Texas Muslims Want to Build Homes and a Mosque. The Governor Says No.

Joined
Sep 15, 2015
Messages
24,013
Reputation
9,758
Daps
103,082
Reppin
Detroit
Which religion do you think the founders meant when they wrote on the back of the dollar note 'In God we trust' ?
Some of the various Christian sects hated each other in Europe and the founders didn't want that here.
Freedom of religion was to guard against it, if we are to go by the original meaning when it was written. They were not debating freedom of religion for Muslims. Just stop it.
I'm all for Muslims worshipping freely but you are being dishonest here.
Again, you're projecting a limited interpretation of what the Founders intended. The phrase "In God We Trust" wasn't added to US currency until the 19th century, long after the Constitution was written. And the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom doesn't make exceptions for any specific religions. They focused on ensuring no one religion would dominate the others, which means *all* religions were to be treated equally under the law. Trying to suggest otherwise is ignoring the clear constitutional intent to protect religious freedom for EVERYONE. Stop trying to argue the constitution and just be honest.
 
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
404
Reputation
76
Daps
723
Which religion do you think the founders meant when they wrote on the back of the dollar note 'In God we trust' ?
Some of the various Christian sects hated each other in Europe and the founders didn't want that here.
Freedom of religion was to guard against it, if we are to go by the original meaning when it was written. They were not debating freedom of religion for Muslims. Just stop it.
I'm all for Muslims worshipping freely but you are being dishonest here.
Please Google when in god we trust was placed on the dollar bill.
The reason behind religious freedom was because in Europe the religion was the state religion. That's what the monarchy is. Prince Charles is the head of the church of England.
If you read the writing by the founding fathers, they took great pain to put that point across to other European states. The part about all men being equal was a shot at the Queen of England. It was never meant to address the Black / White issue.
 

voiture

Superstar
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
3,807
Reputation
218
Daps
15,646
Again, you're projecting a limited interpretation of what the Founders intended. The phrase "In God We Trust" wasn't added to US currency until the 19th century, long after the Constitution was written. And the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom doesn't make exceptions for any specific religions. They focused on ensuring no one religion would dominate the others, which means *all* religions were to be treated equally under the law. Trying to suggest otherwise is ignoring the clear constitutional intent to protect religious freedom for EVERYONE. Stop trying to argue the constitution and just be honest.
Noted.
Back to my question though....whoever put 'In God we trust' on the bill (I stand corrected not being the founders). Which religion did they meant? Be honest
 

voiture

Superstar
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
3,807
Reputation
218
Daps
15,646
Please Google when in god we trust was placed on the dollar bill.
The reason behind religious freedom was because in Europe the religion was the state religion. That's what the monarchy is. Prince Charles is the head of the church of England.
If you read the writing by the founding fathers, they took great pain to put that point across to other European states. The part about all men being equal was a shot at the Queen of England. It was never meant to address the Black / White issue.
Still doesn't answer question...see my post above
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2015
Messages
24,013
Reputation
9,758
Daps
103,082
Reppin
Detroit
Noted.
Back to my question though....whoever put 'In God we trust' on the bill (I stand corrected not being the founders). Which religion did they meant? Be honest
Doesn't matter who added it or when. Btw, it was put on paper money in the 1950s, not by the Founders. And even then, it doesn't define US law or override the Constitution. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion for EVERYONE, not just Christians. There's no asterisk saying "only if it's your version of God." Stop grasping for symbolism to justify discrimination, because it will never hold up.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
319,489
Reputation
-34,107
Daps
628,146
Reppin
The Deep State
I'm not defending intolerance, nor am I hand-waving it. You keep trying to exploit justice to launder your hate and bigotry, and no one is buying it, except for the people who are just as dumb and bankrupt as you are. The point is, in this country, they have rights, which are being violated, under the guise of "concern" or "protecting the greater good." But you know that's not what this is about, which is why you had to deflect from the fact that they are following Texas law and Federal law by introducing a bunch of irrelevant fear-mongering and unfounded claims. They are being preemptively denied, so even before they've had a chance to prove anything, they're being judged. Just say you're fine with discrimination when the right group is being targeted.
They’re not following the law, though. Or they may not, based on how this thing is marketed.

Even christian religious communities have enough sense and foresight not to front load the project with its religious exclusivity. They’re smart enough to enact De Facto exclusion, NOT De Jure exclusion. :ufdup:
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
319,489
Reputation
-34,107
Daps
628,146
Reppin
The Deep State
Doesn't matter who added it or when. Btw, it was put on paper money in the 1950s, not by the Founders. And even then, it doesn't define US law or override the Constitution. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion for EVERYONE, not just Christians. There's no asterisk saying "only if it's your version of God." Stop grasping for symbolism to justify discrimination, because it will never hold up.
You have to argue this way in order to ignore the way the very supporters of this project mismanaged their promotion of this community by front loading how religiously focused it was instead of them promoting a neutral area that just so happens to attract certain crowds.

Again. Learn to read the room.
 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
62,864
Reputation
9,558
Daps
172,125
America used to have statues of Muhammad all over the place. I think there are still a few in NYC. It's sad that that the majority have since been torn down.


:ohhh:

The historical record shows two notable instances of Muhammad depictions in U.S. public spaces, with differing outcomes:
New York Courthouse Statue (1902–1955)

Location: Eight-foot marble statue by Charles Albert Lopez adorned the Appellate Division Courthouse at Madison Avenue and 25th Street 3 9.
Design: Depicted Muhammad holding a Quran (left hand) and scimitar (right hand), intended as one of ten "great lawgivers" including Moses and Confucius 5 8.
Removal: Taken down in 1953-1955 after diplomatic pressure from Egypt, Indonesia, and Pakistan, who objected to the representation of Muhammad. The statue was stored in a Newark warehouse and later replaced with Zoroaster 5 8 9.
U.S. Supreme Court Frieze (1935–present)
Location: Marble relief by Adolph Weinman in the courtroom's north wall frieze, depicting Muhammad among 18 historical lawgivers 1 10.
Controversy: In 1997, CAIR requested its removal, citing Islamic prohibitions against depicting prophets and concerns about reinforcing stereotypes (sword imagery). Chief Justice Rehnquist denied the request, stating it honored Muhammad's legal influence without idolatrous intent 4 8 10.

Key Points
  1. Limited Scope: Only two confirmed major public depictions existed - one removed (NY) and one retained (DC) 1 3 10.
  2. Intent vs. Perception: Both were created as tributes to Islamic legal contributions, but later seen as violating Islamic tradition 5 8 9.
  3. Current Status: No evidence suggests widespread historical proliferation or remaining NYC statues beyond these cases. The Supreme Court depiction remains intact with modified educational materials 10 8.

The removal of the New York statue reflected mid-20th century diplomatic sensitivities rather than domestic policy shifts, while the Supreme Court's retention demonstrates evolving approaches to balancing artistic intent and religious respect.

Citations:
Code:
[1] http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/01/14/muhammad-sculpture-inside-supreme-court-a-gesture-of-goodwill/
[2] http://religiousreader.org/a-sculpture-of-muhammad-has-sat-in-the-u-s-supreme-court-since-the-1930s/
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/10/nyregion/a-statue-of-muhammad-on-a-new-york-courthouse-taken-down-years-ago.html
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad
[5] https://telegrafi.com/en/pse-ishte-hequr-statuja-e-muhamedit-ne-new-york/
[6] https://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2015/01/15/1974-after-showing-an-image-of-the-prophet-the-times-apologized/
[7] https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/hwco11/get_your_facts_clear/
[8] https://www.meforum.org/destroying-sculptures-of-muhammad-4491
[9] https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-prophet-represented
[10] https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/17802/how-mohammad-statue-ended-supreme-court
---
Answer from Perplexity: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/am...bcyXnQEWSVGmEjmClSL.7A?utm_source=copy_output
 

88m3

Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
90,388
Reputation
3,768
Daps
161,296
Reppin
Brooklyn
I'm not defending intolerance, nor am I hand-waving it. You keep trying to exploit justice to launder your hate and bigotry, and no one is buying it, except for the people who are just as dumb and bankrupt as you are. The point is, in this country, they have rights, which are being violated, under the guise of "concern" or "protecting the greater good." But you know that's not what this is about, which is why you had to deflect from the fact that they are following Texas law and Federal law by introducing a bunch of irrelevant fear-mongering and unfounded claims. They are being preemptively denied, so even before they've had a chance to prove anything, they're being judged. Just say you're fine with discrimination when the right group is being targeted.

Do you cape for the white man with this much zeal?

Off the rip they want to violate the Fair Housing Act just like your President DJT did and you don't see a problem with it.


fukking fascinating
 
Top