Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,419 Year: 6,676/9,624 Month: 16/238 Week: 16/22 Day: 7/9 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discrimination
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 1000 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 46 of 90 (173464)
01-03-2005 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Rrhain
01-02-2005 9:28 PM


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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Rrhain, posted 01-02-2005 9:28 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2005 2:31 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied
 Message 50 by mikehager, posted 01-03-2005 2:54 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied
 Message 68 by Rrhain, posted 01-05-2005 2:38 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 1000 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 47 of 90 (173467)
01-03-2005 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Rrhain
01-02-2005 9:51 PM


The government doesn't. That's a lie you have been told.
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.
The government doesn't. That's a lie you have been told.
Are not judges a part of the government? Then that is not a lie.
You are allowed to take a Bible to school. You are allowed to pray in school.
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.
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.
Then call me obstinate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Rrhain, posted 01-02-2005 9:51 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2005 2:27 PM Hangdawg13 has replied
 Message 69 by Rrhain, posted 01-05-2005 3:03 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1716 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 48 of 90 (173470)
01-03-2005 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Hangdawg13
01-03-2005 2:08 PM


Then call me obstinate.
Think about it from another perspective. If your public school or courthouse put up a sign that said "nobody may worship any god but the Muslim one", wouldn't you take offense to that? Even if they didn't have a way to check which god you were worshipping, or even if you could "fake" worshipping that other god, wouldn't you think that was the first step to legitimizing one religion over all others?
Wouldn't you, in fact, consider that an unconstitutional endorsement of one religion over all others, and possibly the first step to a union of government and one religion for the purpose of cracking down on all others? A state, I might add, which has been the normal state of affairs in world history until very, very recently, and still persists in many areas of the world?
The Ten Commandments, which form no part of the basis of our government, say "I am the LORD thy God; thou shalt have no other gods before me." Or did you forget about that commandment? It's the first one, after all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Hangdawg13, posted 01-03-2005 2:08 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Hangdawg13, posted 01-03-2005 7:36 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1716 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 49 of 90 (173471)
01-03-2005 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hangdawg13
01-03-2005 2:00 PM


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.
It doesn't make us safer, though. Just like pulling over black people in expensive cars doesn't actually catch more drug dealers.
What you don't seem to understand is that more scrutiny here means less scrutiny there. The day that we stop searching old grandmas in the airports is when old grandmas start carrying the bombs.
I would have thought that was obvious. Like you, I don't give a damn about people's feelings when safety is on the line. But you'd have to be an idiot to come to the conclusion that racial or religious profiling makes us safer, when it's obvious to the most causal observer that it has the exact opposite effect - it opens obvious security holes that can be taken advantage of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hangdawg13, posted 01-03-2005 2:00 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6715 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 50 of 90 (173479)
01-03-2005 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hangdawg13
01-03-2005 2:00 PM


Security
First, I give you the classic quote, always trotted out in discussions like this:
"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson.
So, along with Mr. Jefferson, I will stand for my right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure.
The meaning of that wise aphorism from one side is clear. The freedoms granted us by the Bill of Rights should be held dearly and defended unto death, but what of the second part? Giving up those freedoms in search of security will only loose you the freedoms and not give you the security you want is the rest of what Jefferson says.
He's right. Security is an illusion, a blanket to make people feel better. Security, as in real safety from attack, is an impossibility. Only very minor degrees of change in risk can be affected. Before I moved into IT (where a large part of my job is security, ironically) I worked in security. Not a rent-a-cop or even law enforcement, but facility security for a very large hospital. No amount of procedure or checking can make a real difference.
The security we maintained for, say, the animal research facility was a good deal higher then that required for airline passengers but still could never be really effective. For security procedures to really work, they must be overwhelming and impossible to live a normal life within, such as the protection accorded the President of the United States.
Security procedures in reality serve two purposes, to give the public a false sense of safety and to lower insurance rates for the institution implementing them.
So, as I don't think too highly of people desperate for false assurances and I couldn't care less then I do about anyone's insurance rates other then my own, singling out anyone based on appearance is something I do not support.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hangdawg13, posted 01-03-2005 2:00 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 1000 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 51 of 90 (173550)
01-03-2005 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by crashfrog
01-03-2005 2:27 PM


Thanks for your reply.
Think about it from another perspective. If your public school or courthouse put up a sign that said "nobody may worship any god but the Muslim one", wouldn't you take offense to that?
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.
Even if they didn't have a way to check which god you were worshipping, or even if you could "fake" worshipping that other god, wouldn't you think that was the first step to legitimizing one religion over all others?
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.
Wouldn't you, in fact, consider that an unconstitutional endorsement of one religion over all others, and possibly the first step to a union of government and one religion for the purpose of cracking down on all others?
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.
The Ten Commandments, which form no part of the basis of our government, say "I am the LORD thy God; thou shalt have no other gods before me." Or did you forget about that commandment? It's the first one, after all.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2005 2:27 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2005 8:10 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 1000 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 52 of 90 (173560)
01-03-2005 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Shaz
01-02-2005 11:19 PM


Thanks for your reply.
Consider this scenario, if there was no anti-discrimination legislation.
An American Negro, Christian family, with 5 children. Mother and father both unemployed, and a sick child, have just moved to the city looking for work. He applies for a position, and is knocked back merely because he is Christian, she applies for a position and is knocked back because she is female. Then several rental agencies refuse to rent them a house, because they are American Negro. Of course then there is the trip to the hospital, where a white doctor who is a neo-nazi, treats them with disdain and is barely civil when checking the child, after having made them wait for several hours.
Okay this is an absolute extreme. I would like your opinion though whether, legislation is not a good thing in such a case?
This sounds more like a wellfare case to me than affirmative action. I am all about allowing the government to give them a generous amount of money, so long as they use it to learn or improve their skills so as to be increasingly competitive in the work force.
And... you're right, that is a pretty extreme case. I seriously doubt that a single decent family would run up against THAT much prejudice in an American city today, and if they did, there are many other diverse less prejudiced cities around. Even in this extreme case, I do not believe legislation is the answer.
Have you ever heard of Booker T. Washington? He founded Tuskeegee College for African Americans. It is amazing what he was able to achieve even growing up in the prejudiced post-civil-war South simply through hard work and study. He accomplished everything without affirmative action, and what's more he changed the hearts and minds of many bigotted Southerners with his humility, good work ethic, and strong desire to improve the South.
I apologise if I sound condescending or patronising, it is not my intent, I just like to offer a bigger picture.
Not at all!! On the contrary your politeness, humility, and coolness is very refreshing. You're doing an excellent job.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Shaz, posted 01-02-2005 11:19 PM Shaz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Shaz, posted 01-04-2005 12:24 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1716 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 53 of 90 (173561)
01-03-2005 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Hangdawg13
01-03-2005 7:36 PM


No, I wouldn't be offended, and I believe the GOVERNMENT should not be able to remove it.
Perhaps you misunderstood. They're the ones that put it up.
There would probably be a dispute among the citizens about it, but the government should not be used on any side.
The citizens are the government, or hadn't you noticed? At any rate, the government is already involved, because they're the one that put it up.
The freedom of religion means no steps can be taken to enforce one religion or another.
And you don't see this as the start of that? How long do you think it is before "thou shalt have no other gods before me" becomes the police rounding up people who worship other gods? If history teaches us anything, it's that it's a seamless transition from one to the other.
no it is not an unconstitutional endorsement by the government because the government has remained unconcerned with it.
How can they be unconcerned with it? They put it up!
If the people want to put up a ten commandments next to the statement about Allah, thats cool too.
But we're not talking about "the people." If people want to put the Ten Commandments or a 40-ft golden Buddha on their lawns, no problem. We're talking about the government putting these things up, and I don't see how you fail to construe that as the government endorsing a religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Hangdawg13, posted 01-03-2005 7:36 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Hangdawg13, posted 01-04-2005 2:52 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Shaz
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 90 (173631)
01-04-2005 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Hangdawg13
01-03-2005 8:07 PM


Thanks for your reply Hangdawg.
Hangdawg13 writes:
This sounds more like a wellfare case to me than affirmative action.
How exactly is affirmative action, not a component of welfare? Indeed the example I gave is a welfare issue, and rights are a welfare/social science issue. The links below will show just one connection with welfare/social work and instigating reform and legislative change.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAnaacp.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASovington.htmI
http://www.americanpresident.org/history/williamhowardtaft/...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}
Hangdawg13 writes:
I am all about allowing the government to give them a generous amount of money, so long as they use it to learn or improve their skills so as to be increasingly competitive in the work force.
By giving money are you referring to social security? Did you ever consider that people actually may not want hand outs, that they would like to have pride in knowing they are earning their own way? Again apply your concept alone, to the handouts and using that to learn. How could one do that, if they have no food in their belly, no light to do their homework by, or even no school within walking distance that will take them?
Hangdawg13 writes:
single decent family would run up against THAT much prejudice in an American city today, and if they did, there are many other diverse less prejudiced cities around.
I have a social science background, so I wont comment on your statement other than to ask:
  • Are you saying that prejudice only comes to families that are not 'decent'?
  • Are you also stating that a family can always move if they don't like it?
    Shaz
    This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-04-2005 16:26 AM

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 52 by Hangdawg13, posted 01-03-2005 8:07 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 56 by Hangdawg13, posted 01-04-2005 3:05 PM Shaz has not replied

      
    Hangdawg13
    Member (Idle past 1000 days)
    Posts: 1189
    From: Texas
    Joined: 05-30-2004


    Message 55 of 90 (173796)
    01-04-2005 2:52 PM
    Reply to: Message 53 by crashfrog
    01-03-2005 8:10 PM


    Perhaps you misunderstood. They're the ones that put it up.
    oh well this gets a little more shady. If the citizens are putting up religious symbols in public places like political posters around elections, that is definately okay.
    I don't know how it would work if the local government wanted to put up a religious symbol using tax money. 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.
    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."

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2005 8:10 PM crashfrog has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 57 by coffee_addict, posted 01-04-2005 3:07 PM Hangdawg13 has replied
     Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 01-04-2005 3:48 PM Hangdawg13 has replied
     Message 70 by Rrhain, posted 01-05-2005 3:23 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

      
    Hangdawg13
    Member (Idle past 1000 days)
    Posts: 1189
    From: Texas
    Joined: 05-30-2004


    Message 56 of 90 (173797)
    01-04-2005 3:05 PM
    Reply to: Message 54 by Shaz
    01-04-2005 12:24 AM


    Thanks for your reply.
    How exactly is affirmative action, not a component of welfare? Indeed the example I gave is a welfare issue, and rights are a welfare/social science issue. The links below will show just one connection with welfare/social work and instigating reform and legislative change.
    I don't view employment as a right, but a priviledge. However, I am willing to use the government to help people improve themseleves as this does not take away anyone's freedom.
    Did you ever consider that people actually may not want hand outs, that they would like to have pride in knowing they are earning their own way?
    Well, sure, they aren't being forced to take the money.
    Again apply your concept alone, to the handouts and using that to learn. How could one do that, if they have no food in their belly, no light to do their homework by, or even no school within walking distance that will take them?
    The way our welfare system is currently set up, I don't think there would be any danger of this.
    Are you saying that prejudice only comes to families that are not 'decent'?
    No, of course not, but decent hard working people are more likely to get a job than indecent lazy people even in a prejudiced environment.
    Are you also stating that a family can always move if they don't like it?
    Well, no, but where there's a will, there's a way as they say. I point to Booker T. Washington as my example of this. It is the American dream to go from nothing to everything even in "unfair" circumstances. Many people realized that dream in a much harsher environment than 21st century America without the Government forcing anyone to give them a job.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 54 by Shaz, posted 01-04-2005 12:24 AM Shaz has not replied

      
    coffee_addict
    Member (Idle past 116 days)
    Posts: 3645
    From: Indianapolis, IN
    Joined: 03-29-2004


    Message 57 of 90 (173799)
    01-04-2005 3:07 PM
    Reply to: Message 55 by Hangdawg13
    01-04-2005 2:52 PM


    I'm just wondering. No pun intended whatsoever, just want to be sure. Do you want the US to be a theocracy?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 55 by Hangdawg13, posted 01-04-2005 2:52 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 62 by Hangdawg13, posted 01-04-2005 11:37 PM coffee_addict has not replied

      
    crashfrog
    Member (Idle past 1716 days)
    Posts: 19762
    From: Silver Spring, MD
    Joined: 03-20-2003


    Message 58 of 90 (173808)
    01-04-2005 3:48 PM
    Reply to: Message 55 by Hangdawg13
    01-04-2005 2:52 PM


    I don't know how it would work if the local government wanted to put up a religious symbol using tax money.
    Here's how it should work - they shouldn't be allowed to. It's clearly unconstitutional.
    but I see nothing wrong with local funds.
    Except for the fact that the Bill of Rights applies at all levels of government. It's still unconstitutional. I can imagine that you might think it shouldn't be, but you'll have to amend the constitution for that.
    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."
    Those statements are equivalent, or rather, the second is directly implied by the first. Public support of one religion over another is an establishment of religion.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 55 by Hangdawg13, posted 01-04-2005 2:52 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 63 by Hangdawg13, posted 01-04-2005 11:44 PM crashfrog has replied

      
    Dan Carroll
    Inactive Member


    Message 59 of 90 (173812)
    01-04-2005 4:03 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Hangdawg13
    01-02-2005 1:37 PM


    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.
    It's not only immoral, it's stupid.
    Crashfrog touched on this, but let's get more specific for a moment... let's assume for the moment that al-Qaeda puts two operatives in line at an airport. One of them is the perfect Middle Eastern stereotype. He's got a long, scruffy beard, a turban, and every third word out of his mouth is "Allah". The other is John Walker Lindh.
    Lindh has been shaved, gotten a neat haircut, and is wearing a fancy three-piece suit.
    To pay more scrutiny to the arab in this situation would simply provide al-Qaeda with an excellent deflection technique. Distract your attention with the arab, and let Lindh walk on through unmolested, with enough explosives to take out a plane full of innocent people.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Hangdawg13, posted 01-02-2005 1:37 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

      
    FliesOnly
    Member (Idle past 4394 days)
    Posts: 797
    From: Michigan
    Joined: 12-01-2003


    Message 60 of 90 (173814)
    01-04-2005 4:28 PM
    Reply to: Message 9 by Hangdawg13
    01-02-2005 4:46 PM


    Hello Hangdawg13
    hangdawg13 writes:
    The minority should either quit or cope, but not dilute this smallest kernal of government by eliminating consensus and demanding complete compromise.
    Why did our fore-fathers write the Constitution? What was their justification...their raison d'tre for writing such a document? It's quite simple, but very important. It was to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That's it. To prevent one "group" from deciding for everybody what is right and wrong in regards to ones own personal beliefs. That's why they felt it important to write our Constitution, and why it includes things like the 14th amendment.
    It’s really quite simple. You may have what you feel are justifiable reasons to want to ban gay marriage and theses reasons may be deeply rooted in your religious convictions. Fine. Additionally, you can (and I suppose "should") do whatever your religious beliefs tell you to do to "help" these people out. That is, you can do whatever you want...except use you religious views to change our Constitution.
    We are a nation founded on the principle that the majority absolutely do not have the right to impart their wants and views on those that are in the minority. Period. If you really believe in our Constitution, then even though you do not accept gay marriage, you still have the responsibility to say "no" to a change in our Constitution that is, flat out, nothing but discrimination.
    To get around the religious objections, I have heard a few people make comment about how gays "only want to get married so they can get the tax breaks". To those people I ask: Do you have some data to back up such a ridiculous claim? Also, by that argument, there are probably millions of heterosexuals that should not have been allowed to marry either. What about heterosexuals that were not married in any sort of religious setting? What about heterosexuals that are married but do not plan on having any children? Should they be banned too?
    Do you understand? Do you agree? You have to agree. Remember, I'm not saying you have to agree with homosexuality. You can, for whatever reason(s) you want, believe that two people of the same sex should not marry. That's all fine and dandy. But in this Country, you do not now, nor should you ever have the right to ban gay marriage by using the very document that protects such behavior. Of course, if you want to live in a Country in which moral behaviors are dictated to you by one religious sect, then fine, move to Iraq, or Iran, or Saudi Arabia. I, for one, like the idea of keeping religion out of our Political policies and agendas.
    hangdawg13 writes:
    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.
    Personally, I don't want either of these ideas taught in my public schools. I would much rather see a real, comprehensive curricula dealing with sex education (not the nonsensical crappola put out by the Bush administration) and tolerance.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 9 by Hangdawg13, posted 01-02-2005 4:46 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 64 by Hangdawg13, posted 01-04-2005 11:59 PM FliesOnly has replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024