Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on July 17, 2011, 11:31:23 AM
-
He makes an interesting point. What about the fact that a mosque combines religion and sharia law? Aren't they quasi-political organizations? Never really thought about it from that angle.
Herman Cain Says U.S. Communities 'Have the Right' to Ban Mosques
Published July 17, 2011
FoxNews.com
Presidential candidate Herman Cain on Sunday defended his opposition to a new mosque in Tennessee, expressing concern about Shariah law and declaring Americans "have the right" to ban mosques in their communities.
Cain, who stirred controversy this year by saying he would be uncomfortable appointing a Muslim to his Cabinet if elected, first expressed concern Thursday about the controversial mosque in Murfreesboro, Tenn. That mosque has been the subject of demonstrations and legal challenges in the wake of the controversy over the so-called "Ground Zero mosque" in New York City.
Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Cain said he came out against the Tennessee mosque after talking to members of that community. He said the site is "hallowed ground" to Murfreesboro residents and that they're concerned about "the intentions of trying to get Shariah law" -- the code governing conduct in Islamic societies.
"It's not just a mosque for religious purposes. This is what the people are objecting to," he said.
Asked whether any community should be able to prohibit a mosque, Cain said they should.
"They have the right to do that. That's not discriminating ... against that particular religion. That is an aspect of them building that mosque that doesn't get talked about," he said.
Cain again argued that residents were objecting to "the fact that Islam is both a religion and a set of laws, Shariah law. That's the difference between any one of our other traditional religions."
But while Cain said he expects the case to come before the Supreme Court, a local judge has allowed the project to go forward.
Cain has taken heat in the past for his comments about Muslims. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which accused him of using "bigoted" language with his Cabinet comments, said in a statement Friday that his opposition to the Tennessee mosque is an example of "Islamophobia."
Cain, the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza, is struggling to break into the top tier of candidates in the 2012 Republican primary race. He expressed confidence Sunday that he could have a strong showing in an upcoming Iowa straw poll.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/17/cain-says-communities-have-right-to-ban-mosques/?test=latestnews
-
I'm no lawyer, but I don't see how we can discriminate on a religious basis?
The sharia law argument is bogus IMO...
-
You are batshit crazy if you think people are trying to get Sharia Law passed in the US
Made up issue for the stupid vote.
-
You are batshit crazy if you think people are trying to get Sharia Law passed in the US
Made up issue for the stupid vote.
They're pushing it in Europe aren't they?
I like Muslims, we have some here. They're nice people, they make a lot of money and pay a lot of taxes. They have one Mosque in the whole half of this State. The Minaret is only two stories, and it's dwarfed by the Presbyterian church down the road.
I don't want an invasion of low class, uneducated savages that happen to be Muslim (like in Europe), but I welcome these intelligent Middle Easterners.
-
You are batshit crazy if you think people are trying to get Sharia Law passed in the US
Made up issue for the stupid vote.
You sure about that? I recall BF posting a thread (or multiple threads) talking about this.
-
Many communities have blocked religious institutions, on grounds that the neighborhood/area will depreciate, there will be extra traffic and noise, vehicles parking on the street, etc.
The way Cain phrases this seems to imply he wants to do it only for certain religions.
While on the issue, another quote by Cain is quite interesting, coming from his mouth: "Our Constitution guarantees separation of church and state".
-
Many communities have blocked religious institutions, on grounds that the neighborhood/area will depreciate, there will be extra traffic and noise, vehicles parking on the street, etc.
The way Cain phrases this seems to imply he wants to do it only for certain religions.
While on the issue, another quote by Cain is quite interesting, coming from his mouth: "Our Constitution guarantees separation of church and state".
That's no different from not allowing black people to move into a community. Cain is obviously desperate for the Tea Party Vote hanging himself with a Jim Crow type philosophy
-
Do you think the tea party is racist vince?
-
Do you think the tea party is racist vince?
No, I think the Tea Party is a extremist group of the GOP party. There are a number of people in it that are members of the Klu Klux Klan and white supremacist movement but as a whole, I don't think so
-
Wow, expecting the constitution to be followed is now an extremist position, I guess I must be an extremist ::)
-
cain's NH and IOWA operations are falling apart. He's running for nationally syndicated talk show host, silly rabbits. he'll toss out as many of these one-liners to piss people off, working to be the poor man's rush.
-
cain's NH and IOWA operations are falling apart. He's running for nationally syndicated talk show host, silly rabbits. he'll toss out as many of these one-liners to piss people off, working to be the poor man's rush.
Do you really know anything about Islam? It is not simply a religion, it is a complete governmental, social, economic, and legal system. And since the system is from allah, it superceeds all man made laws. Not being allowed to build a Mosque, Church, or Synagog does not prevent someone from practicing their religion. I fail to see why you can't understand this simple shit
-
Do you really know anything about Islam? It is not simply a religion, it is a complete governmental, social, economic, and legal system. And since the system is from allah, it superceeds all man made laws. Not being allowed to build a Mosque, Church, or Synagog does not prevent someone from practicing their religion. I fail to see why you can't understand this simple shit
Right on. America's 100 million Muslims may form a voting block at any moment.
We better pass some damn laws.
-
Right on. America's 100 million Muslims may form a voting block at any moment.
We better pass some damn laws.
What does that have to do with anything? If a church or synagog gets denied permission to build somewhere, not a peep. But as soon as the Islam, Muslim, or Mosque is mentioned discrimination ::)
The constitution guarantee's the right to freedom of religion, no where does it say anything about a right to build a place of worship.
-
...and there goes his election chances...
"Hi, thank yo for calling Pizza Hut, may I take your order.."
-
That's no different from not allowing black people to move into a community. Cain is obviously desperate for the Tea Party Vote hanging himself with a Jim Crow type philosophy
So not allowing a house of worship to be built is the same as not allowing someone to move into a community? Dude if you stretch any further you are going to pull something.
And while we are on the subject, how is that you seem to think everything can somehow be equated to slavery or discrimination against black people?
-
So not allowing a house of worship to be built is the same as not allowing someone to move into a community? Dude if you stretch any further you are going to pull something.
It's absolutely the same, a community will allow religious institutions to move in, but discriminates based on the religion... ::)
-
It's absolutely the same, a community will allow religious institutions to move in, but discriminates based on the religion... ::)
How? You choose what religion you are, you do not choose your skin color.The moment someone tries to outlaw a religion I will be the first one to say its unconstitutional.
-
How? You choose what religion you are, you do not choose your skin color.The moment someone tries to outlaw a religion I will be the first one to say its unconstitutional.
I don't understand? You don't support outlawing any religions, but you do support discriminating against certain religions?
I'm not necessarily against discrimination, but I don't see how we can discriminate based on which religion wants to build.
If we do this to Muslims, can we also do it to Christians and Jews?
-
It's been estimated that upwards of 80% of American mosques have been hijacked by wahhabist Imams with sympathetic ties towards jihadists.
Fuck them and the hulking monstrosities they build that tower over everything else as a sign of their supremacism.
-
I don't understand? You don't support outlawing any religions, but you do support discriminating against certain religions?
I'm not necessarily against discrimination, but I don't see how we can discriminate based on which religion wants to build.
If we do this to Muslims, can we also do it to Christians and Jews?
Its simple you have a constitutional right to freedom of religion, you do not a constitutional right to build a church, synagog, or mosque. Not having those does not prevent you from practicing your religion.
-
Its simple you have a constitutional right to freedom of religion, you do not a constitutional right to build a church, synagog, or mosque. Not having those does not prevent you from practicing your religion.
I disagree.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
If all mosques are banned, then that would prohibit the free exercise of practicing a religion, because an inherent part of that religion consists in gathering with like-minded members of the same faith and this constitutes a "church" (mosque, etc).
I disagree with Cain.
-
I disagree.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
If all mosques are banned, then that would prohibit the free exercise of practicing a religion, because an inherent part of that religion consists in gathering with like-minded members of the same faith and this constitutes a "church" (mosque, etc).
I disagree with Cain.
what law is there or is he promoting that is banning all mosques?
-
I disagree.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
If all mosques are banned, then that would prohibit the free exercise of practicing a religion, because an inherent part of that religion consists in gathering with like-minded members of the same faith and this constitutes a "church" (mosque, etc).
I disagree with Cain.
Look at the passage, Congress cannot create a religion and force you to join it or stop you from practicing your religion. You can join with like minded members of your faith in your back yard a church.... is not essential to the practice of said religion.
-
what law is there or is he promoting that is banning all mosques?
I said "if" ??? I didn't say there is a law banning all mosques
the first part of my post was disagreeing with Kazan, the last line of my post was disagreeing with Herman Cain in that U.S. communities do not have the right to ban mosques
in a constitutional democracy, majority votes do not trump basic human liberties (unlike a majoritarian democracy). I think Cain is confusing the two, I think banning mosques is banning a human liberty (free exercise of religion which inherently includes the gathering of like-minded members of the same faith).
-
I said "if" ??? I didn't say there is a law banning all mosques
the first part of my post was disagreeing with Kazan, the last line of my post was disagreeing with Herman Cain in that U.S. communities do not have the right to ban mosques
in a constitutional democracy, majority votes do not trump basic human liberties (unlike a majoritarian democracy). I think Cain is confusing the two, I think banning mosques is banning a human liberty (free exercise of religion which inherently includes the gathering of like-minded members of the same faith).
LOL well fact of the matter is you dont have the right to assemble or practice religion anywhere you want...you dont have the right to free speech anywhere you want...etc...etc...
-
Look at the passage, Congress cannot create a religion and force you to join it or stop you from practicing your religion. You can join with like minded members of your faith in your back yard a church.... is not essential to the practice of said religion.
I agree with your post except for the bold part. The gathering of like minded members of the faith is by definition a church. If they want to erect a shed in a back yard to protect against rain when the like minded members gather then they have a right. If they want to include windows in that building then they have a right. If they want to buy the property next to the backyard so people wont have to walk through the yard...they have a right.
-
I agree with your post except for the bold part. The gathering of like minded members of the faith is by definition a church. If they want to erect a shed in a back yard to protect against rain when the like minded members gather then they have a right. If they want to include windows in that building then they have a right. If they want to buy the property next to the backyard so people wont have to walk through the yard...they have a right.
No you don't you are confusing a right with privilege, the constitution was designed to limit the power of the federal government. If the constitution is not being violated then it is up to the state or local government to decide.
-
LOL well fact of the matter is you dont have the right to assemble or practice religion anywhere you want...you dont have the right to free speech anywhere you want...etc...etc...
I didn't say people have the right to assemble or practice religion anywhere they want. For example, me and my 3 guy friends do not have a right to practice religion in the upstairs bathroom of a house owned by the hot lady down the street. That was not my point. You misunderstood.
I also did not say that people have free speech anywhere they want.
Religious groups do have a right to build churches and gather with like minded members of the same faith assuming they follow the same guidelines that anyone else would have to face. If religious group X is banned from building churches solely because they are members of religious group X, then this violates a basic human liberty of free practice of their religion.
-
No you don't you are confusing a right with privilege, the constitution was designed to limit the power of the federal government. If the constitution is not being violated then it is up to the state or local government to decide.
yep....
-
I didn't say people have the right to assemble or practice religion anywhere they want. For example, me and my 3 guy friends do not have a right to practice religion in the upstairs bathroom of a house owned by the hot lady down the street. That was not my point. You misunderstood.
I also did not say that people have free speech anywhere they want.
Religious groups do have a right to build churches and gather with like minded members of the same faith assuming they follow the same guidelines that anyone else would have to face. If religious group X is banned from building churches solely because they are members of religious group X, then this violates a basic human liberty of free practice of their religion.
correct they do, but they dont have the right to build one anywhere they want...
so cains point is valid
-
correct they do, but they dont have the right to build one anywhere they want...
so cains point is valid
I agree they don't have a right to build one anywhere they want. A mosque can't sue to have the white house torn down in order to build a mosque to practice their religion. Again, that is not my point.
I'm talking about when mosque's are banned solely for being a mosque. My original post was to Kazan and I disagreed with his following statement "you do not a constitutional right to build a church, synagog, or mosque. Not having those does not prevent you from practicing your religion."
My point is that if a hypothetical president or hypothetical congress created a law tomorrow banning all mosques in the united states, it would be unconstitutional. Kazan is saying it would not be unconstitutional. That is my main point of disagreement.
-
I agree they don't have a right to build one anywhere they want. A mosque can't sue to have the white house torn down in order to build a mosque to practice their religion. Again, that is not my point.
I'm talking about when mosque's are banned solely for being a mosque. My original post was to Kazan and I disagreed with his following statement "you do not a constitutional right to build a church, synagog, or mosque. Not having those does not prevent you from practicing your religion."
My point is that if a hypothetical president or hypothetical congress created a law tomorrow banning all mosques in the united states, it would be unconstitutional. Kazan is saying it would not be unconstitutional. That is my main point of disagreement.
It would only be unconstitutional if they banned Islam.
-
correct they do, but they dont have the right to build one anywhere they want...
so cains point is valid
It's not an issue of being able to build anywhere. Of course there are building codes, historical sites, zoning issues, etc etc.
The article said this: Asked whether any community should be able to prohibit a mosque, Cain said they should.
Any community should not be able to prohibit a mosque. A church (to make it easier to understand) is an inherent part of religion. The members of christianity are practicing their religion by attending church for example. To ban church, is to ban the practice of their religion. It is unconstitutional (not to mention immoral) for a majority vote to trump basic human rights (the right being = free exercise of religion (this includes the following of building codes/zoning issues/buying of property/etc etc)) When the practice of a religion is banned solely because of the religion itself, then it is unconstitutional.
-
It would only be unconstitutional if they banned Islam.
The banning of mosques is an indirect ban on islam
If some president banned all christian prayer, all reading of the Bible, all churches, all gathering of christians, all writings on christian subjects....would this be unconstitutional since they did not ban Christianity itself? Or is my point more accurate in that these aspects are inherently a crucial part of the practice of christianity.
-
The banning of mosques is an indirect ban on islam
If some president banned all christian prayer, all reading of the Bible, all churches, all gathering of christians, all writings on christian subjects....would this be unconstitutional since I did not ban Christianity itself? Or is my point more accurate in that these aspects are inherently a crucial part of the practice of christianity.
You are missing the point that a building -church, mosque,synagog - is not essential to practice ones religion. Banning the Bible, Koran, Torah is essential to practice ones religion.
Suppose I create a religion, our place of worship is a penis shaped building. You think that I am going to be allowed to build them?
Which brings up the question what does church mean? Does it mean a building? No it means a gathering of people, so when Jesus said he was building his church, he did not mean a brick and mortar building.
-
-
You are missing the point that a building -church, mosque,synagog - is not essential to practice ones religion. Banning the Bible, Koran, Torah is essential to practice ones religion.
Suppose I create a religion, our place of worship is a penis shaped building. You think that I am going to be allowed to build them?
A church/mosque/synagog is a gathering of like-minded members of the same faith, and that (the gathering of like-minded members of the same faith) is essential to practice ones religion. I understand your point but I don't think many people who are christians would say that having a church is not a crucial part to practicing christianity, same with muslims, etc. It is part of their religion.
You would not be allowed the penis shaped building because having a building in the shape of a penis is not an inherent part of the religion. And if you want to say "i want to create a religion built on the worship of penis shaped buildings, then that of course gets trickier but I would have to say no because it is not a recognized religion, just like I can't start a religion that includes a ritual of pissing on cop cars. Needless to say, this is irrelevant to the allowance of churches or mosques.
-
Which brings up the question what does church mean? Does it mean a building? No it means a gathering of people, so when Jesus said he was building his church, he did not mean a brick and mortar building.
Churches, Mosques, Synagogs are tradition, understanding the real meaning of what church means is where the disconnect lies. A gathering of Christians in my backyard is a church.
-
Which brings up the question what does church mean? Does it mean a building? No it means a gathering of people, so when Jesus said he was building his church, he did not mean a brick and mortar building.
exactly.
But to ban the brick and mortar is to ban the gathering itself. If a politician banned all christian churches (using your defintion of "Church"), then that would mean that any house in which christians gathered together for religious purposes would also be banned, which would mean any outdoor shed in which christians gathered together for religious purposes would also be banned, which would mean that any back yard in which christians gathered together for religious purposes would also be banned, and so on and so on.
By your definition, If it is constitutional to ban a "church", then it is constitutional to ban "any gathering of people for religious purposes". And this my friend, I shall call unconstitutional.
-
No. There are limits like anything else.
-
exactly.
But to ban the brick and mortar is to ban the gathering itself. If a politician banned all christian churches (using your defintion of "Church"), then that would mean that any house in which christians gathered together for religious purposes would also be banned, which would mean any outdoor shed in which christians gathered together for religious purposes would also be banned, which would mean that any back yard in which christians gathered together for religious purposes would also be banned, and so on and so on.
By your definition, If it is constitutional to ban a "church", then it is constitutional to ban "any gathering of people for religious purposes". And this my friend, I shall call unconstitutional.
Then I guess we will just have to call them buildings, banning a gathering of people is unconstitutional.
-
Then I guess we will just have to call them buildings, banning a gathering of people is unconstitutional.
buildings can be banned for being buildings (not the right type of safety material, not meeting standards, codes, location problems, etc etc)
but mosques can't be banned for only being mosques (i.e. a gathering of muslims)
Agree or disagree?
-
buildings can be banned for being buildings (not the right type of safety material, not meeting standards, codes, location problems, etc etc)
but mosques can't be banned for only being mosques (i.e. a gathering of muslims)
Agree or disagree?
I disagree because they can gather anywhere, just like Christians and Jews can. The building it self is tradition and not essential to worship or practice ones religion.
-
I disagree because they can gather anywhere, just like Christians and Jews can. The building it self is tradition and not essential to worship or practice ones religion.
but they're not being banned solely because of building codes. They are also being banned because of the worshipping that goes on within the building.
The article said: Asked whether any community should be able to prohibit a mosque, Cain said they should.
"any" includes communities who disagree with the gathering together of muslims. I don't think a simple matter such as building permits is the issue here. I think they are being banned solely because muslims are gathering together, not because the building is shaped like a penis or any other issue with the building itself.
-
I guess you could ban them based on some part of the Patriot act which talks about gathering places for terrorism. Islam shouldn't be banned based on our Constitution, it should be irradicated based on the fact that the religion is a danger to the rest of mankind.
-
buildings can be banned for being buildings (not the right type of safety material, not meeting standards, codes, location problems, etc etc)
but mosques can't be banned for only being mosques (i.e. a gathering of muslims)
Agree or disagree?
I think you misunderstood the article he was basing his views on the idea that mosques sometimes promote sharia law...so they are infact a political organization of sorts...
-
I think you misunderstood the article he was basing his views on the idea that mosques sometimes promote sharia law...so they are infact a political organization of sorts...
I don't think that has any relevance. IF sharia law promoted...say.....the beating of women, then the beating of women would already be covered by existing laws (so no need to address the mosque issue). I don't think the promotion of some mosques of a political organization merits the right to ban mosques at the will of the community.
-
I don't think that has any relevance. IF sharia law promoted...say.....the beating of women, then the beating of women would already be covered by existing laws (so no need to address the mosque issue). I don't think the promotion of some mosques of a political organization merits the right to ban mosques at the will of the community.
no again you misunderstand...he feels they try to pass sharia law for everyone...not just them so they will try to pass it so that you have to abide by it...
-
I don't think that has any relevance. IF sharia law promoted...say.....the beating of women, then the beating of women would already be covered by existing laws (so no need to address the mosque issue). I don't think the promotion of some mosques of a political organization merits the right to ban mosques at the will of the community.
cain doesnt advocate the outright ban of mosques, he went on to explain that it should be taken with caution and that if they feel they are promoting sharia law then they should have the right to refuse their establishing a church in their community...
DID YOU EVEN READ THE ARTICLE?
-
no again you misunderstand...he feels they try to pass sharia law for everyone...not just them so they will try to pass it so that you have to abide by it...
the issue of who has political authority is a separate issue from should any community have a right to ban mosques.
Any enforcement of sharia law (a beating, a killing, etc) is already covered under existing laws. The U.S. government (in theory) has a monopoly on force, so the political organizations that promote sharia law would not be able to enforce sharia law given the already existing political structure and existing laws. I guess I should admit that the only way they would be able to enforce sharia law is by social methods (shunning those who don't follow, etc) as Mill discusses in On Liberty. But this would not be an issue because that would not be applicable to the entire society, only those members who specifically endorse sharia law.
I don't think the sharia law issue has any merit.
-
cain doesnt advocate the outright ban of mosques, he went on to explain that it should be taken with caution and that if they feel they are promoting sharia law then they should have the right to refuse their establishing a church in their community...
DID YOU EVEN READ THE ARTICLE?
To put in simple terms, if communities have a right to come together for a majority vote to ban mosques in said community, then I highly doubt there would be hardly any "caution" and I have a hunch that most people who vote to ban the mosque will claim that they feel the mosque is promoting sharia law.
Which I think the issue I've already discussed in this thread is the real underlying issue.
-
the issue of who has political authority is a separate issue from should any community have a right to ban mosques.
Any enforcement of sharia law (a beating, a killing, etc) is already covered under existing laws. The U.S. government (in theory) has a monopoly on force, so the political organizations that promote sharia law would not be able to enforce sharia law given the already existing political structure and existing laws. I guess I should admit that the only way they would be able to enforce sharia law is by social methods (shunning those who don't follow, etc) as Mill discusses in On Liberty. But this would not be an issue because that would not be applicable to the entire society, only those members who specifically endorse sharia law.
I don't think the sharia law issue has any merit.
FACE PALM!!!
I agree its already addressed what he is saying is that they will try to OVERRIDE US law with SHARIA LAW...
-
FACE PALM!!!
I agree its already addressed what he is saying is that they will try to OVERRIDE US law with SHARIA LAW...
I'm saying it wont happen, can't happen, and is therefore not an issue.
-
I'm saying it wont happen, can't happen, and is therefore not an issue.
And im saying that he is saying that the FACT they will try...makes them a political organization...
-
And im saying that he is saying that the FACT they will try...makes them a political organization...
Could you define "political organization"?
Do you mean a political party that tries to get laws passed that fit their own agenda, or do you mean a political authority that imposes force to implement their rules that might contradict U.S. law, or do you have a different meaning in mind?
I'm having trouble seeing how either option merits a ban.
-
Could you define "political organization"?
Do you mean a political party that tries to get laws passed that fit their own agenda, or do you mean a political authority that imposes force to implement their rules that might contradict U.S. law, or do you have a different meaning in mind?
I'm having trouble seeing how either option merits a ban.
first of all he doesnt advocate the right ban mosques he says that if they feel A, as in singular promotes sharia law and is therefor a political organization they should have the right to not allow them in their community...
show me you have actually read the article before we continue...
-
first of all he doesnt advocate the right ban mosques he says that if they feel A, as in singular promotes sharia law and is therefor a political organization they should have the right to not allow them in their community...
show me you have actually read the article before we continue...
just reread it for a refresher. To sum up my feelings: I don't think any community has a right to ban a mosque for it being solely a mosque (that includes what is taught in that mosque, despite whether members of the community agree with that teaching). I don't think any mosque deserves to be banned even if they promote sharia law. I don't think sharia law is a relevant issue that poses any danger in our political climate and I don't think its possible to pose any danger in our political climate. I find the fears of the community unwarranted and I believe they are acting unconstitutional but trying to cleverly cover it up. To put simply, I find the issue appalling.
I'm going to assume they advocate a "political organization", I still don't see how that merits a ban, which lead me to ask you how do you define "political organization"?
-
This might be a stupid question because I do not know too much about sharia law, but does any of it violate basic human rights, our constitutional rights or state laws? :D
If so, then it should be not allowed. Period, no exceptions.
-
just reread it for a refresher. To sum up my feelings: I don't think any community has a right to ban a mosque for it being solely a mosque (that includes what is taught in that mosque, despite whether members of the community agree with that teaching). I don't think any mosque deserves to be banned even if they promote sharia law. I don't think sharia law is a relevant issue that poses any danger in our political climate and I don't think its possible to pose any danger in our political climate. I find the fears of the community unwarranted and I believe they are acting unconstitutional but trying to cleverly cover it up. To put simply, I find the issue appalling.
I'm going to assume they advocate a "political organization", I still don't see how that merits a ban, which lead me to ask you how do you define "political organization"?
You should do some reading about sharia law and what radical Islamists want to do.
-
You should do some reading about sharia law and what radical Islamists want to do.
I think I understand the point, but I still don't see how that merits banning mosques. Let's say that there is a mosque down the street advocating the killing of all women who take off the whatever they call it. There is no recognition of the authority of that political force (for example, I would say "they have no authority to pass and enforce laws"). So, for instance, let's say some woman who attends that mosque decides to take hers off, and she is killed. Whoever it was that did the killing (assuming the justice system works) will be put in jail, just like if a guy killed a woman in a non-mosque setting. The sharia law or the promotion of sharia law is not the issue, it's the enforcement of sharia law that I think people are worried about (i.e. the killing) . The justice system already set up by a recognized political authority (our government) would rectify any harsh punishments (murder for example) that would result from the teaching at that mosque.
Our basic human rights are already established and cannot be removed by a majority vote in constitutional democracy. We do not live in a majoritarian democracy (My city cant vote in slavery). Anyone who violates such laws (by killing, making people slaves, etc) are already banned by our laws. I don't see how that gives communities a "right" to ban any mosque if they fear (even falsely) that the mosque in the neighborhood is promoting sharia law. I still say that Cain is wrong in saying any community has a right to ban mosques (ignoring such practical issues as already stated like not following building codes, etc etc). To allow the banning of some mosques (which does include the possibility of banning all mosques) is a violation of recognized human rights and I don't think the sharia law aspect changes that (as discussed in the first paragraph)
-
This might be a stupid question because I do not know too much about sharia law, but does any of it violate basic human rights, our constitutional rights or state laws? :D
If so, then it should be not allowed. Period, no exceptions.
bingo.
"they'' would have to take over local, city, state governments and try to repeal all sorts of laws.
finally, when 'they' take over the supreme court, they could declare 'their' laws legal.
simple, huh?
;D