• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cain: Tenn. Mosque Infringes on Religious Freedom

Herman Cain: Tennessee Mosque 'Is an Infringement and an Abuse of Our Freedom of Religion'



People worshipping the God of their choice is such an infringement of religious freedom.
Sadly, it seems republitard candidates are trying very very very hard to make a mockery of themselves with enough time before the Presidential Election to ensure they are defeated.

Its like they are working HARD to keep Obama in office, despite his lack of approval in polls about whether people would re-elect him.
 
It's thoughtful and well-intentioned to want to deny people fundamental rights?
You should get out of my country because clearly you despise some of its fundamental principles.

Are you paying for transportation?
 
Yes, America should definitely be more like Saudi Arabia when it comes to religious freedom. That's exactly the ****ing benchmark we should use.

You're kinda like the people who forward that dumbass email talking about how you can cross the North Korea border illegally and get hard labor for life but if you cross the US border illegally you get a free ride. (which isn't true but that's beside the point) My usual response is "so in what other ways do you think we should be like North Korea?"

So, I'll pose that question to you. How else should America be more like Saudi Arabia?

We should not be like Saudi Arabia. You seem to have missed the point. I said "However we are a tolerant people with a constitution that guarantees religious freedom" unlike the intolerant Saudi Arabia. I was attempting to explain how we a different than Saudi Arabia and other intolerant islamic countries.
 
We should not be like Saudi Arabia. You seem to have missed the point. I said "However we are a tolerant people with a constitution that guarantees religious freedom" unlike the intolerant Saudi Arabia. I was attempting to explain how we a different than Saudi Arabia and other intolerant islamic countries.

And yet, you'd "like to" behave more like them.
 
If Cain had praised the existence of the mosque, the Libbos would scram bloody murder that he violated the 1st Amendment.
 
If Cain had praised the existence of the mosque, the Libbos would scram bloody murder that he violated the 1st Amendment.

... Do you actually know what a violation of the 1st amendment is? Or does apdst simply want to derail another thread with his "Look at me, I'm a black Conservative and you hate me" act?
 
... Do you actually know what a violation of the 1st amendment is? Or does apdst simply want to derail another thread with his "Look at me, I'm a black Conservative and you hate me" act?

I was simply addressing the OP.

Many thanks, though, for acknowledging that I'm black. I know that's a huge step for you.
 
How so?...............

how would supporting this Mosque violate the 1st Amendment?

supporting the right of a religious group to practise their faith without govt. interference, is one of the major parts of the 1st Amendment.
 
Last edited:
I was simply addressing the OP.

Many thanks, though, for acknowledging that I'm black. I know that's a huge step for you.

See why you're such a complete failure on this forum? I said you're nothing more than an act. Do you know what an act is? This is why nobody takes you seriously. Not only can you not comprehend that which you are reading, you're also incapable of debating any issue.
 
how would supporting this Mosque violate the 1st Amendment?

supporting the right of a religious group to practise their faith without govt. interference, is one of the major parts of the 1st Amendment.

The same way that Perry supporting a prayer meeting is a violation of the 1st Amendment.
 
Not to my knowledge, but that doesn't matter to the religiophobes.

... the watchdog group of atheists and agnostics said the governor's call for a day of prayer violates the constitutional ban on the government establishing a religion. ...
Texas Governor Sued over Prayer Meeting - US - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com

first amendment:
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.

tell us why his advocacy of the day of prayer would not be found as establishing a religion approved by the state
 

Thank you for proving my point about Cain and the mosque.

tell us why his advocacy of the day of prayer would not be found as establishing a religion approved by the state

Because he still has his 1st Amendment right to religious freedom. That's why.

It's the same reason that Obama can publically attend church, or tell us that Islam is, "one of the world's great religions".
 
Last edited:
Atheists have argued that the Perry event violates the separation of church and state.

“It doesn’t cross the line between church and state,” Colbert said. “It erases it.”
 
Atheists have argued that the Perry event violates the separation of church and state.

“It doesn’t cross the line between church and state,” Colbert said. “It erases it.”

Yeah and the atheists that bitch about this sorta thing are ****ing idiots, too. They would be okay with violating the 1st Amendment, by, "interfering with the free excercise of", religion.
 
Thank you for proving my point about Cain and the mosque.
ole raisin insists moslems are NOT entitled to practice their religion as theu see fit, because he opposes their ability to construct a mosque
Because he still has his 1st Amendment right to religious freedom. That's why.
no one denies perry has a right to practice his religion as he sees fit. the objection is when he - as a government official - advocates a particular religious practice
pity you are unable to comprehend this distinction
It's the same reason that Obama can publically attend church, or tell us that Islam is, "one of the world's great religions".
Obama, like perry, can practice his own faith as he pleases (first amendment right). like perry, Obama cannot advocate a particular religious practice in his government capacity
Obama expressing his observation that islam is "one of the world's great religions" in no way advocates for a particular religious practice
again, pity you are unable to grasp the difference
 
Yeah and the atheists that bitch about this sorta thing are ****ing idiots, too.
why would those who want to assure the rights provided by our Constitution are properly enforced be found by you to be "idiots"

They would be okay with violating the 1st Amendment, by, "interfering with the free excercise of", religion.
they see perry as using his government position to advocate for a particular religious practice and thus seek to enforce the provisions of the second amendment, which amendment says what perry is doing violates our Constitution
why do you advocate violation of the U.S. Constitution?
 
ole raisin insists moslems are NOT entitled to practice their religion as theu see fit, because he opposes their ability to construct a mosque

"ole raisin"? Really? :lamo

no one denies perry has a right to practice his religion as he sees fit. the objection is when he - as a government official - advocates a particular religious practice
pity you are unable to comprehend this distinction

The distinction is, that he didn't pass any law to do so. There's nothing in the 1st Amendment that says an elected official can't advocate a certain religion. It's the whole, "religious freedom", thing.

Obama, like perry, can practice his own faith as he pleases (first amendment right). like perry, Obama cannot advocate a particular religious practice in his government capacity
Obama expressing his observation that islam is "one of the world's great religions" in no way advocates for a particular religious practice
again, pity you are unable to grasp the difference

Perry can publically support any religion he wants. It's the, "religious freedom", part, again.
 
"ole raisin"? Really? :lamo
seems fitting


The distinction is, that he didn't pass any law to do so.
There's nothing in the 1st Amendment that says an elected official can't advocate a certain religion. It's the whole, "religious freedom", thing.
let's again see the text of the first amendment
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.
notice how it tells us government cannot establish a religion. and that means perry, in his GOVERNMENT capacity cannot embrace any particular religious practice. perry the individual can endorse any religious action he would personally want to advocate
again, it's a pity you are unable to distinguish between what perry can do as a private citizen and what he can do as an elected official of the government

Perry can publicly support any religion he wants. It's the, "religious freedom", part, again.
and i agree. perry - IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY - absolutely can support any religious practice he wants
but perry - IN HIS GOVERNMENT CAPACITY - THAT OF THE GOVERNOR - cannot. that violates the first amendment
tell us again why you advocate the violation of the U.S. Constitution
 
seems fitting



let's again see the text of the first amendment

notice how it tells us government cannot establish a religion. and that means perry, in his GOVERNMENT capacity cannot embrace any particular religious practice. perry the individual can endorse any religious action he would personally want to advocate
again, it's a pity you are unable to distinguish between what perry can do as a private citizen and what he can do as an elected official of the government


and i agree. perry - IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY - absolutely can support any religious practice he wants
but perry - IN HIS GOVERNMENT CAPACITY - THAT OF THE GOVERNOR - cannot. that violates the first amendment
tell us again why you advocate the violation of the U.S. Constitution

He's not. He's encouraging people to participate in a day of prayer. That's nowhere close to endorsing any certain religion. It sure as hell isn't pushing a law creating a state religion, which is really what the 1st Amendment refers to; a response to the Church of England, by the Founders. Pick up an history book. When you do, you'll find that most of the Founders also--by your standards--violated the 1st Amendment.
 
He's not. He's encouraging people to participate in a day of prayer. That's nowhere close to endorsing any certain religion. It sure as hell isn't pushing a law creating a state religion, which is really what the 1st Amendment refers to; a response to the Church of England, by the Founders. Pick up an history book. When you do, you'll find that most of the Founders also--by your standards--violated the 1st Amendment.

It's freedom of religion. Not freedom of a certain religion.
 
Back
Top Bottom