I appreciate your contention, but unfortunately, that is not legal justification for the United States Military Academy to ignore the United States Constitution. And that is the point I've been making all along. You aren't going to get me to justify Islam. I won't. But I will defend our military and its adherence to defending the Constitution it is sworn to defend.
I appreciate your contention, but unfortunately, that is not legal justification for the United States Military Academy to ignore the United States Constitution. And that is the point I've been making all along. You aren't going to get me to justify Islam. I won't. But I will defend our military and its adherence to defending the Constitution it is sworn to defend.
You are reframing the argument. The earlier dialogue had to do with whether or not it was a good idea to allow muslims into West Point - not the legality of the matter. I presume you concede that it is not a good idea to allow muslims into West Point (I missed that point on your earlier posts) -- however you now make your stand for the Constitution. Who can argue? The Constitution is obviously the finest document upon which a Republic can stand upon (excepting the Bible). So if your argument is that 'although it is dangerous to allow muslims into West Point, it would be illegal to prohibit them to do so' - I don't disagree.
Here's a few questions for though:
Were the British justified in banning the religion of Thuggery?
What if a religion was established whose central points were to destroy any nation opposed to their religion?
Specific to the United States, and our Constitution, should the First Amendment be modified to protect the United States from such a 'religion'? Or is it more important to be considered 'tolerant'?