ThePlayDrive
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2011
- Messages
- 19,610
- Reaction score
- 7,647
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
So is it cool to ban a church too?
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.
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.
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.
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,
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).
Zoning is one thing, refusing a particular religion from constructing a house of worship in an area zoned for churches is another.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.
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?
Exactly what is the connection between the thread topic and the Second Amendment?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.
Exactly what is the connection between the thread topic and the Second Amendment?
No community can ban religious buildings because it blatantly spits in the face of the US constitution. That is why I mean.
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?
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.
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...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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
of course it should be mentioned. cain himself is running on that accomplishment, isn't he?
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?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.
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.