Cotroversial Discussion: America should have made Christianity a requirement for citizenship

[Ridgerunner]

In addition to other reasons already aired in this discussion, I would be concerned that some prospective immigrants and citizenship candidates would go along with the conversion requirement just to get the green light on immigrating/citizenship. Filling Christian churches with converts who don’t really believe doesn’t seem like a sound way to promote the faith. There is an abundance of lukewarm Christians as it is.

You have a point. Mexico greatly encouraged “Anglo” immigration into Texas because it was a very dangerous place and Mexico just couldn’t deal with it. It required that all immigrants become Catholic. So all sorts of Anglo protestants pretended to become Catholic but weren’t. Upshot of it was the Texans fought their way to indpendence from Mexico.

Likely (longer story than I can justify telling here) in the middling future, there are going to be limitations on immigration. If Catholics doubled their current birth rate to 3.6 per woman (I think that’s right) this country would be majority Catholic in one generation.

I think the Church really has a serious conversion job to do…on Catholics. If it did, we wouldn’t be worrying about things like limiting immigration to Christians; something that’s almost certainly politically impossible anyway.

 

[aicirt]

1. No I don’t believe they will. Although Islam is becoming more prevalent in the western world, I don’t think they’ll “take over.”
2. Every Muslim I’ve met (and I’ve met quite a good number) have been good peaceful people. All of them are horrified about what is going on in the world giving their religion a bad name, and many of them have suffered because of some people’s prejudice about their religion.
3. Although America was founded on Christianity (the foundation of the government even being based on the Baptist Church’s organization), the founding fathers specifically stipulated Freedom of Speech in our founding document. No matter how aggressive the Islamic extremists get, they won’t change one of the fundamental values our country on which our country was founded. And, although I am a native of the Bible Belt, I would never be in favor of this particular alteration to our government. Would you be against the immigration of Jews? What about people of any other faith? Agnostic? Would you restrict immigration to only straight men and women? Would homosexuals still be allowed?
   See, the restricting of non-Christian immigrants is too tricky of a business, and it goes against the foundation of our country. It would not only spark internal uneasiness, but would make us lose many of our Allies, so if a war ever were to occur, we would be close to alone.

We are at war with Muslim terrorists some, like the doctor at Ft. Hood, were already in our country. Some are on their way in like the Underwear Bomber who almost made it. He was successful because no one heeded the warnings of his Nigerian father. Did we allow Japanese, German or Italian immigrants during WWII? I don’t think so.
Of course, all this is a moot point considrering the porous southern border. We have no idea who or what is coming across,nor where they’re going, and our Federal government does nothing but sue AZ.

 

[Moscati]

I think that’s a terrible idea. “Christians” can’t agree on who is and isn’t a Christian (my evangelical family thinks Catholics, for the most part, aren’t Christians). Are Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses and Unitarians Christians? If we go by the fundamentalist Baptist interpretation, anyone who says the “Sinner’s Prayer” is a Christian.

Who gets to decide the definition? (Do you trust Congress to do it?) Who gets to enforce it, and make determinations on who fits? I think the reason the Founding Fathers didn’t put something like that in the Constitution is because they (rightly) didn’t trust themselves or their descendants with that kind of power.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Interesting discussion. I hold no position really and can be persuaded by arguements from both sides.

I’d just like to respond to a few things peple have said.

UnityofTrinity wrote,

“What would be us if we force people to follow our religion without choice? The Church had tried to do that in the Medieval, the result was not too pleasant, I would not trade anything to come back to the 30s, lest the Medieval.”

We’re not forcing anybody to do anything. I mentioned that those already in the country could keep their religion.

"Would Jesus like it? Again before doing something, put yourselves in the position of Jesus, like Protestants usually say “What would Jesus do”.

I don’t know.

“Then finally,if we force our religion down on people’s throat, aren’t we just the same as those Islam extremist who persecute anybody that does not agree with them, not just in their own countries but even in Western countries.”

Absolutely not, in at all. I advocate the persecution of nobody.

“If we force our religion on people, then we’re nobody better than them.”

We would be forcing our religion on nobody. If you don’t want to convert, don’t become a citizen.

“As I believe the Europe world is becoming more secular, the vision of Islam become state religion of Europe would hardly become true at all.”

Islam is increasing at a rather alarming rate, and will relatively soon be the largest religion in the world. I disagree with this conclusion.

Redratfish said,

“I still stand by my saying birth control, and abortion are the problems.”

You might be right. I don’t know.

Rossum said,

“Jews? Followers of Native American religions? Do Mormons count as “Christian”? You really are opening a can of worms here.”

This is an excellent point and why I hesitate to accept this idea.

jrose said,

"See, the restricting of non-Christian immigrants is too tricky of a business, and it goes against the foundation of our country. It would not only spark internal uneasiness, but would make us lose many of our Allies, so if a war ever were to occur, we would be close to alone. "

Also an excellent point.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

I agree with people who ask about the definition of Christian. Since the majority of Americans are Protestant Christians, and since a lot of Protestants believe that Catholics are not Christians, don’t you think your plan would backfired?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I agree with people who ask about the definition of Christian. Since the majority of Americans are Protestant Christians, and since a lot of Protestants believe that Catholics are not Christians, don’t you think your plan would backfired?

If we use a standard version of the Nicene Creed for the judgement on who is and isn’t Christian, then I see no way in which Catholics could be excluded. Even most Protestant websites I go on consier Catholics Christian. In fact, I have yet to meet any educated PERSON, let alone Protestant, who does not consider Catholics Christian.

But this isn’t “my” plan. I’m not advocating it, just presenting it and trying to weed out misuderstandings of it.

 

[rossum]

If we use a standard version of the Nicene Creed for the judgement on who is and isn’t Christian, then I see no way in which Catholics could be excluded. Even most Protestant websites I go on consier Catholics Christian. In fact, I have yet to meet any educated PERSON, let alone Protestant, who does not consider Catholics Christian.

But this isn’t “my” plan. I’m not advocating it, just presenting it and trying to weed out misuderstandings of it.

You plan appears to use religion as a proxy for “terrorist” and classify people that way. However, using religion as a proxy can apply to other classifications as well. There may be pressure from some to use religion as a proxy for “illegal immigrant”, in which case Catholics would be caught in the net.

Using religion as a proxy is not a good idea as it is inefficient. Most Muslims are not terrorists and most Catholics are not illegal immigrants. If you want to exclude terrorists then exclude terrorists. If you want to exclude illegal immigrants then exclude illegal immigrants. Do not use religion as a proxy.

$0.02

rossum

 

[COMMHKS]

I doubt Muslims will ever control Western culture. The forces of democracy and capitalism would work together to defeat any such attempt. Western economies depend too much on industries such as banking, media, entertainmnet, liquor and, like it or not, pornography, for Islam to ever take hold.

Under Islamic law banks cannot charge interest on loans. Can you imagine what would happen to the flow of capital in the Western world if banks could no longer earn interest on money lent to borrowers. I am pretty sure that the alcohol, hospitality, movie, etc., industries and their lobbyist would ever let Islam to take hold in the Western world.

As to making Christianity a prerequisite to citizenship, I can’t think of an idea more antithetical to the principle of religious liberty. A person wanting to become an American citizen should not be subject to a religous litmus test. Any law that would limit citizenship to those who profess a certain religous belief would be unconstitional. “Congress shall make no law . . .”

 

[rwillenborg]

I think the question that needs to be answered is this: Why are so many converting to Islam? What is it offering, promising, providing that Christianity is not?

2 points for lutheran teach.
10 points for whoever can answer it.

 

[rwillenborg]

Right now, Muslims and the Islamic faith are growing in the Western world at an alarmingly fast rate. France will probably become Muslim soon. I believe England is next. I do believe that eventually (when is not certain) America too will eventually be controlled by Muslims.

So, three questions:

1. Do you believe Muslims will evntually end up controlling the Western World?
2. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Why or why not?
3. To stop America from being controlled by Muslims and to save the future of Christianity, should we make Christianity a requirement of citizenship from now on? All people already in the country who are non-christian are grandfathered in, but only Christians are granted citizenship from now on. Is this a good idea? Why or why not?

I am considering all these issues now and am currently on the fence.

Discuss.

1. In Europe, maybe. In North America, no.
2. Could be. I will tell you from my Muslim friends living in the US (all devout Muslims, by the way) they would ALL prefer to be Muslim in the US than in any ‘muslim’ country. So, I don’t see them too eagerly adopting some of the cultural practices of the Muslim countries.
3. Absolutely NOT!! For starters, Catholics are often considered non-christian (would that mean the pope, often considered THE anti-christ, wouldn’t be allowed in?) and what sort of evangelization is that? And then, by the way, when we as Americans still act like a-holes, everyone will say ‘Oh, look at the christians and their hypocrisy!’ oh, I could go on. HOw would you enforce it? Oh my goodness, what a can of worms. So I would say no, no, no.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

1. No. I do believe there will be major wars between the West and Islam (including civil wars in Europe), but the West will eventually triumph.
2. It would be a very bad thing.
3. No, but we should restrict immigration greatly.

What needs to happen is the West needs to return to the Faith and start procreating again. The last ~300 years have only been a truce in the war between Islam and the West which raged for 1000 years until Vienna and Prince Eugene’s reconquest of the Balkans. Given the theology of Islam, the war won’t ever end.

God Bless

X2

 

[jrose90]

We are at war with Muslim terrorists some, like the doctor at Ft. Hood, were already in our country. Some are on their way in like the Underwear Bomber who almost made it. He was successful because no one heeded the warnings of his Nigerian father. Did we allow Japanese, German or Italian immigrants during WWII? I don’t think so.
Of course, all this is a moot point considrering the porous southern border. We have no idea who or what is coming across,nor where they’re going, and our Federal government does nothing but sue AZ.

We may be at war with terrorists, but the United States of America is not currently at war with the entire religion itself. We didn’t allow Japanese, German, or Italian immigrants during WWII because of an openly declared, two-front, full-fledged war. When we declare war on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Bangladesh, Egypt, or any of the other Muslim countries, then we may refuse entry to Afghanis, Iraqis, Persians, or Egyptians, because they are from a COUNTRY we would be at war with, not a religion that has extremists just like every other religion. Also, the idea of even having quotas for certain types of immigrants/year (Chinese, Japanese, Eastern European, etc) was deemed unconstitutional over a century ago.
I’m from the Bible belt and even think this is an absurd idea. Declaring war on an Islamic nation (like the ones mentioned above) is one thing (for a legitimate reason, not just because of what they call God), but the United States declaring war on the entire religion itself, is a ridiculous notion. Aside from the obvious non-constitutional essence of it, America has its fair share of Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists. The democratic system would prevent this from ever happening. What congress(wo)man (especially with the set-up we have now) is going to vote for the only-Christians for citizens idea, when they’d just be 1) vetoed by the Pres. and/or 2) voted out of their chairs by their constituents?
The idea of Religious Freedom that saved Puritans and Catholics alike from having to conform to the Anglican faith in England is the same thing that guarantees that no man, woman or child will be turned away from citizenship solely based on the fact that they consider themselves Muslim.

 

[aicirt]

We may be at war with terrorists, but the United States of America is not currently at war with the entire religion itself. We didn’t allow Japanese, German, or Italian immigrants during WWII because of an openly declared, two-front, full-fledged war. When we declare war on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Bangladesh, Egypt, or any of the other Muslim countries, then we may refuse entry to Afghanis, Iraqis, Persians, or Egyptians, because they are from a COUNTRY we would be at war with, not a religion that has extremists just like every other religion. Also, the idea of even having quotas for certain types of immigrants/year (Chinese, Japanese, Eastern European, etc) was deemed unconstitutional over a century ago.
I’m from the Bible belt and even think this is an absurd idea. Declaring war on an Islamic nation (like the ones mentioned above) is one thing (for a legitimate reason, not just because of what they call God), but the United States declaring war on the entire religion itself, is a ridiculous notion. Aside from the obvious non-constitutional essence of it, America has its fair share of Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists. The democratic system would prevent this from ever happening. What congress(wo)man (especially with the set-up we have now) is going to vote for the only-Christians for citizens idea, when they’d just be 1) vetoed by the Pres. and/or 2) voted out of their chairs by their constituents?
The idea of Religious Freedom that saved Puritans and Catholics alike from having to conform to the Anglican faith in England is the same thing that guarantees that no man, woman or child will be turned away from citizenship solely based on the fact that they consider themselves Muslim.

“Every religion has extremists”…name the ones that have suicide bombers or ones that instruct its members to kill those who don’t believe as they do.

May be unconstitutional but, during a time of war, the government’s duty is to protect its citizens.

“Declaring war on religion is a ridiculous idea”. Not if the “religion” demands its adherents to sacrifice themselves to kill the infidel. The Japanese died for the Emperor who they believed was a god. I see a similarity. After the war, some of those infamous Japanese generals who should have been tried for war crimes weren’t. Instead, the Japanese erected shrines to them and where they are worshipped to this day.

 

[jrose90]

This entire thread isn’t based upon whether or not we should be at war with the entire religion. Because, the fact is we aren’t and it would be irresponsible as a country to declare war upon Islam. If you would like to succeed from the Nation and form your own republic and declare war, by all means, do so. But for now, I will stay here and appreciate the laws that protect me and others.
However, the thread is about whether or not we should eliminate Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, atheists, simple Agnostics, or any other non-Christian religion form the “potential citizen list.”
Yes, every religion has extremists. Nazi Germany called upon Christians to eliminate the Jews and Jehova’s Witnesses. The Spanish Inquisition eliminated everyone who even thought about THINKING anti-Catholic thoughts. The KKK was a Protestant-organization that not only attacked African Americans with burning crosses, but also Greek Orthodox Christians, Catholics, and Jews. I’m not using this to justify what the Islamic extremists are doing, but as Americans and as Christians, we cannot throw stones.
However, back to the actual topic of the original post; idealistic “war” or not, we cannot, and the country will not ever (at least not in my life time) even consider refusing citizenship to non-Christian people.

 

[Elizabeth502]

2 points for lutheran teach.
10 points for whoever can answer it.

I get the 10 points if they haven’t been claimed yet. (They probably have.)

The answer is that so many people have converted to Islam because – particularly fundamentalist Islam – is counter-cultural to the prevailing First World trend of omnipresent, invasive moral disintegration, The more offensively decadent the culture, the more Islam has taken hold. In my region, for example, public charter schools with overwhelmingly Muslim student bodies have been formed with the State’s approval. Muslim holidays are observed. (And yes, these are publicly funded schools.) Muslim girls dress modestly and keep their heads covered. Boys are monitored to ensure they don’t get too friendly with the girls in an inappropriate way. Parents try to keep American rock music – but especially rap music – out of the school grounds. When foreign language is offered, it’s usually Arabic.

This is called reaction. The First World has invited it. These perceptions are also in contemporary Muslim publications.

Islam offers a countercultural lifestyle and an assertive defense against secularism. It also offers insularity by virtue of rejection, in community, of what most constitutes a Western secular identity.

10 points for me.

 

[Lonely_Warrior]

1. Do you believe Muslims will evntually end up controlling the Western World?

It’s quite possible… Muslims in most cases use to be aggressive in their never-changing Eastern lifestyle, and have a tradition to enlarge their clans, no matter where they are. As far as I know, Muslim cannot emigrate to some Western country alone; he will bring there as many relatives as he can, and they will try to do the same thing etc…

1. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Why or why not?

…so, Muslim overpowering West is not a simple bad thing. It is NIGHTMARE. They will not only bring in your country their traditions, but will throw away yours, under slogans about “political corectness”.

1. To stop America from being controlled by Muslims and to save the future of Christianity, should we make Christianity a requirement of citizenship from now on? All people already in the country who are non-christian are grandfathered in, but only Christians are granted citizenship from now on. Is this a good idea? Why or why not?

I’m not American but I think you won’t mind me speaking about this…
If people were honest, this may help, but such measure will rapidly increase hypocrisy and “fake” conversion in Christianity. Moreover, it can’t be used on practice anyway because of this political correctness, its twisted form poisoned likely the entire world.
The best measure to resist Asian hordes is non-religious immigration laws. There are two key features: many of Muslims are illegal immigrants, and they use to bring a crowd of relatives close to them after they settle in. So, laws must strictly limit rights of illegals (they are law violators anyway) and possibility of “clan” migrations.
Of course, laws must not impact on rights of honest, law-abiding people with will to work and be naturalized, no matter of their religion or nationality. But those hordes who are going to West are in most cases not such kind of people, that’s why danger of Muslim overpowering exist.

 

[Lonely_Warrior]

It’s quite possible… Muslims in most cases use to be aggressive in their never-changing Eastern lifestyle, and have a tradition to enlarge their clans, no matter where they are. As far as I know, Muslim cannot emigrate to some Western country alone; he will bring there as many relatives as he can, and they will try to do the same thing etc…

…so, Muslim overpowering West is not simply a bad thing. It is NIGHTMARE. They will not only bring in your country their traditions, but will throw away yours, under slogans about “political corectness”.

1. To stop America from being controlled by Muslims and to save the future of Christianity, should we make Christianity a requirement of citizenship from now on? All people already in the country who are non-christian are grandfathered in, but only Christians are granted citizenship from now on. Is this a good idea? Why or why not?

I’m not American but I think you won’t mind me speaking about this…
If people were honest, this may help, but such measure will rapidly increase hypocrisy and “fake” conversion in Christianity. Moreover, it can’t be used on practice anyway because of this political correctness, its twisted form poisoned likely the entire world.
The best measure to resist Asian hordes is non-religious immigration laws. There are two key features: many of Muslims are illegal immigrants, and they use to bring a crowd of relatives close to them after they settle in. So, laws must strictly limit rights of illegals (they are law violators anyway) and possibility of “clan” migrations.
Of course, laws must not impact on rights of honest, law-abiding people with will to work and be naturalized, no matter of their religion or nationality. But those hordes who are going to West are in most cases not such kind of people, that’s why danger of Muslim overpowering exist.

 

[aicirt]

This entire thread isn’t based upon whether or not we should be at war with the entire religion. Because, the fact is we aren’t and it would be irresponsible as a country to declare war upon Islam. If you would like to succeed from the Nation and form your own republic and declare war, by all means, do so. But for now, I will stay here and appreciate the laws that protect me and others.
However, the thread is about whether or not we should eliminate Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, atheists, simple Agnostics, or any other non-Christian religion form the “potential citizen list.”
Yes, every religion has extremists. Nazi Germany called upon Christians to eliminate the Jews and Jehova’s Witnesses. The Spanish Inquisition eliminated everyone who even thought about THINKING anti-Catholic thoughts. The KKK was a Protestant-organization that not only attacked African Americans with burning crosses, but also Greek Orthodox Christians, Catholics, and Jews. I’m not using this to justify what the Islamic extremists are doing, but as Americans and as Christians, we cannot throw stones.
However, back to the actual topic of the original post; idealistic “war” or not, we cannot, and the country will not ever (at least not in my life time) even consider refusing citizenship to non-Christian people.

Have you read anything about Islam? Do you know what Jefferson and Madison had to say about this “religion”? C.S. Lewis?

Nazism was not a religious movement.

 

[jrose90]

Have you read anything about Islam? Do you know what Jefferson and Madison had to say about this “religion”? C.S. Lewis?

Nazism was not a religious movement.

Yes, actually I took an entire course on Islam.
Have you ever talked to a Muslim about their religion and yours?
If Jefferson and Madison didn’t think that Muslims needed to have the same fundamental right of freedom of religion maybe they should have made that clear and excluded them from entry in the first place.

 

[aicirt]

Yes, actually I took an entire course on Islam.
Have you ever talked to a Muslim about their religion and yours?
If Jefferson and Madison didn’t think that Muslims needed to have the same fundamental right of freedom of religion maybe they should have made that clear and excluded them from entry in the first place.

So, what’s your take on the “religion”? Do you see it as a threat? Are you willing to watch the US be overpopulated by Muslims who DO have more children than the rest of us and who eventually, like in 30 years, be the majority in Congress. Think there’s a chance of Sharia law then? Ready to bet the farm on this?