I don’t disagree that some of things said by the Founding Fathers are out of date (if that’s what you’re saying). But at the same time people love to invoke the founding principles put in place by the founding fathers as an argument while not understanding (or ignoring) what they were going for at the time.
How one religion could be better or worse than another is beyond me. They’re all made up stories and fairy tails with some moral steerings along the way. What’s the difference between an islamic extremest who wants to kill americans, or white supremacist who wants to kill black people or burns down a mosque of peaceful muslims praying? The VAST MAJORITY of ALL PEOPLE do not want to go on killing sprees, regardless of religion. ALL RELIGIONS contain extremists who will kill others in the name of their religion. I think Islam is just as peaceful and violent as any other religion. In the bible there are verses promoting child abuse, spousal abuse and massive death and destruction, and a guy was willing to kill his own kid because a voice in the sky told him to. What’s the difference?
3 Likes
By that logic, if we want to invoke the founding principles of the country as an arguement then everything following said arguement should solely benefit WASP Men. Many people reject anything asserted by conservatives based on “founding principles,” for this very reason - depending on who uses it, it comes off as coded, dog-whistle politics.
If you want to be a reasonable human being (as I chose to be) you ignore their initial intentions (like religious freedom only benefitting sects of Christianity) to interpret their principles as they apply to our current world. Otherwise, I’m only 3/5 a person, inalienable rights don’t apply to me, and I may as well be picking cotton for Washington and Jefferson’s ancestors. Like come’on Raj, you can do better.
I am truly convinced you can be reasonable when you don’t feel like being an Ann Coulter-lIke troll. Oddly enough, you seem to bounce back and forth between those states almost seamlessly.
2 Likes
That’s because what you wrote about the Founding Fathers isn’t true, and we read things other than the National Policy Institute.
3 Likes
There is no historical document, no letter, no quotation that backs the idea that the founding fathers were talking solely about Christianity when addressing religious liberty. Madison was very clearly talking about all religion:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions43.html
1 Like
I would look at how different religious populations fare in the West and decide if they’re culturally compatible in the US.
For example If I were tell you a muslim is exponentially more likely to commit an act of terror than a non-muslim would that matter?
Or I would look at how other western countries have been effected by growing muslim populations. Belgium, France, Germany, Sweden - do any of the societal effects muslims have brought to these countries something you wish to duplicate in America?
What if I told you a citizen is statistically (exponentially) more likely to commit an act of terror if that citizen has right-wing and white nationalist ideas - we should get rid of them too, right?
4 Likes
You literally do this in regards to immigration ALL THE TIME.
I swear they made South Park’s latest season after trolls like you.
3 Likes
[quote=“MoreMuscle, post:2994, topic:223365, full:true”]
By that logic, if we want to invoke the founding principles of the country as an arguement then everything following said arguement should solely benefit WASP Men. [/quote]
Best to be honest, because that’s what they intended.
There’s no dog whistle, they intended the country to be for WASPs. If you are going to invoke the “we must follow the founding principles” argument then go all the way.
Personally I reject the founding principles must be followed. We can respect the ideas that came before us, use them as guide but update things to suit modern time.
Do you do anything other than the guilt by association fallacy?
I don’t want to get rid of anyone, I would like to amend laws for future immigrants.
Wrong. I get this argument launched against me all the time. That limiting immigration goes against the founding principles.
There’s no such fallacy in what I wrote - I explained that your position is wrong and that the reason we generally know it is wrong because we read reliable sources that posit good and accurate history, and you don’t, thus your erroneous beliefs.
1 Like
This was going to be my answer, well said!
3 Likes
No, you’re making an argument that there is a specific reason Muslims shouldn’t be a part of our society - their higher propensity to commit terror. Well, the same is true of right-wing white nationalists - so they shouldn’t be a part of our society either, for the same reasons.
Right?
1 Like
You love to link me to some group you Dislike. This time national policy Institute - its literally in your post.
Going forward there should not be Islamic immigration to America
From the guy who thinks we need to keep all Muslims out of the United States because some are terrorists…
Outstanding.
2 Likes
I think we should keep Canadian’s out, personally.
2 Likes
Guys I just want to live in a place where women can walk around safe at night.
Something German and French women use to be able to do