re: #411 lightspeed

Interesting scenario. However, the logic doesn’t hold up. Organizations like this DO exist. Ever heard of NAMBLA? Hell, you can find hundreds of websites devoted exclusively to rape. The first ammendment protects the freedom to associate with those of like mind. But…

If the Church of Rapeology is seen to be actively encouraging its members to commit crimes, there are plenty of laws on the books that could be used to shut them down. In your scenario, that is the case, so they could be shut down. But if the teachings were more along the lines of “Rape is good,” “A rapist is blessed in the eyes of the lord,” etc., then they could probably get away with it. It’s how the Klan get away with it. It’s how NAMBLA get’s away with it.

There’s a lot of stuff in the Bible that will get you locked up today if you tried it. And if a pastor started preaching to his flock that Christians should rise up and murder the enemies of the Lord, that church should be shut down.

So, yeah, if an Imam is inciting his followers to violence and mayhem, shut him down. The First Ammendment is not an absolute.

That’s the most reasonable answer so far.

Wilders is way way way off-base in calling for Islam to be banned in toto in the United States, but on the other hand (as some undercover investigations have revealed) individual imams and individual mosques do seem to be so extreme that what’s they’re calling for is illegal. Problem is, those imams and those mosques could legitimately claim they are following the religious dictates and traditions of real Islamic practices in the Middle East. And that by persecuting them, we are denying them their religious rights.

Again, it seems like there may in fact be two different religions we’re talking about, and that the Islamic extremists are flirting with an illegality which is not protected by the First Amendment.