reply to post by SaturnFX
Your in favor of banning a group because they -might- do something criminal...not as a religious ceremony, but someone from their flock may do
something illegal.
Gotcha.
Don't be so fast to claim victory,
Actually, that is pretty much how all law works. The main reason we lock criminals up, is because their commission of the crime is a strong indicator
that they will commit more crimes. Punishment is a part of the reason, but prevention is the biggest reason.
More important, banning Mosques, is not the same as banning the religion, or a group.
It has been fairly strongly established that the building of a Mosque has a high frequency of resulting in lawlessness of radical Muslims within the
community where the Mosque was built. This justifies a communities right to have a say over whether or not a Mosque is built. Say, immigrants from
Afghanistan want to build a mosque using Taliban financing.
religious wackjobs want us to amend the constitution
So I am a religious wack job now?
There is no need to amend the constitution, unless you can prove that preventing the building of a Mosque prevents the practice of the religion.
Being that there are practicing Muslims in places where there are no Mosques, and I don't think that argument could be won.
Once again, how is this different than communities banning strop clubs and bars? You have yet to address this point.
By the way, you are not quoting the teachings of Christ, you are deluding yourself a bit there.
I did not ever think you were satanic
This other is from different posts, but I thought I would address it here.
I don't entirely disagree with your post on socialism and capitalism, although I think it is a bit off topic. I think a market economy balanced by a
democratic style government (republics are a form of democracy) with injections of socialism is the final answer, and where, hopefully we will all
eventually go. A market economy and a capitalistic society are almost the same thing, but not quite. Capitalism is a market economy, always, but a
market economy is not always capitalism. Capitalism means private ownership of assets, while pure capitalism could exclude public assets, still there
must be an exchange of goods and services. Market economies could eliminate ownership of property through public assets, where control of assets is
handled through a barter system. It is a debatable distinction, but thought I would mention it.
Consider this thread for example...a religion (christianity) feels threatened by a different religion, so wants to make precidence to eliminate
free speech for all in order for them to be comfortable.
This certainly isn't my reason for starting this thread, nor has it been the basis for my arguments. While I follow the teachings of Christ, I also
follow other religious teaching, Wicca being one. My Christian roots are more founded in the Gnostic faith. I rarely go to church, and am not
associated with any mainstream, organized religion.
My debate centers around the reality that our constitution clearly gives us the right to restrict religions participation in politics, and many
Christian groups are far more involved than they should be, IMO. Freedom of religion does not restrict a communities right to restrict religious
activities that threaten the community. Islam's well recorded intrusion into local politics greatly justifies the ability of communities refusal to
allow them to build community centers, that will most likely be used to violate separation of church and state laws, impose the religion on others,
and create hostilities within the community to drive out non-Muslims.
The right to exercise religion, does not include the right to impose that religion on others.
I would go even further. If Muslims create themselves an isolated community, that acts as a state within a state, enforcing its laws in violation of
U.S. laws, then our government should act in defense of its sovereignty, shut down this state within our state, tear down the infrastructure that
creates this state within our borders, and treat the inhabitants as foreign invaders.
The same way we should treat any group that tries to establish its own state within our state, operating under its own laws.
A violation of the separation of church and state, is a violation of U.S. law.
