(January 20, 2016 at 11:27 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

FatAndFaithless Wrote:Again, who decides and why does it matter?

Um, it's the topic of the thread.

Well, yes, but my point is that I don't think that someone can just arbitrarily decide if someone is a 'devout' muslim or a 'nominal' muslim, nor do I think it matters much at all.  Do you think there is an objective criteria to differentiate between a devout and nominal member of a faith that we can ascertain without getting inside the head of an individual?  And from where did this criteria come, and on whose authority?

It's a giant red herring, in my opinion.  The 'devoutness' of ISIS members is irrelevant to the issue that they derive their ideas and stances from their interpretation of the Koran and its messages.  That's what they state, and I don't see any reason to say they're lying about that.

I don't think it's arbitrary. Do they attend mosque every Friday even if they don't have to? Do they do their prayers and give alms? It's not hard to tell if a Muslim is devout by the same standards we apply to Christians, which is basically how much time they put into things like studying their scriptures and attending their places of worship, and how they act the rest of the time. We look askance at someone who only goes to church on Christmas and Easter and has a live-in unmarried partner who gets drunk every weekend; and says they're a devout Christian. It isn't rocket surgery, and it's not particularly arbitrary as judgments of human beings go, except at the margins (how much church do they have to miss and how often do they have to get drunk before they're no longer devout is largely a matter of informal consensus and personal taste).

We rarely require an authority to tell us how to make social judgments, I don't get what's so special about this one.

Is it a red herring that much of Daesh leadership is composed of formerly secular Baathists who were kicked out of their positions of authority in Iraq?

The red herring is the pretense that history and politics don't play a great role in radicalization regardless of the region in which it is happening. Christians and atheists behave much the same way under similar conditions, they just find different justifications for their violence. The Tamil Tigers invented suicide bombing, and they were mostly atheists. The American population has become partially radicalized to the point that a large percentage of us are eager to wipe our asses with the Constitution if that's what it takes to keep Muslims out over a fraction of 1% of the deaths that have been inflicted on Muslims by the West in recent decades.

(January 19, 2016 at 1:15 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: You had me up to 'controlled and probably fabricated by the CIA'.

The cold war is the reason behind what I'm saying. The tactic of spreading proxies to commit certain actions that produce a conclusion that is satisfactory to certain parts of the warfare, is a practiced tactic and it was even documented in the Afghan-Soviet war.

(January 21, 2016 at 11:27 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: I don't think it's arbitrary. Do they attend mosque every Friday even if they don't have to? Do they do their prayers and give alms? It's not hard to tell if a Muslim is devout by the same standards we apply to Christians, which is basically how much time they put into things like studying their scriptures and attending their places of worship, and how they act the rest of the time. We look askance at someone who only goes to church on Christmas and Easter and has a live-in unmarried partner who gets drunk every weekend; and says they're a devout Christian. It isn't rocket surgery, and it's not particularly arbitrary as judgments of human beings go, except at the margins (how much church do they have to miss and how often do they have to get drunk before they're no longer devout is largely a matter of informal consensus and personal taste).

We rarely require an authority to tell us how to make social judgments, I don't get what's so special about this one.

Is it a red herring that much of Daesh leadership is composed of formerly secular Baathists who were kicked out of their positions of authority in Iraq?

The red herring is the pretense that history and politics don't play a great role in radicalization regardless of the region in which it is happening. Christians and atheists behave much the same way under similar conditions, they just find different justifications for their violence. The Tamil Tigers invented suicide bombing, and they were mostly atheists. The American population has become partially radicalized to the point that a large percentage of us are eager to wipe our asses with the Constitution if that's what it takes to keep Muslims out over a fraction of 1% of the deaths that have been inflicted on Muslims by the West in recent decades.

What does the Constitution have to do with current immigration?  The only clause in the Constitution related to immigration dealt with the importation of slaves.

Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:I don't think it's arbitrary. Do they attend mosque every Friday even if they don't have to? Do they do their prayers and give alms? It's not hard to tell if a Muslim is devout by the same standards we apply to Christians, which is basically how much time they put into things like studying their scriptures and attending their places of worship, and how they act the rest of the time. We look askance at someone who only goes to church on Christmas and Easter and has a live-in unmarried partner who gets drunk every weekend; and says they're a devout Christian. It isn't rocket surgery, and it's not particularly arbitrary as judgments of human beings go, except at the margins (how much church do they have to miss and how often do they have to get drunk before they're no longer devout is largely a matter of informal consensus and personal taste).

We rarely require an authority to tell us how to make social judgments, I don't get what's so special about this one.

Is it a red herring that much of Daesh leadership is composed of formerly secular Baathists who were kicked out of their positions of authority in Iraq?

The red herring is the pretense that history and politics don't play a great role in radicalization regardless of the region in which it is happening. Christians and atheists behave much the same way under similar conditions, they just find different justifications for their violence. The Tamil Tigers invented suicide bombing, and they were mostly atheists. The American population has become partially radicalized to the point that a large percentage of us are eager to wipe our asses with the Constitution if that's what it takes to keep Muslims out over a fraction of 1% of the deaths that have been inflicted on Muslims by the West in recent decades.

What does the Constitution have to do with current immigration?  The only clause in the Constitution related to immigration dealt with the importation of slaves.

You think screening immigrants and refugees on the basis of what religion they profess is constitutional?

We already torture people who may or may not be terrorists. I think screening them when they come into the country because they may or may not be terrorists would actually be an improvement...constitutionally speaking.

You can pull quotes out of the bible to support the commission of atrocities as well. The problem is religion period. If Trump loonies get control of the government maybe the religious right in this country will start beheading atheists.

So to travel to America we have a check box for Muslims, if they leave it blank, they don't get 'extra screening'. How many terrorists do we think will be checking that box? Or are we going to do the screening on people who dress a certain way, on the assumption that terrorists won't be able to resist wearing traditional clothing?

(January 25, 2016 at 4:46 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:What does the Constitution have to do with current immigration?  The only clause in the Constitution related to immigration dealt with the importation of slaves.

You think screening immigrants and refugees on the basis of what religion they profess is constitutional?

The Constitution does not have a valid article covering immigration.

(January 28, 2016 at 5:27 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(January 25, 2016 at 4:46 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: You think screening immigrants and refugees on the basis of what religion they profess is constitutional?

The Constitution does not have a valid article covering immigration.

It does have a non-establishment clause which guarantees protection of individuals against religiously-motivated government actions. It certainly applies to US citizens, so the only question is whether it can be suspended for non-citizens.