Discrimination

Hangdawg13 writes:

quote:

---

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.

---

But why are you singling out Muslims? They're extremely unlikely to carry out terrorist attacks here in the United States. Instead, the most likely terrorist in the US is a white, Christian male.Who blew up the Oklahoma City Federal Building? A white, Christian male.Who detonated a bomb at the Atlanta Olympics? A white, Christian male.Who wandered into the Jewish school out here in California and started shooting? A white, Christian male.Who blows up women's health clinics? White, Christian males.Who blows up gay bars? White, Christian males.Where do the school shootings take place? In areas predominantly filled with white Christians and they are carried out by white, Christian males.If you're worried about who is going to carry out a terrorist attack here in the US, why on earth are you looking at the Muslims? They've hardly done anything. It's the white, Christian males who do most of the terrorism here.And that means you, Hangdawg13.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Hangdawg13 writes:

quote:

---

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.

---

The government doesn't. That's a lie you have been told.Instead, the universities and colleges have taken it upon themselves to establish racial quotas. If you don't like what they are doing, you need to talk to the school, not the government.You will notice, for example, that the various lawsuits against affirmative action in regard to education have been against the school, not the government. Even when it's a state-sponsored school.

quote:

---

Why does the government tell Christians they can't have a Bible at school or hang a ten commandments on the wall.

---

The government doesn't. That's a lie you have been told.You are allowed to take a Bible to school. You are allowed to pray in school. Pretty much whenever you want. As the cliche goes, as long as there are pop quizzes, there will be prayer in school.What you are not allowed to do is have the school tell you when you're supposed to do it. What you are not allowed to do is have the school inflict it upon you at a school-sponsored event. It is obvious to all but the most obstinate observer why having the Ten Commandments on the wall of the school is inappropriate. But if you want to be reminded of it as an inspirational, there is nothing preventing you from carrying it with you or hanging a copy in your locker.Do not forget, it is the ACLU who fought for the rights of students to worship as they saw fit in schools. Do not confuse the fight against state-sponsored religion with the fight for student-sponsored worship.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

And that means you, Hangdawg13.

---

​

Logically, it doesn't mean him.

---

Incorrect. It means precisely him.And you, too, mike. White, Christian males are the most common terrorism perpetrators in the United States.Now, to be perfectly accurate, we'll need to know the age of you and HD as it is usually the younger ones that tend to do it. However, as white, Christian males, you are more likely to be a terrorist than a Muslim.

quote:

---

That's like saying that Hitler was a christian, so mikey is an anti-semitist nazi.

---

Incorrect. You are confusing the general with the specific. What I am saying is that since Christians are more likely to be terrorists than Muslims, a person who is a Christian is more likely to be a terrorist than a Muslim. If we are going to be doing profiling at the airports for likely terrorists, then we ought to follow the profile of actual US terrorists:And that means enhanced scrutiny for the white, Christian male. They're more likely to try something.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Hangdawg13 writes:

quote:

---

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.

---

Do the words "due process" mean nothing to you? What about "equal protection under the law"?The minority has the right and the duty to stand up to the majority and tell them that they are wrong and to use the government to force the majority to stop doing its illegal, unconstitutional activities. They should always, Always, ALWAYS do so. The majority will never figure it out for themselves.You seem to be complaining that you actually have to live up to the Constitution.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Tal writes about, essentially, the "Ain't no way in hell no blue helmet is ever gonna tell an American what to do," attitude.Um, Tal? The head of the effort in Bosnia was an American. You may have heard of him. General Wesley Clark? Ran for president this last time around?The UN never had authority over any American troops in Bosnia.The UN can never tell any country anywhere what to do. They can draft treaties, but the member nations need to sign them in order for the country to become subject to them.F'rinstance, the US has not signed onto the Kyoto Protocol and it has no standing here.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Tal responds to me:

quote:

---

but the UN did have juristiction over parts that the US did not, as noted by my example.

---

Bosnia wasn't exactly a country at that point, now was it?Just what do you think they had jurisdiction over? I'm hardly saying the UN has never made a mistake. However, might it not be possible that you have misunderstood just what happened?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Shaz responds to me:

quote:

---

Is it not correct that they can then pose recommendations to the National body, and then if non compliant impose sanctions?

---

Yes, but only if the countries involved agree to do it. It isn't like the "UN" makes the decision as if the UN were some full-fledged, autonomous body where you could get a passport or something. It is the member nations gathering at the UN who make that decision and they agree as member nations to abide by the decisions made. And how is that different from a country imposing sanctions on any other country? The US is pretty much the last country in the world that won't do business with Cuba.The UN as an organization has very few teeth. There's a current project under the auspices of the UN to wipe out polio from the world the way they wiped out smallpox. It involves a huge coordination with individual countries. It isn't like the UN can just demand entry to any sovereign nation in order to give them vaccinations. There was a recent problem in Congo, if I recall correctly, regarding a question of contamination of vaccine, but it's expected to be fully realized by 2006.The UN is one of those "consent of the governed" institutions. And the US is amazingly prickly about giving its consent.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Hangdawg13 responds to me:

quote:

---

Okay, that's a valid correction. Historically yes. So what? my point still stands.

---

That we should be wasting our time making pariahs out of people who are among the least likely to cause problems while completely ignoring those who are most likely to do so?Your point was that we should be invading the privacy of Muslims simply because they are Muslim. But that trait actually makes them less likely to be terrorists in the US. It is the Christians who are more likely to be terrorists in the US.

quote:

---

There is nothing wrong with being more scrutinizing of white male Christians or Muslim Arabs.

---

Yes, there is.One of those groups is much more likely to be deserving of more scrutiny than the other. Why are you wasting time, money, and resources on a group that won't give much return on your investment?And if your answer is that we need to make sure that nobody gets overlooked, then you're going to have to agree that the five-year-old girl gets just as much scrutiny as the sweaty man who keeps looking over his shoulder crossing himself.

quote:

---

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.

---

(*sigh*)The thing that you are "too dumb" to realize is that you are looking in the wrong place. By your logic, you should look for your keys under the lamppost because the light is better there.And as someone much wiser said, those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither. And as another wise person said, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.I refuse to coddle to your piss-soaked pants. Grow up.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Hangdawg13 responds to me:

quote:

---

can't the government withold federal funds or impose extra taxes on universities and organizations via quotas?

---

No, because there are no federally mandated quotas. You need to reread the law.

quote:

---

Isn't that basically what affirmative action is?

---

No. And you still haven't shown how that applies to the educational system (since the public schools are state-run institutions, not federal) or to private business.

quote:

---

And certainly both are liable for a lawsuit if they do not give the appearance of diversity.

---

Just because somebody files a lawsuit doesn't mean they win. Can you find a single lawsuit where anybody demanded entrance to school based upon a federally mandated quota?

quote:

---

Are not judges a part of the government?

---

But judges don't do that. Therefore, you are propagating a lie.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You are allowed to take a Bible to school. You are allowed to pray in school.

---

​

Not always.

---

Yes, always. You are always allowed to take a Bible to school. You are always allowed to pray in school.At the University of New Mexico, for example, finals week can wreak havoc on schedules. While the semester has your classes on a regular schedule (Tuesday and Thursday from 1:30 to 3:00, for example) and those who have religious obligations can plan their schedules accordingly at the beginning of the semester by taking the appropriate sections, finals week is hard. The test period is longer than a typical class and you have to get through the entire curriculum in a week. Thus, your final may take place at a time when it is inconvenient for you to get to your place of worship.So the school...a state-run school, mind you...sets aside a few classrooms specifically for people to pray in. It's a quiet, undisturbed area where you can perform your duties when you need to.La dee flippin' da. Nobody makes a fuss over it. Students praying. In school. In rooms set aside by the school! Apoplexy!How can they do this if they aren't allowed to?

quote:

---

Especially if you are a teacher.

---

Excuse me? Since when is the teacher not allowed to pray in school? As long as there is the class bell, the teachers will be praying in school.What the teacher can't do is make the kids pray.

quote:

---

Then call me obstinate.

---

Suppose the school were to put up a sign that said, "Hail Satan!" on the walls of the school (which wouldn't have been so far from the truth at my old high school if the rumors were true...we supposedly were the "Sandia Satans" before the church across the street got mad and forced us to change the name to the "Sandia Matadors.")Wouldn't you consider that an endorsement of religion?Have you read the ten commandments by the way? Try the first one: "I am the lord, your god. Thou shalt have no other gods before me." What is that if not an endorsement of religion? Heck, the first four are all about how to worship god: No other gods, no graven images, do not take the lord's name in vain, remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. What are these if not instructions on religion and thus constitute an endorsement of religion?How is a Hindu student or any other polytheist student supposed to react to "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Hangdawg13 writes:

quote:

---

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.

---

Local funds are still tax dollars. It doesn't matter if the government level involved is municipal, county, state, or federal. Tax money is tax money and there are constitutional restrictions on what can be done with tax money.

quote:

---

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."

---

Ah, another person who sees the Constitution as a laundry list...and who hasn't managed to read all the way through the list.You're forgetting the 14th Amendment which says that the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution cannot be abridged by the States. After all, what good is a federal right to freedom of religion if the State can override it? Sure, you can be an Episcopalian according to the US Constitution but because you live in Utah, you are required to be a Mormon and tithe 10% of your income to the church.That's what "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" means.Now, I'll bet you'll try to laundry list this into saying that because it says "State," that means it doesn't apply to counties or municipalities.And of course you can have religious symbols on public property. They just can't be sponsored by the government nor can they be permanent installations. After all, all it takes is someone to go down to City Hall and get the permit to use the city streets for a Christmas Day Parade. Here in San Diego, we saw just how "Christian" the local Christian groups really were regarding just such a thing.For those who may not know, there is a gigantic cross on the top of Mt. Soledad here in San Diego. Government owned property. There's been quite a lot of ruckus over it. Many of the local Christian groups kept on trying to say it wasn't an endorsement of religion since it was part of a WWII memorial and the fact that the cross so overwhelmingly dominates everything (you can see it from the freeway) was immaterial.Well, Easter services are routinely held by some of the local Christian groups at the cross. One year, it seems a group of atheists and pagans managed to get to City Hall first and acquired the permit for use of the land that Easter Sunday. They didn't plan on stopping anybody from coming up to the mountain and praising god any way they wished. However, they were going to hold a Springtime renewal ceremony and invited anyone and everyone who wished to participate in the sunrise festivities.The local Christian groups were livid. How DARE they stop the Christian Easter ceremony!? But they weren't stopped...they just had to share the space with those who were going to hold a pagan ceremony and be respectful of that fact and not interrupt. It was quite hilarious to hear these "Christian" groups literally screaming themselves purple simply because they had to share.It's pretty much been decided the cross has to go. The city has tried a few ways to weasel out of it like selling just the land the cross is on to a private owner (right...the mountain is public property except for this tiny spot on top) but has resigned itself to living up to the Constitution: No establishment of religion. The cross must go.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Hangdawg13 writes:

quote:

---

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

​

This statement is only talking about congress passing laws.

---

Why did you stop there? Keep reading. Remember the 14th Amendment:"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"The US Constitution applies at all levels of government. That's what the 14th Amendment means.But wait, you'll laundry list this to claim that since the 14th Amendment mentions States and not counties or cities, it doesn't apply to those levels and thus, it is perfectly legal for Austin, Texas to prevent certain people from worshipping god the way they wish.

quote:

---

You can have public support of something without having congress pass a law mandating it.

---

Of course. That's why it's called "private property." If you and your neighbors want to get together on Sundays and all link hands up and down the street and sing kumbayah, you go right ahead...so long as you don't block public access to public facilities. That's the point behind private property: You are allowed to do pretty much whatever you want on it.But when the government gets involved, strings come along. And one of those strings is no endorsement of religion.Why do you need the government telling you how to believe in god?

quote:

---

If your broad interpretation of this clause is what they had meant, surely they would have been more specific.

---

Huh? That makes no sense. How can something that is supposed to be broad be "more specific"? Wouldn't that defeat the point of being broad? One of the apocryphal stories regarding the writing of the Bill of Rights was the claim that there ought to be an amendment saying, "Congress shall make no law preventing a man from sleeping on his left side," so silly some people thought the codification of rights was. To them, it was obvious that government couldn't do this. The articles of the Constitution as already written made it clear they couldn't.But the amendments were written broadly. They had to be. Otherwise, the Constitution becomes nothing more than a laundry list where if you don't find the exact words, then the Constitution supposedly has nothing to say about it and there is no point to having a Judiciary.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Jazzns responds to me:

quote:

---

Graduated from UNM in '03. Never heard about the prayer rooms though. Guess I never needed to utilize them.

---

They were there when I was there in the early 90s (oh, that dates me.) The only reason I knew about it was that I had read it somewhere in one of the course catalogs for the semester, I think. Some official publication, at least. I'm one of those people who will read anything when needing to kill time.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

MangyTiger responds to me:

quote:

---

Shouldn't that be White, Christian American males ?

---

To be most precise, yes. I had assumed that since I had said that when looking at terrorist acts in the US, the assumption of native-born citizens was apparent, but you are correct in that such cannot be assumed.People keep saying focusing on the scale of the attacks on September 11 and indeed, that was huge, but it and the previous WTC attack in 93 amount to a drop in the bucket in the number of attacks compared to the number of attacks carried out by our own home-grown terrorists. Let us not forget that until September 11, the largest terrorist attack in the US with 169 dead was the destruction of the Oklahoma City Federal Building by McVeigh.If one person manages to pick a really good target, does that really make people like him more likely to commit terrorism than the 100 other guys who don't choose such populated targets? We have to look at the whole picture.

quote:

---

I'm not aware that any terrorist acts have been perpetrated by British Christians in the US

---

British? Hard to say. Depends upon which side of the Irish "problem" (for lack of a better term) one falls. Quite a lot of American money has made it into IRA hands. And I want to say that I had heard that some IRA people were trained in Afghanistan with Al Qaeda, but that's fuzzy. Of course, those attacks tended to happen in the UK, not the US, and the Irish aren't Brits.

quote:

---

Maybe that would just show up the shortcomings of profiling though

---

My understanding is that profiling is actually somewhat effective. The problem is that the current uses of it as being discussed by the right are outrageously simplistic as if a single category like race or religious affiliation were sufficient or even the most significant predictor. Prior to the September 11 attacks, there was a good profile and many of the attackers would have shown up (type of passport, method of payment, etc.) but we didn't take it nearly as seriously then as we seem to think we do now.I don't mind profiling in and of itself. I already know it happens because as a male, I get followed around by the security people when I go into certain stores. What I mind is stupid profiling. Profiling needs to take into account a huge number of details and when there are huge numbers of people at risk, it is safer to scrutinize everyone lest you miss somebody because he didn't fit the profile. The stakes are too high.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Tal responds to me:

quote:

---

I also saw an intersting post on 1VB's boards (veterans group)that had a laundry list of terror attacks, and all of them were committed by Arab/mulsim males between the ages of 18-35.

---

Ahem. Where did these supposed terror attacks take place? The one you mentioned happened outside the US.I'm talking about inside the US. Remember what I said about stupid profiling? It is stupid to think that the types of people who carry out terrorist attacks outside the US are going to be the same types of people who carry out terrorist attacks inside the US.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!