ChristiansUnite Forums

Should minorities have rights the majority does not have? Should there be rules set up to project the minorities? Why or why not?

Any minority is included here, anything from Religious to ethnic to sexual minorities.

Ebia, Mike, I'm counting on you guys to give us a good, logical debate. The rest of you... rant away ;D

My first reaction is of course no.  All rights should be equal.

However, when there is a provable history of disadvantage and the society is healthy enough to support a form of corrective action then there should be an attempt to make the sum total of rights equal.  In otherwords, since we can show that other rights were violated in the past (or perhaps are still being violated) that society should make provisions to compensate in the area of other rights.  

Is that a complex enough way to say that I am in favor of affirmative action.

Many (most ?) of the "rights" we set up in law aren't really rights at all, but protections.   On the whole, the majority doesn't need the law to protect them.  On the other hand, a minority often does, and it may need the law to be 'unfair' in order to (attempt to) ensure that the treatment they receive is fair.

So, while the real rights of all peoples should be the same, the practical "rights" that are enshrined in law may well need to be different.

Take, for instance, the indigenous people of this country.  Their entire society and culture has been destroyed by the actions of the past to an extent that is hard to imagine.  They live in one of the most comfortable and prosperous countries in the world, and yet their health and education is on a par with many third world countries.  They make up only about 1% of the population.  Treating them the same as the rest of the population just perpetuates the problem - or makes it worse.   They have to be given special rights and privaleges until such time that their situation has improved enough that those privaleges are no longer necessary.  

 Self-respect is not a gift one can give to another. To say a peoples need  'special rights' is a ‘plantation ideal’, implying that the ones needing special rights are not capable. This ideal in turn holds back a peoples creates a superior overseer to tend their needs.

That's right, Reba.

All men are created equal.  We all have the right to succeed and we all have the right to fail.  Taking away the right to fail and putting that burden on the shoulders of those who succeed is detrimental to a society.  

Next time I'm driving in the area of Jasper, Texas, I'll tell them "all men are created equal" and see how that goes over, ok?

To be created equal and to be treaed equal are two different things...

1.  Its not an ideal - its a practical (and imperfect) way of addressing a very real need.   The ideal is to arrive eventually at a society where we no longer need to provide special protection to everyone, but that's a very long way off.

2.  Saying for example 'everyone has the same right to public education and health' is fine in theory, but if one segment of the community lacks the means to access that education and health service effectively (remember health is a public service here) then what is in theory equal opportunity is in fact extraordinary unfair and inequal.

Do we?  Depends what your measure for success is, I suppose.  We certainly don't have a right to succeed at someone else's expense.


More to the point of this debate, is that when a segment of society is being given only the chance to fail, (and particularly but not not only when that situation is a product of past injustice) then we have a duty to try and rectify that situation.

I'll spell out ONE example in part:

Imagine a hypothetical situation where you could only go to school once you could read and do basic arithmetic - you were expected to learn those at home first.  If you went to school without those skills the school would make no special provision for you, so you would be unable to do the school work and would just fall further and further behind until you eventually dropped out of the system still unable to read (if you bothered to go at all in the first place).  Imagine that a small but significant segment of society was illiterate and therefore unable to teach their kids to read at home, then that situation would be self perpetuating.  The education system is theoretically fair - anyone can go to school once they've learned to read - but in practice is deeply unfair and only serves to widen the gap.

No-one, I hope, would design an education system with those expected prerequisites, but there are prerequists to an education system - access to the (verbal) language of isntruction, certain social conventions of behaviour, a compatible model of teacher/student interaction and relationships, the value of education itself, etc.  We don't think about most of these (except maybe the language one) because they are so ingrained in our culture, but when a part of society doesn't have these skills at all (which is true for part of the indigenous society here) they are being excluded from the education system unless special provision is made for them.

That isn't to say that they aren't welcome to access the mainstream education system, which many do and a few (all too few) do successfully, but alternative provision also needs to be made.

And, as far as I can think, we aren't instructed to treat everyone by the same set of rules, or even to treat everyone equally (two totally different things, by the way), but to treat everyone as we would wish to be treated if we were in their situation:  "So always treat others as you would like them to treat you; that is the Law and the Prophets."

The laws we set up are attempts to address that idea - if we all genuinely followed that command, we wouldn't need them, or any further (and inevitably imperfect) concept of "rights".

One further thought: we all (I hope) recognise the need to give special and different rights to one particular segment of the population - rights that are distinctly different (and arguably better) than the rights we give everyone else, and that might serve as a hint that the practical rights we assign are not - should not - be necessarly the same for everyone.

That group - children.

To insinuate that those who are oppressed don't have enough self respect to pull themselves up by their own boot straps is offensive.  I hope that is not what you meant but that is certainly what it sounds like.

Equal rights should be enough if we are all starting from the same starting point but we know in this country we are not, and it is the fault of the society in power at this time, so it is up to us to do something about it.  Since we cannot insure that everyone starts at the same point (you cannot legislate away prejudice) then we have to make the going easier for some classes of people.

I hope I am reacting to strongly to what you said and that you did not mean what I read between the lines.  

Maybe it was the word plantation that got me going.  I think they are the concentration camps of the US and should all be burnt to the ground, instead they are glorified to this day in the south.  I find it despicable.

Self respect comes from with in, no one can give another self respect. I say they can pull them selves up you say they need special help. Strange how people can view the same topic and see it so different.

Would you be offended if I were to say to you something like …. Mike I can see your not as advantaged as Bill so I am giving you 10 extra points on this test. Mike , this statement of yours is very offence. It reads like something david duke might have said, NOW before you blow a gasket you don’t mean it that way. this says to me  you are incapable of  helping yourself you need ME to care for you.

I come to discussions from the ideal that ALL mankind is degenerate.

History should be remembered lurking behind every beautiful plantation, behind the grandeur, as with the pyramids or the California missions is the ugliness of slavery. Burn them down? would be to try and pretend this did not happen.  

When women entered the fire departments   on average they could not pass the physical tests. (ie) lifting the large ladders, dragging the heavy hose. The rules were changed   is a nice way of saying the standards were lowered, special help.

I disagree self respect coems from within that is true but to think that no one can affect whether you give that to yourself or not is to minimize all the claims made by women in abusive spousal relationships where the abuse is strictly mental.  They suffer true loss of self respect after a time and they did not do it to themselves.


I might be if you offered it without my seeking it.  But if I know that I have been held down and come seeking an advantage then no I would not be.  Offense most often comes from how something is offered - not that it is offered.


No it means that I cannot help myself sufficiently to do all that you do and overcome all the additional hurdles I have had placed in front of me that you have not had to face.

It is like what was said of Ginger Rogers.  They said that she was a better dancer than Fred Astair because she did everything he did, but did it backwards and in high heels.  We should never place anyone in our society in such a position that they must be better than the best rich white male just as a course of normalcy.  The minority support systems aren't asking you and I to take care of them, they are asking us to get out of the way.




Maybe burn them down would be a waste but they should be prevented from being used to glorify the manner in which some people lived at the expense of others which is how they are used now if you have ever taken a tour of one.


I am not in favor of changing TRUE requirements of the job, but in most cases these "requirements" were shown to not be requirements at all and had been perpetuated by those in power to maintain their hold on that power.  If they were true requirements of the position (such that the job could not be successfully performed without them) then they could have proved it in court, but they did not.

I hope that's a belief, not an ideal.  :o

This is similar to the point I was trying to make in my education example above.   Just because the same rules are applied across the board doesn't demonstrate that those rules are fair.  Very often they are not, either by design or accident of history.  In which case we need to review the rules to see if they need modification in general, modification for one part of society for whom they are inappropriate, or even dumping altogether.  The rules we make up and the systems we create are entirely man-made and fallible, not perfect and handed down from God.  When they aren't working for the benefit of all they need to be reviewed.

Some here seem to think that as long as a rule doesn't explicity discriminate then it's fair, and that could hardly be further from the truth.

YIKES i think the word i was thinking of was "idea" but "belief" is a better choice of words ... grammor, spelling, and choice of words dont matter right?

ROFL!





 And how's the weather?

So you do believe in equal rights all the way to the marriage altar?  ;)

Yeah, then you get married, and you give up your rights for a female roommate ;D

LOL!
But since it sounds like you believe in equality.... does that mean you no longer have a problem with mixed marriages? ;)

As different as men and women are - all marriages are mixed. ;D

I'm with Micheal, sincere. ;D ;D

I don't have a problem with mixed marraiges, I have a problem with people who assume off the bat that we all agree mix marraiges are ok, and anyone who disagrees is a racist. >:( ::)

Mixed marriage = male / female





Storm clouds coming from the south...

I have a problem with people who assume off the bat that we all agree mix marraiges are ok, and anyone who disagrees is a racist.

Why wouldn't they be ok?

And wouldn't that be saying that minorities have rights - except in the matter of mixed marriages? Which, of course, then kinda takes away from the equal rights aspect?  ;)


As different as men and women are - all marriages are mixed.

 :P But if you don't mix in the sweetness of women, then that would leave too much of the saltiness of men!  :P

Mar 9:50  Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.  ;D

I was going to include another verse but knew I would get hammered for Esther 2:12 which is the only place sweet and woman shows up together in scripture.   :P

WARNING: I have to go now.... but I will be back to reply!  >:(

 ;D

Any number of reasons. There are genetic problems that are mostly defiend to one race, and it could spill over into the other races. The childern raised mixed may deal with issue with there peers, they may not feel like they belong and/or there peers might reject them. The parents may not wish a marriage of that nature. There is any number of reasons why it wouldn't be ok.



A personal belief on mixed marriage doesn't keep you from exersicing your right.

As for the equal rights aspect, it doesn't take away, it adds too.. Minorities have rights, but rights have limits. Majority or minority, you still have limits. A right doesn't give you the freedom to run around like chicken with its head cut off and raise hell. And yes, there are some right that both the Minority and the Majority don't have. Minorities have the same rights AND limitations as the majority of the people.

 :P

Self respect is not given or purchased, it is earned and deserved.

Forgive my coming from left field. But I was still on the first page.

Such genetic diseases are not restricted to race as an indicator though.  There are genetic diseases with particularly high prevelance in a national group, a small geographic group, or even a particular family (such as haemophilia in the European royal familys).  So marriage should be restricted to within one family?  Oops, that's incest and genetically disasterous.  Or perhaps we should avoid sex-linked genetic disorders (like haemophilia) by banning men from marrying women  ;D


 From a genetics point of view, marrying as wide as possible is a good thing, not a bad one.  (For that matter, many genetic diseases can be screened for anyway).
While this reason is not itself intrinsically racist, all too often it's a cover for implied racism (an implied but not stated "genetically different (in some miniscule way)=> genetically superiour/inferiour").



That's a practical consideration in a racist society.  While an individual couple might make that discision for themselves without being racist, holding it up as a general principle supports said racist society, and so is racist.


A personal belief on mixed marriage doesn't keep you from exersicing your right.

As for the equal rights aspect, it doesn't take away, it adds too.. Minorities have rights, but rights have limits. Majority or minority, you still have limits. A right doesn't give you the freedom to run around like chicken with its head cut off and raise hell. And yes, there are some right that both the Minority and the Majority don't have. Minorities have the same rights AND limitations as the majority of the people.

Left field is a big part of the team just ask Bobby Bonds!

Maybe in NZ, by in the US, there are many different races with many different disorders, and these disorders have stayed relatively in the race it started in. Look up the race of the people with Sickle Cell in America right now, you will find the vast majority of them are of African decent. Some of those family could have been in America for the past 400 years, and still, most of the remain AA. We are still of the same Nationality, however, we come from different places, all with different problems.

It is a practical consideration in a racist society, yes. However, I don't think it contributes to racism, if that is what you are implying.

Face it, both sides make good arguements. And look, you can admitt that WITHOUT the name calling. :)

No, as long as everyone actually has " equal rights" and no one is getting something more than they should or less or anything unfair handed to them than its fine the way it is because were not going by the past hopefully not but what is now no one is more special or less special as the next person we should all be looked on not according to ethic, religion or gender but that were all humans that breathe, talk and have 5 fingers . So in conclusion we should ALL be dealt with fairly.

I'm in Australia, not NZ.
I'm  not denying that there are genetic diseases that are more common in some races than others, but pointing out that there are also some that are national (eg in Europe, where populations are more static than the New World) and some that are prevalent in certain particular smaller groups such as small geographic areas with a particularly static population, and particular families even.   If we start with the premise that such diseases should be contained by restricting marriage between groups, then the logical conclusion is that you should only allow incest!

The idea sounds plausible, but it's really based on the idea that one (or more) races are clean, and shouldn't be contaminated by other races.  In reality, the overall population is genetically improved if anything by inter-racial marriage.  Yes, you may get in increase in the incidence of sickle cell in the non-african population, but you'll get a corresponding benefit in other genetic disorders and vice versa for the african decended population. Genetic diseases don't work like viruses where quarantine of a population my be a purposeful strategy.


Whether it contributes to racism is a matter of opinion, but most of the time it is a cover for racism.  Implicit is the idea of "we are genetically clean, and they are not", otherwise the concept makes little sense.

I'm not name calling.  I'm not calling you racist, I'm saying that many who promote these ideas are, and are using them for racist ends.

Also implicit in this is the idea that race is obvious, when it is not; Hungarians (Magyar) and Finns (for example) look like most other Europeans, but are racially quite different.  Anglo-saxons and Pakistanis look quite different, but are racially very close.  Pakistanis and Tamils look quite similar, but are racially very different.  Unless you are going to look in considerable depth into a prospective partners family history the idea isn't even practically workable except to separate black and white.  If you are personally worried about specific diseases then it would be far more effective to screen for them.  On a less personal level, why is it better for a fully "african" child to be born with sickle-cell than a child of mixed descent or an "anglo-saxon" child?   Segregation doesn't reduced the overall incidence of the disease - if you want to do that you need to identify the specific carriers and persuade them not to have children.

No I think respect is earned and deserved - but SELF respect is something every gives to themselves.  It is those who think they have to earn it from themselves that end up with out it (because we are our own worst critics usually), and being without self respect is a dangerous thing.  

In a true democracy, minorities have zero rights.   ;)

I'm anxiously awaiting the ultimate government:  True Theocracy!   ;D

When I was 17 my white grandma married an African American man.
I thought it was cool. Not that she was marrying a man of a different skin color, but that she was marrying someone she truly loved.
They advised me and their other grandchildren that it would be best if we married people who were white.
They didn't say that because they were racists. They said that because they knew the hardships we could wind up facing.
Of course, that was 22 years ago and things are improving now in some areas.

Someone asked me a few months ago if I'd allow my children to marry outside of their race.
My answer was "No, my children must marry someone in the human race."  ;)

I cannot abide anti-Martian sentiment in any form.   >:(

 ;D ;D ;D

LOL!

Any person who wants the job could learn to swim.  This is akin to lower the basketball hoop or getting as many pitches as needed tel ya get the hit.

 I copied the artical from the site so the survey thing is theirs.   I found this artical as a head line on the DRUDGE.