Posted by Tina
Opinion! Everybody has them. One thing that makes America great is the right to speak…we used to honor that right by respecting each other.
So Chris tells us a Christian conservative thinks Trump’s comments on a temporary Muslim ban were something we would regret if we didn’t denounce them. Tonight I find a counter to that opinion and it comes from an Imam who agrees with Trump:
A Texas Imam agrees with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s controversial suggestion that America set-up a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” until further investigation can be done. The Imam also said there should be a ban of Syrian refugees of any religion.
The Imam, Nidal Alsayyed, who leads a Beaumont, Texas, mosque agrees with both Donald Trump and Texas Governor Greg Abbott.
I’d say that’s a Muslim who wants to protect the American people as much as any other American with common sense. It’s good to see this man freely and openly voice his opinion. We need to hear from more Muslims who love America.
The Imam elaborated:
The Texas Imam said, “It does not matter whether Trump said it or anyone else … American Muslims need to say we are with this country.” He also said they should raise the American flag in support of the nation. He continued, “We American Muslims need to be sincere in our religion and to the country we are living in. Peace comes before religion. We need to be truthful and transparent when we express a viewpoint or feedback. It does not matter whether Trump said it or anyone else,” he said.
When challenged on his comments the Imam responded in a comment via Facebook saying:
I only said what I believe is right. Trump is not against American Muslims; He is against any new Muslim immigrants (refugees and non-refugees)! There is a big difference here! We cannot be emotional.
I believe there is a great confusion and lack of understating nationally and among Muslim themselves for what Mr. Trump is calling for. Refugees in general have no clear identity or belief. They are seeking shelter and opportunity; but America cannot take this risk NOW!
My advice to trump to stop differentiating among Christian vs. Muslim refugees; only because he may get surprised to see all refugees claiming to be Christians!
Good man.
I concur, Trump is not anti-Islam, nor is he a bigot, he simply thinks it a good idea to declare a moratorium on Muslim immigration. Globally the left-wing PC crowd went nuts and politicians of all stripes ran for cover.
Before the San Bernardino, California, attacks a CNN poll showed that 61% of Americans oppose Obama’s Syrian refugee program and 38% approve. Does this mean that 61% of Americans are anti-Muslim bigots and 38% are not?
Nihad Awad of the Council on American-Islamic Relations —
Donald Trump sounds more like the leader of a lynch mob than a great nation like ours. If such hatred and bigotry is not outright rejected by the GOP, then it will be part of its legacy for many years to come.
Yeah, like anyone gives a hoot what any official of the terrorism linked, Islamic supremacy group CAIR that has to say about anything.
BREAKING NEWS! Muslim imam supports ban on Muslim immigration!
BREAKING NEWS! Woman supports pastor who wrote that women voting was the worst thing to ever happen to America!
BREAKING NEWS! Black guy says he’s happy with slavery!
BREAKING NEWS! Poor white guy on food stamps says “Votes Trump!”
None of this, is in fact, news. There are always some members of a marginalized group who will support further attempts to marginalize them. I can’t explain it, any more than I can explain why a woman would defend a guy who thinks she shouldn’t have the right to vote, but it happens. It doesn’t–in any way–make bigotry any more acceptable.
For the most part we don’t do news here Chris, breaking or otherwise. We do commentary on what is in the news, current events, and political and social trends. Besides you can’t really complain (in that snide voice) when it is you who set the precedent by boldly announcing that a Christian conservative spoke out against Trump.
“I can explain why a woman would defend a guy who thinks she shouldn’t have the right to vote…”
You should know that support doesn’t necessarily mean agreement. I supported that pastors right to express his opinion. I may even have expressed a certain amount of understanding about what motivates his point of view, and so what? I support your right to express your opinions here too. If I didn’t I wouldn’t post your comments or post your submissions. What’s also true is that I will vociferously defend people who agree with me when comments against them are as PC bigoted as yours are on this subject. You do not respect the right to have a different opinion much less express it. You are such a hypocrite! And you wouldn’t know bigotry is you fell into a vat of it…your sense of bigotry is colored by the bigoted PC propaganda that passes for education these days.
Tina: “You do not respect the right to have a different opinion much less express it.”
Please show me where I have ever argued or implied that you should not have the “right” to express bigoted opinions.
Or do you think simply calling an opinion bigoted is somehow a violation of freedom of speech?
Chris you can be a real a$$ at times.
You revert to accusations of racism and bigotry often which is a silencing/bullying tactic used by community organizers schooled in the Alinsky method. You had more ability to discuss issues when you first started commenting on this blog…pre-college. Both Jack and I were impressed by your respect and civility. Things have changed dramatically.
Labeling and name calling is meant to make “the other” cower in guilt ridden agony. You’ve picked it up and don’t even realize that’s what you do. In fact I’m sure you think it’s clever.
People are tired of the game. Most refuse to be intimidated now. We know the label is false and we are willing to fight back in kind. Of course, real communication goes out the window but it’s impossible to communicate when there is no respect. When you start from monitoring words, waiting to pounce, you are not willing to communicate. it’s all about the gotcha game.
“You revert to accusations of racism and bigotry often which is a silencing/bullying tactic”
You know what is another silencing/bullying tactic? Actual racism and bigotry.
Banning all members of one religion from immigrating because some are terrorists is bigoted by definition. That’s not a “label,” it’s just a word with a real descriptive meaning.
It is an ethical duty to call out bigotry whenever it occurs.
The candidate you are defending has proposed registering all Muslims in a database and forcing them to carry special IDs. I remember articles on this blog comparing Obama to Hitler simply for proposing universal healthcare, something that nearly all Western industrialized nations have today. But Trump proposes singling out a certain religion for registration and you say nothing?
His proposal to ban Muslims from immigrating is part and parcel of his overall prejudiced attitude.
I do not use the word “bigotry” to label people. I do it to make you think about what you are really saying, and the premises you are basing your arguments off of. You are saying it is fair to treat an entire religion as unequal and “less than” in order to protect our country. This is not a new idea; it was the basis of Japanese internment, another bigoted policy that made lots of people suffer needlessly under the justification of security.
When I say your actions are bigoted, I am not saying you are a bad person.
When I say your actions are bigoted, I am not saying anything about your “intentions.”
When I say your actions are bigoted, I’m not actually centering the discussion around you at all. You are not the point. The point is all the people you are proposing we discriminate against. Their equality and humanity is actually more important than your feelings.
I don’t care if being told your actions are bigoted makes you “feel bad.” It should make you feel bad. Shame works. Not on everyone, but in general, the fact that it is no longer socially acceptable to call people the “n” word or “faggot” is a good thing. That this makes some people who would like to be bigoted without consequences uncomfortable is the least of my concerns. Not everything revolves around you. Discussions of bigotry against marginalized groups aren’t about you. They’re about marginalized groups.
There is precedent for what TheDonald is proposing. Prez Peanut stopped all Iranian entries when Iran held our embassy people hostage. And we’ve learned to our sorrow that Obumble’s “widows and orphans” can also be used as weapons.
I’d rather see ALL immigration placed on hold until Clowngress can come up with a REAL vetting plan, since Obumble’s “rigorous vetting” is nonexistent. And would like to see ALL green-card holders be required to verify their whereabouts more often than every 6 months, with immediate deportation should their documents fail to be up to date.
And the issue of student visas? Schools should be required to notify Immigration immediately should Johnny Alien Student disappear from campus. Being a guest in the US is a privilege – not a right!
I posted what I called a “long article on another thread…you wouldn’t believe the fallout from Jimmy Carters immigration policy! That was when he offered the hand of friendship to Castro and Castro emptied his prisons and sent thousands of criminals to America. Progressives are so dumb when it comes to understanding human nature!
Say it loud and proud: Being a guest in the US is a privilege – not a right!
That’s not precedent. Restricting immigration from one small country is not the same as restricting immigration for every member of the world’s third largest religion.
Trump’s policy of stopping all Muslim immigration would be constitutional (though his policy of forbidding American Muslims abroad from returning, which everyone here has ignored, would not be), but that doesn’t make it right or smart.
The US has a long history of restricting the immigration of individuals into the country. And it is not a violation of our Constitution since they are not US citizens.
Pres. Carter may be the most resent one by temporally banning Iranians from entering our country, but he certainly wasn’t the only one.
Here is a partial list.
1900-1945[edit]
The Immigration Act of 1903, also called the Anarchist Exclusion Act, added four inadmissible classes: anarchists, beggars, and importers of prostitutes.
The Naturalization Act of 1906 standardized naturalization procedures, made some knowledge of English a requirement for citizenship, and established the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization.
The Immigration act of 1907 restricted immigration for certain classes of disabled and diseased people.
The Immigration Act of 1917 (Barred Zone Act) restricted immigration from Asia by creating an “Asiatic Barred Zone” and introduced a reading test for all immigrants over fourteen years of age, with certain exceptions for children, wives, and elderly family members.
The Immigration Act of 1918 expanded on the provisions of the Anarchist Exclusion Act.
The Emergency Quota Act of 1921 restricted annual immigration from a given country to 3% of the number of people from that country living in the U.S. in 1910.
The Cable Act of 1922 (ch. 411, 42 Stat. 1021, “Married Women’s Independent Nationality Act”) was a United States federal law that reversed former immigration laws regarding marriage, also known as the Married Women’s Citizenship Act or the Women’s Citizenship Act. Previously, a woman lost her US citizenship if she married a foreign man, since she assumed the citizenship of her husband, a law that did not apply to men who married foreign women. The law repealed sections 3 and 4 of the Expatriation Act of 1907.[1]
The Immigration Act of 1924 (also known as the Johnson Act) introduced nationality quotas, aimed at freezing the current ethnic distribution in response to rising immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, as well as Asia.
The National Origins Formula was established with the Immigration Act of 1924. Total annual immigration was capped at 150,000. Immigrants fit into two categories: those from quota-nations and those from non-quota nations. Immigrant visas from quota-nations were restricted to the same ratio of residents from the country of origin out of 150,000 as the ratio of foreign-born nationals in the United States. The percentage out of 150,000 was the relative number of visas a particular nation received. Non-quota nations, notably those contiguous to the United States only had to prove an immigrant’s residence in that country of origin for at least two years prior to emigration to the United States. Laborers from Asiatic nations were excluded but exceptions existed for professionals, clergy, and students to obtain visas.
The Nationality Act of 1940 pertains chiefly to “Nationality at Birth,” Nationality through Naturalization,” and “Loss of Nationality”. Certain miscellaneous matters are also dealt with.
The Chinese Exclusion Repeal Act of 1943 repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act and permitted Chinese nationals already in the country to become naturalized citizens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_immigration_legislation
No one is arguing that immigration can’t be restricted in whatever way our lawmakers choose. The argument is over what is right and prudent.
If you had any respect for the opinions of others, Chris you’d refer to it as a discussion. Your response to Trump might have been appropriate had Trump had the authority to write what he suggested in stone…it was talk…an idea that might have some merit even if it needed some tweaking!
The apoplectic vitriol that followed his comments were political and designed to destroy.
The American people are sick of that game.
Tina
Trump is a buffoon, narcissistic, and dangerous period.
The cold war in the GOP is fascinating.
I know you’ll never care about my opinion. I wonder if you care about Benjamin Netanyahu’s?
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is rejecting Donald Trump’s remarks about banning Muslims from entering the United States, saying that Israel “respects all religions and strictly guarantees the rights of all its citizens.”
“Prime Minister Netanyahu rejects Donald Trump’s recent remarks about Muslims,” Netanyahu’s office said in a statement Wednesday afternoon. “The State of Israel respects all religions and strictly guarantees the rights of all its citizens. At the same time, Israel is fighting against militant Islam that targets Muslims, Christians and Jews alike and threatens the entire world.”
If the right wing of Israel–the nation suffering most from the threat of Islamic terrorism–doesn’t think it’s right to ban all Muslims from immigrating, then why the HELL should we?!
I greatly respect and admire Netanyahu. I do not disagree with what he said. America “respects all religions and strictly guarantees the rights of all its citizens.”
If Netanyahu was going by media coverage it’s understandable that he would reject Trumps unfortunate choice of words…which he explained and expanded on later.
it soesn;t matter. the only interest the left has in this discussion is whether they can manage to use it effectively to destroy Trump. Polling numbers indicate they have lost the ability to mange and shape the narrative.
“If the right wing of Israel–the nation suffering most from the threat of Islamic terrorism–doesn’t think it’s right to ban all Muslims from immigrating, then why the HELL should we?! ”
We haven’t. We should do more to secure America. this is one idea which, if ever made into a statute, would not “ban” all Muslims…it might allow us to take a pause with respect to refugees to get a handle on what the terrorists are doing…like comin’ on in with the refugees.
Take a breath and think a little…you’re three days in arrears on this one.
Tina: “If Netanyahu was going by media coverage it’s understandable that he would reject Trumps unfortunate choice of words…which he explained and expanded on later.”
Are you saying you think Netabyahu rejected Trump’s statements without knowing what they were?
“this is one idea which, if ever made into a statute, would not “ban” all Muslims…”
But that’s exactly what Trump said we should do: ban all Muslim immigrants from entering the country. Just because it has no practical chance of happening in the way Trump said he would do it–much like most of his ideas–doesn’t make what he said any less disgusting and offensive.
Nearly every Republican candidate has condemned his bigoted statements. I don’t know why you can’t.
It is ignorant and disgusting. Radicalizing citizens of a country is easy these days. ISIS creates a war against all Muslims that does not exist by propaganda and the right wing media reinforces it. Their sheeple follow.
This is by design.
I for one will not follow in the ignorance.
It’s crickets on the right wing extreme mass murders in USA. People are being killed by crazy GOP Propaganda on both accounts.
Again this is by design. Think out of the box.
Crickets
Sheer lunacy from the head lunatic. Keep up the good work, your representation of the left is absolutely stellar, Dewey Screwballs like you are not born, they are crafted. Chris must be proud.
Always talking in circles
But in the end Fox won a case that news is free to lie as it is infotainment. Clinton signing the telecommunications act was the end of news for public service.
Those who participate in the corporate propaganda , fear mongering, and hate speech are truly showing the world just how dumbed down Americans are. Quite Frankly they are tired of US, our imperialism, ect.
The Empire is falling and they are also moving away from the phony dollar. The game is rigged and we are going the way of the Roman Empire as Greed took them down as well.
Free Speech is one thing, Propaganda German Style Anti Democratic. One thing is the fascists are exposing themselves and many do not even know they are.
Have at it boys the empire is falling!
Another wonderfully self-aggrandizing, moronic and rambling left-wing rant! Us Amerkkkans shore are stoopid sheeple. Good thang we have Dewey to tell us so.