Just a little below this writing is another blog entry called “Who is being DISCRIMINATED Against?” Actually, truth be told this entire page of blog entries has something to say about discrimination.
This entire notion of ‘discrimination’ has gotten so out-of-control I often wonder what’s worse: matters of discrimination or matters of political correctness. Seriously folks just as we have asked,
“What is correct, politically in our country?” I think it is equally fair to ask “What is discriminatory in our country?”
When you think about discrimination what actually comes to your mind? As for me I think about prejudice, inequity, bigotry, and the inability of people and organizations not using good judgment or discernment when it comes to making a justifiably ‘right’ decision that will affect a person’s civil rights.
We need to be careful when it comes to espousing a person’s ‘civil rights’ insofar as finding two people who can define what ‘civil rights’ are can be staggeringly different. So just from the tip of the iceberg let’s say there is a considerable difference between a person’s inalienable rights, natural rights, and civil rights.
In addition, I have written on this same page questions such as: When is it okay to mangle a person’s perceived civil rights at the expense of another individual’s natural rights? Here’s the kicker for that argument: What do we say when an atheist says their ‘inalienable rights’ have been abused when in reality they mean natural rights, because ‘inalienable rights’ carry the connotation of ‘God given’ and atheist’s don’t believe in God.
Not to be misunderstood, I believe there was a time in America’s history when there was too much discrimination; actually, more than what was humanly acceptable. Moreover, there needed to be some governance regarding law and order with regards to discrimination.
Yet how many times do we need to be told that “too much of a good thing can get real bad”? When we have tribunals in New Mexico finding Christian photographers guilty of discrimination when their very faith-the same one this nation was founded on-does not find it acceptable to photograph a same-sex wedding ceremony?
In America’s history there has been the need for Title VII (all the anti-discrimination rhetoric) and Title IX (involves equality in sports being played and scholarships in college athletics).
So I am asking you very politely to read this over at ‘OneMom’ blog; and then this at the comment section from Dominique.
Let’s be fair and balanced: Read here from the sponsor, Scholastic Inc. and here is another from Subway Restaurants. Click here to read.
Expect more to come…
Immigration
Politics
Religion
Education
May 29, 2008 at 2:22 pm |
“when their very faith-the same one this nation was founded on-”
From the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President and Founding Father John Adams on June 10, 1797:
“Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;”
May 29, 2008 at 6:56 pm |
Morse,
Thanks very much for stopping by! And I enjoyed the comment. Yet, I think some issues need to be addressed, very kindly and from one professional to another. I noticed on your address there existed an ‘edu’ extension which normally means an ‘educational environment’ albeit student, professor, or anyone using the equipment.
Here’s my perspective: Here is an essay on discrimination and how—like most things in our country—a good intent gets abused in a hurry. I took painstaking measures to state that there are 10 different articles on that page and somewhere on most all of them there is mention of abusing discrimination.
I find it rather extraordinary those 12 words I wrote in a section that addresses a professional photographer being sued for exercising her 1st Amendment rights, freedom of religion, which goes beyond the abuses I’d mentioned elsewhere. It is unconscionable to get picky with this kind of abuse.
Furthermore, I, as well as any real scholar, knows about and FULLY understand the language of the Treaty of Tripoli. I have never found it appropriate to only extract information that one needs rather than giving the readers the fullness of Article 11 to read. It’s just bad form.
I found this from the Wandering Heretic a fabulous read (for further insight).
http://www.wanderingheretic.com/2008/05/22/rights-against-freedom/