Is a strict muslim vetting system racist?

jgh7 · Post by **jgh7** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 5:50 pm

Is a vetting system which interviews muslim immigrants in great detail before allowing them acceptance into our country racist? To be clear, they would be given different interview standards (a much more focused interview) and asked different questions than non-muslim immigrants.

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 9:00 pm

I was not aware that Muslim was a race. I do not believe in race, so I wouldn't really know. However, it is my understanding that philosophy is not a factor in determining race. Is it discrimination? Yes, it is justified discrimination. If there were people doing the things that ISIS was doing based on my philosophy, I would expect to be questioned about it. I would also be outspoken in criticizing that use of my philosophy.

jgh7 · Post by **jgh7** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 9:26 pm

[Replying to post 2 by bluethread]

Technically you are correct. But I think the definition for racism has evolved from simply referring to race. I think it's more about culture and belief system now, and I'm referring to mainly immigrants of the middle-eastern culture and belief system. Unfortunatley it's too late now to change my OP though.

What I'm mainly curious about is where people draw the lines in labelling a person or an action as racist.

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 10:35 pm

jgh7 wrote:
What I'm mainly curious about is where people draw the lines in labelling a person or an action as racist.

Good question. However, since I think the whole concept of race is self serving nonsense, I would consider anyone who refers to race to be a racist.

jgh7 · Post by **jgh7** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:58 am

bluethread wrote:
jgh7 wrote:
What I'm mainly curious about is where people draw the lines in labelling a person or an action as racist.
Good question. However, since I think the whole concept of race is self serving nonsense, I would consider anyone who refers to race to be a racist.

Care to elaborate on that: how is the concept of race self-serving nonsense and why is referring to race racist?

2ndRateMind · Post by **2ndRateMind** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:11 am

Islam is a religion, not a race.

And though most Muslims aren't terrorists, at this time, most terrorists are Muslims.

Draw your own conclusions.

Best wishes, 2RM.

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 3:05 pm

bluethread wrote: I was not aware that Muslim was a race. I do not believe in race, so I wouldn't really know. However, it is my understanding that philosophy is not a factor in determining race. Is it discrimination? Yes, it is justified discrimination. If there were people doing the things that ISIS was doing based on my philosophy, I would expect to be questioned about it. I would also be outspoken in criticizing that use of my philosophy.

Why would you expect to be questioned about it? The KKK still exists, Neo-Nazis still exist, Christian nationalist militias are active terror threats here in the states. Just because we don't talk about Christian terrorist activity doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

We are literally talking about a percent of a percent within a population. At its height ISIS had roughly some 50,000 odd members, out of a billion Muslims that is an incredibly small number.

There are far more Christian extremists in the states than Muslim extremists so should we discriminate against Christians? would it be justified? I don't think the solution is more government infringing on our rights guaranteed in the constitution. The TSA is just an illusion of safety after all how can you expect to find the one person in millions just by randomnly screening people?

If I questioned you about the KKK or Christian terrorism would that be an effective use of government money? This is what I was talking about earlier in regard to prioritization of policy.

Is the policy effective?
Is the policy effectient?
Are there more pressing issues that would have a more beneficial impact?

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 3:07 pm

2ndRateMind wrote: Islam is a religion, not a race.

And though most Muslims aren't terrorists, at this time, most terrorists are Muslims.

Draw your own conclusions.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Do you have actual statistics on this any numbers or is that just opinion?

Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database
According to this data, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism within the United States than Islamic (7% vs 6%). These radical Jews committed acts of terrorism in the name of their religion. These were not terrorists who happened to be Jews; rather, they were extremist Jews who committed acts of terrorism based on their religious passions, just like Al-Qaeda and company.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslim ... ca/5333619

https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publ ... rror_05sum

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Defense_League

The. JDL has committed more acts of terror on American soil than al queda when was the last time you heard of them.

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 6:46 pm

jgh7 wrote:
Care to elaborate on that: how is the concept of race self-serving nonsense and why is referring to race racist?

Race is a modern invention designed to give tribalism a pseudo-scientific flavor. The genome is quite diverse and any attempt to divide up humanity by genetic characteristics is arbitrary at best. Therefore, asserting race is little more than an attempt to justify tribal superiority by fiat, either as a justification for superiority, or as an accusation of a perceived injustice. Justification of superiority and/or injustice should be addressed to specific verifiable acts and characteristics, and should not be generalized beyond direct correlation.

A more simple way of putting it, when one focuses on reason, one is considered a rationalist. When one focuses on the human prospective, one is considered a humanist. When on focuses on the economy. one is considered an economist. Therefore, when one focus on the concept of race, i.e. tribalism, one is a racist. The fact the term has become a pejorative speaks to our current societies rejection of tribalism. However, that simple concept has been tweaked by those who wish to use the term against others, while exempting themselves. This later is intellectually dishonest.

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 7:13 pm

DanieltheDragon wrote:
Why would you expect to be questioned about it? The KKK still exists, Neo-Nazis still exist, Christian nationalist militias are active terror threats here in the states. Just because we don't talk about Christian terrorist activity doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Maybe I missed this stories, but I have not seen or heard of a growing KKK or Neo-Nazi movement killing and torturing people in a long time, especially in the name of Christianity of Judaism. If that were the case, I would expect to be questioned regarding my beliefs, especially if I was seeking entry into a foreign country.

We are literally talking about a percent of a percent within a population. At its height ISIS had roughly some 50,000 odd members, out of a billion Muslims that is an incredibly small number.

Well, the problem is how does one identify an ideology without asking. Of those billion Muslims, how many can be picked out of a crowd as Muslim? I do not see how an absolute vetting of Muslims could actually be done. Therefore, the "Muslim ban" is just incendiary language, designed to overstate reasonable vetting.

There are far more Christian extremists in the states than Muslim extremists so should we discriminate against Christians? would it be justified? I don't think the solution is more government infringing on our rights guaranteed in the constitution. The TSA is just an illusion of safety after all how can you expect to find the one person in millions just by randomnly screening people?

I also think that our rights guaranteed in the constitution should be infringed. That is why I oppose the extension of the rights of citizens in this country to noncitizens in foreign countries. This in effect minimizes my rights as a citizen. The TSA can not identify threats by randomly screening people. That is why there should be reasonable vetting based on criminal profiling, which can from time to time include professed ideology.

If I questioned you about the KKK or Christian terrorism would that be an effective use of government money? This is what I was talking about earlier in regard to prioritization of policy.

Is the policy effective?
Is the policy effectient?
Are there more pressing issues that would have a more beneficial impact?

Given our previous discussions of government spending, it is interesting that this is a major concern. Personally, I think that the vetting of foreign visitors is part of one of the two things clearly stated in the Constitution as a federal responsibility. So, even though it should be done in the most efficient and effective way possible, the vetting of foreign visitors is arguably the most important thing that the federal government can do.