Mosques in America: Religious liberty vs. national security

[rangerrebew]

Mosques in America: Religious liberty vs. national security
'It becomes the territory of Islam, for the promotion of Shariah'
Published: 11 hours ago


WASHINGTON – It is a growing dilemma across the country.

Americans are traditionally loathe to do anything that smacks of violating religious liberties. But many feel reason to be concerned when a mosque is proposed for their neighborhood.

Not all mosques may become havens or breeding grounds for terrorists or radical Islamists.

But, mosques usually serve as “centers of gravity” for jihadi rings, according to Philip Haney, one of the nation’s top experts on radical Islam and former terrorist identification expert for the Department of Homeland Security.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/01/mosques-in-america-religious-liberty-vs-national-security/#6gcG2DLIpTq5hBvU.99

[Jazzhead]

If we demand religious liberty for Christians,  if we demand that discrimination against Christians who practice their faith be opposed,  then so it must be for Islam.    These Constitutional protections apply to both religions, or to neither.   

[skeeter]

If we demand religious liberty for Christians,  if we demand that discrimination against Christians who practice their faith be opposed,  then so it must be for Islam.    These Constitutional protections apply to both religions, or to neither.

Absolutely.

Then watch them like hawks, without apology. The minute those 'religious liberties' include treason, seditious conspiracy or subversive activities then shut em down and, if appropriate, ship participants back to dar Islam.

[TomSea]

For however one wants to view the Arkansas gunshop not allowing Muslims incident; that lady owner I felt was pretty spot on as identifying Islam as a theocracy, it is beyond religion. So, I don't think Islam can even be compared to Christianity and it's sort of an insult to do so.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/28/gun-range-ban-on-muslims-draws-fire.html

Or:

We have spoken often and at length about the menace presented by the Islamic theocracy to our various religions, our culture and our nation. The menace is twofold: first, Islam is a theocracy, pure and simple; that means that Islam is a radical combination of Church and State. Second, Islam is, at its ultimate end goal, absolutely intolerant of any other religion and any other form of government or civil law. Disciples are required by faith to embrace, promote and live within Sharia, the Islamic law, which encompasses both civil and ecclesial law.

Henceforth, I will refer to Islam as a theocracy rather than a religion.

The relentless goal of the Islamic theocracy is to expand Ummah, meaning the entire Moslem world community in submission to Allah, at our expense. Another term for Ummah is Dar Al Islam, or the House of Peace. Where we non-Moslems live is in Dar Al Harb, or, the House of War. The whole goal of Islam is to expand Dar Al Islam at the expense of Dar Al Harb. This vitally important aspect of Islam is tightly bound up in the guiding ethos of the religion and culture of Islam; it is interwoven into the very purpose for being of the devout Moslem.

http://www.catholicamericanthinker.com/islamic-theocracy.html

A religion, oh, honor killings, female genital mutilation, sharia law, halal meat which is butchered in an inhumane way. Yeah, just another religion like the Buddha sitting. 

[TomSea]

Tunisia, a Muslim nation, closed 80 radical Mosques; Egypt clamps down on the Muslim Brotherhood, illegal in places like the UAE; yeah, but us in the USA and UK have to have our religious protections.
 

[TomSea]

Army of God, religious outfit, almost seems to glorify the killing of abortion doctors, should people like that be watched? Probably and they purport to be Christians.

Nothing like linking all so-called religions together, we never see the left do that. 

[skeeter]

I believe that lady is absolutely correct. The problem comes in trying to deal effectively the problem without compromising & obliterating our own Constitutional principles in the process.

For better or worse (worse, IMO) they are here now. All that can be done is to implement the old enforcements against sedition, watch mosques very closely and try to design non infringing laws that prevent the intentional further Islamization of the country.

Oh, and there's absolutely nothing wrong or unconstitutional about restricting further muslim immigration. It is well within our right to decide who gets to come here & who doesn't.

[TomSea]

Churches have been slapped with public nuisance charges before; for not being responsible institutions. If also, a church funneled money to the IRA or someone like that, that should be looked at too. 

The whole thing about Islam as a theocracy needs to be looked at.

[Cripplecreek]

I believe that lady is absolutely correct. The problem comes in trying to deal effectively the problem without compromising & obliterating our own Constitutional principles in the process.

For better or worse (worse, IMO) they are here now. All that can be done is to implement the old enforcements against sedition, watch mosques very closely and try to design non infringing laws that prevent the intentional further Islamization of the country.

Oh, and there's absolutely nothing wrong or unconstitutional about restricting further muslim immigration. It is well within our right to decide who gets to come here & who doesn't.

When my great grandfather came here in 1912 he had to swear to both a political and religious statement (Anarchy and polygamy)

[skeeter]

When my great grandfather came here in 1912 he had to swear to both a political and religious statement (Anarchy and polygamy)

Many of the common sense measures we took in the past in the interests of the public good and plain old self preservation somehow have come to be considered heresy against the Constitution today. People need to get a grip.

[Cripplecreek]

Many of the common sense measures we took in the past in the interests of the public good and plain old self preservation somehow have come to be considered heresy against the Constitution today. People need to get a grip.

I know anarchists were a problem around that time. William McKinley had been killed by self proclaimed anarchist Leon Czolgosz in 1901. The polygamy question is interesting. There were a lot of middle eastern Christians coming at that time and maybe asking about polygamy was an attempt to weed out muslims.

Interestingly enough my great grandfather was a Jew who claimed to be Catholic to improve his chances of being accepted. Catholics still faced a fair amount of discrimination at that point but not to the extent Jews faced

[Maj. Bill Martin]

For however one wants to view the Arkansas gunshop not allowing Muslims incident; that lady owner I felt was pretty spot on as identifying Islam as a theocracy, it is beyond religion. So, I don't think Islam can even be compared to Christianity and it's sort of an insult to do so.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/28/gun-range-ban-on-muslims-draws-fire.html

Or:
A religion, oh, honor killings, female genital mutilation, sharia law, halal meat which is butchered in an inhumane way. Yeah, just another religion like the Buddha sitting. 

There are a lot of Muslims who don't engage in honor killings, or try to compel obedience to Sharia.  Actions that violate our law remain illegal, whether they have a religious basis or not.  But you don't outlaw beliefs.  Remember this guy?

Muslim shopkeeper killed in Scotland after wishing Christians a Happy Easter



http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/muslim-man-killed-scotland-wishing-happy-easter-article-1.2578653

He and others like him should be free to practice their beliefs as long as they don't break our laws, and he shouldn't lose his right to practice his religion just because some other practitioners of the religion haven't entered the 21st (or even 18th) century.

[TomSea]

There are a lot of Muslims who don't engage in honor killings, or try to compel obedience to Sharia.  Actions that violate our law remain illegal, whether they have a religious basis or not.  But you don't outlaw beliefs.  Remember this guy?

Muslim shopkeeper killed in Scotland after wishing Christians a Happy Easter



http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/muslim-man-killed-scotland-wishing-happy-easter-article-1.2578653

He and others like him should be free to practice their beliefs as long as they don't break our laws, and he shouldn't lose his right to practice his religion just because some other practitioners of the religion haven't entered the 21st (or even 18th) century.

I think though, whether it is a religion or theocracy should still be looked at instead of fixing and dealing with problems after they happen.

[Jazzhead]

I think though, whether it is a religion or theocracy should still be looked at instead of fixing and dealing with problems after they happen.

Nope.  Major Bill is right.  It's a religion,  whose adherents are as entitled to the protections of the Constitution as Christians or Jews.   Perhaps more so,  since Muslims in this country have suffered grievously from discrimination by their fellow citizens since 9/11.   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I think though, whether it is a religion or theocracy should still be looked at instead of fixing and dealing with problems after they happen.

It is a religion that can turn into a theocracy if you let it.  So, you don't.

And just to clarify my position, I do oppose large scale Muslim immigration into this country for precisely that reason.  There is no majority Muslim nation in the world that doesn't have an unacceptable level of theocratic elements, and I would not want to live in a nation that has a Muslim majority, or even one where Muslims have a strong degree of political power.

However, in terms of the Muslims who are already here, they should retain their right to worship as they please unless and until, as individuals, they violate our laws.  And at that time, they should be punished as individuals.