Fair enough. However, do you really think banning the wearing of a Ha jib in public schools is going to stop such religiously sponsored sedition?
I can think of several more effective ways:
1. Elimination of visa's (not the credit card) for people from countries deemed to be sponsors of terrorism.
2. Elimination of tax breaks for any such church that is guilty of seditious practices.
3. Prison, then deportation of non citizens who practice sedition.
4. FBI infiltration/monitoring of such Churches to determine if they are in fact practicing sedition.
But banning Ha jibs?
Your right, she is a lovely child. The reason I picked that picture was because of the look of total innocence that she evoked.
Not in the least.
1. Elimination of visa's (not the credit card) for people from countries deemed to be sponsors of terrorism.
Obviously.
2. Elimination of tax breaks for any such church that is guilty of seditious practices.
I'm a little more radical. Sedition is a federal crime. Arrest any cleric advocating sedition. Close the church. Sell the property to pay for the prosecution of the case.
3. Prison, then deportation of non citizens who practice sedition.
Correct.
4. FBI infiltration/monitoring of such Churches to determine if they are in fact practicing sedition.
Also correct.
But banning Ha jibs?
I didn't advocate that in my original post. Allow me to elaborate with something I wrote last year:
There are, however, limits to free association. There is one major religion operating within this country with a written doctrine that effectively advocates complete overthrow of the Constitution and replacement of our entire body of laws: Islam. When free association is used for purposes of sedition and bigotry we must make exception concerning free exercise. It is a test of our ability as a nation to make distinctions upon individual behavior that may do more to transform an ancient religion for the better than all the soldiers in the Middle East.
Your right, she is a lovely child. The reason I picked that picture was because of the look of total innocence that she evoked.
Yup. It was understood. BTW, I saw it more as irony than as sarcasm.