Banning a whole class of people because some of them might do (or even have done) bad things is an extraordinarily dangerous idea that can cause some serious problems if it becomes considered fully acceptable.
It's also a perfect example of where this "psychosis" is leading us and how its a much bigger problem than an extra hour at the airport spent playing pretend.
I am a muslim from India(one of the largest muslim countries in the world), i've travelled 2 times into Chicago since the ban.
I think you are using some sort of slippery slope argument,
"banning class of people" is not true today, we should just be assuming that is true based on intent? Intent is truth?
I understand, I am not saying those are not his intents. I am saying why should we assume that its already the case when its clearly not. "banning whole class of people" is a false statement, right? Its really weird to say something bogus and say its true.
Its like me saying "America has achieved complete energy independence" today because trump campaign promised it.
When we say Muslim ban, it's clear the policy was not a complete ban on Muslims entering the country, but we are talking about major travel ban specifically for countries for the sole reason they are Muslim majority. The basis of this ban is on religion - note that the initial order didn't permit the admittance of permanent residents and green card holders!
Intent and words are crucial to determining the legality of the order. The Trump campaign ran on the specific idea of trying to ban Muslims from entering the country, despite their gaslighting attempts to argue otherwise.
Isn't that a bit pedantic though? You argue using "intent" below but I think its pretty clear I'm intending to present the idea that once you believe it to be OK to punish an entire group of people for the actions of some small minority of that group, you're steering straight into Godwin territory.
You can split the hair of identifying them by nationality, religion, race, hair color, or shoe size all day long but it doesn't change the argument.
You don’t want them in America anyway because their religion is largely incompatible with western ideals and culture. Their treatment of women, lgbt groups, free speech, for example are conflict with a harmonious western society.
People don’t hate them for believing in their religion, the problem is that they believe in a religion that openly calls for the death of cartoonists, gays and jews or anyone that insults it. If you are one religion that interferes with other people’s ability to practice their faith then that one religion is the problem.
Religious flamewar is not allowed on Hacker News. If you post like this again we will ban you.
More generally, it's an abuse of HN to use it for ideological or political battle and we ban accounts that primarily do that. I wouldn't say your history is primarily doing that, but having taken a quick look, there have been clear stretches of it, plus some evidence that you've abused the site quite badly with throwaway accounts. Would you please not do those things? We're trying to have a place for thoughtful conversation and intellectual curiosity. That means everyone here has to exercise some discipline in response to divisive topics and not head straight for the bottoms of the barrel.
Hard to take politicians arguing for that seriously when they also attack LGBT or women's rights, free speech and press, and let Christian theocrats trample the separation of church and state.
Not to mention the unwillingness to acknowledge, much less address the huge domestic right wing, white supremacist and Christian terrorism movements here.
But have you not noticed that among people of any religion, there is more often these days a tendency to "pick and choose" the best part of the traditional teachings. For example, across different Christian faiths, you're more likely to hear about love and acceptance than being dammed to hell. Nobody wants to hear that second part, so it got dropped.
Muslims, just like Christians, range from so-secular-they-don't-even-pray to fundamentalists eg Wahhabism. So regardless of the blatant unconstitutionality of such a law, it's also just laughably ignorant to suggest that all Muslims believe the same thing and have the same attitude about "western ideals and culture" (whatever that means).
The religion is calling for nothing, it's the people who are dogmatic about the religion and take their interpretations to hateful extremes who are calling for something.
The harmonious western society, in the US in particular but not alone, is still pretty discordant for black people, poor people, and immigrants. It goes far beyond women and sexuality, and shifting blame onto other religions and immigrants who can check some anti-diversity boxes is a great way to avoid the essence of the problem that has existed at home for a really long time.
>You don’t want them in America anyway because their religion is largely incompatible with western ideals and culture. Their treatment of women, lgbt groups, free speech, for example are conflict with a harmonious western society.
Responding to a religious flamewar comment with another religious flamewar comment is exactly the wrong thing to do here, and will get your account banned as well—regardless of how wrong and provocative any other user was. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't post like this again. If you do, you'll see that the guidelines say exactly what to do, and not to do, in cases like this.
It's also a perfect example of where this "psychosis" is leading us and how its a much bigger problem than an extra hour at the airport spent playing pretend.