|
|
Posted by Cabiria
 |
*shrug* Deny it if you want. It's the truth, though. There's no reason the majority can't be oppressed or discriminated against. Just ask the Shiites.
Underground Ozarks http://www.undergroundozarks.com
Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Kansas | |
Here are some of the ways in which Christians profess to be oppressed:
1) Removing "In God We Trust" and "one nation under God." If it were flipped around they would read "We do not trust in a God" on our bills and "one nation without a God" in the pledge. The great thing is nobody is asking for that, many are requesting nothing to be asserted. See how nothing being asserted is neutral and not oppressive?
2) Abortion rights. Essentially what many religious individuals want is for nobody to have the right to abort. What the extremist oppressors want is for each person to make up their own mind about it. So the religious can choose never to abort and the crazy leftists/atheists/agnostics can choose to abort at times. Once again the request is neutrality not to oppression.
3) Religion not being taught in the classroom. We wish for no religion to be taught in the classroom. No need for Buddhism, Islam, Christianity to be taught by public schools except in history classes. Once again the request is for neutrality. Nobody said "religion in the classroom is fine, just not Christianity."
4) For religion not to get many of their special privileges. In America you may not use drugs unless it is part of a religious ritual. You may not say racist slander unless it is part of a religion. Why the exemption? Racist slander should always be illegal. Using drugs should be enforced or not enforced universally. Once again those crazy leftist oppressors are asking for neutrality.
5) The right to the press just as much as everyone else. Currently "The God Delusion" is seen as offensive but "The Case for Faith" is not. So essentially it is wrong to attack Christianity but not wrong for Christianity to attack everyone else. Many request that both be accepted and the choice to read it be left up to the consumer. Once again the request is for neutrality not to oppress one camp.
6) Gay marriage. The "right" is often times against gay marriage. The left wants gay marriages to be just as legally accepted as straight marriages. The request is for neutrality and to do away with the current oppression from the religious front.
The request for neutrality from our government and its people is not oppressive. Christians are not being oppressed
[last edit 1/27/2007 12:06 AM by Cabiria - edited 1 times]
| |
| *shrug* Deny it if you want. It's the truth, though. There's no reason the majority can't be oppressed or discriminated against. Just ask the Shiites. |
In Iraq the government was controlled by the Sunnis. In America the government is controlled by Christians. I believe that makes a big difference.
| |
Posted by Cabiria
Here are some of the ways in which Christians profess to be oppressed: |
Yeah... While Christians do have issues with those things, that's pretty much none of what we were talking about with oppression or discrimination. If you think there's no bias against Christians in our society today--that's great for you--but you're blind.
| Racist slander should always be illegal. |
That's scary Orwellian talk coming out of your mouth right there, my friend. Racist slurs are disgusting--but people should be absolutely free to use them.
Underground Ozarks http://www.undergroundozarks.com
Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Kansas | |
Posted by Cabiria
In Iraq the government was controlled by the Sunnis. In America the government is controlled by Christians. I believe that makes a big difference.
|
Our government is controlled by Christians? That's news to me.
Because that Democratic Congress we have doesn't seem very eager to push a Christian agenda to me (although I'm sure they all claim to be Christian).
Underground Ozarks http://www.undergroundozarks.com
Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Kansas | |
Posted by Cabiria
Nobody said "religion in the classroom is fine, just not Christianity."
|
Lots of schools ARE saying exactly that by their actions. More religious studies and freedoms are being brought in to keep everyone happy, with the exception of Christian practices (use of the Bible, prayer, etc.), which are increasingly limited.
| |
Posted by Cabiria
|
The article never said that Christians are being oppressed. It said that there is blatant anti-christian propaganda out there and that it could lead to something like oppression down the line.
It's a tragedy.
It's exactly like a greek tragedy.
We should only be Greeks. | |
Posted by journeylady
The article never said that Christians are being oppressed. It said that there is blatant anti-christian propaganda out there and that it could lead to something like oppression down the line.
|
Example of bias:
There's been a stink up in Minnesota with some Muslim cab drivers who have refused some fares. They've refused people with alcohol, homosexuals, and people with dogs (including seeing eye dogs). Despite this, there has been almost no national coverage of it.
Now... Can you imagine... Can you IMAGINE what a huge publicized scandal it would be if some fundamentalist Christian cab drivers were refusing homosexual fares? It would be on CNN and MSNBC every hour on the hour. There would be gay groups protesting up there like crazy.
But, they weren't Christians. They were Muslims. So it's okay. We have to respect their culture and diversity.
Underground Ozarks http://www.undergroundozarks.com
Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Kansas | |
Posted by Cabiria
In Iraq the government was controlled by the Sunnis. In America the government is controlled by Christians. I believe that makes a big difference.
|
...and that's an excellent point.
"The truth is knowable. But probably not, ever, incontrovertible."
--Don DeLillo
PICS | |
Posted by White Rabbit
That's scary Orwellian talk coming out of your mouth right there, my friend. Racist slurs are disgusting--but people should be absolutely free to use them.
|
...and that's an excellent point.
"The truth is knowable. But probably not, ever, incontrovertible."
--Don DeLillo
PICS | |
Posted by White Rabbit
Example of bias:
There's been a stink up in Minnesota with some Muslim cab drivers who have refused some fares. They've refused people with alcohol, homosexuals, and people with dogs (including seeing eye dogs). Despite this, there has been almost no national coverage of it.
Now... Can you imagine... Can you IMAGINE what a huge publicized scandal it would be if some fundamentalist Christian cab drivers were refusing homosexual fares? It would be on CNN and MSNBC every hour on the hour. There would be gay groups protesting up there like crazy.
But, they weren't Christians. They were Muslims. So it's okay. We have to respect their culture and diversity.
|
I remember this story and being amazed that no one went crazy.
| |
As far as being "Orwellian" I am rather baffled. I would point out that the 1st amendment rights have limitations. My mention of not allowing racist slurs unless they are in a religious context is true. For instance verbally threatening a certain racial/religious population with extermination is not tolerated by the law. However if you said it in a religious context it would be legally non-punishable. This is because religion is a protected right also under the 1st amendment. Another example of a 1st amendment limitation is that slander and defamation of character are also not tolerated. I was not aware that telling people they can't threaten, slander or incite violence was Orwellian.
I am sorry for taking this thread a bit away from the topic at hand: the "interesting article." I did enjoy the article, it was nice to see where others are coming from, and I am willing to accept that often times an atmosphere of oppression and discrimination against Christians is present in America.
I would however point out that no population is more accepted in America. Previously the issue of who controls the government was mentioned. When I pointed out that the American government is controlled by Christians, someone else countered that they weren't true Christians (please read back for exact wording). If this is the case, which I deny, I should like to point out: what would motivate a non-Christian to claim they were Christian? Could it be that claiming one is a Christian actually gives them a political advantage? Surveys have continually pointed out that a professed non-Christian stands a very poor chance of holding a political office in our country.
Next, I agree that there is poor coverage of offensive behavior perpetrated by other religious groups in America. Christians do get a lot more media abuse than other groups. It is probably more a matter of population/socio-economic differences. Sociologists tend to regard a majority group's negative actions towards a minority group discrimination. A minority group's (refer to chart) negative actions towards a majority group are generally not seen as discrimination. This is due to a power differential between the groups. What this article and this thread show is that both are definitely harmful.
| |
Posted by Cabiria
As far as being "Orwellian" I am rather baffled. I would point out that the 1st amendment rights have limitations. |
Yes, it does.
However, racist slurs is not one of those limitations. You're mistaken.
| My mention of not allowing racist slurs unless they are in a religious context is true. |
No, it's not true. You can say someone's a nigger, spic, kike, whatever--whether you're doing it in a religious context or not. It's protected speech.
Whether or not you can say, for example, "I'm going to kill all the Mexicans" is a different story, although whether or not you're saying it in a religious context has no bearing whatsoever. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's legal to say that, unless they have a reasonable belief you're going to commit an actual specific crime.
Honestly, I don't know where you're getting this shit. You're completely wrong.
And the fact that you said yourself that racist speech should be illegal is that "scary Orwellian talk" we were talking about. That's NOT the answer. I mean, do you really think if they ban that speeech, that they'll stop there? Next time it'll be speech that you do agree with. The first amendment isn't to protect popular speech.
[last edit 1/28/2007 11:10 PM by White Rabbit - edited 1 times]
Underground Ozarks http://www.undergroundozarks.com
Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Kansas | |
White Rabbit, after doing my research I believe you are right and I am wrong on that issue. Racial slurs are permitted, even if the person calls for extermination of a race as long as it doesn't:
1) incite violence
2) Defame character
3) Not pointed a particular individual, as that is deemed "fighting words"
4) Not slanderous or a false representation of a person's individual character.
The first amendment protection of religious rights is apparently only present in the enforcement of the rules of conduct imposed at individual private or public institutions. For instance saying "_____ religious figure hates _____ racial group" is protected where as saying "I hate ______ racial group" or "The ______ political party hates _______ racial group" is not permissible if there is a code against offensive speech present at the institution.
So once again White Rabbit is correct and I was incorrect on the issue of hate speech.
| |
No worries. The free speech technicalities are pretty flakey sometimes.
But, honestly, I was way more bothered that you said racist speech should always be illegal. I just don't see how anything good can come of that.
Underground Ozarks http://www.undergroundozarks.com
Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Kansas | |
Posted by White Rabbit
Example of bias:
There's been a stink up in Minnesota with some Muslim cab drivers who have refused some fares. They've refused people with alcohol, homosexuals, and people with dogs (including seeing eye dogs). Despite this, there has been almost no national coverage of it.
Now... Can you imagine... Can you IMAGINE what a huge publicized scandal it would be if some fundamentalist Christian cab drivers were refusing homosexual fares? It would be on CNN and MSNBC every hour on the hour. There would be gay groups protesting up there like crazy.
But, they weren't Christians. They were Muslims. So it's okay. We have to respect their culture and diversity.
|
yes I agree that there is a bias. but I'm trying to stick to the article here. which is why I posted that statement.
It's a tragedy.
It's exactly like a greek tragedy.
We should only be Greeks. | |
Posted by journeylady
yes I agree that there is a bias. but I'm trying to stick to the article here. which is why I posted that statement.
|
I thought I was, sort of. I thought the fact that stories about other religious groups' intolerance get buried while Christian intolerance gets exaggerated big time was sort of in line with what the article was saying.
Underground Ozarks http://www.undergroundozarks.com
Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Kansas | |
Posted by White Rabbit
I thought I was, sort of. I thought the fact that stories about other religious groups' intolerance get buried while Christian intolerance gets exaggerated big time was sort of in line with what the article was saying.
|
you're right. I was getting at something else but nevermind. it's still in the same area.
It's a tragedy.
It's exactly like a greek tragedy.
We should only be Greeks. | |
Posted by White Rabbit
But, they weren't Christians. They were Muslims. So it's okay. We have to respect their culture and diversity.
|
Yeah, that's great, except that we're not letting them get away with it. As of right now, if a cabbie refuses a fare, he has to go to the back of the line which is generally about 3 hours long.
The Minnesota Muslim Society was trying to get a deal where cabbies who would not transport alcohol could mark their cabs in some way to indicate that fact, but since that really isn't good enough, the airport authority denied the proposal and is now planning to institute a new scheme under which a cab driver would lose his license for 30 days the first time he refused to transport an alcohol-carrying passenger, and would lose it permanently if he refused for a second time.
How is this not fair? How is this a case of kowtowing to their 'culture and diversity'? It's not. It's simply a case of people doing something unacceptable in our society and the rules being changed at the next legitimate opportunity to fix the situation.
I'll add that the ACLU is on the side of the airport, AGAINST the Muslim cab drivers.
If anyone doesn't believe me on any of this, just let me know and I will provide sources.
-DrDeke
If you don't want it known, don't say it on a phone. | |
Posted by DrDeke
How is this not fair? How is this a case of kowtowing to their 'culture and diversity'? |
I wasn't referring to their punishment. I was referring to the fact that this has been all-but ignored by the media. I can't prove it (of course), but I can absolutely guarantee this would not have been such a media non-event had the people doing it been Christians. Although, I suppose the fact that CAIR would've screamed "Islamophobia!" if the media had publicized it more probably doesn't help.
Underground Ozarks http://www.undergroundozarks.com
Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Kansas |
Add a poll to this thread
This thread is one of your Favourites. Click to make normal.Click to make this thread a Favourite.
| This thread is in a public category, and can't be made private. |
Powered by AvBoard AvBoard version 1.5 alpha
Page Generated In: 62 ms
|
|
Ethics
