America's Most Distrusted Minority - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-27-2006, 10:12 PM   #61
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
If the subject of a meeting is diversity, I wouldn't expect groups to be eliminated.
Alright. I'll play along.

Since modern society loves the idea of the slippery slope...

If the subject is diversity and blacks or Jews are included, should groups like the KKK or neo-Nazis be permitted if they request to be there? After all, if we're going to go by the principle that groups should not be eliminated, that would include these two very infamous groups.

Secondly, in the case I'm thinking of here, why did Christian groups sue to include "ex-gays," but did not sue to include Christians? Were they not bothered by the fact that this event had Jewish and Muslim groups without representation from Christians?

Third, if a group exists only to antagonize one of the other members--like, for instance, if atheists successfully sued to be included as part of diversity day and spent the entire time talking about how, you too, could be free from Judaism/Islam--should they be invited to a diversity event?

Thanks...

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-27-2006, 10:18 PM   #62
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Alright. I'll play along.

Since modern society loves the idea of the slippery slope...

If the subject is diversity and blacks or Jews are included, should groups like the KKK or neo-Nazis be permitted if they request to be there? After all, if we're going to go by the principle that groups should not be eliminated, that would include these two very infamous groups.

Secondly, in the case I'm thinking of here, why did Christian groups sue to include "ex-gays," but did not sue to include Christians? Were they not bothered by the fact that this event had Jewish and Muslim groups without representation from Christians?

Third, if a group exists only to antagonize one of the other members--like, for instance, if atheists successfully sued to be included as part of diversity day and spent the entire time talking about how, you too, could be free from Judaism/Islam--should they be invited to a diversity event?

Thanks...

Melon
In items 1 & 3, I don't see the harm of such viewpoints in the marketplace of ideas. Let the audience decide the validity to extend to each group, not a select group of event organizers.

As for #2, if you are referring to the Diversity Day, I believe they sued to allow Christians as well as ex-gays.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-27-2006, 10:24 PM   #63
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
In items 1 & 3, I don't see the harm of such viewpoints in the marketplace of ideas. Let the audience decide the validity to extend to each group, not a select group of event organizers.
I tend to think that no group would ever think of inviting "ex-gays." It does not register on the public consciousness.

But I do notice the loophole in your argument here. "The audience," presuming that the audience logically will not be racist or anti-Semitic, but probably homophobic. Call me crazy, but reinforcing prejudices instead of dispelling them is contrary to the idea of diversity. But that's just me.

Quote:
As for #2, if you are referring to the Diversity Day, I believe they sued to allow Christians as well as ex-gays.
Frankly, I would have had no problem of Christians being there, if their sole intention was to describe the practices of their religion in a non-proselytizing manner--as I would expect the Jewish and Muslim speakers to do, as well. However, seeing how openly hostile they were to the idea of having gay speaker, as evidenced in this lawsuit, makes me question whether such objectivity would have been possible.

But that's just me.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-27-2006, 10:33 PM   #64
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
however, i don't care what the thread is, if it smells like homophobia, i'm going to call it out.
I know. I'm obviously much the same way.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-27-2006, 11:24 PM   #65
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 03:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Crocodile tears when you readily denounce the rights of other groups freedom of expression or inclusion in "diversity" events.

Let's try and use consistent principles here.


garbage.

total garbage.

you're smart enough to know that, and you'd do well to learn more about the abuse suffered by homosexual individuals at the hands of these persecution groups and you'd realize that they have NOTHING to do with diversity (or, you know, REALITY) when all they are trying to do is DISPUTE the legitimacy of the existence of homosexuals. thats ALL they do -- do your homework.

i can't spell it out any more than i already have. and you wonder why so many people get neauseated by current political manifestations of "Christianity" as typified by the "ex-gay" movement. i must say i'm quite disappointed.

let's try and use our brains and evaluate groups and ideas on their factual merits, not on their demands for inclusion.

let's talk about atheism, please?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-27-2006, 11:29 PM   #66
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 03:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
Frankly, I would have had no problem of Christians being there, if their sole intention was to describe the practices of their religion in a non-proselytizing manner--as I would expect the Jewish and Muslim speakers to do, as well. However, seeing how openly hostile they were to the idea of having gay speaker, as evidenced in this lawsuit, makes me question whether such objectivity would have been possible.

But that's just me.


and me as well. good thing to know our parents never raised us to sit in the back of the bus.

Melon has pointed out precisely the issue. and people wonder why so many gay people are 100% fed up with politicized Christianity, and it gets really tiresome to bend over backwards to distinguish between various types of Christians who would never, ever extend you the same courtesy.

there are many people out there who'd benefit from "freedom" from this nasty stripe of Christianity.

fuck, i'm pissed. and now i need to go to bed.

so glad my thread was derailed and by taking arguments in another thread -- why this couldn't have been kept in there, well, i simply don't know.

thanks.

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-27-2006, 11:30 PM   #67
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 03:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
In items 1 & 3, I don't see the harm of such viewpoints in the marketplace of ideas. Let the audience decide the validity to extend to each group, not a select group of event organizers.


yes, let's put science up to a popularity test. history too. that way, we won't ever have to learn anything remotely uncomforable! we should learn ALL sides of an issue, not just the sides supported by facts!



(okay, need to let it go ...)
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-27-2006, 11:33 PM   #68
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
fuck, i'm pissed. and now i need to go to bed.
Yeah...me too. I'm going to make an explosive promotion tomorrow. Should be fun after all I've written here.

Good night. Hope this forum doesn't keep you up.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-28-2006, 01:00 AM   #69
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 09:23 AM
I am going to leave this thread open in case anyone wants to return to the topic of *atheism* as illustrated by either of the studies Irvine posted. If this derails again, however, I will be closing it.

As a general observation, I'd also like to add that when you have questions or criticisms that you'd like to see considered in a constructive and respectful manner, it only makes common sense to avoid putting them in a snide, mocking, or bitterly sarcastic tone. That adds nothing to your point.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 03-28-2006, 01:11 AM   #70
War Child
 
a-mole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Groningen, Netherlands
Posts: 665
Local Time: 09:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Crocodile tears when you readily denounce the rights of other groups freedom of expression (...)

Let's try and use consistent principles here.
do atheists around actually do that?
How and when?

THis is an actualy question.. no attack. I am just very surprised by this.
__________________
a-mole is offline  
Old 03-28-2006, 07:21 AM   #71
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 03:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


what do you think about atheism as a means to determine who is a better parent?
I'd like to take a shot at this before the thread closes down (if it does).


It makes sense on the individual level that people will tend to feel that those who share their viewpoints or beliefs will be "better parents." Let's take it first in the sense of belief. . .say, I'm Buddhist grandmother. If I had to choose, I'd say my grandchildren should be raised by my Buddhist son rather than a Christian (real life situation taken from one of my student's families). Now let's extrapolate. . .if I'm a Christian I'd prefer to see children raised in a Christian home. If I'm an aetheist, I'd rather see children raised in a home where they aren't being force-fed "Biblical fables and religious extremism."

But when it comes to a court of law where individual preferences cannot be the guiding factor things become more tricky. The easy answer is that custody should be granted on other, less subjective factors such as ability to care for the child, etc. But. . what if all other factors are equal and the ONLY difference is one parent is religious, the other is not. Now you have a dilemma. Christians will say---well, give the child to the religious parent. Some religion is better than no religion (though as a Christian myself I'm not sure I agree with it. I can think of several so-called Christians who I'd never, ever ever want raising a child of mine. While I dont' know many aethists outside of my brother, I'm sure there are many I'd choose over the wrong kind of Christian). Aethists will say, give the child to the irreligious parent so they don't grow being pressured with religion.

So who's right? And how does a judge make such a decision? In the end, he/she will probably make the decision based on what HE/SHE thinks is the "better" choice, and--ALL OTHER FACTORS BEING EQUAL--I don't think you can really blame them.

Now say, one parent is religious and the other parent is not and the religious parent wants the irreligious parent to support their child's exposure to religion (i.e. "Make sure you drop him off at church every week) and the irreligious parent does not want to comply. Now things are really complicated.

I'll see if anyone has any thoughts on this before I continue.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 03-28-2006, 09:56 AM   #72
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 03:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean

Christians will say---well, give the child to the religious parent. Some religion is better than no religion (though as a Christian myself I'm not sure I agree with it. I can think of several so-called Christians who I'd never, ever ever want raising a child of mine. While I dont' know many aethists outside of my brother, I'm sure there are many I'd choose over the wrong kind of Christian). Aethists will say, give the child to the irreligious parent so they don't grow being pressured with religion.

So who's right? And how does a judge make such a decision? In the end, he/she will probably make the decision based on what HE/SHE thinks is the "better" choice, and--ALL OTHER FACTORS BEING EQUAL--I don't think you can really blame them.


i think this gets to the dilemma exactly -- who is to say that having a religious parent automatically makes one a better parent, all other things being equal?

however, from my understanding of the study, atheism was presented in court not as an alternative to, say, Christianity (in the way that Judaism, Hinduism, or Islam might be), but as evidence that one party was unfit as a parent.

that, to me, seems to be the essence of discrimination.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-28-2006, 07:55 PM   #73
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 03:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


So who's right? And how does a judge make such a decision? In the end, he/she will probably make the decision based on what HE/SHE thinks is the "better" choice, and--ALL OTHER FACTORS BEING EQUAL--I don't think you can really blame them.
In real life situations, very rarely will all other factors be equal. In the rare instance that they are, I'd rather a judge decide by coin toss than by deeming someone with religious beliefs in common, or a lack thereof, the "better" parent. There is simply no way to determine parental ability by considering that factor.
__________________
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 03-29-2006, 10:13 AM   #74
Acrobat
 
BorderGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Under A Blood Red Texas Sky
Posts: 418
Local Time: 03:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

why should it be incumbent upon them to tolerate whatever seasonal religious spectacle is in vogue?
Um, because they are tolerant?
__________________
BorderGirl is offline  
Old 03-29-2006, 10:57 AM   #75
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 03:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BorderGirl

Um, because they are tolerant?


um, here was the original statement that begged the above question:

[q]if different religions demand that their traditions and celebrations be embraced and accepted by the public sphere, isn't it incumbent upon them to emphatically extend the same respect to those who believe in no religion at all?[/q]
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com