- 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
re: Passing a law designating Islam as a political movement
Posted on 8/15/26 at 7:12 pm to FooManChoo
Posted on 8/15/26 at 7:12 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
All I can say is that that's just not true and I don't believe that at all.
I believe all people need to abandon their false religions and trust in Jesus Christ alone by faith for their own forgiveness of sins and salvation, but there is a big difference between Mormons and Muslims in terms of political ideology.
I've read your debates on here with other Christians. In your own words you are just focused on what you see as a bigger threat currently. Remove that threat and the Muslims will become your biggest threat and you've already demonstrated how you think such things should be handled.
quote:
I think you don't understand the terms and concepts at play in this discussion, leading to your confusion about what is being argued.
Acknowledging Christ as Lord is a confessional act, that grounds legitimacy of government and rights. That is different from establishing a state religion/church, which establishes institutional and even financial arrangements between civil and ecclesiastical spheres. You don't have to have a state church or religion that is overseen by the civil government even if that government recognizes the factual legitimacy of Jesus Christ as King.
Note that I actually do believe that there are two distinct spheres of authority in the church and the state, and that their authorities should remain separate. The difference is that I believe they should work together and acknowledge one another for the authority that they have in their respective spheres. I'm looking for acknowledgement of Christ by the state, not a state-run church.
No, I understand it right and you keep saying the same thing. Make no laws about religion into a declaration that a single religions deity is king.
Let me be the first of many to tell you to go frick yourself. You are the reason for the 1st amendment and that is the reason you want to change it. You can sit around like the devil and twist the meanings all you want, but I see you for the demon you really are.
quote:
'm attempting to clarify my position and be logically consistent. You keep throwing out unsupported claims and then say I'm being dishonest. I haven't said anything dishonest at all to the point. I've only sought to clarify my own position over and against yours.
You literally want to change the constitution to declare "Christ is King" in the exact same spot that previously declared no laws should be made towards religion.
And you lie and try to claim otherwise.
1
Posted on 8/15/26 at 7:13 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
You can’t defend the 1st Amendment by ushering in its destroyer.
You want to destroy it.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 7:13 pm to Boom33
quote:
As for Islam, maybe you should take it up with the politicians who keep allowing them to come here. You guys think you can ban water in your boat without plugging the holes, without realizing you don't need to ban water if you plug the holes and bucket the existing water out.
Think we’re actually arguing for the same thing
Posted on 8/15/26 at 7:15 pm to BrianKellysbuyout
quote:
Im not saying it agree with the idea, but let's not act like people have acted like they don't know what words mean to get their points across. We have reached the point of arguing semantics to degrees already. That's definitely the work of Satan, but that's beside the point at the moment.
Does everyone remember Kentanji you-saw-her forgetting what a woman is? There was even a point prior to that where one of the Clinton's argued what the definition for the word "is" is. How soon we forget, right? I'm sure that's jist (D)ifferent.
As long as you guys keep allowing the bar to be set by the "other side" there is no limit to how far they will take us.
Maybe they are all wrong and it's because of their actions, not because of the political party.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 7:15 pm to Boom33
quote:
You want to destroy it.
The Muslims want you to obey sharia law, which would destroy it and everything else we have. Try to get your priorities in order
Posted on 8/15/26 at 7:18 pm to Boom33
quote:
The 1st amendment was added to the constitution to prevent Christians from taking away the religious freedom of others.
Wrong. The religious clauses of the 1A were written to prevent the government from dictating a national religion. And I can’t help but notice you have nothing to say in defense of your useful idiocy in regards to your bending over for Islam.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 7:22 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
Wrong. The religious clauses of the 1A were written to prevent the government from dictating a national religion. And I can’t help but notice you have nothing to say in defense of your useful idiocy in regards to your bending over for Islam.
I think boom is a SFP alter.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 7:28 pm to lsusteve1
quote:
Think we’re actually arguing for the same thing
You know SFP, he just likes to argue.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 7:40 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
Wrong. The religious clauses of the 1A were written to prevent the government from dictating a national religion. And I can’t help but notice you have nothing to say in defense of your useful idiocy in regards to your bending over for Islam.
In a country that was full of Christians who had escaped Europe and a bunch of countries where Christians would oppress and dictate religion to other Christians.
I'm not bending over for Islam. I said multiple times now they shouldn't be allowed if they aren't here for liberty and to assimilate. We should also remove the ones already here.
But if you think I'm going to get rid of the 1st amendment, you're fricking crazy.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 7:48 pm to djsdawg
quote:
So why not try to preserve the best parts of it while acknowledging its flaws, and trying to fix the flaws that the democrats are exploiting?
This is the moment you realize you are a "living document" thinker. The next moment is when you realize originalism, living document, and the 32 flavors in between all cut both ways.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 7:49 pm to Boom33
quote:
I'm not bending over for Islam. I said multiple times now they shouldn't be allowed if they aren't here for liberty and to assimilate. We should also remove the ones already here.
Is this constitutional?
Posted on 8/15/26 at 7:49 pm to 50_Tiger
quote:
The crux of your argument is that Islam operates in the same airspace as Christianity.
They dont. In fact, they play by an entirely separate set of rules and are actively using our good faith to gain position. While I 100% believe there are non Christians operating in good faith, we have precedent from history that the path were trending down leads ultimately to either replacement or destruction.
But anyone can use good faith to gain position, religion doesn't really have anything to do with it.
Christians have persecuted other Christians for nearly 1400 years before our country was formed. Always as a result of a mixture of religion and state.
And is that not the actual threat of Islam? The mixture of religion and state. The 1st amendment is the thing that protects against that.
It's not the problem, it's the solution. Provided by people who knew what that mixture did first hand.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 7:53 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
This is the moment you realize you are a "living document" thinker. The next moment is when you realize originalism, living document, and the 32 flavors in between all cut both ways.
The threat is a dangerous combo of Islam and commies. The goal is to preserve our culture, freedoms and securities. Allowing Muslims to threaten our way of life is a much dumber option.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 7:55 pm to Boom33
quote:
The 1st amendment is the thing that protects against that.
Why do you think a majority full of commies and Muslims would be constrained by the 1st amendment? They want to destroy it. The whole constitution. Our way of life.
This post was edited on 8/15/26 at 7:56 pm
Posted on 8/15/26 at 8:04 pm to Boom33
quote:
So because the constitution doesn't come with a dictionary, we get to pretend they mean whatever we as a way of bypassing the constitution to take away the rights of people?
I think you are wrong about this. Islam is a religion wedded to a governing philosophy that is at odds with our constitution. We can outlaw Islam without violating our constitution by forcing Islamists to swear they reject Sharia Law, for example.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 8:06 pm to djsdawg
quote:
The threat is a dangerous combo of Islam and commies. The goal is to preserve our culture, freedoms and securities. Allowing Muslims to threaten our way of life is a much dumber option.
I gave the keys to the kingdom on the second page of this thread. Without changing the Constitution, it is almost impossible to deal with unless or until they break constitutional laws, which may be too late. You have to deal with it at the border. People are trying to make the solution far more difficult than it needs to be, and the internal fight against a religion will require a change in the Constitution or a major departure in its interpretation, and both will start a cavalcade of unintended consequences.
Pretty much everyone in this thread is trying to make the solution as difficult as possible. Don't break things you don't have to break to get a solution you want; with a modicum of thought, you realize don't have to be broken.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 8:17 pm to Penrod
quote:
I think you are wrong about this. Islam is a religion wedded to a governing philosophy that is at odds with our constitution. We can outlaw Islam without violating our constitution by forcing Islamists to swear they reject Sharia Law, for example.
I agree in terms of that would demonstrate they do not have plans to assimilate, and I think assimilation should be a requirement for allowing someone into this country. It's not about being able to cite the bill of rights for example, it's about understanding them.
But it can't be done in a way that is about religion specifically or violate the 1st amendment as proposed in the OP.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 8:22 pm to Boom33
quote:
But it can't be done in a way that is about religion specifically or violate the 1st amendment as proposed in the OP.
True. We can’t kick out citizens over being Muslim.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 8:51 pm to Boom33
quote:
if they aren't here for liberty and to assimilate. We should also remove the ones already here.
But if you think I'm going to get rid of the 1st amendment, you're fricking crazy.
They’re not here to assimilate. They make no effort to portray otherwise. They’re her to make you submit to Allah- it’s right there in the core belief of every true Muslim. The 1A doesn’t protect that. Just like there are limitations on speech, there are limitations on religion. You have to follow our laws. Christianity teaches just that. Islam teaches to subjugate all people to Allah- at all costs. It’s their doctrine. It’s in writing. They are encouraged to lie to protect and promote Islam. They are a threat to national security. Classifying them (using their own doctrine) as a political movement hiding behind a religion (much like their war tactics) clarifies and bolsters the 1A- not violates it.
Now, would you care to discuss why you are compelled to make this about Christianity- when Islam is literally telling you that you will convert or die?
Posted on 8/15/26 at 9:18 pm to Boom33
quote:
Because I never once have advocated for more Muslim immigration. The problem is clearly one of a failure to assimilate. You keep saying things like this as if I'm in favor of all the immigration and it's like your not even debating me.
What you have advocated for is to not allow that denial of entry based on the very thing that keeps them from assimilating: their religion.
You can't have it both ways, you either have to break the First Amendment's protection of religion for this group or they come in and do as they have done everywhere else. This goes back to that "hard truth" that you either completely and blindly follow the First Amendment's freedom of religion protections (which was your initial stance) or you come up with a way to make an exception for a religion whose goal is to use that same freedom against you.
quote:
I told you directly we should stop allowing immigrants into the country and deport the ones who aren't here to assimilate. In what way does your question at all apply to anything?
It applied to your initial stance of crying about "why do you hate freedom" and other worthless inanities. You've since moderated (or clarified) your stance (at least with me, I haven't really been paying attention to your back-and-forths with others) from absolutism to recognition of assimilation issues.
But this still leaves the question of how you propose to stop them from coming in if you aren't basing it on religion.
Page 12 of 27
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News