i refuse to concede the point that i'm being offensive in any way. people just aren't thinking clearly.

nobody thinks we should let in every single refugee everywhere, no matter what, right? there has to be some criteria. if you reject this statement, you're just not thinking clearly. if i propose the criteria of religion, why is that so much more horrible than some other criteria?

there has to be some criteria for rejection, right?

and, listen: i don't want to live in a religious society. i'll reiterate what i've stated repeatedly: if you're a right-wing christian and you want to bring in more religious people, we're pretty diametrically opposed to begin with. i can dream about deporting christians, right? it's the hippies that don't understand what they're doing that piss me off.

see, and here's the thing, with myself, anyways: religion is really the only criteria i'd propose. i don't care what colour people are or what language they speak. i think we need to be careful about bringing in refugees with low education levels, but i'd actually propose that as a proxy for religion: the points system may be a little strict for refugees, but we should be making more of an effort than we are to determine utility. i don't care if they're queer or not, but i'll point out that queer refugees should have a high priority level in religious societies, which is at the crux of my point. it's really only religion - and, any religion - that i think ought to be a stopping point.

and, you're free to disagree with me.

but, this isn't and shouldn't be seen as some taboo. a religion is not a phenotype. it's a choice that reflects a character. and, i don't have a problem telling people that make this choice that i'm deeply uncomfortable with their character, and strongly apprehensive about welcoming them into my community.