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
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wow. You write long cogent replies and don't omit key words as I sometimes do.
No They are not equal. Before law, some are criminals and some are respected ministers.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Load more comments...