The Instigator
gizmo1650
Con (against)
Winning
50 Points
The Contender
Brendan21
Pro (for)
Losing
29 Points

It is unconstitutional to protest mosques being built anywhere in the U.S.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 19 votes the winner is...
gizmo1650
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/4/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,882 times Debate No: 13009
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (19)

 

gizmo1650

Con

do to spam the original debate was ruined. So i am challenging it's creator.
i accept the definition provided in the original debate
Unconstitutional-contrary to or failing to comply with a constitution [1]
Mosque- a Muslim temple, or place of public worship [2]

given that pros assertion is "it is unconstitutional to protest mosques being built anywhere in the United States" (again from the previous attempt http://www.debate.org... )
my position is that it is constitutional to protest the building of a mosque.
the key word here is protest, which is clearly protected by the first amendment, as freedom of speech.
Brendan21

Pro

I thank Con for creating this debate, as indeed the original one was ruined.

I 100% accept the fact that protesting something is supported by the 1st amendment of the U.S. constitution. (I will not provide a source, I'm sure you won't mind) However, protesting Mosques is in conflict with the very amendment we are discussing. This makes such protests an unconstitutional act (freedom of religion). We have no right to tell these people where they can worship, even if it bothers us. I'm not going to get in the ethics of terrorism and its relation to Islam ( even though I find it insulting that people are accusing American Muslims of being in league with terrorist organizations) but none of that even matters. The fact is, it is their right to pray however they wish, where they wish. It would be one thing if people protested the construction of ANY religious building, but that's not the case, they are targeting (unfairly) innocent Muslims wanting to pray in peace.

I look forward to your arguments, and for this debate to heat up.
Debate Round No. 1
gizmo1650

Con

"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."
do i need to say more?
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech"
Nowhere does it put limitations on what the speech can be.
Brendan21

Pro

Thank, Con for the response.

Did you skip the first part of that sentence buddy? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Interesting how many people apparently do, and this is exactly what I'm talking about, when I can it's "in conflict with very amendment we are discussing." You say your first admendment rights allow you to protest Mosques, however the SAME EXACT SENTENCE gives people the right to worship where ever they please. Are these Muslims somehow unprotected by the Bill of Rights? I think not. Either these people have the right to worship where they want to, or no one has any of the rights expressed in the first amendment.
Debate Round No. 2
gizmo1650

Con

I am not saying they don't have the right to build a mosque, all i am saying is that people have a right to protest. What would you say if police arrested protesters because they were were peaceably assembling to exercise their freedom of speech to say that they don't want the mosque built. The anti-mosque movement only becomes unconstitutional when the government prevents the mosque from being built.
Also if the government take any action to support the mosque, more then what they normally would for a secular building, that to is unconstitutional. And that is what you are talking about, providing government aid to a religious group to shield them from public criticism.
Brendan21

Pro

Thanks Con, for the quick response.

I agree it would be unconstitutional to ban these people from protesting Mosques (it says so in the 1st amendment) however, the message these people are sending is an unconstitutional message. Its unconstitutional to discriminate against an individual religion just as its unconstitutional to say a protest can't take place. I don't understand where this goes from black and white to grey, but apparently a lot of people are seeing grey.

The protests themelves are not unconstitutional, but the purpose they serve is very unconstitutional. I strong urge a vote for Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by C-Mach 6 years ago
C-Mach
The First Amendment does not apply to society. It applies solely to laws made by the Congress. Nothing more, regardless of faulty Supreme Court rulings.
Posted by Anacharsis 6 years ago
Anacharsis
I am absolutely baffled this debate. How could there be any confusion what so ever about this issue? The Constitution is clear and courts have repeatedly affirmed that the restrictions that it imposes on such matters relate to government only. Originally, there was a fair bit of debate as to whether restrictions on the ability of government to "establish" religions even applied at all to state, county or municipal governments. There has never been a question that I am aware of coming to court about any individual or private group of individuals being able to effect an "establishment" of religion. The ability of people to mount whatever protest they want has no direct bearing at all on what government may do or not do to protect freedom of religion. It is possible that if a majority (or loud minority) of people wanted to restrict some religious practice that the government might acede to it. It would then be unconstitutional. But people protesting for or against any religion does nothing to establish anything.

Consider a converse example where people could protest against a denial to build a mosque that might be based on a fairly applied zoning ordinance. This also does nothing at all to establish their religion.
Posted by THE_OPINIONATOR 6 years ago
THE_OPINIONATOR
gotta lov spam NOT
Posted by Brendan21 6 years ago
Brendan21
true story.
Posted by gizmo1650 6 years ago
gizmo1650
@Steelerman6794
i didn't come up with the resolution, pro came up with it and got spammed so i challenged him.
Posted by THE_OPINIONATOR 6 years ago
THE_OPINIONATOR
There is nothing in the constitution that says it is unconstitutional to build or to protest said Mosque
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
*apparently constitutional
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
Same resolution as last time.

Anyway I agree there is nothing unconstitutional about people using free speech. Even the KKK are allowed to assemble and have freedom of speech. Most people don't agree with what they stand for but they are protected so long as they don't go beyond speech, and peaceful protest.

When they start singling out Muslims and attacking them they have broken the law, but not because of protesting.

It is apparently to stake out someone's funeral and make fun of them and say they will burn in hell for being gay.
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
due* not do
Posted by Steelerman6794 6 years ago
Steelerman6794
There is a serious lack of communication on this debate. Con set up the resolution so he could get an easy win. Pro misinterpreted the meaning of the resolution. This was in general an awful debate, and next time, I hope Con chooses a more debatable topic and Pro chooses to actually read the resolution.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
gizmo1650Brendan21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by C-Mach 6 years ago
C-Mach
gizmo1650Brendan21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by mjalal100 6 years ago
mjalal100
gizmo1650Brendan21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by wmpeebles 6 years ago
wmpeebles
gizmo1650Brendan21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Brendan21 6 years ago
Brendan21
gizmo1650Brendan21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by gizmo1650 6 years ago
gizmo1650
gizmo1650Brendan21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by HeXimei 6 years ago
HeXimei
gizmo1650Brendan21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Vote Placed by Anacharsis 6 years ago
Anacharsis
gizmo1650Brendan21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by MsScribbles 6 years ago
MsScribbles
gizmo1650Brendan21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Brandonmaciel333 6 years ago
Brandonmaciel333
gizmo1650Brendan21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07