Search found 2 matches
Return to “CITY: 2 GUNMEN KILLED OUTSIDE MUHAMMAD CARTOON CONTEST”
- Mon May 04, 2015 4:14 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: CITY: 2 GUNMEN KILLED OUTSIDE MUHAMMAD CARTOON CONTEST
- Replies: 187
- Views: 28796
Re: CITY: 2 GUNMEN KILLED OUTSIDE MUHAMMAD CARTOON CONTEST
I'm growing quite tired of the two corpses not being referred to as "terrorists". Whether or not either one spent any time in ISIS training camps, this is still what they were.
- Mon May 04, 2015 10:56 am
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: CITY: 2 GUNMEN KILLED OUTSIDE MUHAMMAD CARTOON CONTEST
- Replies: 187
- Views: 28796
Re: CITY: 2 GUNMEN KILLED OUTSIDE MUHAMMAD CARTOON CONTEST
I couldn't disagree more with what you've stated above. I would argue that cutting out all religious groups as not being able to use the facilities while allowing non-religious groups is by far a bigger infringement of the exact church/state protection you mention.talltex wrote:I understand that they had previously allowed the center to be used for a "muslim" assembly of some kind. In spite of that, I believe it is foolish to allow the use of a public facility for an event that they KNOW is likely to elicit a negative response, and possibly a violent one, which it did. I also don't think it should ever have been approved for ANY "religious" meeting in the first place. There are plenty of private facilities that any type of religious group can use to hold an assembly. If anyone wants to hold a Muslim, Hindu, Christian or whatever assembly let them go to a Mosque, Temple, or Church and do so to their hearts content, but the government owned facilities should not be used...maintain the separation between church and state. The city of Garland was obviously anticipating problems given the uniformed and SWAT officers posted on the scene...thankfully. It's a case of "if you allow one group access, then you have no grounds to deny any other group the same access". The city council needs to look at setting a policy to avoid the issue.ScooterSissy wrote: In this case, they were indeed making a political statement, and I agree it was a controversial statement. However, it is their statement to make; and it was done in direct response to the previous actions taken at the same location.
I would also argue that stopping an event from being held just because it might anger some people is a direct assault of our very Constitution and a very slippery slope of state censorship. Once that starts, you're not far from NK, China, Etc.