|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Discrimination | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 782 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
Thanks for your reply.
Consider this scenario, if there was no anti-discrimination legislation. An American Negro, Christian family, with 5 children. Mother and father both unemployed, and a sick child, have just moved to the city looking for work. He applies for a position, and is knocked back merely because he is Christian, she applies for a position and is knocked back because she is female. Then several rental agencies refuse to rent them a house, because they are American Negro. Of course then there is the trip to the hospital, where a white doctor who is a neo-nazi, treats them with disdain and is barely civil when checking the child, after having made them wait for several hours. Okay this is an absolute extreme. I would like your opinion though whether, legislation is not a good thing in such a case? This sounds more like a wellfare case to me than affirmative action. I am all about allowing the government to give them a generous amount of money, so long as they use it to learn or improve their skills so as to be increasingly competitive in the work force. And... you're right, that is a pretty extreme case. I seriously doubt that a single decent family would run up against THAT much prejudice in an American city today, and if they did, there are many other diverse less prejudiced cities around. Even in this extreme case, I do not believe legislation is the answer. Have you ever heard of Booker T. Washington? He founded Tuskeegee College for African Americans. It is amazing what he was able to achieve even growing up in the prejudiced post-civil-war South simply through hard work and study. He accomplished everything without affirmative action, and what's more he changed the hearts and minds of many bigotted Southerners with his humility, good work ethic, and strong desire to improve the South.
I apologise if I sound condescending or patronising, it is not my intent, I just like to offer a bigger picture. Not at all!! On the contrary your politeness, humility, and coolness is very refreshing. You're doing an excellent job.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 782 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
Perhaps you misunderstood. They're the ones that put it up. oh well this gets a little more shady. If the citizens are putting up religious symbols in public places like political posters around elections, that is definately okay. I don't know how it would work if the local government wanted to put up a religious symbol using tax money. I don't think they should be able to use federal funds to purchase it, state funds are questionable, but I see nothing wrong with local funds. The "separation clause" only says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"; not "Nothing religious shall reside on public property."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 782 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
Thanks for your reply.
How exactly is affirmative action, not a component of welfare? Indeed the example I gave is a welfare issue, and rights are a welfare/social science issue. The links below will show just one connection with welfare/social work and instigating reform and legislative change. I don't view employment as a right, but a priviledge. However, I am willing to use the government to help people improve themseleves as this does not take away anyone's freedom.
Did you ever consider that people actually may not want hand outs, that they would like to have pride in knowing they are earning their own way? Well, sure, they aren't being forced to take the money.
Again apply your concept alone, to the handouts and using that to learn. How could one do that, if they have no food in their belly, no light to do their homework by, or even no school within walking distance that will take them? The way our welfare system is currently set up, I don't think there would be any danger of this.
Are you saying that prejudice only comes to families that are not 'decent'? No, of course not, but decent hard working people are more likely to get a job than indecent lazy people even in a prejudiced environment.
Are you also stating that a family can always move if they don't like it? Well, no, but where there's a will, there's a way as they say. I point to Booker T. Washington as my example of this. It is the American dream to go from nothing to everything even in "unfair" circumstances. Many people realized that dream in a much harsher environment than 21st century America without the Government forcing anyone to give them a job.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 782 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
I'm just wondering. No pun intended whatsoever, just want to be sure. Do you want the US to be a theocracy? No.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 782 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
Except for the fact that the Bill of Rights applies at all levels of government. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[/qs] This statement is only talking about congress passing laws.
Those statements are equivalent, or rather, the second is directly implied by the first. Public support of one religion over another is an establishment of religion. You can have public support of something without having congress pass a law mandating it. If your broad interpretation of this clause is what they had meant, surely they would have been more specific. The one does not logically follow the other. But I realize you and at least half of all other Americans disagree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 782 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
Thanks for your reply.
You may have what you feel are justifiable reasons to want to ban gay marriage and theses reasons may be deeply rooted in your religious convictions. I am not in favor of Congress banning Gay Marriage as this would go against the separation of church and state clause.
That is, you can do whatever you want...except use you religious views to change our Constitution. I don't want to change the constitution. I just want people to not be forced to become secular as soon as they step into the public.
We are a nation founded on the principle that the majority absolutely do not have the right to impart their wants and views on those that are in the minority. Period. The majority imposes it's views on the minority all the time in elections in councils in boards. We have security measures built in to make things more fair, but in the end, decisions must be made and usually the majority gets their way. So long as the minority maintains their personal freedoms and governmental power remains decentralized it works great.
To get around the religious objections, I have heard a few people make comment about how gays "only want to get married so they can get the tax breaks". I don't really think the national government should have anything to do with marriage for anyone.
Personally, I don't want either of these ideas taught in my public schools. I would much rather see a real, comprehensive curricula dealing with sex education (not the nonsensical crappola put out by the Bush administration) and tolerance. And I think YOU should have the say in your community or state to support the curricula of your choice, but I do NOT think washington beaurocrats or any other beaurocrats should be the ones to determine what your kids are taught. Nor do I think judges should have the say because one or two students are offended by something. This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 01-05-2005 00:00 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 782 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
I can`t understand this argument that 'We are the majority, therefore our opinions are the ones that should count'. Wasn`t the United States founded by minority groups fleeing oppression by majority groups in the Old World? So, now, having grown in numbers and strength, you want to inflict the same controls on minorities? Are the lessons of history so soon forgotten? No I haven't forgotten, though I'm no historian. I am simply espousing more local control and less national control and less control from idiotic lawsuits.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024