2 ms·

There are two bits of the Constitution which might have something to say; the First Amendment is quite overdone and passé nowadays, but it also says "or prohib

There are two bits of the Constitution which might have something to say; the First Amendment is quite overdone and passé nowadays, but it also says "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". It's not a giant leap to claim that prohibiting entry to people of a particular religion (or why else is the border control asking, if not to prohibit entry to people of particular religion?) interferes with "the free exercise thereof". The second is that the Constitution prohibits religious tests for Federal office; this has trickled down a general prohibition against religious tests. (The wording of that part of the Constitution allows for a very narrow interpretation of which offices cannot have religious tests, but it's never actually been put to a test in court, because we just don't do religious tests, period.) Culturally, it is very offensive to me as an American to be instituting them at the border.

microcolonel 10y ago
Fair enough, you've crushed my dreams of being a constitutional scholar. ;- ) Yeah, I generally think that religious tests are repugnant. Though there's the issue of Islam being a fancy religion with all the bells and whistles, such as an immutable holy language, a political ideology, a broad jurisprudence, and a warlord-prophet elevated nearly to the level of its god. I think it should be fair to ask if they hold any of the views which are obviously incompatible with 21st century western society; tossing gay people off high places like rooftops and cliffs, instituting a religious tax against non-muslims, humiliating the outgroup in the street (which is a much broader definition of humiliate than you normally use, probably includes sexual assault). I'm in a bit of a pickle with my own principles; because none of this should happen in principle, but the intention is largely valid.

microcolonel 10y ago

Fair enough, you've crushed my dreams of being a constitutional scholar. ;- ) Yeah, I generally think that religious tests are repugnant. Though there's the issue of Islam being a fancy religion with all the bells and whistles, such as an immutable holy language, a political ideology, a broad jurisprudence, and a warlord-prophet elevated nearly to the level of its god. I think it should be fair to ask if they hold any of the views which are obviously incompatible with 21st century western society; tossing gay people off high places like rooftops and cliffs, instituting a religious tax against non-muslims, humiliating the outgroup in the street (which is a much broader definition of humiliate than you normally use, probably includes sexual assault). I'm in a bit of a pickle with my own principles; because none of this should happen in principle, but the intention is largely valid.