Herman Cain: Communities have right to ban mosques

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Christian terrorist attack in Iowa ignored by Media

Good attempt but no cigar.

Besides the fact that Christains trying to kill abortion doctors isn't quite on par with trying to blow up the NY subway, trying to blow up the US Capitol or trying to shoot down passenger jets with SAMs, only one of your attacks is less than 10 years old.

All of the Muslim plots I cited took place in the last 10 years and are much more substantial. Car bombs outside of courts, hand grenades in shopping centres and more to the point, attempting to attack the public.

Can't you find some attacks from the last decade and perhaps some a bit more substantial than murders of abortion doctors?

At a push, could you find Chritians who planned to kill members of the public?

Originally posted by SaturnFX
I am intolerant of those attempting to alter the constitutional rights of people.

Then you must be intolerant of any Muslims who want the constitution to reflect the Koran.

At last we have some common ground.

This Muslim women claims that many American Muslims want to replace constitutional rights with Sharia law.

Muslims always look to live under Islamic Shariah not under the American constitution.

I am one of them, trust me. I know them.

I was very involved with my Muslim community for the first 10 years here in the United States.

I heard them a million times saying that we are here to eventually replace the American Constitution with Islamic Shariah.

Wafa Sultan

fora.tv...

reply to post by ollncasino

All of the Muslim plots I cited took place in the last 10 years and are much more substantial

Sorry, I guess I'm just not as up to speed on Christian terrorism as you are on Muslim terrorism. I guess I kinda figured those issues were the business of law enforcement and homeland security and not excuses to rob people o their rights.

At a push, could you find Chritians who planned to kill members of the public?

Abortion doctors aren't members of the public?

The age of the stories doesn't matter, the point is there ARE Christian terrorists. The severity of their plans is also entirely irrelevant to the point I was making. Again the point is there are Christian terrorists and yet my guess is you have no plans to infringe upon the rights of average Christians or ban their churches. My tolerance of Islam is not a tolerance of terrorism, terrorism in any form should be illegal... however we cannot trade the liberty of any American for the supposed safety we'd receive. Put yourself in the shoes of a moderate Muslim-American. You were born here, raised here, you worship in your home town and enjoy the freedoms America has provided. Suddenly thanks to a handful of extremists your rights are ripped away by other Americans. To them they are only seeking safety but in doing so they have just denied you one of the fundamental rights protected by the Constitution.

Can you not see how that would only create MORE enemies for us? Denying rights is not the way, denying ignorance is. That means waging an intellectual war against Islam NOT banning churches and spreading paranoia about Muslims.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Christian terrorist attack in Iowa ignored by Media

Good attempt but no cigar.

Besides the fact that Christains trying to kill abortion doctors isn't quite on par with trying to blow up the NY subway, trying to blow up the US Capitol or trying to shoot down passenger jets with SAMs, only one of your attacks is less than 10 years old.

What is your argument?

That communities have a right to ban a mosque because someone might commit a crime?

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by SaturnFX
I am intolerant of those attempting to alter the constitutional rights of people.

Then you must be intolerant of any Muslims who want the constitution to reflect the Koran.

At last we have some common ground.

This Muslim women claims that many American Muslims want to replace constitutional rights with Sharia law.

They can want to replace it with thunderdome justice...I want to replace the consitution with a quasi-socialist technocracy...but my wants and a couple bucks may get me a cup of coffee.

If some muslim goes for election and suggesting he will try to enact sheria law in areas, then that is a clear violation of church and state. it will be shot down, fed will nerf it, and chances are, the person will face charges...
Again, saying stuff, be it beliefs, desires, etc...totally legal, totally protected. Actually attempting to do it, thats a different matter entirely...and yep, if a potential presidental candidate was quoted as suggesting local authorities could circumvent the consitution and impose sharia law, I would be all over that for the lunacy it is.

Many a christians would like to ban unchristian things...that doesn't mean they can...they can get together with their neighbors and choose to boycott things they don't like, they can choose to do many things on their property, but that is simple freedom of choice, happiness, speech, etc...all protected. Government needs to stay the hell out of that.

The age of the stories doesn't matter, the point is there ARE Christian terrorists.

Well, there appeared to be a fair number of Christian who wanted to kill abortion doctors in the 1990s and 1980s.

Nowadays it appears to be quite rare.

We can only hope that Islamic terrorism in the US follows a similar trend.

In the short term however, American Islamic terrorism appears to be growing, not shrinking.

Sue Myrick, a member of the House of Representatives select committee on intelligence, says that America is for the first time exporting Islamist terrorism.

In her letter, Mrs Myrick writes: "For many years we lulled ourselves with the idea that radicalisation was not happening inside the United Sates.

"Today there is no doubt that radicalisation is taking place inside America. The strikingly accelerated rate of American Muslims arrested for involvement in terrorist activities since May 2009 makes this fact self-evident. What has been missed is that our home-grown terrorists are now becoming a global threat."

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Can you not see how that would only create MORE enemies for us? Denying rights is not the way, denying ignorance is. That means waging an intellectual war against Islam NOT banning churches and spreading paranoia about Muslims.

Waging an intellectual war against Islam?

Do you think that will work?

Originally posted by SaturnFX
I am intolerant of those attempting to alter the constitutional rights of people.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
I want to replace the consitution with a quasi-socialist technocracy...

So you are intolerant of yourself?

Sorry, I must have picked you up wrong. I don't understand how your two statements square.

reply to post by ollncasino

Do you think that will work?

I don't know but it will work a hell of a lot better than denying Muslims their Constitutional rights on the basis that a tiny percentage of them might plan or carry out attacks against the United States. While I will openly admit that Muslim extremism is a bigger threat today than Christian extremism (at least as far as violence is concerned in the USA) I also understand that that is not an excuse to violate the principle of religious freedom this country was founded on.

It is a reason, in fact, to strengthen our commitment to liberty, to show the world that in the face of danger paranoia and fear will not cause us to steal away anyone's rights in the pursuit of illusory safety. If we take away the rights of the average Muslims to worship it will not stop the terrorists, in fact it may serve to create more.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
What is your argument?

That communities have a right to ban a mosque because someone might commit a crime?

Good question.

Moderate Muslims tend not be quite as moderate when around other Muslims.

Nor do moderate Muslims often hold moderate views. For instance, only 27% of US Muslims think homosexuality is acceptable. That is an improvement over UK Muslims where 0% in a poll felt homosexuality was acceptable.

As Muslim numbers grow, their influence in society will grow disproportionately as it has everywhere else Muslim populations have grown.

On the one hand there will be moderate Muslims pushing for the Islamification of society. On the other hand, more radical Muslims will use violence and the threat of violence to push for the Islamification of society.

One thing you can be sure of. Muslims will push, as they have everywhere else, to make the US more Islamic. As they grow in numbers, what justification do you have to deny them?

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by SaturnFX
I am intolerant of those attempting to alter the constitutional rights of people.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
I want to replace the consitution with a quasi-socialist technocracy...

So you are intolerant of yourself?

Sorry, I must have picked you up wrong. I don't understand how your two statements square.

You know, I think I am done talking to you. I think at this point your no longer even bothering to make a point...just going for the last word sort of thing.

I want...meaning it is my desire, my wish, etc...but I would never make an action that would change the consitution because of my desires
I want to live in a 100% agnostic society that bans all religion...yet I think you have seen that I will defend a person's right to worship whatever the hell they want to.
Want is not change, want is just ideals, concepts, freedom to imagine.

But ya, I think I am done here...its no longer a debate on any logical grounds, and I personally am suspecting your simply trolling now verses validly confused about what is being said over and over...I refuse to believe someone whom can operate a computer can not understand the most basic statements going on here...so, its either ego driven last word nonsense, or trolling.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
If we take away the rights of the average Muslims to worship it will not stop the terrorists, in fact it may serve to create more.

A more effective approach may be simply to not encourage Muslim immigration.

In Europe it has caused a lot of problems. In the US, Muslim numbers are much smaller, at the moment.

Originally posted by ollncasino
One thing you can be sure of. Muslims will push, as they have everywhere else, to make the US more Islamic. As they grow in numbers, what justification do you have to deny them?

I'm not sure about a lot of your assertions, but for the sake of argument we'll accept them as true.

The problem is that your arguments generally work for all religions. You could replace "muslims" with "christians" and many of the stereotypes will hold true.

It's likely that I find the tenets and aspirations of Islam as disturbing as you. But allowing a condition where we reserve a right to ban a religious center is probably more alarming than Islam's forward march in America. To me it is paramount that we maintain religious freedoms in America - and should problems develop with the local mosque, we deal with it with the other laws we already have in place.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
I want...meaning it is my desire, my wish, etc...but I would never make an action that would change the consitution because of my desires

You stated

"I am intolerant of those attempting to alter the constitutional rights of people."

yet you stated

"I want to replace the consitution with a quasi-socialist technocracy".

So it is ok to want to change the constitution as long as you don't actually do anything about it?

Well, I haven't actually tried to change the constitution either.

But I'm still not quite understanding you. You said

As much as I hate to say it due to sounding highly jingoistic, If you don't like the consitution, you don't like america and you get get out...to attempt and remove the rights of a group because you don't like their words, or views, is about as anti-american as you can possibly get..

I'm not sure that your arguments are entirely consistant.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I'm not sure about a lot of your assertions, but for the sake of argument we'll accept them as true.

The problem is that your arguments generally work for all religions. You could replace "muslims" with "christians" and many of the stereotypes will hold true.

I don't mind living in a Christian nation as the West is at the moment.

If I wanted to live in a Muslim nation, I would move to one.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I'm not sure about a lot of your assertions, but for the sake of argument we'll accept them as true.

The problem is that your arguments generally work for all religions. You could replace "muslims" with "christians" and many of the stereotypes will hold true.

I don't mind living in a Christain nation as the West is at the moment.

If I wanted to live in a Muslim nation, I would move to one.

Well, perhaps you may wish to revisit the arguments you've presented for... whatever your viewpoint is. I'm still not certain if you're in favor of reserving a right to ban a mosque.

reply to post by ollncasino


The goal would be to reduce the religiosity of the entire nation and eventually the world. Easiest way to do that isn't an infringement of anyone's rights, it's to convince people intellectually. This will be difficult with Fundamentalists of various faiths but not impossible. I myself was raised a fundamentalist Christian yet I escaped it. The fewer people that are religious the less religiously motivated violence there will be. If we can get more people to think rationally and with empathy in mind about their actions violence will go down, the issue is instilling those intellectual values in Fundamentalists who don't use them as much as they should. Like I said banning mosques or churches, it's not the way to go about this, it's a way to make things much much worse by undermining key rights of our fellow Americans.

Originally posted by ollncasino
I don't mind living in a Christian nation as the West is at the moment.

Are you talking about America?
If so, it's not a christian nation. It's a nation of religious freedom.

reply to post by ollncasino


You really don't understand the difference between wanting and attempting to alter?

I want a million bucks, that does not mean I am attempting to steal a million bucks.

I want to have...sandwiches...with that good looking girl down the street does not mean I am attempting to...force sandwiches...with the girl down the street.

Want is nothing, attempting to alter is something.

reread the quotes and understand them...I have no issue with people wanting stuff, I have issue with people attempting criminal activity.

I am not sure why you keep bringing up that quote...my view is if you are a fan of people attempting to change the constitution to allow discrimination, or a return to slavery, or a removal of the right to bear arms, etc...you don't belong in this country as it is a hit at the very core principles of the country.

I don't want people to be armed to the teeth, i think guns are a horrible invention, but I do see the logic behind the right...especially since its out of control anyhow. If I became potus, I would not touch gun laws..however, I might make some commonsense restrictions on ammo clips and such that does not infringe on the right to bear arms.
If I went with my wants, I would ban guns unless you have passed a very strict course on handgun control, along with a psychological evaluation to make sure your sane enough to own a gun...would also put draconian laws in effect for black market guns.
But, my wants are not to be considered when it opposes the constitution...

The moment I try to alter things because of my wants is the moment the measures I put are firmly and immediately rejected and scrapped by our court system.

(sorry for again replying...but I just get bugged at strawmen and nonsense)

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Well, perhaps you may wish to revisit the arguments you've presented for... whatever your viewpoint is. I'm still not certain if you're in favor of reserving a right to ban a mosque.

My arguments have been

(1) Muslims carry out a lot of violence in the name of Islam

(2) The above isn't so surprising in light of Muhammad being a violent warlord who spread Islam by the Sword

Should Mosques be banned?

I would be happy to ban Islam.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
You really don't understand the difference between wanting and attempting to alter?

I want a million bucks, that does not mean I am attempting to steal a million bucks.

No, I think I do. I just object somewhat to being held to a different standard in comparison to the one you judge yourself.

I haven't tried to change the constitution either, yet you were telling me I should get out of the US.

But seriously, you come across as a very decent chap.