Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
How about that? A 104 word (approximately, I only counted once) version of 'If you can't do everything, you shouldn't do anything.' Or...Why or what purpose would it serve to do anything if you couldn't do everything else?
Misunderstood you have. Try again I will.

Granting preferential access to US support or refuge on the basis of religious affiliation would be incompatible with American tradition and policy, would send a thoroughly atrocious message to the rest of the world, and would be construed (legitimately) as caving in to our own fundamentalist fringe.

Bit of a dead horse anyway, since it's not gonna happen.

Burma's Rohingya Muslims are among the most thoroughly oppressed and persecuted minorities of the planet. The US couldn't care less. Why are they less deserving of support or refuge? I'm not suggesting that if if you can't help them all, you shouldn't help anyone, I'm pointing out that religious affiliation is not a reasonable basis for setting priorities on who gets help.