That

OH ! ! ! !


Good one. Very well played sir.

Is it always the right to do? Is every law moral, just because it is a law?

obv no

No.... it's not.

No. But as I said before, I think the First Amendment is relatively uncontroversially a good law.

However, even when we disagree with a law, we should generally follow it. This is because the rule of law itself is a good thing and it will only work if people follow laws that they disagree with.

Yelling "fire" in the absence of a fire puts those around you at imminent risk of harm. Whom exactly is put in imminent danger by the building of the mosque?

I will have to consult my Muslim friends to see why they aren't enacting violence on all these non-Muslims around them. Until then, I'm just going to guess that it's a matter of interpretation, much how you aren't killing in the name of Christ and yet others have found that to be a reasonable interpretation of His word.

Can't you see the difference between the actual terrorists and the Muslims in the US? They share the name of their religion, but are otherwise not the same. These Muslims are as American as the rest of Manhattan. They aren't the enemy. They are one of us and deserved to be treated as such.

I want to ask you a question: do you think that Muslims pose a threat to Dutch and American societies? Are you concerned that they will try to tear down our freedom and ways of life from the inside?

to be clear, im not against the mosque being built there. muslims should be free to build their buildings wherever. i just think it speaks volumes of their mindset that they care to build one there at all.

I like this thread. Atheists arguing for religious rights and freedom against Christians.

I don't see the irony.

Unless you mean like George H. W. Bush that you don't think atheist should be considered citizens of the US at all.

I would be delighted to pick up my rifle and defend with my life the right to freedom of and from religion.

Please do consult them. Ask them why do they not follow their own infallible Koran?

Ask them how can they interpret this verse (Quran, 9:29) without saying they should actually be resorting to violence: (and ask them if Islam is merely a religion, or also a political doctrine)

from: http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/c...t.html#009.029



Of course I can see the difference between the actual terrorists and the moderate non-violent Muslims in the US? The silent majority is indeed not the enemy. Until they get the power in this country and can be influenced easily by the Islamic scholars, resulting in mingling between Church and State.

If I want to know Islam, I do not look to Muslims ONLY, I look to Muslims in correlation with their ideology and their holy books.

But yes I agree, they should be know treated equally.

Define a "threat". For me the big % of Muslims in the Netherlands has already made some negative impacts on the Dutch society. Critics of Islam are being sued, the Welfare State is failing, there are radical Muslims who are endangering our streets, there is the threat of Shariah-courts, people have been murdered and attacked for their criticism on Islam.

But ofcourse, don't get me wrong, there are educated Muslims, and Muslims that oppose radical Jihadism and Islamism like us, but they are not the point. They are ignoring some facts from the Koran. I also do not think Muslims themselves only are the problem, there are also many politically correct Leftists that want to tear down our society's freedoms and are subsidizing some immoral Islamic organizations.

A) Shouldn't matter...the LAW doesn't read that my freedom of speech is limited to situations not involving potential danger.

2) You hate it when I use your arguments against you?

I have right to bear arms. Can I walk into a bank with a shotgun then? It's my constitutional right to bear arms and the LAW doesn't state specifically where I can bear them.

I mean the irony that as atheists we are superposed to be the ever dangerous oppressors of religion, not its defenders.

Bahahahaha.... you are on a roll today!

Very nice.

ahhhhhh That's cool. I have always been consistently so. So, it does not seem new to me. : )

Freedom against/from christians is something that I have devotedly hoped for for a long time as well though.

Yeah its not a real irony. I would think most atheists would fight to protect peoples right to believe what they want and put their places of worship where they want.

Why the **** would you ever believe that this stuff is true?

What argument of mine are you using against me? I think that you are confusing which posters you are replying to, so maybe you want to try replying to my post again.

And for the record, the law is that the freedom of speech is limited. I know the constitution doesn't state it, but the judicial branch has ruled as such. Some reading on this subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom...ial_exceptions
Maybe you are referring to a different law, then?

follow the whole thread and you'll get it

Explain? I read the whole thread.

You compared the claim to religious freedom with the claim to shout fire in a crowded theater. Implying that you think it's...dangerous to build the mosque? Or something. Not sure.

Then you said the law allows for shouting fire in a crowded theater or bringing a gun wherever. Obviously it does not, so I assume you just meant "the Constitution." Now, as interpreted, there is no way that the clauses interpreted to regard freedom of religion would ever permit disallowing a mosque on the grounds that it's a Muslim building as opposed to a church/synagogue/whatever. So what is your point?

I liked this excellent summary of this issue by Mayor Bloomberg:

"The simple fact is, this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship, and the government has no right whatsoever to deny that right. And if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here."

*sigh*

My point was and is that laws are not always moral nor do they give unlimited rights. the person I was aiming this towards made the argument that these people have a legal right to build the mosque on ground zero and open it on the anniversary of the attacks on the Twin Towers. I then used her/his same stance to show how ridiculous it is to state that if a law provides the right to do something...it may not be the right thing to do.

I further illustrated how people living in Hiroshima may find it offensive if the US erected a statue of the bomb the US dropped on them in 1945 killing around 150,000 of their people. He/she said that the US should be able to do so if the mayor of Hiroshima said it was OK according to their laws.
I also pointed out that Howard likes little boys.

so you don't think its the "right" thing to do because ...? if being offensive and insensitive is your only reason, then you probably should examine yourself first, hypocrite.

yeah they should be able to, you dont think they should be able to? again, why?

This doesn't work. For one because its not Muslims from a foreign land building the place of worship, its Americans. For two i dont think setting up the mosque is meant to glorify 911 like your statue would do with Hiroshima.

But the two examples you provided were things it's NOT LEGAL TO DO.