- 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 12:11 pm to djsdawg
Posted on 8/15/26 at 12:11 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Do you want to win and preserve the freedom we have or lose your freedom for muh constitution with an expiration date?
You are trying to take away my freedom.
2
Posted on 8/15/26 at 12:14 pm to Bard
quote:
That's like accusing someone who pushes down an old lady to get her out of the way of a speeding bus as being the same as someone who pushes down an old lady as part of stealing her purse.
Context matters and the context here is that freedom to a group hellbent on removing your freedom is as short-sighted as it is self-defeating.
You are literally wanting to remove my freedom of religion.
In short, you are the bus claiming you need to hit that old lady before the next one does.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 12:15 pm to Boom33
quote:
You are trying to take away my freedom
This is why it’s impossible to argue with a libertarian. Political purism is more important than the consequences. Our grandchildren be damned.
“Your religion compels minorities to join or be persecuted? It requires Sharia Law? Accepts foreign money from shady organizations to help slowly take over local governments? Well I guess it is a religion after all, they’re all the same!”
Posted on 8/15/26 at 12:18 pm to The Boat
It’s not a way around the first amendment- it’s a way of clarifying it. Islam is 100% a political ideology masquerading as a religion. It’s incompatible with western culture and society- and more importantly our constitution. History bears this out. I have yet to hear any sound argument to the contrary.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 12:18 pm to RebelExpress38
quote:
Do you think Muslims will respect the separation of Church and State if they take the majority one day?
It is a simple yes or no.
If your answer is yes you are a terrible student of history, if your answer is no then you are allowing Islam to hide behind religion as you watch it slowly take over and erode the very freedoms you claim to care about.
You don't respect the separation of Church and State.
We could just stop allowing them to come into the country to start with.
We could just deport the ones who don't assimilate.
But nah, instead the solution must be to get rid of Church and State.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 12:20 pm to Boom33
quote:
You are literally wanting to remove my freedom of religion.
Again, your absolutism relies on the complete removal of context.
Name one Muslim-majority country which has more personal freedoms than the US.
This post was edited on 8/15/26 at 12:24 pm
Posted on 8/15/26 at 12:22 pm to RebelExpress38
quote:
This is why it’s impossible to argue with a libertarian. Political purism is more important than the consequences. Our grandchildren be damned.
“Your religion compels minorities to join or be persecuted? It requires Sharia Law? Accepts foreign money from shady organizations to help slowly take over local governments? Well I guess it is a religion after all, they’re all the same!”
Those things you mention are currently illegal and would remain illegal.
Unless of course you get your way. Then those things would all be legal because you've removed the separation of church and state and started to make laws based on religion.
But hey, let's ignore those consequences.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 12:23 pm to Bard
quote:
You're Muslim?
Nope.
But if I decided to be tomorrow, I would lack the freedom to do so.
And all of you in here will also soon after lack the freedom to your religion too. If you ban one religion, you have opened the door to ban them all.
This post was edited on 8/15/26 at 12:24 pm
Posted on 8/15/26 at 12:24 pm to Boom33
quote:
You don't respect the separation of Church and State.
We could just stop allowing them to come into the country to start with.
They are not a religion...
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.Posted on 8/15/26 at 12:26 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Only Because they are the minority right now.
Or it's because the 1st amendment, the very thing you are wanting to destroy, prevents it.
You marxists are terrible.
This post was edited on 8/15/26 at 12:26 pm
Posted on 8/15/26 at 12:26 pm to Boom33
quote:
Nope.
But if I decided to be tomorrow, I would lack the freedom to do so.
And all of you in here will also soon after lack the freedom to your religion too. If you ban one religion, you have opened the door to ban them all.
Wrong. Banning murder does not ban killing in self-defense. The idea isn't to ban, but heavily limit Islam due to its proven antithesis to freedom.
I notice you never responded to my initial post so I'll post it again because it's foundational to the entire topic.
quote:
The problem is those who would use the Constitution as a noose. In every Muslim-majority country - Every. Single. One. - Islam has pushed out personal freedoms to enough degrees that the US is scores ahead of them. While we have laws establishing strong protections including criticism of religion and government), religious liberty (and freedom from religion), assembly, press, due process, and individual autonomy in personal life, they often have little or none.
In Muslim-majority countries, these are constrained to varying degrees by things like:
-Blasphemy or apostasy laws
-Restrictions on criticism of Islam or the government
-Unequal rights for women, religious minorities, and LGBT people
-Weaker independent judiciaries or limits on political opposition
quote:
Why do you hate freedom?
Your stance is that any law which would slow Muslim demographic growth in the United States is an attack on freedom.
We know, as a consistent empirical pattern, that once Muslims become the majority in a society, measured personal freedoms (speech, religion, apostasy, women’s rights, LGBT rights, criticism of religion, etc.) fall well below the level that currently exists in the United States. Ergo, if unrestricted Muslim demographic growth continues and eventually produces a Muslim majority, the United States will very likely end up with less freedom than it has today.
Here is the choice your pathological altruism ignores: Are you willing to accept that long-term reduction in freedom for the existing population and their descendants in order to avoid any restriction on the growth of one particular religious group right now?
If the answer is yes, then you are prioritizing the unrestricted right of that group to become the majority over the preservation of the higher-freedom order that currently exists.
If the answer is no, then some form of limitation is justified and the claim that ‘any restriction is an attack on freedom’ (paraphrased) collapses.
Which one is it? Do you choose to limit the freedom of others to preserve your own and that of your society, culture and country or do you choose to give that other group freedom enough to eventually take yours and that of everyone else?
And before you answer, understand that history shows us there is no third option.
So which do you choose?
This post was edited on 8/15/26 at 12:28 pm
Posted on 8/15/26 at 12:29 pm to Boom33
quote:
Those things you mention are currently illegal and would remain illegal.
Link to Muslim country where this is true? Lots of vibrant religious minorities enjoying freedom?
quote:
Then those things would all be legal because you've removed the separation of church and state and started to make laws based on religion.
Yes, let’s conflate calling out a terrible “religion” with forcing everyone to be Christian. Look around, I’m pretty sure if Christians were forcing it on everyone in the US it would look a little different.
If only you had as much fear of Islam as you do of the people with eyes open enough to see it for what it is.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 12:29 pm to Bard
quote:
Wrong. Banning murder does not ban self-defense. I notice you never responded to my initial post so I'll post it again because it's foundational to the entire topic.
Because self-defense is not murder.
quote:
The problem is those who would use the Constitution as a noose. In every Muslim-majority country - Every. Single. One. - Islam has pushed out personal freedoms to enough degrees that the US is scores ahead of them. While we have laws establishing strong protections including criticism of religion and government), religious liberty (and freedom from religion), assembly, press, due process, and individual autonomy in personal life, they often have little or none.
In Muslim-majority countries, these are constrained to varying degrees by things like:
-Blasphemy or apostasy laws
-Restrictions on criticism of Islam or the government
-Unequal rights for women, religious minorities, and LGBT people
-Weaker independent judiciaries or limits on political opposition
You literally want to destroy freedoms. You want to take away my freedom to choose my own religion and beliefs.
I do not see you as being any different from them, you are all enemies to the constitution and this country.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 12:31 pm to djsdawg
quote:
You are supporting Muslims right to destroy your rights because muh constitution.
If not for that "muh constitution" we'd be in the same boat as the UK, Ireland, and all the other countries where the left has taken over.
That piece of paper and the foundation it represents, is the bane of the Democrats.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 12:32 pm to RebelExpress38
quote:
Link to Muslim country where this is true? Lots of vibrant religious minorities enjoying freedom?
I live in the US.
quote:
Yes, let’s conflate calling out a terrible “religion” with forcing everyone to be Christian. Look around, I’m pretty sure if Christians were forcing it on everyone in the US it would look a little different.
If only you had as much fear of Islam as you do of the people with eyes open enough to see it for what it is.
Do you have any idea why the 1st amendment was added to start with? It was because Christians in the "old world" were constantly forcing other Christians to their form of Christianity. They came to America to escape that.
The 1st amendment was literally made to prevent Christians from doing that to other Christians.
Did any of you guys take American history or basic civics in highschool?
Posted on 8/15/26 at 12:33 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?
And you don't see or have a problem with that?
Why do you hate freedom? Is it because you are worried how other people may choose to use theirs? You'll give yours up just so they can't have it?
I want no part of it.
While I cant say with 100% certainty, I tend to believe with great confidence the founding fathers did not intend for Islam to become the majority or be given any form of power.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 12:34 pm to 50_Tiger
quote:
While I cant say with 100% certainty, I tend to believe with great confidence the founding fathers did not intend for Islam to become the majority or be given any form of power.
Or any religion.
The 1st amendment was added to prevent Christians from taking away the religious freedoms of others.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 12:34 pm to Boom33
quote:
I do not see you as being any different from them
That's because you are a coward. You rely on absolutism because accepting reality means things aren't black-and-white, that requires considering nuance and that's scary so you avoid it just like you avoided the question.
I'll present it in full context again.
quote:
We know, as a consistent empirical pattern, that once Muslims become the majority in a society, measured personal freedoms (speech, religion, apostasy, women’s rights, LGBT rights, criticism of religion, etc.) fall well below the level that currently exists in the United States. Ergo, if unrestricted Muslim demographic growth continues and eventually produces a Muslim majority, the United States will very likely end up with less freedom than it has today.
Here is the choice your pathological altruism ignores: Are you willing to accept that long-term reduction in freedom for the existing population and their descendants in order to avoid any restriction on the growth of one particular religious group right now?
If the answer is yes, then you are prioritizing the unrestricted right of that group to become the majority over the preservation of the higher-freedom order that currently exists.
If the answer is no, then some form of limitation is justified and the claim that ‘any restriction is an attack on freedom’ (paraphrased) collapses.
Which one is it? Do you choose to limit the freedom of others to preserve your own and that of your society, culture and country or do you choose to give that other group freedom enough to eventually take yours and that of everyone else?
And before you answer, understand that history shows us there is no third option.
So, which is it? Would you rather limit the freedom of others or would you rather others remove the freedoms of all?
Posted on 8/15/26 at 12:37 pm to Boom33
quote:
Or any religion.
The 1st amendment was added to prevent Christians from taking away the religious freedoms of others.
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.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 12:39 pm to Bard
quote:
That's because you are a coward. You rely on absolutism because accepting reality means things aren't black-and-white, that requires considering nuance and that's scary so you avoid it just like you avoided the question.
I'll present it in full context again.
A coward? You're wanting to surrender your freedoms out of fear that someone else might use their freedom in a way you don't like.
You are the coward.
quote:
So, which is it? Would you rather limit the freedom of others or would you rather others remove the freedoms of all?
Your entire premise is a false dilemma.
Page 5 of 27
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News