All religions have a political aspect to them. Islam, more than most. But you can't violate someone's liberties because of their politics either. We only punish criminal actions. Not beliefs... no matter how much you despise those beliefs.

@jnaatjes and that stance will prove to be the West’s ruination.

@JD55 no, the west is already ruined if we don't have that stance.

But what if someone calls themselves Muslim, but doesn't preach any of those things? What if they believe in certain general premises of Islam, but reject the ideas of violence? Those Muslims do exist.

@jnaatjes They could change their names entirely to Martians, names don't necessarily mean much. What matters in a belief system--religious or ideological--is the "what does the governing document/scripture instruct about behavior towards others?" It is clear that the words of Mohammed and his instructions from Allah demand subjugation or death of all non-believers. If a person or nation ignores this fact, they could be committing suicide or headed toward subjugation. If Muslims want to integrate with other societies, they must give-up and refute the offending verses in the Quran. They could still uphold the 5 pillars of Islam without problems---as long as they remove the offending instructions of Allah---which would require that still practicing Muslim behead them. Catch 22 for the good ones.

@MarPep what if they won't denounce those verses but have a different interpretation of them? It could be that an individual Muslim, like most Christians, believes that the wicked will, in fact, be punished, and does believe a war to end all wars will occur, but doesn't believe it is his place to make those things happen? Maybe he believes that his role is to walk uprightly and treat others with charity.

I know the verses in the Koran are more explicit than in the Bible, so my point isn't to say they're a perfect parallel by any means. But the point is that beliefs political, religious, social, or other can be quite nuanced. That one of the reasons it's dangerous and impractical to try to implement religious tests. How would you administer such a thing, and what would be the reprocussions of answering the "wrong" way (according to some beurocrat in Washington who knows nothing about you or your religion?

What are we going to do? Administer government mandated questionnaires asking which verses of scripture you do and don't believe in and banish any citizens who doesn't answer right? And what's to keep people from lying? Are we going to install cameras in everyone's homes? Is this 1984 now?

No, you cannot police beliefs. You cannot punish people preemptively when they have committed no crime. That's a terrifying road to go down.

I'd rather fight the battle of ideas and fight for grass root social change. Polls show that Muslims become much less radical in the West. I'd rather continue to illustrate to the world that the value system that built the West (including freedom of religion and speech) are superior, and invite them to finally join the enlightenment.

@jnaatjes
There is no "nuance" in Islam.

@MarPep

Nuance:

"Nearly all Muslims in Afghanistan (99%) and most in Iraq (91%) and Pakistan (84%) support sharia law as official law. But in some other countries, especially in Eastern Europe and Central Asia – including Turkey (12%), Kazakhstan (10%) and Azerbaijan (8%) – relatively few favor the implementation of sharia law."

[pewresearch.org]

I'm still waiting to hear how we're going to roll out this religious test... I'm also curious how you're going to keep the left from rolling out their own tests to find those who hold views they don't like.

Hope you're woke enough to pass.

So what? Guilt by association shouldn't be a thing. If an individual Muslim is seeking to overthrow the west, and you have proof of it, then you can take legal action.

It like when we threw all the Japanese into internment camps after Pear Harbor. We can't do stuff like that.

Conservatives rail against the left condemning all whites, all men, and straight people, etc., and rightly so. The right shouldn't be engaged in the same thing. I don't care if they think it's more justified. The left also thinks they're justified.

I just don't believe in sacrificing liberty for safety.

@jnaatjes I don’t think you understand Islam. It acts as a group force. It’s like the borg. Read some history as to how it operates. In the USA we are now at stage 2 - their numbers are big enough where they begin to force Islam into laws via schools and local and national government. In order to stop Islam, you have to ban it.

I appreciate your thoughts as well. I'm sorry if I come off harsh. This is just a rather intense issue, and I appreciate being able to discuss it.

Of those things you mentioned, any that actually involve harming someone else, or actively calling for violence or sedition... those things should be illegal. You don't have the right to take away other's rights, and the government should exist to prevent you from doing so.

So condemning homosexuals... probably bad, but you have the right to do so. Mutilating someone's genitals against their will, or mutilating a child's gentitles (whether they consent or not)... absolutely illegal and should be punished to the greatest extent possible. Calling for death to Jews should also be illegal.

Hate speech should be legal. I draw the line at threatening a person or group's physical safety.

I admit there is no religion more problematic than Islam. But I think, in a free society, we have to figure out a solution that doesn't involve sacrificing free thought and free speech. And even if it is a "political ideology" you also have a right to hold unsavory political ideologies... hence my Nazi example.

I've met Muslims who are just a little extreme and aren't violent. They had some mild ant-Semitic feelings, but were absolutely opposed to violence. Not perfect, but that's someone I can't work with. I'd also be willing to discuss issues with people who are mildly racist. I don't think non-violent prejudice makes you a lost cause.

A point of clarification, I'm talking about citizens of a country who are Muslim. Countries can and should be very careful to only let in immigrants who will assimilate to a core set of values. Muslims are less likely than other groups. But I wouldn't say "all" Muslims can't assimilate.

Right. You can do that to Muslims as well because none of those things violate their right to believe what they want.

As a side note, I happen to be Mormon (or a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), and the only punishment you'll get from us for apostasy is dis-fellowship... which is likely what you wanted anyway.

Free will and lassiez faire government has always been a central part of LDS theology.

@jnaatjes In theory, I could argue the same thing about Muslims. But honestly, I don't know that many, the few I have met have been stand up individuals, and if I where to judge entire groups of people based on religions, I would have a pretty negative view of Christianity simply because the worse people I know praise Jesus with the same fervor they curse me. I have all sorts of issues and arguments against religion in general as well specific religions. But for the most part I want them reformed and refined, not to murder all their followers. Now context matters, I admit. I advocate for finishing what the Greatest Generation started and purge humanity of Nazis. I understand they went over seas to fight the German Nazis. I don't care where they are, what citizenship they have. I want them dead via any means available.

No arguments there.

If an individual Muslim is calling for stuff like that, you're right. I just see a lot of conservatives saying we should preemptively punish Muslims. That I fully disagree with.

@jnaatjes Who is suggesting punishing Muslims? Is refusing to allow more immigration by a group that adheres more strongly to their ideology than to our Constitution a form of punishment?? No, it is not. It is a form of Prudence for national survival.

@MarPep well I don't disagree with that. I started this conversation talking about defending religious freedom, not giving people entry into the country who aren't citizens.

Some conservatives, though, do suggest actually violating the civil liberties of Americans who are Muslim. The reason I posted this in the first place is because I was baffled by another thread where people were suggesting closing all mosques in the aftermath of the shooting. I also believe Newt Gingrich has been a proponent of administering religious tests to Muslim citizens to make sure they aren't too Muslim.

Same here. More people need to distinguish between beliefs we disagree with and actions we can actually punish by law.