Herman Cain Says U.S. Communities 'Have the Right' to Ban Mosques

[tonymctones]

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...

[Mr. Magoo]

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.

[Kazan]

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.

[Mr. Magoo]

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.

[tonymctones]

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....

[tonymctones]

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

[Mr. Magoo]

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.

[Kazan]

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.

[Mr. Magoo]

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.

[Mr. Magoo]

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.

[Kazan]

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.

[Deicide]

[Mr. Magoo]

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.

[Kazan]

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.

[Mr. Magoo]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

No.  There are limits like anything else. 

[Kazan]

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.

[Mr. Magoo]

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?

[Kazan]

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.

[Mr. Magoo]

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.

[headhuntersix]

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.

[tonymctones]

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...

[Mr. Magoo]

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.

[tonymctones]

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...

[tonymctones]

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?