Herman Cain Says U.S. Communities 'Have the Right' to Ban Mosques

[txradioguy]

We know the Mosques are used to recruit fund and sometimes hide terrorist activity.

The Feds have been unsuccessful in getting a mole inside any Mosque (that we know of) to provide intel on their activities.

Next best thing is giving a city the right to say...we don't want you here.

I don't have a problem with it at all.

[MrsSmith]

No, they really don't. If a "community" can ban one house or type of worship then another community could ban some other religion.

I'm really surprised that Cain said this.

It's not at all unusual for a community to refuse building and zoning permits to Christian churches. Why should they be forced to accept a mosque if they can't be forced to accept a church?

[noonwitch]

An outright ban on mosques is a violation of the first amendment. You can't ban a specific religious group from your community unless you can prove that that group is actively disobeying the law-an obvious example is rastafarianism, because their sacrament is a controlled substance in most areas. Or, if the muslim group trying to build a mosque in your community is involved in recruiting for terrorist organizations-well, I personally would hope that law enforcement handled the issue, first, but it would be grounds to deny the mosque.

Zoning laws are separate issues. Many times those zoning laws that are applied to churches are applied to large churches because the surrounding neighborhoods don't want all the associated traffic, not because of any type of discrimination against churches. A smaller church might be allowed under those same laws.

[Starbuck]

An outright ban on mosques is a violation of the first amendment. You can't ban a specific religious group from your community unless you can prove that that group is actively disobeying the law-an obvious example is rastafarianism, because their sacrament is a controlled substance in most areas. Or, if the muslim group trying to build a mosque in your community is involved in recruiting for terrorist organizations-well, I personally would hope that law enforcement handled the issue, first, but it would be grounds to deny the mosque.

Zoning laws are separate issues. Many times those zoning laws that are applied to churches are applied to large churches because the surrounding neighborhoods don't want all the associated traffic, not because of any type of discrimination against churches. A smaller church might be allowed under those same laws.

So that we are all on the same page, here is what the 1st amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This amendment applies to Fed, States, and cities.

My position is that Islam is actually a subversive government with its own set of laws which are inseparable from its religion. Because of that inseparability we, as localities, should be able to ban mosques because they are actually a front for a subversive organization.
Muslims may worship, and may gather to do so, but may not be able to build a mosque where it is not wanted.

[Novaheart]

No, I think it is a bad religion. Same with Scientology. I just believe that bad religion is protected by the first amendment.

For a while now we have allowed anything which describes itself as a religion to be protected under the First Amendment. Several countries with freedom of religion also have cult laws and designate Scientology and sometimes LDS as cults along with Sun Myung Moon's church, and some others. You can't simply wrap everything in religion and claim it is protected. I also think that the way a religion has manifested itself in the countries where it is the majority identity can be evidence of undesirable effect.

We do ban some religious practices in this country, despite our promotion of toleration of all religions. If you start putting brass rings on the neck of a little girl, you're going to meet the folks from child services. If you nail yourself to a cross, you are going to be Baker acted. I'm not sure if it's illegal to dance with a dead body, but it probably is.

[Novaheart]

The Constitution was for a law abiding people. It is not a suicide pact. It was never intended to permit the enemy to move to the US and operate from behind the lines.

[AmPat]

The Constitution was for a law abiding people. It is not a suicide pact. It was never intended to permit the enemy to move to the US and operate from behind the lines.

Bravo.

We can decide as a voting public what we will tolerate. The establishment clause was not written to preclude this activity. The establishment clause prohibits government establishing a religion.

[jnkbortka]

I think nova is starting to get it :D

[fettpett]

I think nova is starting to get it :D

actually on guns and boarder stuff he gets it

[txradioguy]

An outright ban on mosques is a violation of the first amendment. You can't ban a specific religious group from your community unless you can prove that that group is actively disobeying the law-an obvious example is rastafarianism, because their sacrament is a controlled substance in most areas. Or, if the muslim group trying to build a mosque in your community is involved in recruiting for terrorist organizations-well, I personally would hope that law enforcement handled the issue, first, but it would be grounds to deny the mosque.

Wrong.