[Chevalier]

Anne Frank was a refugee, ergo all refugees are Anne Frank. Cultural values and religious duties do not in any way influence the risk undertaken by a host country. ISIS in no way reflects a quite textual interpretation of Islam, and any assertion of European cultural superiority to virtually any part of MENA is to assert racial supremacy of Europeans.

I support a strong immigration program, including refugees. However, immigration should be limited to compatible cultures and high-reward immigrants. Can we institute an incredibly basic filter to exclude cultures that boast popular support of the murder of homosexuals? (Or apostates, or heretics, or blasphemers, or...)

[DanBC]

> Can we institute an incredibly basic filter to exclude cultures that boast popular support of the murder of homosexuals?

You don't think people leaving those places do so because those places support the murder of homosexuals? They recognise that country is fucked and they want to go somewhere better?

[meesterdude]

You do know that of the US refugee process is incredibly complex, takes 1-2 years to complete, and something like less than 1% are accepted into the US?

[Libertexan]

Actually, ISIS/Daesh quite clearly DOES reflect "a quite textual interpretation of Islam", as you put it - and that's the problem.

This is why Islam can never be subject to a meaningful "reformation": unlike Christianity, where Sola Scriptura dragged the church back onto a MORE peaceful, tolerant (after a time) and LESS abusive path, applying a "back to the scriptures" approach to Islam strengthens the "radicals and extremists", because the false prophet of the Koran* makes it quite clear that killing infidels is both good and necessary. It is, in fact, the highest good, and grants the Jihadist instant admission to paradise regardless of any previous sins. (*Mohammed was right about one thing: he was most certainly possessed by Satan when he wrote the Koran - not just the Satanic verses, but all of it, in its entirety...)

[dragonwriter]

> This is why Islam can never be subject to a meaningful "reformation": unlike Christianity, where Sola Scriptura dragged the church back onto a MORE peaceful, tolerant (after a time) and LESS abusive path

I don't think that there is any plausible argument that "Sola Scriptura" did that (the Protestant Reformation may ultimately have, but not so much because of its theology -- and certain not the particular doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but by triggering a series of international and civil wars which in the long term forced governments to give up most direct enforcement of sectarian religious rules, even if they retained an established church, in order to maintain civil order.)