• 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

spud_meister said:
I had 3 hours sleep last night, forgetting a 'f' is pretty good.

And grammar has an 'a', not an 'e'.
Click to expand...

I can play you like a fiddle.

You let the comma slide tho, I noticed.
 
spud_meister said:
Yeah, all that stuff would never leave the ground in America, so all this fretting about Sharia Law is pretty pointless, a small minority cannot change the constitution.
Click to expand...

Not arguing with that nor am I one of the people on this thread defending Cain's statement, though I would like a little more context before I truly make a judgement of it...
 
ludahai said:
Not arguing with that nor am I one of the people on this thread defending Cain's statement, though I would like a little more context before I truly make a judgement of it...
Click to expand...

For context, I think Digsbe hit it earlier:

Cain says the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, which has been protested as well as challenged in court, "isn't an innocent mosque," but is rather "another way to try to gradually sneak Shariah law into our laws, and I absolutely object to that." Cain also claimed the mosque "is an infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion," the AP reports.
Click to expand...

Seems he was referring to Sharia law, not the mosque itself.
 
Anyone who believes this paranoid religious non-sense is...well, just paranoid...not to mention a religious bigot.

It would take alot to change this nation's religious views. Building a mosque be it in downtown NYC or Murfreesboro, TN is not going to change that.
 
ludahai said:
Read the New Testament? How many Catholics advocvating stoning today? How many Muslims?
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised how many Catholics and Protestants in Africa support hunting witches down.
 
Thunder said:
killing gays seems to be very popular in Christian Nigeria
Click to expand...

Not just Nigeria, in most of Africa it's pretty popular to go Old Testament on gays every couple of days. In Latin America it was like that until a few decades ago. Most Christians don't want to acknowledge that their religion is just as stuck in the 5th century as every other old world religion out there. However, we can't fault them, to them homos don't count. Only the womens and teh childruns.
 
spud_meister said:
Either way he's an idiot, for both indulging the slippery slop fallacy, and thinking that Sharia law will come into any meaningful position within US law.
Click to expand...

Then again maybe we need to take notice of what goes on around us ...

Last Tuesday, Florida Circuit Judge Richard Nielsen defended his decision to uphold a binding arbitration agreement, based upon Sharia Law, between ex-trustees of a local Mosque who claim to have been unfairly removed by the current leadership of that Mosque. The Islamic arbitration ruled in favor of the ex-trustees. The current leadership appealed, which is why the matter ended up before Judge Neilson:
Click to expand...
 
The Barbarian said:
Then again maybe we need to take notice of what goes on around us ...
Click to expand...

You do know that arbitration is entirely consensual by both sides, right? And that the dispute, as indicated in your quote, is over the trustees of a Mosque, over leadership of that Mosque. So it would be entirely appropriate to judge the fitness of a person to have control over a religious institution by that religion's laws. There is absolutely nothing illegal or even immoral about the situation you quoted.
 
The Barbarian said:
Then again maybe we need to take notice of what goes on around us ...
Click to expand...

You don't think religious beliefs should have a say in who runs a religious group!?
 
spud_meister said:
For context, I think Digsbe hit it earlier:



Seems he was referring to Sharia law, not the mosque itself.
Click to expand...

No, he did not. And I asked him for the context he claimed was missing, and he hasn't provided it. According to what we are reading, Cain was referring to the Mosque being an infringement and abuse of our freedom of religion. This could be a misquote, but that has definitely not been shown. Reread this sentence:

Cain also claimed the mosque "is an infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion,"
Click to expand...
 
spud_meister said:
The vast majority of Sharia law regulates a Muslims private life, praying 5 times a day, eating halal, no piggy, jet settin' of to Mecca etc. It's only a small portion that would be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

ludahai said:
Yeah, like the stoning for changing religions and things like that...
Click to expand...

Sharia Courts in Kenya existed before English colonialism and were accepted at independence. The new constitution also recognizes them. They are 'volunteer' only, limited in jurisdiction to divorce, inheritence and "status" (within Mosques, Imams, stuff like that presumably) and are appealable to the regular court system if either party is not satisfied. I see this much more as a compromise with a significant minority than being taken over.

Is there opportunity for abuse? Probably no more than a rich husband with an uneducated and powerless wife in any context. Am I against the courts? I suppose, but they are not a spearhead of Mooslim invasion and they have no criminal or otherwise unstipulated jurisdiction whatsoever. In its Kenyan form, Sharia Court is basically voluntary arbitration in a limited set of circumstances according to ones personal beliefs.
 
Last edited:
spud_meister said:
For context, I think Digsbe hit it earlier:



Seems he was referring to Sharia law, not the mosque itself.
Click to expand...

Cain is using the issue of Sharia law as a scare tactic. He is stating the mosque is going to cause sharia law to become enforced into the area and as such the mosque should not be built. It is about the mosque, the sharia law is just a cover
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Cain is using the issue of Sharia law as a scare tactic. He is stating the mosque is going to cause sharia law to become enforced into the area and as such the mosque should not be built. It is about the mosque, the sharia law is just a cover
Click to expand...

Wonder what his views on Jews are... since they also practice their form of religious law on their own kind from Synagogues....
 
The Barbarian said:
Then again maybe we need to take notice of what goes on around us ...

Last Tuesday, Florida Circuit Judge Richard Nielsen defended his decision to uphold a binding arbitration agreement, based upon Sharia Law, between ex-trustees of a local Mosque who claim to have been unfairly removed by the current leadership of that Mosque. The Islamic arbitration ruled in favor of the ex-trustees. The current leadership appealed, which is why the matter ended up before Judge Neilson:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So, what you're saying is that the U.S. Judge who abided by the settlment as agreed upon by the abritrator who used the tenants of the religion Cain mistrusts to resolve what amounts to an internal squabble between members of said religion should not have upheld the ruling by the arbitrator?

Sorry, but I fail to follow your logic.

First off, it wasn't the judge who made the settlement agreement outright. He just upheld the ruling the arbitrator already made towhich both parties in dispute apparently agreed to at one point.

Second, a arbitrator acting as a liason to negotiate a peaceful disbute doesn't have an impact on nor chances our social laws. The example you've provided is an internal matter and has nothing to do with how Sharia Law would impact American religious, social or moral culture.
 
Last edited:
Cain obviously does not support the First Amendment of the Unites States Constitution. Sad.
 
Krhazy said:
I have no idea what Cain meant, but I think one could make an argument that when people use freedom of religion to justify teaching hate, violence, etc., it is an abuse of the right. Just like Westboro Baptist protesting at funerals is an abuse of the freedom of speech.

Not saying that is what any particular Mosque is doing. In fact, I usually err on the side of thinking Cain's type of outrage is ignorant and borderline racist. Just saying.
Click to expand...

According to the courts, Westboro is not abusing the first amendment. I'm not defending them. I abhor those racist, bigoted creeps, but it is what it is. So, if those scum are allowed to picket funerals with despicable signs and rhetoric, why should Muslims be held to a different standard? The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, God-loving people. Why should anybody be punished for the actions of a few? I realize that you're not advocating Muslims being held to different standards, but even playing devil's advocate to this nonsense is, in my opinion, reproachable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom