Herman Cain: Communities have right to ban mosques

Originally posted by SaturnFX


Notice how I left out the references to muslims...because that argument is a glenn beck fantasy that I won't even bother addressing.

Funny how you also left out the reference to Vladimir Lenin, who RECOMMENDED that Marxists/Leninists/Communists/FabianSocialists/whatever you want to call them ALLY THEMSELVES WITH MUSLIMS, in order to destroy western civilization.

Glenn Beck is only pointing out that Lenin's followers are following Lenin's advice. You might want to educate yourself a bit more, and read a few books about the Unholy Muslim/Marxist Alliance. Try Robert Spencer or Pamela Geller or Jamie Glasov or David Horowitz.

Just like to say some brilliant points of views on this thread, its worth a read for anyone.

I will leave this thread to create something for my self, maybe something about how different religions view their version of coming messiah and how it all fits in when concerning prophecy in all sides.

This thread deals with the smaller picture I just want to move on to the bigger picture so we know where it is all going to lead to.

This is just one pawn in the larger chess game going on out there.

Originally posted by Tib50

Originally posted by SaturnFX


Notice how I left out the references to muslims...because that argument is a glenn beck fantasy that I won't even bother addressing.

Funny how you also left out the reference to Vladimir Lenin, who RECOMMENDED that Marxists/Leninists/Communists/FabianSocialists/whatever you want to call them ALLY THEMSELVES WITH MUSLIMS, in order to destroy western civilization.

Glenn Beck is only pointing out that Lenin's followers are following Lenin's advice. You might want to educate yourself a bit more, and read a few books about the Unholy Muslim/Marxist Alliance. Try Robert Spencer or Pamela Geller or Jamie Glasov or David Horowitz.

Irrelevant
If someone designs the first automobile, and suggests its use will be for warfare..does that mean the automobile will only ever be used for warfare?

A philosopher weighed in on a political structure, that does not mean the political structure is destined for that outcome only (see capitalism/imperialism).

Democracy leads to anarchy, which is mob rule -Plato

Plato...pretty good philosopher, but here I think he is half wrong. anarchy is no government, a democracy will actually lead to forced socialism, with mob rule. The only thing worst than one arse running things is all arses running things.

You need to detatch from the propaganda by the corporatists for a bit, and examine not a few historical philosophers, but the actual philosophy in a genuine way. If your programmed enough to see only bad where they tell you to, then yep, you will see bad. But, your not being honest with yourself and in a way, your reinforcing a religion and illusion they have assigned you.

Nothing pure works well..socialism, democracy, communism, monarchy, etc...they are all failed manmade inventions, however, if we mix a bit here and there, we do come up with a pretty decent structure...and until we are advanced enough for a venus project style technocracy, then we must deal with what we got...and we should be putting a bit of gray matter behind it.

Originally posted by Tib50
So you were "just atheist", "never satanic", eh? But had lots of satanic friends?

I was Catholic for my youth...close enough.

Why is it, I wonder, that "atheists" rarely attack any other religion but Christianity?

Islam is too easy to attack.
I go for the difficult target...my thoughts on islam are less than flattering. I actually see -some- redeeming value in christianity..and with that, I see endless disaster cases also in the flock.

Many of the messages Christ supposedly gave are filled with wisdom, its a pity his followers tend to ignore what he said.

And why is it, as Lynn Marzulli pointed out (though I don't agree with his apocalyptic views), that all the "Messages from Pleidians", all the messages and contacts with "aliens", always target Christianity, in more or less veiled ways?

Because if they targetted a skeptic, they may have to answer questions verses default be worshipped? Who knows...what is a pleadian anyhow? a star person? a center earth person? guess it depends on who you ask, but those whom get contacted appearantly are trained not to ask but just feel inferior...religion programs a person to be a servent to anyone whom can look magical.

What is it about Christianity that drives aliens, atheists and satanists into a frenzy?

Christianity (and variations thereof) is the most popular religion on earth. I always find it amusing to see this overwhelming supermajority are constantly screaming persecution. Atheists see the head dog as the one to gripe at overall...why spend time bickering with a wiccan when they are not trying to push policy across the nation...
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.
Ya, I have an issue with that...and thats pretty much the norm.

Aliens? prove it

Satanists is the parody of the catholic church (anton levay's thing anyhow)...so it stands to reason that they would be attacking just that. Luciferians have no offical opinion about christianity beyond its incorrect.

Maybe because it is real. And Jesus Christ Our Lord and Saviour is real. And Our Heavenly Father is real.
That's why.

Or it could be the more sane reason I gave above.
Frankly, the way the christians behave, I reckon JC would rather hang out with people like me...at least I don't try and anthropomorphicise a deitys likes and dislikes to justify cruel, demeaning, illegal, and immoral acts to be blanketed across everyone.

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.

reply to post by The time lord


Thanks for your contributions, I will look for your thread.

Sounds like a good subject.

reply to post by SaturnFX


I would like to say, I think you have done a good job of representing the opposing side. That is important to any thread.

We have had a lot of good contributions.

Originally posted by Tib50
"Implied point" ??? You are defending a Pagan Moon God Death Cult whose attempts to establish the "cruel and unusual punishments" of Sharia Law in the United States DIRECTLY VIOLATES THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

Nothing to do with "implied"---I just thought it was glaringly self-evident.

I am not "defending" any religion but pointing out the law. While I don't disagree with your point about the eighth amendment, I really don't feel that the two things are related.

You've somehow connected a discussion about sharia law with the ability of people to allow or disallow a religious place of worship in a town. I'd be happy to discuss either, but kindly pick one.

As to the eighth amendment, the idea of cruel and unusual is a debatable one because the limits of that specific law are certainly subject to change over time based on the people's current mood. There may come a day when some of the tenants of sharia's punishments might not be so unpalatable. Not hoping for it, just pointing that out.

Sorry for the delay, was on a mini-vacation.

Peace
KJ