Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ah, so it's your genetic material that makes you a "historical American". Good thing nothing bad ever came from people trying to argue politics based on genetic material.
What are you talking about? What do you think La Raza, numerous black advocacy groups, jewish groups etc do? Your dismissive attitude of the founding stock of America is why Johnny come lately immigrants are culturally destructive.
It's a bit strange for an adult with a high school civics understanding to suggest that we should be able to pick and choose which places of worship move into land they legally own. This thread's existence is unmoored from the legal realities of the US, regardless of what you feel about Islam or religion in general.
Wanting a place of worship does not constitute as extremism. Denying a group their right to worship on the basis of their faith, however, does.
well,
People continue to treat the Constitution as if it’s some all-knowing mystical force, beamed to us from outer space by omniscient alien gods who were absolutely certain of the universal, never-changing fact that Senators should serve six-year terms, rather than five.
Well... maybe the founding fathers were wrong about a lot of stuff. Is that even a possibility? We shouldn’t always have to debate what the founding fathers’ original intent might have been. Does it matter what Thomas Jefferson might have been thinking? Are we seven years old? Can’t we ever just figure stuff out on our own?
As was Judaism. To say nothing of the wars Protestants and Catholics got up to in European history.
Your equivalency between a culture's historical struggles and a foreign invading Islamic force is bogus. Because muslims have their internal squabbles a Christian force should come and conquer them?
Christians and Europeans don't have a problem with Judaism. The problem they've had is with an ethnic group that migrated in and subverted their society.
Jews, Christians of all sects getting along is not an issue.
People continue to treat the Constitution as if it’s some all-knowing mystical force, beamed to us from outer space by omniscient alien gods who were absolutely certain of the universal, never-changing fact that Senators should serve six-year terms, rather than five.
No one does that. No one. Its treated as the law and it's noted over and over and over again that if you want to change it there is a process to do that.
Quote:
Well... maybe the founding fathers were wrong about a lot of stuff. Is that even a possibility? We shouldn’t always have to debate what the founding fathers’ original intent might have been. Does it matter what Thomas Jefferson might have been thinking? Are we seven years old? Can’t we ever just figure stuff out on our own?
They were wrong about stuff. It's why there is a process to make changes. Get busy.
No one does that. No one. Its treated as the law and it's noted over and over and over again that if you want to change it there is a process to do that.
They were wrong about stuff. It's why there is a process to make changes. Get busy.
The groundwork for the First was laid when Jefferson and Madison hammered out the religious protection clause in Virginia, and both were adamant in their writings that it had nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with keeping the state out of people's minds. Jefferson was instrumental in shaping the arguments that Madison used to argue for the First. Yes, there were several attempts to water it down to "sects" or "denominations", but they were thrown out during debate.
The Founding Fathers were smart, educated and they thought deeply about things. The idea that the First was meant to protect Christians only , but they kinda-sorta forgot to put it in writing is hardly worth considering.
You can cherry pick what Jefferson said and intended, but people who have ties to old America have an innate understanding that islam was not existent and not in anyone's mind or concern. The founders were clearly talking about Western European whites and freedom of and from a state Christian-Judeo religion.The constitution was for and by white Europeans and no one and nothing else was even in their mind. Post 1970's revisionism doesn't change the constitution. That's why there was a 13th, 14th etc amendment.
You don't understand American history. The constitution wasn't understood to have meanings that progressive think currently until well into mid and late in the 20th century. Progressive have changed the constitution through revisionism and not the proper procedure.
I think it's telling how progressive argue for muslim rights but against Christian rights, and are strong 1st amendment supporters for muslims but not free speech. They want to restrict 1st and 2nd amendment rights for whites but are stong advocates for 1st amendment rights for islam. When you cut through it, it's just anti-white racism motivating it.
Maybe they should start worrying about how many Christian churches get built in Moslem countries. The enormous double standard is truly pathetic.
But they are an American organization whose stated mission is to support Muslims living in the US. Would you expect Christian organizations operating in Malaysia or Indonesia, for example, to take up the cause of mosques in the US, or would you expect them to focus on helping Christians build churches in those countries?
Guys, it's pretty simple. If you can legally put a synagogue on a plot, you can legally put a mosque there. City governments obstructing that are breaking the law. Then they get sued.
You can dream up all the alternate scenarios you like - about how the First should only apply to Christianity or how the better genetic material should prevail or how the US really should be at war with Islam - but in the real world, it really is cut-and-dried.
If we even assume Islam and mosques, costumes etc is a bona fide religion, and I don't, the government can discriminate when it has an interest to do so. If it ever had an interests to do so this would be it. But we have progressivism that loves subversion in the West, so they can't see the interest in restricting what is really a detrimental socio-political entity.
The real matter is not what rights Islam has in America, the real matter is people from foreign, incompatible cultures should not be allowed to immigrate and they weren't until after 1965. The real issue is immigration period needs to come to an end at this point, and many decades need to pass to try to assimilate all these 10s of millions who have been let in since 1965.
You can cherry pick what Jefferson said and intended, but people who have ties to old America have an innate understanding that islam was not existent and not in anyone's mind or concern. They were clearly talking about Western European whites and freedom of and from a state Christian-Judeo religion.The constitution was for and by white Europeans and no one and nothing else was even in their mind.
Asks for sources.
Gets sources.
Decides to argue based on "innate understanding" instead.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
