- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 8/15/26 at 3:01 pm to Boom33
quote:
If/when Muslims start attacking the 1st amendment, be sure that I'll be defending it against them just as hard as I do here now.
So for you, it's a complete lack of foresight due to your ignorance of the history of Islamic Sharia law in other nations.
Once they have the power, it's way too late, and you would be murdered for being a nonbeliever.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 3:02 pm to Boom33
quote:
when the 1st amendment is actually the solution
How is it a solution when its allowing Muslims to gain enough power to destroy the Constitution?
Posted on 8/15/26 at 3:03 pm to The Boat
We can stop importing that garbage into the west.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 3:06 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I don't hate freedom, because I have a different view of what freedom is than you do. I don't believe in absolutely and unlimited freedom, and I doubt you do, either. We disagree on what people should be free to do, but as a Christian, I believe in the freedom to do a lot of things in this world, just not libertinism.
You hate freedom.
The basis for what isn't allowed in terms of freedom revolves around the removal of freedom from others. Theft, murder and all such things are things which harm and take away the freedoms of others.
You hate freedom because you wish to go beyond those bounds.
quote:
Hell awaits all sinners who are not trusting in the righteous obedience of Jesus Christ imputed to them for the forgiveness of their sins. Since I recognize that I'm a sinner deserving of Hell, and because I trust in the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross to pay the debt of my sins, then I am confident that it is not Hell that awaits me, but Heaven.
I urge you to put your trust in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins against your Creator, if you haven't. Do so today, before it is too late.
I've read your posts on religion here already. As a result of your posts, I decided to never remotely call myself a Christian ever again.
The guy who says "Hey yall, watch this" was also very confident in what the future had in store.
quote:
The original intent was to limit overreach into religion by the government and to prevent one religious expression from being required to be observed by everyone in this nation. It was not intended to be an open door to all religious beliefs and expressions that were hostile to this nation. There wasn't even agreement among all the Founders as to the equality that all religions deserved. The only thing they agreed on was that the U.S. would not have one central church. That is a far cry from what is understood by Americans today.
Yeah, this is all a lie. It was intended to allow people to practice religion as they saw fit. Period. Be it any religion.
Other violations of freedom are handled seperately.
quote:
You're right that I don't like the pluralism that the 1st amendment has morphed into today. I disagree with it's language within the context of absolutely equality of religion that it's come to mean, but not based on the context of when it was written. You are being anachronistic, and it's people like you that further drive me to want the Constitution changed.
Yes, we've already established you hate religious freedom and thus the thing that protects religious freedom is something you want to get rid of.
quote:
It could be the first thing they do. I don't want to get rid of it, but change it, or have it interpreted within the context of a nation that recognizes Jesus as King.
Yeah, go frick yourself. Claim for yourself in the name of Jesus that which he refused to take. You are disgusting.
This post was edited on 8/15/26 at 3:07 pm
Posted on 8/15/26 at 3:06 pm to Boom33
quote:What I've been talking about this entire time: a destruction of this nation. It's why Islam must be banned now before they take over using our systems against us.
If they gain a majority in government, then what the frick are you even talking about anymore?
quote:Nope, not the opposite. A modification. There wouldn't have to be a state Church, but a recognition of the Christian religion by the state, and freedom of private religious exercise broadly.
As I already pointed out, you want to change the 1st amendment to mean the opposite of it what it is now and what it was written for.
The opposite of the establishment clause would be an established church religion with no freedom of religious expression at all.
quote:It is. I think you are confused by what the word "religion" means. I'm not an adherent to Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Mormonism, Judaism, or any other recognized world religion. I'm an adherent of the religion of Christianity.
No, your religion is not just Christian.
quote:I'm not glossing over anything. I'm making a particular argument and responding to particular claims by you. I recognize that there has been a long history of Christian governments forcing religious beliefs on other Christians. I'm not advocating for that. I believe faith is not something can be forced, and only God has authority over the conscience.
You are just trying to gloss over a long history of Christians oppressing and forcing religious beliefs on other Christians which was what the people who came to this country were trying to escape from and was seen as the most important issue of the time.
quote:See above. I don't advocate for forcing anyone to be Christian. All I'm saying is that the government should formally recognize Jesus Christ, even if each individual doesn't, and that religions and ideologies that are inherently hostile to the general equity of a nation that doesn't practice that religion should be limited if not banned entirely.
Like most extremists, you will point out a boogieman or some other justification as a means to take powers establishing those things.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 3:12 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
What I've been talking about this entire time: a destruction of this nation. It's why Islam must be banned now before they take over using our systems against us.
Seems more like you just want to get rid of religous freedom while using them as your boogieman to justify it.
quote:
Nope, not the opposite. A modification. There wouldn't have to be a state Church, but a recognition of the Christian religion by the state, and freedom of private religious exercise broadly.
The opposite of the establishment clause would be an established church religion with no freedom of religious expression at all.
100% the complete opposite.
quote:
It is. I think you are confused by what the word "religion" means. I'm not an adherent to Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Mormonism, Judaism, or any other recognized world religion. I'm an adherent of the religion of Christianity.
No, you just don't want to expose yourself to other Christians by trying to be among them in bigger numbers. Same thing politicians often do for greater support. When it comes to actual beliefs, they will differ and you will soon go after them as well for those with the same boogieman type excuses.
quote:
I'm not glossing over anything. I'm making a particular argument and responding to particular claims by you. I recognize that there has been a long history of Christian governments forcing religious beliefs on other Christians. I'm not advocating for that. I believe faith is not something can be forced, and only God has authority over the conscience.
You are advocating for that. You directly want to change the 1st amendment to be a declaration towards a specific religion rather than it being one of religious freedom preventing the very thing.
quote:
See above. I don't advocate for forcing anyone to be Christian. All I'm saying is that the government should formally recognize Jesus Christ, even if each individual doesn't, and that religions and ideologies that are inherently hostile to the general equity of a nation that doesn't practice that religion should be limited if not banned entirely.
You literally want to change the 1st amendment to be that.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 3:14 pm to Boom33
quote:
Boom33
Why don't you just admit you are a muslim?
Posted on 8/15/26 at 3:15 pm to Boom33
Yeah, go frick yourself 
what a toad
what a toad
Posted on 8/15/26 at 3:16 pm to djsdawg
quote:
This dude doesnt seem to care that it can happen and will happen here if people like him get their way.
I believe he is muslim...I posted some pics of their beliefs but it looks like they are being removed? Do we have a muz mod?
This post was edited on 8/15/26 at 3:16 pm
Posted on 8/15/26 at 3:18 pm to Ailsa
quote:
Why don't you just admit you are a muslim?
I do not belong to any religion.
I mostly identified with Christians in the past, but then I read that other dude in some threads and decided it's not for me. I had forgotten about people like him since I haven't lived in the deep south for the past 25+ years.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 3:20 pm to Boom33
quote:
I do not belong to any religion.
I mostly identified with Christians in the past, but then I read that other dude in some threads and decided it's not for me. I had forgotten about people like him since I haven't lived in the deep south for the past 25+ years.
There are people like "him" across the whole United States of America. It's a christian nation and our constitution was based on that. The muz take over our streets here to have "prayer" which they do not do in their own countries...they are showing their dominance in the name of the 1st amendment? It doesn't work like that.
This post was edited on 8/15/26 at 3:23 pm
Posted on 8/15/26 at 3:22 pm to Ailsa
quote:
I believe he is muslim...I posted some pics of their beliefs but it looks like they are being removed? Do we have a muz mod?
I'm not a mod.
I'm in a debate with people who think the 1st amendment is the problem, when in reality the 1st amendment is the solution and the one thing that protects them from the things they claim to fear.
This post was edited on 8/15/26 at 3:22 pm
Posted on 8/15/26 at 3:22 pm to Boom33
quote:I do not. I likely disagree with your view of what constitutes "freedom", though. That isn't the same thing.
You hate freedom.
quote:You are being too narrow in your own definition. The harm principle (pertaining to others) is certainly foundational, but it isn't exclusive. In terms of limiting freedom, our nation prevents people from even harming themselves, not just others. But beyond that, we have laws against immorality rather than strict harm, such as laws against polygamy, prostitution, and obscenity. We also have laws that promote and provide for the common good, not just anti-harm, such as taxation, zoning laws, and environmental laws.
The basis for what isn't allowed in terms of freedom revolves around the removal of freedom from others. Theft, murder and all such things are things which harm and take away the freedoms of others.
You hate freedom because you wish to go beyond those bounds.
So no, I don't hate freedom by wanting to go beyond your limited boundaries. I just differ in what freedoms I believe are absolute and unmitigated, apparently.
quote:If you rejected Christ because of what I've said, then you never truly belonged to Him in the first place.
I've read your posts on religion here already. As a result of your posts, I decided to never remotely call myself a Christian ever again.
The guy who says "Hey yall, watch this" was also very confident in what the future had in store.
I urge you to repent of your sins and trust in Jesus Christ for the first time, before it is too late for you. The only thing you can have confidence in is your own eternal destruction, otherwise.
quote:Again, in the ratification of the Constitution and BoR, they did not do away with the state requirements of a church and religious tests. They weren't eradicating the concept from this nation, but were doing what they thought was a modest effort to open federal office up to people of any religion and prevent the federal government from forcing anyone to believe a certain way. That was a far cry from absolute pluralism as you are suggesting. So no, that wasn't a lie. The states prove my point. You keep interpreting the Founders according to the modern view of religious pluralism that has crept in over the last 250 years.
Yeah, this is all a lie. It was intended to allow people to practice religion as they saw fit. Period. Be it any religion.
Other violations of freedom are handled seperately.
quote:The modern interpretation of it, yes.
Yes, we've already established you hate religious freedom and thus the thing that protects religious freedom is something you want to get rid of.
quote:What a reasonable and well-articulated argument
Yeah, go frick yourself.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 3:34 pm to Boom33
quote:If all they did was believe something different than me, that would be one thing. Mormons do that, and I don't think Mormonism should be banned entirely.
Seems more like you just want to get rid of religous freedom while using them as your boogieman to justify it.
As I stated previously, Islam is not merely a religious belief system, but a harmful political ideology that is incompatible with our Constitution and liberties we have as a nation.
quote:You can keep saying it, but it doesn't make it true. You should probably try supporting your claims rather than just asserting them. I'm at least attempting to give a rationale and examples where I can.
100% the complete opposite.
quote:I have been very open with my beliefs and opinions. I'm not trying to say I believe exactly like all Christians do on this topic, but what I'm trying to explain to you is that your understanding of the word "religion" is not correct. I'm a Christian, just like Catholics, Orthodox, Methodists, Baptists, and Lutherans are Christians, in that we all profess the Christian faith. I can have great differences with different denominations, but I accept that we all profess the same true religion, even if we vary in particular beliefs and expressions within it.
No, you just don't want to expose yourself to other Christians by trying to be among them in bigger numbers. Same thing politicians often do for greater support. When it comes to actual beliefs, they will differ and you will soon go after them as well for those with the same boogieman type excuses.
So no, I'm not trying to hide within larger numbers. I'm telling you a truth that you either don't understand or can't accept.
quote:I don't believe the United States making a public declaration for Jesus Christ establishes a formal state religion, which is what the amendment was written against. It doesn't say that any individual must believe that Jesus is Lord, or attend any particular church or service, or worship in any particular way. It doesn't ban the private adherence of any non-Christian religion, either.
You are advocating for that. You directly want to change the 1st amendment to be a declaration towards a specific religion rather than it being one of religious freedom preventing the very thing.
Our declaration of independence mentions that our rights come from our creator. At a bare minimum, I would just like our nation to get a little more specific about who that is.
quote:All I can say is that you are misunderstanding me, and I would urge you to re-read what I've said.
You literally want to change the 1st amendment to be that.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 3:36 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
You are being too narrow in your own definition. The harm principle (pertaining to others) is certainly foundational, but it isn't exclusive. In terms of limiting freedom, our nation prevents people from even harming themselves, not just others. But beyond that, we have laws against immorality rather than strict harm, such as laws against polygamy, prostitution, and obscenity. We also have laws that promote and provide for the common good, not just anti-harm, such as taxation, zoning laws, and environmental laws.
So no, I don't hate freedom by wanting to go beyond your limited boundaries. I just differ in what freedoms I believe are absolute and unmitigated, apparently.
So anything you can spin as being for the good of people, which is why they have the expression the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And many of those laws you name wouldn't be promoted by Jesus.
Not sure where civil laws really matter. Zoning laws? Seriously?
quote:
If you rejected Christ because of what I've said, then you never truly belonged to Him in the first place.
I urge you to repent of your sins and trust in Jesus Christ for the first time, before it is too late for you. The only thing you can have confidence in is your own eternal destruction, otherwise.
I have no desire to be like you though. And would you not tell me doing that would make me like you? And if I am not like you, then I must have not truly belonged to him?
To me you're just a pharisee, and I have no desire to be part of that.
Tell me, how do you truly belong to him and yet you and others who claim the same thing differ so much on what things mean? Is that a sign of divine presence? Are all you who claim to have done so just getting different versions? God telling you different things? Some of you are lying? What's the deal there?
I mean I read Jesus and I'm like yeah, I like what that dude is saying. And then I read you and others, and I don't even remotely see the connection between you and him. Like 0.
I think I'd rather be like him than you.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 3:39 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
If all they did was believe something different than me, that would be one thing. Mormons do that, and I don't think Mormonism should be banned entirely.
As I stated previously, Islam is not merely a religious belief system, but a harmful political ideology that is incompatible with our Constitution and liberties we have as a nation.
Only because you want their numbers. If Muslims did not exist, they would be your target. Just as Christians targeted other Christians when they had no bigger boogiemen.
quote:
You can keep saying it, but it doesn't make it true. You should probably try supporting your claims rather than just asserting them. I'm at least attempting to give a rationale and examples where I can.
You want to change text which says no laws should be made establishing a religion into text that directly declares a single religion as it.
I see no reason to continue having a discussion with you. You're one of the most dishonest people I've ever met.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 3:52 pm to Boom33
quote:
If/when Muslims start attacking the 1st amendment, be sure that I'll be defending it against them just as hard as I do here now.
You aren’t good at pattern recognition.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 3:55 pm to Ailsa
Posted on 8/15/26 at 3:58 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
You aren’t good at pattern recognition.
If you are referring to the constant attacks by the democrats and such, I'm well aware and defend it against them also. They'd love to ban religion outright in many cases, which is again why the 1st amendment is the solution. It's a protection from that, as well as a protection from other religions.
I did not expect I'd be having to defend the 1st amendment against republicans as well, but here I am.
Page 10 of 27
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News