Should All Religious Gatherings Be Monitored for Inciting Violence?

[dissolved]

Ah, saying the government should round up homosexuals, put them in front of a firing squad and blow their brains out is a bit more than "homosexuality isn't on par with heterosexual relations". Its actually sort of advocating for an extreme Christian version of Shia law. It isn't much different at all from radical Islamic views.

The second preacher says he doesn't advocate violence but then goes on to say that the preferred outcome would be for all homosexuals to be killed. I shouldn't have to tell you what a completely idiotic contradiction that is. Calls for the government to carry out violence is still calls for violence. This guy is literally advocating genocide.

Then shut him down!

You're preaching to the choir here!

 

[dissolved]

I feel like there is progress when the discussion shifts to whether teaching these tenets should be illegal, versus whether these tenets are actually wrong. The guy is saying that murdering gay people is a compassionate act, like they're putting an animal out of it's misery or something. Rather ironic.

Exactly.

 

[ironwolf]

I think there's pretty much only one religion that needs to be monitored...

 

[dissolved]

We should always be able to voice opinions and have dialogue on anything.

I have no problem with a religious teacher saying they think something is wrong or right. Much like atheists are free to persuade against religion. Heck, I think open persuasion for governmental reform on any matter should be open to speech on the topic.

My contention is about the advocating or normalizing of physical violence against a particular group or individuals.

 

[dissolved]

I think there's pretty much only one religion that needs to be monitored...

Oh I agree, just not sure how you do that unless all agree to the same standard. And honestly - at least for Christianity and probably Buddhism, maybe Hinduism - this should be a no-brainer.

 

[ironwolf]

Oh I agree, just not sure how you do that unless all agree to the same standard. And honestly - at least for Christianity and probably Buddhism, maybe Hinduism - this should be a no-brainer.

I agree if I were religious I'd be happy if my church was monitored so that all religious gatherings could be monitored. I have nothing to hide.

 

[Thurisaz]

I agree if I were religious I'd be happy if my church was monitored so that all religious gatherings could be monitored. I have nothing to hide.

It's less about having something to hide than giving your enemies more tools to use against you. If you think the anti-Christians here are an anomaly, especially concerning their dishonesty and malice, think again.

 

[dissolved]

I agree if I were religious I'd be happy if my church was monitored so that all religious gatherings could be monitored. I have nothing to hide.

The thing too, is if people don't want to talk/consider deportation or the making of Islam illegal, then monitoring for violence-inciting speech has to happen.

The imam in the video of the OP was speaking from behind the barbed-wire fence of some Islamic compound.

You just cant have religious groups getting together and promoting the killing of gays or any other group (Muslims, blacks, whites, christians etc.).

 

[Vitamin C]

I've actually had this thought before and since Orlando. I agree with the ideal of it, but I don't believe that it would be effective.

Like @Fawlty has pointed out, people have become good at pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable in a legal sense. No one is publically planning terrorist acts. If religious leaders are actually counselling specific acts, they would be doing it in private with the individuals.

I ask myself if I would be comfortable with the government monitoring say, Catholic confessions, and my answer is no. For this idea to work world require massively invasive private monitoring on a scale we haven't even seen even with the NSA.

 

[dontsnitch]

I've actually had this thought before and since Orlando. I agree with the ideal of it, but I don't believe that it would be effective.

Like @Fawlty has pointed out, people have become good at pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable in a legal sense. No one is publically planning terrorist acts. If religious leaders are actually counselling specific acts, they would be doing it in private with the individuals.

I ask myself if I would be comfortable with the government monitoring say, Catholic confessions, and my answer is no. For this idea to work world require massively invasive private monitoring on a scale we haven't even seen even with the NSA.

While this is likely not the answer, it's not about monitoring private confessions, but it would be about auditing random religious services. I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[Awesomesauce]

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.

Umm, no they aren't. There are a ton of Imans who cross the line pretty much every day. I really have to wonder about some of you.

 

[Vitamin C]

While this is likely not the answer, it's not about monitoring private confessions, but it would be about auditing random religious services. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Oh for sure, I would be all for keeping an eye on or regulating religious organizations and professionals. I just don't think a massive monitoring program would be effective enough to justify the cost.

I do think that religious leaders should be restricted to those credentialed through western education. People take alot of their cultural cues from their religious affiliation, and so maybe we shouldn't be having imams who are born and raised in ME countries coming here and establishing mosques to teach young western Muslims.

It's a generational issue for sure, but I forsee fewer issues if our local imams were born, raised, and educated here, to our western standards.

After all, we don't allow people to come practice medicine here if their credentials are not up to the standard. I've personally met three immigrants who were practicing doctors in their home countries, Costa Rica, Lebanon, and India, and were in college here for counselling just to get decent paying jobs.

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

Doesn't seem feasible. Besides, extremists would just meet in secret anyway.

 

[nostradumbass]

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).

Pretty obviously not, based on your own post. Why would churches that you just said don't incite violence have to pay for monitoring? If mosques provide their own monitoring, you don't think they're going to hire monitors who are just going to clear them anyway? That's like fighters doing their own drug testing.

 

[Fawlty]

Umm, no they aren't. There are a ton of Imans who cross the line pretty much every day. I really have to wonder about some of you.

This strikes me as a particularly thoughtless and emotional comment, and extremely rude. You're implying something sinister about me, which is not true. You're taking my comment as an endorsement of incitement, which is also not true. And you apparently don't understand the line between incitement and free speech (especially concerning religious speech). Like I said to the other crazy person, if you want to propose a way to restrict speech so we can get these people, I'm all ears. Although I doubt you are capable of doing that. It's not enough to bust a person if he says that gays should die, or even that nightclubbing gays should die. That is protected speech. And these religious lunatics are in fact careful about their word choices, and they're getting better at it. Basically, your post is the worst thing since the last time you stepped in dog shit.

 

[These Two Hands]

If it happens, shut that church down.

I grew up in one in one of the most fundamental Christian backgrounds - heard many thousands of sermons, spent time with literally millions of Christians and dozens of denominations. I'VE NEVER HEARD EVEN THE INSINUATION TO VIOLENCE AGAINST ANY GROUP OR INDIVIDUAL.

This literally is how small the segment is calling for violence. Or making wrong statements about the participation in it. Does it happen? I'm not surprised due to the fact that anything is possible and the religion has 2.2 billion adherants (thus a 40 member group called Westboro).

Regardless monitor and shut charge those calling for physical violence - yes, even Christian gatherings.

Actually, Ian Paisley probably would have garnered quite a lot of support in your neck of the woods, I should think. His "segment" was pretty large, in fact they were (and remain) the demographic majority in the Province. He started quite a bit of bother, really.

 

[dissolved]

Pretty obviously not, based on your own post. Why would churches that you just said don't incite violence have to pay for monitoring? If mosques provide their own monitoring, you don't think they're going to hire monitors who are just going to clear them anyway? That's like fighters doing their own drug testing.

They wouldn't provide their own monitors, it would be state or province run but the religious assembly would have to pay for it if they want to recognized as an approved assembly.

What's so ridiculous about that?

As of yet I hear no legit answers from the naysayers in here. Just bury our heads in the sand and hope for the best? Endure until the day where vigilantism prevails?

 

[MusterX]

 

[nostradumbass]

They wouldn't provide their own monitors, it would be state or province run but the religious assembly would have to pay for it if they want to recognized as an approved assembly.

What's so ridiculous about that?

As of yet I hear no legit answers from the naysayers in here. Just bury our heads in the sand and hope for the best? Endure until the day where vigilantism prevails?

I just gave you a legit answer. A group that you admit doesn't promote violence shouldn't have to fork over money to the gov't to monitor them. Goddamn, is everyone's solution to everything just giving the gov't more money and authority over their lives?

 

[Islam Imamate]

Exactly. I'm all for freedoms

Doesn't look that way to me.