@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:
From the time of the earliest settlements in North America, it is common knowledge that people migrated to this continent to escape religious persecution elsewhere. It has long been settled that the great powers of government in this land shall be directed at actions (conduct) and not beliefs. The freedom to hold one's own religious beliefs is enshrined in our Constitution.
I agree.
Debra Law wrote:
President Eisenhower was correct in his assurances that the Islamic Center is "just as welcome as could be a similar edifice of any other religion." If you are insinuating there are no such assurances under our Constitution and none would be offered but for the interests of American corporations abroad and our desire for foreign oil, you are mistaken. [ /quote]
I made no insuation of any kind. You appear here to be working on your own straw man.
I suspect Eisenhower was making a serious effort to present a benign and welcoming face to the Moslem world in the Midst of the Cold War with the then threatening and expansionist Soviet Empire. He, and we, were well aware of the hypocritical intolerance of the Saudi government that sponsored the consrtruction of the site, which is immediately adjacent to their embassy in Washington, but were likely hopeful that time and assimilation to the West might dim all that.
Those hopes were not realized, and the Moslem world soon descended into a collection of Tyrannys, both secular and religious, and has subsequently declared its implaccable hostility to, not only the peoples of the Western nations, but also to the constitutional and cultural values you so piously cited in your feeble rebuke. This fact could hardly be more clear today.
Debra Law wrote:
Quote:I am perplexed by this post of Blatham's, following so closely on his earlier post announcing a firm "**** you" to all religion and all religious believers. It makes his real motivations here very hard to guess. Indeed the only consistent model I can find is one involving the use of anything he can find to criticize, or cast doubt on, the ability and integrity of those he opposes politically ( that vast right wing movement conspiracy against which he imagines him self in a lonely but heroic battle.).
You seek to create a quandary where none exists. You are not perplexed. Anyone who has a cursory knowledge of logical fallacies knows that you built a straw man to attack. Blatham did not say "F__ you" to all religion and religious believers. His condemnation was directed toward a very small (and small-minded) class of persons who use their religious beliefs to justify unlawful conduct that causes harm to both the victim and our society.
Read his post again. He was not at all referring to a "small minority". The opposite is true. However I think you already know that.
Debra Law wrote:
So, what are YOUR true motivations for creating the straw man? Oh ... maybe so you can say this:
Quote:This also provides an excellent illustration of the banality and mindless stupidity of contemporary political correctitude....
No, this was an "excellent illustration" of you attacking a straw man that you created.
Political correctitude is real, widely discussed, and frequently observable in Blatham's many posts. No straw man at all - rather a direct response to the thread to which I was responding. You are doubly wrong in that you are falsely accusing me of exactly what you are attempting here.
Debra Law wrote:
It is not "mindless stupidity" to recognize this basic truth about persons within our national borders: You are free to believe what you want, but you are not entirely free to act on your beliefs. See, e.g., Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1878)(Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/98/145/case.html
The point you evaded through your verbal gymnastics is the demonization of an entire religion and all the persons who subscribe to that religion. It's creating an enemy where none exists for nefarious purposes. And we must be vigilant lest Trump (a proven serial liar who subscribes to "big lie" propaganda) becomes our next "war president" by ratcheting up irrational hate against Muslims.
I do understand our constitution ( BTW I loved the cite you, with such difficulty, worked into that reply - very professional-looking. ) and do not advocate attempts to govern beliefs within our borders. I have never suggested that we either limit the religious freedom of Moslems here or even inquire about the religious beliefs of potential immigrants. This surely is a straw man of truly monstrous proportions.
Instead I believe we should indeed restrict immigration from countries that have demonstrated persistent and egregious hostility to Western values and the principles of our Constitution, based on the relative probability that they will find difficulty i assimilating - as has occurred in Western Europe.. Indeed throughout the period of mass U.S. immigration, to which you referred, we operated with specified quotas on immigration from various countries based on precisely those considerations. There is nothing either new or novel in it, though the objections to it are based precisely on the nonsensical precepts of the contemporary political correctitude that wou appear to claim have nothing to do with the discussion.
