• 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!

Herman Cain: Communities have right to ban mosques

So is it cool to ban a church too?
 
jamesrage said:
No community has the right to block the construction of any religious building, nor should they be allowed to. Part of the free exercise of religion is attending a religious service in a religious building.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute....

Any community has the right to block any construction what so ever, if it does not live up to safety standards, local planning laws and so on. It does not matter if it is a freaking church or mosque, if the local planning laws state no building must be higher than 2 stories, then throwing up a 4 story church tower or minaret is illegal period and hence the community can stop that part of the construction. If the religious institution buys a piece of land that is zoned as industrial, then it is not allowed to build its building there unless it is some sort of industrial building.... that is the law.

Now I can agree on the idea that a community can not ban a building just because it is a church or mosque or whatever religious building.. that is wrong and illegal.

But to have an rule that states "No community has the right to block the construction of any religious building" is idiotic and frankly spits in the face of the rule of law and puts religion ABOVE the law, which is certainly not what you meant.... right?
 
The Rev Kros said:
According to this article, Herman Cain Says U.S. Communities 'Have the Right' to Ban Mosques - FoxNews.com, his reasoning is that Islam is not just a religion. It is a religion with built in Shariah law.

I may not agree with him here, but I fail to see how it would violate the first amendment. The right to free speech and assembly does not also mean you can erect a building where you please. Communities do control zoning. They should be able to change the zoning of the particular site.
Click to expand...

Look at you... messing up our nice "bash on Cain" thread with your "FACTS". What a buzz kill man. :)

Regarding the Shariah law thing... he's pandering to the base and the fear that some Christians have regarding Muslims "taking over". I bet he doesn't have any problem with Mosaic Law being brought into the courts. (ex. 10 commandments in court rooms).

Regarding zoning, I don't think anyone here was making the argument that a community can't stop the building of a building that doesn't meet code. I think they're saying that blocking the building of it because it's of a particular faith IS against the 1st amendment.

Having said that, people have the right to protest it if they want, but the government can't stop them just for religious reasons.
 
repeter said:
I'm going to be honest here, you're being a hack.

Just because a group has its own flaws doesn't mean it can't point out other flaws.
Click to expand...

Pointing out hypocrisy makes one a hack? If you saw a bunch of KKK terrorist commenting on how wrong the racism of the nazis are, wouldn't you point out their hypocrisy? Or would pointing out their hypocrisy make you partisan hack?

What you're selfishly doing for political gain would hold up the progress of humanity. As it stands, I am completely against what Cain said on banning mosques,
Click to expand...

I have nothing to gain from this. I am not going to vote for Cain. But lets be real here. Most of these people booing Cain have the same attitude he has but regarding the 2nd amendment.They have no room to bitch that Cain wants to restrict the building of mosques.

but at the same time, I'm completely for maintaining 2nd amendment rights.
Ergo, my position proves your statement is wrong (because you obviously mean every liberal; all you do is deal in absolutes).
Click to expand...

So you are against permits,registrations, waiting periods,severe taxes on firearms and ammo, the ban on low price fire arms, ammo and fire arm restrictions,magazine restrictions, bullet micro-stamping and anything else that infringes on the 2nd amendment? If you are against those things then I guess I was wrong about you and I apologize for lumping you in with all those anti-2nd amendment loons who want to do the same thing to the 2nd amendment that Cain wants to do to the first amendment.
 
The Rev Kros said:
According to this article, Herman Cain Says U.S. Communities 'Have the Right' to Ban Mosques - FoxNews.com, his reasoning is that Islam is not just a religion. It is a religion with built in Shariah law.

I may not agree with him here, but I fail to see how it would violate the first amendment. The right to free speech and assembly does not also mean you can erect a building where you please. Communities do control zoning. They should be able to change the zoning of the particular site.
Click to expand...
Zoning is one thing, refusing a particular religion from constructing a house of worship in an area zoned for churches is another.
 
PeteEU said:
Wait a minute....

Any community has the right to block any construction what so ever, if it does not live up to safety standards, local planning laws and so on. It does not matter if it is a freaking church or mosque, if the local planning laws state no building must be higher than 2 stories, then throwing up a 4 story church tower or minaret is illegal period and hence the community can stop that part of the construction. If the religious institution buys a piece of land that is zoned as industrial, then it is not allowed to build its building there unless it is some sort of industrial building.... that is the law.
Click to expand...


Did Cain say anything about restricting the size of a building or did he say something about restricting the building of mosques period? For some reason I believe he thinks construction of it should be blocked even if it was just one story high,



Now I can agree on the idea that a community can not ban a building just because it is a church or mosque or whatever religious building.. that is wrong and illegal.

But to have an rule that states "No community has the right to block the construction of any religious building" is idiotic and frankly spits in the face of the rule of law and puts religion ABOVE the law, which is certainly not what you meant.... right?
Click to expand...

No community can ban religious buildings because it blatantly spits in the face of the US constitution. That is why I mean.
 
jamesrage said:
Most of these people booing Cain have the same attitude he has but regarding the 2nd amendment.They have no room to bitch that Cain wants to restrict the building of mosques.
Click to expand...
Exactly what is the connection between the thread topic and the Second Amendment?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Exactly what is the connection between the thread topic and the Second Amendment?
Click to expand...

If you support the infringement or restriction of one right that explicitly says shall not infringe then you have no room what so ever regarding another right that basically says the government shall not restrict or infringe on.
 
jamesrage said:
No community can ban religious buildings because it blatantly spits in the face of the US constitution. That is why I mean.
Click to expand...

So if the local zoning law says no building higher than 2 stories and someone wants to build a 4 story church, then they should be allowed to break the law just because it is a religious building?
 
PeteEU said:
So if the local zoning law says no building higher than 2 stories and someone wants to build a 4 story church, then they should be allowed to break the law just because it is a religious building?
Click to expand...

Reasonable zoning laws are ok. There are other factors too, codes and such for buildings. If the mosque or church satisfies these requirements, they should be allowed to build. You can't justly stop the construction of a religious building based solely on the type of religion it represents.
 
Ikari said:
Reasonable zoning laws are ok. There are other factors too, codes and such for buildings. If the mosque or church satisfies these requirements, they should be allowed to build. You can't justly stop the construction of a religious building based solely on the type of religion it represents.
Click to expand...

I fully agree with what you wrote.

And that is what I am trying to get out of jamesrage.. but all he has stated so far is that any religious building should be allowed to be built.... but what if the building breaks the law?
 
jamesrage said:
If you support the infringement or restriction of one right that explicitly says shall not infringe then you have no room what so ever regarding another right that basically says the government shall not restrict or infringe on.
Click to expand...
I think a key difference lies in those who disagree with Cain on First Amendment rights do so because what he is saying clearly goes against this...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;​

...whereas those against the Second Amendment voice the complaint that it is a single comma delimited sentence which gives the people the right to bear arms for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated militia...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I think a key difference lies in those who disagree with Cain on First Amendment rights do so because what he is saying clearly goes against this...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;​

...whereas those against the Second Amendment voice the complaint that it is a single comma delimited sentence which gives the people the right to bear arms for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated militia...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​
Click to expand...

Let's look at exactly militia meant when that was written.

The history of militia in the United States dates from the colonial era, such as in the American Revolutionary War.[38] Based on the British system, colonial militias were drawn from the body of adult male citizens of a community, town, or local region. Because there were usually few British regulars garrisoned in North America, colonial militia served a vital role in local conflicts, particularly in the French and Indian Wars. Before shooting began in the American War of Independence, American revolutionaries took control of the militia system, reinvigorating training and excluding men with Loyalist inclinations.[39] Regulation of the militia was codified by the Second Continental Congress with the Articles of Confederation. The revolutionaries also created a full-time regular army—the Continental Army—but because of manpower shortages the militia provided short-term support to the regulars in the field throughout the war.

In colonial era Anglo-American usage, militia service was distinguished from military service in that the latter was normally a commitment for a fixed period of time of at least a year, for a salary, whereas militia was only to meet a threat, or prepare to meet a threat, for periods of time expected to be short. Militia persons were normally expected to provide their own weapons, equipment, or supplies, although they may later be compensated for losses or expenditures.[40]

So without an armed population there would have been no militias. The Founders knew exactly what they were saying.
 
jamesrage said:
If you support the infringement or restriction of one right that explicitly says shall not infringe then you have no room what so ever regarding another right that basically says the government shall not restrict or infringe on.
Click to expand...

I fail to see the hypocrisy in supporting gun restrictions and supporting the first amendment.

The second amendment says that people will have the right to bear arms, not ANY KIND of arm.

Would it be okay for a private citizen to have a tomahawk missile? What about weapons grade plutonium?

There's a sliding scale. "Arms" could mean anything from slingshot to nuclear weapon. I think most people only disagree on what kinds of weapons and ammo private citizens can own and what they have to go through to get them.

Even if someone was for abolishing the second amendment, they can still be in favor of free speech.

Back to the topic at hand though... If there is no secular reason for banning the building of a church, then one can only assume that the reason is due to religious bias/hate/bigotry.
 
repeter said:
Herman Cain: Communities have right to ban mosques



This is my biggest problem with Cain. He is willing to blatantly violate the Constitution in this manner, and will hide being the facade of, "but the people want to!"

Member of the KKK want to exterminate blacks, jews, catholics, etc. Doesn't f**king mean we let them.

Herman Cain really is just horrible. What he says will corrupt and destroy America and her values, and I hope this man doesn't get a single vote for President, because he is absolutely wrong for this job.
Click to expand...

What does his being a former Godfather's Pizza CEO have to do with anything? Why even mention it? What sort of distraction is the reporter trying to play? Perhaps to place everything Mr.Cain says in a light of class-warfare so the left won't like him regardless of the unique merits and flaws of a given position?

I think so.
 
Probably highlighting the fact that he has little tangible experience significantly understanding law, the constitution, and how government practices work which may account for why he's making such outrageous claims such as communities banning a specific religion from buying land and building a building in line with all other codes in said location.
 
When I first read the thread title, I saw "Mosquitos" and thought to myself, "Hell yeah!

...

Mosques you say? :bolt
 
Jerry said:
What does his being a former Godfather's Pizza CEO have to do with anything? Why even mention it? What sort of distraction is the reporter trying to play? Perhaps to place everything Mr.Cain says in a light of class-warfare so the left won't like him regardless of the unique merits and flaws of a given position?

I think so.
Click to expand...
Same thing that went on with Huckabee in 2008, who was always referred to as a Baptist Preacher though he'd spend the previous 16 years, and more of his professional life, in Government. I thought he handled himself extremely well in the primary debates, given how the media was trying to cast him as the (crazy) religous face of the Republican Party.
 
of course it should be mentioned. cain himself is running on that accomplishment, isn't he?
 
Zyphlin said:
Probably highlighting the fact that he has little tangible experience significantly understanding law, the constitution, and how government practices work which may account for why he's making such outrageous claims such as communities banning a specific religion from buying land and building a building in line with all other codes in said location.
Click to expand...

So you're saying CEOs know nothing of the law or government.

Well I guess if you want to live under Shariah then you have that right.
 
Last edited:
liblady said:
of course it should be mentioned. cain himself is running on that accomplishment, isn't he?
Click to expand...

Well this is true, I have to give you that.

Little piece of trivia: Did you know that John Kerry served in Vietnam?
 
Polotick said:
Let's look at exactly militia meant when that was written.

The history of militia in the United States dates from the colonial era, such as in the American Revolutionary War.[38] Based on the British system, colonial militias were drawn from the body of adult male citizens of a community, town, or local region. Because there were usually few British regulars garrisoned in North America, colonial militia served a vital role in local conflicts, particularly in the French and Indian Wars. Before shooting began in the American War of Independence, American revolutionaries took control of the militia system, reinvigorating training and excluding men with Loyalist inclinations.[39] Regulation of the militia was codified by the Second Continental Congress with the Articles of Confederation. The revolutionaries also created a full-time regular army—the Continental Army—but because of manpower shortages the militia provided short-term support to the regulars in the field throughout the war.

In colonial era Anglo-American usage, militia service was distinguished from military service in that the latter was normally a commitment for a fixed period of time of at least a year, for a salary, whereas militia was only to meet a threat, or prepare to meet a threat, for periods of time expected to be short. Militia persons were normally expected to provide their own weapons, equipment, or supplies, although they may later be compensated for losses or expenditures.[40]

So without an armed population there would have been no militias. The Founders knew exactly what they were saying.
Click to expand...
Of course they were ... people had the right to bear arms for the sake of a well-regulated militia. But we live in a different day and age where a "well-regulated militia" isn't what it was back then. If you were to guess, what percentage of Americans who own firearms even belong to a well-regulated militia?

And according to what you wrote, that should exclude women.
 
Jerry said:
So you're saying CEOs know nothing of the law or government.

Well I guess if you want to live under Shariah then you have that right.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's one gigantic ****ing leap of illogic you make there.
 
I disagree with Cain. The citizens of a community don't have the right to infringe upon others their right to freedom of religion and worship. They dislike Sharia Law and Muslim theocracies, but doing this is no worse than countries like Saudi Arabia that ban all non-Muslim religious buildings and other religious things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom