Which is a bigger threat to our Religious Liberty?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

One of these is a huge threat to The American Way.

[Green Line]

Christmas cups, obviously.

[Sumner 1868]

Option 1 (not a troll).

[Goldwater]

I understand the coffee cup, but I didn't hear about the Mosque thing. Why are they being closed down? Is it pressure from the government, or something else?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I understand the coffee cup, but I didn't hear about the Mosque thing. Why are they being closed down? Is it pressure from the government, or something else?

Trump said it would be something we consider in his administration.

[RI]

But the coffee cups didn't have anything remotely religious on them

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

But the coffee cups didn't have anything remotely religious on them

There were snowflakes which were created by Our Heavenly Father to give a special festive feeling for the birth of his Son. Starbucks and all the other corporations are taking that away. First they had climate change that stopped December snowfalls and now this...

[OSR stands with Israel]

Getting rid of Mosques is clearly  more of a violation of Freedom of Religion

[Mercenary]

Closing a place of worship would be a bigger threat but if the government did preveny religious symbols from being placed on items that too would be a legitimate violation of religious liberty. Some company just deciding to not put a Christmas symbol on their cups though has absolutely nothing to do with religious liberty.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Depends on the reasoning.

[Famous Mortimer]

Neither. Muslims have a right to practice their religion but that right ends when they insight violence. That should be the same for all religions.

[DemPGH]

The Starbucks coffee cup deal, if that is what this is alluding to, is the height of absurdity.

A fundamental keep-Christ-in-Christmas type got upset over secular images on coffee cups (Santa, reindeer, sleighs, etc.), then he got upset over a plain red cup with a white lid and took it to YouTube or the Internet or something. Self parody stuff, that is.

I just recently had a London Fog (earl grey tea, steamed milk, a shot of vanilla), and I actually like the red cups. I'm not one for ramming religion down everyone's throat, nor am I big on frilly, ornamental stuff.

Closing mosques is silly because then they'll just go underground. Just keep them under surveillance. If they intend to cause violence, that's another matter.

[Mr. Illini]

Did the government pressure/force Starbucks into taking Christmas images off of their cups?

[bedstuy]

Neither. Muslims have a right to practice their religion but that right ends when they insight violence. That should be the same for all religions.

It depends what you mean by "incite violence."  There's that whole 1st Amendment thing which protects speech and has an exception for the proverbial yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.  I really doubt American mosques are giving specific instructions, "hey, go kill this person."  And, if that happened, how do you impute that to the entire institution, rather than the person who said it?

I think the FBI might actually be helped by the existence of extremist mosques in America.  You can put that mosque under surveillance, you send in CIs, grab facial recognition of everyone who goes in or out and it's a source of intelligence.  I think that's what the NYPD did with the extremist/terrorist linked mosque in my neighborhood.   

[Cassius]

Well you know, Christmas images probably loom far larger in 'the American way' than do Mosques, so...

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

You can put that mosque under surveillance, you send in CIs, grab facial recognition of everyone who goes in or out and it's a source of intelligence.  I think that's what the NYPD did with the extremist/terrorist linked mosque in my neighborhood.   

And when the mosque knows it's under surveillance what do they do? GAME THEORY!

[DC Al Fine]

It freaks me out how many American Christians (admittedly, there are a decent number of none's and nominal Christians here, but let's focus on the devout for now) are gung ho about closing "religious extremist Mosques", while ignoring the trends in our own society.

If we Evangelicals/Catholics are upset at the state beginning to infringe on our religious liberty in minor ways, it's ridiculous to support the state infringing on religious liberties in major ways. I attribute this to a generation gap among conservative Christians. The more numerous olds seem to think that "taking back" the country is still a possibility, while the youngs are despondent.

[Boston Bread]

If opposing same-sex marriage is considered to be extremist by most Americans in 2050, what is going to stop them from shutting down all Churches/Mosques/Etc. that don't recognize same-sex marriage?

[Classic Conservative]

Neither. Muslims have a right to practice their religion but that right ends when they insight violence. That should be the same for all religions.

This

[Mr. Reactionary]

If opposing same-sex marriage is considered to be extremist by most Americans in 2050, what is going to stop them from shutting down all Churches/Mosques/Etc. that don't recognize same-sex marriage?

The Bill of Rights.

[DavidB.]

The Bill of Rights.

Don't be silly. In 2050, the Tumblr generation will have taken over, and who needs rights when people have feelings? The Bill of Rights will therefore be replaced by the Bill of Feelings, and people's feelings are hurt if churches etc. do not allow LGBTs to marry, so such churches will of course be closed.

Anyway, this is the right answer:

Well you know, Christmas images probably loom far larger in 'the American way' than do Mosques, so...

[Boston Bread]

For the record I don't think either option 1 or 2 is a serious encroachment on religious liberty (as long as Mosques refer to only ones that promote violence). I am concerned at where the line can be drawn, though.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

It freaks me out how many American Christians (admittedly, there are a decent number of none's and nominal Christians here, but let's focus on the devout for now) are gung ho about closing "religious extremist Mosques", while ignoring the trends in our own society.

If we Evangelicals/Catholics are upset at the state beginning to infringe on our religious liberty in minor ways, it's ridiculous to support the state infringing on religious liberties in major ways. I attribute this to a generation gap among conservative Christians. The more numerous olds seem to think that "taking back" the country is still a possibility, while the youngs are despondent.

This assumes that they are logical, fair, and reasonable, which they are not. Religious Liberty is for them only, not for others.

[Goldwater]

For the record I don't think either option 1 or 2 is a serious encroachment on religious liberty (as long as Mosques refer to only ones that promote violence). I am concerned at where the line can be drawn, though.

Actually, I think the second one would be a big deal, assuming the government actually made that a law. But they are't, so it isn't.

[DC Al Fine]

It freaks me out how many American Christians (admittedly, there are a decent number of none's and nominal Christians here, but let's focus on the devout for now) are gung ho about closing "religious extremist Mosques", while ignoring the trends in our own society.

If we Evangelicals/Catholics are upset at the state beginning to infringe on our religious liberty in minor ways, it's ridiculous to support the state infringing on religious liberties in major ways. I attribute this to a generation gap among conservative Christians. The more numerous olds seem to think that "taking back" the country is still a possibility, while the youngs are despondent.

This assumes that they are logical, fair, and reasonable, which they are not. Religious Liberty is for them only, not for others.

That's not the point. The point is that they are acting against their own interests right now.