[quote]Sikkario wrote:
i say blame the jews…its obviously all their fault.
lol jk[/quote]
I usually blame the jewish guy at work for any problems. He shrugs it off and laughs. Then he goes right back to plotting to take over the media and then the world. What?! It’s true! I read JTF’s links!
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
That didn’t take long.
Alright, let’s test your claim. Can you show us where in the Bible or the history of Christian tradition it is taught that white men are morally and genetically superior to non-whites?
[/quote]
It is the Ku Klux Klan that makes those claims, not me.
We can make analogies between them and certain Islamic fundamentalists. My guess is that most Christians would not care to be associated with the KKK; likewise, most Muslims, I guess, would not like to be associated with many of the Islamic fundamentalists.
My point was that you cannot judge ALL members of a given group by the claims or actions of a certain portion of that group.
[quote]entheogens wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
That didn’t take long.
Alright, let’s test your claim. Can you show us where in the Bible or the history of Christian tradition it is taught that white men are morally and genetically superior to non-whites?
Muslims, I guess, would not like to be associated with many of the Islamic fundamentalists.
[/quote]
Err, Harvard just caved to Islamic fundamentalists…Or, is that what you see as moderate Islam? I damn sure hope not.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
They have to do things incrementally. Flying imams here, Muslim cab drivers not picking up those with seeing eye dogs or alcohol there. Don’t forget the fact that no criticism of Islam or Mohammed is possible in the West anymore without Muslim threats and whining.
[/quote]
Well, you might be right, but I just dont think this is part of the incremental “take-over”. As I said initially, when fundamentalist Muslims try to tear down western liberal institutions (as with their criticism of the Danish depictions of Mohammed) I will criticize them and not tolerate it. However, it is necessary to consider each case and I just don’t think this is an instance of that.
Well, there are already Mosques in my area. But the moment they wake me up in the morning, they’re toast.
[quote]entheogens wrote:
My point was that you cannot judge ALL members of a given group by the claims or actions of a certain portion of that group.
[/quote]
And you are missing PR’s point as to why this is a bad example.
The Qur’an and Shari’ah advocate this type of behavior. It is a basic principle of Islam. There is no basis in Christianity to advocate the behavior of the KKK.
[quote]tedro wrote:
entheogens wrote:
My point was that you cannot judge ALL members of a given group by the claims or actions of a certain portion of that group.
And you are missing PR’s point as to why this is a bad example.
The Qur’an and Shari’ah advocate this type of behavior. It is a basic principle of Islam. There is no basis in Christianity to advocate the behavior of the KKK.[/quote]
Aside from interpretation. There have always been those who try to twist what is written in the Bible to fit their own agendas. It also isn’t rare historically for this to gain a wide following.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Err, Harvard just caved to Islamic fundamentalists…[/quote]
Again, Harvard took a shitload of money from one of the world’s most prominent purveyor of Wahabi ideology. So, as far as caving is concerned, that ship has sailed.
The gym issue is only a test. Nothing permanent has been decided yet. I wouldn’t use the term “cave” here (insert silly joke here).
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Aside from interpretation. There have always been those who try to twist what is written in the Bible to fit their own agendas. It also isn’t rare historically for this to gain a wide following. [/quote]
True, but with Shari’ah there is no twisting that needs to be done.
[quote]entheogens wrote:
Well, there are already Mosques in my area. But the moment they wake me up in the morning, they’re toast. [/quote]
And I would be right behind you on that one.
Get a bloody alarm clock already!
[quote]entheogens wrote:
Level it, because I have put some thought into it. There are nuances involved. First of all, if any group (white, black, lesbian or zoroastrian) just said that they wanted to occupy the gym to exclude others because they are different then I think you would have a case. [/quote]
Then I have a case - what we are talking about are preferences. Every member of a group has a conceivable preference, and as I have stated, a Seventh Day Adventist would not get the same treatment based on their preference.
So what? What about their religion would privilege their preference over other groups with their own set of preferences? You never say. A line will have to be drawn recognizing some preferences and ignoring others. So how do you draw that line on the basis of what you have said?
There is a difference - you can make a qualitative distinction between a preference and a bona fide need that would otherwise be impaired.
And you still can’t even answer your own question - you use the word requirement: can you draw a fair line?
Can a group of Muslim men demand an hour to have the pool free of women on the basis that their religion demands gender apartheid in bath houses? Is this not a “special need” based in a religious requirement?
Can’t wait for your answer.
Only thing you have to do is distinguish which is a requirement and which is a preference, and be even-handed about it. You conflate “special need” with “desire to exclude” because I don’t think you have much of an ability to decide what falls into which category - or at least make a decision that isn’t politically convenient.
[quote]tedro wrote:
And you are missing PR’s point as to why this is a bad example.
The Qur’an and Shari’ah advocate this type of behavior. It is a basic principle of Islam. [/quote]
Says who?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Can a group of Muslim men demand an hour to have the pool free of women on the basis that their religion demands gender apartheid in bath houses? Is this not a “special need” based in a religious requirement?
[/quote]
I’ve asked a similar question, and noone has touched it. What’s more, even nonreligious men could support the muslim men’s demands, just to secure a male only time slot (even if only out of spite). So, I’ll ask again, myself. In what “fair” way could Muslim men be denied an hour of the gym, free of women?
We can agree on that. The rub is that there is an orthodoxy in both Islam and Christianity. What does the orthodoxy say? Islamic orthodoxy is contained in the 'Umdat al-Salik, just as orthodox Christian faith and practice for Roman Catholics is contained in the Catechism of the Catholic church and the Westminster standards for Presbyterians.
These are statements of what the orthodox understanding of the faiths are. If you pick up a copy of the 'Umdat al-Salik(Reliance of the Traveller in English) and flip to the part about jihad, you won’t like what you find.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’ve asked a similar question, and noone has touched it. What’s more, even nonreligious men could support the muslim men’s demands, just to secure a male only time slot (even if only out of spite). So, I’ll ask again, myself. In what “fair” way could Muslim men be denied an hour of the gym, free of women?[/quote]
I stated many times before that this whole affair is discrimination - pure and simple.
My beef is rather with people qualifying one of the world’s most elitist institution as representative of the “left”, people who refuse to understand that Harvard has every right to do as they damn please with their gyms as long as it is legal, and generally people who take this as an opportunity to spew unmasked hatred towards Muslims and their religion.
So if men want the gym to themselves, it is still discrimination.
But if you want to go into it further, I believe that because of inherent biological differences, men are less likely to have trouble being ogled than women. I can think of many instances where a man would whistle or hit on women in the gym. I have never seen a woman do the same (yeah, yeah…poor me!) or felt unconfortable because some chick was looking at me in the gym. These are fundamental differences you cannot brush off. So, while in principle male-only gym hours are the same as female-only, in practice it is harder for a guy to argue that he needs to be with people of the same sex in the gym. When was the last time you heard of a man getting raped in the gym? Now compare to the recurrent occurrences of women getting abused, violated and raped in the gym.
Plus, do you see seriously see a college kid demanding that the gym be girl-free? What student association will want to have his back on that one?
[quote]lixy wrote:
I stated many times before that this whole affair is discrimination - pure and simple.
[/quote]
And that’s what it all boils down to. That’s what all the “What if a white…What if a devout christian man…What if a heterosexual…What if a Muslim man…” questions were about. They’re attempts to peel the issue down to it’s underlying principle. Yes, Harvard has decided to discriminate for one select gender and religion. We now agree.
This seems to me to be the same issue as the Obama thread a while back, just in different packaging.
IMO, when it comes to discrimination based on race, creed, or gender, it’s either okay or it’s not, in absence of a bona fide reason. There is no middle ground.
That includes both disadvantages and privileges. All or nothing. There are no exceptions, because discrimination is discrimination.
(Note that there is no bona fide reason in this Harvard case – the “aggrieved” party already has the same access as the student body as a whole, unlike the hypothetical disabled persons. The Muslim women are asking for privileges.)
When you start down the path of accepting situational discrimination, you’re opening up one gigantic can of worms.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I’ve asked a similar question, and noone has touched it. What’s more, even nonreligious men could support the muslim men’s demands, just to secure a male only time slot (even if only out of spite). So, I’ll ask again, myself. In what “fair” way could Muslim men be denied an hour of the gym, free of women?
I stated many times before that this whole affair is discrimination - pure and simple.
My beef is rather with people qualifying one of the world’s most elitist institution as representative of the “left”, people who refuse to understand that Harvard has every right to do as they damn please with their gyms as long as it is legal, and generally people who take this as an opportunity to spew unmasked hatred towards Muslims and their religion.
So if men want the gym to themselves, it is still discrimination.
But if you want to go into it further, I believe that because of inherent biological differences, men are less likely to have trouble being ogled than women. I can think of many instances where a man would whistle or hit on women in the gym. I have never seen a woman do the same (yeah, yeah…poor me!) or felt unconfortable because some chick was looking at me in the gym. These are fundamental differences you cannot brush off. So, while in principle male-only gym hours are the same as female-only, in practice it is harder for a guy to argue that he needs to be with people of the same sex in the gym. When was the last time you heard of a man getting raped in the gym? Now compare to the recurrent occurrences of women getting abused, violated and raped in the gym.
Plus, do you see seriously see a college kid demanding that the gym be girl-free? What student association will want to have his back on that one?[/quote]
When the FUCK did you start working out? You mean to tell me that you actually do other things than post on T-Nation.
I’ll be damned.
[quote]lixy wrote:
My beef is rather with people qualifying one of the world’s most elitist institution as representative of the “left”[/quote]
It is one of the bastions of leftism. That is indisputable. Well, it is to anyone that knows anything about American higher education.
You still haven’t figured out that Massachusetts has state laws on point prohibiting discrimination, nor has it dawned on you that Harvard receives public funding, which raises Equal Protection concerns.
Harvard’s “privacy rights” are not what you think they are.
If the tenets of a religion conflict with our values and cause us to forfeit those values, the religion might very well be scrutinized. If that penetrates past your paper thin skin - no one cares.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
(Note that there is no bona fide reason in this Harvard case – the “aggrieved” party already has the same access as the student body as a whole, unlike the hypothetical disabled persons. The Muslim women are asking for privileges.)[/quote]
Exactly. Start at the beginning: all Harvard students got the same level of treatment - no matter color, gender, background, age, or religious background, they have equal access and rights to use the facilities.
So, everyone is equal. The field is level.
Then, Harvard grants a special privilege - exclusive, preferential use - that other people of other religions and genders don’t get (don’t forget the second classification).
A certain religion and a certain gender buys you a privilege other students don’t enjoy.
And this is why comparisons are so useful - and why no one seems to answer them. Imagine the reaction if someone got a special, exclusive privilege because they were Christian and male.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
I stated many times before that this whole affair is discrimination - pure and simple.
And that’s what it all boils down to. That’s what all the “What if a white…What if a devout christian man…What if a heterosexual…What if a Muslim man…” questions were about. They’re attempts to peel the issue down to it’s underlying principle. Yes, Harvard has decided to discriminate for one select gender and religion. We now agree.[/quote]
On the first page of this thread (2nd post), I wrote: “So, yes, there is discrimination”.