No infidels allowed........
- Thread starter DaSleeper
- Start date
Last edited:
Once again the OP got it wrong. As Colpy correctly pointed out some time ago, an 'infidel' is someone who doesn't believe in God at all, period. Jews and Christians have a variety of definitions for who God is so they are not 'infidels' only the ones that say God is a 'infidel', probably some of those on this very board
if that is public housing, how does a religious institution run a public institution in a society that practices disestablishment??
you sure this is a genuine news item or just another made up Islamophobic story?
you sure this is a genuine news item or just another made up Islamophobic story?
IdRatherBeSkiing; said:
As for those 'confirmations', what was the rationale considering the very obvious violation of separation of church and state?
I am not sure. I guess since it is favouring one minority group, somebody feels they are doing a good thing.
But it is a clear violation. And I know that this same town council in the past has gone out of its way to not call anything about the holidays in December Christmas. So they are very conscious of this separation. My only thought is that they are not thinking of this as religion but as a minority group.
As somebody pointed out, I don't think there is anything wrong with exclusive housing complexes. They just shouldn't be run by the government.
What ever, if the place had public money everyone should be permitted to live there
this religious segregation has to end.
this religious segregation has to end.
This is Canada. Only white middle class can be discriminated against without penalty. And many of our public/low income projects are run by non profits.
What "violation"? You want to show us where there is a law in Canada concerning the "separation of Church and State"?
No. They exist as I mentioned earlier. Quite blatantly in your face all over the place. People make retirement homes for their own. Not new. It exists.
We had a discussion of that here a long while ago - that while Canada does not have an explicit de facto law which mandates it, Canada's practice is one of de jure separation. Something to do with custom and cultural recognition IIRC. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom supposedly protects the right of assembly which suggests that the petitioner in this case should be within a protected or protectable class. At least one would think so.
Not being any form of expert in Canadian law that's why I pose the questions.
don't get me started....did some information auditing on low income projects and none profits..............sounds so perfect doesn't it?
once again it is an industry which controls itself,"self regulation".
don't get me started.
actually, you made a statement. You stated that there was "the very obvious violation of separation of church and state". This statement was made within a question. It, in and of itself, was not a question. Considering you are now admitting to being party to a discussion concerning this very thing, I have to wonder why you would bother making the statement concerning Canada and the separation of Church and State.
as I wrote, my understanding is that it is one of a socially accepted de facto as opposed to de jure mandate - nowhere in my initial post did I say such a mandate is in your Constitution
The violation by Church and State was during the wars that killed the people that lived here, they won when they became tax-exempt. The people that now live here need to keep an eye on Corporation and State.