Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

It's hard to believe that the freedom of religion bit in the U.S. constitution is merely saying that Americans can have what humans have always had in any society: the freedom to privately believe whatever we want. Without the minimum action of stating what we believe, no-one else knows. And it's hard to believe that the freedom of religion bit is about the freedom of Americans to state their beliefs, because that's covered by free speech. It certainly can't be about equal treatment by the state of all known religious beliefs, because someone who is known by the C.I.A. to be a believer in the ISIS Caliphate will not be treated in the same way by immigration officials as an Anglican.Do you see why I think it might be difficult to do Trump for religious discrimination on immigration? It's already being done.I'll look up what the constitutional freedom of religion actually is, because I haven't read it for decades.

It applied to even people who had been bought and brought here.

But that's not true. If the State could show that Anglicans posed a clear and present danger and that Anglicans held as a basic tenet the policy of physical harm to non-members and if there was actual evidence that Anglicans had and could cause such harm to non-members then those conditions would be sufficient to override the general rule of equal treatment.

quote:

---

It's hard to believe that the freedom of religion bit in the U.S. constitution is merely saying that Americans can have what humans have always had in any society: the freedom to privately believe whatever we want.

---

Which is not what is being said. Again, the point is not being penalised for beliefs.

quote:

---

It certainly can't be about equal treatment by the state of all known religious beliefs, because someone who is known by the C.I.A. to be a believer in the ISIS Caliphate will not be treated in the same way by immigration officials as an Anglican.

---

Only because of the justifiable fear that the Da'esh supporter might put those beliefs into action. And yes, the "justifiable" part is important.

Exactly. Different religious beliefs are treated differently, because they differ. We discriminate as individuals and so does the State. That's what Trump stands accused of.If all religious beliefs were identical, there wouldn't be any religious discrimination, would there?Sweeping laws against religious discrimination are always problematic.

Now we're getting somewhere. Religious discrimination can be justified in certain cases. So, Trump's restrictions cannot necessarily be overturned on the basis of discrimination alone.

No, still not true.It is not the religious beliefs that are the issue. If the Anglicans espoused a belief that all non-Anglicans should be killed it would still be protected. It is only when there is reason to think that the Anglican actions would pose a threat that they might find their equal protection sanctioned.If Anglicans simply talked the talk but there was zero evidence that they never walked the talk they would still be protected.It is not religious beliefs that are treated differently, it is simply that ISIS has demonstrated that they simply can't play nice. The sanctions are not based on their beliefs but rather their behavior and they are treated equally to any group that exhibits that behavior patter regardless of the motivation.Should ISIS change its behavior even if it maintained its beliefs then they would be treated just as any group that exhibited the trait of playing nicely with other kids.

I don't think at this point anyone is saying that there is a certain case against Trump - and the main case seems to be based on his tweets rather than the ban itself.However, if it did turn out that Trump intended to ban Muslims for being Muslims, the fact he might have got away with it if a Muslims *were* mostly fanatical terrorists is hardly going to help much.

There would be reason to think that their actions could pose a threat if they believed that all non-Anglicans should be killed. There would certainly be good reason for non-Anglicans to discriminate against them as potential immigrants. Are you seriously suggesting that the CIA and FBI would treat such a group as equal to all others until they actually started the killing?In reality, any group with a known belief like that would be watched very closely, and would certainly face discrimination from your border police.Do you really think that, under the Bush and Obama administrations, Muslims (without even believing the rest of the world should be killed) faced no discrimination at U.S. borders?

I certainly hope so. Beliefs are to be protected and the beliefs we most strongly disagree with deserve our strongest support. The individuals that work at border immigration are human and so yes, there is likely some that did discriminate; but if so it was illegal and not policy.AbE: Let me expand on this since I think it is important.Here at EvC one of our members posted that I should be taken out and shot. Now that is a pretty clear threat yet it was very unlikely the member would be capable of actually putting that plan into effect so his belief is one I would support. It was likely a stupid thing for him to post but not something that should be sanctioned or censored.Now long long ago and in a land far far away, my wife was working as a legal assistant to a lawyer who was defending someone who had just been convicted of committing several murders AND had threatened the Judge as well as his own legal team (which included my wife). After sentencing he was scheduled for a psych evaluation and attacked, beat up and tied up the person evaluating him and escaped through a window.In that case I did behave differently. Here was a threat from someone who had demonstrated belief, intent and the capability to really be an actual threat. The police explained that they simply did not have the resources to provide any real protection and advised me to always be armed and ready to protect myself and my wife. So I did. We increased our vigilance, changed schedules and routing, went armed at all times and prepared for potential threats.Beliefs need to be protected.Behavior though really is different.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

What evidence is there that ISIS believers are mostly fanatical terrorists? Judging by surveys of support for the Caliphate, more than 99.9% have yet to commit an act of terrorism, which seems to show remarkable patience for fanatics.If it's unconstitutional for the U.S. State to discriminate against Muslims, then it has been doing "unconstitutional" stuff on its borders for a long time.

quote:

---

What evidence is there that ISIS believers are mostly fanatical terrorists? Judging by surveys of support for the Caliphate, more than 99.9% have yet to commit an act of terrorism, which seems to show remarkable patience for fanatics.

---

If you define "supporter" so loosely then I guess you can't ban people who support Da'esh then - although I also suppose that supporting Da'esh is more political than religious.And even then, I very much doubt that Muslims in general are as likely to engage in terrorist acts as Da'esh supporters

quote:

---

If it's unconstitutional for the U.S. State to discriminate against Muslims, then it has been doing "unconstitutional" stuff on its borders for a long time.

---

Almost certainly. Constitutional violations can slip past, customs and immigration or TSA officials who abuse their positions are hardly unknown, and it would be surprising if there were none of them who were prejudiced against Muslims. The problem is proving it.

Really? I'll start by sending a donation to the Flat Earth Society, and continue by showing up to the next neo-Nazi rally in this area with a swastika on my T-shirt.Would you care to put that wonderful second sentence on its own thread and defend it against all comers? Then the courts have plenty of backlog work to do before they get to Trump!

If it's unconstitutional to ban them, it might be time for Americans to rethink their constitution. They would have nothing to lose and everything to gain. And religions are very political things. We discriminate when we vote. Religious discrimination isn't innately wrong or irrational. It's inevitable. I agree. Perhaps someone will be able to come up with a percentage point of terrorists at which discrimination against a defined group becomes constitutional. But I doubt it.

quote:

---

If it's unconstitutional to ban them, it might be time for Americans to rethink their constitution.

---

Or maybe you should rethink your attitude. Banning people because you don't like their ideas doesn't seem a good thing.And Da'esh - centred on conquering and ruling territory - is rather more political than most religion.