- 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 1:07 pm to Everysingletimeberg9
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:07 pm to Everysingletimeberg9
quote:
This should be a white Christian nation so Muslims shouldn't live here that goes without saying. But Jews are responsible for all diversity which includes them
Except that the country was founded specifically to prevent that, and the 1st amendment was added because they feared Christians.
1
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:09 pm to Boom33
the 1st amendment was added because they feared Christians.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:09 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
It won’t be illegal if Islam continues to grow and Muslims start taking over. They will use our own system against us, making unconstitutional laws, supporting those unconstitutional laws through jurists that value Islam above the Constitution, or refusing to enforce the Constitution and our laws (or enforcing their own laws) through the executive branch and law-enforcement. We see this happen today with leftists skirting the laws for their ideology, and Islam will do the same thing.
So you claim they don't follow laws, and yet you at the same time claim a law needs to be added to address it?
And the law you want to add is unconstitutional.
This country was founded specifically against people like you and the 1st amendment, the part of the constitution you wish to bypass, was added specifically to prevent you from doing these things.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:10 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.
Which is why amendment 1 is immediately followed by amendment 2.
You want to keep your freedom? Fight for it. There's several quotes from the Founding Fathers, regarding their belief in that.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:10 pm to Everysingletimeberg9
quote:
They invented it as a boogeyman
Who is they?
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:15 pm to themunch
quote:
the 1st amendment was added because they feared Christians.
Well, I’m not so sure that’s exactly right. I believe it was more a matter of seeking to prohibit the infringement of the belief in and practice of Christianity - but on their own terms instead of the terms dictated to them by the British crown.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:15 pm to Boom33
If you mean the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, that statement is partly right but misleading.
The First Amendment was adopted in 1791 largely because Americans feared government interference in religion, including the possibility that the federal government could establish an official religion or interfere with religious practice. Many of the people involved were Christians, and there was significant concern about protecting different Christian denominations from one another and from government control.
However, saying it “was added because they feared Christians” makes it sound as though the founders primarily feared Christians as a group. That isn't accurate. A better phrasing would be:
“The First Amendment was added partly because the founders feared government interference in religion, including the establishment of an official religion and religious persecution.”
The First Amendment was adopted in 1791 largely because Americans feared government interference in religion, including the possibility that the federal government could establish an official religion or interfere with religious practice. Many of the people involved were Christians, and there was significant concern about protecting different Christian denominations from one another and from government control.
However, saying it “was added because they feared Christians” makes it sound as though the founders primarily feared Christians as a group. That isn't accurate. A better phrasing would be:
“The First Amendment was added partly because the founders feared government interference in religion, including the establishment of an official religion and religious persecution.”
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:16 pm to davyjones
Not everyone in the colonies were under the Crown
This post was edited on 8/15/26 at 1:17 pm
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:17 pm to Everysingletimeberg9
quote:
Jews invented radical Islam. We did not have an Islamic problem until we had a Jew problem
Muz have always been a problem...from the time
Ishmael was born and procreated.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:17 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?
They’re coming here and taking advantage of a system that should only be for Americans - and not to assimilate to American values
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:18 pm to Everysingletimeberg9
We got your jew hate dude
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:20 pm to themunch
quote:
If you mean the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, that statement is partly right but misleading.
The First Amendment was adopted in 1791 largely because Americans feared government interference in religion, including the possibility that the federal government could establish an official religion or interfere with religious practice. Many of the people involved were Christians, and there was significant concern about protecting different Christian denominations from one another and from government control.
However, saying it “was added because they feared Christians” makes it sound as though the founders primarily feared Christians as a group. That isn't accurate. A better phrasing would be:
“The First Amendment was added partly because the founders feared government interference in religion, including the establishment of an official religion and religious persecution.”
Correct, I am using "Christians" as a group in response to people using "Muslims" as a group in the hopes of highlighting the problem with this way of thinking.
In reality, it protects Christians (from other Christians at that time). Which is part of the reason I'm so against what people in this thread are saying.
They are literally opening the door for others to ban Christianity and just about anything else that can be spun as "for the good of the people".
It's fricking insane.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:20 pm to Boom33
quote:So you don’t deny that your statement was too broad and hyperbolic? Or was this response a passive agreement that you went too far in your criticism?
Trying to remove those bans, as you and others wish to do, is however.
There is always a debate between good and bad, and what should be tolerated and what shouldn’t be tolerated. Even the founders of this country—for all their faults—understood that checks and balances are good and useful to preserve freedom ultimately, because unlimited license leads to anarchy and tyranny of the strong over the weak.
quote:Not exactly. The 1st amendment was added to prevent federal overreach of religious liberty, mainly to prevent one Christian denomination from requiring adherence to the exclusion of all other Christian denominations at the national level. It did not affect the states who had their own official religions.
This entire country was pretty much founded by people trying to get away from people like you.
The 1st amendment wasn't added because they feared Muslims, it was added because they feared Christians who would take away the religious freedoms of others.
It turns out this problem was addressed 250 years ago and you are all just still pissed about it.
Considering my position doesn’t necessitate adherence to a singular denomination, or prevent other Christians from practicing their beliefs, I don’t think the comparison is valid.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:20 pm to themunch
I’m good with that, but it isn’t necessarily relevant to the point I was making. The premise of the First Amendment was indeed centered around the British treatment of a certain few cross sections among the British subjects. That was the idea, but of course it wasn’t necessarily intended only to apply to former British subjects.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:20 pm to Boom33
quote:
What else do you hate about America?
Universal suffrage.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:20 pm to Everysingletimeberg9
What are you murmuring about.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:21 pm to lsusteve1
quote:
They’re coming here and taking advantage of a system that should only be for Americans - and not to assimilate to American values
Yeah, we should stop allowing them to come here and get rid of the people who don't assimiliate.
I'm 100% down for that.
I'm 0% down with destroying the basis and founding principles of this country.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:25 pm to Boom33
quote:
I'm 0% down with destroying the basis and founding principles of this country.
Then enforce the rules of our Country and we wouldn’t be where we are now
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:26 pm to Boom33
quote:
You are trying to take away my freedom.
Wrong. Trying to preserve your freedom because a Muslim majority will take it all away.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:28 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
So you don’t deny that your statement was too broad and hyperbolic? Or was this response a passive agreement that you went too far in your criticism?
There is always a debate between good and bad, and what should be tolerated and what shouldn’t be tolerated. Even the founders of this country—for all their faults—understood that checks and balances are good and useful to preserve freedom ultimately, because unlimited license leads to anarchy and tyranny of the strong over the weak.
You are talking about the banning of people being allowed to ban other things. AKA you wish to allow people to ban things.
quote:
Not exactly. The 1st amendment was added to prevent federal overreach of religious liberty, mainly to prevent one Christian denomination from requiring adherence to the exclusion of all other Christian denominations at the national level. It did not affect the states who had their own official religions.
Considering my position doesn’t necessitate adherence to a singular denomination, or prevent other Christians from practicing their beliefs, I don’t think the comparison is valid.
Yeah, so the 1st amendment was prevented to prevent Christians from imposing their religion on others. And you wish to remove that.
If Christians will target other Christians to the point of needing laws to prevent it, then obviously there is no limit to those they will target.
Page 7 of 27
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News