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.
The problem with this is you're speaking in absolutes for a massive amount of people. If you really think there isn't one good Muslim person that exists, we can leave it at that. I don't think we will come to a reasonable ground. Also, I'm speaking from the ground that the religion of Islam isn't that great of one and I still can acknowledge there are good people who are also Muslim. We could argue how that exists. I'd mostly say somewhat secularism the same sense that's what the west did with religion and governance.
Boston bombers, how many need to die or be maimed for you to reconsider ? 1 100 1000 10000?
There was intel that existed that could've been handled for those two but it was ignored. That is an argument example of not vetting well enough.
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.
I'm pretty surprised by this too in here. I generally though most of the posters here had a more libertarian view in the sense of social issues/ "don't tread on me" vibe but something simple as a burqa they ban cause it doesn't have to do with them.
How does something reasonable like banning an oppressive religious garb in public places relate to the banning of protest?
These lines can become more and more blurry. The danger is you allow government to make these calls rather than individuals themselves. Keep in mind we aren't changing any domestic abuse laws in the country by not banning the burqa. A woman could leave her husband in the US if she is oppressed and there are plenty of means to help her be supported through that process so this doesn't have to do with oppression.
Should government take stances with circumcision or anti gay conversion therapy? Cause I think they also should stay out of those issues because I hold the same principle there.
Short sighted in what sense? What will it lead to?
Read my other posts. If you begin having government control how people can practice religion, you go down a dangerous path, especially if it's something as simple as clothing.
Once Buddhists start in with daily terrorist attacks that might make sense. Islam isn't like other religions. Other religions aren't organizing terrorist attacks on a daily basis.
Islam always hides behind this religious freedom argument. No one was considering this stuff before they started killing everyone.
It's not about religion, it's about public safety.
Again, read my other posts, I almost made the exact same point with your last sentence there. Extreme vetting is the solution, not some religion questionaire for those coming in or a ban on a persons spirtiuality