Would you feel more at ease if people seriously threatened to burn the place down? Maybe peaceful protest just isn't your thang, oh courageous one.
Zoning boards and private citizens are entitled to oppose any new construction for any number of reasons.
2. Opposition to building places of worship for Islam
I'm not suggesting the U.S. government or anyone else should restrict the opinions of others.
I'm suggesting that Americans and Baptists should have the ability to discern when their own opinions are in opposition to their own spiritual and nationalistic principles.
I encourage peaceful protest and have no beef in particular with opposition to the placement of the Ground Zero mosque.
My issues are with the opinions of general intolerance and restriction of religious freedoms to muslims.
You were saying that there is nothing wrong with these opinions because they are just peaceful protest and not violent protest.
I do not understand why Americans and Baptists are not all like C4K who is standing up against these ideas that are in direct opposition to their core national and spiritual convictions.
Tolerance should extend at a basic level to:
1. People being allowed live and worship in their chosen religion
2. People being allowed build their places of worship
Tolerance does not extend to breaking the law:
1. Incorporating religious tenets into the law (biblical or sharia law)
2. Breaking civil marriage laws (Christian or Islamic polygamy)
3. Breaking municipal ordinances for noise regulation (church bells or Azan)
With regard to Christian merchants playing Christmas carols, the law does not prohibit this.
Institutions may have policies in place so as to not appear to favor a specific religion.
But it is not a requirement of Christian religious practice to play Christian music wherever we want and is not protected under the 1st ammendment.
He is NOT the 'leader' of all Christians.
Or do YOU think he is speaking for God?
Leader of all the above? Don't think so.
But what does one expect from someone in ireland , trying to say what we should do in the U.S.?
When you come and live here, then tell us how you really feel.
[personal attack]
You are taking a chance of receiving bodily harm from "the Religion of Peace" by implying that the Azan is "noise".
The problem has already manifested itself in Michigan.
Muslims are requiring the sounding of the Azan (goes under different spellings - Athan, etc), do a Google.
That will be their defense, that it is an integral part of muslim worship and therefore must be tolerated per "freedom of religion" and in particular from the mineret atop the mosque at Ground Zero once it is erected.
Not many people are aware of imam Ruaf's plan to have the Azan sounded out five times a day from the mineret on the proposed mosque at Ground Zero.
I found a very interesting article about the Azan/Athan/call to prayer controversy in Hamtramck, Michigan back in 2004.
It seems they understood that the call to prayer is noisy and wanted to abide by local ordinances and even give council an opportunity to alter ordinances to limit what they could do with the call to prayer.
It's coming to America if we are asleep at the wheel. The Azan is being sounded in parts of Michigan.
Forget this so-called tolerance, disallow the mosque at Ground Zero and ban the Azan. "Peacefully" if possible from the "Religion of Peace".
I don't think the founding fathers formulated the First Amendment with Islam (the ancient enemy of Christianity) in mind.
The Constitution also contains the clause to "insure domestic tranquility" as an obligation of the government for its citizenry.
Everywhere "the Religion of Peace" intrudes upon a culture or people anything but tranquility or peace ensue but bloodshed almost inevitably follows.
In many cases it is pre-emptive i.e. 9/11.
Now they want a mosque and the Azan to be sounded in the rubble of the World Trade Center Towers.
Nip it in the bud and disallow it for the sake of the "domestic tranquility".
Otherwise it doesn't take the proverbial brain surgeon, rocket scientist or prophet to predict TROUBLE, BIG TIME.
Roger William's quote from The Bloody Tenent, Of Persecution for Cause of Conscience includes anti-Christian consciences.
His document was cited as a philosophical source for the development of the 1st amendment.
Not sure what you are saying Gold Dragon but trouble is coming from radical islam and the government has the obligation to protect us from all enemies foreign or domestic no matter what mask they wear.
Agreed.
We should combat radical islamic terrorists with the full force of our international and domestic strength.
But the founding fathers of the united states did intend for religious freedom of those who are enemies of Christianity.
That does not permit them to commit crimes against Christianity.
That's what the Obama admin has been doing. The United States must use the full force of our military, intelligence, and judicial resources to defeat terrorists. The underwear bomber probably isn't even going to have a trial. It looks like he will plead guilty and be punished for his crimes. The power of our government is too strong for terrorists.
There were already many muslims in the neighborhood I grew up in.
There were also many hindus, sikhs, buddhists, jews, catholics, orthodox, etc.
My high school was a mini United Nations in both ethnicity and religion and I loved that about it.
Sure there were little ethnic gangs that sometimes clashed but for the most part, people were very respectful of differences.
I think living in a town where everyone was Christian would be just as foreign to me as living in a town where everyone was muslim.
If Australian, what are the laws there concerning "religious tolerance"?
i.e. Is the Azan allowed and if so has it caused any trouble?
How would you feel about having to hear it five times a day?
Does Australia have a counterpart policy to our First Amendment?
OK, this leads us to an issue that we've not dealt with in this thread, but is of crucial importance:
When Obama (or anyone, for that matter) calls for "tolerance," exactly how do they define "tolerance?"
If by "tolerance" we mean we allow folks to conduct their affairs without having to deal with the threat of abuse, violence, etc.--of course.
And folks that are "intolerant" in that sense should pay the criminal penalties that are appropriate to the crimes.
But I'm not sure that's what Obama means.
I think he's embracing the "new" definition of tolerance (we see this definition most often used in debates over "gay" issues)--that definition being, "not only must you 'tolerate' my views in the strictly defined sense--but you must also celebrate my view as having equal standing and validity as yours."
I'm sorry, but fundamentalist Islamic culture is inferior to our Judeo-Christian one.
Under the new definitions of "tolerant," it fails..but under the old one, there is no inconsistency.
So, when I hear "tolerance," I have to know which definition is being utilized.
One of them, I'll agree with and abide by.
The other--not so much.
I'm Canadian but both Canada and Australia have similar freedom of religion clauses as the 1st amendment.
There is nothing in the federal laws of all three countries (CAN, US, AU) that would outlaw something like Azan, but city noise ordinances may restrict their practice.
I personally would not like to hear Azan five times a day.
I live right beside a massive hospital construction zone at the moment and have been disturbed by the noise several times.
They have specific hours and that they can work and maximum decibel levels.
I'm sure they have had their fair share of complaints, being near several high rise towers.
Any mosque nearby wishing to broadcast Azan at obscene hours in the morning or night or at very loud levels would also receive lots of complaints.
The same would probably be true of church bells that ring too loud at unreasonable hours.