Should a more pragmatic reason she should be allowed to return be based on her citizenship, heartfelt emotion she was a victim, or she is a legal citizen, or for another reason?
The Chicago Tribune commentary titled, Let the ISIS bride return to the U.S., explains his opinion of why she should return even if President Trump objects. Some previous commentary from this writer makes me suspect the real reason she should return is that President Trump objects.
The Purpose of This Post.
Is to explain a more pragmatic reason she should return. To help wise up Politicians and the Supreme Court how to prevent the reoccurrence of someone else doing the same. More important, to identify the reasons of the root causes to prevent future terror attacks in the USA.
Direct your children onto the right path, and when they are older, they will not leave it. (Proverb 22:6 NLT)
What’s My Point?
In a previous post titled, King Solomon, what is a Religion? I explained various reasons why the Supreme Court must provide a definition of what is a religion or a political entity.
This woman was born in the USA and somehow was taught that she should aid and sacrifice herself to help a political entity who believes it is a religious duty to kill innocent people.
Who or how she obtained this teaching, which convened her to be easily brainwashed to leave the USA to help the political cause needs to be addressed?
For all we know, she was taught in a private religious school or church that receives religious tax exemptions. In other words, we taxpayers are supporting a political belief, disguised as a religion and protected under the First Amendment that helped her to become brainwashed to believe it was her duty to do so because of her religious teaching.
In My Opinion.
She should be allowed to return to the USA to be questioned to learn how and what means taught her to believe it is okay to kill innocent humans as a religious duty.
If she claims it was because she read an internet message and not reveal who or what she was taught, send her back.
In other words, she should be the instrument needed to require that teaching a child to kill for a religion violates the laws of the USA and of God according to the real beliefs our founders wanted to be protected when the wrote the First Amendment.
Any other belief should be identified as a political entity and not a religion in the USA to prevent terrorism from guard the hearts of youth minds from becoming susceptible to brainwashing that it is pleasing to a Deity and they will be rewarded by helping to kill innocent people.
Read in the Source Links below two previous posts on this issue.
Which reason you believe makes more sense?
Should the Supreme Court define the differenced of religion vs. a political entity in accordance with the real intention of the writers of the First Amendment?
Regards and good will blogging.