• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is this mosque a violation of church and state?

I don't know, it doesn't really seem like the courts are stretching their interpretation to me.

But the first is pretty clearly limiting Congress, not the states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

But even more importantly, rulings such as Barron v Baltimore in 1833 established that the bill of rights was indeed a limitation of federal, not state, authority:

Barron v. Baltimore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
1833 is before the 14th amendment.

Even if incorporation was intended by the 14th (Which is something I disagree with. I still get the feeling it might have been about slavery more than anything, for some crazy reason) it wouldn't change the fact that the first is explicitly a denial of Congress's authority to pass specific types of laws.

The wording is pretty clear that it is Congress and Congress alone that is being limited in authority. Incorporation has to ignore that word, which is the subject of the sentence, giving it a whole new meaning.
 
Selling government property at a below market rat should be forbidden in general. If you want to give government funding to something, do it in with an approved budget item. If such a payout wouldn't be acceptable , as is this example of building a religious structure, giving away government property is just an unacceptable loophole.
 
American Thinker: The ACLU's anti-Religious Hypocrisy Please read the article first.

Basically, the city of Boston sold the Islamic Society of Boston a plot of land valued at $2,000,000 for only $175,000 and accepting other payments in the form of Islamic teaching. Basically the mosque would have a library and teach people Islamic courses and the state would accept this as a form of payment. Is it a violation of church and state for Boston to sell state land to a religious organization at an extremely low and undervalued price while at the same time accepting payment by religious services offered by the mosque? The article highlights the hypocrisy of the ACLU, but I want to know if you all think this is a violation of church and state or something illegal. What if Boston sold the land to an evangelical church that said they would also make payments by educating people on evangelical Christianity? Is this supporting or respecting the Islamic religion at the government level (the city of Boston) ?

I do not see how it violates the 1st seeing how they did not make a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of. Now of course if they gave a christian group this big of a discount the ALCU would be in there faster than a fat woman on free cup cake day at the bakery ready to sue the **** out of the city. I do believe that if they do not give any other group the same discount then it is discriminator.y
 
This seems constitutional and I would go so far as to say that this is a good deal. Yes they got the land for cheap. But the government is requesting education as well. Considering most American know very little about Islam (and depending on how many education opportunities the Mosque will offer) this is a better value for multiculturalism. Money is money. But if the members of the Mosque paid the full amount but some racist bastard burned it down two years later, it would cost the city more both in PR and in money. No, with this deal the city gets money for the land, gets to say it created jobs to build the Mosque (at least for a little bit), (probably) gets thousands of hours of educational teaching, and finally it gets votes for those politicians who get to now say they are unbiased. To a politician, it is a win win.
 
American Thinker: The ACLU's anti-Religious Hypocrisy Please read the article first.

Basically, the city of Boston sold the Islamic Society of Boston a plot of land valued at $2,000,000 for only $175,000 and accepting other payments in the form of Islamic teaching. Basically the mosque would have a library and teach people Islamic courses and the state would accept this as a form of payment. Is it a violation of church and state for Boston to sell state land to a religious organization at an extremely low and undervalued price while at the same time accepting payment by religious services offered by the mosque? The article highlights the hypocrisy of the ACLU, but I want to know if you all think this is a violation of church and state or something illegal. What if Boston sold the land to an evangelical church that said they would also make payments by educating people on evangelical Christianity? Is this supporting or respecting the Islamic religion at the government level (the city of Boston) ?

In response to the article, the ACLU could not possibly go after every single thing. The mosque is funded privately so there isn't any legal issue there, though I don't like that the land was sold so cheaply (not because it's a Mosque but because it is a religious organization). Chrisitanity is the dominant religion in the U.S. and the fact is they need to pick thier battles (we don't have many blue laws or public displays relating to Islam). I can't stand when people say that the ACLU is anti-christian though so here you go, The ACLU Fights for Christians.
 
Islam is the favorite religion of leftists because it provides answers without the necessity of intellectual inquiry.
 
Islam is the favorite religion of leftists because it provides answers without the necessity of intellectual inquiry.

I'm pretty sure that's all religions, but hey, I could just be thinking.
 
Islam is the favorite religion of leftists because it provides answers without the necessity of intellectual inquiry.

took a lot of mental firepower to construct that stupid opinion [/s]
 
Back
Top Bottom