Quote:Once you've read the Quran, I'm not sure how a reasonable person could come to any other conclusion other than that Islamic terror is never going away no matter how much some want us to acquiesce and play nice or stop pursuing American interests abroad. You could argue that many of the verses are not to be taken literally but that would still leave quite a few where you just can't do that. You have to wonder how a rational person could pick up that book and be convinced of its truth and fall in line (which could be said about any religious text, but no other religious text advocates violence like the Quran does as far as I know). No completely rational person would. However, rational people do irrational things all the time because behaviors and beliefs become their nature through culture, upbringing and other stimuli.

 

From what I understand,in the Skeptics Annotated Bible, the count runs about two to one with references to exhortations to violence, Bible to Quran. Does this mean that Christian terror is 1/2 as likely to go away, given your logic?



Are we obligated to allow a person to migrate to this country from anywhere? Should we apply a greater level of discrimination on who is allowed to come here? Does a Muslim person tend to assimilate better, worse or about the same as a non-Muslim person when joining American or any other western society?

 

Good questions. I happen to think that offering refugee status is a pretty nice thing to do, but not sure if that meets what you mean by 'obligated'. Not sure that Muslims have assimilated differently, but I really care about assimilation about as much as I do about political correctness, which is to say, very little. Unless I misunderstand what you mean by assimilation. 



I don't hate Muslims. I've casually known a few here in Jacksonville and in my judgement I've never personally encountered a bad apple that I'm aware of. Shad Kahn is a Muslim that I respect and admire. I just don't think it's worth the risk to invite many more to come here knowing that of all the religious and cultural groups they are the least likely to assimilate into American society even generations later. Sometimes common sense has to override ideology. I'm all for fairness and not penalizing thought or speech, but if you identified a certain trait that meant someone had a significantly higher chance of mass violence than someone without that trait would you do nothing with that knowledge as far as allowing that person to become a citizen of your country? I'm not saying the answer is an easy one, but it should be at least up for debate.

 

"knowing that of all the religious and cultural groups they are the least likely to assimilate into American society even generations later." Well, you just seemingly answered your own previous question. Any backing for this?


 

It absolutely should be up for debate. As I read somewhere, "Come now, let us reason together". Seems like a pretty good suggestion.  Let's say that you determine that redheads are 1.25 times as likely per capita of immigrants to do something bad. Do you ban immigration for redheads? I imagine you would probably think that we should see if there is a causal relationship. Also, for discussions sake, what are the benefits of said immigration. Let's say you knew that if you let in 2000 immigrants from FUBARistan 100 would be a new drain on society, 1899 would be productive to great citizens, and one would kill fifty current citizens. let's say you also knew that if you didn't let them in, 500 of them would be killed. How do you balance these things. Balancing such possible outcomes seems to be a big part of the immigration issue.