It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Politics/Legislation/Elections => Topic started by: trapeze on July 17, 2011, 09:36:23 PM
-
Presidential candidate Herman Cain on Sunday defended his opposition to a new mosque in Tennessee, expressing concern about Shariah law and declaring Americans "have the right" to ban mosques in their communities.
Cain, who stirred controversy this year by saying he would be uncomfortable appointing a Muslim to his Cabinet if elected, first expressed concern Thursday about the controversial mosque in Murfreesboro, Tenn. That mosque has been the subject of demonstrations and legal challenges in the wake of the controversy over the so-called "Ground Zero mosque" in New York City.
Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Cain said he came out against the Tennessee mosque after talking to members of that community. He said the site is "hallowed ground" to Murfreesboro residents and that they're concerned about "the intentions of trying to get Shariah law" -- the code governing conduct in Islamic societies.
"It's not just a mosque for religious purposes. This is what the people are objecting to," he said.
Asked whether any community should be able to prohibit a mosque, Cain said they should.
"They have the right to do that. That's not discriminating ... against that particular religion. That is an aspect of them building that mosque that doesn't get talked about," he said.
As many of you know, I am no muzzie fan. I find it to be an abominable religion for many reasons. Nevertheless, the Constitution is pretty specific on certain issues and one of them is this whole freedom of religion thingy.
Cain cannot stand for those parts of the Constitution that he likes and ignore those parts he doesn't like. We already have a president like that and quite frankly I am not interested in electing another one.
This pretty much dooms Cain to electoral irrelevancy in my opinion. I await the walkback on this but it won't matter. I liked Cain a lot but I will stand with the Constitution every time. As much as I dislike islam and its batsh*t crazy adherents, they do have the right as Americans to worship as they see fit as long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights, life, liberty or property.
LINK (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/17/cain-says-communities-have-right-to-ban-mosques/?test=latestnews)
LINK to Cain on FNC (http://video.foxnews.com/v/1062128412001/herman-cain-on-fox-news-sunday/?playlist_id=86858)
-
Points in his favor, as far as I'm concerned.
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact". That has impact because it's true.
-
Presidential candidate Herman Cain on Sunday defended his opposition to a new mosque in Tennessee, expressing concern about Shariah law and declaring Americans "have the right" to ban mosques in their communities.
::clapping::
Muslimism not a religion, it's a social construct designed for the conquest and submission of other cultures.
ETA: Chris Wallace was a disrespectful ass of an interviewer.
-
Points in his favor, as far as I'm concerned.
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact". That has impact because it's true.
No it's not but we aren't there yet or anywhere even close.
I guess this is one of those points where we are going to have to agree to disagree.
Words mean things and freedom of religion is freedom for all religions. If they cross the line then that's different but until they do they have the same rights as Americans as Catholics, Jews, Christians, Mormons and every other religion that you care to think of.
-
Something's up at Fox. At the roundtable discussion today on the panel was John Podesta, he is a political operative an ex Clinton cabinettista and employee of George Soros. Why don't they put Donald Rumsfeld on the panel? Oh, heck no, but it's OK to put government stooges on it.
OR are they sending a message; what is it and to whom is it sent?
-
It's not a religion, they are trying to kill us and it's not a secret anymore.
The question at my house was "is Michele going to be Prez or VP?"
In other words, these two are the ticket, who's on top?
-
There most certainly are fake, made up religions, Scientology being the most obvious. Scientology is a joke and wouldn't enjoy any Constitutional protection at all if it wasn't for Clinton accepting it in exchange for campaign contributions from Hollywood.
But islam is a real religion. I find it every bit as disgusting as satanism but it's still a real religion. And as long as its practitioners don't violate our laws (or insist that sharia law take the place of our laws) then they deserve Constitutional protection.
Allow one community to ban islam and mosques and you set a precedent for another community to ban Judaism and synagogues. Or whatever.
A community can decide where a religious group can worship and where they can't (zoning laws, for instance) but they can't ban them outright. That's anti-Constitutional and anti-American.
-
It's not a religion, they are trying to kill us and it's not a secret anymore.
The question at my house was "is Michele going to be Prez or VP?"
In other words, these two are the ticket, who's on top?
My understanding is that it is the islamic theocracies and the wannabes that are trying to kill us.
We should be doing our best to kill them. One of our problems is that we have been going about it the wrong way. We need to return to the concept of total war in dealing with our enemies. Collateral damages should not be a bad thing in war. Ugly, yes, but total war prevents wars from dragging on forever. Obliterate the enemy and its ability to wage war and that's the end of it.
Anyway, I don't care how you slice it or dice it...coming out against the First Amendment is not a winning presidential strategy. I would say, "Ask McCain about how smart it was to come out against freedom of speech," except he's so stupid and stubborn on the issue that he wouldn't see a problem with it at all.
I will agree that islam is also a political ideology (like, say, nazism) but, sadly, it is quite well established as a religion. Perhaps a Constitutional amendment could be passed to declare islam is not a religion but barring that I am afraid we are stuck with it in our free society.
-
I don't think any Republican candidate is polling muslims.
Herman Cain on the Debt Ceiling with Chris Wallace (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpO92DpKcn4#ws)
-
Perhaps you can look at the issue this way:
If Cain cannot properly navigate this one itty bitty media trap successfully then it doesn't really matter what he says or believes...it's just a matter of time before the weight of cumulative gaffes such as this one crush him.
Ask yourself if Sarah Palin would have stepped in it like this. I don't think she would have.
-
Two issues:
1. Cain should know better by now. He got spanked with his "No Moslems" in his cabinet. The correct thing to do is to offer all the platitudes and then make sure you don't hire any muzzies. With this latest gaffe I predict six weeks and he bows out.
2. Mohammedanism is a death cult that has aspirations to kill every American that they cannot subdue and subjugate. Read 'em and weep. Pretending that they're just misunderstood or haven't been given a chance is beyond foolish and ultimately suicidal.
The only was to survive them in our open society is to keep them tightly constrained, watch them like a hawk, and never ever turn your back on them.
Now, if they were to practice a little rectitude and perhaps have a reformation things might change. I don't see that happening in my lifetime.
-
Say good bye to the man. He gave them the rope to hang him with this time.
-
It's not a religion, they are trying to kill us and it's not a secret anymore.
The question at my house was "is Michele going to be Prez or VP?"
In other words, these two are the ticket, who's on top?
My understanding is that it is the islamic theocracies and the wannabes that are trying to kill us.
We should be doing our best to kill them. One of our problems is that we have been going about it the wrong way. We need to return to the concept of total war in dealing with our enemies. Collateral damages should not be a bad thing in war. Ugly, yes, but total war prevents wars from dragging on forever. Obliterate the enemy and its ability to wage war and that's the end of it.
Anyway, I don't care how you slice it or dice it...coming out against the First Amendment is not a winning presidential strategy. I would say, "Ask McCain about how smart it was to come out against freedom of speech," except he's so stupid and stubborn on the issue that he wouldn't see a problem with it at all.
I will agree that islam is also a political ideology (like, say, nazism) but, sadly, it is quite well established as a religion. Perhaps a Constitutional amendment could be passed to declare islam is not a religion but barring that I am afraid we are stuck with it in our free society.
No, muslims are trying to kill us. And overwhelm us in other ways as well; killing is a last resort.
Islam is a political ideology fronted by a religion. Say what you will about religion, but any "religion" that asserts it has a right to dominate and control all societies, indeed, the world, doesn't get Constitutional protection in my book because it aims to overthrow or subsume our government in the process, using our processes and institutions.
Neighborhoods afflicted with mosques soon find out they've been infiltrated by the enemy; they subvert the local councils/commissioners, drive residents out and then assume control through sheer numbers. It's happening all over the country and it has to stop.
No Christian nor Jewish house of worship does the same and for that reason there is no reason to not afford them Constitutional protection. Islam is not the same.
I'd have stopped at "agree to disagree" if you'd stopped there, but you didn't, so ....... ::cool::
-
Points in his favor, as far as I'm concerned.
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact". That has impact because it's true.
No it's not but we aren't there yet or anywhere even close.
I guess this is one of those points where we are going to have to agree to disagree.
Words mean things and freedom of religion is freedom for all religions. If they cross the line then that's different but until they do they have the same rights as Americans as Catholics, Jews, Christians, Mormons and every other religion that you care to think of.
Local communities have the right to refuse to allow all kinds of things to be built in them. Freedom of religion is not unlimited. The constitution does not apply to local communities. It only prohibits the federal government from making laws prohibiting the exercise of religion.
-
It's not a religion, they are trying to kill us and it's not a secret anymore.
The question at my house was "is Michele going to be Prez or VP?"
In other words, these two are the ticket, who's on top?
My understanding is that it is the islamic theocracies and the wannabes that are trying to kill us.
We should be doing our best to kill them. One of our problems is that we have been going about it the wrong way. We need to return to the concept of total war in dealing with our enemies. Collateral damages should not be a bad thing in war. Ugly, yes, but total war prevents wars from dragging on forever. Obliterate the enemy and its ability to wage war and that's the end of it.
Anyway, I don't care how you slice it or dice it...coming out against the First Amendment is not a winning presidential strategy. I would say, "Ask McCain about how smart it was to come out against freedom of speech," except he's so stupid and stubborn on the issue that he wouldn't see a problem with it at all.
I will agree that islam is also a political ideology (like, say, nazism) but, sadly, it is quite well established as a religion. Perhaps a Constitutional amendment could be passed to declare islam is not a religion but barring that I am afraid we are stuck with it in our free society.
No, muslims are trying to kill us. And overwhelm us in other ways as well; killing is a last resort.
Islam is a political ideology fronted by a religion. Say what you will about religion, but any "religion" that asserts it has a right to dominate and control all societies, indeed, the world, doesn't get Constitutional protection in my book because it aims to overthrow or subsume our government in the process, using our processes and institutions.
Neighborhoods afflicted with mosques soon find out they've been infiltrated by the enemy; they subvert the local councils/commissioners, drive residents out and then assume control through sheer numbers. It's happening all over the country and it has to stop.
No Christian nor Jewish house of worship does the same and for that reason there is no reason to not afford them Constitutional protection. Islam is not the same.
I'd have stopped at "agree to disagree" if you'd stopped there, but you didn't, so ....... ::cool::
Amen, sistah!
-
Say what you will about religion, but any "religion" that asserts it has a right to dominate and control all societies, indeed, the world, doesn't get Constitutional protection in my book because it aims to overthrow or subsume our government in the process, using our processes and institutions.
That will make an interesting federal lawsuit...that is, challenging islam as to its religious legitimacy. I would be pulling for whoever files it but I am afraid it wouldn't stand much of a chance. If a total fraud such as scientology can be recognized as a legitimate religion (and it has) then it's pretty much all over.
At some point though, this may become all academic and even irrelevant. If the muzzies ever do launch the kind of terror attack* in America that I have, quite frankly, been expecting for a very long time then none of this will matter.
"First Amendment? Hey, how's it going? Meet Second Amendment!"
And that will be the end of it. We aren't Europe and never will be.
*Indiscriminate murder and mayhem visited on shopping malls, subways, hospitals, schools, etc. on a nationwide scale. America is a very, very soft target in so many ways and I am continuously amazed that these morons haven't figured it out. An islamobomb via Pakistan or Iran would yield similar results.
-
Yes, Cain should know better by now, or he should know the question is coming and have a better prepared answer. Not a different one just a slicker one for those having difficulty with blunt truth. Around this house his not dodging the sharia question and defending America was well received.
Some choose to accept the Islamist claim that there is no sharia practiced in mosques in America. I, and many others believe the Islamists claims of no sharia in American mosques are practicing taqiyya. I believe they are faithful people to their creed and as they desire to subordinate, dominate, enslave, and if that is not possible, kill us, therefore the right I bestow upon them is to leave.
Many know the following, however this is an appropriate topic to post this information.
Islam is not a religion, but rather a totalitarian political ideology such as communism and fascism.
_ _ _ Gert Wilders
http://www.cfr.org/religion/islam-governing-under-sharia/p8034
What is Sharia?
Also meaning "path" in Arabic, sharia guides all aspects of Muslim life including daily routines, familial and religious obligations, and financial dealings. It is derived primarily from the Quran and the Sunna--the sayings, practices, and teachings of the Prophet Mohammed. Precedents and analogy applied by Muslim scholars are used to address new issues. The consensus of the Muslim community also plays a role in defining this theological manual.
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/07/30/sharia-in-a-first-amendment-society-2/
Sharia in a First Amendment Society
Steve Chapman, a columnist for the Chicago Tribune, has a piece in Human Events criticizing Sarah Palin for her opposition to building a mosque at Ground Zero. His argument seems to be that in guaranteeing freedom of religion, the First Amendment guarantees that all religions be treated identically. Therefore, argues Chapman, if you would allow evangelical Christians to build a church near Ground Zero, you must allow Muslims to build their mosque and community center—otherwise you are guilty of employing a double standard.
But the double standard only applies if you are dealing with two equivalent individuals or groups....
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/08/27/sharia-for-dummies/ (http://frontpagemag.com/2010/08/27/sharia-for-dummies/)
Sharia for Dummies
Imam Feisal Abdel Rauf claims that the U.S. constitution is Sharia compliant. Now let us examine below a few laws of Sharia to see how truthful Imam Rauf is:
#s 1 through 34 at link
The above are clear-cut laws in Islam decided by great Imams after years of examination and interpretation of the Quran, Hadith and Mohammed’s life. Now let the learned Imam Rauf tell us: What part of the above is compliant with the U.S. Constitution?
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/muslim-women-want-feds-to-end-gender-segregation-in-u-s-mosques/ (http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/muslim-women-want-feds-to-end-gender-segregation-in-u-s-mosques/)
-
Sorry, Islam is not a religion. Just because they claim it is doesn't make it a religion. They openly admit and push for 'their' law to over ride local laws, in this case, our constitution. No can do. This is something that we can't cave on.
Religions are about worship - it is not about replacing local laws with their own sharia laws. They give up their right to freedom of religion when they try to subjugate citizens to their set of laws.
Hey, if all they wanted to do was have a place to actually worship, I would support them. But I'm not a moron.
-
Sorry, Islam is not a religion. Just because they claim it is doesn't make it a religion. They openly admit and push for 'their' law to over ride local laws, in this case, our constitution. No can do. This is something that we can't cave on.
Religions are about worship - it is not about replacing local laws with their own sharia laws. They give up their right to freedom of religion when they try to subjugate citizens to their set of laws.
Hey, if all they wanted to do was have a place to actually worship, I would support them. But I'm not a moron.
I'm not a moron either. But I do see the reality here in that islam is recognized as a religion. I may not like it but it is reality and until that reality changes (and sadly, as I noted above, I think it will be very bloody when it happens) we are stuck with this particular paradigm.
-
And yet you have a problem with the guy who's willing to unstick the paradigm because he says he's willing to unstick the paradigm? ::whatgives::
-
Sorry, Islam is not a religion. Just because they claim it is doesn't make it a religion. They openly admit and push for 'their' law to over ride local laws, in this case, our constitution. No can do. This is something that we can't cave on.
Religions are about worship - it is not about replacing local laws with their own sharia laws. They give up their right to freedom of religion when they try to subjugate citizens to their set of laws.
Hey, if all they wanted to do was have a place to actually worship, I would support them. But I'm not a moron.
I'm not a moron either. But I do see the reality here in that islam is recognized as a religion. I may not like it but it is reality and until that reality changes (and sadly, as I noted above, I think it will be very bloody when it happens) we are stuck with this particular paradigm.
Maybe the reality is that it will quit being recognized as a religion when people start calling what it is, and quit being subordinated by this political correctness bull crap.
I caught a lot of heat for saying the Black Liberation Theology is not a true Christian theology, but I stand by my call. (not on this forum)
Cain just gained a lot of points as far as I'm concerned.
-
And yet you have a problem with the guy who's willing to unstick the paradigm because he sayshe's willing to unstick the paradigm? ::whatgives::
A) It's a total political loser. Try handing the media a bigger stick with which to beat you about the head with. A bigger stick doesn't exist.
B) It's not the first time. If he was capable of learning from past mistakes in this area he wouldn't still be doing it. Therefore, expect more stuff like this in the future. Palin got caught once and learned quickly. Cain isn't Palin.
C) I understand all of the arguments about islam not being a religion. Problem is that this is a minority position that is not recognized legally, politically or culturally. Not yet. That day will probably come but it isn't here now. So, for the time being, it is anti-Constitutional to discriminate against islam and/or muslims. Don't believe me? Try it in your workplace and see how far you get. Try passing a local statute that bans muslims or mosques. Or maybe one that bans only the bad muslims and bad mosques.
Hey, there are plenty of religions that I don't care for. I have a particular dislike of islam for all of the above mentioned items but until it is unrecognized as a religion it gets Constitutional protection (in America for Americans) just like any other religion. Those are the rules whether you or I like it or not.
Seriously, pass a law that successfully outlaws islam as a religion and I'm right there with you.
-
I caught a lot of heat for saying the Black Liberation Theology is not a true Christian theology, but I stand by my call. (not on this forum)
Yeah, well try telling Mormons that Mormonism isn't a true Christian religion and you will get hammered, too. Religions are funny that way.
-
I agree this was a dumb maneuver from an electoral standpoint, but I am all in favor of the sentiment. And I say that advisedly, as someone who believes the 1st Amendment's protection of religious freedom is one of our core principles. I hold both those positions for the reasons already given here, that Islam is so much more than a religion, you could liken it to a support network providing aid, comfort, shelter, and materiel to the enemies of this country (the fact that our government refuses to acknowledge them as enemies is irrelevant, for they have openly declared us to be their enemies and acted upon it). If there was a revival of, say, the ancient Aztec religion and its modern practitioners insisted that human sacrifice is a vital part of their worship, very few people would have any qualms about quashing their status as a recognized and protected religion. I see Islam in the same light.
Honestly, I believe when the Framers drafted the Constitution they assumed the citizenry would remain almost exclusively of European extraction with all the attendant cultural trappings. The history that compelled them to include religious freedom in the 1st Amendment was the history of sectarian warfare in Europe and low-level versions of it in the Colonies. I doubt they figured much on imported non-Western belief systems taking cynical advantage of 18th century Western ideas of religious freedom as a subterfuge or Trojan Horse. And that is exactly what Islam is: a Trojan Horse targeting an entire civilization rather than merely one Greek city-state in Asia Minor.
But yes, I agree it was an unforced error on Cain's part. There's no need to go off on those tangents yet.
-
I also agree with the sentiment. Yet islam is a defacto religion whether you like it or not. And having presidents (or any other governmental authority) picking winners and losers in who or what gets religious Constitutional protection is not a good precedent. That way lies trouble.
We have an established and recognized way of dealing with things of this nature, the amendment process. And that is the only serious and legal way that anyone is ever going to de-legitimize islam as a religion. Sorry, but that's reality.
-
A) It's a total political loser. Try handing the media a bigger stick with which to beat you about the head with. A bigger stick doesn't exist.
Probably so, but that's not a problem with Cain as far as I'm concerned. You stated you've thrown in the towel as far as he's concerned on account of this stand, and that's the sticking point for me.
Sorry, but that's reality.
Sorry, but no. This government's already sold out to islam so, neither I nor a large group of people -- currently getting larger -- give a good gawdamn what the legal or "constitutional" position is on allowing our conquest by an alien ideology using our principles against us.
I'm not having it. Neither are the people who are fighting to keep their neighborhoods free of this blight, neither is Cain. One can either stand with us, on principle, or not.
-
I will tell you what, though (and I mean this in all sincerity)...
I have a lot of respect for Mark Levin's interpretation of the Constitution and most of his political and ideological positions. If he disagrees with me then I will apologize to everyone and admit that I totally blew it on this one.
-
A) It's a total political loser. Try handing the media a bigger stick with which to beat you about the head with. A bigger stick doesn't exist.
Probably so, but that's not a problem with Cain as far as I'm concerned. You stated you've thrown in the towel as far as he's concerned on account of this stand, and that's the sticking point for me.
If it was the first and only gaffe I would be more tolerant. It isn't. He isn't learning. That's not a good sign.
Hey, I hope I'm wrong about all of this. But I don't think I am.
-
Didn't Cain say something very similar about the Second Amendment not too long ago, that states and local governments can pass any restrictions they want?
I don't disagree with him about Islam, but he seems to have some reading comprehension issues regarding the Constitution.
-
I will tell you what, though (and I mean this in all sincerity)...
I have a lot of respect for Mark Levin's interpretation of the Constitution and most of his political and ideological positions. If he disagrees with me then I will apologize to everyone and admit that I totally blew it on this one.
As do I, trap, but I'm not a right-liberal and sometimes Levin displays some of that. Non-discrimination is NOT my highest principle, nor is radical egalitarianism.
As far as Cain's other gaffes, I'm right with you on them and on the demonstration that he's not a quick study on how to handle the sticky=wickets.
-
I've said before that I favor a Constitutional amendment declaring that Islam is not a religion but a totalitarian political philosophy, and is therefore not protected by the First Amendment.
The trouble is that such an amendment could never pass today, and after the next 9/11-scale attack it will be too late for such legal niceties. The citizenry will take matters into their own hands.
-
Honestly, I believe when the Framers drafted the Constitution they assumed the citizenry would remain almost exclusively of European extraction with all the attendant cultural trappings. The history that compelled them to include religious freedom in the 1st Amendment was the history of sectarian warfare in Europe and low-level versions of it in the Colonies. I doubt they figured much on imported non-Western belief systems taking cynical advantage of 18th century Western ideas of religious freedom as a subterfuge or Trojan Horse. And that is exactly what Islam is: a Trojan Horse targeting an entire civilization rather than merely one Greek city-state in Asia Minor.
That's exactly right. The Founders no more imagined large numbers of Muslims in America than Martians.
-
Points in his favor, as far as I'm concerned.
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact". That has impact because it's true.
No it's not but we aren't there yet or anywhere even close.
I guess this is one of those points where we are going to have to agree to disagree.
Words mean things and freedom of religion is freedom for all religions. If they cross the line then that's different but until they do they have the same rights as Americans as Catholics, Jews, Christians, Mormons and every other religion that you care to think of.
How do you give freedom of religion to those that staunchly refuse the freedom in their books of faith and practices anyway. To me, he made it clear which obviously you didn't hear from Wallace, the people of that community had some misgivings or issues with that particular Mosque and they are doing what they can to keep it insignificant in the long run. ::newyear::
-
ETA: Chris Wallace was a disrespectful ass of an interviewer.
Just like his old man !
-
Honestly, I believe when the Framers drafted the Constitution they assumed the citizenry would remain almost exclusively of European extraction with all the attendant cultural trappings. The history that compelled them to include religious freedom in the 1st Amendment was the history of sectarian warfare in Europe and low-level versions of it in the Colonies. I doubt they figured much on imported non-Western belief systems taking cynical advantage of 18th century Western ideas of religious freedom as a subterfuge or Trojan Horse. And that is exactly what Islam is: a Trojan Horse targeting an entire civilization rather than merely one Greek city-state in Asia Minor.
That's exactly right. The Founders no more imagined large numbers of Muslims in America than Martians.
Yup. And until Isslamists in America start blowing up women and children at malls and churches, most American's will unfortunately take a pass on rendering judgement on Isslam being a death cult...and the Isslamists know this and are using our own religious protections to work the long game on us. BY the time people realize they are slowly being converted it will be near impossible to outlaw their evil cult. But I don't think it will get to that. Our political-economic structure is unravelling faster, so when the fit hits the shan I'll deal with these bozos like I deal with the zombies & leftists...
-
I caught a lot of heat for saying the Black Liberation Theology is not a true Christian theology, but I stand by my call. (not on this forum)
Yeah, well try telling Mormons that Mormonism isn't a true Christian religion and you will get hammered, too. Religions are funny that way.
I would never equate Mormons with Black Lilberation Theology. Just saying.
BTW, I don't see Cain taking any real heat today in the news for his comments. At least yet.
-
...Neighborhoods afflicted with mosques soon find out they've been infiltrated by the enemy; they subvert the local councils/commissioners, drive residents out and then assume control through sheer numbers. It's happening all over the country and it has to stop.
I agree with this 100%. But I also believe that my personal view is regrettably in opposition to the constitution.
You know how we hate it when Leftists say something like, "The founding fathers never could have foreseen_________..." Well, they wrote the 1st Amendment as it is, and because it is as it is, our hands are constitutionally tied in regards to Islam and its place in our society.
If we're going to fight the scourge of Islam as Pandora articulates, we are going to have to be awfully creative in our interpretation of the 1st Amendment, or we're going to have to find other ways locally (zoning, permitting, tax status, etc) to stop the infiltration and destruction of our towns and cities.
Herman Cain is entitled to his beliefs. And Lord knows I wish we lived in a nation where it was as he says. But he blew it big-time for someone who's seeking the presidency.
We spend an awful lot of time and energy in reverence to the constitution, and in enumerating all the ways in which our government is in violation of it. Let's not pretend for the sake of convenience that what Herman Cain said is constitutional. Agree with the sentiment. Yes. But pretend that such a statement does not ruin his electoral viability? That is wishful thinking, in my estimation.
-
Islam is not a religion and now is a good time to start driving that point home. Islam is using our constitution for protection just like al quida uses girls and children for human shields. The fight is not about what our constitution means, but about what Islam really is, as opposed to what they claim it is.
Until we meet this head on and squash it, they will effectively use the constitution to squash us, aided by those that miss the point.
EDIT:
Let me point out one more thing:
Anti-Christians threaten our churches all the time with the power to take away our tax status if we just voice political opinions in our sermons,
whereas,
Islams don't just preach things in their sermons, no, they go out and actually kill people for their cause, and use their sermons to raise up a generation of suicide bombers.
So, since it has become acceptable in our society to hammer Christian churches with the threat of losing its no-tax status for just making mere political statements, then to be fair and balanced, it should be ok for neighborhoods to disallow the building of mosques and keep the number of suicide bombers down to a bare minimum.
-
A government that can ban a Masque, can ban a Christian church, also, and don't think the Marxist garbage that makes up today's left wouldn't do it, if they could. Just ask a Chinese Christian that's gotten out.
Don't hold back in a politically correct way what you feel about the death cult devoted to worshipping a child molester, but you just can't ban the house of worship.
-
Islam is not a religion and now is a good time to start driving that point home. Islam is using our constitution for protection just like al quida uses girls and children for human shields. The fight is not about what our constitution means, but about what Islam really is, as opposed to what they claim it is.
Until we meet this head on and squash it, they will effectively use the constitution to squash us, aided by those that miss the point.
EDIT:
Let me point out one more thing:
Anti-Christians threaten our churches all the time with the power to take away our tax status if we just voice political opinions in our sermons,
whereas,
Islams don't just preach things in their sermons, no, they go out and actually kill people for their cause, and use their sermons to raise up a generation of suicide bombers.
So, since it has become acceptable in our society to hammer Christian churches with the threat of losing its no-tax status for just making mere political statements, then to be fair and balanced, it should be ok for neighborhoods to disallow the building of mosques and keep the number of suicide bombers down to a bare minimum.
As long as islam is recognized as a religion by the IRS (and it is) then it will be pretty tough to successfully argue otherwise.
Yes, individual churches routinely lose their tax exempt status for crossing the line and yes, it is usually (non-black) Christian churches that fall victim to these rulings. But I have yet to see an instance where an entire religion loses its tax exempt status let alone its recognition by the state as a religion.
I believe that the threshold for state recognition of a belief system (or whatever you want to call it) as a religion is purposefully set rather low so that the state is rightfully not in the business of picking winners or losers. There are, of course, obvious exceptions to that such as the person who decides to declare himself the pope of his own made up church in order to dodge income taxes.
So far the vast majority of murderous/terrorist elements of islam have largely left the American homeland alone. That is primarily due to the diligence of the FBI, CIA, NSA and other elements put into place by GWB following the September 11, 2001 attacks. It's also due to the stupidity and lack of creative thinking in the terrorist mind. And luck. Or Providence.
You said, "Islams don't just preach things in their sermons, no, they go out and actually kill people for their cause, and use their sermons to raise up a generation of suicide bombers," and that is true but it isn't true here in America. Not yet. This would be the religious equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded room for the purpose of causing a panic. It would cross the line of what is protected speech and protected religious activity (such as the above mentioned human sacrifice example). But unless it was happening in the majority of mosques across the country there is little chance, even then, that the entire islamic religion/belief system/political ideology could be successfully indicted.
There will be strong resistance toward any such move by a majority of Americans barring a major and/or sustained terrorist attack on the country. That's just the way we are. The internment of the Japanese during WWII was, in my opinion, entirely justified based on the destruction of Pearl Harbor and the Pacific fleet. We will, I am afraid, have to suffer some other such attack before islam can be successfully stripped of its religious status.
Unfortunately this is one of the problems of living in a free society governed by a Constitutional rule book.
-
As long as islam is recognized as a religion by the IRS (and it is) then it will be pretty tough to successfully argue otherwise.
As long as nobody challenges this premise it will continue to stand.
I believe that the threshold for state recognition of a belief system (or whatever you want to call it) as a religion is purposefully set rather low so that the state is rightfully not in the business of picking winners or losers. There are, of course, obvious exceptions to that such as the person who decides to declare himself the pope of his own made up church in order to dodge income taxes.
The use of sharia law as part of its religion should be enuff to disqualify it.
So far the vast majority of murderous/terrorist elements of islam have largely left the American homeland alone. That is primarily due to the diligence of the FBI, CIA, NSA and other elements put into place by GWB following the September 11, 2001 attacks. It's also due to the stupidity and lack of creative thinking in the terrorist mind. And luck. Or Providence.
Don't forget we are already under attack here on our homeland. I don't need to point out the examples of our citizens and soldiers being killed.
You said, "Islams don't just preach things in their sermons, no, they go out and actually kill people for their cause, and use their sermons to raise up a generation of suicide bombers," and that is true but it isn't true here in America. Not yet.
same argument as above. It has already started. The question is how many people have to be killed before someone changes their mind?
Unfortunately this is one of the problems of living in a free society governed by a Constitutional rule book.
Its not about the constitution, it is all about islam itself, and how it doesn't qualify to be a religion in the first place.
This is all I'm going to say about this. Everyone knows how I feel, and I don't see any reason to continue.
-
We don't need a Constitutional amendment to declare Mohammedism a cult or a threat to America.
About sixty five percent of Americans believe they want to kill us, forty percent of Americans are certain they want to kill us. The information that mosques in America are the teaching and breeding ground of anti-American hate is public.
It is not a religion it is a militant organization whose goal is to submit the world to it.
It would not be difficult for legal authorities to codify this if they would quit their own PC cultism.
-
Two liberal outlets;Where is the outrage?
Politico (http://www.politico.com/)
[blockquote]Hot Topics:
Debt ceiling 2012 fundraising Rupert Murdoch Michele Bachmann
[/blockquote]
The Hill (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/171903-cain-communities-can-ban-mosques)
Cain: Tennessee town can ban new mosque
[blockquote]When asked by host Chris Wallace if any town could “then say we don't want a mosque in our community?” Cain responded, “They could say that."
Cain also dismissed White House claims that the U.S. must raise its debt limit to avoid a default after Aug 2.
“This whole thing is a charade,” Cain said.
[/blockquote]
There won't be any outrage until the left perceives the right is so intimidated by PC garbage that they can inflict more injury.
-
LINK (http://theothermccain.com/2011/07/17/video-herman-cain-talks-mosques-sharia-and-the-muslim-brotherhood/)
Cain’s public opposition to the proposed Tennessee mosque, as well as his March statement that he would not be comfortable appointing Muslims to his presidential cabinet, have been criticized by many liberals and also by some Republicans. However, the Atlanta businessman told his Maryland supporters during a question-and-answer session at a private home in suburban Montgomery County, he considers Islam not merely a religion, but also a political system that does not recognize separation of church and state. His remarks were greeted with applause.
About 80 supporters — including aides to two Republican members of the Maryland legislature — attended the Bethesda event. Maryland’s 2012 GOP primary is April 3, and Cain’s visit to the state could be seen as evidence that his campaign is planning a long-term nationwide strategy toward winning the Republican nomination. New party rules for 2012 have ended “winner take all” delegate apportionment in most states, which means that the GOP presidential primary campaign will likely continue well beyond the first round of early voting in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
Herman Cain: Muslims, Mosques and Sharia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXY3I5DNNtU#)
-
The question for me now is not whether Herman Cain is right or wrong, or whether he should be perceived as right and lauded for his forthrightness, or cast out and chastised for his lack of principle in regard to the constitution.
A primary question for any Presidential candidate is whether or not the American people can be convinced to vote for you. Herman Cain can be right as rain regarding the danger of Islam, but his responses to questions regarding Islam now form a pattern, and that pattern is that in regards to Islam, he apparently does not believe the first amendment applies.
Whether any of us agree or not is irrelevant to his electoral prospects. The American people will decide his fate, and I believe the sad reality is that he keeps tripping over his own tongue with repeated unforced errors.
My first alarm went up when he posted an essay at Red State basically saying that Jesus was a conservative and liberals can't be good Christians. Whether one believes this or not, it's untenable politics. Then his remark regarding a litmus test for cabinet members, his comment regarding a state's ability to ban firearms, and now this.
I'm done entertaining this guy as a serious presidential candidate. I like him just fine, but he's not made of what it takes.
-
OK fine! Scratch him from the list!
(can I still keep him for VP?!) ;)
-
Just posted at HotAir: Cain Sez Romney Can't Get Elected Because Of His Religion. (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/19/cain-romney-cant-get-elected-because-of-his-religion/)
I happen to agree with this. I made this point repeatedly during the last presidential primary and my opinion hasn't changed. Mormonism is low hanging fruit for the liberal media. It's inarguable. But I wasn't running for president...
So, here is yet another instance where Cain is committing an unforced error, making a statement that truly did not need to be made. Ed Morrissey calls it "...making the mistake of doing political analysis while campaigning..." which is as good a way of describing it as any other.
I really had hoped that Cain would be an exception to the rule, "presidential politics is not for beginners," but these things just keep happening and there is no indication that he is learning from them (or even acknowledging them as gaffes and/or mistakes) or that they will stop any time soon.
-
Personally, I could care less about any gaffe this guy makes as I know he speaks his mind without the political horse piles. Politicians lie left and right which is fine for the poor schlep that wants to be lied to, however, a breath of fresh air can be exhilarating. ::whoohoo::
-
"when he ran the first time he did not do a good job of communicating his religion. Unfortunately, it doesn't bother me, but I do know it's an issue with a lot of Southerners."
Well shut my mouth. The man gets slammed for speaking the truth. Anybody remember the debates at PL?
Jefferson Airplane - Plastic Fantastic Lover (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WL7HiGD0JcQ#)
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mosques_in_the_United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mosques_in_the_United_States)
Here you go, go change the world.
-
This was, of course, inevitable:
Cain apologizes for muslim remarks. (http://secure.campaigner.com/Campaigner/Public/t.show?MP3h--91EB-eH60S3)
I don't want to reopen this discussion...just wanted to drop this in to more or less finish it. As far as I know, Mark Levin never commented on this. I think he avoided it because he likes Cain (as do I) and did not want to have to say anything that would paint him in a negative light. I could be wrong, of course, but it seems odd that he did not comment on it.
-
Ok.....Since the thread opened up....LOL....
I live close to Murfreesboro, Tennessee and the Mosque story , at one time, was on every news channel. It's much more complicated than stating "Tennesseans don't want a mosque here".
First of all, the "congregation" is around 300.....What they want to build is a multi million dollar complex, much more than a few would ever use.....Now, that is no excuse to stop it,over building, but it did open the door for some to "follow the money"....and as much as I remember, the money comes from some questionable sources.....But admittedly, it's been a while and I don't feel like searching out the stories, but a few hundred so called poor muslims don't come up with multi millions of dinar.
Religion, no matter how wretched, is protected constitutionally.....Constructing a building with funds pouring in from middle eastern terrorist nations is not. The argument has been framed a bigots stopping construction, the truth is, if we had a state department worth its salt, the funds themselves would disqualify any mosque.
-
Yeah, it's a tough situation. Constitutionally, there's no way to prevent its construction, but maybe there could be some way to sabotage it?
/you didn't hear that from me
-
Yeah, it's a tough situation. Constitutionally, there's no way to prevent its construction, but maybe there could be some way to sabotage it?
/you didn't hear that from me
Yes we did. ::saywhat::
-
Ssh.
-
And yet you have a problem with the guy who's willing to unstick the paradigm because he says he's willing to unstick the paradigm? ::whatgives::
I would just Muslims but that's just me.....We are in a fight for survival here.
It's strictly a evil political movement.....Maybe they can worship as they want but they aren't guaranteed the right to build where they want ::bashing::
-
Yeah, it's a tough situation. Constitutionally, there's no way to prevent its construction, but maybe there could be some way to sabotage it?
/you didn't hear that from me
I missed this. Actually yes, there is a constitutionally valid mechanism to stop this dead in its tracks. It is called zoning and could be employed with impunity. Pity no one has the stones to avail themselves of it.
Personally IDK anymore. If New Yorkers are willing to subjugate and prostrate themselves to the muzzies, who am I to complain?
-
Yeah, it's a tough situation. Constitutionally, there's no way to prevent its construction, but maybe there could be some way to sabotage it?
/you didn't hear that from me
I missed this. Actually yes, there is a constitutionally valid mechanism to stop this dead in its tracks. It is called zoning and could be employed with impunity. Pity no one has the stones to avail themselves of it.
Personally IDK anymore. If New Yorkers are willing to subjugate and prostrate themselves to the muzzies, who am I to complain?
that's exactly what i mean..... ::thumbsup::
-
Welcome to the forum ttomm.