re: Passing a law designating Islam as a political movement

quote:

---

So you are saying if in 100 years the US is majority Muslim there is nothing that can be done about it?

---

What are you going to do?

We can stop granting immigration status to people from Muslim countries, but that will not stop the ones here from breeding.

The proposal given by the OP will not work, for reasons already stated.

So what do you propose?

quote:

---

wackatimesthree

---

quote:

---

So what do you propose?

---

ETA: One Idea worth dusintg off

Libertarians are too stupid to realize that the communist intends to use the constitution to destroy this country, so we get the meme.



Reminder that the founders of the constitution knew that the country could not work if the constitution was abused by bad faith actors.

quote:

---

AlwysATgr

---

A revolution?

To install what kind of government?

Do you want a Constitutional republic with equal protection under the law?

If so, you still won't be able to discriminate against Mooslims based on religion.

If not—if y'all have decided that having rules that everyone has to play by is too constraining—what alternative form of government do you propose?

Dictatorship? Monarchy? Theocracy? What would you like to install instead of what we've got?

quote:

---

Once again, the 3rd option is the 1st amendment.

---

quote:

---

It doesn't matter what the religion is, the 1st amendment protects against it, and it also protects it.

Our entire country was founded with the goal of fighting it. The solution already exists.

---

And, once again, show me where existing laws have stopped Muslims from gaining enough power to eventually change them because I can show you examples of where existing laws did not.

-When Pakistan gained independence in 1947, non-Muslims (mainly Hindus and Christians, but there were others) made up roughly 20-25% of the population. The country initially operated with more secular or tolerant features in practice as the country's founder (Muhammad Ali Jinnah) pushed his early vision of a pluralistic state protecting minorities. Over time, as the Muslim majority consolidated and political Islam grew, this changed.

The 1956 constitution declared it an Islamic Republic and then the 1973 constitution made Islam the state religion. In 1974, under elected Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, parliament amended the constitution to declare Ahmadis non-Muslims. Under General Zia-ul-Haq (1970s-1980s), Hudood Ordinances, strengthened blasphemy laws, and other Islamization measures sharply curtailed freedoms. Blasphemy cases exploded (from a handful pre-1980s to thousands later). Completely contrary to the vision of the country's founder, this disproportionately targeted minorities. Following it, the minorities’ share of the population fell to about 3-4%. Religious freedom for non-Muslims and was substantially lessened through both law and social enforcement despite their laws because those laws were changed.

-The 1979 Islamic Revolution brought hardline Islamist forces to power in a country which was already Muslim-majority but had religious freedoms for non-Muslims. The new Islamic Republic constitution and legal system subordinated religious freedom to Sharia interpretations. Things like apostasy became punishable, conversion from Islam was heavily regulated, and non-Muslims faced legal inequalities in testimony, inheritance, and public life. This was a clear post-power-shift reduction in the freedoms that had existed under the prior legal order.

-In Indonesia the state ideology of Pancasila formally supported belief in one God and religious pluralism. After the fall of Suharto in 1998, democratic politics rose and the Muslims there rode that into strong enough political power to start influencing laws, like blasphemy provisions being expanded/enforced more aggressively against non-Muslims, discriminatory local regulations against non-Muslims being allowed to be proliferated, and groups such as Ahmadis and some Christians were given greater restrictions while an increasingly blind eye was turned toward violence committed against them.

-While the Malaysian constitution still technically permits other religions to be practiced “in peace and harmony,” it also made Islam the religion of the Federation (1957). Over decades, as Malay-Muslim political power and Islamist parties (like PAS, for instance) gained influence, restrictions increased on non-Muslims (against non-Muslim proselytism and places of worship, for example) and on Muslims regarding apostasy or deviation from official Sunni orthodoxy.

-In Lebanon, the confessional constitution (essentially, government split down the middle between Christians and Muslims) and National Pact provided structured religious representation and freedoms in a society which was more balanced between Christians and Muslims. Demographic shifts toward a Muslim majority, a civil war and the 1989 Taif Agreement had the cumulative effect of adjusted power-sharing by reducing relative Christian political weight. Formal freedoms largely remain for now, but practical influence and security for some Christian communities have declined amid broader (and increasing) Islamist and sectarian pressures (see: Hezbollah, for example).


So these are real-world events which have lessened, removed, repealed or just ignored laws set up to protect religious freedoms in countries as Islamic influence increased. It's a pattern and it's why I say, repeatedly, Islam isn't allowing your 3rd option.

quote:

---

But based on this paragraph I can see why you want to get rid of the 1st amendment. You just want to impose your religion on people.

---

I've never mentioned another religion taking over because no other religion is trying to not only take over, but to eventually push out all other religions like Islam has been and is currently doing. I'm showing you that your theoretical third option doesn't work in reality and it agitates you so much you've now created a strawman to rage and argue against.

quote:

---

frick off.

---

quote:

---

This statement presupposes that all "religions" share the exact same domain of "rights." Do they?

Does a culture dominated by Islamic "rights" resemble cultures shaped by a Christian worldview, e.g., the USA?

BTW, what's wrong with "infringing" on the "rights" of others? Do these "rights" inhere to man? How are transcendent human rights determined?

Finally, we could be fully accommodating Shinto until . . . until the first bomb exploded. And nobody lets a rabid dog run loose do they?

---

I'm not sure what part of someone's religious rights end when they start to infringe on the rights of others you are struggling with.

quote:

---

I'm not sure what part of someone's religious rights end when they start to infringe on the rights of others you are struggling with.

---

Struggling?

I was raising (some of) the questions that your claim "religion doesn't allow you to infringe on the rights of others" naturally bring.

They aren't trick questions. Can you answer them?

quote:

---

A revolution?
To install what kind of government?
Do you want a Constitutional republic with equal protection under the law?
If so, you still won't be able to discriminate against Mooslims based on religion.
If not—if y'all have decided that having rules that everyone has to play by is too constraining—what alternative form of government do you propose?
Dictatorship? Monarchy? Theocracy? What would you like to install instead of what we've got?

---

See below . . .

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

One question: on what basis will "laws" be made? And FTR, every nation is already a "theocracy" whose laws exalt some god or moral standard above others.

quote:

---

No you didn't. You punted as expected (and you'll punt going forward won't you?).

You mentioned rights repeatedly. Where do these "rights" come from of which you speak? Does a rabid dog have the same rights as a healthy dog?

---

Once again, you do not have the right to infringe on God given rights of others.

It's not complicated or difficult. You can make up 1000 scenarios, and the answer is still the same.

quote:

---

Kinda depends on what God we are talking about.

---

It's in reference to free will which is God given.

Or nature given.

Whatever you want to call it.