Discrimination

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.

"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. 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.

Thanks for your reply. I am not in favor of Congress banning Gay Marriage as this would go against the separation of church and state clause. 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. 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. I don't really think the national government should have anything to do with marriage for anyone. 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

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.

Hi Hd,More local control is all well and good, I even agree with it to a certain extent, but that still does not mean majority rule.Yes, elections are won by majority vote (don't call me on this anyone...you know what I mean ), and yes laws are passed on majority vote...with one little exception.......laws, even approved by the majority, still can not impinge on the rights of the minority. All laws have to pass a little standard we like to call constitutionality. That is what SCOTUS does to earn their bread and water, decide on constitutionality.Like it or not that is how our government was designed to work. SCOTUS was given the job of deciding if laws meet that standard.The majority may decide it is all right to bring back slavery, but guess what...it impinges on the rights of others...the majority may decide that everyone has to worship at the local JW Kingdom Hall, or the Buddist Shrine on every corner, but guess what...it impinges on the rights of others. Like it or not, that is the way it works.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

You forgot about selective incorporation.

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!

quote:

---

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.

---

Hangdawg, this is your basic logical error. I say logical out of charity, as really I consider it to be outright rhetorical manipulation.You are purposefully confusing two concepts based on semantic similarity. Discrimnation is of course the basic process that we use to distinguish one thing for another for whatever prupose.Racial or sexual discrimination is a specific term for acting maliciously against a person on no bases other than a prejudice against their race or gender.It is wholly illogical and dishonest to conflate these two concepts and construct this spurious argument from pure sophistry.

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.

---

Yes it is immoral. It is outright racism and you show this expolicitly: becuase people are NOT being stopped on the basis of the likleihood of their being actual terrorists - they are being stopped JUST FOR BEING MIDDLE EASTERN. So the criteria for dsicrimination is not terrorist risk - it is race. This is outright racism, and apart from being immoral, it is also stupid. Becuase all an intelligent terrorist has to do is make sure your 5-year old blue-eyed texan (very Nordic eh Dawg) is carrying the explosives without her knowledge. This is already a standard practice for international drug smugglers.

Hello Again Ok, so you do not think the Feds should get involved, but why is it any better if it's done locally? Is it somehow less discriminatory if State or local governments ban gay marriage? Nope. Facts are what should be taught, regardless of how parents feel about them. You cannot be serious. What if 20-30 students are offended...100-200? Again, remember why we have a Constitution.

In order for a ban to happen gay marriage would have to have been legal in the first place.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

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