Discrimination

Hangdawg13 suffers memory lapse:

quote:

---

I don't remember how my statement originally related to discrimination

---

Then why didn't you pay attention to yourself as you wrote it? Why didn't you read it when I quoted it, twice? Here it is yet again: As I said, the constitution stops them. It's clear that you think it's okay for a community to make homosexuality illegal or the teaching of tolerance in schools illegal if that's what the community wants. You're wrong. The 14th amendment prevents the majority imposing its moral will on the minority.

quote:

---

But if the majority of all Boy Scouts want to reject the minority of gay Scout leaders, they have every right to do so.

---

Indeed, so long as the Boy Scouts are a private organization not sponsored by any agency of the government. The government is NOT ALLOWED TO DISCRIMINATE. At all. Read section one of the fourteenth amendment again.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Hangdawg:You make some interesting points here. Discrimination is indeed a massive topic, and as you point out it affects all areas of life. Often there is much confusion though, with regards to discrimination and prejudice.

quote:

---

discrimination definition — discrimination is defined as treating one person unfairly prejudice over another according to factors unrelated to their ability or potential, such as age, disability, sex, or national origin (italics mine)

---

quote:

---

Prejudice - To decide beforehand; to lean in favor of one side of a cause for some reason or other than its justice.

---

Prejudice is a component of anti-discrimination legislation. Which is also merely seperating, belief from logic and/or common sense. It is for that reason, I endorse most Government induced anti-discrimination, legislation. For the most part such legislation, is actually in relation to acts of prejudice which stem from discrimination. Until we have a world where by all men are treated equal by their counterparts such legislation will be necessary for the protection of others.In relation to this example: With anti-discrimination legislation here, the first point you make, is not discrimination as it stands alone. The other points actually pertain to acts of prejudice, and are subsequently regarded as being discriminatory.In regards to this: There are avenues of appeal with the UN, if this subject is being mandatory imposed by Government legislation. However such appeals can only be brought forth by those it personally affects. In accordance with legal guardianship though, it might be warranted to investigate if this issue could be investigated by the UN.For example with homosexuality. Here in Australia, some years ago, there was no national rule against homosexuality being an illegal act. Each state adopted its own legislative mandate, all being similar, with the exception of Tasmania. Tasmania's legislation at the time, was that homosexuality between two consenting adults, in the privacy of their own home was illegal. Subsequently, a complaint was lodged with the United Nations, in regards to Tasmania's legislation. Upon investigation, the UN made ruling that Tasmania had to change their legislation. There is now National ruling in regards to consenting adults, having the freedom to determine and act upon their own sexuality, within the privacy of their own homes.My personal opinion in regards to discrimination, is one I have professed elsewhere on the site. Minimise harm. Therefore any legislation that is introduced which has that as its intent, whilst maintaining individual rights has my endorsement. I do not see this as prejudicing against someone because of who they are, though it may discrimate against an act, i.e. murder. I also believe that a failure to do so, would result in anarchy. Anarchy is not something that I believe, God ever proposed for us.ShazThis message has been edited by Shaz, 03 January 2005 10:29 AM

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.

I never said your belief is wrong. I said it doesn't matter if it is immpral or not. You believe it's immoral? Fine, don't have homosexual relations. But don't oppress others because of your moral beliefs.On sex-ed you give two examples. The first exerts a moral perspective, a judgement. As a Christian I find the first is totally unacceptable in a public school setting. Then you are getting a very filtered viewpoint. That is typical of the lying tactics of the Christian Religious Right, the Literalists and Fundamentalists.I gave you more than one direct link to actions of the ACLU in support of religion. Now you have the ability to see for yourself what the ACLU does. The next step I'd suggest is to join.A lot of the opposition to the ACLU from the Christian Right is based on the fact they have creadted a front organization designed to project their bigotted philosophy while stealing even more money from the gullible. It's called the ACLJ and is a creation of Pat Robertson. There is no hatred. There is a recognition that people such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Gene Scott, Oral Roberts and Pat Tillson are evil and their bigotted policies need to be opposed by anyone who tries to follow Jesus' teachings.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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

Not at all.That is why we have a limited democratic republic. Fortunately we have restrictions on the tyranny of the majority. Correct. The government does not force you to hire him. So your example is moot. Nope. Wrong again. It is the minority being protected from the majority. Big difference. The majority does not need protection by definition. It is only minorities that need protection. Logic worthy of the Taliban.Again, as a Christian, it is our duty to stand up for the minority.Dawg, if you have a moral conviction that is fine. But the idea of imposing it on others is anti-Christ. If Christ's death teaches nothing else it should be that persuasion is the way, not imposition.It would have been easy for GOD to impose Christianity on everyone in the world. Is there some reason he did not?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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!

Logically , it doesn't mean him.That's like saying that Hitler was a christian, so mikey is an anti-semitist nazi.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-02-2005 21:34 AM

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!

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.

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!

Minority rights are explicit in the Consitution. It is in the right of free speech. It is in the limits on establishing a religion. It is in each of the Amendments.It is in the design of our legislature. The difference in how Senators and Representatives are elected is based on protection of the minority from tyranny of the majority. It is in the Judiciary, it is why Federal Judges are elected for life. It is is the Electorial Congress and the restriction prohibiting the Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidate from the same state. That may be what you thought you were talking about but that is not what you said.Now perhaps you can show us where the government has ever placed hiring quotas on private business? Please show how the government is taking away the majorities freedoms? the majority has no freedom to oppress minorities. What does that have to do with anything? Nonsense. We have evidence from then. It's called the Constitution. It is our duty to stand up when the majority are trying to oppress the minority. Whether or not an act is promiscuous or immoral is a personal moral judgement. You do not have the right to impose your morality on the minority even if you are the majority. Teach that in your house to your kids.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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!