egafd.com

Yes you read that correctly Muslims and Christians have united.

They are protesting against the Sexual Orientation Regulations, which come into force in April. These are designed to stop discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

You see it is against their religious rights and against their human rights and against their conscience and religious beliefs to have this new unjust law forced on them.

So other minority groups must be discriminated against because another minority group doesn't like it? Well that's all right then.

Cant we all just get along?

[quote]So other minority groups must be discriminated against because another minority group doesn't like it?[/quote]

Majority groups have been discriminated against to keep minority groups happy for a long time now, but this discrimination is hidden well under a different name: called 'tolerance'.

Majority groups have to tolerate minority groups otherwise they're branded intolerant. All the while the most intolerant are the minority groups that want special privileges compared to the majority.

Since there are many religions with many beliefs and cultural differences - they change with time. Sex hasn't changed at all during mammalian evolution, so sexual tolerance takes precedence over religious tolerance......every time.

Majority groups have been so-called "discrimated against" because THEY have been discriminate. !teacher!

[quote]Majority groups have been so-called "discrimated against" because THEY have been discriminate.[/quote]

'To discriminate' as in - 'make or see a distinction' (usually unfairly) or 'to be discriminate' as in, 'to have good judgement'?

'To have been' is the past tense of 'to be' so I think you're telling me the majority of people are being discriminated against because they have been good judges and careful observers rather than: seeing unjust distinctions.

If you did mean exactly what I think, then surely someone cannot be discriminated against because they have been a careful and thorough judge/observer? If you've worded your statement wrong, and you mean the majority are discriminated against because of past discrimination by them on minority groups, then surely two wrongs do not make a right?

English language has never been my strong point but I'm sure that's the difference between 'to discriminate' and 'to be discriminate': at least that's how the distinctions are commonly used in everyday language - I think.

The dictionary doesn't help much so I'm not 100% sure. Warren's a teacher, maybe he can tell us!

Once again thanks for correcting me. Yeah, I worded it wrong and two wrongs don't make a right. The one thing that I must add is that the governments are the ones adding to the minority and/or majority discriminating against each other with inacting laws for or against one another. Like someone posted "can't we just get along?"

[quote]The one thing that I must add is that the governments are the ones adding to the minority and/or majority discriminating against each other with inacting laws for or against one another.[/quote]

Exactly c.j. Tolerating certain traits from a minority group is a good thing as we all like to be seen as tolerant due to intolerance as being mostly bad. However, toleration to one set of people can become slightly discriminating of another group of people. So which is the bigger wrong here, discrimination or intolerance?

An example.

Seven men all riding a motorcycles -without helmets- down an English country lane, and all get pulled over by the police.

We have 1 Jew, 1 atheist, 1 Christian, 1 Muslim, 1 Sikh, 1 Hindu and 1 Buddhist.

The atheist, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu and Buddhist are fined ?50 for not wearing a helmet while the Sikh is allowed on his way without a fine because he's required to wear a turban at all times due to his religion.

Now this is seen as British law being tolerant of Sikh religious wear, but it is also discriminating against other religions that do not wear turbans.

If the law treated all men the same then there's no discrimination -which we all agree is good, right?- but then the laws would be intolerant to Sikhism (at least when it came to riding motorcycles.)

Do we accept slight intolerance, or slight discrimination?

I'm reading Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion just now, and it's fascinating. He reckons we atheists get the worst deal. Cites a case from America where an atheist and friends were going to protest at an ultra-conservative evangelist type opening something in town; the atheist wanted to make sure there'd be no problems, so phoned the police to warn them there would be a protest.

Most of the 14 or so officers he spoke to, in different phone calls, said they'd beat his sorry atheistic ass if he dared protest. And we are supposed to tolerate the religious types and their (quite often cross-dressing) leaders????

Ha!

For the first time in years, I got through Christmas and no one gave me a book as a present. Only today I purchased 'The God Delusion' by Mr Dawkins.

I've not started it yet, but will do over the weekend. It's weird because I always considered myself as an atheist since around 12 years old, but atheism itself is becoming a 'belief' these days. Believing 'fanatically' that there isn't a God can be just as bad as believing 'fanatically' that there is a God!

Oh well, I'll have to see what Dawkins has to say on the matter. Don't dare spoil it for me Caractacus. !nerd!

Don't let yourself be brainwashed by the dogma. He's broadly right but it is badly written. It's one arugument that goes on, and on, and on ,and on Ariston....