[redsummer]

Are you suggesting it's wrong to prioritise religious minorities who are being murdered? Would you, during WW2, say no to Jews, because it would be a 'religious test'? What would be worse, having a religious test or being driven to extinction?

[danso]

It's not an either-or situation. The refugee program can accept people regardless of religion. The fact that many refugees are Muslim is a reflection of the statistical reality that many of the people afflicted are Muslim. To have a policy that favors the Christian minority makes it seem as if the Syrian/ISIS conflict is specifically one of Islam vs Christianity, which it is not.

[birken]

What evidence do you have that people of minority religions are being persecuted any more than people of the majority religions? In a country like Syria that is ~90% Muslim, what are the odds that all of the most persecuted people are in the 10% religious minority?

Why even flag them based on religion anyways if you are trying to help people who are being persecuted or murdered? What difference does it make?

During WW2, nobody should have been saying yes or no to Jews solely because they were Jews. It was because the were as a people being persecuted and murdered solely because of their religion that they should have been helped.

And again context is important here. The ban is coming from a person who has stated Muslims should be banned from entering the US because "there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population" and "it is obvious to anybody the hatred [of Americans by Muslims] is beyond comprehension". To ascribe motives to the ban that are counter to what the author of the ban has said again and again seems very dubious.

[redsummer]

There is plenty of evidence that Christians are being persecuted in Syria and other places, some even call it genocide: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/13/christians-fle...

US liberals have a blind-spot about it, because they have an image of Christian conservatives refusing to make gay wedding cakes in their head. So Christians can't possibly be persecuted! The usual US narcissism.

[masklinn]

> Are you suggesting it's wrong to prioritise religious minorities who are being murdered?

You're apparently assuming people not from these minority religions aren't being murdered for some inane reason. How about prioritising people who are getting murdered regardless of the underlying reason?

> Would you, during WW2, say no to Jews, because it would be a 'religious test'?

Apparently you would, during WW2, say no to 7th day adventists, gays or socialists.

Incidentally your invocation of Jews in WWII is interesting given the administration's all-live-matter-ing of these exact same WWII jews on Remembrance Day, confirmed to have been intentional.

> What would be worse, having a religious test or being driven to extinction?

How about neither and judging each and every application instead of applying nonsensical blanket bans?

[redsummer]

> You're assuming people not from these minority religions aren't being murdered.

No I'm not.

> Apparently you would, during WW2, say no to 7th day adventists, gays or socialists.

No I wouldn't.