homosexuality and where it stands morally

[zamboe]

Man am I ever glad that sort of right-winged faschist racism isn't committed by my government.

Well, do you know Canada's imnigration policies ?, It's full of negative discrimination, in fact it's the only case in the world that applies such a way. Since the next year it will similar in Germany too, as my german friend told me.

I can put some text and links, proving that.

This is nothing against you, just my opinion of Canada's discrimination policies.

Well this is not about homosexuality, maybe I am going off topic, but I considered pertinent to write this, as an example at least.

[SurlyPIG]

The only discrepency in how quickly and how easily people can become Canadian citizens is if they try for refugee status. If they recieve refugee status, they're sitting pretty, and in fact they can sponsor relatives to come to Canada. IMO it's social protection gone ary, but it's nowhere near as bad as completely forbidding a specific race or nationality. If you have a link that proves otherwise, it'd be the first I've heard of it, so please post it.

[Acriku]

ACE I know what the government did with the Japanese, but desparate times call for desparate measures. The government had to do it, just like it has to do fingerprinting with Middle Easterns. People who can't accept the idea of being fingerprinted have been deprived of their humanity and are lackened to the point of a stocky selfish existence.

[zamboe]

What I am talking about is the non-sponsored way with the Points system, to make it short : "if you get more than 60 points you qualify for the next step, if you don't then you lost your 600 US$ dollars of application".

Do you know what I am talking about ?

[SurlyPIG]

The point system was eliminated in the '80s under the conservative Mulroney government.

Besides, I don't think it was as bad as you make it out to be. My mom became a Canadian under that system, and she's always thought it was a better idea than the system we have now. It's original intent was to attempt to "Canadianize" incoming immigrants, familiarizing them with the culture and making sure that the traditional meaning of being Canadian wasn't lost, though I must admit it got a bit lost along the way...

Many criticize that we've gone too far in the other direction. If you achieve refugee status, you can have dozens of relatives brought in to live. Neither you nor your family necessarily has to learn english, work, learn the culture or integrate themselves into society.

[zamboe]

The point system was eliminated in the '80s under the conservative Mulroney government.

Besides, I don't think it was as bad as you make it out to be. My mom became a Canadian under that system, and she's always thought it was a better idea than the system we have now. It's original intent was to attempt to "Canadianize" incoming immigrants, familiarizing them with the culture and making sure that the traditional meaning of being Canadian wasn't lost, though I must admit it got a bit lost along the way...

Many criticize that we've gone too far in the other direction. If you achieve refugee status, you can have dozens of relatives brought in to live. Neither you nor your family necessarily has to learn english, work, learn the culture or integrate themselves into society.

Update for you : The point system is still active and keeps with the discrimination, maybe years ago it was differente, what I can tell you is that now is just an example of what other countries must not do.

[emprworm]

For the last time I clearly defined my system of logic and how I arrive at any judgement. If you can't see that, well, it says something about you.

I can see your system of logic and how you arrive at your own judments.

For the last time, I clearly defined why a single individual's personal system of logic and personal arrivals at his/her judgment should not be imposed upon everyone else. If you can't see that, well, it says something about you.

Nope. I become the protector of the rights of the minorities you are discriminating against.

anyone who needs you to protect them from someone's opinion is not only weakminded, but also speaks volumes about your will to oppress. People need protection from crime, not opinion. And it is not a governments place to protect weak minded. whining, babbling cry-baby people from a minority opinion that really doesn't mean squat anyway.

Arabic travellers have committed no crime at all, and there is no justification, let alone reasonable justification, for printing and photographing all of them.

if they are not US citizens, then fingerprint them! Not only that take photo's- everything. In fact, I would take it one step further. I'd kick em out. They should be GRATEFUL for our hospitality letting them stay here even though they are not citizens. If you are telling me that the US is fingerprinting all Arab US citizens, I need proof of this. I probably would not support it if it were so.

Where do you draw the line, emprworm? Do you draw the line at their imprisonment? Their deportation? Their execution? You tell me when it stops becoming a security step and when it starts becoming a crime against humanity.

I draw the line at opinion and action. Having the opinion that a homosexual is a homosapic deviation is a very easy, very clear, very thick, very large, bolded 100 point font black line on white paper from doing violence to stated homosexual.

Easy line. Easy deliniation. Its harder for me to draw out my name then it is to draw that line. Id call it more of a megalithic, fortified reinforced steel and concrete wall than a line. And like the great wall of China, you can see it from space it is so clear.

[zamboe]

if they are not US citizens, then fingerprint them! Not only that take photo's- everything. In fact, I would take it one step further. I'd kick em out. They should be GRATEFUL for our hospitality letting them stay here even though they are not citizens. If you are telling me that the US is fingerprinting all Arab US citizens, I need proof of this. I probably would not support it if it were so.

Every time I read, listen or talk with some US-citizent that thinks that way, I try to remember the words of Bobby Fisher about his own home country (US), really refreshing, such a diversity.

[emprworm]

zamboe, what you must understand is that anyone can become a citizen of the US. We have legal means of which people can come here. We truly are the most diverse nation on earth. Yet millions of people (i think the number is around 3 million) are living here ILLEGALLY. THey snuck in or forged their way in. These are the ones that need to get kicked out.

And as for Arabs from Saudi Arabia, considering the sheer amount of fraud that took place in the US-Arab embassy in Saudi Arabia - granting thousands of visas that were fraudulent, I support that all current Saudi arabs in the US on Visa's be immediately extricated to Saudi Arabia. If they want to come back, they need to REAPPLY.

You see, anyone that comes to the US with a VISA is supposed to have fingerprints and photo taken. I guess ACE doesn't realize that.

thousands of Saudi visas issued in saudi arabia are fraudulent. there is no way the US can know who is here validly and which VISA's are accurate. therefore instead of kicking them out (like I think we should), the US is taking the more tolerant and forgiving approach- just fingerprint them and photo them as required by all foreign visitors- this is standard for most countries on earth.

[zamboe]

zamboe, what you must understand is that anyone can become a citizen of the US. We have legal means of which people can come here. We truly are the most diverse nation on earth. Yet millions of people (i think the number is around 3 million) are living here ILLEGALLY. THey snuck in or forged their way in. These are the ones that need to get kicked out.

Illegals should be returned to their countries, as a rule. Agree on that.

My point is, the ways that are choosen to acomplish that, different in every country, on that side is where I see a diversity in the opinion in the US on that matter, correct me if I am wrong that you would like some hard measures to do that.

What I see is a double standart, for example in the wine business in Central and Southern California, hundreds of ilegal mexicans are camping outside the field of grapes, the police, the inmigration service KNOW IT, and they do nothing, most of them even don't have a temporal visa, nothing.

[SurlyPIG]

Update for you : The point system is still active and keeps with the discrimination, maybe years ago it was differente, what I can tell you is that now is just an example of what other countries must not do.

Uhh I'm 99% certain that the point system was completely eliminated. I think the criteria to become a citizen is to pass a test in english or french, and have lived in Canada for at least three years...There's other legalities, of course, but that's the core of it. I'll double-check but I'm almost certain that the old point system was completely ousted.

Now the USA's system is just wierd. Emprworm, the "illegal" immigrants you're referring to are actually semi-legal. By law, if you can get a certain distance inside the country, (I think 100 yards) you're allowed to live there. This logic is totally warped to me. That's like saying that you can knock over a 7-11 and if you get at least 100 yards away you get off scat-free...

I can see your system of logic and how you arrive at your own judments.

For the last time, I clearly defined why a single individual's personal system of logic and personal arrivals at his/her judgment should not be imposed upon everyone else. If you can't see that, well, it says something about you.

Law uses it's own logic - are you against that? I believe this is what the law should be, you don't. Lets leave it at that.

anyone who needs you to protect them from someone's opinion is not only weakminded, but also speaks volumes about your will to oppress. People need protection from crime, not opinion.

I couldn't agree more. My idea would make discrimination a crime. Obviously it would have to be defined and outlined much more specifically than I have said here, but it's the basics.

if they are not US citizens, then fingerprint them! Not only that take photo's- everything. In fact, I would take it one step further. I'd kick em out. They should be GRATEFUL for our hospitality letting them stay here even though they are not citizens.

Just like how the Japanese should have been grateful despite the internment camps you in which your government imprisoned them? It isn't so much the fact that they're over-ID-ing incoming people, it's the fact that they're doing it exclusively to people from these five countries, no matter what their citizenship. As a white Canadian born in Canada, I can easily cross the border into your country to visit or to live without being fingerprinted or photographed. A Saudi Arabian Arab, for example, cannot.

Where do you draw the line, emprworm? Do you draw the line at their imprisonment? Their deportation? Their execution? You tell me when it stops becoming a security step and when it starts becoming a crime against humanity.

I draw the line at opinion and action. Having the opinion that a homosexual is a homosapic deviation is a very easy, very clear, very thick, very large, bolded 100 point font black line on white paper from doing violence to stated homosexual.

I double-quoted this because I wanted to show you I was actually talking about the discrimination your government is calling a security step. Your media probably didn't make a big deal of it but a few weeks ago your nation passed a bill that made it mandatory to fingerprint and photograph (as in police records) people BORN IN (not necessarily citizens of) Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and another country I don't remember maybe Libya or Yemen. They called it a "high terrorist risk". You have said you support this. I'm asking you, where do you draw the line between security measures and bigotry? I won't even get into the fact your nation imprisons people from Hati while their refugee status is pending.

[zamboe]

Uhh I'm 99% certain that the point system was completely eliminated. I think the criteria to become a citizen is to pass a test in english or french, and have lived in Canada for at least three years...There's other legalities, of course, but that's the core of it. I'll double-check but I'm almost certain that the old point system was completely ousted.

I just checked in the Canada's embassy website, it's still valid and Canada's gov stills practicing.

[VigilVirus]

zamboe, what you must understand is that anyone can become a citizen of the US. We have legal means of which people can come here. We truly are the most diverse nation on earth. Yet millions of people (i think the number is around 3 million) are living here ILLEGALLY. THey snuck in or forged their way in. These are the ones that need to get kicked out.

Oh, and who is going to judge which ones need to be kicked out? And anyway, do you really think that US would be able to find all those millions of illegal aliens and deport them? Lol, you speak of that so lightly while actually it is quite impossible with the laws of the Constitution limiting the power of governmental intervention.

[emprworm]

Emprworm, the "illegal" immigrants you're referring to are actually semi-legal. By law, if you can get a certain distance inside the country, (I think 100 yards) you're allowed to live there.

where did you hear this? I know of no such law. illegal immigrants remain illegal and they all should be extridited in my opinion, unless it can be shown that they are fleeing persecution (we already have a process for this) or they are here with proper documentation (which includes fingerprints and photos).

the days are gone where anyone could just come here at will and be a citizen.

Law uses it's own logic - are you against that? I believe this is what the law should be, you don't. Lets leave it at that.

well i'll leave it at that. you believe the law should impose your moral convictions, i believe the law must not impose one mans morality. so we agree to disagree then.

I couldn't agree more. My idea would make discrimination a crime.

many forms of discrimination are already a crime. silencing a an opinion that does not advocate a specific crime (such as homosexuals are gross or Christians are idiots) and making it criminal is abhorrent and immensely intolerant. Those opinions are valid and if someone wants to pay enough money for the advertising, a newpaper should not be compelled to refuse them. (of course a newspaper can refuse them by their own business choice, but should not be compelled by an oppressive government to refuse them)

people BORN IN (not necessarily citizens of) Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and another country I don't remember maybe Libya or Yemen

absolutely! all of these people should be ID'd. They were not born here, this means they are naturalized citizens. I think it is reasonable that most countries would require some sort of record for its naturalized citizens. If I move to Sweden and wish to become a citizen and they want a record of who I am, is that too much to ask? NO. If I start whining about "how DARE you want my photo! I DEMAND to be allowed to live here even though I was born elsewhere." then such attitudes as far as I am concerned are whiny and cry-babyish. ALL people born outside the US need to be ID'd.

I am born IN the US and I am fully ID'd. I have something called a 'social security number'. the US knows who I am.

Just because you were born in Yemen doesn't grant you the right to be an anonymous citizen. Even people born IN THE US are not anonymous.

Photo and fingerprint.....ALL OF THEM!!!

[SurlyPIG]

Zamboe, I'll have a look myself, but can you post a link? Or is it in Spanish...

where did you hear this? I know of no such law. illegal immigrants remain illegal and they all should be extridited in my opinion, unless it can be shown that they are fleeing persecution (we already have a process for this) or they are here with proper documentation (which includes fingerprints and photos).

I'm not certain of the specifics of the law, but my dad's cousin, (a doctor in California) is a member of a lobby group that's trying to change it. I'm not sure of all the specifics, but if someone is caught crossing the border illegally, they can be sent back immediately without court interferance. If they make it a certain distance, it becomes a legal matter and it makes it very difficult to deport them.

the days are gone where anyone could just come here at will and be a citizen.

well i'll leave it at that. you believe the law should impose your moral convictions, i believe the law must not impose one mans morality. so we agree to disagree then.

Its not an issue of morality as it is a matter of social order and justice...

many forms of discrimination are already a crime.

I think they should all be a crime (based on the definition I provided, that is). I don't see anything much better or worse between different kinds of discrimination, just like how I don't see a lot of difference between this arab control and the Japanese internment. In other words, I do not discriminate discriminations. ;)

ALL people born outside the US need to be ID'd.

That would be fine if it was that simple. But it's not. They only enforce on people from those five countries that I listed. And not just necessarily for permanent immigration, but also just for visiting.

[zamboe]

Zamboe, I'll have a look myself, but can you post a link? Or is it in Spanish...

I had to look for the english version,

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/skilled/qual-5.html

[emprworm]

In other words, I do not discriminate discriminations.

oh but you do. Of course, you dont see it that way. No one who discriminates calls themselves a discriminator. Usually a discriminating person has a justification. They have a 'special' definition for words, or 'spcecial' circumstances. That is how they justify it. IN your case, you 'accept' the discimination of an atheist club that refuses a preacher to speak at one of their conferences. YOu 'accept' this form of discrimination by coming up with some special concept called "acceptable exclusion"

So for Ace, there is 2 kinds of exlucsion:

Acceptable Exclusion

Unacceptable Exclusion

Discrimination ONLY occurs with the latter, according to Ace. This is how Ace discriminates in his discriminations, yet he is not aware of it becuase he has a nice little glass house he built up in his mind that has all these little justification avenues that allows him to discriminate and not feel guilty

THis is exactly how EVERYONE discriminates. They build that glass house and then say things like "I dont discriminate"

ALL EXCLUSION is discrimination

ALL OF IT

PERIOD

Those atheists that forbid that fundamentalist preacher from speaking at one of their conferences have a " a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion " (from Websters dictionary on the definition of Prejudice} of that fundamentalist preacher. They already have an opinion of him without knowing him, thus forbid him to speak. PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATORY

yet acceptable to you on grounds of some nice little 'justification-term' you constructed called "exclusion" . Doesn't work with me, Ace.

Its ALL discrimination. ALL OF IT- EVERY SINGLE OUNCE

And even though it is fully 100% discrimination, I really dont care because I'm not an intolerant oppressor that demands I be let into every single private club on the face of the earth and then try to criminalize non-violent remarks just because, in my frailness, I find them "offensive."

Atheists should have a right to find a community with each other, get together and share experiences, values, beliefs, etc and know that they are among other ATHEISTS. Not HIndus or Theist Homosexuals. Not Buddhists, or Christians, or Eastern Taoists- and definately not some white oppressor who doesn't like the fact that his new age homosexual buddy is forbidden to come (and the homosexual is whining about it saying "oooh those hatemongers! oooh they denied me. huu---waaaah! huuh-waaahhh! now, wheres that big hairy butt?"). lol

These atheists can enjoy listening to other atheist speakers at their conference talking about things like the "disease of religion", the irrational stupidity of Christians, etc. They can joke and laugh at the expense of Christians during their conference. Talk about all the stupid theist political leaders running their country, etc. Even make T-shirts mocking God and Jesus and sell them for profit.

THIS IS AN EXTREMELY DISCRIMINATORY EVENT.

AND YOU KNOW WHAT ACE? BIG #$#$$#$# DEAL. Like I really give a flying (beep) about it. Thats their right and their path they choose in life, let them have their little get togethers. whoopty doo.

and the homosexual community can get together and have little gay parades. And if they want to forbid a fundamentalist christian evangelist like Billy Graham from speaking at their little gay parade where they march wearing leather straps and pink teddies...well....thats PERFECTLY OK WITH ME

They can do whatever they want. They can have little conferences talking about all the Christian hatemongers, ect. BIG DEAL. That is their right. ANd I would actually protect their right to do that. And this is PURE UNFETTERED DISCRIMINATION. Yet its their right.

Who are you to deny them that right? An oppressor thats who.

ALL SELECTIVE EXCLUSION based upon race, religion, sex, age, moral convictions, appearance- it is all discrimination. ALL OF IT!

So, my definition is much more non-discriminatory than yours.

by far.

[VigilVirus]

In other words, I do not discriminate discriminations.

oh but you do. Of course, you dont see it that way. No one who discriminates calls themselves a discriminator. Usually a discriminating person has a justification. They have a 'special' definition for words, or 'spcecial' circumstances. That is how they justify it. IN your case, you 'accept' the discimination of an atheist club that refuses a preacher to speak at one of their conferences. YOu 'accept' this form of discrimination by coming up with some special concept called "acceptable exclusion"

Hehe, true, but many people do say that they discriminate.

For example I do, and I don't deny it. Everyone discriminates - some just more than others.

"oooh those hatemongers! oooh they denied me. huu---waaaah! huuh-waaahhh! now, wheres that big hairy butt?"). lol

Not again... ;D Lol

[Acriku]

You know President Bush said that athiests should not be citizens. That is what is so scary about thiests using their own prejudices against a body of people in the name of power, but it's comforting no one would do anything about it if he tried to make athiests non-citizens.

[Anathema]

Wow, he really said that? Bet he forgot his speech again ;D

[SurlyPIG]

Zamboe, that's actually just a list of qualifications for one of several classes of immigration. That point ranking system is a way to weigh qualifications for immigration. It's not unreasonable that a country like Canada would want to limit the incoming immigrants. Notice how it doesn't say something like "You are white - 10 points." If you meet those qualifications, you're sitting pretty. Besides the skilled worker class isn't the only class you can apply under. The old point system was much less forgiving. If you didn't earn enough points, you could be deported.

Discrimination ONLY occurs with the latter, according to Ace. This is how Ace discriminates in his discriminations, yet he is not aware of it becuase he has a nice little glass house he built up in his mind that has all these little justification avenues that allows him to discriminate and not feel guilty

Obviously if an idea like mine were ever passed into law, many people in judiciary positions would clearly define what is acceptable and what isn't based on their definitions. It's done EVERYWHERE else in law. This should be no different. As one man without that much time, what I whipped up would be only a glimmer to what the minds of wise judiciaries would decide on. Just like any individual's definition of right and wrong cannot compare to widely accepted international law like the UDHR or the Geneva Accord.

"Those atheists that forbid that fundamentalist preacher from speaking at one of their conferences have a " a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion " (from Websters dictionary on the definition of Prejudice} of that fundamentalist preacher. They already have an opinion of him without knowing him, thus forbid him to speak. PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATORY"

You are mistaken. The atheists in your example are not acting on a preconcieved judgement or opinion (a prejudice), they are acting on fact. It is a fact that a fundamentalist preacher would have an anti-athiest viewpoint (not that there's anything wrong with it). And since it's not a prejudice it is not discrimination. If the organizers were holding a pro-athiest convention, why should they accept someone who they KNOW AS A FACT will be anti-athiest. And don't say that there's such a thing as a pro-athiest fundamentalist preacher. If they were pro-athiest they would not be a fundamentalist preacher. The fact is, a fundamentalist preacher would have nothing relevant to say at a pro-athiest conference. NOW, if it were an unsided conference on "Atheism: Good or Bad" then he should of course be allowed to speak. As an athiest, if I were to go to any religious conference as a speaker I'd have nothing valueble to say. The attendees are not there to hear some athiest blubber on about his views and ideas. They are there to hear people speak about their religion.

These atheists can enjoy listening to other atheist speakers at their conference talking about things like the "disease of religion", the irrational stupidity of Christians, etc. They can joke and laugh at the expense of Christians during their conference. Talk about all the stupid theist political leaders running their country, etc. Even make T-shirts mocking God and Jesus and sell them for profit.

THIS IS AN EXTREMELY DISCRIMINATORY EVENT.

Disriminatory? Ehh...Do you mean they are refusing certain people from attending? Otherwise, no, I don't think so. Prejudiced? Definately. Extremely prejudiced. About as prejudiced as it can get. If they actually went that far as to make mocking T-shirts I sure as hell wouldn't buy 'em. But, again, until they advocate the discrimination of theists, or support violence against theists or other acts of hate it's still acceptable. In some situations it's a shame the law only goes that far, but in more ways it's very fortunate and very fair.

[emprworm]

, many people in judiciary positions would clearly define what is acceptable and what isn't based on their definitions.

yes, dictators like Sadaam Hussein, who is in a judiciary position also defines what thoughts are acceptable and what isnt based on his definitions. There is no existing law in the US similar to your idea to criminalize someone for expressing a non-violent opinion. Of course, these 'judiciaries' could outlaw such things, making them a slave state. This has happened numerous times throughout history so doing such an act would be nothing new as far as history goes.

The atheists in your example are not acting on a preconcieved judgement or opinion (a prejudice), they are acting on fact.

lol. man your immense prejudice is shining like the sun.

Hang on, let me get my sunglasses.

8)

ok, back.

Now, I can see better....was a bit too bright there.

Fred knows for a FACT that Harold has black skin. Because of this FACT, Fred forbids Harold from speaking at his conference. Fred, in this example is not acting on a preconcieved judgement or opinion (a prejudice), he is just acting on fact.

It is a fact that a fundamentalist preacher would have an anti-athiest viewpoint (not that there's anything wrong with it). And since it's not a prejudice it is not discrimination.

how do you know? ONe of the most famous atheists alive today was a practicing evangelist and actually preached sermons at churches WHILE he was an atheist. Yea! His name is Dan Barker. Your extreme prejudism should be outlawed. I think you should go to JAIL for that last statement Ace.

Another glass house eh? Always justifying YOUR prejudice while outlawing everyone elses. There is an english word for this sort of behavior: hypocrisy.

If they were pro-athiest they would not be a fundamentalist preacher.

and just WHO is labeling him as a fundamentalist preacher anyway? Would that be YOU perhaps? I have never known a preacher who says of himself "I am a fundamentalist preacher" That is a stereotypical label applied by non-Christian people. When I said a "fundamentalist" speaking at an Atheist convention, I meant that as a PERCEIVED fundamentalist- meaning that guys like you perceive it as such, and thus, as you have already shown us all, have no qualms about justifying immense prejudicial discrimination against him.

Using your same poor logic:

The KKK knows for a FACT that a Jew would be anti-KKK. Therefore, based upon this KNOWN FACT, Jews should be banned from the KKK.

Taking it even further:

It is a known FACT that people who are pro-Palestinian think Israel should back down, therefore anyone who is pro-Palestinian is forbidden to join or even show up at our 'Friends for Isreal' conference.

Or how about:

It is a known FACT that a pro-homosexual will be opposed to my political party's stance that the state should only recognize heterosexual marriages. Therefore, based upon this FACT, all homosexuals are BANNED from attending conferences by my political party.

the interesting thing Ace is that the more I hear you make all these character judgments against people the more your true prejudism is exposed. You are not as tolerant and as open minded as you like us to believe. But deep down, I think you know this.

[zamboe]

Zamboe, that's actually just a list of qualifications for one of several classes of immigration. That point ranking system is a way to weigh qualifications for immigration. It's not unreasonable that a country like Canada would want to limit the incoming immigrants. Notice how it doesn't say something like "You are white - 10 points." If you meet those qualifications, you're sitting pretty. Besides the skilled worker class isn't the only class you can apply under. The old point system was much less forgiving. If you didn't earn enough points, you could be deported.

The subject is :

I said there is a point system.

You said there is not.

You asked for legitimate link to verify it.

I provided and you confirmed it.

Then I am right.

About the other considerations of wheater is not correct or better/worst compared with other same point systems, well I gave my perspective in a previous post.

[SurlyPIG]

yes, dictators like Sadaam Hussein, who is in a judiciary position also defines what thoughts are acceptable and what isnt based on his definitions. There is no existing law in the US similar to your idea to criminalize someone for expressing a non-violent opinion.

Hussein? LOL! How about EVERY JUDGE! Someone has to decide what's acceptable and what's not. No laws like it? Right now (saw on CNN just yesterday), your supreme court is deciding whether or not the pracice of flagburning is acceptable. There you go. That's your example. People in judiciary positions making moral decisions for an entire populas.

Fred knows for a FACT that Harold has black skin. Because of this FACT, Fred forbids Harold from speaking at his conference. Fred, in this example is not acting on a preconcieved judgement or opinion (a prejudice), he is just acting on fact.

No matter what Fred's conference is about, he cannot forbid Harold from participating because Harold is black. Race means nothing about a person. Religion, which is a DEEPLY PERSONAL AND EXCLUSIVE CHOICE (one cannot be a member of more than one contrary religion) does mean something about a person. For instance you cannot say "All black people are bad at hockey" because anyone can be good at anything. You CAN say "All Muslims believe in Allah" because, if they did not, they would not be a true Muslim.

how do you know? ONe of the most famous atheists alive today was a practicing evangelist and actually preached sermons at churches WHILE he was an atheist. Yea! His name is Dan Barker. Your extreme prejudism should be outlawed. I think you should go to JAIL for that last statement Ace.

I assume you meant he continued his job as a preacher even after he became an atheist. First, did the supervising church know this? Second, it's completely the church's decision. They could very logically say that if you don't believe in God you should not be preaching in this way, under this association. If he continues to preach, he is obviously behaving contrarily for some reason. Maybe he wanted to keep his job. I say, if he's an atheist, the church has a right to fire him. Why they didn't, I don't know. Do you?

Another glass house eh? Always justifying YOUR prejudice while outlawing everyone elses. There is an english word for this sort of behavior: hypocrisy.

There is a difference between hypocrisy and drawing a line between what you perceive as acceptable and unacceptable. You have done this in this very thread. I could easily take the low road and call you a hypocrit for saying that discrimination in association is ok but in the workplace it's not. You try to justify your illogical arguement by saying the workplace is puclic, which it so clearly is not. Your economy is called a PRIVATE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM for a reason, after all. But I do not think of you as a hypocrit. You have drawn a line of where discrimination is acceptable. I am drawing a line of when discrimination is acceptable. Like I said...why can't we just leave it at that?

and just WHO is labeling him as a fundamentalist preacher anyway? Would that be YOU perhaps?

Of course not. You did, I was just quoting you:

Those atheists that forbid that fundamentalist preacher from speaking at one of their conferences have a " a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion " (from Websters dictionary on the definition of Prejudice} of that fundamentalist preacher.

When I said a "fundamentalist" speaking at an Atheist convention, I meant that as a PERCEIVED fundamentalist- meaning that guys like you perceive it as such, and thus, as you have already shown us all, have no qualms about justifying immense prejudicial discrimination against him.

This is how it is possible without being prejudicial: (taken from www.m-w.com)

Christian:

1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b (1) : DISCIPLE 2 (2) : a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906 (3) : a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961

Atheist:

one who denies the existence of God

The KKK knows for a FACT that a Jew would be anti-KKK. Therefore, based upon this KNOWN FACT, Jews should be banned from the KKK.

Actually the KKK would be completely banned for committing violent hate crimes and murders and broadly advocating racial discrimination, let alone trying to personally undermine the rights of minorities.

It is a known FACT that people who are pro-Palestinian think Israel should back down, therefore anyone who is pro-Palestinian is forbidden to join or even show up at our 'Friends for Isreal' conference.

You see, the Jewish people follow a bible. The KKK follow whatever their stupid code is. There isn't a defined association of exactly who and what is a Palestinian. I'll bet that there are Palestinians who believe Israel should just live in peace, so they should be allowed to join the "friends for Israel" organization.

It is a known FACT that a pro-homosexual will be opposed to my political party's stance that the state should only recognize heterosexual marriages. Therefore, based upon this FACT, all homosexuals are BANNED from attending conferences by my political party.

Aside from violating constitutional rights in most countries, this statement is false. Again, though it's rare, somewhere out there, there are gays who think "A marraige is what it is defined as in the bible; between a man and a woman, so I think the state should reckognize that."

the interesting thing Ace is that the more I hear you make all these character judgments against people the more your true prejudism is exposed. You are not as tolerant and as open minded as you like us to believe. But deep down, I think you know this.

All of my judgements have been based on fact, so no; you're wrong. You can easily dispute the fact that a person of X color is inferior. Same with a person of X nationality. You cannot dispute that an atheist disbelieves in God. It actually *IS* a fact. I'd like to see you give ONE example of an atheist that believes in God - and I'm not talking about preaching, because saying is not believing.

[emprworm]

For instance you cannot say "All black people are bad at hockey because anyone can be good at anything. You CAN say "All Muslims believe in Allah" because, if they did not, they would not be a true Muslim.

where do you get this logic? "All Muslims believe in Allah" as a justification for exclusion? What the? You are basically saying "All cubes are not spheres" and then using that kind of circular rhetoric to justify discrimination and call it "exclusion". LOL you got nerve Ace, I gotta hand it to you.

How about this circular statement?

"All black people are bad at being White."

OR:

"You CANNOT say "all Muslims are bad at Hockey."

"You CAN say all bad hockey players are bad at Hockey. If they weren't then they wouldnt be a bad hockey player now would they?"

rofl

Fred's conference is about, he cannot forbid Harold from participating because Harold is black.

why not? Its his private club, his private conference. Who are you to impose your morals on someone else? Harold can go form his own conference.

Race means nothing about a person.

yes it does. It means they are not the same race as someone else. Try going up to a Tibetan monk and telling him that his race, heritage, culture mean nothing. You got some serious nerve to impose your morality on the entire human race.

Religion, which is a DEEPLY PERSONAL AND EXCLUSIVE CHOICE

Yes, and Fred chooses (deeply and personally, I might add) not to allow Harold into his conference.

...AND....?

There is a difference between hypocrisy and drawing a line between what you perceive as acceptable and unacceptable.

and what difference might that be? Jimmy Swaggart the preacher perceived his having sex with prostitutes after his sermon was acceptable. So was he not a hypocrite? You allow nonviolent discrimination on one hand, and forbid it on the other- that makes you practicing a double standard.