Are Christians A Protected Group Under The Bill Of Rights?
The word "Christian" is not mentioned in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution.
The phrase "protected group" came about after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, which is a socialist concept, and
U.S. federal law protects employees from discrimination or harassment based on sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin or religion. It specifically relates to employment law issues.
Although it is NOT required by federal law, employer policies may also protect employees from harassment or discrimination based on marital status or sexual orientation. However, please note the Civil Rights Act of 64 is inconsistent with the Constitution. I am not going to say there was not discrimination, rather, discrimination persists(ed) due to state and local government participation which was(is) unconstitutional. I challenge anyone here to show me in the Bill of Rights where a group is a "protected class."
On this site there will be a natural dissonance when discussing "protected classes." Group think is dangerous. Any concept that pushes ideas that some group has separate rights from the individual members is pushing Force and slavery. But if one has to think that way (illogically) the only group which is acknowledged here is the smallest group: the individual.
So, if one pushes concepts that are part of a group-think, one will be likely challenged. It will be uncomfortable and there will be push back or ignoring if posts focusing on those issues begin to dominate. That goes for issues Christians are concerned with as well as those concerned with LGBT issues. But just as well for the O who is frustrated the site is not more committed to the study of Objectivism. Focusing on our similarities reduces dissonance. Those similarities should be reason and logic foremost. But all of us have to check our premises at times. Discuss
The phrase "protected group" came about after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, which is a socialist concept, and
U.S. federal law protects employees from discrimination or harassment based on sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin or religion. It specifically relates to employment law issues.
Although it is NOT required by federal law, employer policies may also protect employees from harassment or discrimination based on marital status or sexual orientation. However, please note the Civil Rights Act of 64 is inconsistent with the Constitution. I am not going to say there was not discrimination, rather, discrimination persists(ed) due to state and local government participation which was(is) unconstitutional. I challenge anyone here to show me in the Bill of Rights where a group is a "protected class."
On this site there will be a natural dissonance when discussing "protected classes." Group think is dangerous. Any concept that pushes ideas that some group has separate rights from the individual members is pushing Force and slavery. But if one has to think that way (illogically) the only group which is acknowledged here is the smallest group: the individual.
So, if one pushes concepts that are part of a group-think, one will be likely challenged. It will be uncomfortable and there will be push back or ignoring if posts focusing on those issues begin to dominate. That goes for issues Christians are concerned with as well as those concerned with LGBT issues. But just as well for the O who is frustrated the site is not more committed to the study of Objectivism. Focusing on our similarities reduces dissonance. Those similarities should be reason and logic foremost. But all of us have to check our premises at times. Discuss
I spent a day at Jekyll Island learning about how the Federal Reserve was hatched. I knew that JP Morgan, John Rockefeller, and Andrew Carnegie were great heroes of banking and industry in the 1800's, but then formed a cartel to get President McKinley elected, before that backfired with McKinley's assassination and the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt. What I didn't know was the tangled web between them, their relatives, and proteges to perpetually put the US and the rest of the world into permanent debt, and how much they used political cronyism to accomplish it. The Creature from Jekyll Island is a worthwhile read.
In Charleston, SC, we visited Fort Sumter. I knew that the South contended that Lincoln started the War Between the States, but I didn't know as many details as I do now. After South Carolina had seceded, most people know that the Union blockaded Charleston. What most people don't know was that the primary reason for this blockade was the collection of taxes, particularly on cotton. Lincoln refused to acknowledge SC's secession and still expected taxes to be collected. This is a lesson any of us wanting to go Gulch need to remember.
The next day we visited the Yorktown that replaced the Yorktown at The Battle of Midway. The second Yorktown was also important in the victory over Japan, but the Battle of Midway is my favorite battle. By breaking the Japanese code (use of intelligence) and calculated risk, we won the battle that turned the battle in the Pacific. Later in Charleston, we went to the Confederate Museum. I knew that I had a lower view of Lincoln than many Americans, but several historians at that museum taught me several things that made my opinion of Lincoln considerably lower.
Then we spent a couple of days in Yorktown, Jamestown, and Williamsburg, Virginia. The pinning of General Cornwallis in Yorktown on a natural peninsula, combined with the French navy's repulsion of the attempted English naval support into Chesapeake Bay was tactically brilliant. In one day, Williamsburg's actors portray events from 1775-1777. Williamsburg is well worth the trip, even if you don't go to Busch Gardens (which I did as a kid), and is remarkably inexpensive compared to most possible vacations. I especially liked the actor portraying Patrick Henry. Perhaps I was born in the wrong era.
Protected group is an anti-constitutional construct from the civil rights movement.
Used because it is not as inflammatory as the truth would be. The truth being government enforced discrimination.
As anectdotal proof that Christians are not a protected group simply observe how gleefully the media denigrates them. Along with smokers, fat people, and any other group they don't like this week.
Posters here do the same thing, on both sides.
Internet anonymity grants backbones and attitudes many posters would never have face to face. Life in the online world. /shrug
There is plenty of common ground for everyone here within Objectivism.
Unfortunately SOMEONE from one side of the Religous / Atheist divide or the other always starts beating the exclusion drum.
If the whole issue was ignored by both sides here, we could have much better discussions.
It is an issue that humanity has been unable to resolve throughout recorded history....we won't do any better at it.
None of those grants have helped the country nor solved the immediate problems they were allegedly going to solve when granted. Not only did such grants not solve the immediate problem, but in fact in many cases, worsened the situation and in all cases generated worse problems for the country and those of the following generations of 'protected class' . Nor are any of those grants Constitutional under plain reading or original intent. There are no words nor articles in the original Constitution that permit the government such authority or mandate. In fact, just the opposite was the intent - to prevent or limit the government's ability to form such special citizens or control and direct their social interactions.
As a result of the reduction of the influence of the Christian community in the policies of the country, both real and perceived, and out of envy, many in the Christian community believe that they too should be granted such a status. It's not realistic for them to seek such recognition through legislation (though they've tried) or the courts (though again they've tried). So many have switched to re-interpretation of the Constitution in general and the 1st Amendment in particular in an attempt to gain what the Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights specifically to prevent - government-religion partnerships and preferences.
An additional problem, and again one that the founders were aware of, was that there are only two major religions on earth that have as a major component of their beliefs and instructions from their originators, proselytizing and even forced conversion of others into their religion - Christians and Muslims. As a result they both see other religions and non-believers as threats against their beliefs and desires of controlling the society and cultures around themselves. Through the 1st Amendment, the founders intended that not only did the government not prohibit or get involved in the freedom of the citizen to believe and practice his choice of religion as he saw fit, but also to protect the freedom of the citizen from religion.
The intent of the founders and their wisdom is plain, but has been deeply damaged through the designations and pronouncements of 'special citizens' and 'protected classes'. I fear that any gain the Christian religion could receive by attaining such recognition or new understanding of the 1st Amendment would only further damage the already weakened Constitution and further the goals of the progressives and statists.
I thought that a brief review of the pertinent aamdndmen might be helpful, because I don't see anyplace where the first part of this amendment or the second part, or even the third clause have "slid into the could of antiquity" or some other such nonsense.
The government is expressly forbidden to pass ANY law that limits, forbids, or causes my free religious speech however it's uttered, publicized, distributed, or otherwise desiminated.
If a gay couple can sue a baker over a cake, I'd suggest not telling me that I have no right to proclaim my faith, just as you have the same right to proclaim your non-faith.
Likewise there is no limit found there on the religious person that keeps them from using whatever public media that is available to them. For instance a website. Or a website that is owned by another person who does not object to it's use.or a site to which a member may discuss their faith in a open forum - like the gulch.
It should be noted that I have never used my membership in the gulch like that and have asked the moderators I there was any limitation on religious speech. The reply has always been no. After all, we are supposed to all be seeking the same thing, if I include religion in my life, and you choose not too, big deal - unless you take exception to my faith.
Allow me to once more ask the owners if there is any reason a peaceable member here cannot be a Christian?
I read references to Christians having "damaged" the constitution by their use of it's protections from people who would stiffle their speech as undesirable or harmful speech. Perhaps these would feel the same about the Declaration of Independence where Jefferson most firmly found that the least infringement of religious freedom was enough of a transgression to DEMAND the seperation of America from the religious control of England's crown.
I'd love to jump into the other documents our founding fathers wrote, but my phone is a miserable device for reaserch. When I return home, allow me to update these. And please forgive any typos - the phone is also to blame.
IF the owners of the site told you that your religious ideas were fallacious and prohibited you from writing about them, would they be violating your first amendment rights? No. They could change their rules every day, if they wanted. Your option? Log off. The same is true for any member.
First, since this was started as a response to what I said in another thread, allow me to correct my stated position. There IS a stated and special rights given to religious speech. The bill of right opens by giving religious speech a guarantee of freedom from governmental control and freedom in public. The free speech the founders sought was freedom of religious expression, not freedom FROM religious expression.
Now I must get back on the road. I'll check back tonight.
Religion is not a class that is being protected per se, but the freedom of choice itself. Compare the United States to China, where there is no Constitutional right to freedom of speech, assembly, religion, or of the press. The only acceptable religion is socialism and the only acceptable God is the Communist Party. The only acceptable information comes from the government-controlled media, and violators are punished with swift imprisonment, torture, and sometimes death.
You can not protect freedom of thought without being willing to protect thought that may disagree with yours - religious, areligious or otherwise. You either protect it as a whole and tolerate the stuff you don't like or you go down the slippery slope.
Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black had quite a bit to say on the matter:
__________________________________________________________________________
"The establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion."
— Majority opinion Emerson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
"No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or nonattendance."
— Majority opinion Emerson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
"No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion."
— Majority opinion in Emerson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
"Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.' "
— Majority opinion in Emerson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
"The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."
— Majority opinion in Emerson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), last words
"Its first and most immediate purpose rested on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and degrade religion."
— On the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment
"[The First Amendment] requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of believers and non-believers."
— Lead opinion, Everson v. Board of Education, 330 US 1 (1947)
"In efforts to force loyalty to whatever religious group happened to be on top in league with the government of a particular time and place, men and women had been fined, cast in jail, cruelly tortured, and killed. Among the offenses, for which these punishments were inflicted were such things as speaking disrespectfully of the views of ministers of government-established churches, nonattendance at those churches, expressions of nonbelief in their doctrines, and failure to pay taxes and tithes to support them."
— Emerson v. Board of Education
"We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a state nor the federal government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid religions as against nonbelievers..."
— Torcaso v. Watkins, 1961
http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/...
Only if you use "religion" in the most convoluted of definitions. We are constantly bombarded with a cacaphony of ideals, principles, and conclusions of varying merit and substance in a bewildering assortment of areas of life. ALL tell us to believe this, choose that, pick something based on some set of values or moral code. That moral code is religion. You can choose to align yourself with a formal moral code or religion if you choose and associate with those like-minded people. That is ensconced in the First Amendment as your right. But to pretend that you are not being propositioned by conflicting value proposals all the day long is more than a bit disingenuous to yourself.
Is there a God or isn't there? Two conflicting moral propositions. Individualism vs collectivism. Altruism vs Objectivism. Even SIMILAR moral codes differ, just ask the Protestants and Catholics!
There is no such thing as freedom from others' ideas except by virtue of your own choice whether or not to accept or reject such. But the only freedom from "religion" is total freedom from thought.
What utter nonsense. No one is going to be allowed to be able to trap me and shovel crap into my mind under any pretense. That's initiating force against me and I simply won't let you do that.
That forced proselytizing by Christianity and Islam as well as the total hypocrisy of both are the primary reasons I find them to be abhorrent to a healthy mind. The sheer gall to claim some type of Christian morality while totally ignoring the atrocities committed throughout the history of modern day man - the Inquisition, the supposed immigration to the America's of the Quakers to search for religious freedom while having no problem forcing their religion down the throat of others, the kidnapping of indian children and placing them in Christian schools for years before freeing them to return to their tribes in the late 1800's, The total destruction of the Yucatan, Central, and South American Indian culture by the Spanish priests, and even today with protection of pedophiles that rape children placed in trust under the instruction of priests, and on and on.
And yet you want to insist that I don't have freedom from you and your ridiculous and murderous beliefs?
I'm sorry you have been so badly hurt at some point, but rest assured that it was not God who ordered those things done. And no one would be sadder than he that they were done in his name.
As for your freedom to reject god, you most certainly do have that right. I and my brothers in arms have bled and died to make certain you can reject him. But we also did it so that we can have him in our lives.
I'm in the VA hospital for a few days. Today the guy in the bed next to me died. He was a WWII vet, one of the guys who entered one of Hitler's concentration camps and liberated them. His daughter was here and we had a long talk about her Dad, his service and life, which included religion and church. Zen, you can lay all that at my feet, but leave the old soldier alone. He lived his hell.
This concept that I'm not free to choose what input I allow into my mind is just wrong. I am free and will defend that freedom.
How is a person not steeped in the history of the church separate truth from lies? That is the hard decision, but this I can say with certainty, the truth can be found. Only you can decide if the journey is worth the cost - and there is a cost, one I'm paying here and now.
Don't walk past the church. Turn the channel.
Just what are you afraid of, Zen?
------------
Executive: "We must confess that your proposal seems less like science and more like science fiction."
Ellie Arroway: Science fiction. "Well you're right, it's crazy. In fact, it's even worse than that, nuts."
[angrily slams down her briefcase and marches up to the desk]
Ellie Arroway: "You wanna hear something really nutty? I heard of a couple guys who wanna build something called an "airplane," you know you get people to go in, and fly around like birds, it's ridiculous, right? And what about breaking the sound barrier, or rockets to the moon, or atomic energy, or a mission to Mars? Science fiction, right? Look, all I'm asking, is for you to just have the tiniest bit of vision. You know, to just sit back for one minute and look at the big picture. To take a chance on something that just might end up being the most profoundly impactful moment for humanity, for the history... of history. "
- "Contact" by Carl Sagan
------------------
Just what are you afraid of? That you might be exposed to what you deem nonsense? Do you really think that your world would be better if you're never exposed to ideas with which you disagree, with ideas you perhaps cannot understand at first blush? And do you grant this same "courtesy" to everyone else? Do you keep your lip button on the off-chance that you might offend someone else with *your* nonsense? Or are you skeptical of religion because you believe yourself to be omniscient, 1/3 of the way to godhood?
Do you require that everyone standing in line at McDonald's or Wal-mart maintain their silence, on the off chance that you might just possibly be exposed to nonsense?
Do you avoid all the political posts in the gulch, because you *know* you'll be exposed to nonsense by them?
There's a word for your attitude... "intolerance". You don't have to agree with the nonsense, you don't have to even like the nonsense, but you do have to allow it to exist.
My God, I'd have been executed for mass murder long ago if I never learned to live among the masses of nonsense spewed out by moderns on a daily basis. The only acceptable weapon to use in the battle against nonsense, is sense. Not silence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k99MmTzW...
In the United States, the First Amendment protects against forced proselytization by anyone, but especially by the Federal Government.
How you choose to feel about Islam and Christianity are up to you. I am not going to defend the acts of some who claimed to act in the name of God to commit murder, etc. especially when those are specifically forbidden (at least in Christianity). I won't attempt to defend Islam because it is part of their belief system that coercion is justified - a notion I vehemently disagree with. All I would say is this: I would caution against guilt by association. Even more so, I would look at the doctrines and principles of each and compare them to logic and reason before lumping them all into such a extremist opinion.
You are free to stand out on the street corner and scream at the top of your lungs about what you believe, but I don't have to listen to you and that's not freedom from thought - it's freedom from noise.
As to doctrines and principles of the Christian and Islamic religion - I'm quite familiar and I fail to find logic and reason behind any of it unless it's the false logic and reason of manipulation of emotionally driven and ignorant minds for the purposes of gaining power, control, and money.
And I find the assertion and claim of 'protected class' under our Constitution to be at best, a mis-interpretation of the 1st Amendment and at worst a search for power, general acceptance, and influence. Particularly when any study of the last 2,000 years reveals so many atrocities committed and still being committed by those asserting their profound belief and commitment to the principles of that religion.
The rational and logical reasoning of a healthy, self interested mind arrives at a much sounder set of principles and ethics that doesn't have the inconsistencies and conflicts with reality of Christianity or other mystical beliefs.
I would, however, point out that the so-called "freedom" you claim to desire can not be had in communication with others. If you truly do not want to be subjected to the thoughts and opinions of others of any kind, you have few options except to cut yourself off from all other human interaction and civilization. The original assertion was that the Constitution guaranteed a freedom _from_ religion, and this is clearly false. What it guards against is a government imposition of a particular value structure upon the citizens - leaving them free to discuss and promote their ideas amongst themselves.
I would caution with the greatest of warnings, however, against the proposition that free markets can exist without first there existing the freedom of expression of ideas - even ones we find ridiculous or illogical. The road to government suppression and tyranny begins with the suppression of thought and the attempt to undermine free will - the two core requisites for the establishment of any belief system including not only Christianity, but Objectivism as well.
The Constitution means what it says, not what politically motivated guys in black robes say it said centuries later.
Funny, someone asserted in another post that one needs to read the Bible in the original to understand what it means, but you're perfectly okay embracing the interpreted opinions SCOTUS made centuries later.
How am I depriving you of your thoughts? Don't all individuals have the individual right to think and believe what they want?
"I can assure you that it's very important and it involves a algebra you won't understand."
I understand, I disagree. Algebra is logical and based on reason. In no way am I making fun. You may continue to attack me as if I am, however it would not be the case
The way I read the First Amendment, it is not only a guarantee of the right to thought and its expression, including the association with like-minded individuals, but it is also the underpinning of the market as well. One only needs to look at Communist Russia or China to see the effects of government tyranny over religions spilling over into economic markets.
"Religion" is the market of ideas rather than of products. And Objectivism is just as protected as a belief set as Christianity, Islam, Zoro-Astrianism, and the thousands of other belief sets. Each is free in this country to hawk their wares (ideas) and proselytize for converts just as businesses advertise their products and services in the hopes of getting your monetary support. The BEST part about America is that you are free to do business with whom you choose - in either goods and services OR in ideas!
I see an inseparable connection, however, between the free market of ideas and the free market of products and services, and I believe that the Founders did, too, which is why they felt if of paramount importance to protect those rights. I would also posit that though most believed in the concept of God, they did not qualify religion as only those value sets that specifically claim the existence of a Supreme Being. Rather, it was the single catch-all term that was used at the time to encompass the idea of a value set or moral regime - whatever it may be. The term religion as used by the courts is similarly encompassing - rather than exclusionary - and includes Atheists and Objectivists along with everyone else as long as they do not attempt to use actual coercion or force.
Belief sets are NOT protected. Individuals rights are. That is my only complaint. It is a false concept and I simply wanted to point out the group think. On two other posts, start specifically referred to Christians as a "protected class" and then cited the 1st Amendment. Again, I simply point out thinking of the 1st Amendment that way is dangerous, as it opens the door for any group wanting special status. Individuals are free to practice their religion, speak about their religion, etc. But as individuals. I agree completely with your last statements, although Aetheism is not a religion or a practice or a group.
Next door to our property is a Jehovah's Witness "church". It is most certainly a cult, but legally it's protected by the same laws that protect ours.
It's a problem without solution here and now.
I do not understand what this means
Yes there are people who would not hire a worker who was a Christian, but these same people would also deny us access to many other things. Like free speech.
Yeah KH, pretty much. And I've been through a day none would believe, so I'm calling it for tonight.
Have a good night.
Protected group
A protected group is a group of people qualified for special protection by a law, policy, or similar authority. In the United States, the term is frequently used in connection with employees and employment.
U.S. federal law protects employees from discrimination or harassment based on sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin or religion. Many state laws also give certain protected groups special protection against harassment and discrimination, as do many employer policies. Although it is not required by federal law, employer policies may also protect employees from harassment or discrimination based on marital status or sexual orientation.[1]
Where discrimination on the basis of protected group status is concerned, a single act of discrimination may be based on membership in more than one protected group. For example, discrimination based on anti-Semitism may relate to religion, national origin, or both; discrimination against a pregnant woman might be based on sex, marital status, or both.
*******************
Next let's look at the federal EEOC handbook excerpt that. Covers discrimination. Note that while the phrase religion is used, no specific sect is identified. We can assume by this that there is no difference between christian, Jews, siek or any other faith.
*******************************
Religious Discrimination
Religious discrimination involves treating a person (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs. The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs.
Religious discrimination can also involve treating someone differently because that person is married to (or associated with) an individual of a particular religion or because of his or her connection with a religious organization or group.
Religious Discrimination & Work Situations
The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.
Religious Discrimination & Harassment
It is illegal to harass a person because of his or her religion.
Harassment can include, for example, offensive remarks about a person’s religious beliefs or practices. Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that aren’t very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).
The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.
Religious Discrimination and Segregation
Title VII also prohibits workplace or job segregation based on religion (including religious garb and grooming practices), such as assigning an employee to a non-customer contact position because of actual or feared customer preference.
*************************
The EEOC guide also lists protected classes by category. Religious people who are discriminated against are defined by the following.
**********************
Religion The term "religion" includes "all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief." 42 U.S.C. � 2000e-(j). The EEOC Guidelines state that protected religious practices "include moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views." 29 C.F.R. � 1605.1.
Sincerity of religious belief is an issue for the trier of fact. E.E.O.C. v. Ilona of Hungary, Inc., 97 F.3d 204 (7th Cir. 1997). The statute imposes a duty to "reasonably accommodate to an employee's or prospective employee's religious observance or practice" unless doing so would impose an "undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business." 42 U.S.C. � 2000e-(j).
Title VII exempts from coverage a "religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities." 42 U.S.C. � 2000e-1(a). Religious discrimination is also not unlawful under Title VII where religion is a BFOQ for the job in question. 42 U.S.C. � 2000e-2(e)(1).
I can hear the battle cry now, "freedom for all, but special privileges for me!"
All equal.
sharia law upheld by our courts? it's happening...
sharia law upheld by our courts because you are free to express your religious freedom to kill your wife or daughter because she shamed you?
The First Amendment guarantees the right of the people to be free from the thought control or forced association of the government and specifies further that associations are to be on an at-will basis. I think we can all agree that the use of force to coerce thought runs not only contrary to the Constitution, but to natural law as well. Since Islam specifically authorizes the use of force to coerce thought, I think we can all agree that such a principle specifically violates the freedoms we enjoy. If one chooses to believe in that tenet of Islam, one chooses to disassociate him/herself with natural law and the protections of the Constitution, placing him/herself at odds with society - rather than part of it. To me, that is all the difference I need.
Either this will be adult and debated with reason or forget the whole exercise - including your opening proposition that it's about Christians.
Let me know if you want a debate with reason or a pig sticking, because I won't be your pig.
Also, keep in mind that this is Not a "public forum"; it is a privately owned website about the ideas of Ayn Rand. If someone challenges the rationality of my thoughts on this site, it is not pulling the 'discrimination' card.
As for the "public forum" thing, my reference was to the public expression of religion that are common in America.
From the crèche in a public square to the crosses or other religious symbols in war memorials religious people are feeling our right to publicly express our faith are under assault. To the extent that all citizens have a right to express how they feel on any subject, we shall continue to express our religious stance.
No one here can say that I take every opportunity to make a religious statement of some kind. In fact, I often avoid conversations heading that way. But I do not believe there is any limitation placed on the expression of such, just as any other discussion can be followed here. And as you might note, I am a paying member, a "Producer" which also has certain other benefits - not as far as subjects go - that's not what I mean at all. Each member here agrees to abide by the "User Agreement" which makes clear what discussions are inappropriate and how such are ordered.
It has been a while since I read it but I'm pretty sure religion is not one of the targeted items how do I know that? Because I'm here - I would have never joined if speech on any subject was banned.
Perhaps you have read the FAQ for the forum, but if not, allow me to copy the description of the Gulch for you;
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
What is "Galt's Gulch?"
Galt's Gulch is the Official Atlas Shrugged Movie "Collective." Galt's Gulch is a community of like-minded individuals who come together regularly to share interesting content and ideas with each other and debate about politics, economics, philosophy and more. If you've read and have been influenced by Atlas Shrugged, this is the site you've been waiting for. This, is Galt's Gulch Online.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
You might see that there is no such reference to the "ideas of Ayn Rand", although they certainly are encompassed by the FAQ, the gulch is NOT limited to them. We are allowed, even encouraged to "come together regularly to share interesting content and ideas with each other and debate about politics, economics, philosophy and more." Certainly religion can find a place among the worlds philosophies, even with those who see no value in it. Perhaps you might be challenged to study a bit about it and KNOW why you reject it.
=========================
OUR PURPOSE:
1. We have movies to promote - Atlas Shrugged Part II is now out on DVD and Blu-ray and, Part III will soon be in theaters. We need to get the word out and we want to employ your help.
2. We have ideas to spread - We're passionate about Ayn Rand's ideas and we hope to assist in their progress by engaging in some inspired conversation.
3. We have connections to facilitate - Have you ever wished you lived in the Gulch and could conduct value-for-value exchanges exclusively with like minded individuals? Us too. Let's.
========================
Also, faith is the common origin of the fundamental principles of religions. So, even though those religions are practiced in very different ways, because they are _based_ on faith, they are philosophically related. They are just different sides of the same box.
...and so, we engage in "inspired conversation."
The equality make justice blind. We treat all religions the same. That means we treat crimes the same way. Being in a violent religion is not an excuse for criminal behavior. Someone's criminal behavior is not an excuse for persecuting a religion. The religions are protected in that members won't loose any rights for joining a religion. They don't gain any right to commit crimes either.
No They are not equal. Before law, some are criminals and some are respected ministers.
I said we judge individuals' actions "blind" to what religious groups they're members of. It's like you have already decided what I'll say, even if it's opposite from what I plainly said. Or maybe you only speak condescending jerk talk and you have to translate civil English as you go.
As has been mentioned some religions practice a doctrine that requires their members to be lead by some person and That's a group, I guess.
Others such as mine emphasize individual relationships that place the members of our "group" our church as a place not unlike the gulch where we study, learn and help one another to grow. In our case we also have a k-12 school that we operate. As we read scripture the smallest unit is a believer and god. We join together in order to do things, like the school, that one person cannot do alone, but it's not a requirement to join with another person for anything. You can become a Christian at home and never speak to another believer and still remain in that relationship with God.
The difference between a Catholic church and ours is stark. We do have a pastor who functions as more of a manager. Whereas a Catholic priest is the all powerful leader and very little education apart from their church rites is offered. They most certainly place all their efforts on the "group", in ways that I find repulsive.
I don't want to get into differences in doctrine, but allow me to say that there is really no comparison. We can get a feeling where some folks come in for a visit and do the catholic cross thing.
.
As for any groups you find, I don't share whatever they find. So if I have any first amendment rights, they are shared by all Americans. If that's the group you mean. The 1st A says religion, it also says we have a free press, and since I do know a lot of reporters, I'm pretty certain that every one of them believe that they are individually covered by it as they work.
Religious people are shielded from intervention from the government by the assurances given in the 1st A, and religious people who gather into groups are protected from it and to some extent, by it.
I've stated opposition to Catholic practices, which they certainly do practice as a group, but even so, the guarantees of the 1st A apply to them. Quote; "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Catholics worship (exercise their faith) in a group. It seems to me that it applies to them.
Please look at my reply to concious1978 above.
Every comment has been most pointedly directed at me. If there's a natural dissonance problem, it's not from me.
I only mentioned I was here to account for my inadequacy with spelling, editing or research. It's a darn hard thing to do on a phone when my hands are mostly paralyzed as they are now. I'm typing with a pen squeezed into a hand holder. ugly but it works, sorta.
This is a very important matter to me and every letter I punch reminds me how important.
Then there are the many deep problems of altruism and "turning the other cheek" which Rand quite eloquently described. I don't think Christianity is very compatible with real self-esteem.
Take your offered "turning the other cheek". I suspect you believe that it refers to allowing one individual who has harmed another to harm him again - which is just totally taken out of context - because you don't understand the culture.
The real understanding of the phrase Christ used once involved how the Jews practiced business between themselves - not outsiders. When a person proves themselves untrustworthy, the Jewish tradition was to turn away from that person and not to do business with them again - they would "turn the other cheek".
We would said, "I'll never do that again".
Next this is under the old testament law and tradition which does not apply to Christians today. Another error many make who make no effort to understand the Bible, just dismissing it as if 4000 years of human experience had no value.
Wow. You write long cogent replies and don't omit key words as I sometimes do.
I use a touch screen at home with similar software. It can be fast - except for the phone part.
Respect comes from an acknowledgement that each individual has the right and capability to control their own future. You may not agree, but those with ultimate respect will warn others of the consequences of poor decisions out of concern for the other and will seek to help that individual "see the light" as it were - either before or after they do something resulting in negative consequences.
I would also point out that if one wants to use rationality as the sole foundation for a logical debate, ad hominem attacks like "darn fool thing" derived from value judgments are wholly inconsistent with the logical constraints you claim to follow. Caution and care for one's words are suggested if one is to avoid exposing one's self as a hypocrite.
You do not have to agree with another's position to show it respect. You do so by conducting a reasonable and respectful debate free from logical fallacy. If the primary focus is on truth, there will be no need for name-calling, derision, or contempt of any kind.
I would also question why the study of the meaning of life is "a contemptible way to use one's mind". Answering the questions of "Who am I?", "Why am I here?" and "Where am I going?" are the foundational principles of any philosophy. It is the mission statement for the individual. I would actually contend that there is absolutely nothing more important than understanding these three questions, as everything else you do in life is predicated on the answers you have (or don't have) for them.
Saying "darn fool thing" did not attack or name or even allude to any person. So it cannot be ad hominem in the slightest. The point of the remark is that freedom includes the freedom to believe whatever you want and run your life however you see fit. Surely it is not too difficult to see that was the intent in context.
Rationality il required as cardinal virtue to live your life to the fullest with the best possible outcomes. It is central to objectivism.
A fool is defined as;
1. a silly or stupid person; a person who lacks judgment or sense.
2. a professional jester, formerly kept by a person of royal or noble rank for amusement: the court fool.
3. a person who has been tricked or deceived into appearing or acting silly or stupid: to make a fool of someone.
4. a weak-minded or idiotic person.
Since none of those selections are pertinent to me, I'll assume you simply misspoke and ignore it. Just as I do with their claims of the superiority of atheism. I would never think them foolish or unlearned because they, you choose a different path. They are all adults who choose their way in this most personal of all decisions.
Their path, your path and mine are different and after my first profession of God in 1972 I've not seen anything to make me change my mind.
I went through a period in my life where people who were outspoken about their faith down-right pissed me off. What's the point? Leave it alone, I would silently scream inside my head. But then I came to the realization that religion IS a drug, more like a medication actually. I myself suffered for most of my life with a seemingly mysterious disorder until I found the right medication. I see religion in people no different probably because if I see someone showing symptoms that were similar to mine I understand their suffering. I see that they need help and I tend to "preach" to them the benefits of the solution that I found to my problem. And yes, a lot of people don’t want to hear it because they are devout anti-medicationists. Scripture and dogma and whatnot can simply make certain people feel better about themselves and the world they live in. If a member of the pious set reaches out to someone and tries to share their beliefs I now feel as though they do so because they see pain, suffering or confusion in another person and they are, for the most part, simply trying to share with you the “medication” that helped heal them. I have no room for religion in my life (probably thanks to being raised Catholic) but when I drew the parallel between myself interposing “I know what you need to make you feel better” and a Christian, Jew or Hindu doing the same, I no longer respond with contempt or ire but rather with understanding and respect. I no longer find it condescending but see it as a gesture. And whether or not this reply has any relevance to the original post whatsoever I do not care. Im really just posting replies so I can earn enough points to vote things up or down. This should bring me up to 7, only 93 to go!!!
Take a look at the signatories on the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. Weren’t they men sort of made up of one group? I think in some respects they considered their one group completely covered and protected without having to state it should be so.
If I open my front door, I can point to a neighbor’s home where someone lives who is originally from Peru. The neighbor across from his house is gay. The family to the right of him is african-american. The African-American family has a black family living next door to them, but they are from Ethiopia. I can find people who work or live in my community who can’t speak a lick of English.
It’s normal to seek out those who are similar to you. It’s a biological norm. It is in our DNA: groups stand a better change at surviving. In some ways in a country as diverse as ours we almost have to create laws to protect certain groups in order to better serve the individuals within those groups.
This site was create for Objectivists, fans of Ayn Rand and her writings, and the movie franchise.
I’ve watched interviews of Ayn Rand, interesting enough she never brought up religion,(not that I have ever seen), she just answer the questions that were ask of her concerning faith. In her day and age, saying you didn’t believe in God was considered career-killing. It was very brave of her. I didn’t tell people that I didn’t believe in God when I was a kid, or as a teenager, or in some situations--as a young adult for fear of rejection. People looked at you like there was something wrong with you. For too many decades, atheists and agnostics kept quiet because they feared they would be socially ostracized. I can understand where a christian today feels persecuted because there has been some ‘blow-back’ as individuals throw off the mantel of fear. Christians no longer can control the dialogue and are often shut-down or shut-out now. Individuals now feel free to express their doubts about an existence of a God. I don’t want to ever be preached to again.
HOWEVER-- I have never started a thread here discussing my lack of faith. I never started a thread in here discussing how my gay niece was born that way and I’m so happy she has the right to marry in her state now.
This website is really not the place.
As I said before, I don't care what you believe, but using a person's faith to belittle them is not using 'reason', it's being a bully and it is the reason that there are protected classes. Because some confuse a feeling of superiority for 'reason'.
I'm out. A long day coming in my real life.
_____________________________________
"My own definition of Socialism, as a policy which aims at constructing a society in which the means of production are socialized, is in agreement with all that scientists have written on the subject. I submit that one must be historically blind not to see that this AND NOTHING ELSE is what Socialism has stood for the past hundred years, and that it is in this sense that the great socialist movement was and is socialistic."
— Ludwig von Mises, "Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis," Preface to the Second German Edition, pages 9-10, or page 20 (Page numbers vary depending on the edition.) [Emphasis added]
The problem arises with those people who decide that they won't have a employee based on that persons religion or lack of religion, color of their skin, or sex or membership in a social club or group (and other things we don't need to list).
As much as I would WANT every employee in every business to be selected based on their merit, the reality that we don't live in a perfect objectivist world requires certain regulations.
They have never had any effect on my hiring practices as I've hired people from every group including, I suspected, a homosexual - I never asked and don't care. But I knew employers who would ONLY hire Hispanics and employers who would only hire whites and I avoided them since I always felt that if they compromised in one area, they would compromise their work in another area.
And they have no effect on my interactions with individuals since I take people as I find them. Associate with those I feel are of like value and shun those who aren't.
That group or class is collectively labeled, "Citizens".
Anything to hasten the destruction of the republic...
/sarc
You are given a choice: you must choose to support Christianity, or you must choose to be a Moslem. Your only third alternative is a horrible death I won't describe because I know you can't handle it when I get... descriptive :) Just take my word that it would be long, painful and humiliating.
Which do you choose? To support Christianity, or to become Moslem? Or death?