Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Not All Discrimination Should Be Eliminated

Not all discrimination should be eliminated. Walter E. William's excellent article, What's discrimination? informs us why.

Williams writes:



"Our lives are spent discriminating for or against one thing or another. In other words, choice requires discrimination.

Imagine how silly, not to mention impossible, life would be if discrimination were outlawed. Imagine engaging in just about any activity where we couldn't discriminate by race, sex, height, weight, age, mannerisms, college selection, looks or ability; it would turn into a carnival."


This is exactly why the battles going on in California over the need for Gov. Arnold to veto the remaining gay indoctrination bills are so crucial. If religious parents are not allowed to discriminate between what they want their children to learn about sexual matters, (particularly the fact that homosexual behavior is called sin in the Bible), and are forced, by law, to succomb completely to the desensitizing, jamming and conversion techniques being used by gay activists, then where will the line ever be drawn? One type of discrimination trumps another type? Who decides which is correct? Thus, we have, as Williams humorously said, "a carnival." I'd personally label the entire homosexual indoctrination agenda as leading to chaos!

I think it is high time for conservative Christians to get there voices out there in opposition to the gay agenda indoctrination issues. It's time for us to do some jamming! It works! Read about how hundreds of family supporters urged Schwarzenegger to halt the sexual indoctrination bills. We learned today that he vetoed AB 1437.

It is our duty to speak up! If we don't, we might end up like this preacher over in Britain who now faces court over the distribution of so-called 'offensive'gay leaflets.

What did the leaflets contain? Bible verses!

The thought police were out again, attempting to squash the free speech rights of this man!



"A spokesman for the police said the campaigner had not behaved in a violent or aggressive manner, but that officers arrested him because 'the leaflet contained Biblical quotes about homosexuality'.

The arrest of Mr Green by the South Wales Minorities Support Unit provoked a furious row. Church of England evangelicals said it represented 'an onslaught on freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression' and Tory MPs called it 'disturbing'.

The decision to prosecute Mr Green is the latest in a series of police initiatives aimed against those who have expressed public disapproval of homosexual behaviour."


My dear Christian brothers and sisters! Do you now see why you can't stand on the sidelines and stay silent on these issues anymore? If you do, you will see your current religious freedoms taken away and locked up by the thought police!

Your freedom of association rights will be gone regarding what you want to teach your children and grandchildren regarding homosexual behavior.

Your freedom of speech rights will be taken away from you, as well as your children and grandchildren in the future because the gay mantra thought police will put you in jail for quoting Bible verses that disapprove of homosexual behavior!

Don't worry if they call you a bigot! I've got the perfect comeback for you! When someone calls you that just say thank you! Then, say, "to you, the term "bigot" means:"

Bible
Is
God's
Only
Truth

Back to Williams' article.

Does anyone reading here remember the cat food commercial that said, "Fancy Feast is the cat food for cats with discriminating tastes?"

Why is it OK for a cat (and it's owner) to discriminate according to it's tastebuds, but it's not OK for human beings who revere and follow after God and His Word to be able to discriminate against what the gay activists want to teach to our own children?

What's wrong with this picture, folks?

Williams hits the nail directly on the head with the ending of his essay:



Common sense suggests that not all discrimination should be eliminated, so the question is, what kind of discrimination should be permitted? I'm guessing the answer depends on one's values for freedom of association, keeping in mind freedom of association implies freedom not to associate.



16 comments:

Christinewjc said...

Forgot to include the following quote. It's just too good to miss...especially the bolded part!

Mr Green's Christian Voice group is regarded by other evangelicals as particularly militant and it has been heavily involved in demonstrations against theatre performances of Jerry Springer the Opera. However, Mr Green has no record of violence or intimidation.

He said yesterday: 'I am astonished that South Wales Police have a special unit dedicated to silencing those who disagree with homosexuality.'

He said that the force boasts of working closely with gay groups and added: 'Maybe they work a bit too closely when an evangelist can be victimised simply because he is giving out leaflets quoting verses from the same Bible police officers swear on in court.'
There was strong support for Mr Green from other Christian groups yesterday.

Boo said...

"Our lives are spent discriminating for or against one thing or another. In other words, choice requires discrimination.

Imagine how silly, not to mention impossible, life would be if discrimination were outlawed. Imagine engaging in just about any activity where we couldn't discriminate by race, sex, height, weight, age, mannerisms, college selection, looks or ability; it would turn into a carnival.""

Of course all the things he refers to are matters of taste, and antidiscrimination laws are matters of, well, law. Do you want the government to establish legal standards for taste?

"This is exactly why the battles going on in California over the need for Gov. Arnold to veto the remaining gay indoctrination bills are so crucial. If religious parents are not allowed to discriminate between what they want their children to learn about sexual matters, (particularly the fact that homosexual behavior is called sin in the Bible), and are forced, by law, to succomb completely to the desensitizing, jamming and conversion techniques being used by gay activists, then where will the line ever be drawn?"

The law is drawn precisely where it ought to be drawn. Parents can teach their children any kind of sexual morality they want, they just can't hijack the school system to promote their moral beliefs.

"I think it is high time for conservative Christians to get there voices out there in opposition to the gay agenda indoctrination issues. It's time for us to do some jamming! If we don't, we might end up like this preacher over in Britain who now faces court over the distribution of so-called 'offensive'gay leaflets."

If you want to move to Britain over antidiscrimination laws, that's your free choice. Of course, if you don't want to have to deal with restrictions on speech in Britain, all you have to do is... not move to Britain.

"Your freedom of association rights will be gone regarding what you want to teach your children and grandchildren regarding homosexual behavior."

That is, if you are a public school system and not a person. But then, if you are a public school system and not a person... HOW ARE YOU READING THIS???!!! If you're a person tho, you can teach your kids whatever they want, as always.

"Your freedom of speech rights will be taken away from you, as well as your children and grandchildren in the future because the gay mantra thought police will put you in jail for quoting Bible verses that disapprove of homosexual behavior!"

There's a provision in the law that forces everyone to move to England!!! It's in there!!! I KNOW FOR MYSELF!!!

"Don't worry if they call you a bigot! I've got the perfect comeback for you! When someone calls you that just say thank you! Then, say, "to you, the term "bigot" means:"

Bible
Is
God's
Only
Truth"

Let us wage war!!! The enemy will cower before our acronyms!!! We will change the definitions of words to achieve victory! The power of postmodernism compels you! The power of postmodernism compels you!

If you get convicted of a criminal offence at trial, when the judge promounces you guilty you can just say thank you! Cause guilty means:

Grown
Up
Iguanas
Like
To
Yodel

"Does anyone reading here remember the cat food commercial that said, "Fancy Feast is the cat food for cats with discriminating tastes?"

Why is it OK for a cat (and it's owner) to discriminate according to it's tastebuds, but it's not OK for human beings who revere and follow after God and His Word to be able to discriminate against what the gay activists want to teach to our own children?"

Um... so you want the government to pass a law decreeing that cats have to like Fancy Feast?

"Common sense suggests that not all discrimination should be eliminated, so the question is, what kind of discrimination should be permitted? I'm guessing the answer depends on one's values for freedom of association, keeping in mind freedom of association implies freedom not to associate."

Which freedom has never applied to public associations such as public schools. Since gay kids have to go to school they have the right to be protected from discrimination and hate speech while there.

Christinewjc said...

Phronk's post with obscenity deleted:

*sigh*, you still don't get it Christine.

Now, the leaflet thing, I'll agree with you there. Go ahead, hand out leaflets. Just don't expect the government to pay for the photocopying costs. That's the crucial difference here.

Also, I wouldn't expect you to complain when I start handing out atheist leaflets. Or Satanist leaflets mocking Christianity. And don't be offended when I rip up your leaflets and tell you to [get lost]. Because this freedom shouldn't just apply to one religion right?

Oh, wait, you've all but admitted that you really just want the government of all the world's countries to enforce Christine's version of Christianity's morality with their laws.

Again, *sigh*

Christinewjc said...

Watch out boo! My influence is rubbing off on you! You're starting to become creative (like me) with the acronyms!

heh heh

Mine's better though.

Yours was lame.

Christinewjc said...

Phronk,

It was totally unnecessary to include an obscenity in your post. Perhaps you are used to doing so on other blogs.

Since this is a Christian blog, I do not allow those words so I reposted your comment with the obscenity deleted.

I don't think that you "get it" Phronk. You have placed blinders on your eyes so that you do not see that what atheists desire to promote in schools and through the government is actually it's own "faith-based indoctrination initiative." In fact, I have found it quite interesting that a court recently ruled that "atheism" is a religion! It's a godless one, (so is satanism), but a religious belief, none-the-less.

I just found an interesting new website that explains the court ruling that atheism is considered a religious belief. It will probably get your blood boiling...

Just thought I'd give you a reason to have another hissy fit! ;-)

Boo said...

"Watch out boo! My influence is rubbing off on you! You're starting to become creative (like me) with the acronyms!

heh heh

Mine's better though.

Yours was lame."

Point being, no matter how creative or lame the acronym, it doesn't change the meaning of the word.

Mark said...

Boo says
The law is drawn precisely where it ought to be drawn. Parents can teach their children any kind of sexual morality they want, they just can't hijack the school system to promote their moral beliefs.

I am sorry, when did teaching children putting a penis in anothers man's anus is wrong, dangerous, and physically damaging become Highjacking morality?

Since gay kids have to go to school they have the right to be protected from discrimination and hate speech while there.

boo, Could you define "hate speech" please? and while your at it, define the "discrimination" that these kids should be protected from. That will help me Judge what your saying a bit better.

Phronk said...

Christine, you are being dishonest again. Perhaps you wish to make me look like some insensitive jerk by deleting my post and replacing it with a "censored" verson. But be honest - I already censored my cursing. The post contained no foul language. I realize that you do not like swearing here (though I fail to see what it has to do with being Christian), and so I intentionally bleeped my own example. Perhaps it still contained too many letters that resemble swearing for you, but I am somewhat offended that you didn't acknowledge what was actually there when you replaced it, but rather implied that I had actually used a curse word.

For those curious, what I actually wrote was (and I'll try to get this across in the most politically correct way possible): "eff asterisk see kay".

It was totally unecessary for you to lie about me using obscenity. Perhaps you are used to dishonesty in your blog, but I would appreciate it if you did not engage in it when attributing words to me. Thanx.

As for your reply: Whatever. You're pretty much ignoring what I'm saying and we'll never agree, so I won't bother responding. I just hope that one day you can take a step back and take an objective look at things rather than being so gosh darn convinced that you're right.

Boo said...

Phronk- you should have called me a dip shit. Then Christine would have left it on. One rule for the "true Christians" another for the fakes/heathens.

Christinewjc said...

The word "shit," although vulgar, isn't nearly as offensive as the word that Phronk wanted to use. And Phronk, leaving out one letter doesn't do the job of deleting its offensiveness.

I see that you insist on making an issue of my so-called "censorship." Well guess what? This is my blog and I have the free will choice to censor foul language if I so choose to do so.

In the past, I have had to delete entire comment posts because the writer used the name of Christ in a very offensive and derogatory manner. To me, taking the name of the Lord in vain is even worse than using repulsive ones like you did. But again, it is my blog and my choice to have rules about such things.

If you want to incorrectly label my deletion of a vile word you used that is very repugnant to me (and probably many other readers here)as "dishonesty," then you are entitled to your opinion. But I highly doubt that many would agree with you.

Juan Buhler said...

I just found an interesting new website that explains the court ruling that atheism is considered a religious belief. It will probably get your blood boiling...

Christine, atheism is not a religious belief any more than the lack of belief in the tooth fairy is a religious belief.

I myself don't like the word "atheist", because it seems derivative. If asked, I say I don't have a religion. I am an atheist as much as an atoothfairyist, an ageocentrist, and an anastrologist.

If you religious types were instead talking about some lord Xenu who sent all these thetans to Earth on DC-9s a few million years ago, we "atheists" would be criticizing *those* beliefs.

In other words, it is you who bring a deity to the discussion, not us.

Please note that I use the broader definition of atheist: someone who doesn't believe there's a god. This is different from saying that I believe there is no god. "Agnostic" might be a better word, but I don't like it either because I feel as if most agnostics have a hope that a god exists. I have no such desire or hope, and prefer to not associate myself with those people.

Boo said...

Hmmm... so telling someone they're excrement is less offensive than using a vulgar word for sex.

I guess I should thank you. As I said, for some reason I just kept nurturing this irrational little voice that aid it was possible to reach you, but I think with that last little straw of hypocrisy you've finally killed it. Ciao.

Christinewjc said...

Boo puts up a hypothetical comment, claiming that "dip shit" is what Phronk, "should have called her." Then, she erroneously claims that my answer to Phronk's complaint about deleting a repugnant word automatically implies, "so telling someone they're excrement is less offensive than using a vulgar word for sex."

I think the real reason that Boo wants to make a hasty exit is so that she doesn't have to answer Mark's questions.

Mark said...

christine,
stay the course! After a day of attacks I found this little Bible verse that made me smile with some reassurance..picturing judgement day


Job 38
"Who is this that questions my wisdom with such ignorant words? 3Brace yourself, because I have some questions for you, and you must answer them.

4"Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you know so much. 5Do you know how its dimensions were determined and who did the surveying? 6What supports its foundations, and who laid its cornerstone 7as the morning stars sang together and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?

8"Who defined the boundaries of the sea as it burst from the womb, 9and as I clothed it with clouds and thick darkness? 10For I locked it behind barred gates, limiting its shores. 11I said, `Thus far and no farther will you come. Here your proud waves must stop!'


and yes, their proud waves will indeed be stopped!

Phronk said...

Oh my dear gosh Christine, how is it that we disagree even on things that are completely unrelated to religion?

First of all, you're still being dishonest. Look, I have no problem with you deleting posts. It's your blog, do whatever the gosh darn heck you want. What is dishonest is that when you explained the deletion, you implied that I had actually used the word, in an attempt to vilify me. You made no mention of the fact that I already engaged in self-censorship in an attempt to be sensitive to your wishes. It may not have been enough for you, but that was clearly an important detail here, and the fact that you left it out is dishonest.

It's the equivalent of me attributing the following quote to you on my blog: "[I] used the name of Christ in a very offensive and derogatory manner. To me, taking the name of the Lord in vain is [a fun and wholesome activity for children].", said Christine in the comments on her blog.

See how I left out some important details there? See how that's dishonest?

Second of all, I think you misread boo's post, and also completely missed her point. For your own sake, it would probably be good to go back and read it (slowly and carefully) before replying. Just some advice.

Third of all, you DID say that "shit" was less offensive than the F-word. It's just a few posts up. Unless someone else posted under your name by accident? Also, by failing to delete Boo's post you implied that CALLING a real person a "dip shit" is less offensive than telling a hypothetical imaginary person to "F off".

Fourth of all, and this is just opinion, but how in the jeepers is "shit" less offensive than the F-word? Both are just vulgar words for everyday things. Furthermore, how is a censored version of the F-word even worse than an uncensored "shit"? I'm genuinely curious about your reasoning here; I hope you can see how bizzarre this would seem to an outside observer.

I'm ready to leave with Boo. Although I enjoy our conversations, I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall, even when it's about relatively inconsequential matters like one's choice of words. I wish you would actually think about what people say, rather than sidestepping it then posting your own opinion. I have tried to do so with you, but if it is not reciprocated, I have no reason to be here.

Gosh dang golly gee willikers!

Phronk said...

.....