So long as you are applying the same standards to all groups then, no, it wouldn’t be discrimination. It may be a bad standard, but it’s not discrimination.
That’s what was happening in the examples from Garfield226’s cites. A group which happened to be Christian based was denied some kind of status because they either didn’t allow non-Christians in their organization or in their leadership. This was considered to be a violation of the general policy of non-exclusionary membership. That may be bad policy but it’s not discrimination.
I suggest you re-read Voodoochile’s characterization of it, since he himself (or she herself) apparently begs to differ.
You’ll have to explain to me how a person who refuses to buy a product because it’s being sold by a black person is merely exercising a choice, and not discriminating against that person. Discrimination is a choice. Hopefully, it’s not something we all do every day.
So those are the only forms of discrimination? Then I’m sure Snuffy will be happy to hear that blacks and other minorities are no longer discriminated against. I mean, we no longer have “Whites Only” drinking fountains, or “No dogs or Irish allowed” signs, do we?
Obviously, discrimination doesn’t need to be either pervasive or institutional to be worthy of objection. If minorities aren’t allowed at one lunch counter in the deepest recesses of the South, then I’m against that whether it’s based on governmental action or personal choice. I’m guessing that you’d feel the same way. I don’t understand why that shouldn’t apply to Christians.
First of all, I never said I was a Christian. Let’s not jump to conclusions.
Second, the mere fact that there are lots of Christians doesn’t make it ok to discriminate against them. Blacks far outnumbered whites during apartheid in South Africa. That didn’t make the whites’ discrimination against blacks any less horrific.
Third, you didn’t ask for a cite showing that Christians suffer pervasive, institutional discrimination, or are otherwise incapable of holding public office. You asked for “a cite describing an instance in which a Christian is being discriminated for his religion and not becausae he is violating the First Amendment.” Obviously, that has been provided. Your attempts to change your request after the fact are ineffective.
Uh, no. You asked for “a cite describing an instance in which a Christian is being discriminated for his religion and not becausae he is violating the First Amendment.” In the cites provided, the Courts held that the Christians were not violating the First Amendment, yet were being denied the same basic rights as others merely because they were exercising their religious freedoms. That’s discrimination. The mere presence of 1st Amendment issues does not mean the 5th and/or 14th Amendments were not implicated.
I totally agree. And if you want to start a thread bemoaning discrimination against gays and lesbians, then I might pop in there and give a hearty “Hell ya!” But how does the fact that some people discriminate against gays and lesbians make discrimination against Christians more palatable?
I disagree with your assessment of that one example cited by Garfield226, but perhaps these examples, in which the reviewing Court found discrimination against Christians, will help.
Let’s go over this again for the reading impaired. The reason for the groups suing in every case cited by Garfiled had to do with school board deciding access policy to avoid SOCAS lawsuits. In other words, it was policy inacted to avoid lawsuits, not to discriminate against Christians, as the same situation would have occured had they been Jews, Wiccans or what have you. That’s not discrimination, no matter how much you wish it to be so.
Incidentally Age Quod Agis I can produce numerous (pick a number) cites, like I requested in my original post for proof of discrimation against black and gays. While you and Garfiled are hanging your hat on these very narrow identical cases. Again those are First Ammendment issues. By the way how you guys are equating that to persecution is way beyond me.
Please see my cites above, in which the Courts said that there was discrimination against Christians. You may not think it’s discrimination, but the law says differently.
A fact that I don’t doubt, and I certainly lament. But what does the existence of discrimination against blacks and gays have to do with the existence of discrimination against Christians?
Please show me where I equated discrimination with persecution. To quote an esteemed source, “keep your strawmen on your own fucking field.”
Do you honestly believe that it is fair or right to paint all Christians with a blanket statement like that? I am a Christian, and I do not aspire to martyrdom.
Gobear
Most materialists I’ve spoken to who insist that they cannot force themselves to believe in God, i.e., deliberately choose to believe. It would be a dishonest belief, akin to the sort of belief one might express with a gun held to one’s head. That’s what I was talking about.
**Age Quod Agis ** - There is a subtle but significant difference in the lead paragraph in your first cite and the one you quote:
The article is unclear, but it appears that the issue in this case is the same as the others - separation of church and state - not discrimination against Christians. Can you show any evidence that the attitude of the school in question was that they “just didn’t want those damned Christians praying all over our nice secular school grounds.”
Your second cite goes back to the same case referred to in one of Garfield226’s earlier posts and again is about SOCAS concerns and not discrimination against Christians.
Emphasis mine. In both instances it says “religious groups” not Christians. Which reinforces exactly what I said when I replied: "In other words, it was policy inacted to avoid lawsuits, not to discriminate against Christians, as the same situation would have occured had they been Jews, Wiccans " That Christian groups brought the lawsuit is without question, however the ruling does not support your reading of it.
Happily rescinded it was actually Garfield who said it here:
But Homebrew, they were just “enacting policy to avoid lawsuits”, not because they’re discriminating. Certainly you should be able to see the difference…
:rolleyes:
The language I cited above refutes your interpretations. The Courts being quoted specifically found discrimination against the religious groups bringing suit – in fact, the Courts used the words “discrimination” and “discriminate.” And the religious groups bringing suit were Christian. How is this not an example of discrimination against the Christian groups bringing suit?
The mere fact that the Courts made their rulings more broad than necessary doesn’t negate the fact that they found discrimination against the Christian groups involved. The mere fact that Brown v. Board of Education referred to discriminatory effects against minorities does not mean that blacks weren’t being discriminated against. Similarly, the mere fact that these rulings refer to discrimination against religious groups does not mean that Christians aren’t being discriminated against. So no matter what you think the reason for the policy in question was (whether avoiding lawsuits or animus against “those damned Christians”), the Court said that the actions discriminated against Christians.
If you’re just going to deny the fucking obvious, I see no need to continue to argue. Find in either the ruling from the languange the Court, the plantiff, or the fucking policy in question, where it singled out Christians then you have a case. Since we already know that you can’t, stop beheving like a child with your fingers in your ears repeating “I can’t here you”.
Shit I cuty off part of my post. The fact that Brown uses the overly broad term minorities, does not negate the fact that it was a decision under the Due Process Clause, anymore than you can negate the fact the the rulings you cite are on First Ammendment grounds as applies to Religion. In other words and for the last time. It was a SOCAS issue not discrimination of Christians in particular.
Garfield– ALL institutional or extra-curricular religious practices at public schools are (or are supposed to be) prohibited. Not just Christian practices-- ALL religious practices—I don’t see how this discriminates against Christians.
An anlaogy-- If no weapons are allowed in courtrooms, would you single out the fact that black women aren’t allowed to bring weapons into courtrooms? Would you call that discrimination against black women? Of course not.
The facts are well-established. Christians sued their school districts arguing that the districts’ policies discriminated against them and violated their 1st Amendment rights. The Courts found that there was discrimination against the Christian groups, and went so far as to use the words “discrimination” and “discriminate.”
If you honestly think these Courts didn’t find that there was discrimination against Christians, then I have a couple of questions for you.
Why did the Courts use the words “discrimination” and “discriminate”?
If Christian groups brought the suit, and the Court found discrimination against the groups bringing the suit, then how was this not a Court decision finding that there was discrimination against Christians?
Do you sincerely believe that noone has ever discriminated against Christians in America?
Cite? And I ask for one because I believe your statement is patently false.
The government can’t prohibit religious activity any more than it can encourage it. So as long as it opens its doors to secular activity, then it can’t close its doors to similar activities merely because they are religious. I’ll look for a cite, but in the meantime, I’d ask you to do the same.
This is wrong. A very brief search turned up the following Supreme Court cases directly refuting your assertion.
Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1982) – A public university may not deny voluntary student groups equal access to the use of the university facilities because the content of their speech is religious. Worship and prayer are protected speech.
Bender v. Williamsport Area School District, 475 U.S. 534 (1986)-- The Supreme Court effectively reinstated a federal district court decision permitting public high school students to meet during student activity period for prayer, Bible study, and religious discussion during the school day on campus.
Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990) – A public secondary school that allows one noncurriculum related student group to meet must allow a religious student group to meet under the Equal Access Act.
Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 113 S. Ct. 2141 (1993) – A school district must grant access to school facilities during evenings and weekends to religious community groups to discuss religious viewpoints on social and civic subjects that it allows other community groups access to discuss.
But a public school opens its doors specifically for a secular activity namely, education. A public school’s function is not to indoctrinate children in the precepts of Chritianity or any other faith.
Remember the analogy I gave above? The one where nobody gets to bring a gun into a courtroom? Did you get it? See, you can call that discriminatory, but it discriminates against ANYONE who would bring a gun into a courtroom-- not just specific groups (like the example I gave above: black women) of erstwhile gun-toters.
I hope it isn’t too great a leap for you to see how this is similar to Christians not being discriminated against just because they can’t force kids to memorize Bible verses in grammer school. For, you see, the Jews and the Muslims and the Hindus aren’t allowed to do such things either.