Caleb (a fellow who does not take his own faith lightly) posted an article on a gun store/range owner deciding to ban all Muslims from her business and why that's not just silly and prejudiced, but highly likely to land her in Federal court on civil rights charges.
Cue the predictable outrage! Including that old chestnut, "No member of $RELIGION can ever be a good U. S. citizen, because their first loyalty is to their faith." That one goes way back to before the founding of the United States -- see, for instance, John Adams' 1765 A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law, or note that John Jay argued that holders of public office should be required to renounce their allegiance to [a foreign religious leader]. He got it, too, though the legislature weaseled by genericizing his highly specific objection. And that same group remained a target because of their supposed un-American loyalty through at least the early part of the 20th Century.
Oh, but wait, those presumptively disloyal believers weren't Muslims, they were Catholics. And we know that Catholics never, ever (cough, IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY, cough) engage in terrorism to achieve political goals. What's that? Just a few? A disaffected group? Soooo...nobody in Boston ever passed the hat for the Provos? What? That still doesn't count? Hmm.
There you have it. If all Bs are members of set A, does it therefore necessarily follow that all As are members of set B?
Caleb says no. I say no. Logic says no. The Civil Rights Act says our opinions (yours, too) are moot: operators of places of public accommodation don't get to discriminate against people on the basis of their religion. Dang, didn't I just read some stuff about that in a Constitutional Amendment? And the Bill of Rights passed in the face of severe doubts about the Americanism of members of a specific religious faith. How'd that work out? Nation collapse over it yet?
Some shortsighted jingoist is going to whine, "B-b-but, you're so dumb, Bobbi: they'll just use our freedoms against us!" So, better to do without, simply rip out that part of the First Amendment, scribble over it, throw it away? Stop being Americans ourselves? Miss out on the chance to do what we do best, win over the decent majority with freedom while slapping the provably bad 'uns around, and substitute ruthless repression instead? --Doesn't sound like my country, but it does remind me of a few, and things didn't go so well for them.
BUILDING A 1:1 BALUN
4 years ago
15 comments:
The inability of folks to understand that if you give the government power to go after one group you don't like, they will use that same power to go after you.
How many of those people that want to ban dem moosleems are mad at the NSA for tapping their phones, or getting groped by the TSA at airports?
Indeed. Today, it is one group of people (that does NOT include you....) Tomorrow, or the next day, there is another group...and it Does include you.
First they came for the....
There were concerns about Catholic Loyalty to The Pope as recently as 1960, not that it was strong enough to prevent JFK from getting elected.
I love the "Big L" Libertarians suddenly proclaiming on FaceSpace that a business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone, and that means anyone who does not address their deity of choice by the same name as the business owner. Apparently, they missed the whole "Fundamentalist Christian baker being obligated by law to sell a wedding cake to a lesbian couple" thing.
Here's a clue, guys: If you're not willing to be the test case, or at least to hire the test case's lawyer, STFU on someone elses page/blog/timeline.
Once again:
Hear her! Hear her!
Ah,Prairie S**t. Everybody!...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boO4RowROiw
Once again you are equating the government with free enterprise.
If I think my trinket is some thing I don't want to sell it is not discrimination to not sell it to you. Now if you decide my trinket is too cool and you must have it regardless of whether I want to sell it and you use the government to force me to sell you the trinket how is that supporting freedom and the first amendment?
If I don't want muslim's on my property, you cannot in good conscience use the government to force me to allow them on my property.
That or you think I really don't own my property?
You cannot reconcile using force to make something happen and a free country.
And we have the right to call her out for being an idiot, a fool, and not someone we really want on her side.
As Veternari once pointed out, freedom also means having the freedom to take the consequences.
Paul: reading comprehension failure? "Place of public accomodation," as defined in the Civil Rights act, look it up: what I think or you think does not matter; Uncle Sam says if you are open to the public, that means all of 'em unless you have a damn good specific and individual reason. "I don;t like your kind," doesn't pass muster, been tested ages ago.
This here is the world we live in. You want the would of "otta be," and nobody actually lives there.
Hmmm. What about We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?
I guess we just entered a police state. So much for the usa. Good run while it lasted.
"AnyONE." But if you want to refuse certain defined groups, Paul, your "police state" was entered in 1964. Do try to stay current.
Well stated as ever. I am sadly puzzled by the increasingly shrill voices of those in our society who demand protection of their views and rights while trying to strip those of others.
Yes, you are right. Mark Twain said some words along the lines of "To any problem there is a neat simple solution, that is dead wrong."
Banning Muslims is one of those neat simple solutions.
I would be for gay marriage if it was required to be called "Muslim Marriage".
"Not all muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists in the world right now are muslim."
That's the same logic as the gun-banners' basic argument: Not all humans are murderers, but almost all murderers are humans.
So, markm, are you agreeing with it, or what, then?
Post a Comment