5 ms·

Fortunately it's completely sarcastic. The only thing more outrageous than that customs officer's behavior is the implication that a person's religious beliefs

by scrod 16y ago

Fortunately it's completely sarcastic. The only thing more outrageous than that customs officer's behavior is the implication that a person's religious beliefs could ever be used as justification for preventing or controlling their entry into the United States.

AndyKelley 16y ago
1. If there exists a religious belief that states you should kill every United States citizen that you meet, then that religious belief is dangerous to United States citizens. 2. If a particular religious belief is dangerous to United States citizens, then it makes sense to use that religious belief as justification for preventing or controlling their entry into the United States. 3. People can make up whatever they want and call it a religion. In fact that is how many (all?) religions have been formed. 4. From 1, 2, and 3 it follows that it can in fact make sense to use a person's religious belief as justification for preventing or controlling their entry into the United States. 5. The Qu'ran can be legitimately interpreted to mean that Muslims should kill United States citizens: http://www.bloggersbase.com/politics-and-opinions/3-islam/ http://www.bloggersbase.com/politics-and-opinions/3-islam/ 6. From 5, the Muslim religion is dangerous to United States citizens. 7. From 6 and 2 it follows that it makes sense for Muslim beliefs to be used as justification for preventing or controlling entry into the United States. That being said, I still think the security guard was in the wrong. Clearly, our protagonist was not a problem, and the guard should have been able to discover that without stomping all over his rights. What's so hard about innocent until proven guilty? It ensures justice, even if the person turns out to be guilty. This is controversial, because there are many Muslims who do not have ill intent toward United States citizens. I have good friends who are Muslim. Unfortunately, they have been raised with a religion that is potentially dangerous. Such is the problem with indoctrinating kids. I dropped the religion I was brought up with (Christianity) when I finally realized that it wasn't true and therefore shouldn't believe it. Perhaps Muslims need to do the same. Most religions are innocuous enough that you can just let people believe what they want, and no harm done. But when leaving them to practice their religion might lead to them killing you, it's a little different.
- scrod 16y ago
  It would be pretty easy to make an argument against many sects of Christianity on the same grounds (yes, really: http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/146438 http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/146438); literally thousands of people have been incited to violence by radical right-wing preachers over the decades. Does that mean that Christians are dangerous to the United States and should be stopped at the border? Freedom of religion is at the heart of the founding principles of the United States of America — I can't think of anything more central to the identity of this country. If you're going to speak against freedom of religion, then it would be a very short stretch to call that position "anti-American" — and any national defense policy considered with that pretext is already severely undermined.
  - AndyKelley 16y ago
    You've got a good point about making an argument against many sects of Christianity. Perhaps they should be in the same boat. When you say freedom of religion, you don't mean complete freedom. What if my religion states that I shouldn't pay taxes? Obviously this religion would not be tolerated.
    - scrod 16y ago
      >When you say freedom of religion, you don't mean complete freedom. What if my religion states that I shouldn't pay taxes? Obviously this religion would not be tolerated. That's why we have laws which define the boundaries and interactions between the freedoms of society's members. It's not useful or practical to define freedom in any other context (i.e., that in nature, outside of society), because there would be no conflicts in that case. Freedom can only really be discussed in terms of social relations. But these are issues that U.S. courts have had quite a lot to say about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_Unit... And the situation with Islam today certainly has historical precedents: Anti-Catholicism was widespread in the 1920s; anti-Catholics, including the Ku Klux Klan, believed that Catholicism was incompatible with democracy and that parochial schools encouraged separatism and kept Catholics from becoming loyal Americans. The Catholics responded to such prejudices by repeatedly asserting their rights as American citizens and by arguing that they, not the nativists (anti-Catholics), were true patriots since they believed in the right to freedom of religion.

by scrod 16y ago

AndyKelley 16y ago

1. If there exists a religious belief that states you should kill every United States citizen that you meet, then that religious belief is dangerous to United States citizens. 2. If a particular religious belief is dangerous to United States citizens, then it makes sense to use that religious belief as justification for preventing or controlling their entry into the United States. 3. People can make up whatever they want and call it a religion. In fact that is how many (all?) religions have been formed. 4. From 1, 2, and 3 it follows that it can in fact make sense to use a person's religious belief as justification for preventing or controlling their entry into the United States. 5. The Qu'ran can be legitimately interpreted to mean that Muslims should kill United States citizens: http://www.bloggersbase.com/politics-and-opinions/3-islam/ http://www.bloggersbase.com/politics-and-opinions/3-islam/ 6. From 5, the Muslim religion is dangerous to United States citizens. 7. From 6 and 2 it follows that it makes sense for Muslim beliefs to be used as justification for preventing or controlling entry into the United States. That being said, I still think the security guard was in the wrong. Clearly, our protagonist was not a problem, and the guard should have been able to discover that without stomping all over his rights. What's so hard about innocent until proven guilty? It ensures justice, even if the person turns out to be guilty. This is controversial, because there are many Muslims who do not have ill intent toward United States citizens. I have good friends who are Muslim. Unfortunately, they have been raised with a religion that is potentially dangerous. Such is the problem with indoctrinating kids. I dropped the religion I was brought up with (Christianity) when I finally realized that it wasn't true and therefore shouldn't believe it. Perhaps Muslims need to do the same. Most religions are innocuous enough that you can just let people believe what they want, and no harm done. But when leaving them to practice their religion might lead to them killing you, it's a little different.

scrod 16y ago
It would be pretty easy to make an argument against many sects of Christianity on the same grounds (yes, really: http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/146438 http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/146438); literally thousands of people have been incited to violence by radical right-wing preachers over the decades. Does that mean that Christians are dangerous to the United States and should be stopped at the border? Freedom of religion is at the heart of the founding principles of the United States of America — I can't think of anything more central to the identity of this country. If you're going to speak against freedom of religion, then it would be a very short stretch to call that position "anti-American" — and any national defense policy considered with that pretext is already severely undermined.
- AndyKelley 16y ago
  You've got a good point about making an argument against many sects of Christianity. Perhaps they should be in the same boat. When you say freedom of religion, you don't mean complete freedom. What if my religion states that I shouldn't pay taxes? Obviously this religion would not be tolerated.
  - scrod 16y ago
    >When you say freedom of religion, you don't mean complete freedom. What if my religion states that I shouldn't pay taxes? Obviously this religion would not be tolerated. That's why we have laws which define the boundaries and interactions between the freedoms of society's members. It's not useful or practical to define freedom in any other context (i.e., that in nature, outside of society), because there would be no conflicts in that case. Freedom can only really be discussed in terms of social relations. But these are issues that U.S. courts have had quite a lot to say about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_Unit... And the situation with Islam today certainly has historical precedents: Anti-Catholicism was widespread in the 1920s; anti-Catholics, including the Ku Klux Klan, believed that Catholicism was incompatible with democracy and that parochial schools encouraged separatism and kept Catholics from becoming loyal Americans. The Catholics responded to such prejudices by repeatedly asserting their rights as American citizens and by arguing that they, not the nativists (anti-Catholics), were true patriots since they believed in the right to freedom of religion.