Wrong. Muslim. Terrorism. And he had previously declared allegiance to IS and IS afterwards acknowledged him as their member.
Saying something wrong but more slowly doesn't correct the problem I spoke to...if your above is correct on his actions and adoption, then at best you could say he is a Muslim with connections to Islamic extremists. They don't speak for Islam, only for their narrow and violent interpretation and application of it, so my point stands.
No, it wasn't. I was first noting that it didn't apply to the situation at hand. I then went beyond that to note the overwhelming and demonstrable orthodoxy of Islam isn't in line with the extremist practice that poses a threat, addressing the idea of the efficacy in making the distinction you inquired about.
Why do we have to avoid the issue? Why would you be interested in that? Because you don't like to accept the statstics. Your idealism that all religions are equal is not borne out by the facts.
I didn't say or suggest avoiding the issue. I expanded the consideration. That's a call for statistics, not an avoidance of them. And nothing, literally nothing in the quote you answered this way suggests I view all religions as equal...which isn't surprising given I don't. I noted that my faith has in the past, mostly distant but not entirely, struggled with a similar streak of violence.
You assumed two causal relations you failed to demonstrate. I think the premise ran with them, but feel free to clarify/distinguish if you like. I'd be more than happy to read the distinctions.
There's that idealism of yours shining through loud and clear. At some point you have got to stop treating Musim potential immigrants the same as Hindu potential immigrants. Yeah, just do a criminality check, background check on known associates, parents, etc. Ok. Pass. Come on in. It doesn't work. It's not rational at all.
It's irrational to treat the exception as a rule and to make a law that does so is worse than irrational. My idealism is rooted in a respect for the premise of our law, the thing that makes it superior to Sharia, by way of.
Avoiding the issue again.
I'd have to avoid something to begin with. Worse for you, you'd have to actually demonstrate it...and you can't.
To put a fine point on it, you asked "What would happen if Muslim immigration went unchecked?" I noted the problem is the assumption in your premise. NO immigration goes unchecked. Now if you meant the usage to suggest we put an end to allowing those who are of the Muslim faith entrance into this country then I think you have a bigger problem on your hands and one rooted in an irrational hostility or fear.
Which is it?
And the next incident I guess will be the same. And the one after that. And the last one, did you say the same about that?
You don't form good law by conflating the exception with the rule. You can begin a degradation of respect for right and the rule of law founded in respect of it though.
