Controversy over building new mosques in the US spills over into the Temecula Valley
Originally Posted by trumptman
Well as it notes, some thing otherwise and some always will think otherwise. In California right now though they could easily http://forums.appleinsider.com/image.../irked.gifstop that Mosque without having to do anything religiously. They could just put a few kangaroo rats on the land and suddenly it would be a habitat for endangered species.
I wish I were joking but the point is, that much like the Walmart example, people are being told what they can and cannot do with their land not just due to community considerations but basically because one person or a small group radically and strongly disagrees. They aren't just stopping mosques, they are stopping businesses and many solar sights here in California.
more from http://www.scpr.org/news/2010/08/24/temecula-mosque/
Nael says the congregation scrimped and saved money for years to build Southwest Riverside Countys first real mosque: a 25,000-square-foot facility with a prayer hall, recreation center, playground and more. The Islamic Center bought land 10 years ago next door to a Baptist church to carry out those plans. Imam Mahmoud Harmoush says it seemed like an ideal location at the time.
We felt so confident since it is a religious group over there, a church they will be welcoming and supportive, says Harmoush, who also teaches Arabic languages and Islamic culture at Cal State San Bernardino.
Unfortunately so far they are not, probably due to the lack of understanding. We love them and thats what I expected from our neighbors next door.
But next door neighbor Pastor William Rench and his flock at Calvary Baptist Church opposed the mosque from the start. They worry itll be too big, and create traffic and noise problems. And there are bigger concerns that cannot be addressed by a planning commission.
Weve always held the view that Islam is wrong and that its a false a religion and we disagree with it, says Rench. We hold the view the Mormonism is wrong, that Jehovahs Witnesses are wrong and that Roman Catholicism has gotten divergent from the truth. So, were not suggesting that Islam is not the only group that doesnt get it right!
Other opponents believe the Temecula mosque will attract radical followers or be used as a terrorist recruiting center, even though there is no evidence to back-up such claims. In fact, a study this year from Duke University found that mosques in the U.S. can actually discourage the spread of radical Islamic through youth programs and anti-violence campaigns.
That didnt deter activists tied to a Temecula Republican womens group and local Tea Party factions from staging a protest outside the Islamic center during Friday payers last month.
Cynthia Daum joined about two-dozen protestors across the street from the Islamic Center. They hoisted signs that declared Muslims Danced for Joy on 9-11 and Mosques are Monuments to Terrorism.
I dont care for their religion, dont care for their politics and I dont want them here. Dont want em, said Daum.
She and other opponents believe building mosques here, in New York and elsewhere in the US is part of a larger conspiracy.
I dont want them here opening mosques in every city, trying to open one up on Ground Zero in New York where they killed thousands and thousands of people, said Daum. And if their mosque was used for religious reasons, thatd be one thing - but theyre not. This is where they do their little powwow meetings. They dont belong here!
That believe is strong among opponents, despite the fact the Islamic Center of the Temecula Valley has lived peacefully in the community for twelve years and been praised by local leaders for its non-denominational charitable work. Its also part of an interfaith council that includes Christians, Jews and Mormons.
Part of the call of the Christian faith is that your neighbor is not just your friend or the people in your congregation, says Murrieta pastor Joe Zarro - an interfaith council organizer. He helped organize a large counter protest to last months anti-Mosque demonstration.
Jesus calls us to value love of neighbor above doctrine. He says all the law and all the prophets hang on loving your neighbor, on loving God. If your religious beliefs foster intolerance or bigotry you have to hold it against that principal and if doesnt meet that, its not of God.
Sorry tm--no Dipodomys ordii found.
Originally Posted by trumptman
Originally Posted by FineTunes What is the difference between Muslims praying at their social event at a park than a church picnic where a prayer is said before the meal? I think that you are confusing the issue where the courts have ruled against religious symbols being on public lands. There should be no issue of prayers being conducted on public lands unless there are restrictions on which religion can pray there.
I don't think I've got it confused.
Yeah you did. If you read the opinion you will distinguish the difference between Prayer at the Inauguration and a prayer at a picnic. The article that you reference:Atheists to Federal Appeals Court: public prayer makes us sick
NEWDOW v. ROBERTS
A lawsuit challenging prayer at Presidential inauguration is currently before the federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and could be ruled on soon, according to a legal group defending the tradition.
The lawsuit, filed by hundreds of atheists and atheist groups, led by frequent litigant Michael Newdow, was thrown out by the lower federal court.
The plaintiffs include numerous individuals, and groups such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation, The American Humanist Association, Atheists United, Atheists for Human Rights, and Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers.
Prayers designed to solemnize public events have a long and venerable history in our nation. The Constitution simply does not demand that our public institutions be amoral or atheistic, said PJI Chief Counsel Kevin Snider, who authored the opposition brief submitted last week on behalf of Drs. Warren and Lowery.
The First Amendment cannot be divorced from common sense. While atheists, humanists and freethinkers are a tiny minority in America, they are free to express and practice their lack of faith as they please." Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, stated. "That does not mean, however, that the vast majority of God-fearing citizens and public officials must be silenced in order to appease them.
Michael Arthur NEWDOW, et al., Appellants v. John G. ROBERTS, Jr., Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, et al., Appellees.
Argued Dec. 15, 2009. -- May 07, 2010
Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their constitutional challenge to religious elements of the presidential inaugural ceremony. We affirm the dismissal because plaintiffs' claims regarding the 2009 inaugural ceremony are moot and plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the 2013 and 2017 inaugurations.
Some interesting points in the opinion:
In analyzing the Establishment Clause issues in this case, I begin with several background principles.
First is an obvious point, but one worth emphasizing. In our constitutional tradition, all citizens are equally American, no matter what God they worship or if they worship no god at all. Plaintiffs are atheists. As atheists, they have no lesser rights or status as Americans or under the United States Constitution than Protestants, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Catholics, or members of any religious group.
Second, in deciding this case, we cannot gloss over or wish away the religious significance of the challenged Inaugural prayers.
Third, and relatedly, we cannot resolve this case by discounting the sense of anguish and outrage plaintiffs and some other Americans feel at listening to a government-sponsored religious prayer. Any effort to tell plaintiffs that it's not a big deal or it's de minimis would be entirely out of bounds, in my judgment. Plaintiffs' beliefs and sincere objections warrant our respect.
Fourth, at the same time, we likewise cannot dismiss the desire of others in America to publicly ask for God's blessing on certain government activities and to publicly seek God's guidance for certain government officials.
This case concerns government-sponsored religious speech at public events outside of the public school setting. The Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), sets forth the Court's approach to that issue. In Marsh, the Court upheld a state legislature's practice of beginning each session with prayer by a state-paid chaplain. The Court reasoned that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer was deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country.
The Supreme Court's holding in Marsh-allowing government-sponsored religious speech or prayer at a public event where prayers have traditionally occurred, at least so long as the prayers are not proselytizing (seeking to convert) or otherwise exploitative-does not satisfy all Americans. No holding on this issue would in our pluralistic society. But the precedent has endured, and as a lower court we must follow and apply it in this case.
In light of that extensive historical record and the non-proselytizing, non-exploitative nature of the oath, it comes as no surprise that the Supreme Court several times has suggested, at least in dicta, that the Constitution permits so help me God in officially prescribed oaths of office.
Under Marsh and other Supreme Court precedents, the Establishment Clause permits so help me God in the official Presidential oath.
Plaintiffs' challenge to the traditional Inaugural prayers (usually consisting of an invocation and benediction) also fails. Those prayers closely resemble the legislative prayers upheld by the Supreme Court in Marsh.
Like legislative prayers, prayers at Presidential Inaugural ceremonies are deeply rooted in American history and tradition. See County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 671-72 n. 9 (1989) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part) (our Presidential inaugurations have traditionally opened with a request for divine blessing). Indeed, formal prayers have been associated with presidential inaugurations since the inauguration of George Washington.
To be sure, unlike Marsh, this case involves the Executive, not the Legislature. But there is no persuasive reason why opening every executive session with prayer would raise more of an Establishment Clause problem than opening every legislative session with prayer.
Having established that Inaugural prayers are permissible in concept, we confront a distinct and delicate question regarding the precise content of the prayers. Recall that Marsh stated that [t]he content of the prayer is not of concern to judges where, as here, there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief. That being so, it is not for us to embark on a sensitive evaluation or to parse the content of a particular prayer. Marsh, 463 U.S. at 794-95.
Under Marsh, we know that proselytizing prayers-that is, those that seek to convert-are problematic. Inaugural prayers traditionally have not crossed that boundary.
Applying Marsh and the other relevant Supreme Court precedents, I would hold that both so help me God in the Presidential oath and the prayers at the Presidential Inauguration do not violate the Establishment Clause. I also agree with our Court's decision to deny plaintiffs' challenge to the invocation God save the United States and this honorable Court.