The U.S. should let Muslims in

Thank you for citing your sources. The NY Times and the Guardian have a very high reputation, and I appreciate that you are willing to come forth and argue about this topic. Your position, however, is not well supported. For simplicity, I will lay out my argument in three parts. The first part will consist of some basic fact checking - while you have your sources, you have used the information incorrectly. There are also missing sources. The second part will consist of a rebuttal to your arguments. The third part will consist of supporting arguments to my position, that the U.S. should let Muslims in. Part 1) I could not find where you derived your "51% of British Muslims believe being gay should also be illegal." Even if we assume this is true, this is not reason to exclude Muslims from coming to America. There are many good people here who believe against gay marriage, and it is un-American to bar people from immigrating on the basis of their belief. Additionally, your statistic that 70% of Muslims are inbred is very misleading; I did see from the NY Times article you posted that "In some parts of Saudi Arabia...marriage among blood relatives ranges from 55 to 70 percent." However, there are millions of Muslims that are not from Saudi Arabia so you cannot say 70% of Muslims are inbred (also, it says some parts of Saudi Arabia so you cannot even say 70% of Muslims from Saudi Arabia are inbred). Even if you are inbred, you just have a higher risk of some mental or physical disorder. There is nothing in this statistic to justify all Muslims should be barred from the United States. Part 2) You argue that we should not let ALL Muslims in because Muslims believe homosexuality should be punished. However, you have offered no passages from the Qu'ran, no solid evidence to show that letting Muslims into the US is a threat to national security. You only offer some personal experiences. In order for a travel ban to be acceptable, there must be a very real risk that admitted individuals pose a risk to national security. I am going to assume that the travel ban you talk of is a travel ban against Muslim-majority countries, though please correct me if I am wrong. To show how dangerous these individuals are, I am going to cite some statistics: 0 refugees from these countries have killed ANYONE in terrorist attacks on US soil. The chance of you dying from an immigrant from one of these countries because of a terror attack (9/11 is included in this statistic) is 1 out of 3.6 million. The chances of you getting struck by lightning at some point in your life is 1 in 3,000. Some Muslims may hold beliefs that are different from ours, but they are certainly not dangerous enough to call for a travel ban. Now, let's assume for a moment that all Muslims do, in fact, believe homosexuality should be punished. Why haven't the 3.3 million Muslims already in America taken arms against the LGBTQ community? Being opposed to the homosexuals is nothing new in human history, and there are still many in America who oppose homosexuality. Yet, the majority of these Americans are not dangerous, and those who are are already behind bars or will be soon. Even if 51% of Muslims are opposed to being gay, as you claim, this does not mean 51% are dangerous. The vast majority of Muslims are not dangerous, and if dangerous ones get in here, they will be punished if they act out. You mention that the Muslims you talk to are not real Muslims. What, then, is a real Muslim? Is it someone who prays five times a day? Who has read the Quran? Praying and reading books are not dangerous activities. Additionally, a travel ban would need to exclude everyone from Muslim-majority countries, including the "not real Muslims." You say that everything US citizens have fought for over 200 years is not supported by Muslims. Yet, have we not fought to escape religious persecution, discrimination, racism? We will violate all we have fought for if we discriminate against a whole group of people based on their beliefs. Part 3) A travel ban is justified only if a group presents a clear and imminent danger to national security. Yet, there is no evidence of clear and imminent danger. There is no historical data to show previous Muslim immigrants are abnormally dangerous. Sure, some of us may not agree with the Quran, but that is no reason to put a ban on all Muslims. Many Muslims, as you said, are not extremists. They are Muslim, but follow their religion casually. It is these Muslims, and the good Muslims, and the productive Muslims who will help this nation grow and prosper that will be unjustly barred should a travel ban come into place. A travel ban is not justified because the vast majority of Muslims are not dangerous.