I just noticed a remarkable lawsuit, Wright v. Islamic Center; the plaintiffs were trying to enjoin the construction of a mosque. The theory? Construction of the mosque would be a "public nuisance," because the mosque would "spread radical Islam throughout the United States," would help make the county even more of "a haven for terrorists" than it was before, and thus create "a clear and present danger to the ... community." (The complaint also raises objections to the supposed extra traffic that the mosque's presence would cause, but that's not the core of the allegations.)
A creative tort law theory, and in my view entirely misplaced, both as a matter of substantive tort law and the First Amendment. If some people associated with the mosque have been engaged in speech that fits within some narrow exception to First Amendment protection, it should be punished for that speech. If they have committed some other crime, then they can be punished for committing that crime. But you can't enjoin a political or religious organization from erecting a building based on the organization's supposed past bad speech, just as it can't enjoin the publication of a newspaper based on the newspaper's supposed past libelous articles.
Fortunately, the plaintiffs have dropped the lawsuit, at least for now. Let's hope it stays dropped. Again, if the mosque founders have done something illegal, punish them for that; don't try to use the courts to shut up their religious teachings or block their religious buildings because they supposedly "spread radical Islam."
If I were the mosque I'd make sure my lawyers were charging rates high enough the plaintiff who gets the tab will think twice about filing another one of these.
That being said, I've long felt religions should be held strictly liable for the actions of their believers. Religion is a business just like any other, and if its product is causing people to harm others, it is defective. If the first amendment prevents us from taking the defective product out of the stream of commerce (I'm not sure that it does, is preaching "kill abortion doctors in the name of christ" constitutionally protected religious speech?), it surely doesn't prevent us from holding the manufacturer of the product financially liable for any damage that it proximately causes. Just a thought....
Try this on for size:
http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=139123
The article says they're building a 100 ft and change minaret in the middle of a bunch of 200 ft and change church steeples.
Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.
As an aside, they appear to be using the Ottoman style (vice the Arabian), which IMO is superior architecturally anyway.
Nothing prevents Islam or other such movements from being both murderous international totalitarian conspiracies and religions. Religion in general is neither historically nor by nature benign.
Pick a mosque at random. Attend for 6 weeks. Within that time you will hear pronouncements that the Americans must and will die, the Jews must and will die, the world will come to Allah, that it is Allah's will that only Muslims will rule, etc.
Not everyone in every mosque believes these things. But virtually every mosque has those who believe them, and virtually all "moderate" Muslims ignore and tolerate them. Some think it's just boilerplate ritual rhetoric, like a Latin catechism that most Catholics ignore and don't understand. Others think it's true and must be said, though they don't say it themselves.
From 2003-2005 I attended 6 mosques in southern California, including the Orange County Islamic Center where Adam Gadahn was radicalized. They ALL had people who said these things, in English, in public, on a regular basis. They were never subject to rebuke or rejection. Some ignored them, some nodded in agreement.
I think that if you read my post carefully you will see that what I presumed is merely that most mosques are not engaged in an on-going criminal conspiracy. I am quite familiar with the pervasive hostility toward non-Muslims of mainstream Islam. The behaviour that you describe, offensive though it is, does not constitute a criminal conspiracy on the part of the mosque. The kind of generalized hatred you mention, for example, does not constitute the particularized incitement to violence that is subject to prosecution.
Look at the KKK building cases (the KKK believes violence against blacks is a good idea, a member carries out violent act, sanction of imposing loss of building and assets is fine) and the supreme court disfavored religion case (law school grad is also member of faith which dislikes blacks, he can be denied government license due to his faith).
Under those two cases, and similar cases, darn right Islam can be denied a government permit to erect a building. They are a hate faith as set forth in their basic document.
The law is wrong, and should be changed, but the plaintiffs were legally right.
You may be right. You sound like a lawyer and it does not appear that there has been much in the way of prosecution for the leaders and followers of the Religion of Peace to demand that Americans, Jews, homosexuals and apostates die.
But are these examples of “generalized hatred?” How specific does incitement to murder have to get to draw the attention of the law?
Is it sensitivity toward religion in general that keeps the legal beagles at bay? It would be an interesting experiment if Presbyterians or Baptists were to fulminate every Sunday morning demanding that the people in the pews plot to kill, say, Muslims. I’m sure we can find passages in the Old Testament that would support killing them all. Would that be a “generalized hatred?” Would it affect their tax exemption? Would some excuse be found to end this threat to peace?
We ask the question … you decide.
Fixed.
It's not fixed unless you have reason to believe the sentences are still true after your word substitution. Are you speaking from actual experience in churches the way the previous poster was in mosques?
What complete twaddle.
There is to be no compromise with evil. Mohammedanism should be simply banned as a criminal enterprise at root. It is not a religion, notwithstanding propaganda to the contrary.
The sole quibble is that I fully recognise that many millions of people have been trapped unwillingly and/or unknowingly in this cult by virtue of unfortunate birth, and should be given every chance to knowingly and willingly abandon this death cult for a far more peaceful and infinitely less evil "real" religion, or of course for no religion at all but clear-headed rational liberty.
If there was any talk of people deserving to die, it was the speaker saying that about himself or the people at the sevice seserving to die for their sins, but being forgiven by God anyways.
Have you ever actually been to a church service where they preached violence? Which one was it?
He is too dumb to know that everybody who reads this crap knows better, making him look really, really....
Which is worse - explicit commands to do evil, or commands that if you "accept jesus" (which is subjective, unverifiable, and requires nothing but a stipulation) you will be forgive for whatever evil you do?
At this moment in human history, #1 (Islam) is worse. That has more to do with economics and prosperity than anything else. Several centuries ago, when Christianity was in the dark ages and Islam was having an intellectual renaissance, the situation was reversed. Christianity is getting worse - more fundamentalist and extremist. Unfortunately, there's no sign that Islam is becoming more moderate. If things keep going the way they are, fighting faith with faith (the American rise in spirituality after 9/11 is a sad example - countering faith-based terrorism with equal and opposing faith), every person on the planet will be dead, and there will be nothing left but charred, broken down churches and mosques.
Planet check. This is Earth.
I think saint Paul might disagree with you there on the basic nature of Christianity. Romans 6, NIV:
There are other similar passages, but I think that gets the point across.
Preservation of "prevailing community character" is sufficient grounds to prevent any building from being constructed that looks like a mosque. Many communities have land use laws that regulate architectural style.
In Los Angeles' San Fernando Valley several years ago, a congregation applied for a permit to add minarets to a building in conjunction with a change in use. The minarets exceeded the height limit, and the permit was denied. The architect changed the design and shortened the minarets and the building met all applicable regulations. The permit was again denied because, with minarets, the building did not "match the prevailing Spanish style" of architecture.
I believe that the congregation was allowed to use the building as a mosque for religious purposes, it just couldn't look like a mosque. This stuff happens every day.
Then the question becomes, if it looks like a taco stand or a cheesy medical building or a commercial storefront, is it still a mosque? Is a mosque defined by its use or its architectural qualities, or both?
Come on, you've never asked a Christian if Hitler would/could go to heaven if he accepted Jesus into his heart and received an affirmative answer? (Catholics would also say he'd have to repent for his sins). As a Christian, do you think Hitler could go to heaven if he repented for the holocaust, opened his hearth up to Jesus, and accepted Christ as his savior and thus became born again, yadda yadda? If not, why not? Forgiveness is the very essence of christianity. Forgiveness for your sins, and your forgiveness of the sins of others.
Don't get me wrong, I think America would be a better place if Christians actually followed the teachings of christ. For example, no showing off your faith (jesus would not have a jesus fish on the back of his car to advertise his faith, and would be disgusted at the notion). But to a large extent, doing what Jesus would do is impractical. I mean, are you really willing to forgive the person who raped your 6 year old child? That's WJWD.
Planet check. This is Earth.
No, century check. For Christians, it's the 21st, not the 12th.
Link
Link
Link
Something for the haters to think about.
Why? Its so much easier to point out the mote in their brothers' eye than see the beam in their own.
ejo: Jesus was the teacher, he's not held to the same standards as his students.
I agree that currently it is a battle between Islam and everyone else. I was merely pointing out that lots of Americans responded to the faith-based terrorism on 9/11 by renewing or increasing their own faith, church attendance went up and people were seeing crosses in the WTC rubble. Fighting faith with faith is fighting stupidity with stupidity, and I don't want to get caught in the crossfire.
as to the mote/beam proverb, nothing in it indicates you should obsess over the mote in your own eye while ignoring the beams in the eyes of others. the speed of apologists bringing up christian history of 1000 years ago while ignoring actual modern practices of Islam more closely resembles that than the proverb you tried to use.
Its not ramblings. It is a clear statement that sinning leads to death and that if you have been baptized into Christ, then you should no longer sin. Christianity is not "fire insurance" as Bart Simpson once described it.
What you are describing is a charicture of Christianity. I suspect you are just arguing it to get a angry reaction out of the Christians who might read it.
I have never known any active Christian to seriously argue that it is ok to sin because you can just get forgiven for it later. Quite the contrary, in fact most realize that their sin affects both them and the people around them in bad ways and make a real effort to be better people. I have known murderers, gang members, drug addicts, etc. who were able to make radical changes in their lives and who gave up their sinful ways after becoming Christians. That is actually more of a common experience than what you describe.
As for the raped child child example, yes they should forgive because not forgiving will eat them up over the long run and gives the rapist more power. My wife used to work for a secular clinic that treated sexually abused children and they always tried to make forgiveness part of the long term counseling process. This was not easy, but the victim of great sin can often be helped by forgiveness. You might want to try reading someone like Martin Luther King or Philip Yancey for more on this.
Would objection to the muezzin's call be an appropriate nuissance complaint? I don't think you could get the place shut down, but would getting an injunction against the volume going over a certain level be ok?
However, I can find all the same justifications for violence that you attribute to the Koran in the Bible. I know that the Old Testament is less important than the new, but we don't hear people accusing Judaism of being an inherently evil religion, even though the Old Testament and the Koran are equally bloody minded.
And that's exactly why. "Seeing as how it is a gross overgeneralization," it doesn't damage anybody's reputation the way defaming a single individual does.
Not if a certain population truly believes that it is Allah doing the defaming. I think it carries more weight in the case. Further evidence that it carries more weight is if there is a history of acting on such defamation. If the Qur'an says to discriminate against Jews and there has been discrimination on that basis then the claim is empircally causing damage in a way that some joe blow down the street saying all americans are morons doesn't.
The notion that everyone at XYZ religion thins a certain way is simply absurd.
And I am serious that you hear a lot of this in churches. I guarantee you that if you went to certain rural areas (such as the area I grew up), you'd find all sorts of this talk going on. As the pastor of my church said (yes, to those of you who overreacted, I go to a Christian church), there is a large number of people who are making political decisions to try to bring about Revelation - using it to justify acts in the Middle East.
But, back to the broader point, just because you claim to hear some people say something in a handful of mosques is not grounds to ban them all. Just like the fact that you hear such words said by Christians against Muslims is no grounds to ban churches.
Seriously people, read in context instead of in an effort to irrationally lash out about something.
It's like contributing to an organization where the leader is advocating bankrobbing, participating in meetings where which banks should be robbed are discussed, financially supporting such generalized discussions, and then when some of the other members of the organization follow through on what was advocated and actually plan and execute on such advocacy throwing up your hands and claiming innocence in the consipiracy.
Well I don't see you as so innocent at that point. I don't see how it's different when a religion does this and bunch of white supremacists. What's the difference? That it's been going on for a thousand years?
Now it's perfectly possible to have another Muslim organization that says "He the Qur'an is our religious text but not everything in it is true, and specifically these parts A, B, C." and "Those parts are only applicable under these conditions X, Y, Z" but it's a very fine line to walk.
Once you say the Qur'an is infallible you are in fact implicitly calling for criminal activity since it advocates exactly that. Criminal in the sense of advocating rights violating activities such as forcing non-muslims to pay the jizya, murdering certain classes of non-muslims, discriminating against women and non-muslims int he courts and in the workplace.
So it seems to me that it should be legal to claim that the Qur'an is infallible. You can certainly believe it yourself but once you start claiming it publicly and especially to the incompetent such as children and the mentally ill then you are in fact endangering others, defaming them, and interferring in their free association with others.
When you make false charges against others you are indeed interfering with their free association, like if you claim falsely that a place of business like a theater is a dangerous firetrap when it isn't. That interferes with not only the theater owners right to associate with his customers, but the customers rights to associate with theater owner, the performers, and the other theater goers. It's all based on a fraud in this case.
Much like the fraud of screaming fire when there isn't one. Which also should not be allowed even if it would not cause a dangerous panic, even if there are only a couple people in the room.
Islam is itself a fraud and when it makes claims to authority based on the infallible nature of the Qur'an that further aggrevates the situation. So any claim that Jews are the greediest people of the earth, or that befriending non-muslims is bad, that non-muslims are filthy and the like are in fact an interference in the free association of those being brain washed with those who are not.
In fact the whole notion of not allowing criticism of Islam, and Mohammed, the idea of blasphemy is in fact a policy of producing what are essentially incompetents. It creates a whole class of people who are purposely kept ignorant, and when this is done to a child I think not only is it wrong but in fact borderline criminal even if we don't recognize it as such.
It's certainly criminal when we try to impose our desire to perpetrate the fraud onto others. Intimidating those who criticize Islam via law or vigilantee violence is in fact a violation of the rights of those non-believers.
So my view is that the law just doesn't have things correct now, and were it correct it would certainly be a much more hostile environment for intolerant religions like Islam. The only reason we are in the state that we are is because we started out with a bad state of affairs in the first place. It's as if we were in the process of throwing off slavery and didn't quite yet understand that all the trappings of slavery were wrong and not just the whipping of slaves.
... and yes the proper set of laws would impinge upon other religions, including some faith based (in the sense of irrational belief) secular religions like communism. Which is precisely why proper law will be hard to achieve. Most people are in the thrall of one form of irrationality or another.
Bullshit.
One fed law enforcement official said the thing that kept him up nights was the "lone wolf" terrorist. This was a term from the neo-nazis' playbook. The leadership says things like, who will rid me of that little priest, depending on some nutcase to decide that's a hell of an idea. But there's no criminal connection, so the leader skates.
It would appear that a good deal more of Muslim preaching in this country is something like that than the neo-nazis could ever generate.
So we either address it legally--difficult--or we don't. But if we don't address it legally, we can still be concerned about it. See the First Amendment. Being concerned is legal.