Religious freedom threatened

[Gray]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-muslim-registry-immigrants-policy-kris-bobach-reinstate-wall-a7420296.html

Quote

Donald Trump’s policy advisors are discussing plans to establish a registry for Muslim immigrants in the US, a man believed to be a key member of the President-elect's transition team has revealed.

Kris Kobach, the secretary of state for Kansas, said the President-elect’s advisors were looking at how to implement a proposal suggested by the billionaire businessman that would force immigrants from Muslim countries to register on a database.

I have to give the leaders of the church credit. Although I think their idea of religious freedom sometimes blurs the line between freedom and privilege, they have been out front on this issue, and I never thought it would be a reality. This is a potentially legitimate threat to religious freedom in the US. Hopefully the courts will have the good sense to strike any of these kinds of laws down as unconstitutional. 

Edited November 16, 2016 by Gray

[rchorse]

I don't get this. Every legal immigrant is already registered with the government, regardless of religious affiliation, and I can't see illegal immigrants bothering to register. I don't really understand what this would accomplish. 

That said, I agree that a religion-based registry is a threat to religious freedom and unconstitutional.

[thesometimesaint]

Guess who is going to pick the next 4 Supreme Court Justices?

[oremites]

Currently, this is all just speculation and fear-mongering (something the media has excelled at this election cycle).  When something concrete is actually proposed, we can see then if it's reasonable or if it's time to break out the pitchforks.

[ksfisher]

56 minutes ago, rchorse said:

I don't get this. Every legal immigrant is already registered with the government, regardless of religious affiliation, and I can't see illegal immigrants bothering to register. I don't really understand what this would accomplish. 

That said, I agree that a religion-based registry is a threat to religious freedom and unconstitutional.

But does an immigrant have to declare their religion presently?  And could that information be used to deny entry or residence? 

[thesometimesaint]

25 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

But does an immigrant have to declare their religion presently?  And could that information be used to deny entry or residence? 

Not currently. But it is easy to change that.

Yes.

[bluebell]

53 minutes ago, oremites said:

Currently, this is all just speculation and fear-mongering (something the media has excelled at this election cycle).  When something concrete is actually proposed, we can see then if it's reasonable or if it's time to break out the pitchforks.

This is where i am right now.  There has been a lot of fear-mongering, and people are expending a huge amount of energy on angst over things that haven't happened yet.

It seems like it's better, more productive, and more mentally healthy to wait until there's something to be upset about and then take action.

[thesometimesaint]

The hungry bear is bearing down on you. How long do you have to wait?

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The hungry bear is bearing down on you. How long do you have to wait?

Well, having grown up in grizzly bear country, i can tell you that the absolute best defense is to wait for the bear to actually charge and then continue to wait until the bear is fairly close, and then spray them with bear spray. It's a much better deterrent than a gun (as many hunters who have been mauled/killed by bears illustrate).

[oremites]

3 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The hungry bear is bearing down on you. How long do you have to wait?

You've convinced yourself it's a hungry bear coming to destroy you.  What's if it's really a park ranger coming to help you find your way out of the woods?

I think it's prudent to wait until you can determine which it is before pulling the trigger.

[thesometimesaint]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Well, having grown up in grizzly bear country, i can tell you that the absolute best defense is to wait for the bear to actually charge and then continue to wait until the bear is fairly close, and then spray them with bear spray. It's a much better deterrent than a gun (as many hunters who have been mauled/killed by bears illustrate).

I was not commenting on the means of defense, only on that one is used.

SEE https://thinkprogress.org/kris-kobach-muslim-registration-78fb5c7e9bdb#.lvxauu2aa

[thesometimesaint]

3 minutes ago, oremites said:

You've convinced yourself it's a hungry bear coming to destroy you.  What's if it's really a park ranger coming to help you find your way out of the woods?

I think it's prudent to wait until you can determine which it is before pulling the trigger.

Target acquisition.   When someone repeatedly shows you what they are like, believe them.

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I was not commenting on the means of defense, only on that one is used.

SEE https://thinkprogress.org/kris-kobach-muslim-registration-78fb5c7e9bdb#.lvxauu2aa

I realize that, but my point stays the same.  If you're prepared with information, you take precautions, and you are patient and level headed, staying safe from a potential threat does not require being angry, upset, fearful, or trying to destroy the threat before it even exists.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm an old white disabled male Christian. I'm no threat to anyone.

“

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

”

[Daniel2]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-muslim-registry-immigrants-policy-kris-bobach-reinstate-wall-a7420296.html

I have to give the leaders of the church credit. Although I think their idea of religious freedom sometimes blurs the line between freedom and privilege, they have been out front on this issue, and I never thought it would be a reality. This is a potentially legitimate threat to religious freedom in the US. Hopefully the courts will have the good sense to strike any of these kinds of laws down as unconstitutional. 

Thanks for sharing this, Gray... I agree that this is an accurate example of a genuine threat to religious liberty.

I am also glad that the church took a stand against Trump's proposals regarding Muslims, and I think (in the interest of being clear) it's worth posting it, too:

Quote

LDS Church issues statement in response to Donald Trump’s comments on Muslims

Posted 11:46 am, December 8, 2015, by Ben Winslow, Updated at 05:14pm, December 8, 2015

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

SALT LAKE CITY — The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has issued a statement on religious freedom and pluralism, in response to remarks made by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

A spokesman for the LDS Church confirmed to FOX 13 the statement was made in response to inquiries about Trump’s recent call to block Muslims from entering the United States. The LDS Church said it was reaffirming its political neutrality, but also speaking out in support of religious freedom and pluralism.

The statement quotes Mormon church founder Joseph Smith.

Read the full statement here:

Late Tuesday, the Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City also weighed in on Trump’s remarks in a statement to FOX 13:

“It goes without saying that calling out specific faiths for misdeeds of individuals is an example of religious bigotry. The Catholic Church could never support any such policy of religious intolerance and discrimination.”

The Episcopal Diocese of Utah also condemned Trump’s remarks in a statement from the Rt. Rev. Scott Hayashi:

“Sadly, hate has been with the world since the beginning. People with evil in their hearts have found an easy way to unite masses. It is to vilify a specific group of people who are unlike themselves. As an Episcopal Bishop in the Christian Church, I find it especially repugnant to see hate and increasing intolerance surface at this time as we get ready to observe the birth of the Prince of Peace. He came to turn us away from hate and later became a victim of hate himself.”

Edited November 16, 2016 by Daniel2

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, oremites said:

Currently, this is all just speculation and fear-mongering (something the media has excelled at this election cycle).  When something concrete is actually proposed, we can see then if it's reasonable or if it's time to break out the pitchforks.

What would be your idea of a reasonable database designed specifically to track members of a specific religious group because people in government have decided they are dangerous? And a way such a database would not be open mockery of the First Amendment?

[oremites]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

What would be your idea of a reasonable database designed specifically to track members of a specific religious group because people in government have decided they are dangerous? And a way such a database would not be open mockery of the First Amendment?

Since your question is basically a variation of "Have you stopped beating your wife?", I'm not clear if you actually want a response or if you're just trying to score points.

[snowflake]

During WWII FDR rounded up over a hundred thousand of Japanese Americans (citizens) and put them in camps. So this questioning of certain ethnic groups is nothing new.  Trump wanting to question a group of people (who are not US citizens) coming into the country and put them on a list in the name of national security is fine with me and hardly a threat to Americans' 1st amendment rights.

[Calm]

Are you reasoning because the government has done something in the past, it is okay to do it again?  Not sure of your point with FDR.

[Calm]

Apparently Trump's aide is of the opinion the internment camps set a legal precedent.  Something's that were legal are not now...slavery being the obvious example, beating your wife another.

Anyone know if a legal decision was ever made on internment camps?  I believe there have been successful lawsuits over internment, but my memory could be off.

[snowflake]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you reasoning because the government has done something in the past, it is okay to do it again?  Not sure of your point with FDR.

The groups from Syria and Iraq are not US citizens, so what's wrong with taking a close look at them or putting them on a list. FDR rounding up American citizens is sooooo much worse than this proposed list... that's my point.

[Calm]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

The only Republican dissented, labeling it as unconstitutional.  Times change.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, snowflake said:

The groups from Syria and Iraq are not US citizens, so what's wrong with taking a close look at them or putting them on a list. FDR rounding up American citizens is sooooo much worse than this proposed list... that's my point.

Would you accept "but Jack next door broke his brother's arm" as an excuse for one of your kids giving the other a bloody nose?

[snowflake]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

The only Republican dissented, labeling it as unconstitutional.  Times change.

But according to the article the court sided with the Gov'ment saying it was constitutional to round up the Japanese regardless of citizenship. What am I missing?

[Calm]

I was just commenting on how in the past it was a Republican who saw the move as unconstitutional while now one is citing it as a legal precedent.