People who can't articulate their reasoning usually don't have a reason beyond "I just don't like it."

The statue bothers me because it is an idol, idolatry is demonic. Our ancestral tradition in the West is smashing idols, not enduring them to be built among us.

Bull Meachem said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

You seemed to be shocked that someone wouldn't really be bothered by either one. What about the statue bothers you?

---

Are you kidding me? Very few non-Indian people would want a giant 100ft half man/half monkey Hindu statue erected in their neighborhood. What is wrong with you? Why are you dying on these weird hills?

---

I get all of that. Why does it bother you?

---

Because when you immigrate to another country, you're expected to assimilate to their culture...not the other way around.

I can't erect a billboard near my neighborhood...why would I want a giant statue of another culture's god?

That is the crux of the issue. People liked their community the way it is, and are pushing back at the insinuation that we should be the ones to change, not those coming over.

---

You realize how flimsy that is, right? Nobody is asking you to change when they build these statues.

---

I don't want to be like India, I want Indians to be like us. Does that count as an explanation? You think Korea wants to become like another country? China? Only predominantly or traditionally white countries are really asked to do this, and then ridiculed or insulted if they have ANY problem with other foreign cultures erecting monstrosities.

You are making me adopt a more anti-immigrant approach lol. A lot of Indians probably think like you and that honestly never fully occurred to me until now. Makes me only want to keep the Christian ones or the ones who at least reject half monkey Hindu man.

Zobel said:

---

The statue bothers me because it is an idol, idolatry is demonic. Our ancestral tradition in the West is smashing idols, not enduring them to be built among us.

---

It's also ok to state "it is weird and completely foreign to me" as a reason.

But like a female, Bull can't comprehend how not everyone would think exactly like him on every issue.

Hardcore Greg said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

You seemed to be shocked that someone wouldn't really be bothered by either one. What about the statue bothers you?

---

Are you kidding me? Very few non-Indian people would want a giant 100ft half man/half monkey Hindu statue erected in their neighborhood. What is wrong with you? Why are you dying on these weird hills?

---

I get all of that. Why does it bother you?

---

Because when you immigrate to another country, you're expected to assimilate to their culture...not the other way around.

I can't erect a billboard near my neighborhood...why would I want a giant statue of another culture's god?

That is the crux of the issue. People liked their community the way it is, and are pushing back at the insinuation that we should be the ones to change, not those coming over.

---

You realize how flimsy that is, right? Nobody is asking you to change when they build these statues.

---

I don't want to be like India, I want Indians to be like us. Does that count as an explanation? You think Korea wants to become like another country? China? Only predominantly or traditionally white countries are really asked to do this, and then ridiculed or insulted if they have ANY problem with other foreign cultures erecting monstrosities.

You are making me adopt a more anti-immigrant approach lol. A lot of Indians probably think like you and that honestly never fully occurred to me until now. Makes me only want to keep the Christian ones or the ones who at least reject half monkey Hindu man.

---

So no Hinduism? Where do we stop?

Hardcore Greg said:

---

Zobel said:

---

The statue bothers me because it is an idol, idolatry is demonic. Our ancestral tradition in the West is smashing idols, not enduring them to be built among us.

---

It's also ok to state "it is weird and completely foreign to me" as a reason.

But like a female, Bull can't comprehend how not everyone would think exactly like him on every issue.

---

Why the attempt at an insult?

I do comprehend, which is why I asked you to articulate why you didn't like it. You refused to do so.

Bull Meachem said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

You seemed to be shocked that someone wouldn't really be bothered by either one. What about the statue bothers you?

---

Are you kidding me? Very few non-Indian people would want a giant 100ft half man/half monkey Hindu statue erected in their neighborhood. What is wrong with you? Why are you dying on these weird hills?

---

I get all of that. Why does it bother you?

---

Because when you immigrate to another country, you're expected to assimilate to their culture...not the other way around.

I can't erect a billboard near my neighborhood...why would I want a giant statue of another culture's god?

That is the crux of the issue. People liked their community the way it is, and are pushing back at the insinuation that we should be the ones to change, not those coming over.

---

So I'm assuming you believe that Catholicism shouldn't exist in this country and you're equally offended by their churches being built. The Founders of this country were overwhelmingly Protestant, so clearly they should not have allowed Catholics build churches here. They should have definitely made them convert, right?

And you said their statue isn't making you change anything.

---

This can't be a real opinion. You can't see the difference between a new establishing nation/culture, and one that's existed for a couple hundred years?

Zobel said:

---

The statue bothers me because it is an idol, idolatry is demonic. Our ancestral tradition in the West is smashing idols, not enduring them to be built among us.

---

I can respect that but how do you align it with the First Amendment? Our ancestral tradition was also to be 95%+ Protestant. Is Catholicism, Judaism, and any other religion a problem as well?

Counterpoint, maybe society needs more good shepherds to run for office. We've seen how to opposite has gone.

AgGrad99 said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

You seemed to be shocked that someone wouldn't really be bothered by either one. What about the statue bothers you?

---

Are you kidding me? Very few non-Indian people would want a giant 100ft half man/half monkey Hindu statue erected in their neighborhood. What is wrong with you? Why are you dying on these weird hills?

---

I get all of that. Why does it bother you?

---

Because when you immigrate to another country, you're expected to assimilate to their culture...not the other way around.

I can't erect a billboard near my neighborhood...why would I want a giant statue of another culture's god?

That is the crux of the issue. People liked their community the way it is, and are pushing back at the insinuation that we should be the ones to change, not those coming over.

---

So I'm assuming you believe that Catholicism shouldn't exist in this country and you're equally offended by their churches being built. The Founders of this country were overwhelmingly Protestant, so clearly they should not have allowed Catholics build churches here. They should have definitely made them convert, right?

And you said their statue isn't making you change anything.

---

This can't be a real opinion. You can't see the difference between a new establishing nation/culture, and one that's existed for a couple hundred years?

---

At some point they were all new.

It wasn't a problem for our country when the First Amendment was written because only free white men could become naturalized citizens. And, at that time, ten of the thirteen colonies had state churches.

At that time naturalization also required that a person "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name, the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject." So none of this dual nationality shenanigans were contemplated either.

And it wasn't a problem for the next two hundred-odd years because our immigration laws prohibited immigration from areas that would bring in significant numbers of non-Christians.

This entire issue is very simple. The United States was a republic where the nation (a cultural or ethnic community) and the state (the political entity) were one and the same. It had a troublesome inheritance because of slavery, obviously, and endured a bloody civil war and much strife because of it. But that fixed relationship between the nation and the state was fixed until 1965. At that time 85% of the US population was white, around 12% was black, and 3% was everyone else.

All of this struggle and confusion etc is downstream of the fact that, as Adams said, our laws were made for a moral and religious people - but this isn't moralism or religion in the abstract. He was describing the people that the laws were made for - the people of America, descriptively: those people, there, who lived there at that time. John Jay described it as "one united people - a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by they their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence."

Our nation was of a character that we welcomed people from all parts of the earth to live here in peace, and even become citizens. But that was turned on its head, intentionally, to result in a complete overthrow of the people.

Now the laws made for that people are being used to against that people, people are saying we're a nation of ideas (we're not). But can you define those ideas? No. Can you screen for citizens by adherence to those ideas? No. Both such questions are against the ideas, somehow. It is absurd.

Bull Meachem said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

You seemed to be shocked that someone wouldn't really be bothered by either one. What about the statue bothers you?

---

Are you kidding me? Very few non-Indian people would want a giant 100ft half man/half monkey Hindu statue erected in their neighborhood. What is wrong with you? Why are you dying on these weird hills?

---

I get all of that. Why does it bother you?

---

Because when you immigrate to another country, you're expected to assimilate to their culture...not the other way around.

I can't erect a billboard near my neighborhood...why would I want a giant statue of another culture's god?

That is the crux of the issue. People liked their community the way it is, and are pushing back at the insinuation that we should be the ones to change, not those coming over.

---

You realize how flimsy that is, right? Nobody is asking you to change when they build these statues.

---

I don't want to be like India, I want Indians to be like us. Does that count as an explanation? You think Korea wants to become like another country? China? Only predominantly or traditionally white countries are really asked to do this, and then ridiculed or insulted if they have ANY problem with other foreign cultures erecting monstrosities.

You are making me adopt a more anti-immigrant approach lol. A lot of Indians probably think like you and that honestly never fully occurred to me until now. Makes me only want to keep the Christian ones or the ones who at least reject half monkey Hindu man.

---

So no Hinduism? Where do we stop?

---

We need to heavily limit the importation of people from bizarre third world foreign cultures. It's probably too late. But clearly, they cannot be trusted to not upend and completely change your community if you let too many in. I am not for outlawing religions, just bringing fewer people from those religions in. I DON'T WANT TO BE LIKE INDIA. How is this offensive?

Bull Meachem said:

---

Zobel said:

---

The statue bothers me because it is an idol, idolatry is demonic. Our ancestral tradition in the West is smashing idols, not enduring them to be built among us.

---

I can respect that but how do you align it with the First Amendment? Our ancestral tradition was also to be 95%+ Protestant. Is Catholicism, Judaism, and any other religion a problem as well?

---

This is why you should be very careful about who you let in. Do you celebrate the islamification of Dearborn Michigan and MN and consider them pinnacle examples to emulate? Why not?

I mean to illustrate how strongly Jefferson felt about this, of other Europeans! he wrote:

Quote:

---

Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies.

Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another.

It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.

---

How much more people from even further distant cultural traditions?

Quote:

---

At some point they were all new.

---

And at some point, we also became an established culture...

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Quote:

---

And to your last point, when these intelligent, hard working Americans climb the ladder and wind up in a position to hire, who do you think they'll prefer? The data is very clear on this, Indians have a massive in-group bias when it comes to hiring. They're going to H1B another 20 of their own, even if they've never been to their homeland.

---

This is incorrect, the data on this involves exclusively first generation immigrants hiring H1Bs and other first generation immigrants. There is no data set to suggest what you claim here.

---

I think you are saying this in good faith, so I am going to respond as such.


"this is incorrect" is cooked books just like crime data that list Jose Hernandez as white.

I work EXCLUSIVELY in tech with more than a few companies that have big shops in NTX and Austin and the second that the head of support or a department has an Asian name, support becomes exclusively Asian.

I detailed this on the UT/Cornyn thread:

With a Fortune 100 company that I have worked with for 15+ years, they used to have the best support in the country. People swore by it. You might get an Asian, Hispaniic or Arabic accent if you called after hours, but the support was exclusively American and from Plano and Santa Clara.

After the head of support was replaced by an Indian, you started talking to Indians exclusively. I asked and they mentioned that they were in India at first, but then they exclusively mentioned Plano and I asked questions about their office (been there dozens of times) and they knew details. Eventually every person I talk to is out of the Plano office, but was never an English first language person.

A government entity I work with hired a very nice Indian guy from the area and within a year, a quarter of his staff had left/fired and were replaced with Indian names.


Call me racist. Call it anecdotal, I've seen it more than once and it's more than a pattern in my life at this point.

I know tons of sharp and amazing technologists that are Indian/Asian and completely assimilated. That being said I have seen too much to give your statement the benefit of the doubt with reality.

Hardcore Greg said:

---

reineraggie09 said:

---

Maybe it's not political office but it's something. My in-laws are from Rockwall and have attended Lake Pointe a few times. My FIL is an ordained minister and the most godly man I know. He and I both share skepticism of megachurches. I think Josh's teaching are generally sound but something doesn't add up.

---

Man, I would actually be extremely disappointed if he turns out to be a phony. I just don't see it at all. Hoping that's not the case.

---

same…I've listened to him quite a bit. One of the most convicting, well known, pastors out there. Interested to hear what some might see wrong with him - I've never been to the church.

Who said it was offensive? I think you really want to be a victim.

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

At some point they were all new.

---

And at some point, we also became an established culture...

---

Like language, culture is ever evolving and never static. Jews might be the closest group we have to an "established culture" and even modern-day Jews are different from their original creed.

Hardcore Greg said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

Zobel said:

---

The statue bothers me because it is an idol, idolatry is demonic. Our ancestral tradition in the West is smashing idols, not enduring them to be built among us.

---

I can respect that but how do you align it with the First Amendment? Our ancestral tradition was also to be 95%+ Protestant. Is Catholicism, Judaism, and any other religion a problem as well?

---

This is why you should be very careful about who you let in. Do you celebrate the islamification of Dearborn Michigan and MN and consider them pinnacle examples to emulate? Why not?

---

I'll answer your question honestly if you'll answer mine. No, I have serious concerns about Islam's compatibility with U.S. values. I don't think that most Muslims can jive their religious views with the Enlightenment ideas of our Constitution.

Now again, at our founding, we were 95% protestant. Should we allow for Catholicism to transform our nation, which it did in some aspects?

Bull Meachem said:

---

Who said it was offensive? I think you really want to be a victim.

---

He's black!?!?!?!





;-)


A little levity for a discussion of a silly-ass picture being taken so seriously by so many for different reasons.

Culture is downstream of demographics. You're confusing the causality here.

It's like saying "wow soccer is more popular now I bet that's why more people immigrated"

Catholicism was a major part of the history and founding of the colony of Maryland, it's not like it arrived to the country later.

Zobel said:

---

Catholicism was a major part of the history and founding of the colony of Maryland, it's not like it arrived to the country later.

---

Yet 95% of the country was Protestant. So again, should we be upset that the influx of Italians and the Irish transformed us away from the Protestant founding.

No

Bull Meachem said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

Zobel said:

---

The statue bothers me because it is an idol, idolatry is demonic. Our ancestral tradition in the West is smashing idols, not enduring them to be built among us.

---

I can respect that but how do you align it with the First Amendment? Our ancestral tradition was also to be 95%+ Protestant. Is Catholicism, Judaism, and any other religion a problem as well?

---

This is why you should be very careful about who you let in. Do you celebrate the islamification of Dearborn Michigan and MN and consider them pinnacle examples to emulate? Why not?

---

I'll answer your question honestly if you'll answer mine. No, I have serious concerns about Islam's compatibility with U.S. values. I don't think that most Muslims can jive their religious views with the Enlightenment ideas of our Constitution.

Now again, at our founding, we were 95% protestant. Should we allow for Catholicism to transform our nation, which it did in some aspects?

---

I appreciation your honest demeanor. More of this.

Bull Meachem said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Catholicism was a major part of the history and founding of the colony of Maryland, it's not like it arrived to the country later.

---

Yet 95% of the country was Protestant. So again, should we be upset that the influx of Italians and the Irish transformed us away from the Protestant founding.

---

Wow, no respect for mi gente bringing our love of genuflecting and La Virgin....on everything....to the table?!

I had no idea who Josh Howerton is, but he is absolutely right that racism and mass immigration are bad and get conflated with each other. I agree that Bo French's post was stupid because it's making Republicans look bad. The complaints about foreigners should be directed at those who refuse to assimilate, not a selective picture of UT students among 100,000 other fans.

I support immigration levels that keep population growth modest. Massive immigration causes traffic congestion, which would cause the quality of roads to decline faster. Also, the rapid increase has strained America's beleaguered schools, which literally don't have room for all these students. In addition, massive immigration would further tighten the supply of affordable housing for purchase or rent. Furthermore, there would be an increased demand for water, electricity, and other public services. Most importantly, there would be increased competition for jobs. Scaling back legal migration and cracking down on illegal immigration would ensure an improved quality of life for current US citizens.

The safety of a republic depends on the energy of a common national sentiment, a uniformity of principles and habits, the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice, and a love of country which will almost always be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.

You can't have that with mass immigration.

I thought it was common knowledge that mexicans are sip T-shirt fans?

Because having them in the classroom will automatically convert all students, right?

On the other hand, I'm sure you're OK with pride flags, gender ideology as core curriculum, or, shoot, even Darwinian evolution (which has largely been abandoned as a sufficient explanation for biological life and history)?

Nvmd

The Ten Commandments are a summary of the foundation of our moral and legal system. They are the sum of the moral law.

pride flags, gender ideology, and Darwinian evolution are not. Well, at least not of the moral and legal system this country was founded upon.

Bull Meachem said:

---

People who can't articulate their reasoning usually don't have a reason beyond "I just don't like it."

---

Yeah, I just don't like this and don't want it here. I don't want to slowly become India. Is that not reason enough? These countries would lose their sh** if we started flooding in and changing their culture. Look at all of the trash on the ground, treating our country like it is their dump. One of the built in flaws of their country is that too many of them truly think they are better than everyone else. Vastly superior. They have "caste systems" in their own country. Obviously there are plenty of exceptions, which is why we should ONLY be taking in Christian Indians, if any at al.

I don’t want Third World religious ceremonies taking place in my community’s public waterways. https://t.co/efhgtVR4eL

— Brandon Gill (@realBrandonGill) March 26, 2026

One of the comments, from a fellow Indian...

Quote:

---

That's why I send my kids to private school. I'm not dealing with public bs.

---

So they aren't going to A&M?