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)
