• 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!

Should the U.S. government tell a specific religion what they can teach?

Should the U.S. government tell a specific religion what they can teach?

  • Total voters
    34
MildSteel

MildSteel

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Messages
4,974
Reaction score
1,047
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Some appear to feel that the U.S. government has the right to single out Islam and say specifically what it can and cannot teach. Should the government be allowed to single out a specific religion in this way?
 
I don't think that it's based in singling out Islam. I think it's more so that radical Islam singled itself out with it's propensity for preaching and promoting violence, from some of the most radical Islamic Imams.

We know that radical Islamic Imams are preaching radicalism, and in some cases militancy, taking violent action in their cause.

We know that when Militant Islamic Fundamentalists attack, they cause harm to innocent victims that bear them no ill will.

When Militant Islamic Fundamentalists attack innocents doesn't that become a public safety issue?

Does it make sense to reduce the expense pain and suffering by curbing the radical preaching? And while it makes sense, does the constitution allow or support that intervention?

So yes, an interesting question.
 
eohrnberger said:
I don't think that it's based in singling out Islam. I think it's more so that radical Islam singled itself out with it's propensity for preaching and promoting violence, from some of the most radical Islamic Imams.
Click to expand...

Yeah but some feel that we should go after Islam specifically and tell Islam specifically what it can and cannot teach. That is wrong. If we feel, that for the sake of security we need to ban certain teachings, then that should be general and apply to the religious and non religious, and the respective organizations as well. We simply cannot be telling specific religions what they can teach.
 
MildSteel said:
Some appear to feel that the U.S. government has the right to single out Islam and say specifically what it can and cannot teach. Should the government be allowed to single out a specific religion in this way?
Click to expand...

The only "some" are the voices in your head. Unless you're talking about restricting Islamists from radicalizing people in Mosques located in the US, and calling them to Jihad against the West, the government has never suggested this.

Name the government officials who have been pushing for this.
 
ocean515 said:
The only "some" are the voices in your head. Unless you're talking about restricting Islamists from radicalizing people in Mosques located in the US, and calling them to Jihad against the West, the government has never suggested this.

Name the government officials who have been pushing for this.
Click to expand...

No the voices are in your head. Where did I say the government is doing it? I said SOME APPEAR to think that governement should tell Islam specifically what it can and cannot teach.
 
MildSteel said:
Yeah but some feel that we should go after Islam specifically and tell Islam specifically what it can and cannot teach. That is wrong. If we feel, that for the sake of security we need to ban certain teachings, then that should be general and apply to the religious and non religious, and the respective organizations as well. We simply cannot be telling specific religions what they can teach.
Click to expand...

I agree that the government can't dictate the contents of religious teaching, however, when it stills over into a public safety concern what do you do?
I'm OK, to a certain extent, with the government telling radical Imams that inciting violence isn't permitted, or is highly frowned upon, or at least will be surveilled.

Agreed, that it has to be a universally applied principal with universally applied response, irrespective of religion or organization. Should also apply to militant anti-government groups as well, as it's the militancy, and not the group, that's the point for the public safety concern.
 
ocean515 said:
The only "some" are the voices in your head. Unless you're talking about restricting Islamists from radicalizing people in Mosques located in the US, and calling them to Jihad against the West, the government has never suggested this.

Name the government officials who have been pushing for this.
Click to expand...

NY PD's program of surveillance of radical Imams in Mosques has been stopped. Now is surveillance the same as banning, might be a question for discussion.
 
MildSteel said:
Some appear to feel that the U.S. government has the right to single out Islam and say specifically what it can and cannot teach. Should the government be allowed to single out a specific religion in this way?
Click to expand...

Taking the title question as written, no, the US government should not tell a specific religion what they can teach. However, I think it would be fine for the US government to prohibit anyone, religious or otherwise, from teaching others that they should kill others.
 
MildSteel said:
Some appear to feel that the U.S. government has the right to single out Islam and say specifically what it can and cannot teach. Should the government be allowed to single out a specific religion in this way?
Click to expand...

Your premise is wrong. Any religion who's adherents have shown a pattern of violent behavior would attract scrutiny. It's not Islam per say, it's murder and fear spread in the name of Islam. When a murder is committed by a Muslim shouting allahu akbar, should we look at the local catholic parish for the assailant?
 
eohrnberger said:
I agree that the government can't dictate the contents of religious teaching, however, when it stills over into a public safety concern what do you do?
I'm OK, to a certain extent, with the government telling radical Imams that inciting violence isn't permitted, or is highly frowned upon, or at least will be surveilled.

Agreed, that it has to be a universally applied principal with universally applied response, irrespective of religion or organization. Should also apply to militant anti-government groups as well, as it's the militancy, and not the group, that's the point for the public safety concern.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, and it can go to SPECIFIC individuals such as ministers, imams, etc. who may be teaching such things to tell them that they cannot do so. However, it cannot single out imams as a group and say it, because then the government is doing so on the basis of their religion, not their behavior. And I think that is the key. We need to base it on BEHAVIOR because that is something that can be empirically observed. When we start getting into the ideological realm of it, then we are on very, very shaky grounds with regards to religion, because religion talks about things that cannot be observed empirically with mundane senses.
 
The best thing to do is to take religion out of it. Any person encouraging violence should be arrested, Muslims included. Simples.

To go on and on about so-called 'radical Islam' the way that the hysteriacs at Fox News do creates a McCarthyist environment and demonizes all Muslims. The best thing is to take religion out of it.
 
MildSteel said:
No the voices are in your head. Where did I say the government is doing it? I said SOME APPEAR to think that governement should tell Islam specifically what it can and cannot teach.
Click to expand...

Do you know what you posted? Are making something up to ask a ridiculous question?

Who is suggesting the government should restrict the teaching of Islam?

How about I post this. It's as based in reality as your Poll.

Some are suggesting Islam should be allowed to teach people to kill infidels? Should Islam be allowed to kill Infidels in the US?
 
spangledbanner said:
the best thing to do is to take religion out of it. Any person encouraging violence should be arrested, muslims included. Simples.

To go on and on about so-called 'radical islam' the way that the hysteriacs at fox news do creates a mccarthyist environment and demonizes all muslims. The best thing is to take religion out of it.
Click to expand...

exactly!
 
eohrnberger said:
NY PD's program of surveillance of radical Imams in Mosques has been stopped. Now is surveillance the same as banning, might be a question for discussion.
Click to expand...

It might be. It's certainly more grounded in reality than the OP.
 
There are laws against incitement and when a radical imam is justifying or legitimizing the murder of innocents for example he is violating these laws.
As such there is no need for 'special laws' that target the Islamic religion alone. It is unnecessary and undemocratic to create such laws.
What needs to be done is more enforcement on incitement.
 
Apocalypse said:
There are laws against incitement and when a radical imam is justifying or legitimizing the murder of innocents for example he is violating these laws.
As such there is no need for 'special laws' that target the Islamic religion alone. It is unnecessary and undemocratic to create such laws.
What needs to be done is more enforcement on incitement.
Click to expand...

Agreed. So why ban the NY PD's program on surveillance of radical Imams in Mosques? Why allow that to continue unmonitored? Why raise the public safety risks by terminating that program? Has DeBlasio addressed this question and this decision of his? (I think it was his decision).
 
ocean515 said:
Do you know what you posted? Are making something up to ask a ridiculous question?
Click to expand...

Of course I know what I posted. Here is what I said exactly:

Some appear to feel that the U.S. government has the right to single out Islam and say specifically what it can and cannot teach. Should the government be allowed to single out a specific religion in this way?
Click to expand...

ocean515 said:
Who is suggesting the government should restrict the teaching of Islam?
Click to expand...

I did not say anyone was suggesting that. I did say that some appear to think that the government should single out Islam and say what it can and cannot teach. That is wrong and that is quite different from saying restrict the teaching of Islam.

ocean515 said:
How about I post this. It's as based in reality as your Poll.

Some are suggesting Islam should be allowed to teach people to kill infidels? Should Islam be allowed to kill Infidels in the US?
Click to expand...

No, it is a fact that some APPEAR to suggest that we single Islam out as a religion. And if you think I am making it up consider this

In exploring Islam’s own stated doctrine, its own stated laws, and its own stated goals for the world, it is clear that Islam remains an ideology and system of governance that demands the extermination of anyone who does not subscribe to each and every one of its tenants. Given the factual basis of what “Islamists” say they seek to impose in this world, the United States has come to accept that radical “true Islam” is both a political and military enemy to free people throughout the world. […]

It is therefore time for the United States to make our true intentions clear. This barbaric ideology will no longer be tolerated. Islam must change or we will facilitate its self-destruction.
Click to expand...

Are you familiar with Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley? That's what he was teaching U.S. military officers at the Joint Forces Staff College.

No, I am not making it up. That's what some people believe.
 
johndylan1 said:
Your premise is wrong. Any religion who's adherents have shown a pattern of violent behavior would attract scrutiny. It's not Islam per say, it's murder and fear spread in the name of Islam. When a murder is committed by a Muslim shouting allahu akbar, should we look at the local catholic parish for the assailant?
Click to expand...

No, but some are suggesting that Islam specifically be singled out.

Again, consider Matthew Dooley

US military course taught officers 'Islam is the enemy' | US news | The Guardian

"They hate everything you stand for and will never coexist with you, unless you submit," the instructor, Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley, said in a presentation last July for the course at Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Virginia. The college, for professional military members, teaches mid-level officers and government civilians on subjects related to planning and executing war.
Click to expand...
 
Apocalypse said:
There are laws against incitement and when a radical imam is justifying or legitimizing the murder of innocents for example he is violating these laws.
As such there is no need for 'special laws' that target the Islamic religion alone. It is unnecessary and undemocratic to create such laws.
What needs to be done is more enforcement on incitement.
Click to expand...

That is correct. We simply do not need to be targeting a specific religion.
 
MildSteel said:
Of course I know what I posted. Here is what I said exactly:





I did not say anyone was suggesting that. I did say that some appear to think that the government should single out Islam and say what it can and cannot teach. That is wrong and that is quite different from saying restrict the teaching of Islam.



No, it is a fact that some APPEAR to suggest that we single Islam out as a religion. And if you think I am making it up consider this



Are you familiar with Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley? That's what he was teaching U.S. military officers at the Joint Forces Staff College.

No, I am not making it up. That's what some people believe.
Click to expand...

It would appear that Dooley said the following: "that radical “true Islam” is both a political and military enemy to free people throughout the world."

Based on what I have heard and seen on videos from radical "true Islam" followers, his claim is 100% accurate.

I don't know what it takes to pass over and ignore "radical" in his statement, but it would seem you have it in abundance.
 
ocean515 said:
It would appear that Dooley said the following: "that radical “true Islam” is both a political and military enemy to free people throughout the world."

Based on what I have heard and seen on videos from radical "true Islam" followers, his claim is 100% accurate.

I don't know what it takes to pass over and ignore "radical" in his statement, but it would seem you have it in abundance.
Click to expand...

Why are you ignoring this

In exploring Islam’s own stated doctrine, its own stated laws, and its own stated goals for the world, it is clear that Islam remains an ideology and system of governance that demands the extermination of anyone who does not subscribe to each and every one of its tenants.
Click to expand...

This is a clear reference to Islam itself.
 
MildSteel said:
No, but some are suggesting that Islam specifically be singled out.

Again, consider Matthew Dooley

US military course taught officers 'Islam is the enemy' | US news | The Guardian
Click to expand...

Having read the link he says that the was is one of ideology and philosophy, not just religion. I agree with that premise. I think that to single out Islam in the US. is a much different and unacceptable stance than singling out islam in theocratic or jihadist states. I wouldn't conflate the jurisdictions.
 
johndylan1 said:
Having read the link he says that the was is one of ideology and philosophy, not just religion.
Click to expand...

Yes but the point is that he singling out a religion.

johndylan1 said:
I agree with that premise.
Click to expand...

I disagree in strongest terms. We should not single out a single religion. It should be applied in general. Otherwise we are in the business of going after people on SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGION, NOT BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY DO.

johndylan1 said:
I think that to single out Islam in the US. is a much different and unacceptable stance than singling out islam in theocratic or jihadist states. I wouldn't conflate the jurisdictions.
Click to expand...

I disagree and I don't think you can do one without doing the other.
 
MildSteel said:
Why are you ignoring this



This is a clear reference to Islam itself.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't know what it takes to pass over and ignore "radical" in his statement, but you're going further to prove you have it in abundance.
 
MildSteel said:
Yes but the point is that he singling out a religion.



I disagree in strongest terms. We should not single out a single religion. It should be applied in general. Otherwise we are in the business of going after people on SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGION, NOT BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY DO.



I disagree and I don't think you can do one without doing the other.
Click to expand...

Sure you can, especially if you believe that the jihadists are not true to Islam. If you believe the west has a mild version of Islam that does not promote Jihad, why not separate and discriminate between the two? This ensures that the distinction is one of behavior and ideology and not just religious affiliation. Just to restate the obvious, we don't single out any religion, we single out the behavior and ideology. If murderous behavior and dangerous ideology resides within a religion should we "let it go", not to be accused of religious discrimination?

How about a brief mental exercise? If you could ask every member of ISIS or Al-qaeda, would they say the are fighting in the name of Islam? If so they have singled out their own religion for scrutiny via their BEHAVIOR, not us. Let's make that distinction and call it out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom