http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/macomb/2016/08/10/muslims-sue-sterling-heights-mosque/88526616/?ref=yfp

Wouldn't the morg do the same for a chapel or temple??

Average Americans are not converting in large numbers to Islam. So when some people want to build a mosque and the local people oppose the idea, the locals are really opposing mass immigration. Helping a few individuals assimilate is a good thing. Letting foreigners flood in and change your culture is not going to appeal to a majority of the people. That's what this is really about.

The next thing will be that the people who attend at the mosque will want sheria law, large-scale celebration of Romedan, but they will reject the idea when you say "Merry Christmas". It's a culture war.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2016 12:18AM by azsteve.

Fuck Xmas and ramadan. It's a god damn holiday. :)

Eta: https://youtu.be/CQc8vRfld8Q



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2016 12:40AM by Cpete.

I live in an area with many Muslims, and at least a couple (that I know of) mosques within maybe a four- or five-mile drive. I have NEVER known of, or heard of, any Muslim opining that Sharia law should be applied to anyone---let alone non-Muslims---and as for Muslim holidays, Muslims observe them, and they do NOT expect anyone else to even know the holidays are going on, let alone observe them.

Ramadan is an all-day, sunrise-to-sunset (I think; I have to leave for chauffeuring in a minute or so, so I don't have time to look it up) fast, and the Muslims who observe Ramadan are basically "invisible" even if they are the person working beside you at your job!! Muslim employees explain to their supervisory personnel if work schedules need to be temporarily changed, otherwise NO ONE would know that a Muslim observance was happening. (It is EXACTLY the same thing as explaining to your supervisor that you have to have a day or so off for the Jewish High Holy Days, etc. NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL!!!)

Must leave now...back later...

Isn't that the name of a song back in the day?

Yes, correct Tevai (as I just learned after meeting some new neighbours who were observing Ramadan). They knew to the second when sunset would occur (at the time around here it was after 9:00 p.m., which shocked me as I thought they meant they fast until dusk). No, it was from 0300 (sunrise?) to after 9:00 p.m. every single day/night for nearly five weeks. I found it painful just to think of them fasting that long, even in the case of my neighbours, a nursing mom and three quite young kids (under 12). How tough would it be to go to school or work without breakfast or lunch and then not even have supper until close to bedtime?

Years ago I worked with a Muslim woman. It was the first time I'd ever heard of Ramadan. When she said she fasted for a month I took her literally (as I tend to do with everything and can't seem to educate myself out of that pesky tendency) and I was appalled, wondering why anyone would torture themselves that way and for so long and how did they stay healthy. She didn't happen to explain about being able to eat between 9:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. or so.

I read that this is one explanation for obesity in the Muslim population, that they are too tired from not eating to exercise and then they gorge all night, which leads to piling on the pounds. But it's only for one month and the rest of the time you're being less extreme so is that really a valid explanation? Besides, I know quite a few Muslims and most trend a mite skinny, in my view. Skin. Bone. Not much subcu fat.

I also wonder about the kids staying up so late and then having to get up for school early and perform well. Must be tough.

Fortunately for me, with Christians we tend to eat more than fast. I am somewhat allergic to ritual of any sort, especially if it's required.

I wish there was more understanding between "us" and "them". There are quite a few new families in our neighbourhood who are Muslim and they seem like good people and their kids are adorable. It's been an overall positive experience for me so far. Very different from what might assume from afar.

I live within spitting distance of temples and mosques and many churches of Christian denominations. So far, peace is breaking out all over. For me, it makes life very interesting and rewarding.

http://askaquestionto.us/question-answer/ramadan/who-is-exempt-from-fasting

Many of those you mention are exempted from fasting.

Yes, that's what I thought, bd. I was shocked about the woman who was breastfeeding observing the fast, as well as their young children. Especially when they would offer us refreshments when even the kids couldn't take a drink of juice or water. That made me uncomfortable. I worried about the young babes but I think they gave them formula to supplement.

I was glad, on their behalf, when they could finally get back to regular eating.

diabetics are exempt from fasting.

Imagining what a month-long fast would do to a diabetic gives me the creeps.

bona dea unregistered Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://askaquestionto.us/question-answer/ramadan/w
> ho-is-exempt-from-fasting
>
> Many of those you mention are exempted from
> fasting.

But fundies often fast while being exempted: in my native Belgium I knew pre-teen kids and pregnant women who did it.

On the other hand, there's a gay pride in my hometown this weekend, and the Moroccans closest to my house decorated their restaurant, and the whole street with rainbows. But then they don't seem very observant muslims anyway.

In Morocco itself, fasting under fifteen or while pregnant is considered holier-than-thou and even pretentious.

Thank you, Nightingale!!!

Nightingale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Besides, I know quite a few
> Muslims and most trend a mite skinny, in my view.
> Skin. Bone. Not much subcu fat.

Yes!!! In my area, Muslim women are distinctly slimmer, and by a substantial amount, than most non-Muslim women, but most of the Muslims I know are of Iranian descent, and Iranian food tends to be pretty healthy overall.

> I wish there was more understanding between "us"
> and "them". There are quite a few new families in
> our neighbourhood who are Muslim and they seem
> like good people and their kids are adorable. It's
> been an overall positive experience for me so far.
> Very different from what might assume from afar.
>
> I live within spitting distance of temples and
> mosques and many churches of Christian
> denominations. So far, peace is breaking out all
> over. For me, it makes life very interesting and
> rewarding.

I agree with you 1,000% on this...

...this is my experience too.

:) :) :)

The parents wanted the schools to enforce the all day fasting on children. The kiddies would tell their friends they were hungry and as a kindness, those kids would sneak food to them. The parents wanted the school to provide special rooms to house Muslim students when other students were having snacks or lunch. That would have meant hiring aides to supervise the Muslim kids which would be costly or would deplete the school resources.

Muslim children didn't learn well during Ramadan because they were hungry, tired, and distracted and not usually invisible.

Study your U.S. Constitution, for Pete's sake!

France, Mexico, Spain and many other countries use Napoleonic Law as the basis for their laws: you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent as opposed to U.S. law which is based on the idea that you are innocent until proved guilty beyond doubt.

Just as there is no possibility of the U.S. starting to use Napoleonic Law without a constitutional amendment, there is no danger of 'Sharia law' being used without a constitutional amendment!

Also, many Muslims adhere to it in other places without official sanction, especially if they're in large all-Muslin communities.

if that city allows churches it must allow mosques.
as much as I hate islam I have to stand with the muslims on this.

I agree with this, the First Amendment free exercise clause means that if a city allows churches, they have to allow other religious buildings such as mosques. I'd even say that one reason Muslims came to the US is that they wanted to get away from extremists. There are also American-born Muslims, one of which is on the US Olympic fencing team as a saber fencer. American Muslims have even paid the ultimate sacrifice fighting those extremists in Afghanistan and Iraq. Look at any military cemetery, and you might find a crescent on a grave between one with a cross and a Star of David on it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2016 12:25AM by adoylelb.

https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&q=mormon+military+headstone&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSlQEJhDYTDFDMK6caiQELEKjU2AQaAggDDAsQsIynCBpiCmAIAxIovArKCsQFuwrWB_1QK2hTtDKAN1wP5OYY5gj3HNPg5wjS7NIE99zmCORowVjeX5DYir0K5reLsiggb6j9_1bLF43ZLivBeaTjuRcuKe0cb1PgUqfJkOjUo1R8ErIAQMCxCOrv4IGgoKCAgBEgSrNhDiDA&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWvLH1k7nOAhXLPCYKHeSfDLgQ2A4IGSgB&biw=854&bih=399#imgrc=eTAIDafcvmRphM%3A

Or an atheist one..
https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&q=mormon+military+headstone&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSlQEJhDYTDFDMK6caiQELEKjU2AQaAggDDAsQsIynCBpiCmAIAxIovArKCsQFuwrWB_1QK2hTtDKAN1wP5OYY5gj3HNPg5wjS7NIE99zmCORowVjeX5DYir0K5reLsiggb6j9_1bLF43ZLivBeaTjuRcuKe0cb1PgUqfJkOjUo1R8ErIAQMCxCOrv4IGgoKCAgBEgSrNhDiDA&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWvLH1k7nOAhXLPCYKHeSfDLgQ2A4IGSgB&biw=854&bih=399#safe=off&tbm=isch&q=atheist+headstone&imgrc=-Q4OTxH80c42cM%3A



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2016 06:34AM by anybody.

I must agree.

As Americans, we either have free exercise of religion, or we don't. Not free exercise for certain religions and extra limitations on others.

There are already limits placed on how far the free exercise we are guaranteed in the constitution extends. Ironically (or predictably) involving Mormons and polygamy. See Reynolds vs U.S.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States

"The court considered that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." The Court believed the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against action."

So... If your religion encourages you to do something against the law, your religious *belief* does not protect you from the legal consequences of your *actions*.

Very true. However, you cannot have freedom of religion without freedom from religion. Muslims have the right to build a mosque, but we hellbound infidels have the right to sleep at night, concentrate all day and party in the evening, without being disturbed by a muezzin's call to prayer. Anyone who ever woke up at 5am to the noise of Cairo's 16,000 mosques will know what I mean.

Catholic churches ring their bells at set times of the day, and if you're not Catholic, you either use them to remind yourself that you need to hurry up, or take out the trash before you leave for work, or your body just ignores them after a short while.

It's no different than New Yorkers (effectively) "not hearing" the horns and sirens and screeches of the traffic occurring directly below them as those sounds echo through the urban canyons.

In an American context, a call to prayer would be either "nothing," or a reminder to do something (exactly like Catholic church bells calling the faithful to prayer).

In an American context, if calls to prayer are allowed for Catholic churches, then they are allowed for Muslims as well.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2016 12:37PM by Tevai.

Anonymous 2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wouldn't the morg do the same for a chapel or
> temple??

They would, and have. The chapel in my little town, located in a zoned rural residential area, got a "special zoning permit," because normally churches aren't allowed in rural residential zoning. They got the special permit, to the chagrin of many of the neighbors, but if they hadn't...yeah, they probably would have sued.

Isn't it ironic that the lead attorney in the suit you cited above is named Azzam Elder? :)

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anonymous 2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Wouldn't the morg do the same for a chapel or
> > temple??
>
> They would, and have. The chapel in my little
> town, located in a zoned rural residential area,
> got a "special zoning permit," because normally
> churches aren't allowed in rural residential
> zoning. They got the special permit, to the
> chagrin of many of the neighbors, but if they
> hadn't...yeah, they probably would have sued.
>
> Isn't it ironic that the lead attorney in the suit
> you cited above is named Azzam Elder? :)

I must of missed that!

It's worth noting that Saudi Arabia funds the building of mosques all over the world, then staffs them with Wahhabi immans, which advocates Islamist extremism and Jihad. Ben Ladin was of this Islamic vein, and it is practiced in Saudi Arabia. Because they are so commonplace we don't read about the stonings and beheadings in the news. When they are, CAIR mounts an intense counter propaganda, accusing the newspaper or TV station of misrepresentation and islamophobia.

Do we know what is being preached in these mosques, now being re-labeled as "cultural centers" (sound familiar?). I have heard reports that it is often anti-Western rhetoric and the importance of advancing Sharia law, but what do we know for sure? The NYPD had an intelligence unit that was monitoring radicalism in NYC mosques, until DiBlasio stopped it.

Women suffer segregation and suppression which makes LDS look positively enlightened. Let's not overlook the recent increase in female genital mutilation.


I live 1/4 mile from one such mosques (ahem) "cultural centers." An Islamist who had worked his way high in the previous city administration arranged for the sale of city land at about 1/3 its appraised value. Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of the Boston Marathon Bombers, attended a mosque set up a satellite mosque established by my neighborhood mosque. The Islamic apologists pointed out that Tamerlan once shouted Islamist/jihadist rhetoric in the middle of a worship service, but was immediately silenced--which sounds responsible and moderate. What actually happened was that he was silenced only because he was being disruptive, not radical, and his jihadist proclivities were never reported.

What's really going on in this mosques? We really don't know, for sure. But we really should.

Catholics in Latin American countries aren't the same, Southern Baptists aren't like Unitarians, Friends (Quakers) aren't like Anglicans, and so on.

Have you actually ever been to a mosque? If you haven't, ask a Muslim in your area if you could go attend a service on Friday so you could see for yourself.

What you are basically saying is like saying every Catholic church is a cell of the Illuminati or the IRA or a secret den of paedophilia which is of course nonsense. Bad things happen. Bad people do bad things. But you can't say that all people of group X, or Y or Z are bad.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2016 04:08PM by anybody.

This is a rhetorical tenet commonly used in defense of multiculturalism. "There's good and bad in all religions, let's not generalize." The problem is that commonly, Christians are singled out for special vilification (Crusades, Inquisition, Salem trials, etc.), and Moslems are given the benefit of the doubt. Islamists are creating more havoc in Europe than you realize, and it's coming from newly arrived immigrants and refugees, long-residing immigrants, and 2nd and 3rd generation children.

What I stated in the post, above, is a fact: thousands of mosques have been financed by the Saudis, all over the world, and staffed with Wahhabi clerics. And the US political establishment -- both parties -- do not dare call them out on this. Worse, political correctness means that not even the media will look into this, even after jihadists like the Tsarnaev brothers (the Boston Bombers) are radicalized and act out. They were, apparently, very thoroughly naturalized, with free housing, college, and a basketfull of welfare benefits. Yet they were habitual criminals (women also) and easily radicalized in a mosque in Cambridge--a very progressive city.

Are all Moslems like this? People will post that they have Moslem friends and get along with them in comfortable, civil, and secular ways. But that's what people often report about radicalized Moslems after they commit an act of violence: "We were good friends, even drank beer together--he never said anything that sounded radical or jihadist!"

According to one rather small survey, 51% of US Moslems believe they should have the right to opt out of US courts and subject themselves to Sharia tribunals. Think of what this means for Moslem women and children--girls, especially!

Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”

That really scares me.

My brother in law's neighbors in Sacramento are Muslim. People in the area were frightened when the Sacramento rapist was breaking into homes and terrorizing women and their families.

This good neighbor told my brother in law that if the bad guy raped his wife, he, a good Muslim, would be forced to kill her because God doesn't want defiled females dirtying the earth.

This neighbor is a very good friend and is not an extremist Muslim. He and his wife do not attend a mosque regularly and wear shorts and tee shirts and don't pray many times a day as some Muslims do. Yet, this man has said he would kill his wife if she were raped.

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The
> problem is that commonly, Christians are singled
> out for special vilification (Crusades,
> Inquisition, Salem trials, etc.), and Moslems are
> given the benefit of the doubt.

What a crock. Pointing out the nasty things christians have done (and still do) isn't singling them out for anything. It's just being factual.
Pointing out the nasty things Muslims do isn't singling them out either -- and they aren't given any special treatment.

This persecution mentality is rather silly. "Oh, us poor christians, we never do anything wrong (false) but we get blamed, and all the Muslims are horrible (false) but nobody ever complains."
Like I said, a crock.


> Islamists are
> creating more havoc in Europe than you realize,
> and it's coming from newly arrived immigrants and
> refugees, long-residing immigrants, and 2nd and
> 3rd generation children.

Protestant Americans said the same thing about *Catholic* immigrants when lots of them started coming to America. It's an irrational and bigoted fear of "the other people" that drives it, not legitimate concerns.

Yes, there are nasty people among the Muslim immigrants coming in. There are nasty people EVERYWHERE. Deal with the individual nasty people rather than project irrational fears out to entire groups.

> What I stated in the post, above, is a fact:
> thousands of mosques have been financed by the
> Saudis, all over the world, and staffed with
> Wahhabi clerics.

So? Thousands of catholic churches have been financed by the Vatican. And staffed with catholic priests. I'm not even sure what you claim is a fact IS a fact (you've offered no evidence), but even if it is, so what? That in and of itself doesn't make it "evil."


> And the US political
> establishment -- both parties -- do not dare call
> them out on this. Worse, political correctness
> means that not even the media will look into this,
> even after jihadists like the Tsarnaev brothers
> (the Boston Bombers) are radicalized and act out.

Another crock. Because reasonable people don't generalize that all Muslims are evil like you irrationally do, you're claiming it's some big conspiracy and "political correctness" -- when it's just reasonable people being reasonable and not alarmist irrational asshats.


> According to one rather small survey, 51% of US
> Moslems believe they should have the right to opt
> out of US courts and subject themselves to Sharia
> tribunals. Think of what this means for Moslem
> women and children--girls, especially!

They can believe what they want -- they can't, however, do that. And anyway, how is that different from US christians saying (and they regularly do) that they're subject to their "god's law," which is a higher law than US law? And then they try to make their "god's law" nonsense into secular law anyway...

> That really scares me.
And so we come to the root of your irrationality: fear.
No surprise there.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> caffiend Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>Hie, I tried carefully to disagree with you in a civil & respectful tone. "What a crock," "silly," "irrational," and such dismissive statements alienate people and detract from the discussion. Joking aside, your occasional "sigh..." seems to say--to me at least-- "Oh, give me patience with this ignorant, inferior being."
>
> What a crock. Pointing out the nasty things
> christians have done (and still do) isn't singling
> them out for anything. It's just being factual.
> Pointing out the nasty things Muslims do isn't
> singling them out either -- and they aren't given
> any special treatment.

Often, after Islamist* shootings, I hear MSM reports (e.g. Orlando) state "his motivation has not been established" even when he's called out "Alahu Akbar!" Timothy McVeigh is still regarded as a "Christian terrorist" even when he stated, before and after the Oklahoma bombing, that he was an agnostic.

> This persecution mentality is rather silly. "Oh,
> us poor christians, we never do anything wrong
> (false) but we get blamed, and all the Muslims are
> horrible (false) but nobody ever complains."
> Like I said, a crock.
>
>
> > Islamists are
> > creating more havoc in Europe than you realize,
> > and it's coming from newly arrived immigrants
> and
> > refugees, long-residing immigrants, and 2nd and
> > 3rd generation children.
>
> Protestant Americans said the same thing about
> *Catholic* immigrants when lots of them started
> coming to America. It's an irrational and bigoted
> fear of "the other people" that drives it, not
> legitimate concerns.
>
> Yes, there are nasty people among the Muslim
> immigrants coming in. There are nasty people
> EVERYWHERE. Deal with the individual nasty people
> rather than project irrational fears out

The violence during the US immigrations was not as frequent or ferocious as what we are seeing. US media tends to report it only when it involves Americans or is especially horrific, and much is deliberately under-reported. E.G: the New Years Eve rapes in Germany were first ignored, then minimized by removing the word "rape" from many police reports.
>

>
> So? Thousands of catholic churches have been
> financed by the Vatican. And staffed with
> catholic priests. I'm not even sure what you
> claim is a fact IS a fact (you've offered no
> evidence), but even if it is, so what? That in
> and of itself doesn't make it "evil."

Whabbi Islam is aggressive and violence. Hie, you're muddying very important differences with moral equivalency. Also, in the US at least, most Catholic churches are constructed in partnership between the congregation and the local diocese.
>
>
> > And the US political
> > establishment -- both parties -- do not dare
> call
> > them out on this. Worse, political correctness
> > means that not even the media will look into
> this,
> > even after jihadists like the Tsarnaev brothers
> > (the Boston Bombers) are radicalized and act
> out.
>
> Another crock. Because reasonable people don't
> generalize that all Muslims are evil like you
> irrationally do, you're claiming it's some big
> conspiracy and "political correctness" -- when
> it's just reasonable people being reasonable and
> not alarmist irrational asshats.

Again, Hie, I'm trying to get my point across responsibly, using an example I am very familiar with. "Because reasonable people..." suggests I'm not reasonable, and must you call people you disagree with "irrational asshats"? More to the point, I did NOT generalize that "all Muslims are evil." My point is that a very large proportion of this very large religion support, or at least tolerate, anti-Western violence.
>
>
> > According to one rather small survey, 51% of US
> > Moslems believe they should have the right to Sharia law.
>
>
> They can believe what they want -- they can't,
> however, do that. And anyway, how is that
> different from US christians saying (and they
> regularly do) that they're subject to their "god's
> law," which is a higher law than US law? And then
> they try to make their "god's law" nonsense into
> secular law anyway...
>
> > That really scares me.
> And so we come to the root of your irrationality:
> fear.
> No surprise there.

Of course Moslems can believe what they want. But that so many believe this way is frightening: It means a very large pool of potential jihadists, supporters and sympathizers in our population. We're also seeing that these people--educated, career-accomplished men who seem to have embraced Western middle-class culture--have not thoroughly assimilated. Even in this thread, people report ordinary Muslim-Americans sympathetic to and practicing some aspects of Sharia (notably, but not exclusively, female genital mutilation, honor killings) In Europe, [e.g. Parisian suburbs and British "councils" (i.e. public housing)], local authorities have simply given up trying to enforce secular law in Muslim districts, and have let the local Muslims (native and immigrant both) take over.

I'm worried that may happen here, and I don't think that's irrational.

Lastly, Hie, I strongly disagree with but acknowledge your intense dislike for all things religious. I think it's very unfortunate because it comes across as elitist and alienating. "Moral equivalency" is also a logical flaw which weakens your argument, because people know that Christendom has mostly "evolved" from the horrors you rightfully decry, where as Islam is very much in the throes of it, and there's more of it--a lot more, all over the world--than shows up in the US mainstream media.

This website consolidates information on jihadist and other types of Islamist violence. Note, the column on the right ("News") only links to established news sites--it is not their own. This is worldwide terror on a scale we have never seen before.

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

I guess it comes down to this, Hie: If you here gunshots, chances are you'll hear "Alahu akbar!" instead of "Praise Jesus!" And yes, that scares me.

* I draw a distinction between the words "Islamic" and "Islamist."

I know all about the house of ibn Saud and how their legitimacy is derived from the Wahhabi giving them the charge to defend the Kaaba and the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. I'm also well aware of their support for mosque building world wide, etc.


You seem to basically saying:

Islam is not compatible with Western Civilisation and that EVERY Muslim EVERYWHERE is the same and they all believe the same extreme "conquer the world and all those who do not convert must die" ideology. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. Therefore, the Islamic Faith is the enemy.

You could say the same about Christianity or any other religion. One isn't any better or worse than the other. In the Bible, did not God command the Israelites to slaughter the Amalekites? How did you interpret this story?

I personally wouldn't be a Muslim but if someone want to be Muslim that's their business. The Muslims I know are no different from other Christians, Hindus, Jews and Buddhists that I also know. They are religious when they want to be and not so religious when they don't want to be.

People do bad things. Saying "some people who are Muslims rape, kill, and commit acts of terror so to solve the problem just expel or attack them all" isn't going to solve anything and just lead to xenophobia and hate.

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do we know what is being preached in these
> mosques, now being re-labeled as "cultural
> centers" (sound familiar?). I have heard reports
> that it is often anti-Western rhetoric and the
> importance of advancing Sharia law, but what do we
> know for sure? The NYPD had an intelligence unit
> that was monitoring radicalism in NYC mosques,
> until DiBlasio stopped it.

Oh, absolutely. And since we here in the US treat all religions equally, we should treat mormons and JWs and Catholics and Lutherans and Buddhists and all the others the same way. How do we know what is being preached in these churches, temples, and other religious buildings? I have heard reports that it is often anti-reason nonsense, and the importance of advancing some "law of god" stuff. We need to investigate them, put spies in them, and make sure they're not preaching anything we don't like (and by "we" I mean "me") before allowing them to build any more churches! And many of them are (gasp!) funded by foreign states, like the Vatican!

I'm so glad you brought that up!

<sarcasm off>



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2016 04:10PM by ificouldhietokolob.

There are likely at least 100,000 fundamentalist mormon polygamists in the Utah area and most of them indoctrinate girls to be teen brides soon after they have a period They also indoctrinate boys to mistreat females and they dump boys on the side of a freeway if they show any spunk or if they disobey their elder leaders. Many of these groups also encourage incest, child beating, wife beating and other atrocities. If a religion is harmful to many of the followers and to society as a whole, it needs to be monitored and the abusers need to be prosecuted. Hands off can be a bad policy.

Remember the plyg father who took his daughter to a reindoctrination farm and beat her with a belt ten times for every time she had tried to run away from her elderly uncle husband? You might say this usually doesn't happen so we should overlook it. But this kind of thing is much more common than most people realize. The girl in the above incident crawled out of the barn and found a pay phone by the road in time to save her life. Some are not so lucky.

The concept of religious freedom and individual liberty is paramount in Western civilization. Unfortunately, there are bad people who use religious freedom to commit criminal acts (Joseph Smith, Jnr included.)

In a totalitarian or oligarchical society this is easy. Just have every religion run by the state and put agents in every congregation like the Stasi did in the DDR or how China does now ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Falun_Gong ).

In a free society, it's not so easy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2016 05:02PM by anybody.

It's ridiculous to say the religion gives anyone a right to break laws meant to protect human physical safety or well being of the members or those they deal with.

MMM is one example. There are many others.

Freedoms are only free if they're not perverted or abused.

Saying there is no easy solution is no excuse for doing nothing. There is plenty that could be done and is not happening.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2016 05:56PM by Cheryl.

Organised crime prevents the same problem. If people don't testify and give evidence the criminals get off.

If the members of a so-called "church" are doing bad things and the authorities don't have any witnesses or proof or any one willing to go against them in court, how will they stop it?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2016 05:41PM by anybody.

I don't equate religion and organized crime. They're similar in that they operate underground and are abusive. That doesn't mean they are the same.

I'm not saying a religion has the right to abuse children or commit murder or anything else under the guise of religious freedom. I'm saying that it's hard to legally stop a closed group of people from committing crimes in a free society unless you adopt KGB totalitarian style infiltration and surveillance tactics.

The Thugs from India couldn't resurrect themselves in America and start killing hitch-hikers and homeless people legally just because it was part of their religion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2016 06:10PM by anybody.

Agreed.

And it's not just Mormon polygamists.


http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21888916/ns/us_news-faith/t/megachurch-leader-mega-sized-sex-scandal/#.V624y-8pB0I

http://www.myajc.com/news/news/in-boy-scout-sex-abuse-case-small-town-secrets-rev/nqnpm/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2016 07:57AM by anybody.

Hie, We're all familiar with your very strong dislike for all religions. With all respect, I think your prejudice here is blinding you to some very profound, qualitative differences.You're using "moral equivalency" in a rather extreme way.

Believing in Deity and holy scriptures of some kind may be very anti-rational and offensive to you. But if that is all they are doing, it is, for the most part, harmless. For simplicity's sake, I'm leaving out polygamists and those who knowingly and brazenly mistreat or exploit others.

Such religionists -- annoying as they may be to you -- do not compare to the Wahabbists who advocate jihad with the goal of establishing the world-wide caliphate. As somebody said in another thread, there's a real difference between a Christian who doesn't want to bake a cake or a pizza for gays, and those who stone them and throw them off buildings. We Christians have to put up with (oh, horrors) a crucifix stuck in urine, called "art." Christians did not gun Maplethorpe down, like the jihadists did to Charlie Hebdo.

Scary thought: 27% of British Moslems sympathized with the Charlie Hebdo killers, who were French native-born citizens.

Muslims number around a billion world wide. Some experts opine that the number of fanatical Muslims is around 20%. If that number has a standard error of measurement of even +/-10%, it still makes for a very large number of extremists - those who support Jihadi. The 27% does is not surprising.

The difference between Islam and other large religions is that it is not a religion of peace. While some large religions may have been extreme in the dark ages of history, with stone age like violence, those large religions don't do so NOW. That is a key difference. Christians do not crucify and behead people NOW. Islam preaches that it is permissible to kill infidels, rape infidel women, and not befriend any infidel. Those Muslims who seem extreme are merely practicing their tenets as written and preached NOW.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonconformist

The Act of Uniformity of 1662 required churchmen to use all rites and ceremonies as prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer.[1] It also required episcopal ordination of all ministers of the Church of England—a pronouncement most odious to the Puritans, the faction of the church which had come to dominance during the English Civil War and the Interregnum. Consequently, nearly 2,000 clergymen were "ejected" from the established church for refusing to comply with the provisions of the act, an event referred to as the Great Ejection.[1] The Great Ejection created an abiding public consciousness of non-conformity.

Thereafter, a Nonconformist was any English subject belonging to a non-Anglican church or a non-Christian religion. More broadly, any person who advocated religious liberty was typically called out as Nonconformist.[2] The strict religious tests embodied in of the laws of the Clarendon code and other penal laws excluded a substantial section of English society from public affairs and benefits, including certification of university degrees, for well more than a century and a half. Culturally, in England and Wales, discrimination against Nonconformists endured even longer.

Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Calvinists, other "reformed" groups and less organized sects were identified as Nonconformists at the time of the 1662 Act of Uniformity. Following the act, other groups, including Methodists, Unitarians, Quakers, Plymouth Brethren, English Moravians, and The Salvation Army were officially labelled as Nonconformists as they became established.[3]

The term dissenter later came into particular use after the Act of Toleration (1689), which exempted those Nonconformists who had taken oaths of allegiance from being penalized for certain acts, such as for non-attendance to Church of England services.[4]

A religious census in 1851 revealed that total attendance of Nonconformists to their own services was very close to that of Anglicans. In the larger manufacturing areas, Nonconformists clearly outnumbered members of the Church of England.[5] In Wales in 1850, Nonconformist chapel attendance significantly outnumbered Anglican church attendance.

1. TSCC finally gave up due to opposition of neighbors on the construction of a temple in Harrison, NY. Hence, the NYC Temple.
2. I once represented a non-LDS church in Trumbull, CT which was denied the right to use a property it owned as a meeting house although it had been long used for the local Grange. Claims were that the congregation, usually about 60 would create too much traffic! Baloney.
3. The church did not appeal the denial. The building would have been for two hours on Sunday and one on Wednesday night.

Removing my posts must give whoever rules over this site a sense of power. I never recieved an explaination as to why my comments were removed. My comments were no more political than anyone elses on this thread. I would appreciate an explaination. thank you.

You won't receive one on this thread. You can email Eric if you wish. His email addy is stickied at the top of the forum.

If so, that might get you deleted.

You know how Muslims are compelled to pray five times every day? This is the last of those five prayers, called DU’AA-E-QUNOOT.

And please note, I have had this verified by Muslims one of whom called it a 'beautiful translation': “O’ Allah! We implore You for help and beg forgiveness of You and believe in You and rely on You and extol You and we are thankful to You and are not ungrateful to You and *we alienate and forsake him who disobeys You*. O’ Allah! You alone do we worship and for You do we pray and prostrate and we betake to please You and present ourselves for the service in Your cause and we hope for Your mercy and fear Your chastisement. *Undoubtedly, Your torment is going to overtake the kuffar* ”

Source: Islamic Academy http://www.islamicacademy.org/html/Learn_Now/English/salah_translation.htm