Herman Cain: Communities should be able to ban mosques

Volt said:
Even "moderate" Islamic countries such as Kuwait, Qatar, and UAE do not have the level of individual freedom guaranteed in Christian, western nations. The only Islamic country that comes close is Turkey. My point is that by and large, Christian nations are much better places to live, partly because Christians are more tolerant people.
Click to expand...

Yea....and we were real tolerant of the Native Americans, weren't we Brent? In fact we were so tolerant that we felt it was our Christian duty to kill all the mother fuckers! God damn you're stupid! LOL
 
Dixie said:
What about when the "religion" calls for implementation of Sharia Law as its stated objective and purpose? You see, what Cain is saying makes sense if you think about it. Our constitution is being used by a group of fanatics to promote the destruction of western civilization, under the guise of it being "their religion" ...and we are willfully going along with it, so as not to appear bigoted or prejudiced. Cain is pointing out there is a difference between honoring freedom of religion and accepting radical Islam.
Click to expand...
Then they have crossed the line between Church and State and should lose their Tax exempt status.....but they still have their first amendment rights.
 
cawacko said:
Maybe I'm overlooking something but I am not seeing how building a mosque will cause the U.S. to have Sharia law no matter how much the people at the mosque may want it. If people at that mosque decide that are going to follow Sharia law and it goes against U.S. laws they will get arrested and prosecuted. (I'm assuming) they can't claim they are following Sharia law in court and that it supercedes the Constitution and win. If someone wants to run for political office claiming they support Sharia law I'm going to assume again that they won't get too far.
Click to expand...
It's a strawman Wacko. The membership of the Mosque are not calling for nor advocating Sharia. It's pure plain bigotry and Cain should be ashamed.
 
Dixie, does all Islam equal radical Islam or this proposed mosque in Tennessee different in some way?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Then they have crossed the line between Church and State and should lose their Tax exempt status.....but they still have their first amendment rights.
Click to expand...

I think that was basically the argument Cain was making, they have crossed the line. While you do have 1st Amendment rights, they don't supersede the 1st Amendment rights of others.
 
cawacko said:
Dixie, does all Islam equal radical Islam or this proposed mosque in Tennessee different in some way?
Click to expand...

I think at this point, we have to conclude that all Islam equals radical Islam, since we don't seem to have many "non-radical" Islamics condemning the radicals. There seems to be a shortage of Muslims who are willing to stand up and defend their religion against this radicalism or denounce Sharia Law. Let's be clear, Sharia Law has NOTHING in common with western law or culture! It is the diametric opposite of what we believe in and advocate. It is the antithesis of our Constitution and principles.

You would not tolerate Baptists or Catholics attempting to codify church law into societal law, you would be strongly opposed to that, and if that were their stated mission, goal, and objective, you would say that communities had the right to reject this belief and advocacy of something contradictory to our very principles. Yet, here are people doing exactly that, and you endorse their right to do so!
 
Dixie said:
I think at this point, we have to conclude that all Islam equals radical Islam, since we don't seem to have many "non-radical" Islamics condemning the radicals. There seems to be a shortage of Muslims who are willing to stand up and defend their religion against this radicalism or denounce Sharia Law. Let's be clear, Sharia Law has NOTHING in common with western law or culture! It is the diametric opposite of what we believe in and advocate. It is the antithesis of our Constitution and principles.

You would not tolerate Baptists or Catholics attempting to codify church law into societal law, you would be strongly opposed to that, and if that were their stated mission, goal, and objective, you would say that communities had the right to reject this belief and advocacy of something contradictory to our very principles. Yet, here are people doing exactly that, and you endorse their right to do so!
Click to expand...

To me it's called living in a free society. No matter what the mosque preaches they cannot do anything about it unless they run for political office and try to change our countries laws and that just isn't going to happen.
 
cawacko said:
To me it's called living in a free society. No matter what the mosque preaches they cannot do anything about it unless they run for political office and try to change our countries laws and that just isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...

But Sharia Law is the antithesis of free society. They believe in, and want to establish, Sharia as law of the land... you okay with that? Cain is simply saying, we have the right, as communities, to reject radical Islam, regardless of whether they want to classify it as "religion." I have the right to protest the KKK establishing itself in my community, it doesn't matter if they call it a church or a mosque, or a den or chapter... I have the right to say NO... HELL NO! NOT IN MY COMMUNITY!
 
Dixie said:
But Sharia Law is the antithesis of free society. They believe in, and want to establish, Sharia as law of the land... you okay with that? Cain is simply saying, we have the right, as communities, to reject radical Islam, regardless of whether they want to classify it as "religion." I have the right to protest the KKK establishing itself in my community, it doesn't matter if they call it a church or a mosque, or a den or chapter... I have the right to say NO... HELL NO! NOT IN MY COMMUNITY!
Click to expand...

I reject radical Islam but that doesn't mean people can't practice their Islamic religion in our country. Part of being in a free society means tolerating dissenting views. Radical Islamists can preach about Sharia Law all they want but it's not going to do anything. I am far from an Islamic expert but I know enough from the Muslims that I went to school with that not all Muslims support the radical view of Islamic extremists.

So you are free to protest till your hearts content but you won't be protesting from a principled Constitutional position that they Constitutionally shouldn't be allowed there. There is nothing conservative about that position.
 
Dixie said:
I think at this point, we have to conclude that all Islam equals radical Islam, since we don't seem to have many "non-radical" Islamics condemning the radicals. There seems to be a shortage of Muslims who are willing to stand up and defend their religion against this radicalism or denounce Sharia Law.
Click to expand...
You must not be looking very hard. They're all over, in their native land. It's one reason support is greater from not native Muslims than native ones (i.e. Arabs).
 
cawacko said:
I reject radical Islam but that doesn't mean people can't practice their Islamic religion in our country. Part of being in a free society means tolerating dissenting views. Radical Islamists can preach about Sharia Law all they want but it's not going to do anything. I am far from an Islamic expert but I know enough from the Muslims that I went to school with that not all Muslims support the radical view of Islamic extremists.

So you are free to protest till your hearts content but you won't be protesting from a principled Constitutional position that they Constitutionally shouldn't be allowed there. There is nothing conservative about that position.
Click to expand...

All Muslims that I've ever known, support Sharia Law. Let's be clear, no one is denying anyone the right to practice their religion. Communities DO have the right to reject things masquerading as religion, which contradict the basic principles of western democracy. One thing is not the other thing! You are attempting to use religion as a shield of protection for viewpoints which directly contradict our way of government and way of life, and this was never the intent of the Founding Fathers or the Freedom of Religion found in our Constitution.
 
WinterBorn said:
"[Holding the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch]
King Arthur: How does it... um... how does it work?
Sir Lancelot: I know not, my liege.
King Arthur: Consult the Book of Armaments.
Brother Maynard: Armaments, chapter two, verses nine through twenty-one.
Cleric: [reading] And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, "O Lord, bless this thy hand grenade, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy." And the Lord did grin. And the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths, and carp and anchovies, and orangutans and breakfast cereals, and fruit-bats and large chu...
Brother Maynard: Skip a bit, Brother...
Cleric: And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
Brother Maynard: Amen.
All: Amen"
Click to expand...

King Arthur 1,2,4

Cleric, or someone No,,,,, 3

King Arthur 3
 
Dixie said:
All Muslims that I've ever known, support Sharia Law. Let's be clear, no one is denying anyone the right to practice their religion. Communities DO have the right to reject things masquerading as religion, which contradict the basic principles of western democracy. One thing is not the other thing! You are attempting to use religion as a shield of protection for viewpoints which directly contradict our way of government and way of life, and this was never the intent of the Founding Fathers or the Freedom of Religion found in our Constitution.
Click to expand...

How would Sharia Law ever take hold in the U.S.?
 
cawacko said:
How would Sharia Law ever take hold in the U.S.?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter how it would take hold, what matters is, we have the right to reject things that contradict our system of government and way of life, as well as seeking to destroy our Constitution and undermine our Constitutional freedoms. You're still stuck on ..."aww, what's the big harm?" and the "harm" is endorsing and advocating something in direct conflict with the Constitution. Any religious group has the right to practice their religious beliefs, as long as those religious beliefs conform to our way of life and Constitutional values. People can't sacrifice virgins into a volcano because it's their religious belief... this would violate other more prudent Constitutional rights. That's not denying someone the right to practice their religion, it's requiring their religion to conform to our culture and rules.
 
Dixie said:
Doesn't matter how it would take hold, what matters is, we have the right to reject things that contradict our system of government and way of life, as well as seeking to destroy our Constitution and undermine our Constitutional freedoms. You're still stuck on ..."aww, what's the big harm?" and the "harm" is endorsing and advocating something in direct conflict with the Constitution. Any religious group has the right to practice their religious beliefs, as long as those religious beliefs conform to our way of life and Constitutional values. People can't sacrifice virgins into a volcano because it's their religious belief... this would violate other more prudent Constitutional rights. That's not denying someone the right to practice their religion, it's requiring their religion to conform to our culture and rules.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that at all. That to me is crazy totalitarian type talk. There is nothing conservative, Republican or American about that. The example you use is just as I said earlier, they cannot break our laws no matter what Sharia Law claims so all it is is just rhetoric.
 
cawacko said:
I don't agree with that at all. That to me is crazy totalitarian type talk. There is nothing conservative, Republican or American about that. The example you use is just as I said earlier, they cannot break our laws no matter what Sharia Law claims so all it is is just rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Well then, you aren't comprehending what is being said. I can't help you comprehend better, if you want to remain ignorant that is your business. I just wanted to explain the position taken by Cain, and the position held by a good many people who would be offended you said they were "un-American."

The example you gave doesn't apply because it doesn't matter at this point. No one thinks the small insignificant contingent of Muslims in America would be able to implement Sharia Law... that is not the argument here! The KKK isn't going to be able to implement Klan law either... does that mean we shouldn't bother rejecting their message and instead, embrace their right to preach hate? The example I gave about casting virgins in the volcano is better... would you support a church who believed that was their right to do?

There is a distinction between supporting the right to freely worship a religion and endorsing something counter to our beliefs as a society, in the name of religion. If you can't discern the difference, I can't help you understand. It's like saying you support Athiests religious rights to destroy Christianity... it simply doesn't fly. You can either support religious freedom, or you can support the destruction of religious freedom and implementation of Sharia.... you can't do BOTH!
 
Dixie said:
Well then, you aren't comprehending what is being said. I can't help you comprehend better, if you want to remain ignorant that is your business. I just wanted to explain the position taken by Cain, and the position held by a good many people who would be offended you said they were "un-American."

The example you gave doesn't apply because it doesn't matter at this point. No one thinks the small insignificant contingent of Muslims in America would be able to implement Sharia Law... that is not the argument here! The KKK isn't going to be able to implement Klan law either... does that mean we shouldn't bother rejecting their message and instead, embrace their right to preach hate? The example I gave about casting virgins in the volcano is better... would you support a church who believed that was their right to do?

There is a distinction between supporting the right to freely worship a religion and endorsing something counter to our beliefs as a society, in the name of religion. If you can't discern the difference, I can't help you understand. It's like saying you support Athiests religious rights to destroy Christianity... it simply doesn't fly. You can either support religious freedom, or you can support the destruction of religious freedom and implementation of Sharia.... you can't do BOTH!
Click to expand...

Yes I do embrace the legal ability of the KKK to preach what they want. That in no way means I support what they are saying but they have the 1st amendment right to their f'd up views. And we already said U.S. laws supercede any religious belief so if some religious people threw virgins in a volcano they would be on trial for murder.

To me, someone is going to use the exact same argument you are using against Islamic mosques for some issue you and I support.

Herman Cain has a lot of positive things to say. Why he is wasting his time on this issue is beyond me and it is not helping him gain any tranction with the American public or more specifically Republican primary voters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top