And yet we've used deportation and internment before during WWII. Is the situation any better now?
What if the Shinto religion had been declared protected by the first amendment during WWII? Would we have not rounded up most of the Japanese on the west coast and interred them on that basis? Would we have avoided confronting Japan in the Pacific with our oil and ore blockade during the late 1930s? Although the point isn't quite analogous to our situation, you can at least see that followers of a fanatical religion should not be enabled to neutralize our defenses through our own laws. Consider Satanism: is it a 'religion' and do you find human sacrifice a protected practice? Of course not. Islam, with its poor record of citizenship, is impossible to differentiate between a death cult and a valid religion. I'm not making this up. The 700 casualties from last week stand in quiet testimony. So do the 49 dead. And so do the 3,000 dead from 9/11.
In addition, CJ is quite right that it insults the Afghnistan and Iraqi troops we are working with.
Not at all. In fact, it should invigorate them. They should know that we are serious about winning this war. They should understand that we will not be tricked into letting down our defenses. Until we do get serious enough to defend our homeland against immigrants and converts, do you think they seriously believe we can win on their own territory? The war is being fought with much of our capacity to win held in check by political correctness. I think the 700 casualties from King's Cross should remind you that we can't afford PC anymore.
We need countries like Jordan, Turkey, and Indonesia to support us, or at least not actively work against us.
How can Jordan or Indonesia give you a shred of domestic security? They're foreign countries. What their citizens do should be irrelevant to whether or not your children make it home from school today.
Also, I didn't say a word about a religious war. I simply said that I can't trust people who devoutly believe in Islam enough to live here in America. It's up to them to change our mind. Besides, with that hope of yours -- that we'll get enough help -- what will you do if you see it failing? How will you know if it is failing? What evidence might let you know that the policy isn't working? Will you consider any evidence at all?
I argue that the 700 casualties could become 7,000 or 7,000,000 next time. When will enough casualties let you know that we can't secure our homeland until we're deporting fundamentalist Muslims? Are you at least ready to limit their immigration by religion? Are you willing to profile Muslims? We have a problem that isn't being solved. How do you plan to solve it?
You are not in charge of foreign policy, and how lucky we are that is the case!
This is domestic policy. Think about it. Our domestic policy is what has set us up for continued inability to defend your children. Are you prepared to continue sticking to that now failed policy, even when 7,000,000 people might die in the next attack?
What do you think about the evacuation of Birmingham? What if there had been a dirty bomb, and what if all 20,000 of those people were dying of radiation poisoning now? Would you at least consider altering the course then?
I am all for watching the Muslim community and monitoring mosques. I am for repeated exposure and arrest of Muslim clerics who incite violence. I am for intelligent discussion of the Muslim religion, and contrasts with the Jewish and Christian faiths.
I am not for violating American citizens' civil rights, even if I am mistrustful of some members of their group. There are ways to defuse the danger without persecuting innocent people.