(grins) I won't presume to correct you on that.
Before I start, I'd like to thank you for stepping into the conversation. I know we're familiar enough to each other you don't automatically assume I'm a muslim apologist of some kind. Sometimes I think people just react instead of thinking about things.
Anyway -
I think it can be, from the Quran itself.
True, but therin lies the crux of the matter - if we accept the obvious by acknowledging ours is a Christian nation, do we not violate that ideal by using the tenants of a different set of beliefs to judge others? Do we not, in fact violate the 'judge not, lest ye be judged' concept of Christianity?
I think in order to avoid such philosophical conundrums, the country would be better served by targeting nationality, not religion.
----
There is such a thing as renouncing one's citizenship, which requires then not so much proof beyond a reasonable doubt as a finding.
True, but a law refusing to accept renunciation from certain countries wouldn't be out of line. If they want to renounce, force them to go home to their own countries to do it.
---
Sadly, those guys who run our court system also wear those not so funny red hats. I'm not sanguine about how that would turn out.
Frankly, neither am I. The real truth of the matter is that it's all a moot point unless and until we get control of our borders...but that's a subject for another thread. :-)
I don't think that is the problem they have. Lacking the knowledge of legal means to expel Islam under the First Amendment, they invoke Lincoln's "the Constitution isn't a suicide pact" "clause" as an excuse to take their means outside it, when such isn't necessary once one remembers the Preamble. Out of a legitimate sense of urgency, they don't look at the eventual unintended consequences. They're always there. Just like abortion serves a (to them) "useful" demographic purpose (affecting mainly welfare babies), what it does to us is much worse.
True, but therin lies the crux of the matter - if we accept the obvious by acknowledging ours is a Christian nation,
I don't think that is necessary to the proof. Islam has uniquely disqualifying attributes, as are manifested in its behavior, simply from a mechanistic perspective. They MUST kill or force into submission followers of ALL other religions under penalty of death, meaning that for the dhimmitude there is no possibility of free exercise. Islam alone allows no other belief enforced on pain of death; it is the ultimate vow. Yes, I know that it tolerates "people of the book" to exist, but there is no equal treatment under the law. Even Judaism acknowledges other people who follow other gods without meaning to kill them all if they don't worship the G_d of Abraham. The only restriction there is that the Torah specifies there may not be any followers of any other gods within Israel itself except as visitors.
Sometime I'd love to go over Genesis 16 with you. It would blow your mind. Send me a FReepmail if you're interested.
I think in order to avoid such philosophical conundrums, the country would be better served by targeting nationality, not religion.
It's easier, but it won't work, or as we say in mathematics, necessary but not sufficient. Sometimes, forcing oneself to face said conundra is the path we must take. C'mon, you know you'd like that anyway. ;-)