I understood the example, but it was based on a false premise – specifically, that school districts are allowed to exclude all religious groups. In fact, I’ve provided 4 Supreme Court cases above that specifically refute that argument. So unless you can come up with some other argument, your analogy has no merit.
Either you are intentially obtuse or a moron. I can cite you cases where school systems had active clubs for many different interests, including Christian clubs. When a few students wanted to start a GSA the schools would not allow them. When ordered by the courts to allow the GSA, the districts decided to do away with ALL clubs rather than allow them. This is obvious discrimination.
In your examples, the administrators were trying to maintain SOCAS and disallowed any religious groups. When the courts decided that they could not disallow religious groups, then they did not shut down other groups to avoid allowing the Christian groups. Obviously this is a case of over ambitious effort to comply with SOCAS and not discrimination. Discrimination would be if they banned religious groups because they disliked them and not because they misinterpreted SOCAS.
Then why did the Courts use the words “discrimination” and “discriminate”? Were they talking about someone else? Is there some alternate meaning of which I am unaware? Or could it be because the Courts found that there was discrimination against the religious groups in question?
I hate to keep harping on this point, but noone seems willing to answer it. You folks seem so eager to ignore the obvious that it makes me doubt the sincerity of your arguments.
I don’t think Christians suffer widespread discrimination, but Jesus fucking Christ people. You have abandoned all logic in trying to claim that there was no discrimaination in the case
No, you moron. Just because some homosexual groups have suffered worse discrimination does not mean that this Christian group wasn’t discriminated against. Do I need to break out the goddamn dictionary and show you the definition of discrimination? Like or dislike has nothing to do with it. Here’s an idea for you, chief. Maybe the misinterpretation of SOCAS was the cause of the discrimination.
I mean really, people. The court ruling expressly states that discrimination took place. Why is anybody trying to say that it didn’t? Why the logical disconnect?
Thank you, A Monkey With a Gun. I thought I was losing my mind because everyone else kept denying what seemed so glaringly obvious to me.
For saving what’s left of my sanity, you’re my favorite poster of the day.
First of all, a point that no one seems to have brought up. In none of the claimed cases of “discrimination against Christians” that have been brought up, as far as I can tell, was there discrimination solely based on someone being a Christian. In no case did a school make a rule saying that it would not admit Christians. Rather, the issues all involved organizations being formed of Christian students who were already at the school. Compare that to two hypothetical cases of discrimination against black students:
(1) The school doesn’t admit black students
(2) The school admits black students, gives them full access to all classes, clubs, and sports, but doesn’t allow them to form a black students’ club, while allowing other clubs
(1) is inarguably discrimination, and is very very very very bad. And if any school in the US refuses to admit Christian students, then yes, that’s horrible discrimination, and please bring it to our attention.
So all we’re talking about is examples of something basically comparable to (2). Which is still fairly bad, but doesn’t even register in the same universe as (1). Even if it were inarguable that the cases mentioned in this thread are “discrimination against Christians”, that level of discrimination is so ridiculously low, so inconsequential, so goddamned trivial when compared to the kind of prejudice and discrimination that, for instance, transgendered folks have to deal with, that even bringing it up is a slap in the face.
I’m a straight white male, and, if I chose to split hairs, I could probably come up with situations in which I’ve faced “discrimination”. For instance, I was likely the sharpest math major in my class at the college I attended, but one of my professors, a woman, went way out of her way to mentor and provide opportunities to another math major, a girl, who wasn’t quite as smart as me, while still being quite smart. So you could certainly, in some sense, accurately call that “discrimination”. But I would never dream of hanging out with my lesbian cousin and her not-legally-sanctioned-wife and complaining about the discrimination that I’ve faced.
All of that said, I still don’t believe that anyone in this thread has provided an example of “discrimination against Christians”. Others have already made this argument, but I will attempt to make it again in a very clear and non-ranting fashion, and I hope that someone on the other side of the argument (Age Quod Agis? A Monkey With A Gun?) will take the time to specifically address my points, bearing in mind that I take no responsibility for anything anyone else has said in this thread.
So… in all of the cases provided, as far as I can tell, a group of students has attempted to form a Christian-themed organization at a school, and the school has attempted to stop them from doing so.
Discrimination against Christians?
I claim not. As far as anyone has reported, in none of these cases were other religions allowed to form clubs. Rather, there was a rule stating “clubs with religious themes are not allowed”.
Now, one could argue that this rule discriminates against religious students. And, while it’s not a prima facie slam dunk obvious argument, I tend to agree that it is a correct one. But there’s a huge difference between discriminating against religious students and discriminating against Christians. The phrase “discrimination against Christians” implies that the determinate factor in whether the discrimination is applied is the Christianness or lack thereof, which is not true in these cases.
There’s a false analogy which can be made to civil rights cases, which goes like this:
Claiming that these cases are discrimination against religious students, and therefore not “Discrimination against Christians” is like claiming that Brown Vs. Board of Education was about discrimination against minorities, and therefore not “Discrimination against Blacks”. And everyone knows that Brown v. Board was about “Discrimination against Blacks”. Therefore, these cases must be about “Discrimination against Christians”.
The problem with that analogy is that everyone has a race. And in the type of discrimination that was addressed in Brown, people of some racial groups (whites) are treated better than people of other racial groups (all others). So it is clearly discrimination against people of any or all of those other racial groups, all of whom are being singled out because of their race. As opposed to a situation in only some students are religious, and all religious students are discriminated against, in which case while Christian students do suffer from discrimination, it’s not because of their Christianity, but because of their religiousness.
Here’s a better analogy: Everyone knows that football is a popular sport, and football players tend to be on the top of the heap. But one particular school has a rule that no team sports or sports-oriented organizations will be allowed. A group of football players at that school attempt to organize a football team. It is disallowed because of the aforementioned rule.
Is this a case of “Discrimination against Football Players”? If someone posted an OP saying “I’m sick of all of those football players complaining about how they’re discriminated against, when in fact they’re not”, could someone else legitimately mention that school as a counterexample?
I thought that had been covered myself, but I’m glad you brought it up again.
Let me take your football analogy one step further. Let’s say a school is overly concerned about liability and declares that no person or organization can use their facilities after school hours. A Christian organization asks to use the facilities on Wednesday nights and is turned down. According to Age Quod Agis that is discrimination against Christians. But by that logic the policy would also be discriminatory against the Lions Club, Middle Aged White Guys, Heathens for Hitler, Joe Blow or anyone else who might want to use the facilities because all of them fall within the superset of “any person or organization”. If you want to define discrimination in such broad terms, then fine, but I don’t think it’s a very useful definition.
It seems to me you are trying to rely on a pedantic, legal definition of “discriminate” while ignoring the connotations of the word. Can’t be done. In common parlance, the connotation of “prejudice” cannot be separated from “discrimination” used in this context. Sure, in a legal ruling it is based on a strict definition; but in a real-world discussion, the connotation is there.
Sorry Libertarian…
That did seem like a broad statement. I do know plenty of ‘live and let live’ christians. My comment was more directed at the factions that claim descrimintation when society doesn’t conform directly to their beliefs. That’s why I included the ‘discriminated against’ quote’. Re-reading it, I realize it may not have come across as intended.
scene opens: crowded subway train
Christian: Ow! You stepped on my big toe!
Schoolteacher: Oh Gee, sorry I hurt your foot.
Garfield: That guy hurt that Christian’s big toe
Stuffy: He didn’t hurt that guy’s toe, you want to hurt somebody, you have to run them over with a truck. I don’t see a truck.
Garfield: What?! Yeah, getting run over by a truck will hurt, I’m sure not saying that it won’t. But that doesn’t change the fact that the guy got his toe stepped on.
Stuffy: Bah! Those two aren’t even in the same ballpark! Therefore, if you can be hurt by a truck, having your toe stepped on doesn’t hurt.
Garfield: You mind explaining how bad you have to be mangled to experience pain? Because your logic doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
bnorton: Doesn’t matter, the school teacher stated that he stepped on his foot, which means that it could be any of his toes - not just his big toe.
Age Quod Agis: And how does that change things? The big toe is part of the foot, too
gobear: Your just saying that because your toe hurts.
Stuffy: There is no way his toe hurts. There is just a crowded subway train and I repeat that there is not a truck here.
Homebrew: You want hurt? My cousin got attacked with a baseball bat. That hurt.
bnorton: The big toe wouldn’t hurt if he stepped on all his toes, and he said “foot”
Age Quod Agis: Allright you morons, listen up. First off, my toe feels fine. Second, we are talking about pain. Though getting hit by a truck or a bat is going to hurt worse, all Garfield ever said was that guy hurt the other guys toe by stepping on his foot. It’s not as bad as getting hit by a truck, but we aren’t talking about which is worse, just whether or not his toe did, in fact, get stepped on and hurt. The schoolteacher even said it did.
Stuffy: No, let’s go over this again. First there is no truck, only a crowded subway train. Second, he said “foot” which means it would have been just as likely for him to have hurt the pinky toe, the index toe or either of the other two toes. Third, the schoolteacher didn’t mean to do it. Therefore, the Christians big toe was not stepped on.
Age Quod Agis: sigh
bnorton: He said “foot”
Age Quod Agis: Yes, he said “foot”. He did not say “hand”. He did not say “head”. He said “foot”. The toe is part of the foot.
bnorton: I’m not going to argue anymore unless you admit that he said “foot” and not “toe”.
Age Quod Agis: Oh for the love of…… He hurt his toe by stepping on his foot.
Stuffy: He said foot
I love me: Yep, he said “foot”. It could have been any of the toes. Therefore it wasn’t the big one.
Age Quod Agis: Is it me? Am I going insane?
Homebrew: My cousin got hit with a baseball bat by somebody who was angry. That hurt. The schoolteacher wasn’t angry so the Christian’s toe can’t hurt. It would have hurt had stepped on his toe with a baseball bat, but he stepped on his foot.
Age Quod Agis: The toe is part of the foot!
A Monkey With A Gun: EVERYBODY SHUT UP! All right, listen up. The schoolteacher said he hurt the guys toe. Just because he didn’t use a truck and didn’t do it with malice does not change the fact that the Christians toe, was indeed, stepped on.
Age Quod Agis: Thanks, I thought I was about to lose it there.
MaxtheVool: It certainly doesn’t take a truck or a bat to hurt someone, stepping on someone’s foot will do. It is quite correct to argue that the toe was stepped when the foot was stepped on, and his foot was indeed stepped on. Therefore, he never stepped on his foot.
bnorton: He said “foot”
Homebrew: Hey, Monkey. You don’t know what it means to have your foot stepped on. Only I do.
Train rolls to stop at next station. Exeunt A Monkey with A Gun, shaking head in disgust
As far as I’m concerned, you’ve just proved yourself to be a decent man. Peace.
Hey Monkey are you always a moron, or do you only play one on this message board?
Monkey…I thought that was a hoot.
It is no surprise to me that it seems the basis for confusion in this argument is that the partys involved in it forget that all it is is a game of psycho poker. It will all come down to, “I’ll see your pair of religious discrimination anecdotes, and raise you with a full house of rampant racism and sexism! I win!! I’ve been wronged worse!!”
Feh.
For pete’s sake, MaxtheVool, you’re just rehashing arguments that have already been made and addressed. But since you apparently can’t be bothered to read the entire thread before posting, I’ll try and tell you why each of your arguments doesn’t hold water, in the hopes that you’ll show the courtesy of answering the questions I’ve already posed.
-
As I’ve said before, the mere fact that other people are discriminated against more harshly doesn’t mean that Christians weren’t discriminated against here. Is your lesbian friend not suffering from discrimination in America because Christians are being jailed and killed in the Middle East and China?
-
There is no de minimus exception to the definition of “discrimination.” There is no requirement that something must be “horrific” before it meets the definition of “discrimination.” So while you can argue that what happened here does not jibe with your personal connotation of “discrimination,” I’ll take solace in the fact that my definition jibes with the definition and connotation of the Courts, the dictionary, and logic.
-
It’s offensive for the Courts to use the word “discrimination” to describe the state sanctioned bar against Christians gathering together when the doors were opened to everyone else, but it’s A-OK for you to use the word discrimination to describe your teacher’s selection of someone else as teacher’s pet?
-
The OP merely asked for instances of discrimination against Christians. I’ve certainly provided that. The OP did not ask for instances in which Christians were lynched or turned away from the polls. Your attempts to change the definition of “discriminate” to meet your personal definition (which is apparently at odds with the definition the rest of us use) are silly.
So you concede that it is discrimination? Then what are you arguing about?
The Christianness is the determinative factor. The groups were banned because they were Christian. Is this really so complicated?
Wrong. Your analysis wouldn’t pass a basic Constitutional Law class. You’re trying to argue that this wasn’t discrimination against religious students because it treats all religious people similiarly. But the group against which you should be comparing the rights of religious people is all people, regardless of whether they are religious or not. Just as I can’t say Jim Crow laws don’t discriminate against blacks because they treat all non-whites equally, you can’t say that prohibitions on religious groups don’t discriminate against Christians because they treat all non-secular groups equally.
Better yet, don’t take my word for it, take the word of the Courts that said there was discrimination. If this wasn’t discrimination, then don’t you think some Court somewhere would have been able to figure it out? Or are you the first one to ever stumble across it?
I can’t help but notice that you folks haven’t provided any counter-examples refuting the Court decisions I provided earlier. If there was no discrimination, then why has every Court that’s decided the issue found discrimination? Why has every Court that’s decided the issue gone directly against what you people are arguing? That doesn’t bother you guys in the slightest?
Please show me where I have ever argued that. In fact, if you come back from fantasyland and read what I actually said, you’ll see this:
In other words, the school can close its doors to all club activity. That’s not discrimination against anyone because it treats everyone equally. The problem is when you open your doors to some groups and not others. How about instead of inventing arguments, you respond to the questions I’ve actually posed? I’ve addressed all of your arguments, so I eagerly await the courtesy of either a concession or someone finally answering my questions:
-
If there wasn’t discrimination in these cases, then why did the Courts use the words “discrimination” and “discriminate”?
-
How was this not discrimination against Christians when Christians brought the suit, and the Courts ruled that discrimination had happened to the religious groups bringing suit?
-
Do you honestly believe that Christians have never been discriminated against?
Monkey With a Gun, that’s one of the most creative posts I’ve read since I’ve been on these boards. I’m in awe.
Creative nonsense, though.
Creative? Yes. Correct analogy? No.
I too find the incessant howling from cultural reactionaries that believing Christians are being oppressed in the United States more than just a little tedious and disingenuous. When ever the subject come up somebody from the peanut gallery starts throwing anecdotal stories about the high school in East Harness Buckle not allowing some Bible study club to set up in the school as proof beyond argument of generalized and universal oppression of believers. Balderdash!
If there were indeed discrimination against Christians then the ill informed Yahoos out in front of the US Supreme Court building caterwauling about Alabama Chief Justice Moore’s monument to the God of the Old Testament would be machine gunned where they stand, or at least ridden down and whipped with car antenna by mounted policemen. We would not be faced with the spectator of Pat Robinson musing on the air about the wisdom of bombing the State Department. We would not see (on my TV) six or eight consecutive channels of preachers with strange hair frothing at the mouth and pleading for the faithful to send them money to continue their mission to suppress some imaginary vice or another.
Christians are about as oppressed as Republicans, anecdotes notwithstanding. The claims of terrible oppression are just another device to rouse up the faithful and extract money from little old ladies.
So now this is the definition of “discrimination”? They must be “machine gunned down” or whipped by policemen? Can I have a cite to your dictionary, please?
I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me why those obviously ill-informed Courts said they were discriminated against. Anyone? . . . Anyone? . . . .
. . . Bueller?
You missed it several times. It happens when you have your fingers in your ears. Try rereading the thread, or removing your head from your ass, whichever.