OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 28, 2014, 09:05:04 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Legitimacy of Islam at heart of Murfreesboro mosque suit  (Read 2666 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #45 on: October 08, 2010, 07:46:03 PM »

There's a reason why the freedom of all expression and all ideologies should be given equal preference (and indifference) by the state. Once you allow the state to categorize 'legitimate religions' and 'illegitimate religions', the freedom of religion automatically becomes useless. I shouldn't matter if Islam is a religion, a cult, a political organization, or a business...all should be treated with equal indifference under the law.
You missed one. What if it's fanatical Islam and disguises itself as a religion?

I referred to 'all expression and all ideologies', that should cover even fanatical Islam. Wink

I am no friend of Islam, but we should all defend the freedom of expression for everyone, even those we hate...or should I say, especially those we hate.

If we will not defend this right for others, what right do we have to express our own ideologies and beliefs?
I don't disagree. What makes you think that they want to give you the same rights as you offer them?

I don't believe they do, but that is what objectively makes us better than them.

I'm not disagreeing with you. The question still remains as to what happens when our very survival is at stake. Do we just take what is given or do we retaliate to some degree? or better yet. Nip it before it becomes a problem?

First of all, our survival isn't even close to being at stake.

With that said, the survival of the principles of liberty is far more essential to the survival of the Republic than the lives of her citizens. Retaliation only becomes appropriate if the attempt to use the power of the state to suppress the liberty of others; if that were to occur, rebellion and war would be essential and nonnegotiable, but I really don't see that on the horizon.
myopic as usual, but to go into detail would definitely drive this into politics.

One can not usurp liberty to preserve it. If they attempt to undermine our liberty then we have no choice but to take up arms, but until that time we must preserve theirs as vigorously as we preserve our own.

'Liberty is not a cruise ship full of pampered passengers. Liberty is a man-of-war, and we are all crew.'
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,183



« Reply #46 on: October 08, 2010, 08:12:12 PM »

There's a reason why the freedom of all expression and all ideologies should be given equal preference (and indifference) by the state. Once you allow the state to categorize 'legitimate religions' and 'illegitimate religions', the freedom of religion automatically becomes useless. I shouldn't matter if Islam is a religion, a cult, a political organization, or a business...all should be treated with equal indifference under the law.
You missed one. What if it's fanatical Islam and disguises itself as a religion?

I referred to 'all expression and all ideologies', that should cover even fanatical Islam. Wink

I am no friend of Islam, but we should all defend the freedom of expression for everyone, even those we hate...or should I say, especially those we hate.

If we will not defend this right for others, what right do we have to express our own ideologies and beliefs?
I don't disagree. What makes you think that they want to give you the same rights as you offer them?

I don't believe they do, but that is what objectively makes us better than them.

I'm not disagreeing with you. The question still remains as to what happens when our very survival is at stake. Do we just take what is given or do we retaliate to some degree? or better yet. Nip it before it becomes a problem?

First of all, our survival isn't even close to being at stake.

With that said, the survival of the principles of liberty is far more essential to the survival of the Republic than the lives of her citizens. Retaliation only becomes appropriate if the attempt to use the power of the state to suppress the liberty of others; if that were to occur, rebellion and war would be essential and nonnegotiable, but I really don't see that on the horizon.
myopic as usual, but to go into detail would definitely drive this into politics.

One can not usurp liberty to preserve it. If they attempt to undermine our liberty then we have no choice but to take up arms, but until that time we must preserve theirs as vigorously as we preserve our own.

'Liberty is not a cruise ship full of pampered passengers. Liberty is a man-of-war, and we are all crew.'
and you want enemy aliens and combatants  in your crew.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #47 on: October 08, 2010, 09:05:47 PM »

There's a reason why the freedom of all expression and all ideologies should be given equal preference (and indifference) by the state. Once you allow the state to categorize 'legitimate religions' and 'illegitimate religions', the freedom of religion automatically becomes useless. I shouldn't matter if Islam is a religion, a cult, a political organization, or a business...all should be treated with equal indifference under the law.
You missed one. What if it's fanatical Islam and disguises itself as a religion?

I referred to 'all expression and all ideologies', that should cover even fanatical Islam. Wink

I am no friend of Islam, but we should all defend the freedom of expression for everyone, even those we hate...or should I say, especially those we hate.

If we will not defend this right for others, what right do we have to express our own ideologies and beliefs?
I don't disagree. What makes you think that they want to give you the same rights as you offer them?

I don't believe they do, but that is what objectively makes us better than them.

I'm not disagreeing with you. The question still remains as to what happens when our very survival is at stake. Do we just take what is given or do we retaliate to some degree? or better yet. Nip it before it becomes a problem?

First of all, our survival isn't even close to being at stake.

With that said, the survival of the principles of liberty is far more essential to the survival of the Republic than the lives of her citizens. Retaliation only becomes appropriate if the attempt to use the power of the state to suppress the liberty of others; if that were to occur, rebellion and war would be essential and nonnegotiable, but I really don't see that on the horizon.
myopic as usual, but to go into detail would definitely drive this into politics.

One can not usurp liberty to preserve it. If they attempt to undermine our liberty then we have no choice but to take up arms, but until that time we must preserve theirs as vigorously as we preserve our own.

'Liberty is not a cruise ship full of pampered passengers. Liberty is a man-of-war, and we are all crew.'
and you want enemy aliens and combatants  in your crew.

They are citizens, that's all that matters. Until a citizen actively takes up arms and marches in open war against not mere individuals, but the Republic as a whole, they are deserving of all protections and liberties, regardless of their associations...and even then, they are more deserving of our protections and liberties than those non-citizens who would do the same.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.053 seconds with 30 queries.