Discrimination

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm kinda afraid to mention it on a public thread, because the tolerant people might start being prejudiced against him ...

Oh surely you are joking? He has never made a secret that he was coptic and no one ever attacked him over it.

[Rían]

I'm joking

[inked]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

In most countries which are based upon one theology, that theology is more welcome than another. In most countries that do not base their government upon one theology (like the United States), diversity is welcome.

Your observation is only true because there are more "Islamic" countries than any other theological kind. And most of those theocracies came in existance as a reaction against the western-supported monarchs who ruled before. Your asking for democratic ideals in countries which we have never allowed or encouraged to be democratic.

BJ,

Your last paragraph is troublesome. In the first sentence do you mean that Rian's observation is only true because of the number of Islamic countries? It is also true in Hindu and Buddhist countries as my links have shown. In your second sentence, do you really mean that time machines exist and that ever since the inception of Islam as a Christian heresy in ~600 AD its monarchs have been supported by westerners? That is what the sentence says, but even I don't believe that is what you intended. You probably meant something like "in reaction to recent western-supported monarchs" who were presumbably modernizing their countries, right? And, in the third sentence, are you intending to say that societies shouldn't change because they are static and it's really unfair to hold any static society to democratic ideals, or, that any given society's mores are the definitive statement for that society forever?

All, on the lighter (but still germane) side,

What is a fundamentalist?
May 12th, 2006

Reformed philosopher Alvin Plantinga reflects on the meaning of fundamentalism:

“But isn’t this just endorsing a wholly outmoded and discredited fundamentalism, that condition than which, according to many academics, none lesser can be conceived? I fully realize that the dreaded f-word will be trotted out to stigmatize any model of this kind. Before responding, however, we must first look into the use of this term ‘fundamentalist’. On the most common contemporary academic use of the term, it is a term of abuse or disapprobation, rather like ’son of a bitch’, more exactly ’sonovabitch’, or perhaps still more exactly (at least according to those authorities who look to the Old West as normative on matters of pronunciation) ’sumbitch.’ When the term is used in this way, no definition, no definition of it is ordinarily given. (If you called someone a sumbitch, would you feel obligated first to define the term?)

Still, there is a bit more to the meaning of ‘fundamentalist’ (in this widely current use); it isn’t simply a term of abuse. In addition to its emotive force, it does have some cognitive content, and ordinarily denotes relatively conservative theological views. That makes it more like ’stupid sumbitch’ (or maybe ‘fascist sumbitch’?) than ’sumbitch’ simpliciter.

It isn’t exactly like that term either, however, because its cognitive content can expand and contract on demand; its content seems to depend on who is using it. In the mouths of certain liberal theologians, for example, it tends to denote any who accept traditional Christianity, including Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Barth; in the mouths of devout secularists like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett, it tends to denote anyone who believes there is such a person as God. The explanation that the term has a certain indexical element: its cognitive content is given by the phrase ‘considerably to the right, theologically speaking, of me and my enlightened friends.’ The full meaning of the term, therefore (in this use), can be given by something like ’stupid sumbitch whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of mine’� (Warranted Christian Belief, pp. 244-245).

borrowed from pontifications.com

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by inked

Reformed philosopher Alvin Plantinga reflects on the meaning of fundamentalism:

Ewww...Reformed...

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Your last paragraph is troublesome. In the first sentence do you mean that Rian's observation is only true because of the number of Islamic countries? It is also true in Hindu and Buddhist countries as my links have shown.

I was attempting to point out the fact that it has more to do with democracy vs. monarchy (especially when that monarchy is a religious one) than it does with the prevailing religion of any one country. If you look back in history to countries that were monarchies of a christian flavor (i.e. spain), you see similar oppression of religious diversity.

Originally Posted by inked

In your second sentence, do you really mean that time machines exist and that ever since the inception of Islam as a Christian heresy in ~600 AD its monarchs have been supported by westerners? That is what the sentence says, but even I don't believe that is what you intended. You probably meant something like "in reaction to recent western-supported monarchs" who were presumbably modernizing their countries, right?

The middle east has been dominated by the islamic faith for a long time, but it is largely due to the western support of dictators in the region post-ww2 that brought about the rise in influence of the most extreme fundamentalist governments. By discouraging democracy, we pushed the general populace to embrace religious fundamentalism. We "made our bed" in the middle east.

Originally Posted by inked

And, in the third sentence, are you intending to say that societies shouldn't change because they are static and it's really unfair to hold any static society to democratic ideals, or, that any given society's mores are the definitive statement for that society forever?

I didn't say anything about should or shouldn't. I'm only pointing out that it's unfair to expect democratic ideals in countries where the US has a history of discouraging those very ideals. We support the saudi monarchy. We supported saddam hussein. We supported the shah of iran.

It's like buying your 16-year-old neighbor's kid a case of beer, when you would never buy one for your own kid, and then having the audacity to say that your neighbor is a bad parent when the kid you bought the beer for gets in a drunk driving accident.

[inked]

Thanks for the clarifications, BJ.

I think we would agree that society ought to regulate the behaviours of some persons on varying criteria based on your example. We disagree on what those behaviours are, obviously.

To discriminate does not ONLY mean to prejudge (the sense primarily used in discrimination nowadays, I fear). It means to distinguish between actions, persons, etc on rational grounds. It can be positive as your example suggests by negative inference.

[inked]

better get a big wagon......

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=22581

Is it discrimination if newspeak rewrites history along homosexual lines but denies recognition to the heterosexuality of 98+% of the population?

[inked]

Marcuse, there's a name from the past. But the technique in its modern manifestation is remarkable:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1084

[Earniel]

Oh please, spare me articles about that Center. I'm pretty much sick and tired of them and their 'holier than thou' attitude.

[inked]

O Holier than Thou is not as limited as one might widh to project:

http://www.opinioneditorials.com/fre..._20040805.html

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

O Holier than Thou is not as limited as one might widh to project:

http://www.opinioneditorials.com/fre..._20040805.html

Nazis are liberals? Thank the authors for their confirmation of J.S.Mills

[inked]

the Rainbow Nazis or the german ones?

[inked]

When the THOUGHT POLICE are OUT, is anyone safe ... hmmmmm?

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...TIwNzYzN2NjYzk

[The Gaffer]

For those who can't be arsed reading the link, it seems that a Catholic has been booted off a state transport committee for making an offensive statement about gays.

Key phrase from this linked article:

It is true, of course, that political appointees serve at the pleasure of whoever appoints them.

So good riddance.

[Huorn]

Inked, I read that link. Disgusting. We have become a society that is intolerant of the intolerent. "Thought Police" is an apt discription. We are becoming a culture that is no longer free if you are a conservative Christian that believes certain kinds of conduct is wrong.

[Insidious Rex]

Actually weve become a society where 'conservative christians' get to pretty much dictate to non conservative christians how they are to live. If they can marry. What they can teach their kids. What they can do in their bedroom. That they must pay for expressions of their religious beliefs etc. etc.

You have a sitting president who is devoutly christian and seeks to push the 'conservative christian' agenda at all costs and who was just elected in an election dubbed as a 'moral revolution' by many 'conservative christians' despite the monstrous lapses of morals since then displayed by many conservatives and christians who won those elections. You have several new 'conservative christian' initiates on the bench of the supreme court to further push your agenda. You have both the other two branches of the government dominated by republicans most of whom also favor a 'conservative' agenda. So where exactly is it that 'conservative christians' are being persecuted and not allowed to work their agenda into society exactly?

[inked]

Hey, the courts ruled in NY that the legislature is the place to decide this! And of course we all know that NY courts are the very dens of conservative Christians, right?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/0...-07062006.html

The truth is that the issue does belong in the legislature. The gay agendites just want 'em to hand it all over on the you are special silver platter, and DEAN is not happy! Tough. Georgia ruled the ballot with 78% opposed to same-sex marriage VALID on the same day. So, let the people decide. Power to the people.

Unless there really is a serious pro-Christian conspiracy between NY and GA, but I rather doubt that unless you can produce the Borg who manipulate it!

[Butterbeer]

intolerance?

I say ban Inked from posting bleepin' links without at least writing his own small summary the lazy git!

ban him is say!!!

this is a tolkien site not a link advertising site for certain websites or world views.

kindly feel free to say and argue as you wish - but DO SO! not merely advertise choice articles on a pg13 site to impressionable minors (as i beleive you say)

no offence Inked - but i am interested in your thoughts as a mooter and your thoughts alone - not socio-political advertising!

best, BB

[Insidious Rex]

Yeah let the people use mob rule to discriminate on homosexuals. What fun! So where are all the cries of activist judges exactly? The ironic thing is if they had followed true constitutional logic and the decision had gone the other way the conservatives and gay haters would be up in arms about 'activist judges' and how we need to kill em all so they can force their anti gay agenda on the populace with the support of the majority who are just as close minded and openly discriminatory on the subject.

Its just a matter of time though. Society will become more tolerant and less discriminatory in its thinking and the vote chasing slime who set the laws will follow suit and declare how they supported gay marriage all along. This is exactly what happened with civil rights and interracial marriage and this is what will happen with homosexual marriage. So enjoy your discrimination victories while they last.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by inked

The truth is that the issue does belong in the legislature.

Truth, now.

Thanks for enlightening me. I thought marriage was a sacrament. Who knew?

Meanwhile, in Straightville, Christie Brinkley is getting her fourth divorce. Yeah, it's really US non-straights who are defraying the sanctity of this sacrament. Yep yep.