I understand your point, Analytics, but you are coming too close to the notion of "thought crime" for my comfort.
Is making a threat of assassination not a crime? Are we allowed to burn crosses and put it on display in a church? Why do we tolerate essentially the same thing in a mosque?
You are allowed to burn crosses and put them on display on your property. Why would you think you can't do that? It happens all the time. Making a specific threat of violence toward an individual is not protected by the first amendment. Making a general statement that you wish violence to come upon a group of people is protected by the first amendment. That's why you can advocate for violence to happen to people and no one is arresting you for it.
EAllusion wrote:No, I think this is an incorrect reading of the overall spirit of the first amendment and the political thinking that led to it. You're free to believe whatever you want and there's a radical tolerance of that freedom expressed in the enlightenment liberalism in that first amendment idea . That includes believing things that are destructive to the constitutional order. Actions are a different story, but that's not the issue you brought up....
It isn't thought-crime per se that I'm exploring, it is expanding the ideological restrictions on naturalization in U.S. law to include the requirement of being ideologically in favor of granting each other freedom of religion in a pluralistic society.
From Wikipedia:
There have long been ideological restrictions on naturalization in U.S. law. Nativism and anti-anarchism at the turn of the 20th century, the red scare in the 1920s, and further communist fears in the 1950s each shaped United States nationality law. Though ideological exclusions on entry were largely eliminated in 1990, ideological bars arising from each of these time periods still exist in American naturalization law. This long history has resulted in a naturalization statute that requires naturalization applicants to be "attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States" (a requirement that has existed since the earliest US immigration laws) and forbids them from adhering to several more specific ideological principles such as totalitarianism, communism, and anarchism....
This way of thinking isn't that new after all. It's just applying it to an area of ideology that touches on religion.
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
The CCC wrote:No they are not. Of the 356 mass shooting in this country this year only two have been connect to Muslims.
Not enough to matter to you? So, wait until they rank higher?
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
EAllusion wrote:No, I think this is an incorrect reading of the overall spirit of the first amendment and the political thinking that led to it. You're free to believe whatever you want and there's a radical tolerance of that freedom expressed in the enlightenment liberalism in that first amendment idea . That includes believing things that are destructive to the constitutional order. Actions are a different story, but that's not the issue you brought up....
It isn't thought-crime per se that I'm exploring, it is expanding the ideological restrictions on naturalization in U.S. law to include the requirement of being ideologically in favor of granting each other freedom of religion in a pluralistic society.
From Wikipedia:
There have long been ideological restrictions on naturalization in U.S. law. Nativism and anti-anarchism at the turn of the 20th century, the red scare in the 1920s, and further communist fears in the 1950s each shaped United States nationality law. Though ideological exclusions on entry were largely eliminated in 1990, ideological bars arising from each of these time periods still exist in American naturalization law. This long history has resulted in a naturalization statute that requires naturalization applicants to be "attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States" (a requirement that has existed since the earliest US immigration laws) and forbids them from adhering to several more specific ideological principles such as totalitarianism, communism, and anarchism....
This way of thinking isn't that new after all. It's just applying it to an area of ideology that touches on religion.
The first amendment doesn't apply to would-be immigrants, but we can stand back and think about whether the principles that underlying its protections for American citizens should extend outward to people who wish to become them. I am deeply opposed to the idea that immigrants have to disavow communism. Disparate political ideologies should be welcome. It makes sense to filter people who there is reason are actively plotting to undermine US security, but there's a large gulf between that and not endorsing religious pluralism. This is especially true when the dominant political party in the United States is not committed to religious pluralism. I don't see how you can ban immigrants from holding a view that is held by a strong majority of people who control almost every single level of government in the country. The issue isn't really about being committed to religious tolerance so much as people preferring Christian hegemony over Islamic hegemony.