Religions USA should NOT allow into the country

[genuineoriginal]

"or abridging the freedom of speech"

Article I, Section 8, clause 4 of the Con*stitution entrusts the federal legislative branch with the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."

Liberals are not natural, so if there are no rule for their naturalization, then they can be expelled.

 

[shagster01]

Religion is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution, so we can't ban people for their religion.

Liberalism is not protected by the First Amendment, so we can ban liberals.

Define liberalism.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Define liberalism.

What do you see when you look in a mirror?

 

[shagster01]

What do you see when you look in a mirror?

A handsome guy.


In all seriousness though, I am a pro-gun, anti-welfare, pro-very-small-government, anti-tax guy. And you call me a liberal. So what exactly is your definition of a liberal?

 

[Crucible]

Banning religion is contrary to our Constitution. IF you are truly against freedom of religion, you have chosen the wrong country to live in.

Americans didn't choose their country, it is simply their country. But Muslims and other religious cultures who came here in the first place did. You should go preach to them instead of being a dissident sympathizer, they get better treatment then Christian Americans.

 

[shagster01]

Americans didn't choose their country, it is simply their country. But Muslims and other religious cultures who came here in the first place did. You should go preach to them instead of being a dissident sympathizer, they get better treatment then Christian Americans.

Most Muslims in this country were born here.

 

[Rusha]

Define liberalism.

A handsome guy.

In all seriousness though, I am a pro-gun, anti-welfare, pro-very-small-government, anti-tax guy. And you call me a liberal. So what exactly is your definition of a liberal?

Liberal has been redefined by some as "anyone who disagrees with my views". Apparently, calling names and throwing out labels is easier than presenting a valid argument.

 

[musterion]

We should never have let in the Catholics.

 

[Quetzal]

Liberal has been redefined by some as "anyone who disagrees with my views". Apparently, calling names and throwing out labels is easier than presenting a valid argument.

This is quickly becoming one of my biggest pet peeves. If you have nothing else to offer, just call it a day. Calling me a liberal won't hurt my feelings.

 

[Truster]

Some of us would like to ban all liberals but—SIGH—can’t do that


So next on the list of people we would like to ban—but also NEED to ban are



• Communists? Well, not necessarily. If a Communist merely holds a belief that communism is the best form of government known to man, that’s fine. We all find fault with our own form of government (If you don’t, you are not well-informed—or possibly something worse). If said Communist wants to overthrow our government, our democracy, and is working toward doing so (by engaging in destructive/treasonous acts) that is a different story.


Others who should NOT be allowed in:


• People with weird religions? Well, the USA was founded on freedom of religion; as we know, people came here from Europe 200(+) years ago to avoid religious persecution & be free to practice their beliefs.



But here’s the thing: If a “religion” has tenets that blatantly and egregiously contradict our Constitution, that so-called religion should not be allowed in the USA

It’s as simple as that



Agree?

''Religions USA should NOT allow into the country''

Shouldn't be too difficult keeping people out. They've been keeping the Messiah out of their denominations for years.

Now don't get all patriotic and upset. The same thing applies in Europe, but this thread is not about Europe.

 

[Rusha]

This is quickly becoming one of my biggest pet peeves. If you have nothing else to offer, just call it a day. Calling me a liberal won't hurt my feelings.

Understandably so. Some of my views are far more conservative than those who throw out the mighty "l" word.

 

[alwight]

It's all those non-believers you should be keeping out,
just look at those such as Mao Tse-tung, Stalin, Pol Pot, Atilla the Hun, Adolf Hitler, all typical atheists.

 

[genuineoriginal]

In all seriousness though, I am a pro-gun, anti-welfare, pro-very-small-government, anti-tax guy.

Me, too.

And you call me a liberal. So what exactly is your definition of a liberal?

We could both be classified as libertarians, but there are different types of libertarians.


I fall in this category:

Classical Liberalism:

Classical liberals agree with the words of the Declaration of Independence: That all people have basic human rights, and that the sole legitimate function of government is to protect those rights. Most of the Founding Fathers, and most of the European philosophers who influenced them, were classical liberals.​

From what I have seen in your posts, you probably fall in this category:

Civil Libertarianism:

Civil libertarians believe that the government should not pass laws that restrict, oppress, or selectively fail to protect people in their day-to-day lives.

Their position can best be summed up by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' statement that "a man's right to swing his fist ends where my nose begins." In the United States, the American Civil Liberties Union represents the interests of civil libertarians. Civil libertarians may or may not also be fiscal libertarians.​

If you believe the ACLU represents your interests, you are a liberal.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Liberal has been redefined by some as "anyone who disagrees with my views". Apparently, calling names and throwing out labels is easier than presenting a valid argument.

Spoken like a true liberal.

 

[This Charming Manc]

hey I hold views label them as you want

 

[brewmama]

Banning religion is contrary to our Constitution. IF you are truly against freedom of religion, you have chosen the wrong country to live in.

Nothing to do with the proposition. Banning a religion is not on the table, however a prudent move of stopping immigration of certain people who have clearly demonstrated that some of them at least harbor evil designs on this country and her people is wise.

It's certainly been done before, by wiser people than seem to be running the country and arguing on this forum.

eg, Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from coming in after the Iranian uprising and hostage taking. (Today they would not take hostages, just kill them.)
Wise, no?

 

[rexlunae]

...certain people who have clearly demonstrated that some of them at least harbor evil designs...

So, like, all people?

eg, Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from coming in after the Iranian uprising and hostage taking. (Today they would not take hostages, just kill them.)
Wise, no?

That's a little different than banning a belief. And it's still a little dubious.

 

[brewmama]

So, like, all people?



That's a little different than banning a belief. And it's still a little dubious.

Not dubious at all. And well within legal limits.

 

[rexlunae]

Not dubious at all. And well within legal limits.

It is legal to curtail immigration from a given country. But this country has freedom of religion. You can't ban a religion.

 

[JPPT1974]

Yeah as sadly everything in the country is free especially sadly but truthfully for those that use it in a bad way. Not for good.