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 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!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k99MmTzW...
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.
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.
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.
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.
.
=========================
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."
I use a touch screen at home with similar software. It can be fast - except for the phone part.
Load more comments...