During WWII, would the US have allowed a Shinto temple at Pearl Harbor?
Or a German run state-church in London?
Everyone would have recognized it as a political move masquerading as religion.
First a synagogue and Christian church in Mecca, then ...
"It's not a mosque.
It's a cultural center."
Then why is it under protection of freedom of religion. Would any of the Allied powers have allowed a Japanese or German cultural center?
"You obviously have a hidden agenda and don't understand the US constitution."
This "cultural center" is no more about religion than the Ku Klux Klan is about religion.
"Here we have freedom to practice whatever crazy cult you want to follow and build your holy temples, churches and mosques wherever you want."
No church, temple, or mosque has the right to "preach" the overthrow of the government. Foreign agents are required to register as foreign agents, regardless of their religious mask.
"In truth, I'd rather have the Shinto Temple on that soil."
Me too.
"So yes, they have the right to build it - but is it actually a good idea? No, I honestly don't believe so."
I agree with the last part. But no country has a right to build a cultural center anywhere in the US. They are foreign agents.
Pre, during and post WWII Nazi organizations in U.S were free to congregate wherever they wanted. These Nazi organizations did take advantage of the U.S ' ideology of freedom but it is the U.S and they had/have every right to practice and spread their bigotry. Well Mecca is not in the U.S, what they do there is different from what we do here. Here we have freedom to practice whatever crazy cult you want to follow and build your holy temples, churches and mosques wherever you want.
They actually do have the right to build that mosque or cultural center or whatever they want to call it. In America they have that freedom. I will say though that in my opinion it is in poor taste, and it is a slap in the face of those who died there. I shows a gross insensitivity. And yes, it is political. You can tell by the way most political big shots are promoting it while the average guy in the street is gut-level against it.
So yes, they have the right to build it - but is it actually a good idea? No, I honestly don't believe so.
You are the one who obviously does not understand the constitution, or Islam. Islam is NOT just a religion, but also a political agenda. The US Constitution provides for free speech and freedom of religion. This is not a religious center we are talking about, its a cultural center. A political organ of their agenda.
In 1971, I enlisted. I took an oath to defend the Constitution, and to protect the US from ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN and DOMESTIC. As Moslems are attempting to subvert the US Constitution, the second part of the oath kicks in and refutes the first.
[quote]"No church, temple, or mosque has the right to "preach" the overthrow of the government."
Are you completely unaware of the dozens of Evangelical Christian ministers who have been advocating just such a thing since Mr. Obama was elected? I suggest you check your biases and do a little research. Unless you think we also should muzzle all-American zeal tots like Reverend James David Manning, Pastor Steven Anderson ("somebody should abort Barack Obama"), Pastor Wiley Drake, or Rev. Pete Peters (long tied to violent Noe-Nazi organizations).
And by the way, there IS a Shinto temple five miles from Pearl Harbor. And there was so much anti-Japanese sentiment in the mainland US, many people advocated AGAINST admitting Hawaii to the Union--they believed the Japanese cultural influence in Hawaii was too strong to overcome, and would pose a security risk.
I guess if it had been left to you, Newt Gingrich, and your ilk, we would be only 49 states today.
During WWII, would the US have allowed a Shinto temple at Pearl Harbor?
