Just so. A religion that brooks no separation between mosque and state is completely incompatible with our government and our justice system.

Muslims who want to be devout in the way they dress, eat, pray, etc. and still be good American citizens have an example they can follow. It is the Amish. The Amish hold themselves apart from all other faith groups by their practices, but they give allegiance to the Constitution and pose no threat to their fellow citizens.

It is the Wahhabist doctrine of literal translation of the Quran, which turns Islam into a governmental system (Sharia) with religious trappings that has become the main problem in Islam. This teaching has been steadily gaining ground in the Muslim world since Saudi Arabia began using petrodollars to finance madrassas and imams worldwide. A first step would be to outlaw Wahhabi Islam (also called Salafi or political Islam) as being a threat to our Constitution. We could then refuse to let Wahhabis into the country and deport those who are already here. That would include making the preaching of Wahhabi doctrine an act of sedition.

The inconvenient fact about all this is that Saudi Arabia is the fountainhead of Wahhabi Doctrine. We must isolate them insofar as possible. Yes, the world (not the West so much anymore) still needs their oil, but we don’t need the murderous poison that is emanating from their sand box. A way must be found to keep them and their cult in their box while still buying their oil.

I know many here disagree with this point of view. But I ask, is it not better to encourage a reformation – (A return to the Islamic school of thought which considered the Quran as a constructed work [Much like the Bible], that allows for deductive reasoning to interpret the Quran in light of changes in the world since the time of Mohammad.) before we turn to the other alternative, which is a War against all Muslims – all 1.5 billion of them?

The problem is bigger than that.

Why read fiction …

Churchill saw it coming then and was reviled:
Clattering Train

Death and his brother sleep

The enemy is within and the enemy is us, those who won’t fight that is….

secretly i support muslims from entering the country. wouldn’t it be great if we had a president, senate and house that would just do it with 100% support, explain why, show article after article for hours to the american people.

What we have instead is a very divided country with a million or so muslims, a passport generating machine in the hands of ISIS, no stomach to even stop or put on hold the fiance visa’s.

Easy things are easy. yet they are hard. We just stopped people from 4 countries but yet that stopped Christians as well. And I’m not even sure the Senate passed that bill yet.

Or. Figure a legitimate way out of the problem which is complex and tough?
TX Imam Forced To Resign After Supporting Trump Muslim Ban…
Baklava is a honey dripping fluffy pastry …

FAKE documents are milled out by the thousand in the MENA even at this time.

ALL of the above nostrums rest on the keystone of knowable facts — of honest testimony.

Neither is even remotely in prospect during the international civil war between the Muslim factions — and they are many.

%%%

neo…

Your reasoning is so “Westphalian.”

It does NOT compute with Muslims.

&&&

Countless thousands of Americans have had dealings with Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The unpublished — unadmittable — facts:

Muslims over there lie with aplomb — even when it is a certainty that their lies will be soon exposed.

The Ten Comandments have NOT clicked in over there.

Swearing on a Koran ? ‘Tis to laugh.

‘Tis as if one swore on Mein Kampf.

BTW jihad translates as kampf in German.

And, as we all know, it’s a best seller across the MENA… usually second only to the Koran.

GB has it right.

With your modest proposal — we may be left with Ripley’s solution: “Nuke’em from orbit — It’s the only way to be sure.”

We need nothing less than a US Constitutional amendment that specifically targets Islam — and the other totalitarian collectivisms.

Otherwise, we have a house divided against itself. It didn’t work out too well back then, either.

But limiting the cuts to Muslim-majority countries would exclude Christians and other non-Muslims and also ignore Muslim immigration from non-Muslim countries such as India, Russia, France, and England.

Apparently, McCarthy is suggesting limiting immigration from certain countries and suggesting it is not the way to go, though his alternatives are not clear.

Surely Christians from the ME could be allowed in as refugees from genocide. The test should be adherence to Sharia law, no matter where potential immigrants come from. Adherence to Sharia is incompatible with pledging allegiance to the United States flag and the Constitution, and should be grounds for rejection. Calling for Sharia law to be applied in the United States should be regarded as treason. I would equate it to German immigrants in the 1930s and 1940s promoting Nazi ideology.

The Caliphate — ISIL as the President seems fond of calling it — accepts the command. It gives as a sign of legitimacy that it rules lands and in those lands applies the Law of the Koran; this demonstrates its legitimacy in the eyes of God. All Muslims must give it allegiance, for it rules by the will of Allah. And so long as it can make this claim of legitimacy, it grows, as more and more Muslims, including middle class citizens of the United States find they have no choice but to render it obedience. This not “radicalizing”; this is obedience to the fundamental marching orders that have prevailed since the Prophet returned to Mecca. To those who have accepted the Caliphate — ISIL — they have seen the sign, and they accept its commands.

The Caliphate grows daily. It must someday be defeated. It grows stronger daily. It is far more difficult and costly to defeat today than it was a year ago when the President of the United States pronounced it contained and called it the junior varsity. And it will never be easier to defeat than now.

Or. Figure a legitimate way out of the problem which is complex and tough?

We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the ground of their pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet; that it was written in their Koran; that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners; that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Mussulman [Muslim] who was slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Has anything changed since then?