[TheProdigalModern]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Zoning laws would seem to be allowed basically off of prescedent; but a zoning law that was "per religion" would not.

A few years ago a local city used a zoning law to keep a church from building on land it already owned (IIRC, they wanted to build a new building adjacent to their existing facilities). The city had a law on the books that says a bar cannot be within so many feet of a school or religious meeting house, and the area where the church wanted to build was within that range of an extant bar.

I suppose someone could cynically manipulate a law like that by awarding a liquor license to a facility near enough to a proposed mosque site.

[Dwight Schrute]

but Jerry you didn't really answer the question, just said how you think it should be based on your interpretation of two different amendments. IF communities can do this through zoning laws or other methods, which I am pretty sure they can or this thread would not exist, then it's a job for the courts to deal with it. and for that to take place, it has to happen to someone, and get taken to court. I'm curious if this has happened yet (I would be surprised if it has not but am too lazy to hit CONTROL-TAB and go to a new Google tab to find out) and what the ruling / precedent was. the fact that this guy is talking about it, and I know it takes place on some other grounds (ie. communities keeping p0rn or gambling establishments out of their townships through some method or other) makes it a legal issue I would think. *shrug*

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by MisterDominator

IF communities can do this through zoning laws or other methods, which I am pretty sure they can or this thread would not exist,

No. A city cannot ban a mosque in particular. It is a violation of the first and 12th ammendments.

then it's a job for the courts to deal with it. and for that to take place, it has to happen to someone, and get taken to court. I'm curious if this has happened yet (I would be surprised if it has not but am too lazy to hit CONTROL-TAB and go to a new Google tab to find out) and what the ruling / precedent was. the fact that this guy is talking about it, and I know it takes place on some other grounds (ie. communities keeping p0rn or gambling establishments out of their townships through some method or other) makes it a legal issue I would think. *shrug*

The other examples you allude to are apples and oranges; due to a general lack of constitutional protections.

I am not aware of any successful use of law to prohibit a recognized religion from being able to build a house of worship (generally) within a city. As cited above: there may be cases of specific lots being zoned such that *no* house of worship could be there.

*edit* 1st and 14th, not 12th.

[+Donny]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

The fascinating part to me is the grounds for the argument: Religions aren't supposed to "intrude" into the public sphere, but Islam does so. This sounds more like the kind of foundational thinking that the stereotypes say should be supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans. So what does that say about the shifting state of the discussion?

I'd say it expresses a lack of articulate, consistent principles rather than an actual shift. I mean, there are some vague principles behind what each party does, but in actual talking points, it's just a matter of tossing around platitudes to defend the party.

This might have been what you were getting at, but the real question boils down to "What is the right wing?" and "What is the left wing?" It's not war/anti-war; it's not spending/anti-spending; it's not public religious/no public religion. Conservative vs. progressive? Dunno...

[rock_show_host]

Whether or not zoning laws and whatnot can be manipulated to prevent a mosque from being built, that debate doesn't really apply to Cain's position because he's not even trying to hide behind excuses. He's arguing that communities should be allowed to ban mosques simply because of what they are.

I'm constantly amazed at just how ignorant and shameless this man is. I've seen a lot of bigotry in politicans recently, but I don't think I've seen anyone so irrationally terrified of Muslims. And it's bad enough that he's unapologetic, but he seems to go out of his way to flaunt this issue. He's certainly taken every possible opportunity to remind us just how much he hates Islam.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by +Donny

the real question boils down to "What is the right wing?" and "What is the left wing?" It's not war/anti-war; it's not spending/anti-spending; it's not public religious/no public religion. Conservative vs. progressive? Dunno...

Chomsky called them the two factions of the business party. Haha.

[rock_show_host]

Herman Cain Apologizes to Muslim Americans | Politics | Christianity Today

I can't help feeling like this is just a political move, not a sincere apology. But it's nice to finally hear.