Muslims have gone too far

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Who cares if Christian try to tell people how to live their lives?

But it isn't just telling other people how to live their lives. It is also people making discrimanatory laws (DOMA, etc.) at least in part because they think their religion tells them it is the right thing to do.

Now, I can't wait for someone to respond to this fairly obvious point with some sort of clever retort such as:
"How dare you say that DOMA is the same as 9-11?"

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by miraja2

But it isn't just telling other people how to live their lives. It is also people making discrimanatory laws (DOMA, etc.) at least in part because they think their religion tells them it is the right thing to do.

Now, I can't wait for someone to respond to this fairly obvious point with some sort of clever retort such as:
"How dare you say that DOMA is the same as 9-11?"

I can see how some people look at DOMA as a discriminatory law. I don't see it that way.

I heard the same argument with the whole Casey Martin debate on the PGA Tour. In case you're not familiar with the case, Casey Martin is a great golfer but he is disabled and he cannot walk 18 holes. He needs a golf cart. The PGA Tour will not let him use a golf cart, so he can't play.

Because of this, some people make the argument that the PGA Tour is discriminating against disabled people by not allowing them to use a golf cart. A disabled person is basically not allowed to play since he can't play without a cart. I understand the argument but I don't agree with it. I don't think they are discrimiating against disabled people. The PGA Tour feels that walking is part of the game. The game of professional golf is hitting the ball and walking 18 holes. Disabled people are not being discriminated against. They are allowed to play just like everyone else as long as they walk.

The PGA Tour has defined golf as hitting the ball and walking 18 holes. Marriage is defined by the union of a man and a woman. There is no discrimination in either case.

[Honu]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I can see how some people look at DOMA as a discriminatory law. I don't see it that way.

I heard the same argument with the whole Casey Martin debate on the PGA Tour. In case you're not familiar with the case, Casey Martin is a great golfer but he is disabled and he cannot walk 18 holes. He needs a golf cart. The PGA Tour will not let him use a golf cart, so he can't play.

Because of this, some people make the argument that the PGA Tour is discriminating against disabled people by not allowing them to use a golf cart. A disabled person is basically not allowed to play since he can't play without a cart. I understand the argument but I don't agree with it. I don't think they are discrimiating against disabled people. The PGA Tour feels that walking is part of the game. The game of professional golf is hitting the ball and walking 18 holes. Disabled people are not being discriminated against. They are allowed to play just like everyone else as long as they walk.

The PGA Tour has defined golf as hitting the ball and walking 18 holes. Marriage is defined by the union of a man and a woman. There is no discrimination in either case.

In some states marriage is defined by the union of a man and a woman and in some states its defined by people over the age of 18 and not related or not already married to someone else as marriage. The rules of a game and the rules of life in my humble opinon cant be compared.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by miraja2

But it isn't just telling other people how to live their lives. It is also people making discrimanatory laws (DOMA, etc.) at least in part because they think their religion tells them it is the right thing to do.

Now, I can't wait for someone to respond to this fairly obvious point with some sort of clever retort such as:
"How dare you say that DOMA is the same as 9-11?"

DOMA was signed by Clinton & was a bi-partisan bill.. wasnt created by a Pastor or something.

I understand that a lot of Christians have a very set in stone stance on this issue. But so do many other people who arent religious. The church didnt make the bill. Apples & Oranges to me (and not because of 9-11)

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I can see how some people look at DOMA as a discriminatory law. I don't see it that way.

I heard the same argument with the whole Casey Martin debate on the PGA Tour. In case you're not familiar with the case, Casey Martin is a great golfer but he is disabled and he cannot walk 18 holes. He needs a golf cart. The PGA Tour will not let him use a golf cart, so he can't play.

Because of this, some people make the argument that the PGA Tour is discriminating against disabled people by not allowing them to use a golf cart. A disabled person is basically not allowed to play since he can't play without a cart. I understand the argument but I don't agree with it. I don't think they are discrimiating against disabled people. The PGA Tour feels that walking is part of the game. The game of professional golf is hitting the ball and walking 18 holes. Disabled people are not being discriminated against. They are allowed to play just like everyone else as long as they walk.

The PGA Tour has defined golf as hitting the ball and walking 18 holes. Marriage is defined by the union of a man and a woman. There is no discrimination in either case.

ugh, your opinion is completely wrong, but you are entitled to it. Put yourself in someone else's shoes and tell me its not discriminatory. DOMA also violates the Equal Protection clause in the Constitution.

Comparing it to a game that is run by the PGA is very insulting, though I'm sure you didnt mean it to be that way.

Augusta doesnt allow women to be members.. they are a private club and its' their right (just like the PGA). Is it discriminatory though? hell yes.

the USA is different story

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

DOMA was signed by Clinton & was a bi-partisan bill.. wasnt created by a Pastor or something.

I don't see what the bipartisan bit has to do with anything. Although bigotry based on religioius motivations is certainly more common among Republican lawmakers than Democrats, it hardly follows strict partisan lines.
There are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who embrace bigotry because of their religion. I think that helps make my point. Clearly religion isn't the only thing that drives these people to do what they do, but it is certainly a factor for many.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I don't see what the bi-partisan bit has to do with anything. Although bigotry based on religioius motivations is certainly more common among Republican lawmakers than Democrats, it hardly follows strict partisan lines.
There are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who embrace bigotry because of their religion. That was my point. Clearly religion isn't the only thing that drives these people to do what they do, but it is certainly a factor.

i'll agree that its a factor. I think the main factor involved is the time period when people grew up. in 1996 when the law was passed (and still today).. its a bunch of old, white fogies in Congress who grew up in a time period FAR different than mine. Gays were something people shouldnt even TALK about back then (40's, 50's etc).. I mean a ton of people thought it was a disability or disease.

When my Dad was a kid they could buy a candy called nigg.r babies. I dont think Jesus or the bible said anything about if you are black you go to hell. But in that time period White > Black. (i'm not trying to compare gay rights to civil rights - while they are some what similar, there's really no comparison in the big picture).

It was the mind set of that time period. Same with gays. These "the greatest generation" people feel that way. These people are still alive and they still have the same sentiments. Of course civil rights laws passed, but I would bet a million bucks that the "greatest generation" (as they call themselves) are a ton more racist than the younger, more open minded people.

So IMO, DOMA had more to do with that than Christianity.

Give it a few years, let some more fogies die off, and it will all change. There's no chance that in 15-20 years DOMA is still in effect. All states, save Utah and maybe a southern state or two, will have Gay Marriage.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

ugh, your opinion is completely wrong, but you are entitled to it. Put yourself in someone else's shoes and tell me its not discriminatory. DOMA also violates the Equal Protection clause in the Constitution.

Comparing it to a game that is run by the PGA is very insulting, though I'm sure you didnt mean it to be that way.

Augusta doesnt allow women to be members.. they are a private club and its' their right (just like the PGA). Is it discriminatory though? hell yes.

the USA is different story

I think it's silly to invoke the Constitution on this issue because you know as well as I do that the Founding Fathers would have never allowed gay marriage. I'm not saying that they are right on the issue. They may be totally wrong but that's not the point.

This kind of reminds me of people saying that the death penalty should be banned because the Constitution does not allow "cruel and unusual punishment". This is a silly argument because the death penalty was legal back then and the Founding Fathers did not consider the death penalty to be "cruel or unusual punishment". I think it's silly to try to apply the Constitution to things that we know the Founding Fathers clearly would not have applied it to.

I agree with you that Augusta discriminates against women. There is no doubt about that. Women are not allowed to be members there. But I think that is totally different from the PGA Tour's stance on "no carts". If the PGA tour said that disabled people are not allowed to play, that would be discriminatory. But that is not what the PGA Tour says. They say that everybody has to walk. No carts are allowed. To me, that is not the same as saying "disabled people are not allowed to play".

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

I've been reading about the controversy over drawing Muhammad. Besides the death threats to the South Park creators, now they want to control what people can draw on Facebook?

From what I could tell, they've been successful in getting groups deleted which relate to the topic "Draw Muhammad" and now all the groups are getting overrun with "Everybody Against Draw Muhammad Day" type groups.

It's insane logic, they shouldn't be able to tell what someone who isn't part of their faith can and can't do!!

All you have to do is go on Facebook and search for "Draw Muhammad," click on some of the groups/pages and read through them, and you will read some of the most illogical arguments used by Muslims to justify their actions in restricting American freedom.

Do you expect anything more from these Muslims? They are making the law abiding Muslims look bad and that is a shame. Its okay for them to burn our flag, but if we do something to them its not okay.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

But I think that is totally different from the PGA Tour's stance on "no carts". If the PGA tour said that disabled people are not allowed to play, that would be discriminatory. But that is not what the PGA Tour says. They say that everybody has to walk. No carts are allowed. To me, that is not the same as saying "disabled people are not allowed to play".

But I think that is totally different from Augusta's stance on "no vaginas." If Augusta said that women are not allowed to play, that would be discriminatory. But that is not what Augusta says. They say that everyone playing must possess a penis. No vaginas are allowed. To me, that is not the same as saying "women are not allowed to play."

-----

Your argument essentially says that Augusta WOULDN'T be discriminating if they just used the "must have penis to play" test, rather than saying "no women." They mean the same thing.

While naturally Augusta DOES say women can't play -- my response above is as ridiculous as the one you posted, Rupert. The end-game is the same whether you say "disabled people can't play" or "you have to be able-bodied enough to walk the entire course to play," they accomplish the same thing, one just sounds less nasty, when in practice, there is zero distinction between the two with the exception of how much of an ******* the person saying it sounds like.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

But I think that is totally different from Augusta's stance on "no vaginas." If Augusta said that women are not allowed to play, that would be discriminatory. But that is not what Augusta says. They say that everyone playing must possess a penis. No vaginas are allowed. To me, that is not the same as saying "women are not allowed to play."

-----

Your argument essentially says that Augusta WOULDN'T be discriminating if they just used the "must have penis to play" test, rather than saying "no women." They mean the same thing.

While naturally Augusta DOES say women can't play -- my response above is as ridiculous as the one you posted, Rupert. The end-game is the same whether you say "disabled people can't play" or "you have to be able-bodied enough to walk the entire course to play," they accomplish the same thing, one just sounds less nasty, when in practice, there is zero distinction between the two with the exception of how much of an ******* the person saying it sounds like.

I don't think you can compare the Augusta rule to the PGA Tour rule. The whole point of the Augusta rule is to keep women out. The PGA Tour rule is not designed to keep people out. With the Tour rule, the same rules apply to everyone. Everyone must walk. That is not discriminatory.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't think you can compare the Augusta rule to the PGA Tour rule. The whole point of the Augusta rule is to keep women out. The PGA Tour rule is not designed to keep people out. With the Tour rule, the same rules apply to everyone. Everyone must walk. That is not discriminatory.

So if they said "you must have a penis to play," rather than "no women" then you would be okay with that? Because at that point, it's just a rule that everyone needs to follow, and if you're unable to follow that rule, you can't play. It's not designed to keep anyone out, just to protect the integrity of penises and golf. Right?

Any way it's spun, the end-game is the same. Discrimination is discrimination even when it's dressed up in less discriminatory language.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

So if they said "you must have a penis to play," rather than "no women" then you would be okay with that? Because at that point, it's just a rule that everyone needs to follow, and if you're unable to follow that rule, you can't play. It's not designed to keep anyone out, just to protect the integrity of penises and golf. Right?

Any way it's spun, the end-game is the same. Discrimination is discrimination even when it's dressed up in less discriminatory language.

No, I don't think it would be ok to say "you have to have a penis to play" That would be like saying "you need to have a white face to play". That would still be discriminatory.

With regard to your point that "the end-game" is the same, I agree with you that with any rules or laws could end up having an effect on one group of people mre than another group. But that in itself does not make it discriminatory.

If there is an entrance exam to get into a certain school or to get a certain job, and one minority group has a hard time passing the test, does that make the test discriminatory. I guess you could argue that it is discriminatory because of "the end-game" result. I would have to disagree.

Every rule and law has some type of "end-game" effect.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't think you can compare the Augusta rule to the PGA Tour rule. The whole point of the Augusta rule is to keep women out. The PGA Tour rule is not designed to keep people out. With the Tour rule, the same rules apply to everyone. Everyone must walk. That is not discriminatory.

But you can compare the PGA to USA law?

the same way you cant compare the Augusta rule to the PGA rule is the same way you cant compare the PGA rule to the USA law.

[Antitrust32]

it IS discriminatory to keep a minority group from having the same tax breaks (with marriage) that the majority group has. that cant be argued. only with bible quotes and unrelated stuff like that. (which supports miraja.. eventhough i still think that was only a small part of the reasoning for DOMA)

golf is golf (tho I do love it)

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by GBBob

When Christians, Catholics, Jews etc go nuts its "that guy/girl was whacko", but when someone named Mohammed does it it"s "those f'in Muslims"....

Notice how people in the other religions have no problem condemning "whacko" acts, but Muslims are often very slow to condemn these horrible acts. How many of them are complaining about Muslims threatening to kill people over cartoons n' such crap? These people are members of a glorified gang. I will remind you that he told them to kill members who try to leave the faith. Those are gang rules. Just want you to know the rules the scum (your sticking up for) have been given by their thug "prophet." This is a gang. 20-25% of the world belong to a damn gang of scum. Any chance they get, they are gunna bring pain to those who choose not to join this gang. I feel like the legit point people want to make is that nobody should be singled out, and threatened physically for their "religious belefs." That an important point, but somewhere along the line these people have to understand that non-Muslims are no longer gunna put up with their crap. That includes not putting up with their threats to kill people who draw images they don't like. FK THEM. It's called freedom, and their Prophet didn't like Freedom. Fk him, too.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

i'll agree that its a factor. I think the main factor involved is the time period when people grew up. in 1996 when the law was passed (and still today).. its a bunch of old, white fogies in Congress who grew up in a time period FAR different than mine. Gays were something people shouldnt even TALK about back then (40's, 50's etc).. I mean a ton of people thought it was a disability or disease.

When my Dad was a kid they could buy a candy called nigg.r babies. I dont think Jesus or the bible said anything about if you are black you go to hell. But in that time period White > Black. (i'm not trying to compare gay rights to civil rights - while they are some what similar, there's really no comparison in the big picture).

It was the mind set of that time period. Same with gays. These "the greatest generation" people feel that way. These people are still alive and they still have the same sentiments. Of course civil rights laws passed, but I would bet a million bucks that the "greatest generation" (as they call themselves) are a ton more racist than the younger, more open minded people.

So IMO, DOMA had more to do with that than Christianity.

Give it a few years, let some more fogies die off, and it will all change. There's no chance that in 15-20 years DOMA is still in effect. All states, save Utah and maybe a southern state or two, will have Gay Marriage.

The candy you are referring to was called "chocolate babies"

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Notice how people in the other religions have no problem condemning "whacko" acts, but Muslims are often very slow to condemn these horrible acts. How many of them are complaining about Muslims threatening to kill people over cartoons n' such crap? .

Quite a lot. You just don't care to see it, in your eagerness to condemn millions of people for the acts of a few.

You might try reading the Qur'an, rather than just quoting crazy hate group blogosphere interpretations. I don't care that you hate everyone within one particular religion. You're entitled, I guess. But I sure don't have to suffer the constant repetition of such crap without comment.

I'd rather read the Qdoba menu.

[Honu]

Originally Posted by Riot

Quite a lot. You just don't care to see it, in your eagerness to condemn millions of people for the acts of a few.

A few pretty loud and destructive people, it only took a few to kill thousands on 9/11 . The same few that kill their own people everyday but that is ok because its for Allah. If a person of the Muslim faith doesnt want to be lumped in with terrorists that they need to be loud and proud and that doesnt mean just a few lines in the papers saying we denounce their actions . They need to get active and protest their own people in their home lands , hold demonstrations and boycott business or people that are suspected of supporting terrorism . But that wont happen beacuse the few you speak of scare the crap outta the very few that speak up.