because a mob mobbed somewhere? You lost me.

          1. For a while, I thought your coprophilia was in remission, but it seems to have returned, as serious as ever.

          2. I suspect people weren’t getting attacked for drinking beer in Britain before large numbers of Muslim radicals lived in that country.

            1. There’s no evidence they are being attacked for drinking beer now.

        4. Cuz Christians never commit crime, protest or riot…

          1. Hey – it’s not like in this country people ever have violence done to them because of religious prohibition of certain chemicals!

          2. Not what I said. Although I would argue that Christians virtually never riot because they’re Christian. If we’re talking about the dangers of a religion we should probably talk about violence that occurs because of that religion.

            If you said Christianity was causing problems in Ireland during the Troubles I would have agreed with you so I don’t know why you guys are so desperate to deny that Islam is a problem in the modern world. I think it can moderate, or at least I hope so, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore that it’s a problem now or call people racists for even bringing it up like OMWC seems to want to.

            1. I would argue that Christians virtually never riot because they’re Christian

              How do you determine whether a riot by a group of people is or is not because of their identification with that group?

              If a group of Muslims riot because a US drone blew up their wedding, are they rioting because they’re Muslim?

              1. Or, to put it a different way, don’t you wonder whether people in Muslim countries see videos of, say, the rioting in Ferguson and say to themselves “man, those Christians – all those fuckers do is riot. What is wrong with that religion?”

            2. Irish…STOP!

              Discriminating against an entire group because a portion of that group does bad shit is immoral and idiotic.

              Your premise is, quite simply, false. Islam is not causal. If it were, ALL Muslims would commit crimes and atrocities. They don’t. The vast, vast, vast majority are good human beings. You don’t get to punish good human beings for the actions of bad human beings…EVER!

              1. “The vast, vast, vast majority are good human beings.”

                Citation needed

                1. If every Muslim in the world killed only 5 non-Muslims, there would be no non-Muslims in the world.

                  If 1,000,000,000 were mostly doing bad things, there would be generalized chaos and we wouldn’t be sitting around debating things on an internet forum.

                  Therefore, no citation needed. Like saying “the sky is blue.”

                  1. This, pretty much. Arab culture is pretty degenerate, and is a bigger problem than Islam. Albania is mostly Muslim and probably looking better than much of Europe.

        5. Nowhere in that video is it made clear why that fight is happening.

    4. “This is THE ISSUE of our time. Nothing”

      No it’s your hobby horse of our time. Your pants-shitting is not our problem.

  11. Bravo!

    Now, simply define “religion”.

    1. Any codified belief system that’s been around long enough that it’s not called a cult any more.

  12. United States Representative Don Beyer (VA-8)

    Did you have your VA-8 today?

  13. So what about if the religion calls for the overthrow of the present US government and replacing it with one based on the immigrants religion?

    1. Don’t worry I’m sure they’ll honor the constitution, it’s like magic and stuff.

    2. You can believe whatever the hell you want. It’s actions that should be illegal.

      1. FIRST AMENDMENT DOESNT APPLY TO BELIEFS YOU MOSLEM

      2. For citizens, sure, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a nation to exclude foreigners that could reasonably be defined as dangerously hostile, whether to its leader or state or system, its people, or even just one of its communities. As long as we have territorial nation-states, migration will be a privilege, not a right.

        1. Or, rather, people legal within its jurisdiction, not citizens. That is, if it invites you into its territory, it has constraints on how it can deal with you causing problems. Precisely because of this, access should be restricted to people where those constraints are not likely to come into play. Sort of the residence analogy to “hard to fire is hard to hire”.

    3. YEAH! STRNG UP THE SANDNIGGERS!

  14. How would this hypothetical religious test work anyway?

    Are you now or have you ever been a Muslim? No sir. Are you sure, you’re testifying under penalty of perjury? I am not a Muslim, I am a Chaldean Christian. Well then, you won’t mind kissing this cross will you?

    1. The morons who think of this garbage have no fucking idea how it would work, dude. It’s not bad enough that they’re amoral pieces of shit who are only capable of thinking of people in terms of ME HATE THEM TRIBE or ME LIKE THEM TRIBE, but they’re magical thinkers too. “Hey, let’s ban Muslims! Great idea! I am the smrtest!” Idiots.

      1. Says the man from the SJW tribe. Just because it isn’t a race or religion (Though I think that is debatable) doesn’t make your loyalties any less tribal.

        1. Progressivism is a religion, and a theocratic one at that.

        2. Your inability to go a post without projecting the exact idiotic tribalism that Warty is talking about is hilarious.

    2. Just ban immigration from predominately Muslim countries.

      1. Which is what the Immigration Act of 1924 did.

      2. Better way to word it is to ban inmigration from countries with know terrorist populations.

        1. How bout we ban the immigration of terrorists?

          1. There’s no time for that court nonsense. Quick, dronemurder a wedding.

          2. I think a blanket ban on bad guys would be safer.

        2. So – we’d ban Americans from re-entering the country? British, French, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Turks . . .

          Is there a single country in the whole world that doesn’t have a known terrorist population? Monaco, Vatican City maybe?

        3. “ban inmigration from countries with know terrorist populations.”

          Simply refuse entry to anyone who has visited Syria, Iraq, Yemen, etc in the past 5 years who is not military.

      3. That’s not how civilized countries work.

    3. How would this hypothetical religious test work anyway?

      Easy. If their skin is brown and they talk funny, then they’re a Mooslem.

      1. Just like the tranny bathroom test.

      2. But what about the Kurds? They’re the good guys, right?

        1. Let me consult Mr Putin.

          Nope.

          1. About why Istanbul, not Constantinople? It’s really more their business, or so I’ve heard…

    4. It should just be a ban on people who reject the American system of government (religiously neutral democratic republic) or the key civil liberties enshrined in the constitution. In other words, support for theocracy or legal discrimination on the basis or race, sex, nationality, or religion would be a dealbreaker. Probably also exclude people who think rape (in the liberal sense) could be legal or warranted under certain circumstances. If we we’re lucky, we could phrase it such a way as to sneak in a ban on gun grabbers.

      To the extent you could get accurate answers, it would selectively weed out only the dangerous Muslims, along with any similarly dangerous non-Muslims.

      1. It should just be a ban on people who reject the American system of government

        So, no libertarians?

        1. I imagine quite a few libertarians are fine with the de jure system of government (in the sense of a constitutional democratic republic with certain fundamental legal protections). Not the necessarily the de facto government rather crudely built off of that blueprint. Regardless, it’s certainly reasonable for the American state to exclude foreign anarcho-libertarians if it perceives any likelihood that they will actually work toward its destruction.

          1. in the sense of a constitutional democratic republic with certain fundamental legal protections

            Where, exactly, does that exist? I mean, it’s nice on paper, but we haven’t adhered to that since 1933.

            I completely reject our current

            “American system of government “

            I guess I wouldn’t be welcome.

    5. Mandatory bacon consumption in all airport lines.

      Win-win.

  15. Is there any political party, religion, or belief system that the government can include in its screening process as an automatic no-go? Can the government reject an avowed neo-Nazi or white supremacist? If your answer is no, they can not exclude that person, then congratulations on being consistent and principled. If your answer is yes, we can stop those people from coming into the country, then can we also ask immigrants if they think anybody who leaves their religion should be executed? Because that will automatically exclude the majority of the world’s Muslims.

    1. Immigration law currently bans immigration from card-carrying members of any communist party.

      1. What if they set the card down?

        1. Good question. I do not recall seeing this in immigration law lately, and political opinion is currently one of the 5 protected areas.

    2. The government does offer asylum to Americans like Robert Lewis Dear, and foreigners who can convince a judge they would be persecuted BY GOVERNMENT CONNIVANCE for race, religion, nationality, looking weird (PSG) or political opinions. A chainsaw ex-husband won’t do, but one fellow managed asylum by asserting that soldiers slapped him around whenever he dressed like a girl. It’s a wonder hippies don’t realize they could qualify, especially with prohibition being nullified in These States.

  16. Are you single tonight? A lot of beautiful girls waiting for you to http://goo.gl/pI9ucn
    The best adult dating site!

    1. Are you Muslim?

  17. Um…

    Don’t we have this covered?

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

    1. THAT WHUT NOT NO APLY 2 IMMGIRNTS DONT U NO KNOTHIN

    2. ongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; except when Ivy League law school graduates in fancy black robes say it is OK

      You forgot the fine print.

      1. And I forgot a C.

    3. Sure, so long as previous condition of servitude, background checks, waiting periods and filling out lengthy forms are not infringement in the wording of the 2nd Amendment. If the bill of rights were intact we’d hardly need an LP to restore it.

  18. Immigration is just another failed government program. Immigrants use welfare at a higher percentage than native born citizens. Muslims and other third world immigrants vote mostly Democratic. Second and third generation Muslims are more radicalized than their parents. If you look at countries around the world, the greater then percentage of Muslims, the more of a hell hole those countries are.

    Libertarians say they love freedom so of course they want more people to move here that vote for less freedom. Good job libertarians!

    1. “Second and third generation Muslims ”

      Not in America. The problem here is that the US has a much more moderate Muslim population than Europe or the rest of the world, so it is kind of dumb to act like we’re going to have the same problems.

      It’s mostly fear-mongering to freak out about this in America in a way it isn’t fear mongering to freak out about it in, say, Malmo, Sweden. We’re so far away from the Muslim world that we’re not in any danger of having mass immigration of crazies. Mostly we just get Pakistani doctors.

      1. It’s not a problem in America yet because Muslims only make up 1% or less of the population. In Sweden it’s at 5%, which seems to be around the level you start seeing problems. It’s not fear-mongering to talk about limiting Muslim immigration, especially since they hold values opposite of Western values. It’s better to limit the Muslim population and see how well they assimilate over time.

        1. Who the people are matters. In the US, we don’t have many problems from the Pakistani doctors or the Iranians who came here fleeing the overthrow of the Shah.

          The Somalians in Minnesota have more problems with extremism.

          There are cultural differences between Muslims from different places and Muslims from different classes. The Tunisians are very moderate overall and you shouldn’t lump them in with Saudi Arabia. The Iranian people also tend to be much more liberal than people think, it’s just that the theocrats have all the guns.

          1. The Tunisians are very moderate overall and you shouldn’t lump them in with Saudi Arabia. The Iranian people also tend to be much more liberal than people think, it’s just that the theocrats have all the guns.

            ^ This

            A lot of US perceptions of Islamic culture are distorted by the fact that our closest friends in the region, i.e. the Saudi royal family, are about as aggressively backwards as any culture in the world.

      2. Also worth pointing out that the US had very positive first-mover effects in this regard that would go straight out the window in an open borders scenario. The Arab populations in the US are roughly half comprised of Christian communities from the region (such as Copts), and about half made up of very moderate Islamic populations. The relatively small number of Muslims currently immigrating are stuck either integrating to these already very moderate communities, or going lone wolf and not having the advantages of a supportive community or being able to effect political change.

        That all changes in an open borders scenario, where entire communities can migrate simultaneously or chain migrate as was often the case in the US circa 19th Century. I would rather not have Little Riyadhs littering the Midwest, thank you very much.

        1. That all changes in an open borders scenario, where entire communities can migrate simultaneously or chain migrate as was often the case in the US circa 19th Century.

          What’s stopping them now?

          1. What’s stopping them now?

            The low rate at which they are generally accepted into the US, and limits on chain migration currently in place. Extended family has a very different meaning from “100-person village” in the US, and many of the migrations over here were of entire communities (particularly German, Jewish and Irish immigration, though I also recall an example given by T Sowell of one group of Japanese immigrants which came from a single town, interestingly enough).

            1. I think you’re making a distinction between legal vs. illegal presence, not presence-as-such.

        2. As long as we can keep out those filthy Puerto Ricans.

          They’ll bankrupt our country even faster than they bankrupted that hellhole island of theirs.

          1. I’ll leave, but y’all better kick out the Cubans and Dominicans while you’re at it. At least we have good music and women worth leaving your wife; what’ve the Cubans done lately besides give us decidedly mediocre Republican Presidential candidates?

            1. President Trump should build a moat to keep them out.

              1. Make Merengue Great Again

            2. Cubans? I like my Lechon Asado. And not the cheap PR knockoff recipes. The real stuff with sour orange.

              You responded to that far too nicely to that, BTW. My point still stands. Collectivizing is stupid.

        3. ” I would rather not have Little Riyadhs littering the Midwest, thank you very much.”

          There is zero reason to believe that would happen. None. That is just more fantasy bullshit.

    2. You forgot that Musselmen are rapists, dude. B-.

      1. Since Muslims from the Middle East have low IQs you probably fit in quite well with them.

        1. ZING

          I was trying to compliment you, idiot. You’re doing a pretty good imitation of a slackjawed buffoon.

          1. You are a muscleman though. So there you go.

            1. He’s not a muscleman he just has retard strength.

              1. You’re being quite mouthy to someone who could snap you in half like a twig were he to get his hands on you.

                God created man, but Vint Cerf et al. made them equal.

                1. You’re being quite mouthy to someone who could snap you in half like a twig were he to get his hands on you.

                  Good point. Better shut up, dude. He’s won the argument by virtue of being bigger and stronger than you.

        2. Show me on the doll where the Muslim touched you.

    3. “If you look at countries around the world, the greater then percentage of Muslims, the more of a hell hole those countries are.”

      Also not really true. Tunisia is 99% Muslim. Nigeria is less than 50%. Which country would you rather live in and in which country is Islam more of a threat? Tunisia at 99% is clearly better and has fewer crazy murderers than Nigeria despite having a much larger Muslim population.

      I think Islam is a terrible ideology, but it’s facile to pretend there’s a straight line between more Muslims and more religious violence. It depends on the type of Islam practiced and how devout the population is. The real danger is the Salafists and the Khomeni inspired Shi’a. Shi’a Islam has actually historically opposed religious oppression by the state until Khomeini came along and fucked up Iran.

      1. In fairness, this is essentially anticipated by the fact that Islam’s precepts encourage charity towards the in-group and violence towards the outgroup. Just look at places like Iraq and basically every sub-Saharan African country with either a small majority or large minority of Muslims along the border of Christian communities.

        More mystifying is why Indonesia isn’t more of a basket case, given this dynamic.

        1. “this is essentially anticipated by the fact that Islam’s precepts encourage charity towards the in-group and violence towards the outgroup. ”

          IOW it’s like every other major religion ITR.

    4. “Libertarians say they love freedom so of course they want more people to move here that vote for less freedom. Good job libertarians!”

      As opposed to native white people who mostly support Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders?

      1. Are you going to seriously argue that the American population is less libertarian than the rest of the world, on average?

    5. If you look at countries around the world, the greater then percentage of Muslims niggers, the more of a hell hole those countries are.

      Just so that you and Irish can be better pals.

      1. I don’t know how you got to be this retarded but it’s actually impressive. Get back to me when you’re able to actually argue a point.

        1. They don’t have an argument. Reality conflicts with their worldview, and so they just dig their heels in deeper, cover their ears, and chant “nah nah nah I can’t hear you” or in this case “nah nah nah you’re a racist”

          1. Well – when someone wanders along and says “x group of 1,000,000,000 people should be banned because they’re more likely to be evil” you get tired of repeating over and over again that each individual is an individual who’s responsible for their own individual actions once you’ve realized that the collectivist you’re talking to has no means of understanding what you’re saying.

            1. Well – when someone wanders along and says “x group of 1,000,000,000 people should be banned because they’re more likely to be evil”

              The argument is even stupider than that. “X group of 1,000,000,000 people should be banned because they’re more likely to be evil in other countries with totally different cultures than the US, and it hasn’t happened here but don’t worry it WILL!”

    6. Immigration is just another failed government program.

      Whaddya mean, “failed”? It’s been a great success.

      It’s what has been building the democratic party’s electoral majority, a majority soon to be *permanent* with the next amnesty.

    7. Key-rist Bob, when the first sentence of your post has a maaaaaaajor factual error, why would expect anyone to read the rest of it.

      Go get your facts straight re: Immigrants and welfare, *then* come back and rant about how Muslims ruin the countries they’re in.

    8. ” Immigrants use welfare at a higher percentage than native born citizens. Muslims and other third world immigrants vote mostly Democratic. Second and third generation Muslims are more radicalized than their parents. ”

      First statement is a lie. Third statement is only true in Europe if that. Second statement: who can blame them when the other guys talk about removing them?

  19. I thought it was called the First Amendment.

    1. The first amendment protects activities such as membership in certain political parties (such as communist), which are already grounds for refusing entry.

  20. A religious test is easy.

    Put the person being tested alone in a room that’s being monitored. In front of the person is a collection of pastries. If the person chooses a hot-cross bun they are Christian, if they choose a crescent roll they are Muslim.

    Science wins again!

    1. What if they take the pink Hostess Snowball? Asking for a friend.

      1. Then they are fabulous! And they have good taste too! I’m more of a moon pie guy, myself.

        1. A moon pie could also be construed as fabulous. Could.

          1. Only the banana ones.

  21. I love the smell of a Muslim thread in the afternoon. It’s the smell of retardation!

    1. You’re first in the oven, pal!

  22. You know the nicest part of religion? People grow out of it.

    1. Except in Britain and Europe the exact opposite has happened since the Muslims there are actually getting progressively more extremist in their views.

      I’d actually argue that Islam globally has gotten way more extreme over time. You didn’t used to have as many problems with extremism in Thailand or Indonesia or Malaysia and now you have suicide bombings and various Islamic inspired attacks in those places.

      You’re taking a pretty dumb Whig view of history if you think that because Christianity moderated with time it’s a guarantee that Islam will do the same. And even if Islam does eventually moderate that doesn’t mean that it’s not going to become more extreme and more dangerous in the short term.

      1. This murder for god shit only appeals to desperate people and losers, dude. The only way it’s not going to wither away is if these shithole countries stay poor stupid isolated shitholes forever.

        1. How wealthy was Osama Bin Laden again?

          1. How many suicide bombings did bin Laden personally carry out again?

            1. Zero. Zero is a number, right?

              1. Zero is a number, but not a popular denominator with some denominations of mathematicians. Others claim exceptions based on the relative rate of convergence of numerator and denominator, but they rarely blow each other up in heated debate.

      2. And even if Islam does eventually moderate

        This is the thing, though – religions don’t do stuff like “moderate over time.” Individual people do those things.

        The things that are going on in the Islamic world today have political and economic causes, not religious ones.

        1. Actually, religions can moderate over time. Unfortunately, for theological reasons too complex to go into right now, Islam can’t really become more moderate without refuting its central tenets. So “moderate Muslims” are the simply Muslims who don’t follow all the rules they are supposed to follow.

          1. Actually, religions can moderate over time.

            No, they can’t. People can get more moderate, which in turn can make their interpretations of their religions more moderate. They can also do the opposite.

            “Religions” don’t do things – they are abstractions that arise out of specific political and historical contexts. People do things.

            I don’t know how many different ways it can be said, but there a lot of people here who for whatever reason just. don’t. get it.

            1. Religions only exist as memes because they inhabit people, so you’re harping on a distinction without a real difference. OK, so: “the religion as it manifests in people appears more moderate, because the people of that religion have, on average, adopted more moderate versions of those memes, and thus believe and behave more moderately.”

          2. You have as much authority to say what Muslims are “supposed” to believe and do as Obama does, which is to say you have none at all. You’re not a Muslim. They don’t give a shit what you think.

            1. No, because I am being descriptive, not prescriptive. I am pointing to widely, commonly held pillars of the Islamic faith. E.g., the Koran was dictated to Muhammad from God, in God’s language, through the Archangel Gabriel. The Earthly Koran is a duplicate of God’s master copy. That belief defines part of the core beliefs of all Muslims. They have to believe that, or they aren’t Muslims, just as to be a Christian, you have to believe in the divinity of Christ.

              I’m doing no more than saying: “Marxists have to believe most of what Marx wrote.” And I don’t have to be a Marxist to say that.

          3. Pretty much like moderate Christians then.

            1. Not really. Christianity is already pretty moderate at its core. Pacifist carpenter, turn the other cheek, all that. OTOH, Muhammad became a warlord, and in the later part of the Koran, so it carries more weight. The New Testament is more pacifist than the Old, and similar carries more weight for Christians.

              So yeah, Islam is inherently more violent than Christianity.

        2. The things that are going on in the Islamic world today have political and economic causes, not religious ones.

          CHRIST, THIS x1000^1000

          You gain support for your cause by wrapping it up in religion or the flag…

          So then your enemies blame Islam instead of Al Qaeda (for example) and begin to treat Muslims badly because of it. You drive the innocent Muslims to the cause of Al Qaeda.

          And the retards, like many of those above calling for restrictions on the Muslim religion as a whole, end up playing right into the hands of their real enemy. It’s almost a perfect strategy, because everyone knows that idiots will idiot.

          1. Of course that’s part of it, but some religions and flags are much better suited to wrap around causes than others. Islam is much bigger on the “Just kill anyone who disses us or our historical figure” thing than any other religion. And since Islam is also political by nature, and also economic (e.g. the ban on interest), and also cultural (cousin/child marriage), it’s hard to fix the “political and economic causes” without stepping on religious toes.

        3. But those political and economic causes have causes of their own. Islam is obviously politics and much more. Massive coincidence that just happened to be there the whole time.

          1. But those political and economic causes have causes of their own.

            Yes – largely the collapse of the so-called “Gunpowder Empires” as they reached the ends of their natural life cycles in the 18th-19th centuries.

            Islam is obviously politics and much more. Massive coincidence that just happened to be there the whole time.

            Yes – just as it is a “coincidence” that Europe “happened” to be Christian all through both World Wars and the Communist Era. Islam didn’t cause the post-imperial chaos in the ME any more than Christianity caused the Holocaust. No reason to think there’s any relationship, really.

            1. Eh radical Islam is definitely good at exploiting the turmoil.

              The Ottoman Empire sucked.

            2. The Ottoman empire was one of the central powers in WW1. However that fits into your silly dichotomy game.

              But note that if you go back to the previous goalpost, your own quote referred to “causes”, plural. Calling either religion a “coincidence” is a lot wronger than calling it a “cause”. Slightly more intelligent discussion can potentially be had by comparing cultures and their relative progress. Let’s say the muslim world is 100 years behind Europe, to use a round number. You are going with claim that Islam deserves blame for zero of those years? You must at least admit there’s lots of evidence that would lead people to disagree with you. Personally I think if a prophet or whatever slips certain things in there like “holy land” or “Afterlife”, they cause extra trouble. A society is very complex after all, little words can have huge effects.

              1. One might say Islam is 600 years behind Christianity. In the 1400’s we were still fighting over variations of Christianity.

                But even so, “I’m depraved because I’m deprived/slow/young” never cut much ice with me.

        4. So is this sort of like evolution by natural selection?

      3. Oh brother you’re basing your pants-shitting on some ‘values’ questionnaire? Even if this meant anything, so what? Only actions matter.

        The only reason we’ve had a problem with more radical Islam is that the Gulfies and Iran are allowed to fund it. End states that sponsor terror.

      4. Arguably, both Christianity and Islam are reverting to their imagined roots. Christianity’s baseline is that of a liberal, evangelical but inward-looking community living in a decadent superpower that despises it. Islam’s baseline is an aggressively expansionist and violent power that promotes inward unity and brotherhood, but complete ruthlessness with outsiders.

        I think it’s because, for all their similar secular history, the sacred history of each faith is a short span many centuries ago, and once their secular history withers, that’s what they will gravitate to. No surprise that it’s often the kids of moderates who are drawn to radicalism.

        1. ant1sthenes is wise.

    2. That’s pretty fucking stupid and insular. The Hajj’s attendance has gone up tenfold; virtually every Muslim-majority country is more politically influenced by religion now than in the last 100 years. India has likewise experienced a revival of both Hinduism and (to a smaller extent) Buddhism since independence; Russia likewise with Orthodox Christianity since the fall of Communism. China, the world’s most populous nation, is seeing huge gains in adherents for Christians and Buddhists. Africa went from having less than 8% Christian population, to 45% (and Islam also slightly increased its gains). The US was undoubtedly less Christian prior to the First and Second Great Awakenings, and even after that the Freethought movement had a larger cultural impact than, say, New Atheism.

      The US and Europe are certainly more religiously illiterate than they were at one time, both atheists and believers alike knowing less about religion than they would have in the past. However, aside from a cross-section of upper class whites, the changes in religion have largely been from mainstream sects of Christianity to evangelicalism/Pentecostalism (in the US), and to astrology and the like (in Europe).

      No one’s “growing out of” religion anytime soon, besides ideological communities which specifically preclude religion and which frown on members who embrace religion.

      1. The increase in the number of atheists in America argues against your last statement.

        1. Not if there is an increase in the more pious, evangelical sort of atheist, as opposed to the inward looking, skeptical sort.

          1. …what?

            1. What is a religion, exactly? I don’t know that there is a good answer, but so long as religious belief/praxis is associated with special legal restrictions and privileges, it’s a critical question.

              At a minimum, it’s a complex system of beliefs that are sincerely held by some number of people. Beyond that, I would personally say it needs several of the following attributes, though no single one is necessary:
              * Deals prescriptively with questions of individual thought/behavior and social order.
              * Identifies things as sacred or taboo (that is, worthy of extreme positive or negative feeling).
              * Associated with a singular human authority/leader/exemplar (Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tzu, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, Ayn Rand). I blame Civ for this.
              * Has elements that are non-empirical, whether based on faith, mythical narratives, aesthetics, or first principles.
              * Concerns itself with matters beyond the strictly pragmatic and secular; e.g. death/afterlife, origin of the cosmos, nature/existence of gods/spirits/souls, fate/destiny, the meaning of life.
              * Forms the basis for a community and strong personal identity
              * Deals with life in general and holistic enough terms that it could theoretically be the sole ideology of a community (IOW, science doesn’t address political matters or make value judgments, capitalism/socialism deal solely with economic matters; libertarianism doesn’t provide answers about what to do with freedom once you have it).

              1. I bring this up because atheist does not mean “not religious”. Nor for that matter is atheism (in and of itself) a religion, any more than “theism” is. However, it is (like theism) a trait that is mostly relevant in the context of describing a religion. Using theist/atheist to describe non-religious ideologies is normally about as useful as using black/white to describe sounds.

                While “atheism” does not check off many of the boxes above (nor does “theism”), specific atheist worldviews/communities might. In particular, a totalitarian personality cult (where people attach the reverence normally given to gods to a human leader, but without literally considering him divine) could be considered both atheist and religious, in the worst sort of way. So, depending one which atheist communities are growing, the world can be getting both more atheist and more religious.

                Of course, in a society in which all major religions are some variety of theism, it is often just used as shorthand for “unaffiliated with any major local religion”.

                1. Like I said, ant1sthenes is wise.

  23. Recommended reading for the author:

    http://www.davekopel.org/2A/La…..ntrol.html

    Why no photos of doe-eyed orphans?

    1. When there is genuine evidence of potential danger?such as evidence that guns are in the possession of a violent gang?then the Fourth Amendment properly allows no-knock raids, flash-bang grenades, and similar violent tactics to carry out a search.

      Bull-fucking-shit.

      1. evidence that guns are in the possession of a violent gang

        Why are the guns the most relevant factor, and why does it matter that a “violent gang” is in possession of them, and not, e.g. that this violent gang is actually present at the premises being searched?

      2. All the Fourth Amendment did was limit government power, until the Methodist White Terror made the War on Beer the absolute national priority. Since the Marron case it’s been a dead letter.

  24. Cuz totalitarianism is ok, as long as it’s theocratic totalitarianism.

    If there was one thing to learn from 9/11, it’s that you don’t get a free pass by saying “But God told me to”.

    1. Whereas you got one before?

      1. Yes, and they still do in lots of ways.

        And this particular proposed law is yet another instance.

        1. And this particular proposed law is yet another instance.

          What you implied: no one should be able to use their religion as an excuse to get away with heinous acts
          What the bill says: no one should be denied a visa on the basis of their religion

          … the two are not the same

          1. What I implied was that no one gets a free pass for whatever, not just acts.

            1. … which still doesn’t connect with the proposed law

    2. Robert Lewis Dear “Warrior For the Babies” is now being fed, bathed and clothed at your expense. That sure quacks and waddles like a free pass from where I’m standing.

  25. This whole thing is stupid. The government can already deny non-citizens admission to the country and visas on any of the following bases:

    1. They support the overthrow of the government, of the “American way of life”, or any other precept of our constitutional system
    2. They support an organization designated as terrorist
    3. They hold citizenship in a country designated as restricted

    The idea that a test of religion needs to be administered or needs to be banned is absurd.

    1. The only question that really matters is what will CBP be told to do by the President since Congress has already passed all the necessary laws

    2. They support the overthrow of the government, of the “American way of life”, or any other precept of our constitutional system

      So being in favor of the death penalty for apostasy, blasphemy, and adultery would rule you out?
      Being in favor of the establishment of religious law?
      Being in favor of polygamy?

      Here are the Pew research polls on such questions for Muslims worldwide.
      http://www.pewforum.org/2013/0…..ut-sharia/

      1. The first, yes. The second, it would depend. People can support laws for religious reasons (e.g. abortion bans). The third is a non sequitur.

      2. The first, yes. The second, it would depend. People can support laws for religious reasons (e.g. abortion bans). The third is a non sequitur.

        1. Being in favor of the death penalty for squirrels, on the other hand…

      3. Being in favor of sharia law would rule you out. That covers a huge proportion of Muslims right there.

    3. It is also unoriginal. When Germany was being molded into a Positive Christian Workers’ Paradise in 1920, the NSDAP platform made religious freedom stop where “endanger the state or violate the ethical and moral feelings of the Germanic race” began. Deporting “foreigners” was also all over the nationalsocialist platform. Laws in the banana republics are still framed in much the same way. Repealing bad laws of decriminalizing victimless freedom are unheard-of.
      The LP could remove the top half of its 2014 migration plank and greatly improve it–or at least stop the GOP from misrepresenting its content.

  26. After McKinley was killed, anarchists were excluded much like Asians–without the subterfuge of “Gentlemen’s Agreements.” The reason was not that they were communists–a queer but quaint religion–but that they blew stuff up and killed people. Japan’s Aum cult and post-Ottoman mohammedans have a greater propensity than even christianofascists to go berserker, murdering complete strangers. They simply cannot afford to use drone strikes.

    The showdown among these factions–all of them wedded to superstition and murder–would not be so bad if viewed from the grandstands–like soldiers in Erich Marie Remarque’s formula for wars personally fought by politicians, archbishops and field marshals. The Old Dutch Clock and the China Plate were able to watch the Calico Cat and the Gingham dog tear each other up, with equanimity and little skin in the game–and from a safe remove. Vichy Paris II offers little reassurance.

  27. I see the usual nutbars and slack-jawked peons are riled up.

  28. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do thaat on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn money at home, so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the site. More than sure that you will get best result.OI3..

    ====== http://www.Reportmax90.com

  29. I welcome every other religion and non-religion (actually Atheism IS a religious faith just like every other… just without a god) EXCEPT Islam. Has no one read the Quran? Has no one read the Hadiths? I’ll say this once: ISLAM is NOT a RELIGION!!! Islam is a cultural-political system that if first and foremost a form of Fascist Government who’s stated goal is to overtake and subjugate every living being on planet earth. Muslims… go away!!!

  30. The article mentions a proposed ban on Trump visiting Britain. It is true that some British citizens have proposed such a ban. However, it is not government policy and it is very unlikely that the government would introduce such a ban. So I think the context in which it is included in the article is misleading.

  31. Glad to see this.
    A nitpick with the article, though: Khan is not the Lord Mayor of London, he is the Mayor of London. The two are very different offices.

  32. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  33. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do thaat on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn money at home, so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the site. More than sure that you will get best result.OI3..

    ====== http://www.CashPost7.com

  34. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website…
    ———————————— http://www.earnmore9.com

  35. RE: No Religious Test for Immigrants to U.S.: Freedom of Religion Act of 2016

    The only faith the new immigrants should be practicing is worshiping the State and all its ruling elitist turds.
    That’s all the religion anyone in Amerika should have.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.