re: Passing a law designating Islam as a political movement

quote:

---

Yes. I'm saying banning things is always necessary. I'm targeting which things should be banned, though.

---

Of course, you are someone who hates freedom. Those who hate freedom always do so out of fear that someone else might use their freedoms in a way they do not like.

Which is why hell is all that awaits you, because it is hell you wish for.

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.

---

No, you want to change what it means into something the complete opposite of its original intent. Once again, people like you are the reason the 1st amendment exists to start with. You dont' like that and that is why you want to change it.

Oddly enough, the 1st thing Muslims would need to do in order to enact the things you claim is...get rid of the 1st amendment.

You are an enemy to the founding principles of this country.

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.

---

At no point did I say the 1st amendment was for attacking Christians. Quite the opposite. The 1st amendment was added to protect religious freedom from people like you, aka other Chrsitians.

They left Europe to escape...other Christians who persecuted them for small differences in religious beliefs. It was such a big deal to them here, when founding the country that made it the very 1st amendment, and then added the 2nd to protect it physically.

Your values are more in line with the people you point fingers at than they are with the founding principles of this country.

quote:

---

They wouldn't. That's what I was saying.

They don't have to remove the 1st amendment at all if they gain a majority in our government. I explained how: if they were in charge of making the legislation, they can make whatever they want with no penalty. If they were in charge of interpreting the laws through the judicial branch, they can interpret them however they want, and even reinterpret the 1st amendment in their favor, even if it seems to fly in the face of the language of the Constitution (that has happened before). And if they control the executive branch and law enforcement, they can simply not enforce the laws on the books today. If they get all three branches, they can do whatever they wish and the Constitution becomes just a piece of paper with no teeth at all.

---

If they gain a majority in government, then what the frick are you even talking about anymore?

quote:

---

It wasn't formed to get away from people like me at all. I'd argue that there were more people who think like I do back then than there are today. What I believe isn't novel, and it was actually a big debate when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written.

And no, the 9th amendment does not prevent what I would like to see happen. What I was saying was a combination of the interpretation of the law (that can and does happen already today), and a changing of the Constitution (which could also impact the 9th amendment, if needed).

I doubt anything I'd like to see is going to happen any time soon, if ever, but no, the 9th amendment would not get in the way of it.

---

As I already pointed out, you want to change the 1st amendment to mean the opposite of it what it is now and what it was written for.

quote:

---

My religion is Christian.

I might have particular beliefs about the role of Christianity in the nation, but that doesn't make me part of another religion entirely.

And also, you're free to petition to ban my particular beliefs if you'd like, but while I'm not against banning Islam, you seem to be staunchly against banning any religion. That puts you at a disadvantage in this discussion: it's perfectly consistent for me to talk about banning certain religions, but it would be inconsistent for you to talk about doing the same.

---

No, your religion is not just Christian. You are just trying to gloss over a long history of Christians oppressing and forcing religious beliefs on other Christians which was what the people who came to this country were trying to escape from and was seen as the most important issue of the time.

Like most extremists, you will point out a boogieman or some other justification as a means to take powers establishing those things.

Did you replace the squirrel ?

quote:

---

I know full well what is it and I also know that the scenario Islam offers does not provide for a third option, thus the dilemma cannot be false. Your choices are to either purposely limit Islam's growth (which, by your own view, would be a First Amendment violation) or allow Islam to grow to the point where it removes the very freedoms you are trying to defend. That's not a construct I have made, but that Muslims have made.

Again, feel free to prove me wrong by naming any country which gained in personal freedoms after becoming Muslim-majority or the government acknowledging Islam as the state religion.

---

I already named the 3rd option.

quote:

---

That's a nice statement, and I'm pretty sure we all agree on it, but there's no way to prove intent for those coming here. To the contrary, taqiyya is the Islamic dispensation allowing believers to conceal their faith or lie. Classical sources (including Quran 16:106, 3:28 and various hadiths) support denying faith under contexts of war, reconciling people, and sometimes in dealings with non-Muslims when it serves the interests of Islam or the Muslim community. Some modern Islamist writers extend this to strategic deception in da’wah (invitation/proselytizing), immigration, political participation, or jihad. It's not a universal daily obligation for all Muslims, but the doctrinal permission exists, is taught in certain religious circles, and has been explicitly invoked by activists, clerics, and groups operating in non-Muslim countries.

That's part of the hard reality your stance hides from.

---

Should we allow people who belong to a religion that supports slavery and gives rules on how to treat slaves into the country?

I mean if we are going to judge based only on their book and not their individual character and merit, it seems important to know who might support slavery in the future.

quote:

---

That's exactly what's happened in Syria, Lebannon, Pakistan, Afghanistan, parts of northern Nigeria and other areas where Islam has become enough of a majority to sway politics.

There's nothing magical about the US nor our Constitution which makes it invulnerable to this once Muslims have enough power (another hard reality to accept), which -again- is what they've done in every country where they hold sway.

---

Why do you keep saying a hard reality to accept? Is it because it's not actually close to reality at all?

It's odd to me you can't remotely see how you are setting into motion the basis for all religions, including Christianity, to be banned.

quote:

---

Did you replace the squirrel ?

---

quote:

---

Look at you flying shite around like that.

---

Sorry, I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.

quote:

---

what's wrong with you?

---

He's muz.

quote:

---

Why do you keep saying a hard reality to accept? Is it because it's not actually close to reality at all?

---

You aren't accepting what Muslims do when in power. They have done it over and over and over. Thats reality. They want Sharia and will wipe their asses with the 1st Amendment to get it.

quote:

---

Of course, you are someone who hates freedom. Those who hate freedom always do so out of fear that someone else might use their freedoms in a way they do not like.

---

I don't hate freedom, because I have a different view of what freedom is than you do. I don't believe in absolutely and unlimited freedom, and I doubt you do, either. We disagree on what people should be free to do, but as a Christian, I believe in the freedom to do a lot of things in this world, just not libertinism.

quote:

---

Which is why hell is all that awaits you, because it is hell you wish for.

---

Hell awaits all sinners who are not trusting in the righteous obedience of Jesus Christ imputed to them for the forgiveness of their sins. Since I recognize that I'm a sinner deserving of Hell, and because I trust in the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross to pay the debt of my sins, then I am confident that it is not Hell that awaits me, but Heaven.

I urge you to put your trust in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins against your Creator, if you haven't. Do so today, before it is too late.

quote:

---

No, you want to change what it means into something the complete opposite of its original intent.

---

The original intent was to limit overreach into religion by the government and to prevent one religious expression from being required to be observed by everyone in this nation. It was not intended to be an open door to all religious beliefs and expressions that were hostile to this nation. There wasn't even agreement among all the Founders as to the equality that all religions deserved. The only thing they agreed on was that the U.S. would not have one central church. That is a far cry from what is understood by Americans today.

quote:

---

Once again, people like you are the reason the 1st amendment exists to start with. You dont' like that and that is why you want to change it.

---

You're right that I don't like the pluralism that the 1st amendment has morphed into today. I disagree with it's language within the context of absolutely equality of religion that it's come to mean, but not based on the context of when it was written. You are being anachronistic, and it's people like you that further drive me to want the Constitution changed.

quote:

---

Oddly enough, the 1st thing Muslims would need to do in order to enact the things you claim is...get rid of the 1st amendment.

---

It could be the first thing they do. I don't want to get rid of it, but change it, or have it interpreted within the context of a nation that recognizes Jesus as King.

quote:

---

You are an enemy to the founding principles of this country.

---

I'm an enemy to your view of the founding principles, for sure.

quote:

---

At no point did I say the 1st amendment was for attacking Christians. Quite the opposite. The 1st amendment was added to protect religious freedom from people like you, aka other Chrsitians.

---

Your language seems to indicate that you thought it was targeting Christians, because of how you referred to it as Christians targeting other Christians, which needed to be curtailed. Therefore, it was to stop Christians from doing what I want, right? Or in other words, "attacking Christians".

I know it wasn't intended to attack Christians. Your language seemed to indicate that it was.

quote:

---

They left Europe to escape...other Christians who persecuted them for small differences in religious beliefs. It was such a big deal to them here, when founding the country that made it the very 1st amendment, and then added the 2nd to protect it physically.

---

I think you're confusing the colonizing of America with the Constitution. As I said, at the time of the founding of our nation, most states had a charter with an established religion, including religious tests for non-Protestants. Most of the states were doing what I am advocating for (recognition of Jesus Christ and limitation of non-Christians in certain ways). It was the Constitution that was different, not the attitudes of those who "left Europe".

Also, they weren't always "small differences in religious beliefs", but I won't get into that here.

quote:

---

Your values are more in line with the people you point fingers at than they are with the founding principles of this country.

---

Nope. You have an anachronistic view of the founding of this nation. I disagree with the ultimate conclusions they came to for the 1st amendment, but you seem to have a very libertarian view of total neutrality in terms of religion that didn't exist then as it does today.

quote:

---

Sure, Christians have behaved un-Christian like.

When Mohhommedens behave this way, they are exactly folly their book.

---

If/when Muslims start attacking the 1st amendment, be sure that I'll be defending it against them just as hard as I do here now.

People are acting like the 1st amendment is the problem and the situation is so dire we must get rid of it, when the 1st amendment is actually the solution. It was the solution 250 years ago and it's the solution today.