I thought I laid my point out pretty well already. It has been done before (denying refugee status based on claims of religious persecution while also allowing others who make essentially the same claim to be proffered refugee status or asylum if you prefer). Hell, it is happening right now with Coptic Christians from the middle east while we are bending over backwards to accept Islamic Syrians bent on our destruction.
If someone makes the claim of religious persecution, is it not prudent of the person assessing such claims to assure that they (the claimer) are being truthful and to determine such to the best of their ability? In essence, this is a litmus test of the person’s religious claim (are you of the right religion to lay this claim, etc...).
This might be a distinction without a difference to you, which is why we might not be seeing eye to eye on this.
I think that I would preface the whole Syrian refugee status issue with what is right and prudent for the host country and cite the obvious national security issues. We don’t seem to have a president that is interested in such matters though.
In essence, this is a litmus test of the person’s religious claim (are you of the right religion to lay this claim, etc...). yes!
What YOU argued before (and the point of the article itself) is "once we determine they are muslim, we shouldn't let them in".
What I am saying is "Please show me the law that says we can base our decision on refugee status what religion someone is" because the law the article (and you) cited does NOT say that.