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.

Umm... coffeehouse I spose

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.

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.

Thanks for your reply. So we are to be intolerant of the intolerant? How can you be so militantly sure that I am wrong in my belief that homosexuality is immoral? If I decide not to hire a homosexual simply because he is homosexual, will you respect my freedom as an employer to choose my employees or will you force me via the national government to be fair? As I said in holmes's reply, I am NOT against teaching tolerance, and there is a difference between teaching tolerance and teaching acceptance. AND when dealing with a moral subject, if the moral itself is left out of the teaching, then you are essentially teaching acceptance.Here's the difference:
"Good afternoon class. Today's subject is Sex-ed. When a man and woman love each other very much they may decide to devote themselves to one another for their entire life and get married. After they do this they may express their love by having sexual relations... These feelings of sexual attraction begin before or during the teenage years, but we must learn to control these desires so that we do not become devoted to our own lusts, but rather become devoted to serving one another. Some men and some women may feel physically attracted to memebers of their same gender. This is a result of their body chemistry or psychology and is perfectly okay, but we believe it is wrong for people to have sexual relations outside of the institution of marriage I described eariler...""Good afternoon class. Today's subject is sex-ed. Here is how men and women have sexual relations... Here is how men and men have sexual relations... Here is how women and women have sexual relations... You will get urges and desires for sex near your early teens. Due to disease and unwanted pregnancy, use a condom if you want to have sex. Sex is very special so it is a good idea to save it for someone you like a lot..."Do you see the difference? The first teaches tolerance and the moral. The second teaches tolerance and no moral and therefore acceptance. No, they are merely names to me. I have seen Pat Robertson's show a couple of times... it seemed a little hokey to me. I think Jerry Falwell is that dude that opened his mouth around 9-11 and got in trouble and apologized.Even if they were nazis I don't think they nor anyone else deserves your your militant hatred.All I know is I read and hear lots of news stories (not on Pat's site) about how the ACLU is suing this person or that organization to get religious symbols or speech removed. I have only heard one report of them protecting religious freedom.

Just chill, Berry. I'm an old man and I sometimes lose my train of thought... I never said that. I am against making laws to prohibit personal behavior. I am also against making laws or having activist judges make their own laws that inhibit personal freedoms for the sake of the minority. Even in the most backward biggoted southern conservative town, the homosexual or black or whoever should be perfectly free to speak and act as he chooses, but he should not expect the government to come to his rescue when no one will hire him or when the town's school teaches strict morals.Likewise even in the most hollywood liberal sexually free community, an ultra-conservative should be allowed to speak freely and act as he wishes, but he should not expect the government to come to his aid when he wants to impose his morals on the community and put a cross next to the buddha in the town square. So why does the government tell colleges and even businesses that they MUST accept x number of minorities even if this means turning down more qualified members of the majority. Why does the government tell Christians they can't have a Bible at school or hang a ten commandments on the wall. The government should be COMPLETELY BLIND to race and sex and religion rather than throw them all out so as not to look at them.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 01-02-2005 20:38 AM

If I do not hire a black man because he's a black man, then I am oppressing him. That is wrong. If the government forces me to hire him because he is black, that is wrong too. If the majority wishes that their kids be given a Christian moral perspective in sex-ed class, and the government says, "You may teach no morals nor may you teach anything of religious nature, nor may any teacher or any student say anything else that might possibly be construed as offensive to another family," then it is the majority that is having freedoms taken away and being oppressed. And therefore in my free republic utopia, you could either accept it or you could attempt to persuade the majority to your opinion or you could find a nice liberal episcopal town to live in where you are in the majority, but you could not get the government through lawsuits or funds to put pressure on the community to give up their right to have the majority's desired curriculum taught.

Thanks for your reply. I should hope not... The day the UN begins to impose it's rule over American private affairs, I'll be looking for the Anti-Christ... Well, that seems to be a good motto, but I would add "maximize freedom". It is hard to know how much material waste and how much injustice in reverse discrimination goes on as a result of government regulations and quotas, but I would imagine there is a lot since I hear about it from working people from time to time.I believe in the interests of freedom and as a matter of principle that the government should be completely blind to race and therefore have no laws that even mention race even if anti-discrimination laws may make it easier for minorities to get jobs. The government should never tell a private business owner whom he must hire and how many of a certain race he may fire.ETA: P.S. I like your Avatar.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 01-02-2005 21:12 AM

Thanks for your reply. Now I must be a student again. Where does this idea of minority rights come from in the constitution? Oh, you know what I'm talking about. It is accomplished through quotas and idiotic judges who award billions of dollars to people who got their feathers ruffled. My dad is always having to go to "diversity training" where everyone learns how to not piss off everyone else so that a lawsuit is not filed. If I put a little check in the box next to "African American" I am more likely to get accepted to college and get more money for it too. For someone so weary of absolutes, you sure are opinionated. How can you say that the government's taking away of the majority's freedoms so that the minority can get their way is protection? Unless the government has become tyrranical. And they have all the protection the constitution affords them. Just what are you supposing they need protection from? Another person's free speech? Another person's right to worship as they choose? Or perhaps late 18th century America. It is our duty to stand up for their rights of free speech, freedom of religion, etc... not our duty to abolish the majority's decision in favor of the minority's. By government, yes. By majority consensus, no. And the minority should always maintain the right to speak out against and act contrarly to any majority consensus that they disapprove of, but they should never use the government to impose their moral convictions on the majority.If you tell me my kids will not be taught that promiscuity is bad because you disagree, you are imposing your morals on me, which is fine if you are not the government and are the majority. Depending on how loud you scream and how willing I am to compromise, a compromise may be reached. Look, I see what you are afraid of and you needn't be. With everyone's personal rights guaranteed, there would be no need for anyone to be imposed upon. Everyone could have as much religion as they want of whatever kind of religion they want. But if you have a hundred people who like Christianity and 4 that like Islam, you don't throw out religion all together. You either compromise, relocate, or stay and enjoy the diversity of opinion rather than the complete lack thereof.

Okay, that's a valid correction. Historically yes. So what? my point still stands. There is nothing wrong with being more scrutinizing of white male Christians or Muslim Arabs. If people are too dumb to realize that the extra scrutiny is making them safer, then I don't care if their feelings are hurt. Their rights certainly are not violated by having their feelings hurt.

B.S. I'm not sure I trust you provide me with unbiased information, but can't the government withold federal funds or impose extra taxes on universities and organizations via quotas? Isn't that basically what affirmative action is? And certainly both are liable for a lawsuit if they do not give the appearance of diversity. Are not judges a part of the government? Then that is not a lie. Not always. Especially if you are a teacher. Some schools would rather fire a teacher for reading a Bible on her desk and praying in the sight of students than risk a lawsuit. Then call me obstinate.

Thanks for your reply. No, I wouldn't be offended, and I believe the GOVERNMENT should not be able to remove it. There would probably be a dispute among the citizens about it, but the government should not be used on any side. Trying to enforce that statement, of course, is another matter. The freedom of religion means no steps can be taken to enforce one religion or another. As long as no law is passed regarding it and all usage of funds is voted on in a democratic process by the people in that community, no it is not an unconstitutional endorsement by the government because the government has remained unconcerned with it. If the people want to put up a ten commandments next to the statement about Allah, thats cool too. This would show the greatness of American freedom and democracy to have two religious symbols side by side in peace.