A paradox

[wp_ad_camp_1]
If any religion is shielded by 1A, and Islam is a recognized religion, then Islam is protected. If Islam is protected, then Radical Islam is protected. If adherents of any religion are protected because their religion is protected, then Islamists are protected.

paradox: a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true.

The % of Muslims or Muslim countries affected by EO doesn’t matter. A ban of 1% of Muslims or 99% of Muslims is still a ban based on religion. Not the intent, but the effect.
Again, the paradox. Trump has set out to hopefully stop Radical Jihad soldiers, who are Islamists. Islamists are Muslims. Therefore, the EO bans Muslims (some) in attempt to stop the “bad guys”. Since 1A gives freedom from and of, people are free to practice a religious doctrine, even Islam and Sharia. Of course, when a practice conflicts with US law, US law prevails, but as so many have pointed out, you’re innocent until proven guilty or until something goes, “boom”.

To catch any Radical Muslim Jihadis, one must ban all Islamists. To ban all Islamists, one must ban all Muslims. To ban all Muslims from a Muslim-majority country, one must ban all travel from the country in question. How else to defend against the promised Trojan Horse attack” Especially when vetting is impossible.

Similar to stop and frisk and profiling.