Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Teppodama, May 18, 2017.
If there is a brown minority over time the races will mix and you will have a light brown coutnry.
Clearly not working all that well given refugees have committed terror attacks on US soil.
There are muslims you could bring here who don't believe those things, thus my point about strict vetting. If there are radical views in a group, you look to see with each individual is doing/ supports that. A burqa in itself isn't subjegation of women, especially if we let that couple in the US where she would be free to also not wear it. The vetting serves to see if these people support basic human rights... you know, like freedom of religion or to be able to wear a silly scarf and not have the government going after you for it.
You can list statistics to me and I'd be open to reconsidering how well they are doing. I was talking about normal immigration policies. I've been on the fence about the refugee crisis and whether that was handled properly. If there were any deaths, we could've always done better
Personally, I would have no problem if Islam was banned outside of Islamic dominant countries. Islam and mass immigration has definitely made me question everything I thought I believed about liberalism, race relations, equality, freedom of religion and so on. Politically, I am not so sure if banning Islam is a realistic goal at the moment as long as fads like multiculturalism and equal outcomes rule the day. In fact, I am starting to think that white Christians are going to have to take some inspiration from Israel and start their own country where whites will be the dominant demographic.
I completely understand and agree, those wearing gotta recognize it presents a security risk. But as a pointless exercise let's say a law was created in a state that forbade all clothing because of security risks (maybe concealed weapon risks or whatever), would you be ok with your mom being refused entrance into a bank because she was uncomfortable with getting naked? Would you tell her to just get naked despite her feeling it is not appropriate? Or would you argue that their exists technology that would allow her her dignity while also ensuring us our safety?
I'm no fan of any religion or burqas, I think it's all stupid fairy tales. But I certainly don't like government telling me what I can and can't wear when there are other options available.
Did you at any point in your life have the desire to wear a burqa in public? I think you are being a little unreasonable with the "government better not tell me what I can or cannot wear" rhetoric.
I don't understand the idea of making a Christian country based around whites being the majority. Are you saying the US isnt this already? Would you rather us be a theocracy then what we have in place at the moment
No matter how strict the vetting is fundamentally irrelevant, you are willing letting in people that worship a rapist murderous pedophile and openly claim to follow in his example. Muslims are easily radicalizes even if the grew up in the west, vetting is once more a pointless en devour.
No muslim can honestly support basic human rights and still be a muslim, their ideology religion is openly against such a thing.
Boston bombers, how many need to die or be maimed for you to reconsider ? 1 100 1000 10000?
I have absolutely no problem with burqas. However, I think you should not be allowed to wear it for official documentation photographs such as driver's licenses. I hold this to apply for all potential hair coverings that obscure the color or length of hair. I absolutely disagree with full face coverings that hide a wears features except for very specific circumstances while in public. Such circumstances would include holiday observations that may incorporate masks or cultural festivals where traditional clothing would be highlighted.
I see what you're saying and of course there has to be a balance struck. I think though that the burqa is just too extreme an article of clothing. It prevents identification which not only acts as a barrier to empathy and understanding in mundane social situations but as we've discussed presents a security issue.
A hijab is very different, there's not much difference between it and a non-religious headscarf so for me banning that would be an egregious overreach but the burqa just carries with it issues that the hijab does not so I think its fair to ban it. That said I don't think its a good idea to really target the burqa and as I said before I prefer just treating it as a mask legally speaking and if you want to remove it from certain spaces then ban all items of clothing that cover the face in those spaces.
I don't see why covering only the hair really matters though. Hair length and color are easily changed and not really vital for identifying a person IMO, so long as the face is visible I think that should suffice for ID related purposes. Hillary Clinton wearing a hijab is still obviously Hillary Clinton.
It was all BS, now you know.
You are of course right that length and color can be changed but I still think it's just a good precedent to not allow any coverings that obscure any significant portion of the head for official documentation.
The problem is that there is a very realistic possibility that whites will not be the majority people in the coming years. The USA and Canada are majority white countries at the moment and I believe this should be reasonably and peacefully maintained through things like placing strong limits on immigration and policies that encourage the people already in the USA and Canada to have children.
I am pessimistic about the future. I think liberalism and the fad of multiculturalism have already infected too many people.
What does that matter? Its like saying that a person who has never had the desire to exercise their right to protest should not care if protesting is banned.
I don't think its the greatest oppression in the world but it just seems unnecessary if the face is clearly visible.
How does something reasonable like banning an oppressive religious garb in public places relate to the banning of protest?
Maybe reread what I wrote, the point was clear. The lack of a desire to engage in activity or exercise a right is not mutually exclusive to wanting to defend the ability to exercise that right or engage in that activity. In other words, your argument was bad.
Even with all of the refugees and immigrants, people are mainly marrying and having children with their own racial groups.
Must be all the conservatives who support individual rights voting yes.
I'm slightly conflicted on the issue because it could be seen as a security concern, but that can be handled in other ways.
Separate names with a comma.