Should All Religious Gatherings Be Monitored for Inciting Violence?

[dissolved]

I believe they should.

Then you wouldn't have insanity like this happening:

http://nypost.com/2016/06/14/hate-imam-preached-executing-gays-at-orlando-mosque-before-massacre/



As a Christian I woudn't care if church services or Bible studies were monitored for inciting violence.

I'm not fond of the ambiguity of the term "hate speech," but any religion that outright calls for violence against a group or individual needs to be exposed and even charged. Period. If Christians or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists are doing it, same judgement applies.

 

[punky brewster]

It would be nice if this Mosque and it's members were categorized as a hate group by the NSPLC, but that would make too much sense.

 

[7437]

There are kinda a lot of religious gatherings to be doing that

 

[dissolved]

There are kinda a lot of religious gatherings to be doing that

I don't think so at all. The group has to pay for independent monitoring. And monitors don't stay with one gathering. Central monitoring and local monitoring.

 

[RockstarChris]

no just terrorists. we should make some sort of watch list.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Disagree. Only monitor the religions that keep producing jihad suicide bombers by the millions.

When we see a pattern of Christian or Buddhist terrorism then we can start monitoring them.

 

[dissolved]

Disagree. Only monitor the religions that keep producing jihad suicide bombers by the millions.

When we see a pattern of Christian or Buddhist terrorism then we can start monitoring them.

As a Christian I have no problem with it because I know inciting violence doesn't happen in Christian churches.

But most if not all religions will defend their groups as completely free of inciting violence.

I think you'd have to make this an across-the-board requirement. Eventually the religion (s) that call for violence will be exposed (or forced to change permanently).

 

[Fawlty]

Free speech is a bitch. Radical Muslim preachers are becoming experts at shoving themselves right up to the line of what's legally allowed in this country.

 

[dissolved]

Free speech is a bitch. Radical Muslim preachers are becoming experts at shoving themselves right up to the line of what's legally allowed in this country.

Inciting violence is a real, not-protected classification.

And why does it not surprise me that you're taking this position?

 

[7437]

I don't think so at all. The group has to pay for independent monitoring. And monitors don't stay with one gathering. Central monitoring and local monitoring.

I dont think you are really thinking about how many different religious gatherings there are. Or religious businesses . Salvation army is a religious gathering. A lot of soup kitchens and homeless shelters are christian organizations. These places do not have a huge budget for bringing in outsiders to watch them.

Let alone the fact that the number of monitors required for churches would be staggering.

 

[dissolved]

U

I dont think you are really thinking about how many different religious gatherings there are. Or religious businesses . Salvation army is a religious gathering. A lot of soup kitchens and homeless shelters are christian organizations. These places do not have a huge budget for bringing in outsiders to watch them.

Let alone the fact that the number of monitors required for churches would be staggering.

I wouldn't designate a soup kitchen as a religious gathering (more like charity work).

Further, small home gatherings would be exempt (except if an owner is specifically holding such gatherings in a large structure and if large numbers are attending as if it is replacing a formal gathering place).

Sure, some tinkering has to be done, but religious gatherings that incite violence have to be exposed and charged IMO.

 

[7437]

U


I wouldn't designate a soup kitchen as a religious gathering (more like charity work).

Further, small home gatherings would be exempt (except if an owner is specifically holding such gatherings in a large structure and if large numbers are attending as if it is replacing a formal gathering place).

Sure, some tinkering has to be done, but religious gatherings that incite violence have to be exposed and charged IMO.

Charity work is often a religious gathering though. Would you say the salvation army needs to be monitored? They are religious, and even have Articles of War.

http://www.salvationarmy.org.nz/about-us/soldiers-covenant

 

[These Two Hands]

As a Christian I have no problem with it because I know inciting violence doesn't happen in Christian churches.

You've obviously never heard the "Reverend" Ian Paisley speak...

 

[Fawlty]

Inciting violence is a real, not-protected classification.

And why does it not surprise me that you're taking this position?

Inciting is about imminent lawless action. Religious and political speech get a lot of protection. For example, you can advocate for nonspecific illegal actions at some undefined later date. It is illegal for a preacher to say "Kill the homosexuals at XYZ nightclub" or "Kill a homosexual now" but it is not necessarily illegal to say that homosexuals at nightclubs should one day be killed. I think the problem here is that you don't know what you're talking about.

If you want to argue for how we might tighten up the limits on free speech, then make that argument. I can see an argument for restricting gun purchases, and I'm open to an argument about speech. But first you have to know what you're talking about.

 

[Thurisaz]

No, but Islam needs to be banned. Monitoring is ridiculously expensive and ineffective, when the monitors can be members of that religion.

 

[Alex]

Free speach != free hate.
Hateful preachers should preach only in jail.

 

[ShinkanPo]

I believe they should.

Then you wouldn't have insanity like this happening:

http://nypost.com/2016/06/14/hate-imam-preached-executing-gays-at-orlando-mosque-before-massacre/



As a Christian I woudn't care if church services or Bible studies were monitored for inciting violence.

I'm not fond of the ambiguity of the term "hate speech," but any religion that outright calls for violence against a group or individual needs to be exposed and even charged. Period. If Christians or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists are doing it, same judgement applies.

Sadly it might come to this,but I am sure Islamists will find a way to evade detection.

I have been to different Christian groups in my country some can be considered extreme and can be considered a cult and have openly bashed other christian groups mainly the catholics, but I have yet to hear a minister openly call for violence or try to take over governments to try to pass hatefull laws, the political element is there but mostly adhere to the current government.


While Islam has a very potent political component, as they uphold the Muslim identity above loyalty to their respective countries.

We also have to define what constitute as a religious gathering.

If we will do that I will also consider Atheist groups with Marxist leanings as a religion as well.


I am by no means a deffender of organized religion I am an Atheist after all so I say I agree with your proposal I am okay if all religions are banned to be honest BUT I don't think banning all organized religions will prevent Islamic attacks as I think this people will go underground.

This could work if all we deal with are some insane passtors and a few christian lunatics who plans to blow up stuff as those sort of groups receive little support from the mainstream Christian community.


But with Islam it may not work very well as you see the Muslims can self radicalize and create small groups that avoid detection.

 

[oldshadow]

No unless here is suspicion they are stepping over the line on freedom of speech but they do that now anyway, well they should be unless the present administration has put a stop to it.

 

[glennrod]

I think that large gatherings of Christians should be monitored...to protect them from a very obvious, historical enemy.

 

[TheComebackKid]

As a Christian I have no problem with it because I know inciting violence doesn't happen in Christian churches.

But most if not all religions will defend their groups as completely free of inciting violence.

I think you'd have to make this an across-the-board requirement. Eventually the religion (s) that call for violence will be exposed (or forced to change permanently).

I don't disagree with what you're saying. It would show that inciting violence doesn't happen in Christian churches. But I am highly uncomfortable with grouping radical islam and all of their bs into one big problem called "religion". By doing that you are allowing people to create the default position of "religion is bad and dangerous" and then trying to show that Christianity is the exception. That's an uphill battle against many people who irrationally hate Christianity already.

You know how these psycho liberals and athiests are these days. They hear a preacher say homosexuality is wrong and then they'll argue that Christianity spreads hate and creates the environment for incidents like Orlando.

I dont' see the need to put other religions under scrutiny when it's literally one religion that is causing all the problems in the world. We should be pointing that out instead of putting Christianity on trial.