Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Teppodama, May 18, 2017 at 10:48 AM.
I'm kind of split. I voted no but with the caveat they should/could be banned from places like banks where no one should have their face covered. If someone has their face covered there it could/should be taken as a possible threat.
The problem is the people wearing it, not the burqa itself. Making them mix in with us shall only make things worse.
What negative consequences for our countries would a ban on Muslims have?
Textbook example of gaslighting:
Muslims are dangerous! Fear them! Hate them!
*brings in stricter security for non Muslims and allows Muslims to conceal themselves and get by with reduced searches*
Instead of barbecued shrimps, barbecued sausages.
You're question reflects the exact point that this is short sighted (meaning you are only applying this to a group where you like the policy). Doing this means we should vet people immediately off of a religious belief. That can be applied to a different group in the future. Not to mention that policy would have to expand beyond immigration policy because once a person comes into the state, do we then follow to see if they start practicing Islam? The state shouldn't try to control the flow of religion. That's one of the most basic foundations of the US.
Short sighted and authoritarianism. No thanks
I voted no. I would only ban it if it's against some "anti disguise laws".
Gov shouldn't tell me what I can't wear
Calling islam a "religion" is short sighted and foolish, no thanks.
There would be no negative or consequence to banning muslims. Any one with such believes should be kept out, their action in western europe prove that.
What negative consequences for our countries would a ban on brown people have?
Throw another shrimp on the barbie
First sentence... ?
Second part, doesn't address my point that you are now allowing government to try to monitor people's beliefs. You are willing to sacrifice rights just because you are so excited to go after a specific group. The argument we are having here is making policy based on underlying principles and fundamental rights vs "I'm for any law that hurts this group I don't like". I'm guessing part of your argument is Islam isn't a religion but if we are starting from that point; I'll concede this isn't worth arguing over between us.
Were we talking about muslims or did you just now expand it to all brown people? Let's see how silly your policies can get. Religion testing first. Now let's just have a color scale at the airport. Better not tan too hard.
I'm not sure if an outright ban is an intelligent approach, but I do believe a strict vetting process and strong limitations on non-Europeans being allowed into North America would be a reasonable approach. Allowing whites to become minorities in their own countries is not something I want to see. Europe and North America should be majority white countries.
Argument is Islam is incompatible with basic human rights. All those that adhere to it need to be kept out.
Don't let in people that think rape/subjugation of women and fucking kids is normal.
I agree with that post up to the intention of the end. We should have strict vetting where there is danger. Simple as that. If a certain group or area has more radicalism currently in it, those people need to be vetted very well before we consider letting them in. Im pretty sure we do that already though
You do not agree that Europe and North America should maintain a white majority?
Cant vet what some one truly believes and will act on given an opportunity. they can always lie. only real solution is keeping them out.
If there's a compelling reason then why not? Masks are banned to varying degrees in different parts of the West. At the very least they're often banned in places like banks where they present a potential security issue. IMO the burqa should just be treated legally as a mask so that wherever a Halloween mask is banned so to is the burqa.