Ban all Religions Until the Test Results Come Back Positive

        

        Last week Donald Trump, in his usual inimitable fashion, again made an incendiary comment that aroused great anger, from fellow Republican presidential candidates, and almost everyone to the left of Trump. But not to his supporters; they loved it. They can’t wait to have Trump banning Muslim immigrants...actually anyone they don’t like...and ignoring established U.S. laws, policies and regulations….”Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses...and turn them away."

         But as wrong as I think Trump is, he may have stumbled onto a very good idea. It just isn’t restrictive enough. Let’s run with his idea of banning a religious group. If I agreed with his position, then we shouldn’t stop there; we should go even further. Let’s not just ban Muslims from entering the U.S., let’s ban ANY religious person. Yes, ban them all… until they’ve passed a test indicating they understand the separation of church and state, that they will uphold and defend that separation, and that our Constitution supersedes ANY law that's in someone’s holy book.

        This ban would not just apply to foreigners hoping to resettle in America, but also to anyone who already lives here. For example, if Christians promote an interpretation of their God’s laws as somehow overriding the Constitution, they need to be removed to another place, say, the Vatican, until such time as they take a test proving they understand this is a secular nation and the Constitution is the ONLY law of the land. They can practice whatever religion they want in their own homes or in a place of worship (that would no longer be tax-exempt), but they cannot claim their God’s law is higher than Constitutional law.

        It doesn’t matter if the believers are Hindu, Mormon, Buddhist, Shinto, Zoroastrian, or they worship of a pile of rocks. They must show, via both written and verbal testing, that they acknowledge their religious laws stop at our border. They do not supplant any U.S. law at any time…period!

         If they are Muslim and disagree; Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, and even ISIS are all trying to implement Sharia. Let them live there and practice their faith. Or if they are Mormon and believe that what Elohim says overrides U.S. law, expel them to one of the uninhabited islands of the Alaska archipelago until testing confirms they fully understand and comply with the Constitution.

         Trump's not the first. Whether anti-British, anti-Chinese, anti-Japanese, anti-black, or anti-Commie...down through history, Americans have loved vilifying and repressing others.

        

         Now, far be it for me to point out to the oh-so-wise and well-informed Trump, who clearly hasn’t studied U.S. history, we already tried banning certain groups…the Chinese in the late 1800s, the Japanese in World War Two, and Communists during the 1950s. It just doesn’t work, and won’t work, even if we turned this nation into a completely fascist dictatorship like, say, Nazi Germany. So rather than banning, the best step is to make sure everyone understands we are not bound by the religious laws of any gods, or any religious sects.  

        Trump’s pandering to squeamish, anxious white xenophobes gets great press, but it won’t get him elected president. However, if he’d go along with a test given to every religious person immigrating here, or living here, so we can get them up to speed on how the Constitution works, then he and I might have some common ground to discuss ideas.

Know your Constitution

Religious provocation - seriously?

    Some amateurs put a video on YouTube and it has upset a certain segment of Muslims, enough so that, in their perceived offense, they attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi Libya, killing four American’s, and have also launched violent protests in Cairo, Egypt, in Yemen, and in other Middle Eastern countries. How does killing someone salve a purported insult from a movie? People have been poisoned by the words in a book.

                It leads one to believe that certain Muslims are so weak in their faith that a simplistic movie is somehow a risk to that faith. Or is it that they believe Allah, or his messenger Mohammed, are so shallow and easily offended that lowly human-produced movies are a threat to them? It is a sad reflection on certain believer's interpretation of Islam that the only way to react to a video that simply makes fun of it is by rampaging against and killing people who had nothing to do with it. American embassy personnel didn’t produce the movie, nor can they prevent those movies from being uploaded to YouTube.

                In Washington DC, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the crudely made film posted on the internet was "disgusting and reprehensible", although it’s almost a sure bet she hasn’t actually seen it but simply read a brief summary of the video. The short film entitled the "Innocence of Muslims,"  portrays Mohammad as a womanizer, a homosexual and a child abuser. But so what? Why is that reason to riot and kill? All this protesting will make the video a big hit, which it never would have been had they not rioted. Here's an idea, why not make a movie that shows just how wrong the producers of 'Innocence of Muslims' are?

  Protests spread further yesterday with US embassies the targets of anger among certain Muslims questioning why the United States has failed to take action against the makers of the film. But by the same reasoning, why not lash out at the internet, or computers, or films in general?

In Yemen’s capital Sanaa, hundreds broke through the main gate of the heavily fortified US embassy shouting "We sacrifice ourselves for you, Messenger of God." They smashed windows of security offices outside the embassy and burned cars. A security source said at least 15 people were wounded, some by gunfire, before government troops surrounded the area.

In the end, how did broken windows and scorched cars appease Mohammed or Allah? What sacrifice was made? Can the protesters answer that without just making something up?

Around 200 demonstrators gathered outside the U.S. embassy in Kuwait shouting slogans such as "God is great" and hoisting banners, one in English which read "USA stop the bullshit. Respect us."

Yes, everyone knows that respect is earned by taking offense over a video and rioting.

Even if the Koran said any depiction of the Prophet is blasphemous, why is that a reason to kill? (Don’t the words themselves ‘depict’ Mohammed?) Does blasphemy itself kill Muslims? Do they die by the dozens, hundreds, or thousands anytime someone produces a characterization of the Prophet? When the Danish published a series of cartoons depicting Mohammed in September 2005, how many Muslims died as a result of the printing?

Zero.

But when they rioted several weeks and months later, how many died?
Over one hundred. 
Over one hundred fewer Muslims alive because people took offense to a series of drawings. Demonstrators claim it was religious provocation. How so? What is so provocative that other people need to die for it?

The thing to remember is, these demonstrations were not by a majority of the people in each of those countries, but only a small violent minority. Of the millions in those countries, only a few thousand decided Mohammed needed to be defended by destroying property and threatening lives. A few thousand people that looked for anything to offend them or needed an excuse to launch a military-style raid.  And as long as this minority believes death is the answer to words, drawings, and films that simply hurt their feelings, it won’t be the last time this happens. It’s a good example of how religion poisons people.
If your religion is worth killing for, start by killing yourself!

In memory of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the three Americans killed in Libyan riots on 9-11-12