What a great idea for fighting for the rights of others. Don’t make it about them, make it about us. Normally I wouldn’t espouse this particular view, but it seems to work in this scenario. Non-Americans don’t have constitutional protections, so international scholars who are denied entry into the country have no legal standing. American scholars do have the ability to argue violation of the First Amendment. Good strategy.
Related Posts
Shorter Richard Cohen
Allowing women to choose what to wear and to get an education is a sign of Islamic militantism and must be stopped. The courts must intervene and remove elected officials who believe in freedom of conscience.
Quote: Religion in the American Public Sphere
What would happen if religious ideas were subjected to such a debate? I want to conclude with some speculations. A robust, critical discussion of religious ideas might encourage popular faiths more consistent with modern standards of plausibility, more conscious of the historicity of all faiths, and more resistant to the manipulation of politicians belonging to any party. The long moratorium on sustained, public scrutiny of religious ideas has created a vacuum in which easy god-talk flourishes. Religion has no monopoly on foolishness and ignorance, but our convention of giving religious ideas a “pass” has made religion a privileged domain for wackiness…
Why the State Shouldn’t Be Marrying People
This case in Pennsylvania helps you understand why marriage is not in the State’s interest. Marriage is a religious interest. The state only needs to recognize unions, marriage or otherwise, for legal purposes of benefits. And what is this BS about Muslims can’t have their photos taken? I’m assuming it refers to some women who do not wish to expose their faces in public, but men have no excuse. (h/t Atrios)