equal, equal rights

[shrewsbury]

it seems everybody these days are saying they are for equal rights, but I think not. it is ok to boycott because of peoples views on gays, but no one boycotts anything when it comes to equal rights for christians or polygamists. in fact it is so not equal that anything even closely related to christianity is removed from all public places, renaming christian based holidays, and taking all things christian out of school, to such an extent that the word God should not even be mentioned in a song. and this is not to mention polygamists.

those who are not homosexuals back the homosexuals, but no one backs the christians or polygamists.

I believe most complaints about equal rights or not based on equal rights but rather people wanting to you to accept their views, if it was equal rights then it would be equal for all, you can't choose.

[habsheaven]

There's a difference between "public" places and "government" places. I am not aware of anyone defending the right to ban christianity in public places. If they did, I would speak against it. When dealing with schools I also have no problem with the casual mention of religion or God. The problem arises when christians want to include religioun in the daily routine. As for "re-naming" holidays; I am totally against that and express it whenever it is brought up. I celebrate Christmas (not in a religious context, rather in a family context).

With regards to polygamy; I also have no problem with adults engaging in the practice. The reason most do not defend the practice is probably due to the perception that polygamy is associated routinely with systematic abuse of young girls.

[shrewsbury]

habs, good post and my next comments are not meant to call you out, i am just pointing out a few things

polygamy is associated routinely with systematic abuse of young girls.

so it is ok to stereotype polygamists but not stereotype gays or whites or blacks or christians?

[mrveggieman]

I believe that every should be entitled to live their life as they see fit and have equal opportunities for success or failure for that matter regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual preference, political beliefs or any other trivial matter. The problem that most people have with christians is that since they are the religious majority in this country they want everything to be catered to them. If not they scream discrimination. However a lot of them were silent when they were the ones who openely discriminated againts blacks, gays, women and others. Please do not take this as an inditment against christians but it seems really funny that the same group of people who were completely ok with discriminating against others in the past now cry and moan that they are getting a dose of their own medicine.

[habsheaven]

habs, good post and my next comments are not meant to call you out, i am just pointing out a few things



so it is ok to stereotype polygamists but not stereotype gays or whites or blacks or christians?

No. It is not okay to stereotype polygamists. I was just pointing out what I think the public's perception of polygamy is because the only time it is in the news, it is regarding the more infamous characters that have been found guilty of criminal acts regarding young girls. As I said, if Jack wants to marry Chrissy and Janet, good for him. I don't have a problem.

[mrveggieman]

If Jack wants to marry Bob, John, Chrissy, and Jennifer for religious purposes only fine. However if he wants to obtain additional benefits for his extra spouses then I have a problem with it. I just think that allowing legal polygamy would be opening up too many legal issues.

[Wickabee]

Everyone cries equality but very few actually want it. What most people call equality is really their own interests above all others. Sharpton doesn't want equality, he wants blacks on top. Most feminists don't want equality they want women on top. 99% of cries for equality are, in reality, cries to tread on white males.

I'm not going to deny white males have, essentially, been in charge for a long time, but equality includes white males as well.

As far as Christianity goes, I think Christians feel a lot more downtrodden than they actually are. Take a serious look around and you'll see just as many complaints about "anti-Christian" as you will "pro-Christian". I think as far as religion goes, I think we're close to equality. I think Christians are complaining more because they're so used to being on top they have trouble dealing with being equal.

[shrewsbury]

wickabee, fair and nice post, thanks for contributing!

[Wickabee]

It's my belief that everyone on earth is racist. I think racism, or what we think is racism, is built into us. I look at black people differently than I look at white people. I admit it full out. But can any black person honestly say they don't look at white people differently? I've never found one who would say that and I don't think I will. Looking at a person differently because of race is not racism, how you react to what you see is racism. Do I see black people differently? You bet! Asians and Natives too. Do I treat them differently? Not one bit. My thinking is prejudiced based on race, but so are everyone else's. My actions, on the other hand, I am the same person whether you're black, white or whatever. That's where racism lives; in actions, not thoughts. The biggest joke ever played on white people was getting us to think we should feel guilty for our thoughts while no one ever feels guilty about thinking the same thoughts of us. At some point it became okay to be racist against white people. As soon as I graduated high school, I became politically incorrect by definition, and it only gets worse as I get older. I'm not afraid to say that really ticks me off. Why can a white guy not even sing along to a rap song but a black comedian can get up on stage and shout "cracker" at the top of his lungs for 45 minutes? I don't "want to be allowed" to use the N word, per se, but if cracker and honkey are fair game, then why not? Or if I can't say it, why are the other ones fair game? It makes no sense to me but that's the equality we have right now. None. A lot of people see me as controversial on the issue of race sometimes, but if they stick through and listen to the real point, that opinion gets changed pretty quick.

[jessejordan419]

There's a difference between "public" places and "government" places. I am not aware of anyone defending the right to ban christianity in public places. If they did, I would speak against it. When dealing with schools I also have no problem with the casual mention of religion or God. The problem arises when christians want to include religioun in the daily routine. As for "re-naming" holidays; I am totally against that and express it whenever it is brought up. I celebrate Christmas (not in a religious context, rather in a family context).

With regards to polygamy; I also have no problem with adults engaging in the practice. The reason most do not defend the practice is probably due to the perception that polygamy is associated routinely with systematic abuse of young girls.

With regards to polygamy, it is sometimes associated with systematic abuse of young girls. Look at the case of Warren Steed Jeffs, who was prosecuted for arranging marriages between men and young girls, as was other members of his sect. This is the high profile case, but there may have been others throughout the church's history.


Government places are public places. Our government is for the people, by the people. So logically, government places, that are not of a sensitive nature security wise, are public places. One of the very few times I agreed with Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 9/11 is where he was chased away from the Saudi Embassy by US cops; while on a public sidewalk and across the street. I'm sorry, but he was on public property, and clearly not a threat to anyone. Maybe not the brightest thing to do, but a clear violation of basic freedom and liberty.

Prayer was eliminated in public schools by atheists, even though they were vague generalized prayers. Even recent cases where there were "Prayer Events", outside the classrooms and buildings, those were still eliminated by atheist lawsuits. I am referring to an instance where students voluntarily meet around the flagpole and prayed out loud. I believe it may have been on National Prayer Day, and before school even started. This was attacked, even though it was not forced on anyone, and was strictly voluntary.

Now, the Pledge of Allegience is under attack because the last line is, "one Nation, Under God, with Liberty and Justice for all". And they are taking the words, "In God We Trust" off the coinage face, and onto the edges, where it is sure to wear off with little use(especially how cheaply made our new coinage is). These are examples of simply the word "God" being attacked by the ACLU and/or atheists.

However, if a group of muslims were to get together voluntarily and pray outside the classroom, and actually, outside any school building, I seriously doubt atheists or the ACLU would file lawsuits to have it stopped. As far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, the ACLU and atheists have not filed suit against any islamic activity for encroachment of their "separation of church and state" doctrine; even though sharia law has been cited in 23 court cases in American courts as of December 2011. I believe it is up to 50 cases now. Where is the ACLU and/or atheist lawsuits in that regard?

When muslims cover their faces for Drivers License photos, the ACLU files suit to have it allowed on the basis of "freedom of religion", even though it is a direct security threat. They even file suit against private businesses to allow muslims to violate the private business's dress code on the basis of "freedom of religion". I would like the ACLU to file suits to allow Orthodox Jews to wear their black hats during a Drivers License photo; and even then, their faces are still identifiable.