Trump says he would consider closing certain mosques

Trump, who has been pushing for a more aggressive response, also said Americans must reassess some of their civil liberties in response to growing threats from the Islamic State group.

Ben Franklin's s never rang truer

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

For once, he might be right.

I don't see it happening. Not in a time when certain states and US governors can't even stop a unilateral obama. An obama who is willing to allow tens of thousands of islamic refugees into the US, the one ones who will be attending those mosques in the future.

It's nonsense.

The first change that needs to happen is that all religious institutions start paying tax as any other organization would.

Introduce a corporate tax rate to all religions, as they should be seeing as they are essentially pyramid schemes. I think we'd all be surprised by how many truly faithful are remaining when adherents have to pay membership fees.

Why hasn't he been baying for radical churches and white supremacist groups to be closed, since all the church shootings and arson attacks?

I think we'd all be surprised by how many truly faithful are remaining when adherents have to pay membership fees.

I think Christians already do pay don't they? They pass around the collection plate during mass. From what I understand, it's theoretically voluntary, but if you don't pay, everyone will take note and you look bad.

Trump says he would consider closing certain mosques

Follicular O' Pacity© leapfrogs Ben Carson

Had there been some guys with a gun, there would have been a shoot-out and probably the primary people that got whacked would have been the killers.

Mr Future President (of the NRA), Follicular 'Wise Guy' O' Pacity.

Better still, how about outlawing places of worship? What's wrong about praying in the sanctity of your own home?

@IparryU The first change that needs to happen is that all religious institutions start paying tax as any other organization would.

Agree. The GOP presidential candidates each troll for evangelical voters. A candidate, especially a GOP candidate, who would take a position to tax religious institutions would lose votes and would be demonified from the pulpits of preachers who are able to fly private jets and live in multimillion dollar houses paid for by their supporters, in large part because of the tax free revenues they take in.

Here's a link that shows how some Muslim countries control their mosques: http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21636110-across-arab-world-rulers-tighten-their-grip-mosque-converting

Constitution a la carte...

I love when the conservatives accuse the other side of shredding the constitution over gun control or the healthcare but when it comes to a particular religion, they are quick to make some exceptions...

Hypocrisy much?

Trump is a shill, the Clintons' version of Ross Perot. He keeps proving it.

Trump criticized President Barack Obama for not moving earlier to destroy the Islamic State sites that France bombed over the weekend.

This is because obama doesn't care. He's only looking after the interests of himself, not america and its's allies. This is why he has not / will not rescind his policy for allowing tens of thousands of syrian islamic refugees into the US.

Why hasn't he been baying for radical churches and white supremacist groups to be closed, since all the church shootings and arson attacks?

You make a point. But the arson and church shootings will look like a picnic compared to what 7-8 Islamic Extremist would accomplish when obama "allows" all those refugees to enter US.

@Maria. Did you not see the carnage on local media of what those 8 Islamic Extremist did in Paris over the weekend?

Maria

Why hasn't he been baying for radical churches and white supremacist groups to be closed, since all the church shootings and arson attacks?

You mean the string of arsons at predominately black churches in St. Louis? Yeah, about that...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/10/30/suspect-arrested-for-arson-following-string-of-st-louis-church-fires/

But keep following the media narrative and trying to sow racially divisiveness.

Back to the mosques, it's not exactly a secret that the FBI was making key arrests thanks to monitoring radical mosques. But CAIR complained and the surveillance was stopped. And the attacks began.

Remarks like this are what makes Trump dangerous. Either he really believes what he is saying or he will say absolutely anything to get himself nominated. He seems to have no understanding of the basic principles of the country, probably has never read The Federalist Papers or Democracy in America or any of the great works from that time upon which this country was created. He's like a 4 yr old playing with fire who doesn't know that it will get out of control and badly burn or kill him...

He took a note from China or Israel maybe.

@TumbleDry. The Constitution does not protect people from committing hate speech and/or inciting violence even under the cloak of religion. I think certain--notice Trump used the word "certain" which does not mean "all"--imams and their mosques fall under the category of inciting violence and/or hate speech and should be shut down. Of course this is common sense which today has become a form of hate speech.

Love this guy ....Go mr Trump

Perhaps he should consider selective closing his mouth, instead. Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it, to paraphrase Mark Twain.

I think certain imams and their mosques fall under the category of inciting violence and/or hate speech and should be shut down.

I second that.

He's like a 4 yr old playing with fire who doesn't know that it will get out of control and badly burn or kill him...

Good analogy. Another amusing one is looking at the incumbent administration.

Playing with those same matches near gun powder and who do not realize the possibility of allowing Islamic Refugees (young bearded healthy men) into the US would likewise "Badly Burn or Kill" themselves and their own american countrymen.

tumbledrier:

" I love when the conservatives accuse the other side of shredding the constitution over gun control or the healthcare but when it comes to a particular religion, they are quick to make some exceptions... "

Trump is completely right here, and those clamour about the freedom to preach "religion" show their ignorance about the issue. Namely, the issue is that policial islam is precisely that: POLITICAL. Fundamentalist mosques "preach" about political issues, about how democracy and human rights must be destroyed, and be replaced a 1500 year old religious doctrine They also "preach" that homosexuals, apostates, and critics of Mohmmed should be killed and wifes can be beaten. I could go on for pages with the list. The issue is that political hate speech should not be allowed to fly under the radar by claiming it is "religious". I have long said that religious texts should not excempt from the criticism that other texts are.

In the event, even super-liberal Germany has closed some fundamentalists mosques (including the one where Mohammed Atta, the 9/11 pilot, was indoctrinated.) I am glad that at least one US candidate finally states the blatantly obvious.

Willi: yeah but then that's freedom of speech then. What would customize in the Constitution to be satisfied? Also closing mosques is not going to solve anything since the will be going underground.

Americans must reassess some of their civil liberties in response to growing threats from the Islamic State group.

Just lost my vote. On to Bernie.

TumbleDry:

" Willi: yeah but then that's freedom of speech then. What would customize in the Constitution to be satisfied? Also closing mosques is not going to solve anything since the will be going underground. "

There is freedom of speech. There is also the question of hate speech. Should hate speech get special excemption if it is hides itself behind religion?

And yes, there will always be radical preachers underground. But it is a different situation to officially recognize and approve them. You your suggested standard, should the KKK be allowed to build big, impressive teaching houses and preach their message in comfortable, in-your-face environment? Really?

By the way, Azerbeijan (a muslim country with a strong secular identity) has written precisely this into their constitution: No religious excemption for hate speech. I am not asking anything different. Are the Azerbeijanis wrong?

"Also closing mosques is not going to solve anything since the will be going underground."

I disagree. A strong response will send a strong message; assimilate or get the hell out. The US has room for all religions but the agreement is freedom for religion and freedom from religion. It is not negotiatable.

Willi: don't worry, I'm all against hate speech. The KKK has publications, other racist groups too. They have places to gather (church or whatever). Closing a building or publication is not going to make an idea go away. What Trump proposes is a bandaid on a wooden leg. Plus, it's a violation of the Constitution he loves to tell anyone he is following to the letter.

TumbleDry:

" Willi: don't worry, I'm all against hate speech. The KKK has publications, other racist groups too. They have places to gather (church or whatever). "

What does "church or whatever" mean? Do they have officially sanctioned buildings, with KKK symbols on top, and with a religious tax status? Do they, or don´t they?

" Closing a building or publication is not going to make an idea go away. "

No, they won´t go away, but we don´t need to give official protection to their spread. Do you think Azerbaijan is wrong to outlaw islamic hate speech?

"Better still, how about outlawing places of worship? What's wrong about praying in the sanctity of your own home?"

Good idea. I'm sure the preachers could find alternative employment flogging dodgy used cars and penis-enlarging drugs or become GOP lawmakers.

@oldhawk:

But keep following the media narrative and trying to sow racially divisiveness.

You mean there are no radical churches and white supremacist groups in the US any more? Good to know.

Willi: KKK members are not atheists, I can guarantee you that. So what constitutes hate speech and shouldn't be considered free speech. Note the Constitution doesn't define hate speech. Should be laws As for Azerbaijan, not relevant.

Good idea. I'm sure the preachers could find alternative employment flogging dodgy used cars and penis-enlarging drugs or become GOP lawmakers.

Clinton wasn't a GOP lawmaker. What about him? He was the man back then.

'Good idea. I'm sure the preachers could find alternative employment flogging dodgy used cars and penis-enlarging drugs or become GOP lawmakers.'

'Clinton wasn't a GOP lawmaker. What about him? He was the man back then.'

He certainly was but as you said, back then. According to you, the US elected an atheist/possible Muslim twice since then. The GOP's front runner has got the kind of crackpot religious nonsense rattling around in his head which would make half of the Taliban say WTF.

And yes, Hilary/Benghazi/ROFL.

The best way to "hide" the truth and true intent is to fut it out in front.

ISIS/ISIL has declared repeatedly that this was a RELIGIOUS war.

That said... if religious centers are "used" for war, using "religious freedom" as cover, there are more to consider. It is the right of individuals to believe in any faith and not organize using an institution to cause harm. There is a MAJOR difference. And those that are harmed and attacked must realize that institutions are NOT covered by religious freedom as each individuals are to the extent that they do not harm others within that society. And that society cannot "prosecute" a person for his/her beliefs if his/her actions do not harm others.

It is for the survival of the human species as a society and not for any one particular group that want to just dominate it because of religious belief.

He certainly was but as you said, back then. According to you, the US elected an atheist/possible Muslim twice since then.

seems so, when you really think about it.

The GOP's front runner has got the kind of crackpot religious nonsense rattling around in his head which would make half of the Taliban say WTF.

Yeah, but he wouldn't be afraid of stomping out ISIS and the same goes for the guy with the funny hair. Yuge!!

And yes, Hilary/Benghazi/ROFL.

Without a doubt!

He gets my vote for that alone.

For those that do not like Trump.

Regardless of his perspectives and what he says, Trump has started a much needed discussion for ALL humanity to consider. If he is good for anything, it is the fact that he is forcing everyone to "consider" options and "argue" (debate) the future of the USA and most probably the rest of the world as well. (USA, like it or not, is till the most powerful nation in the world, economically and militarily.)

Get off one's idealism and dreams... the world is still "imperfect" and we must deal with religious and racial problems with our "feet on the ground" (realistically and practically). This is a religious and racial problem that has become physical and affecting the entire world and our individual lives.

It is important that we find the "true" source/s and deal with it/hem in a manner which will restore some semblance of peace and prosperity which most people seem to desire and needed for the survival of humanity. That solution may be an unstoppable war or a simple well targeted strike. So far it appears that ISIS/ISIL is NOT the true source of these conflicts.

For the USA, Trump has suggested a reasonable approach to "prevent" further escalation from within the country. There may be other options that may be even better. But he has given a topic, an idea to base future consideration and discussion.

For that I give him "credit" which I cannot give to the President.

Trump's outrageous comments/ideas are becoming increasingly irrelevant ! The man's cheese has slipped off it's cracker !

tumbledry:

" Willi: KKK members are not atheists, I can guarantee you that. So what constitutes hate speech and shouldn't be considered free speech. Note the Constitution doesn't define hate speech. Should be laws As for Azerbaijan, not relevant. "

I don´t care what KKK members are. The issue is the content of speech, and the "religion" label. Are KKK members free to build huge houses of worship (to whatever ideals they have) and call other groups the vilest names, including calls for murder? If they are, OK. But to the degree that the KKK is restricted in its open assembly and open speech, and that its ideas are rightly criticized, the speech in mosques should too.

To the degree that radical islam gets a free pass because it calls itself a religion, so should the KKK. That was my point. So difficult?

As for Azerbeidjan, their constitution is VERY relevant to this issue. Azerbeijan is an almost totally muslim country, but they do recognize the horrific nature of political islam, and they deal with it. They do NOT give islamic fundamentalist hate preachers a free pass. Don´t you think they know a thing or two that our leaders don´t`?

Whatever buffoon Trump maybe otherwise, I give him huge credit for finally addressing this issue.

Par for the Trump-racist-anti-immigrant-baiting course. Resonates with about half of the Republican base. Enough so to make Orange Daffy top of the polls for, what, three months, now? 'Cause it's not that all Republicans are racist; its just that if you are a racist, the Republican party is for you.

Since he is not changing his tune, though, and 'cause he's got no ground game, and I mean none, it seems pretty obvious he ain't interested in actually winning. Which makes him a looser. Except, of course, he's in it to fleece the gullible, the frightened and the xenophobes. Y'know, the Palin crowed. Scurvy little Rubes always easy marks.

The first change that needs to happen is that all religious institutions start paying tax as any other organization would.

In the US, we got this 1st Amendment thing about Congress making no law establishing or infringing on religion. It is well known that the power to tax is the power to destroy. That is a strong argument against taxing religion.

The best rebuttal, naturally, is that religious organizations that significantly engage in partisan politics chose to allow themselves to be subject to the state's taxing power.

Black Sabbath:

"racist", "xenophobes"..... the stupid catch-all labels to shut down any discussion. Used by those who have no arguments.

Beeston Hill in Leeds and Finsbury Park mosques should have been shut down and demolished long ago, for very obvious reasons. And their hating-preaching asylum-seeking imams deported.

Authorities need to get to root of the problem. If they refuse (which they are basically doing now), the "soft-target" attacks will become daily feature of European life.

Why hasn't he been baying for radical churches and white supremacist groups to be closed, since all the church shootings and arson attacks?

@ Maria: In case you didn't see it, the latest church arsons to Black churches that had occurred in Missouri were done by a Black man. He has been arrested and charged in that case, and as a matter of fact for some of the other recent church burnings and supposed bombings on minority institutions, they have been done by minorities.

Trump is right in this case. The FBI has infiltrated radical Christian sects and even the KKK in the past to root out the really bad, so why can't they do this for Muslims? As some have said, Western authorities need to get to the root of the problem and stamp out radical Islam where it starts. Not saying all Muslims are radical, look at what countries like Jordan and others are doing to fight against them. Not all mosques in the USA are preaching radical Islam, but there are some and frankly they need to be looked at.

Nothing racist about that. The racist belief are the liberals who think that all radical Muslims will somehow be dark complexioned. Muslims are of all colors and nationalities, and so are the radical ones. Not just a "white" vs. "other" dynamic in this one.

My point, which some have missed, is that if Trump is laying blame at certain doors without knowing if those doors are to blame at all, why didn't he do the same before, in the days following the shootings and arson attacks - which were after all in his country, not another continent? He is saying what he would do without knowing the facts. He thinks he's right because he shouts the loudest, even when what he's shouting is irrational.

I think the point being made is that Trump is exploiting racist people's racist tendencies in order to get higher polling numbers.

And there is a good chance it will work.

My point, which some have missed, is that if Trump is laying blame at certain doors without knowing if those doors are to blame at all, why didn't he do the same before, in the days following the shootings and arson attacks - which were after all in his country, not another continent?

In the arson attacks in the USA (which as I stated the MO cases were done by a Black man), there wasn't one specific group who has called for the burning and beheading and/or conversion of those who are not of one particular faith to theirs. If these had been radical Sikhs or Hindus, I would say that the authorities would need to look closely at those temples also. The FBI has had people look into more radical churches who have performed bombings at abortion clinics and lest not forget what they did to other far out there religious cults in their compounds.

If the people are a big enough threat to society and have had a known history of violence against others who don't share their beliefs, then they should be looked at. Not saying their teachings should be modified, if they want to preach the way they do then they can. But they also need to be looked at.

Maria, I find it interesting that he is being irrational in his assumptions. Do you think that the mayor of Houston is also irrational? After all, she wanted the churches in Houston who were preaching against her "gay agenda" to have their sermons submitted to her office so that they can be reviewed, and if found going against what she felt was acceptable in her view of tolerance that they needed to be modified or face further scrutiny. None of those churches were preaching hatred towards gays, just a different opinion. That would be a step over the line, just like looking into every mosque in the USA along the same lines. However, if they are preaching go out and bomb and behead and kill in the name of their beliefs, then they need to be looked into.

I think the point being made is that Trump is exploiting racist people's racist tendencies in order to get higher polling numbers.

And there is a good chance it will work.

All politicians do this. It worked for Obama and it's working for Hillary.