Discrimination

In another thread Jar preaches that all forms of discrimination are B.S., anti-Christ, and anti-loving-one's-neighbor.I believe Jar sees an issue as black/white that is not black/white.Discrimination is essentially the acceptance or rejection of a person based on some quality or characteristic that person possesses. Now obviously all discrimination cannot be bad. A prestigious college would not allow someone who scores an 800 on his SAT to enroll. A mother looking for someone to babysit her little girl would likely turn down a convicted sex-offender.The real issue is when does a particular characteristic used to discriminate between individuals become immoral and when should the government take steps to discourage such discrimination.I don't think it is immoral discrimination for an airport security officer to be a little more scrutinizing of a muslim or arab than a five-year old blue-eyed Texan girl. And if I were of mid-eastern descent I would gladly undergo a little profiling to have the knowledge that security is being extra-careful with those who are more likely to bear anti-American sentiment.I don't think it is immoral for a small business owner to reject a new employee whom he will be working with because that employee has a conflicting personality or conflicting morals.Though I think it is immoral for an employer to fail to hire an employee simply because that employee is black, I think it is also wrong for the government to force that employer to hire that employee or anyone else simply because he is black.Now, if the majority of citizens of a nation or state or city or school district believe a certain thing to be immoral for whatever reason, what is to stop them from making that thing illegal or the teaching of that thing as moral illegal? The ever-broadening interpretation of the separation between Church-and-State clause has been stretched far thinner than it was ever meant to be.I believe government should play a minimal role. I don't think the government should provide quotas or have anything to do with marriage: het or homo, and I don't believe it should dictate the curricula of our schools. I think individuals in a community must decide what is moral or immoral and what they wish to pass on to their children as such.Though Jar believes homosexuality to be perfectly moral and harmless, I do not. Therefore those of my persuasion should not be forced to accept his nor should we have our kids force-fed liberal sexual doctrines in school. Neither do I think my conservative views should make those private activities I view to be immoral illegal.It seems to me that this would bring greater assurance of freedom to people of all moral persuasions and encourage a greater diversity across our nation.

Where?

Umm... coffeehouse I spose

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Hangdawg13 writes:

quote:

---

Now, if the majority of citizens of a nation or state or city or school district believe a certain thing to be immoral for whatever reason, what is to stop them from making that thing illegal or the teaching of that thing as moral illegal?

---

The constitution. You see, there's this thing called the "equal protection clause". It's found in Section 1 of the 14th amendment, which reads thus: What part of this are you having difficulty understanding?

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

I think you may misunderstand my position.I do not think all discrimination is wrong. In fact, I think that it is a technique that should be taught very early in the learning cycle. I thought it was pretty clear I was speaking of particular acts, but perhaps I was mistaken. Let me try to make myself quite clear.I believe that DOMA, anti-gay marriage legislation and depriving people of basic rights is anti-christian, discriminatory and oppressive. As a Christian I believe we MUST stand up and oppose such actions. My position is that such a decision is simply not relevant. In fact, it is those type things we might personally disagree with that we must work hardest to protect.It is easy to support speech we agree with. The hard thing (although also the right thing) is to support speech we disagree with.If homosexuality is morally wrong, then that can be resolved as it should be, between GOD and the individual. It is not our place to legislate morality.The issue with DOMA and related anti-gay legislation is that such laws deprive individuals of basic rights.In a same-sex relationship where one of the people has access to health insurance, they are often not eligible for family policy since their marriage is not recognized.That is also true in providing protection in family violence situations.It is also true when considering inheirtance.As Christians, whether or not we personally approve of same-sex relationships, we must oppose discrimination against them.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Discrimination is essentially the acceptance or rejection of a person based on some quality or characteristic that person possesses.I believe that if the character of a person conflicts with the qualities that are important to the job, then discrimination can be useful. Your description of the mother rejecting a baby-sitter on the grounds that they are a registered sex-offender would constitute necessary discrimination.If the quality or characteristic that a person possesses does not conflict with the qualities that are important to the job, then discrimination becomes unnecessary. A man looking for office work, who is rejected on the grounds that they are a registered sex-offender would constitute as being unfair discrimination.This message has been edited by Zawinul, 01-02-2005 15:27 AM

I mostly agree. But does that mean that all such unfair discrimination should be illegal? I think not.Also, taking the persepective of a business owner, suppose he chose not to hire someone because he swore a lot or smoked weed and suppose this in no way inhibited this person's ability to do the job. The business owner has the right to discriminate here, so why does he not have the right to discriminate against a promiscuous or homosexually active person on moral grounds or even a person of another race? No matter what the reason fair or unfair/moral or immoral I believe the business owner has the right to hire whom ever he wishes.The same goes for school curricula. The people living in a school district should be able to have a complete say on what is taught to their children. Shoot, a Muslim population could even choose to teach their kids radical Islam if they wanted.I guess I'm saying we need more small-scale majority freedom to rule and less large-scale minority bullying.

Perhaps... but you sure weren't pulling any punches in that other thread! I don't believe it is one or the other, but given the free nature of our government I believe it would set a disturbing and destructive trend. So I guess we are really basically in agreement then on this issue. That is true; however, there can come a point when 'free speech' may be imposed on others as I have tried to bring up with the school curricula thing. I don't care if someone wants to talk about the glory of gayness, but I don't want that person to tell my kids about it in school and be protected by the government under the 'freedom of speech'.If gay people want their adopted kids to be taught the glory of gayness in school then let them form a community where they can get enough votes to insert this teaching into the curricula and I will gladly support their right to free speech.If Christians want their kids to be taught Christian morals, let them form a community where they have a majority and vote in this curricula.The minority should either quit or cope, but not dilute this smallest kernal of government by eliminating consensus and demanding complete compromise.The ACLU has no right to take away religious symbols and words from a school where almost everybody wants them there. I agree that we must treat them with love and respect, and I agree that it is not the national government's job to mandate what a person can and cannot do so long as he harms no one else. And I will add that I do not think we should oppose discrimination THROUGH the law as this takes away freedom and produces reverse discrimination. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Thank you for your reply. I would say 'the interpretation of the constitution' since quite a bit has changed without a change in the constitution. So you would agree that this protects a highschool valedictorian's right to talk about Jesus in her speech, right? Or would you side with the one Indian Hindu family in the crowd that may be offended and claims 'psychological damage' from the speech?Last year I read of a valedictorian that was arrested after mentioning Jesus in her speech and I've read of other similar cases. I cannot see how this clause vindicates such action.

I think I'm with you up until the school curriculum thing.Public schools are just that. It seems they should be supportive of the entire population of the US, and not just the majority type where you live locally.I think you are right saying that schools should not be teaching morals and saying kids must think other races, beliefs are great or acceptable for themselves... but I do think it is critical that they teach TOLERANCE of other races and beliefs. That is how a society works together.Do you have an issue with teaching tolerance in school?I would also have a problem if you start using this to say that local communities get to say what counts as proper science and math and history. That is creating a bad system where pockets of populations taking government money to push specifis brands of theism.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

hangdoawg13 writes:

quote:

---

So you would agree that this protects a highschool valedictorian's right to talk about Jesus in her speech, right?

---

I would agree with you that she has a right to talk about Jesus in her speech, and not just because of the 14th amendment. I seem to remember hearing of the incident you cite, but I never looked into it. In principle, I feel that the young lady has the right to speak of anything she chooses.

quote:

---

I cannot see how this clause vindicates such action.

---

I never claimed that it did. I was responding to the following statement from you: This is where we disagree. The majority does NOT have the right to impose its moral will on the minority. Ever.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Damn right. It's time to stop tolerating bigotry. You against teaching tolerance? What?The ACLU is one of the greatest supporters of Christianity. You've been listening to some of the liars like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell again (even though he has personally benefitted fron th ACLU's actions). Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks (06/03/2004)After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries (05/11/2004)Following ACLU Lawsuit, Town Officials Settle Lawsuit Over Denial of Zoning Permit to Pittsburgh Area Church (04/19/2004)Pennsylvania Superior Court Rules: Amish Can Stick With Reflective Tape on Buggies (10/21/2003)In Win for Rev. Falwell (and the ACLU), Judge Rules VA Must Allow Churches to Incorporate (04/17/2002)Nevada Officials Drop Plan to License and Fingerprint Clergy (12/29/2000)ACLU Hails Plans to Sign Religious Freedom Bill into Law (09/22/2000)

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thank you for your reply.It seems I have spun my topic off onto Republic vs Democracy rather quickly... oh well... But if you take the sum total of all beliefs and opinions in the population of the US and let every opposing position cancel, then you have a bunch of mush. IOW if you try and handle every matter nationally and give the minority more power than the majority, nobody is happy. If you let the majority have their way locally then individual communities not only have more freedom to be the community they wish to be, you have less mushy compromise and greater diversity between communities. This in addition to the fact that you are no longer forcing tax payers to pay for the indocrination of a curriculum they do not agree with. Of course I don't have an issue with tolerance, but there is a difference between teaching tolerance and teaching acceptance, which you kind of pointed out. But when the teacher is discussing something of a moral nature (History, sex-ed, ethics, etc...) and leaves out the moral in the interest of tolerance, the consequence is either ignorance or acceptance. Well, that is a natural consequence of freedom: diversity. You might have some backward schools teaching, God-forbid, from AiG materials, and then you might have others that are exceptionally great at teaching physics and math, and then you might have others that are exceptionally superior in a classical metholodology teaching debate art literature philosophy and science.And since it is so easy for information to flow especially within this nation where the national government protects the freedom of speech, minority residents of one community could either work to persuade the majority or join the community with the desireable qualities.But instead of this wonderfully diverse and free Republic we have a Democracy where everyone gets together to decide what color to paint the walls and -- since every color is detestable to at least one other person -- the walls are gray.Oh and you said government money. Well it's the people's money right? They should do with it what they want.

Good. I'm glad we agree. I don't remember how my statement originally related to discrimination... anywayMy agreement depends on what you mean by 'impose'. If you mean 'impose' by making and enforcing a law, then I agree; our constitution is sufficient as is. But if the majority of all Boy Scouts want to reject the minority of gay Scout leaders, they have every right to do so. And if the majority of families who pay their local school taxes to send their kids to school want the sex-ed teachers to teach that promiscuity is wrong, then they have that right as well.