aren't we in the 21st century??

[Danzig]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44970711...ew_york_times/



oh, how i wish that when the famous speech was made, it mentioned more than 'color of skin'. why does it matter if one has an outie, rather than an innie??

but, it's all in the name of religion, so i guess it's ok....


this is an outrage. this is the united states of america, where everyone is supposed to be free. people who wish to discriminate have no business in this country. i don't care what their reasoning is. i agree with one of the comments at the bottom of the article, if your religion includes such ridiculous bs, you should lose your tax status.
oh, but that would pretty much affect every religion, wouldn't it?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44970711...ew_york_times/ i agree with one of the comments at the bottom of the article, if your religion includes such ridiculous bs, you should lose your tax status.
oh, but that would pretty much affect every religion, wouldn't it?

Religions should all pay taxes with charitable work/costs available as a write off. Like racetracks there are far too many churches.

In this case the city has two choices available, 1) to demand women and men sit together or 2) pull their franchise agreement.

The inevitable result of doing nothing will be a couple of big, fat civil rights suits with the city as a co-defendant and the one with deep pockets.

The company could operate a private bus with women in the back and that would be their right.

MMmmm franchised public bus routes. What a great idea!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Religions should all pay taxes with charitable work/costs available as a write off. Like racetracks there are far too many churches.

In this case the city has two choices available, 1) to demand women and men sit together or 2) pull their franchise agreement.

The inevitable result of doing nothing will be a couple of big, fat civil rights suits with the city as a co-defendant and the one with deep pockets.

The company could operate a private bus with women in the back and that would be their right. MMmmm franchised public bus routes. What a great idea!

it would be their 'right'?? lol i don't view it as a right at all.

i didn't realize men had such issues with seeing women. exactly what will happen if women aren't out of sight i wonder? damn men, so uncontrollable! tsk tsk

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it would be their 'right'?? lol i don't view it as a right at all.

If the women choose to sit in the back then yes that is their right. If Rosa Parks Horowitz wants to sit in the front then that too is her right and the men will have to control themselves.

[Danzig]

that's my point, they're not free to choose. it's forced on them based on bs 'beliefs'. hell of a way to justify discrimination, with old fairy tales.

[Clip-Clop]

Haven't spent much time in these communities huh?

It is really something, my wife's hometown is right next door to Lakewood NJ which is the biggest Hasidim community in NJ. It is quite an interesting place.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

that's my point, they're not free to choose. it's forced on them based on bs 'beliefs'. hell of a way to justify discrimination, with old fairy tales.

I tend to think their freedom to choose their beliefs (BS or not) outweigh their freedom to choose a seat.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I tend to think their freedom to choose their beliefs (BS or not) outweigh their freedom to choose a seat.

i don't. people have a right to believe in invisible pink unicorns or flying spagetti monsters. they don't have a right to discriminate, regardless of what justification they use.

but i'll remember you said that the next time a muslim discussion starts, and you come up with a different opinion than the one above!

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i don't. people have a right to believe in invisible pink unicorns or flying spagetti monsters. they don't have a right to discriminate, regardless of what justification they use.

but i'll remember you said that the next time a muslim discussion starts, and you come up with a different opinion than the one above!

You painted yourself into a corner there Dell, using that logic, Islamic fathers would have a "right" to kill their daughters.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

but i'll remember you said that the next time a muslim discussion starts, and you come up with a different opinion than the one above!

When they start beating and killing them for sitting in the front, in the name of honor you'll hear me going off on them as strong as I do for the muslims presently engaged in this behavior.

Until the women seated in back decide they want to sit in the front their rights have not been violated.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

You painted yourself into a corner there Dell, using that logic, Islamic fathers would have a "right" to kill their daughters.

Yea sitting in the back of a bus is the same as being killed.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Yea sitting in the back of a bus is the same as being killed.

No but justifying one group's abuse of women on the grounds of religious freedom and not another's is inconsistent. So you are saying it's a matter of degree? Some abuses are ok and some not? Who makes that determination?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

No but justifying one group's abuse of women on the grounds of religious freedom and not another's is inconsistent. So you are saying it's a matter of degree? Some abuses are ok and some not? Who makes that determination?

Until the women decide they want to ride in front there is no abuse. IMO It's all their decision. They choose to follow a religion that wants them in back for some BS reason and they accept that. If they are in fact riding in back because of a theat they will be beaten then we have abuse.

I have no problem with muslim women wearing burkas, praying seperately from men etc. I do have a problem with them being beaten, married off as minors and killed which are all obviously abuse. I have problems with the entire Islamic faith when they preach non-believers (infidels) should be killed which, admittedly does not include the whole muslim world, just a substantial portion of it.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Until the women decide they want to ride in front there is no abuse. IMO It's all their decision. They choose to follow a religion that wants them in back for some BS reason and they accept that. If they are in fact riding in back because of a theat they will be beaten then we have abuse.

I have no problem with muslim women wearing burkas, praying seperately from men etc. I do have a problem with them being beaten, married off as minors and killed which are all obviously abuse. I have problems with the entire Islamic faith when they preach non-believers (infidels) should be killed which, admittedly does not include the whole muslim world, just a substantial portion of it.

The problem with your argument is that you are focused on specific acts rather than the mental processes which are the same. Free will is restricted by belief and socialization to that set of beliefs (brainwashing if one chooses to call the process what it is). A child is born into a family which is part of a specific culture and religion. That child is taught from birth to honor said beliefs usually under the implied threat that deviation from same will result in punishment, whether it's being beaten to death, shunned by the community or spending eternity in some sort of hell. It is naive to say that women willingly sit in the back of the bus, more correct to say they accept same under the duress of being seen as violators of a set of religious/cultural dogma should they resist. When young Islamic women are exposed to western ways, that coupled with the powerful influences of love and feelings that they should be free to choose their own futures, often leads to conflict within the family whereby the male figure feels "dishonored" and thereby rationalizes the right to physically abuse the woman. We all agree that this is wrong. Why then would it be right to allow men of a certain religion to dictate that women must sit in the back of the bus? One can't rationalize degrading a specific group by saying said group "accepts" same. The behavior degrades said group and by it's nature is abusive.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Until the women decide they want to ride in front there is no abuse. IMO It's all their decision. They choose to follow a religion that wants them in back for some BS reason and they accept that. If they are in fact riding in back because of a theat they will be beaten then we have abuse.

I have no problem with muslim women wearing burkas, praying seperately from men etc. I do have a problem with them being beaten, married off as minors and killed which are all obviously abuse. I have problems with the entire Islamic faith when they preach non-believers (infidels) should be killed which, admittedly does not include the whole muslim world, just a substantial portion of it.

so, until rosa parks forced the point, she wasn't experiencing discrimination??!! lol um, yeah...

physical abuse isn't the only kind of abuse. it can be more obvious, but verbal and mental abuse can be just as harmful, scarring, despicable.

women have been treated as second class citizens, or worse, in practically every country, every civilization, out there. religion is one way people use to justify poor behavior. the fact that people condone it, explain it, justify it, or excuse it doesn't make it more palatable. it has no business here, in any shape or form, regardless of the 'reasoning' behind it.

your attempts at measuring differing types of bad behavior is laughable. you might want to work on generating some empathy, you seem to be lacking in that department.

is beating bad? of course. but so are mental attacks, etc, etc. you just can't always see the bruising.