Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Building a mosque is not covered by the first amendment
Big Bureaucracy ^ | August 3rd, 2010 | Ellie Velinska

Posted on 08/03/2010 10:08:17 AM PDT by Big Bureaucracy

There are great things about America – one of them is the freedom of religion. However the freedom of religious expression is restricted in the USA. We are free to believe whatever we want, but since the Supreme Court 1879 (Reynolds vs. US) decision there are limits to expressing religious beliefs if those hurt others.

Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.

We are free to believe in Jesus , however in America we are not free to erect a cross on public property and say a prayer before a school football game. There are restrictions on our religious practices. The freedom of religion in America is extended to beliefs – not to expression.

Building a mosque is a religious practice. Muslims in NYC are free to believe in Islam. However they should be a subject to the same old Supreme Court limitations on religious expression. If a religion practice is hurtful for others it can be prohibited in court.

Honestly, I am sick and tired listening to Democrats claiming we have to build a mosque next to the 9/11 attack sacred ground because of the freedom of religion.

There is nothing in the Constitution that protects the building’s religion. The Founding Fathers protected the freedom of the people, not of the buildings. Erecting a mosque is not covered by the first amendment, but by the city zoning regulations.

Apparently the city of NY decided they are OK with having a mosque at Ground Zero despite the protests of the citizen of NY and all around America. It is a local architecture and city development issue. There is nothing we can do if they say they are OK with it. Or maybe we can.

In America we also have the freedom to organize and we can start working toward erecting a church and a synagogue on both sides of the Ground Zero mosque. I am sure the ‘moderate’ imam wouldn’t mind. After all he told the City of NY his intentions are bringing the people and religions together. Really?


TOPICS: Government; Politics; Religion; Society
KEYWORDS: bain; bainmosque; groundzero; islam; mosque; myblog; nyc; romney; romneymosque; stealthjihad

1 posted on 08/03/2010 10:08:22 AM PDT by Big Bureaucracy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Big Bureaucracy

If a religion practice is hurtful for others it can be prohibited in court.

There is no freedom to not be offended. I suppose that gays can be hurt by the existence of church buildings of denominations that refuse to recognize sodomite marriages, so the buildings have to go.


2 posted on 08/03/2010 10:13:45 AM PDT by freedomfiter2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Big Bureaucracy

This is based on the false assumption that islam is only a religion. It is a violent political ideology with its own laws and court system. Religion is only one component and is used to impose islam on non muslim societies. Islam is anathema to the U.S. Constitution. The two cannot coexist in the U.S.


3 posted on 08/03/2010 10:14:58 AM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it! www.FairTaxNation.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Big Bureaucracy
We are free to believe in Jesus , however in America we are not free to erect a cross on public property and say a prayer before a school football game. There are restrictions on our religious practices. The freedom of religion in America is extended to beliefs – not to expression.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You would be wrong.

4 posted on 08/03/2010 10:17:00 AM PDT by frogjerk (I believe in unicorns, fairies and pro-life Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomfiter2

I agree - there are a lot of restriction to religion in America.
If they give unlimited freedom of religion to Islam - they better give it to us too. It is not fair to restrict Christianity, but not restrict Islam.


5 posted on 08/03/2010 10:17:29 AM PDT by Big Bureaucracy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Big Bureaucracy
For further reading:

Reynolds v. United States, 1878

6 posted on 08/03/2010 10:18:28 AM PDT by GOP_Raider (Please consider the logging and timber industries when printing this tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Big Bureaucracy

Someone just needs to leave a fresh pig carcass on the spot of land via drive-by.


7 posted on 08/03/2010 10:18:42 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (FreepMail me if you want on the Bourbon Ping List.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

As I noted our religious freedoms are restricted by the courts. Can you erect a cross on government ground? Can you lead a prayer in public school? The first amendment gives unlimited freedom - however the courts restricted it to beliefs, not practices.


8 posted on 08/03/2010 10:21:01 AM PDT by Big Bureaucracy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel

Are we free to eat pork in NYC now?


9 posted on 08/03/2010 10:22:38 AM PDT by Big Bureaucracy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Big Bureaucracy

This is nothing but cowardice on display, and the same people who are afraid of, or wish to gain from, angry Muslims will call angry Americans extremists. They are scum.

Muslims have a god that speaks to them, telling them to kill, kill, kill, and cities kowtow to them. Let a Christian think he is hearing God tell him to kill, and watch how fast he gets locked up. The acceptance of Islam is insanity, recognizable by all but the cowards.


10 posted on 08/03/2010 10:23:25 AM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Big Bureaucracy

“In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practiced, and both by precept and example inculcated on mankind . . . The only sects which he (Locke) thinks ought to be and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration are those who teach doctrines subversive of the civil government under which they live.”

-Samuel Adams


11 posted on 08/03/2010 10:24:36 AM PDT by yuleeyahoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Big Bureaucracy
As I noted our religious freedoms are restricted by the courts. Can you erect a cross on government ground?

This is up for debate and also many Christmas Trees, Menorahs and Creches are erected each year on public land.

Can you lead a prayer in public school?

Up until the 60s you could and it was done in the Founder's times as well. This is a recent atheistic occurrence.

The first amendment gives unlimited freedom - however the courts restricted it to beliefs, not practices

Can a child drink communion wine if that child is below the legal limit to drink alcohol? Yes because the child is expressing his beliefs.

12 posted on 08/03/2010 10:25:24 AM PDT by frogjerk (I believe in unicorns, fairies and pro-life Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Raider

Reynolds vs. US 1878 - the restriction over religion practices was born:

‘Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?’

Muslims are free to believe, but the religious practices are not unlimited free.

Buildings are not religious - people are.


13 posted on 08/03/2010 10:29:27 AM PDT by Big Bureaucracy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Big Bureaucracy
This is a poor argument because it is giving all kinds of ground to left-wing courts to dictate their rulings in direct contradiction to the clear meaning and original intent of the Constitution and Amendments to it.

The Men in Black should be given no such power over the people's will and their Constitution.

14 posted on 08/03/2010 10:30:09 AM PDT by frogjerk (I believe in unicorns, fairies and pro-life Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Big Bureaucracy

It’s quite a stretch to attempt to include the building of a place of worship as a practice that should or could be restricted. Your poor analogies of erecting symbols on public property fail, when the direct analogies of building a church or synagogue on private property are available.

Personally, I recognize the mosque for what it is, a taunt. However, I also recognize that no has the right to not be offended. When you have freedom, you’ll have offense. Freedom to not offend, isn’t really freedom at all.


15 posted on 08/03/2010 10:31:10 AM PDT by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

I agree with you. The fact is our religious practices are being restricted more and more by ACLU and friends in courts. However when Islam is involved - they all act like the freedom of religious practices is unlimited.


16 posted on 08/03/2010 10:33:27 AM PDT by Big Bureaucracy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Big Bureaucracy
but the religious practices are not unlimited free.

The fault lies with the local government and the local residents for allowing this to proceed.

The Muslims are just taking advantage of the climate where weak-kneed locals refuse to stand up in great numbers to oppose this.

17 posted on 08/03/2010 10:34:18 AM PDT by frogjerk (I believe in unicorns, fairies and pro-life Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Big Bureaucracy

In most places churches are subject to zoning laws.

But none of this matters - the ruling class wants to show everyone who is boss and this is their way of doing it.

Don’t like it? STOP VOTING LIBERAL DEMOCRAT.

I’ll try to act surprised when all these people get re-elected this fall....


18 posted on 08/03/2010 10:36:33 AM PDT by Tzimisce (No thanks. We have enough government already. - The Tick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Melas

Your assessment is fair. I am too emotional over the issue. Sorry.


19 posted on 08/03/2010 10:39:24 AM PDT by Big Bureaucracy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce

I am sure buildings of worship are subject to zoning regulations. You can’t build a mosque in my yard if I disapprove - we have property rights.

Bloomberg and the NYC board are seeking cover with the Constitution - they have the responsibility to approve or not.
I wonder what kind of lobbying is involved. Bribes may be?


20 posted on 08/03/2010 10:53:03 AM PDT by Big Bureaucracy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Big Bureaucracy
However when Islam is involved - they all act like the freedom of religious practices is unlimited.

I agree. This is a problem now because many so-called Christians refuse to recognize Islam as the cult that it is. Like St. Thomas Aquinas said,:

St. Thomas Aquinas CONTRA GENTILES BOOK ONE: GOD Chapter 6.[4] On the other hand, those who founded sects committed to erroneous doctrines proceeded in a way that is opposite to this, The point is clear in the case of Muhammad. He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning, Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be. seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly.

21 posted on 08/03/2010 11:06:24 AM PDT by frogjerk (I believe in unicorns, fairies and pro-life Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Big Bureaucracy; Melas
Your assessment is fair. I am too emotional over the issue. Sorry.

If only more people were emotional over this issue like you are it wouldn't have even been proposed, much less built.

There is such a thing as righteous anger and this is the right time for it.

22 posted on 08/03/2010 11:18:02 AM PDT by frogjerk (I believe in unicorns, fairies and pro-life Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Having lived within the kingdom of Saudi Arabia for more than three years, and being a Catholic, at no time.. ever... did any of that bunch of raghead heathens make any effort to determine if I was ever offended by their practice of what is no more than a sophisticated version of a cult.... no more, no less, than the Jim Jones deadly debacle. Islam is by no means what we call a “religion”. It is a deadly ideology, hell bent on attempting the taking over of this entire world.... fulfilling what is known as a “Caliphate”. I can’t, for the life of me, understand what motivation drives the New York stupidity in the capitulation to those godless creatures....
Islam is not a religion! Islam is a full-blown cult! And “sharia” is it’s Operating Manual. Please, God help us in this time need.....


23 posted on 08/03/2010 11:45:09 AM PDT by MODELSHIPS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Big Bureaucracy

We also have freedom to perform commerce, but that doesn’t keep folks from getting up in a huff a keeping a wal mart out of their town.


24 posted on 08/03/2010 12:05:42 PM PDT by fruser1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fruser1

Exactly - building a mosque is no different than building a Wal-Mart. It is a building.


25 posted on 08/03/2010 12:20:02 PM PDT by Big Bureaucracy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

Anger has it’s place, but if it clouds your judgment and keeps you from seeing things clearly, it works against you, not for you.


26 posted on 08/03/2010 1:50:29 PM PDT by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Arthur Wildfire! March; Berosus; bigheadfred; blueyon; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; ...

Note: this topic is from 8/03/2010. Thanks Big Bureaucracy.
27 posted on 09/02/2010 7:08:39 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Democratic Underground... matters are worse, as their latest fund drive has come up short...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson