Freedom of speech is one thing, but inciting terrorism is another.

Should have done that YEARS ago. So much damage has been done there, too.

After all, it is the church inciting the violence, not an identifiable person culpable of anything, the institution is the problem, right? Leads right down the road Hitler took, the Roman Emperors took, then later the Roman Catholics took in America, eliminate everyone who doesn't believe exactly what you do, who looks different, ..... kill, kill, kill, ...

And the beauty of it is you don't have to kill anyone yourself, you just need to find stupid people and teach them to hate. And after the genocide the whole continent is yours and you can get on with conquering the rest of the world in the name of your particular God.

Pardon me if I'm bursting the satire bubble

arrest any churches officials as accomplices if they are advocating that people actually commit major crimes like shooting someone or bombing someone or something.
After all the first amendment while providing broad protections doesnt protect you if your an accomplice in a crime.

You can't have it both ways. People commit crimes. Mosques are Islamic religious buildings. Are you advocating for fighting crime by closing religious buildings?

are preaching violence and hate, you bet I want them closed.

Violence, no. At least not specifically stated.
Although, violence could be incited especially for mentally imbalanced parishioners.

I wouldn't close the fucking churches also?

I don't understand how closing a building will do much except send them underground. I am trying to understand the logic here.

There is nothing we can do - short of something drastic and no doubt unconstitutional that will keep us completely safe. But closing mosques that preach hate is a place to start. And keep an eye on the Iman (and if we can prove he preaches hate and is not a citizen, throw him the fuck out) along with the congregation that obviously had no problem with a leader who preaches hate. Gotta start somewhere.

spectrum of religions. And, what happens, is people that might have been neutral in life get indoctrinated into hatred, and that happens across many religions. Agree, there needs to be an effort to stop it. Also, the government needs to do investigations into hatred. Apparently our stupid congress stopped that some time ago. Hate groups just got too upset. Yet another WTF. To me, these mass shootings are just the tip of the iceberg.

That physicians were petitioning congress to ALLOW them to study the effects of guns. Holy shit , the LAW was stopping these studies. I feel like banging my head against the wall. We've both seen that religion is becoming less popular every year. Scares the crap out of some people...me it gives hope for the future.

There's a law preventing the NIH and CDC from publicly funding studies of gun violence.

Faculty have salaries and start-up funds and departmental funds; there are private grants and other ways to do funding that doesn't involve federal money. What they want is federal funding for doing what they want to do.

Note the cycle that would be created: They want funding for the purpose of showing what a risk guns are, so that these federally funded studies can be used to lobby for federal regulations. They'd become de facto federal contractors whose goal is to influence federal policy. We have laws and regulations that prevent government employees from lobbying Congress, and there's a push to say that if you get paid by a company or person you're that company's or person's employee.

In fact, they have produced such research in recent years. They are prevented from engaging in gun control advocacy because their prior "scholarship" was so laughably poor and undeniably political.

As for the government research overall, one need simply peruse the studies of the NIJ (my old employer), BJS, FBI, DOJ, and other agencies to realize that most of the claims about government prohibition on gun research is unmitigated crap.

The demands for allow the government to research firearm violence are based purely on ignorance, much of it willful, and/or a transparent desire for subsidies for political activism like gun control advocates had in years past. I guess even a pet billionaire occasionally says no to some projects.

intimidation and persecution often headed up by patriarchal ruling figureheads. Religion is obsolete. I will be glad when it's eventually gone. However, as some have said, it might be replaced by something worse, such as fanatical nationalism. That said, much as you, less popularity of religion gives me hope for the future.

It's amazing how law is often used for all of the wrong things. The physicians you mentioned, as well as the study of RW fanatical groups and all blocked. A total WTF to me. Just looking at the Southern Poverty Center hate map of the US should be enough to shock the sh** out of anyone.

incite other people to commit a crime.

Oh wait, we don't close down a corporation if a person working in a store commits a crime.

The only thing being driven underground was too low for public consumption to begin with.

Please elaborate.

You don't know about Columbus discovers America, 60 million dead.

America = United States, at least in this context

Columbus sailed for Spain, not the Catholic Church

The whole "Columbus killed 60 million" is stupid Ward Churchill nonsense. The American Indian was systematically destroyed by our own government, to ensure manifest destiny. To pin the history of American imperialism on Christopher Columbus is fucking dumb, dumb, dumb. Anyone who understands how slavery worked in New Spain would have understand that the spanish version of slavery was nothing like the Saxon version practiced here. I especially love latte drinking, college kids in skinny jeans berating Columbus every October while they text on their iphone and pretend to be superior. Little over-privileged hypocrites that they are .

the author said the Catholics did the killing, not that they were the victims. At least that is how I read it.

If we are considering America = USA, then I don't think there has been organized Catholic-perpetrated genocide. If you want to consider "the Americas (North and South)" then it's another story. The Church merrily slaughtered its way across both continents.

I find the whole notion of the "Church" being behind the destruction of the native cultures rather silly. Spain and the conquistadors were not doing the Church's work. The history of Mexico is fascinating and certainly there were attrocities. Guzman's raids being some of the worst. Disease did a lot as well, and that was a genetic catastrophe, hardly something to blame on the Church.

As I said, the native American populations were destroyed so we could have manifest destiny. The bullshit is the bufflao were wiped out to give robes and meat back east. The truth is, the American military wiped them out because "If you control their food source, you control the indian".

The Church certainly has some shit to answer for it in Europe like the inquisition in Spain, but not here in America. Pin that shit where it belongs, on the Saxons. Still, everyone wants to cancel Columbus Day but no one wants to cancel July 4th. Illogical in my opinion. One is just a sexier target.

...look at the country or countries most responsible for financially supporting (Saudi Arabia) mosques and Islam centers (Saudi Arabia) that preach hate speech (Saudi Arabia).

Oh, and by the way, what about those 28 pages (Saudi Arabia) of the official 9/11 report that were specifically redacted (Saudi Arabia) by the Bush* White House, and which the Obama White House (Saudi Arabia) - which promised to release (Saudi Arabia) and has not done so?

It appears to fly in the face of the protection of free speech in our Constitution if applied in the US.

"To write, print, utter or publish, or cause it to be done, or assist in it, any false, scandalous, and malicious writing against the government of the United States, or either House of Congress, or the President, with intent to defame, or bring either into contempt or disrepute, or to excite against either the hatred of the people of the United States, or to stir up sedition, or to excite unlawful combinations against the government, or to resist it, or to aid or encourage hostile designs of foreign nations."

For conspiring: "if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise, or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanour, and on conviction before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment during a term of not less than six months, nor exceeding five years;"

For printing/writing/uttering, etc.: "if any person shall write, print, utter, or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered, or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering, or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either House of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either House of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States; or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the Constitution of the United States; or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act; or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years. "

Can be scrapped. Right? That's what the RWNJs tell me.

America doesn't have openly radical Muslims promoting terrorism like Europe does.

In the U.S., the Constitution prohibits the government from "making of any law respecting an establishment of religion," or "impeding the free exercise of religion". The government is Constitutionally prohibited from not only controlling religious beliefs, but from interfering with someones right to practice it how they wish.

In France, the Constitution itself doesn't address religion, but instead grants constitutional authority to another document called the Declaration of the Rights of Man from the late 1700's. That document contains several very important provisions:

4. Liberty consists of doing anything which does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the enjoyment of these same rights.

10. No one may be disturbed for his opinions, even religious ones, provided that their manifestation does not trouble the public order established by the law.

Basically, American law prevents the government from interfering with religion. French law prohibits the government from interfering with religion unless the religion is oppressing the rights of others or is trying to harm the public.

That difference explains why France can shut down mosques, while the U.S. cannot.

I agree with you that there's a difference in the treatment of religion. Nevertheless, even in the United States, religious speech is not protected if there's "a clear and present danger to public order" or the like. (The Supreme Court has wrestled with various formulations of the exception.)

If someone published a newspaper op-ed saying that abortion is murder, abortion doctors are murderers, and decent people should do whatever is necessary to stop abortions, that would be protected speech, whether or not the argument was couched in religious terms and whether or not someone reading the op-ed then went out and shot up a clinic. On the other hand, if there's an anti-choice mob gathered outside a clinic, and a speaker up on a soap box is haranguing them about the evils of abortion, and the mood is getting very ugly, and people in the mob are shouting for violence against the clinic and its employees, then the police could break up that assembly and silence the speaker, again whether or not the speaker was invoking religion. The difference is that, in the latter case, there's an imminent risk of illegal violence.

In the United States, the police couldn't close a mosque or church just because it used religion to foment hate, but they also couldn't close the headquarters of an extremist Marxist faction that was fomenting hatred of the capitalists. In each case, the speech is protected without regard to freedom of religion; it's protected because of the absence of a clear and present danger.

Does no one on this bleeping board have any Muslim friends?

What I've heard is that when the wild-eyed ones show up, the imams correct their errors. But if they persist, out they go.

To do here?

commit violent crimes its not even in spitting distance of what Trump wanted which was far worse.
As for the idea to close the mosques? It might work but to be honest think its more fair to charge the ones who are inciting others to commit crimes as accomplices might be the way to approach this.

Does the FBI have to catch an imam buying explosives on the mosque's account? Do you need video of them telling people to kill? How about just here-say? What if they just start calling people infidels and suggesting that infidels should be "punished"? This is why you're seeing the slippery slope comments on the thread, because people seem to draw the line between "free speech" and "inciting violence" based as much on their political ideology as much as any objective and consistent standard.

showing up at protests with signs saying "Behead those that insult Islam", "Islam will dominate the world", ect, or an Imam saying that kind of thing at a Mosque. In the US, the FBI probably wouldn't be able to do anything. But in other countries with more secular laws, who knows?

And if the worst the people from the mosque are doing is showing up at protests and holding signs, is that really a good reason to close the mosques. Yes, no doubt if the imam is saying "Go kill people", I agree, but if they say "Islam will dominate the world", is THAT really enough to close a mosque? And would you close it just based on someones word, or would you need hard evidence?

Undercover guy to show up and record what an imam says. Once the incriminating stuff is said, arrest the imam for incitement. Close the place down. Do the same to any church that would produce a Farook or a Dear.

better. France has listed "preaching hatred" as one of the reasons they'll shut down a mosque, I'm just wondering what their definition is. How subjective is it?

Last edited Thu Dec 3, 2015, 10:32 AM - Edit history (1)

Finally, a solution

Then yes, I am good with that.

Of course IMO, it was political from day one. One invokes the god word and many back off. Some do incite violence, no matter what religion, and those individuals should be held accountable. Also, IMO, all tax deductions for religion should be stopped. Some create churches/religion, for example, solely for tax write offs.

.. in order to support the ones who are still living
and need a hand.

I'm cool with that then.

Who gets to define "violent" mosques? Where does it stop when the gov't assumes the right to decide which religion is acceptable?

don't worry. I understand the implications of that.

The black churches or the liberals or whoever else they don't like.

Have you ever read the Bible? Its full of violence.

not cool

You gonna be busy if you wanna do that here





https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map

Most of it aint gonna be Muslims or Mosques, though

a damn free pass. And the FBI as I understand had to stop investigating hate groups, something like that. Another major WTF. Just hate on radio clogs the airwaves.

and feed into the hero/revenge fantasies of people like dear? what do we do about those and where does it stop?

Most organized and actively proselytized religion as it exists today is a stain on the fabric of humanity, whose only purpose is to limit free and expansive thought and control the minds of its believers. The specter of religion should be removed from all political and governmental avenues. Freedom of religion and the right of individual religious belief should be protected, HOWEVER, severely limited to private practice.

There is no heaven, there is no hell.
There are no gods, angels, devils or demons.
There is only our real and natural world.
Religion is but myth and superstition
that hardens hearts and inflames minds.

many spiritual paths exist which do not encourage (or expressly forbid) proselytizing. and we rarely if ever hear of issues within those groups.

the ones hellbent on coverting the world to the "right" way seem to be the major source of the problem.

tough signline, by the way. sadly, i can't disagree.......

And as for my sigline, yes tough, but true. The republican party of today is but another sad example of government or politics that has allowed itself TO BE POLLUTED by the poison of overreaching religious belief and justification.

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”
― Barry M. Goldwater

I'll point out such laws on this stuff already exist. You ever heard a fundie claim some country or liberals want to make it illegal to preach that homosexuality is a sin? Of course that's bullshit but what they are actually referring to is laws against advocating violence against homosexuals.

on their tax exempt status while this preach this political hate speech......

just think of what we could do with that tax revenue..like help the poor...thats a radical concept!

so where do we draw the line? if we are willing to close mosques that advocate hate, what do we do with other groups, religious or not, that advocate hate?

we have to be willing to deal with radical people of all religions as well as secular orgs that preach hate and fester violence.

you schlam, we all schlam - for eeeschlam....

not give the impressionable a positive option.

What I don't think people understand about Islam (or really most societies outside of the West) is there is a tremendous political/governmental branch to Islam. It has no "separation of Church and State." Islam is the state.

While this is an oversimplification, but the concept of a separate King (government) and Priest (religion) is a Jewish idea, honed by the Greeks (Democracy) and Romans (Republic) and then combined and modified by various bright guys in England and later the USA.

In Islam, the government is wholly subservient to the Imans. Islam is not alone in this -- the Roman Catholic Church hung on to elements of this for a long time, and even places like Japan and China had "divine emperors" of various kinds.

We've banned undesirable and violent political movements in the past, and still do. For example, if you become a citizen of the USA today, you have to confirm you are "not now, nor have even been, a member of the Nazi Party" before coming in.

And there are several Islamic terrorists organizations that fit this bill, as well, and are banned in the USA.

We would just have to really, really examine the teachings of various mosques and see if they are, indeed, preaching violence and violent overthrow of the USA. (There are several that do -- for example that asshat in New Jersey.)

If so, they are not a religion, but rather a dangerous poltical group that incites violence, and can, indeed, be shut down.

Is this a dangerous idea? Yes. It has to be very carefully done.

Has this been abused in the past? Yes. Think Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

Can we do it correctly? Yes. There will be mistakes and we need to guard against them.

Do we have a choice? No.

You are hiking in the the wilderness, and along the path you encounter a precarious slippery slope that must be navigated carefully. Do you sit down and refuse to go any further because of the slippery slope?

No, you logically appraise the situation, giving careful, calculated thought to possible courses of action, and then you navigate said slippery slope slowly and with caution to reach your end goal.

AGREED: We have no choice. We must take action - carefully, cautiously, judiciously... but we must move forward. Our survival is at risk. Unless, of course, we have resigned ourselves to perish at the advent of the slippery slope because of our fear and inaction.

There is a freedom of religion (albeit not an absolute one -- for example, human sacrifice would not be allowed), yes.

But what I am getting at is the political aspect of Islam. Islam is NOT JUST A RELIGION. It is also a governmental system.

And, yes, that can be banned under clear US Constitutional law, in certain narrow circumstances.

Does it take careful parsing and scrutiny? Yes.

The alternative is Donald Trump comes to power and he starts up camps.

Islam may be a religion of peace... for most adherents of Islam that may well be the case. HOWEVER, there is a segment of Islam that has no problem shooting down airliners, spraying theaters with bullets, bombing restaurants, burning people alive in cages, beheading people for so-called apostasy, etcetera and etcetera and etcetera. This segment of Islam DEMANDS that everyone - believer and nonbeliever alike - adhere to medieval Sharia law.

I am a gay man. Under Islam, I am dead meat. My accomplishments, my hopes, my dreams... my life mean nothing.

The Constitution that would guarantee freedom of religion for all, would be eagerly trampled underfoot in an Islamic Caliphate. Oh, and by the way, you have noticed the abysmal treatment of women under radical Islam? Burka, anyone?

deserve to fry in hell? What's good for the goose...

These types of churches often preach aggressive war in the US, aggressive wars that are actually happening and are destroying the Middle East.

However calling for the parishoners to send the non-believers to hell is inciting violence

Somebody is guilty for the mass slaughter the US is conducting in the Middle East.

where a sermon was given by a Christian preacher exorting the congregation to go forth and kill those heathen in the ME...

John Hagee is one of the more notorious:

http://antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/05/john-hagee/

Statistically, the more religious one is the more likely one is to support war. That is only a tendency, but many right-winged churches, and other right-wing religious groups, support war.

Wars don't just happen. Wars are the world's worst crime and many people, some more guilty than others, are responsible for these wars. Preachers that preach and members that vote bear some responsibility.

going to war or supporting a country in a state of war is not "inciting violence" Afterall war can be a legitimate govt affair - See WWII.

"inciting violence" in the context of this incident is talking about telling your congregants to go out and murder someone as some Imans appear to be doing..I want an example of a Christian preacher telling congregants to do that. If you cant then your full of it.

That is the source of these terribly destructive wars the US is engaging in: selfish pressure groups petition for war. If enough politicians are able to be convinced or bought, the war happens.

Authoritarians living in powerful nations can count on the military to do the murdering. It's extremely convenient to dismiss the violence supported by the public in powerful nations. That's a tactic used by imperialists.

Wars have victims. Wars have mass murderers. People are responsible.

Yes that's all nice, bit I/we are not talking about war in this post. We are talking about preachers goading specific congregants into committing murder. You stated that was occurring. You have yet to state one example.

'baby killers' is a good example of it. Many of these extreme right wing preachers use those kind of terms in their sermons. Perhaps they are hoping that some lone wolf will decide to do something about the baby killers?

Then half the posters here would be guilty if mere name calling was an incitement to violence.

However, calling on congregants to harm abortionists is incitement.

Obviously a hard concept to grasp for some

Scott Lively. Not much difference between talking to Uganda about the threat gays supposedly pose (which inspired the Kill the Gays law and why Lively is being investigated for crimes against humanity) and railing against the 'baby killers'. A preacher would have to know that someone in his congestion is going to hear that and be inspired to do something about it.
And that kind of crap needs to be actionable.

Just googled him...so there is a lawsuit against him for his opinions...not criminal charges. In reading the wiki page, it doesn't say what he specifically did.

It is not mosques that are the problem, but individual imams that are inciting violence (if that is in fact what they are doing in France). Surely the government could bring charges against the individuals that are inciting violence without punishing entire congregations. Shutting down mosques will only make Muslims feel more alienated and discriminated against. At least that would be my worry. I think it might play into the hands of the recruiters for Jihad who claim that the West is against Islam. This is just my two cents; I am no expert on the subject.

But if the mosque was used to provide material support, then board it up

You can't know who started it so everyone goes in the clink. And if congregants are doing nothing to stop the hateful speech, could you say they must agree with it?

I agree it's a slippery slope but everything a country does is potentially a slippery slope. Doesn't mean we stand still and do nothing.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

As the country becomes more and more secular and educated, religion will have less and less relevance in the daily lives of Americans. As the country moves further into the 21st century, there will be a significant sect of religious people feeling they are left behind, ostracized, and they will become radicalized in order to stop the changes they feel. They will be angry at seeing society progress. This goes for fundamantalist Christians, Muslims, Orthodox Jews and so forth.

The laws will have to adapt to this realization.

This illustrates one of the hazards of facing an opponent with a fanatical ideology, the erosion of rights in the name of safety.

This will not solve their problem with radicalized individuals and is likely to make it worse.

They preach hatred of non-Muslims.

I don't think they're Muslims.

and generally making asses of themselves.

I've seen the movie.

How so? They are morons. Is that a defense?

Maybe a timeout on all religious buildings being built. Like a five year or longer pause would be a good idea. I think that here in America the hate spewed from all religions should be looked at more. Follow the money.

The takfiri people can justify anything. If you disagree with them, and you are a Muslim, that makes you an apostate (in their eyes), which allows them to kill you.

There's a reason Muslims don't approve of the takfir crowd.