- 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 1:28 pm to Boom33
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:28 pm to Boom33
quote:
I didn't force you to try and claim there are only 2 choices.
Nor did I claim you did, I'm not sure of your point here.
quote:
You made the false dilemma because you want to try and control the narrative and I ain't fricking doing it.
Incorrect, again. I didn't make the dilemma, it was (and is currently) made by Islam in Senegal, Albania, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt, Gulf states, Iran, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Djibouti, Sudan, Tunisia, Gambia and others. In other words, it is historical fact, not a dilemma I created. And, again, your cowardice is the avoidance of that fact because it moots your argument and thus proves your attempt at arguing from a stance of moral outrage mandates doing so from a platform of a false reality.
The two choices are the only two.
quote:
You can stop immigration. You can deport people who don't assimilate and so on. You can maybe even stop electing people who are pieces of shite because you think the other person is a piece of shite.
Is that your choice? To limit the freedoms of others by not allowing them here based on their religion? So much for my "false dilemma," eh?
quote:
You can do all other kinds of things outside your narrow-minded view of the world while you claim everyone else has a limitation in understanding.
It's not a "view", it's reality. Once a government and/or society deeply embrace Islam as the organizing principle of the state (especially with Sharia as a primary legal source), the resulting restrictions on personal freedom tend to be "sticky," at best. For those countries which move to Islam as a state religion, then later formally move away from it as state religion, they sometimes improve the constitutional text in some cases but rarely restore the full range of freedoms that existed beforehand—and never to the level we enjoy in the United States.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
1
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:28 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Wrong. Trying to preserve your freedom because a Muslim majority will take it all away.
You are in dire need of a basic education and a civics class.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:28 pm to Boom33
quote:
Or it's because the 1st amendment, the very thing you are wanting to destroy, prevents it.
The first amendment will be thrown into the dumpster by Muslims and the Marxist’s you defend. That’s why I told you to concentrate on the word “current”, which guy seem to have ignored
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:30 pm to Wolfwireless
quote:
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.
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?
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:33 pm to Boom33
quote:
Your entire premise is a false dilemma.
Currently? Sure, but Not in the long run. You are too short sighted.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:33 pm to Bard
quote:
Nor did I claim you did, I'm not sure of your point here.
Do you know what a false dilemma is? It's where you presented 2 possible choices while claiming there is no 3rd choice, when clearly other options exist.
quote:
Incorrect, again. I didn't make the dilemma, it was (and is currently) made by Islam in Senegal, Albania, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt, Gulf states, Iran, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Djibouti, Sudan, Tunisia, Gambia and others. In other words, it is historical fact, not a dilemma I created. And, again, your cowardice is the avoidance of that fact because it moots your argument and thus proves your attempt at arguing from a stance of moral outrage mandates doing so from a platform of a false reality.
It's a false dilemma. I'm not sure what to say if you don't' know what that is.
quote:
Is that your choice? To limit the freedoms of others by not allowing them here based on their religion? So much for my "false dilemma," eh?
I didn't say anything about not allowing them here based on religion. Anyone who comes to this country should be coming for the purpose of liberty and freedom and to assimilate to that culture. Those who do not are not welcome to come here. You can be any religion and the same standard applies.
quote:
It's not a "view", it's reality. Once a government and/or society deeply embrace Islam as the organizing principle of the state (especially with Sharia as a primary legal source), the resulting restrictions on personal freedom tend to be "sticky," at best. For those countries which move to Islam as a state religion, then later formally move away from it as state religion, they sometimes improve the constitutional text in some cases but rarely restore the full range of freedoms that existed beforehand—and never to the level we enjoy in the United States.
Once again, the 1st amendment prevents these things.
Unless you get your way and remove the 1st amendment so laws can be made based on religion. Then and only then can these things be allowed.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:35 pm to lsusteve1
quote:
Then enforce the rules of our Country and we wouldn’t be where we are now
Ok.
But how is adding a new rule going to change things if the problem is the existing rules aren't being enforced?
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:36 pm to Boom33
quote:
You are in dire need of a basic education and a civics class.
Muslims don’t give a shite about your basic education and Civics classes.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:37 pm to djsdawg
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:38 pm to Boom33
quote:
It's a false dilemma. I'm not sure what to say if you don't' know what that is.
We know what Muslims do when in power. There is nothing false about sharia law. You look retarded trying to downplay the threat Islam imposes.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:39 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Muslims don’t give a shite about your basic education and Civics classes.
I'm sure they love your lack of them though. Since you literally want to give them the power to do the things you claim you are against.
Dumbass.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:40 pm to djsdawg
quote:
We know what Muslims do when in power. There is nothing false about sharia law. You look retarded trying to downplay the threat Islam imposes.
Damn dude, go look up a word before you decide to debate it.
When you learn what a false dilemma is, let me know. Until then welcome to my ignore list.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:55 pm to Boom33
quote:
Damn dude, go look up a word before you decide to debate i
What word are you talking about?
We are talking about what Muslims do when in power.
You are the one that is completely ignoring that.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 1:57 pm to Boom33
quote:They generally follow the laws of the land they live in until they don't have to, or until they can change the laws.
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?
It's not illegal to make unconstitutional laws as a legislative body, meaning no one will be immediately punished for doing so. Likewise for judges who have an alternative interpretation and/or ruling. Likewise for law-enforcement and prosecutors who do not prosecute the law as written and ruled on.
There is enough leeway in our current system that a majority Muslim government in one or more branches could start reforming the nation as they please, until they get a total majority, and eventually a 2/3 majority, where they can get rid of or fundamentally change the Constitution, itself, if they wanted to. Their plan is to move into a society, outbreed it, and take it over.
quote:According to current jurisprudence, yes. There would have to be some changes to how courts have upheld certain precedents before an outright ban on Islamic teaching and practice could be upheld, even if the ban wasn't overtly targeting Islam in its language.
And the law you want to add is unconstitutional.
I'm also in favor of changing the Constitution, but that's a different matter. My suggestion would be something akin to the recommendation of the National Reform Association from the 1860's, which would have altered the preamble to the Constitution, rather than the 1st amendment, directly.
We the People of the United States, [recognizing the being and attributes of Almighty God, the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures, the law of God as the paramount rule, and Jesus, the Messiah, the Savior and Lord of all], in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
quote:Not exactly. The Founders had no intention for atheists and Muslims to gain a foothold in the country. The 1st amendment was intended to ensure both the freedom from a singular religion dictating how all must worship, and the protection of religion from government interreference.
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.
The Founders also didn't have the exact view of the 1st amendment and its application that many if not most do today. Courts today see it as a violation to have public schools read the Bible or teach the 10 commandments. That was tolerated as normative in the 1800's when public schools became more regular.
But even if my statements about banning Islam seem to extreme in terms of the 1st amendment, I have also been consistent in stating that Islam is more than a religion, and there are political elements of the ideology that are absolutely antithetical to the Constitution and to the freedom we enjoy in this nation that go beyond mere religious disagreement. Just as there are many religious practices that are not exclusive to Islam that are banned in America, so, too, do I think Islamic practices should be banned, such as all public teaching of violent overthrow of America in the name of Islam.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 2:00 pm to Boom33
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.quote:
Specifically, "The Golden Thread: A History of the Western Tradition" is being taught, as part of a classical education course.
"Historians" worry that it "misleads" students into disliking Islam's rise and believing it's more violent — and that they will believe Christianity and Western Civilization are integral
SOUNDS AMAZING TO ME.
I want this rolled out in every school! We are a Christian nation
Posted on 8/15/26 at 2:00 pm to djsdawg
quote:
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?
Because the Constitution is not a living document.
And in the declaration of I dependance, it's stated that changes to the constitution should not be taken lightly.
The flaws aren't in the Constitution. The flaws are in the people taking advantage of it thru interpretation. And having activist judges sidi g with them. The flaws are in those who "uphold" it, dropping the ball.
The flaws are that of the society, not the document.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 2:05 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
They generally follow the laws of the land they live in until they don't have to, or until they can change the laws.
It's not illegal to make unconstitutional laws as a legislative body, meaning no one will be immediately punished for doing so. Likewise for judges who have an alternative interpretation and/or ruling. Likewise for law-enforcement and prosecutors who do not prosecute the law as written and ruled on.
There is enough leeway in our current system that a majority Muslim government in one or more branches could start reforming the nation as they please, until they get a total majority, and eventually a 2/3 majority, where they can get rid of or fundamentally change the Constitution, itself, if they wanted to. Their plan is to move into a society, outbreed it, and take it over.
They would need to remove the 1st amendment before any of that is possible. Luckily for them, they have people like you on their side to help with that.
quote:
According to current jurisprudence, yes. There would have to be some changes to how courts have upheld certain precedents before an outright ban on Islamic teaching and practice could be upheld, even if the ban wasn't overtly targeting Islam in its language.
I'm also in favor of changing the Constitution, but that's a different matter. My suggestion would be something akin to the recommendation of the National Reform Association from the 1860's, which would have altered the preamble to the Constitution, rather than the 1st amendment, directly.
We the People of the United States, [recognizing the being and attributes of Almighty God, the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures, the law of God as the paramount rule, and Jesus, the Messiah, the Savior and Lord of all], in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
This country was formed to get away from people like you. Also, the 9th amendment prevents you from doing that.
quote:
Not exactly. The Founders had no intention for atheists and Muslims to gain a foothold in the country. The 1st amendment was intended to ensure both the freedom from a singular religion dictating how all must worship, and the protection of religion from government interreference.
The Founders also didn't have the exact view of the 1st amendment and its application that many if not most do today. Courts today see it as a violation to have public schools read the Bible or teach the 10 commandments. That was tolerated as normative in the 1800's when public schools became more regular.
But even if my statements about banning Islam seem to extreme in terms of the 1st amendment, I have also been consistent in stating that Islam is more than a religion, and there are political elements of the ideology that are absolutely antithetical to the Constitution and to the freedom we enjoy in this nation that go beyond mere religious disagreement. Just as there are many religious practices that are not exclusive to Islam that are banned in America, so, too, do I think Islamic practices should be banned, such as all public teaching of violent overthrow of America in the name of Islam.
Again, if we are going to start banning religions I'm starting with yours.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 2:09 pm to Everysingletimeberg9
quote:
Jews invented radical Islam. We did not have an Islamic problem until we had a Jew problem
i wouldn't get to cozy here kid you won't last long.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 2:12 pm to Boom33
quote:Yes. I'm saying banning things is always necessary. I'm targeting which things should be banned, though.
You are talking about the banning of people being allowed to ban other things. AKA you wish to allow people to ban things.
quote:Personally, I want to alter what it looks like, so that we don't have our current situation, where the Christian religion can be blocked from being taught in the public square while Islam is allowed to flourish in this country.
Yeah, so the 1st amendment was prevented to prevent Christians from imposing their religion on others. And you wish to remove that.
quote:The Constitution was written to provide more freedom at the federal or national level in terms of religion, but was not intended to remove all religious restrictions as the state level. As I said previously, many of the states had official religions with religious tests and requirements for voting and holding office at that level. To preserve unity as a nation, those tests and qualifications were removed at the federal level. States were still allowed to act as they pleased. The 1st amendment wasn't attacking Christians at all (it was a "Christian" nation, at least nominally, and the vast majority of the Founders were nominally Christian), but limited particular tests at the national level while allowing Christian states to continue to government themselves as they pleased.
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.
Posted on 8/15/26 at 2:14 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?
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.
Page 8 of 27
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News