Discrimination against a racial group incidentally isn’t necessarily illegal, if it’s a byproduct of some other perfectly legal discrimination. The Air Force discriminates in favour of people who are relatively short and slender so they can fit in the planes. In practice that’s going to benefit some ethnic groups (Mexicans, Indians, Southern Europeans, Jews etc.) and disfavor others. It isn’t illegal for the Air Force to favour shorter people though even though that amounts to disproportionately favour particular groups.
I would realy want to see some evidence that Pentecostals are “largely white”. The Assemblies of God is largely white and Asian, but there are predominantly Black Pentecostal churches too, e.g. the Church of God in Christ (which alone includes about 12% of Black people). About 16% of Latinos also self identify as Pentecostal (more than that if you consider Charismatic Catholics to be Pentecostal).
Finally, if you lived in a country where said discrimination was illegal and you falsely claimed to be Christian (or Muslim, or Hindu or whatever) in order to get a job, you’d be violating the spirit of the law as much as Samuel is violating American law, and that’s quite discreditable.
I had another thought on this. Earlier, you said that you would give money to your sister if she needed it rather than St. Jude.
Now, say you had taken up a collection in your community, and contributed to it yourself. The day before you are to take this money to the charity, you get a visit from your sister. Now, if you withdraw your contribution to give to her, that is valuing your connection to your sister greater than any obligation to society, and that’s fine.
But lets say it’s not quite enough. If you let her take 10% of what you collected though, that covers her bills. There’s no record of what you have collected, nor expectation from the charity as to what you would turn in. There is no chance you would be caught or get into trouble. You would even still be lauded for having collected what you did for the charity.
So, if you redirect some of that contribution to your sister, that is also valuing your loyalty to your sister above your obligation to society.
You may see this situation as the first, where you are just withdrawing your own contribution, I see it as the second, where you are allowing her to be actually taking from society.
Discrimination harms us all. It should not be condoned, even for an otherwise great person. Personal loyalty does not justify allowing harm to society.
Pride is for men not named Skald. I do HUBRIS, thank you very much.
I don’t think I’m doing mental gymnastics, just explaining my gut response. I agree that there’s a conflict between social obligation and personal loyalty here. I just think the debt Shannon owes Samuel is so great that, if I were in her place, I would feel obliged by my own ethics (not anything he asked of me) to not assist his opposition unless forced. I would feel differently if he were being accused of some violent or sexual crime.
Not exactly. I said that if I had to CHOOSE between donating money to St. Jude (which I do every year) and between giving money to a friend in dire need–that for whatever reason i was short on cash and could not swing both–my friend would win
No, I would give the money to St Jude, because that money isn’t mine, just in my temporary custody. Giving ti to my sister would be theft–well, embezzlement. Declining to assist the plaintiff in this suit is not the same thing
The problem with your analogy is that I am not saying that Shannon should abet Samuel’s discrimination, just that she should not assist in punishing it (or, rather, that I would not do so in her place, which is not quite the same thing). Because he didn’t just do a single nice thing for her; he rescued her from a violent assault at the risk of his own life, kept her from being homeless, and guided her into getting her life back on track.That’s huge. Not huge enough to keep me from testifying against if if I’d seen him commit a rape or murder; not huge enough for me to think that . if I knew he were guilty, that he shouldn’t lose this case. But big enough for me not to actively assist his opponent.
I’ve been discriminated against because of my race and lack of religion; in fact, the inspiration for this thraad was a conversation I had recently about my getting fired from a car sales job because I’m as unbelieving as Thomas Covenant. But people aren’t just one thing. I don’t feel the need to try to save the world.
Okay:
But having said that…
Frankly I was being a jerk. There are reasons, but who cares? Reasons don’t excuse assholery. I was wrong to take such a tone, so I apologize.
Not exactly. If Samuel had lent me money, I would be obligated by his action to replay him. If Samuel had beeb as good a friend to me as he was to Shannon, my own rules for living would be what motivated my refusal to testify, not his actions. The difference may not be apparent to you, but it matters to me. I believe in doing some stuff and not doing other stuff.
It’s extreemely unlikely that Samuel would want me to testify, even if he is completely honest In fact, if he is as unremittingly truth as Immanuel Kant claimed to be, I wouldn’t NEED to testify, because he would have fessed up during the discovery process anyway. But what Samuel wants me to do would be irrelevant, becasue my moral choices are not informed by his wishes. That he may want me to keep my mouth shut is just a coincidence.
I see what you mean. I can imagine talking to Samuel in that way, though I doubt it would work. It would be not unlike the time a co-worker of mine tried to convince me that I didn’t REALLY believe same-sex marriage was okay.
Yes it’s technically discrimination, but I don’t see the degree as being as serious as racial or gender discrimination. Mind you, I’m not religious and have little to do with people who are, so maybe I haven’t experienced a bad version of this.
It’s one company and there are obviously others around, so a good salesman will always get a job elsewhere