Never. It is not their job to impose their own morality on others and claim it is the law. Their job is to apply the law as it was written and intended, not to massage it to fit their preferred outcome.
We didn’t start out discussing Islam; I agree this is a problem. However, I don’t think that what people believe – or say they believe – is as important a factor as what ACTIONs beliefs might lead them to.
Islam teaches certain things that are simply incompatible with our society. Discrimination between males and females is locked into the religion, and cannot be separated out of it. It is inherently discriminatory, and it is inherently violent. To tell them they can't beat their women is tantamount to telling Christians they have to bake cakes celebrating homosexuality.
We either impose our Judeo-Christian norms on their religion, or we ban their religion. There is no middle ground.
(A ban on immigration from countries harboring terrorist groups, for instance, is not religious discrimination - it’s a self-defensive act in a time of war.
That would be a sophist attempt at achieving the one thing by pretending it is the other.
We don't allow the execution of women for adultery in this country - that is murder; etc.)
Or a lot of other stuff that Islam urges it's followers to do.
But if Islam itself is incompatible with our values and society, what do you propose we do, consistent with our ideals, about the ones who are here and have been here for perhaps decades – who are citizens and have lived quiet, law-abiding lives?
This reminds me of the question regarding what to do if you become pregnant with an unwanted child. The simple answer is not to get into that situation. Trying to figure out a way out of a mess we shouldn't have gotten in to in the first place is another can of worms.
Pragmatically speaking, nothing can be done about them. They are here, and there is no valid argument for making them leave, however, we should make it clear that we will not sanction their religion as acceptable.
They’ve already sworn ‘loyalty oaths’ by becoming citizens.
Which means something to adherents of Western culture, but means absolutely nothing to adherents of Islam.
My point here is simply that Individual Liberty, as a founding, national ideal, is a very messy thing. The nation whose ideal it is will naturally experience crises of changing times/events, and struggle to retain as much as possible of the integrity of its original principles in the face of that change.
Well see, I don't believe "original intent" included Muslims. I don't think the idea even occurred to the Founders, and certainly not to the delegates who ultimately ratified the Constitution.
We can’t always look to the past for answers to entirely new circumstances.
No, but we can change existing law to reflect new circumstances, provided we do it through the "consent of the governed" process. Doing it by Tyrannical Judges is contrary to the more important concept of this nation's founding; Representative Democracy.
Allowing Judicial tyrants, is throwing out the more important principle in favor of a lesser one.