This guy finally gets it.
Wonder if he ever reflects on how behind the curve he allowed himself to get.
Someone she inform this ignorant Erickson that the President has the ability to shut down any immigration he or she sees fit to shut down under 8 USC 1182.
The actual DEBATE is about whether the US needs a legal test for what constitutes a legitimate religion under 1A.
The Constitution isn’t a suicide pact. Islam suffers on two points as to whether it constitutes a religion.
1. Apostasy is not allowed
2. Sharia is an alternative justice system in competition with the US justice system.
A legitimate religion imposes a moral code, enforced by ones own conscience. Islam’s sharia code is considered a legal code that applies to anyone living in a muslim doeminated society enforced by both clerical and governmental officials.
It doesn’t pass the test. As such, 1A doesn’t apply. Further to that, there are all kinds of legal tools that can now be brought to bear on the issue of mosques funding, fomenting, and facilitating armed jihad in the USA (and abroad).
Having this discussion would put the USA in the lead again, and it would provide international law the legal tools necessary to intervene in the affairs of regions afflicted by islam.
It would also improve on how we look at the separation of church and state. Praying in class wouldn’t be a problem. Including islam in a discussion of comparative religions would be. Teachers proselytizing for Christ in class would be a problem. Teachers leading a voluntary prayer on the 50 yard line wouldn’t be a problem.
A test on what constitutes a legitimate religion would return rationality to the manner in which government and religion interweave themselves in pursuit of the same goal - a more perfect union.
The sooner we recognize Islam as the political movement that it IS, the better off we will be.