Atheists sue country club for religious discrimination

| 39 Comments

Yes, you read that right. According to an article in the Detroit News, the Center for Inquiry has sued a country club for canceling a speech by the distinguished biologist Richard Dawkins, allegedly because the owner of the country club did not want “to associate with certain individuals and philosophies.” From our “if I did that, then you would …” department, imagine the outrage if someone had canceled a speech on finding out that the speaker was a religious fundamentalist. What is the difference?

39 Comments

That was a long fuse. It certainly looked illegal immediately.

There’s been (apparently, at least) trumped up suits over “discrimination” against Freshwater and Coppedge, so it’s about time an apparently legitimate lawsuit over discrimination against atheists is pressed.

Glen Davidson

I suspect this one may be hard to win, as the country club is presumably not a public agency.

Actually, someone over on FTB was commenting on this last week. It appears that the club rents out it’s facilities to the public for these sort of events. Which, if I recall correctly, changes the equation considerably.

psweet said:

Actually, someone over on FTB was commenting on this last week. It appears that the club rents out it’s facilities to the public for these sort of events. Which, if I recall correctly, changes the equation considerably.

That is correct. If a private club rents out its facilities to the public, it becomes a place of public accommodation which is covered by the Federal Public Accommodations Act.

Ben Carlson gets dissed cuz well evolution doesnt cut it as most favored explanation for morality.

Now Dawkins gets dissed cuz well religion doesnt cut it as most favored explanation for morality.

What goes around.….…smacks you in the face.

SteveP. said:

Ben Carlson gets dissed cuz well evolution doesnt cut it as most favored explanation for morality.

Now Dawkins gets dissed cuz well religion doesnt cut it as most favored explanation for morality.

What goes around.….…smacks you in the face.

Biological evolution is how the human brain got here, of course, but the theory of evolution doesn’t provide ethical guidance. (It can help explain how things like empathy, cooperation, aggression, tribalism, sociopathy, etc, came to exist, but cannot state whether one action is more ethical than another action.)

Question for Steve P. - Do Christians who accept the theory of evolution consider it the “most favored explanation for morality”?

Do atheist scientists have a disadvantage in scientific work, relative to religious scientists, yes or no?

You forgot these questions in another thread -

Can Steve P provide scientific evidence that will convince Christians who accept the theory of evolution that the theory of evolution is wrong? That’s scientific evidence, not claims that your interpretation of the Bible is better than their interpretation of the Bible.

Does Steve P agree that atheists existed before the birth of Darwin?

And as always - who is the designer, what did the designer design, how did the designer do it, when did the designer do it, and what is an example of something that wasn’t designed by the designer?

One more original one -

Steve P, do you consider yourself “moral”, and if you do, what do you do that makes you moral?

Also, what is the point of mis-spelling the word “because”? Is that supposed to intimidate people because it makes you sound like a tough guy?

SteveP. said:

Ben Carlson gets dissed cuz well evolution doesnt cut it as most favored explanation for morality.

The primary purpose of the Theory of Evolution is to explain the diversities seen on Earth. The closest Evolutionary Theory has to an explanation for morality is that members of a social species who abide by the behavioral norms of said species tend to thrive more than those members who don’t abide by the species’ behavioral norms. Trying to discard Evolution simply because it does not provide an explanation for human morality satisfactory enough for your deliberately impossible standards is like trying to outlaw cheesecake cookbooks because they do not provide instructions for dinner etiquette.

Furthermore, SteveP, why should we trust that Creationism has a better explanation for human morality when you lie to us, and insult us whenever we do not swallow your anti-science bullshit without question or hesitation?

Now Dawkins gets dissed cuz well religion doesnt cut it as most favored explanation for morality.

Is it? That, and I take it that you are not aware that the topic of this thread is actually of atheists suing a country club for religious discrimination. Why should we assume that religion is the most favored explanation of morality when it induces its members to engage in social taboos like religious discrimination?

There are plenty enough examples of cases where religion has not not been any obstacle to immoral, abusive and criminal behavior. A Christian may be a pedophile, an atheist may be the most pious and altruistic character you may find. I am none of all those things, what does that make me? Just another human being, perhaps?

As a non-fundamentalist Christian, I would support the right of some country club not to have a fundamentalist Christian speak. I can easily see where people wouldn’t want to be associated with fundamentalists- Christian or secular. Myself, I might want to go and hear a fundamentalist like Dawkins speak somewhere else, as he does good science, just as I would go and hear a religious fundamentalist speak about her expertise in providing job opportunities for the poor, if she had expertise in that. I would still completely understand the folks who didn’t want to be associated with her because of her fundamentalist attitude towards the beliefs of others.

Jedidiah said:

As a non-fundamentalist Christian, I would support the right of some country club not to have a fundamentalist Christian speak. I can easily see where people wouldn’t want to be associated with fundamentalists- Christian or secular. Myself, I might want to go and hear a fundamentalist like Dawkins speak somewhere else, as he does good science, just as I would go and hear a religious fundamentalist speak about her expertise in providing job opportunities for the poor, if she had expertise in that. I would still completely understand the folks who didn’t want to be associated with her because of her fundamentalist attitude towards the beliefs of others.

That’s not the issue here.

Under US law if you decide to make money in certain ways, you no longer have the right to arbitrarily discriminate.

The rationale for the law dates from a time when certain ethnic groups were severely hampered in their freedom of movement in certain parts of the country, because businesses like hotels and restaurants would not serve them.

The idea is simple - certain types of public accommodation are traditionally private businesses, but serve the public.

I’m neither endorsing nor attacking this idea, I’m just explaining it.

The country club had two legal choices. The first was to offer no public accommodations and remain completely private. The second was to sometimes make money by renting out part of the club as a venue. They signed a contract with the people who rented it to have Dawkins come and speak there.

Just as you can have whoever you want in your house for dinner, but can’t run a restaurant that discriminates in certain ways, the country club could have retained total right to discriminate by not offering the space to the public, but chose the benefits of renting their facilities to the public. If they want the benefits of doing that, they must adhere to the laws attached to that activity.

They chose to take the money, and now they have to obey the laws attached to that choice.

The owner of Wyndgate, Larry Winget has been in court before, a lot it seems. His company, Venture Holdings, ended up in bankruptcy and the lender, JP Morgan!!!, ended up selling it off.

FindLawCaselaw edited for length:

United StatesUS 6th Cir.WINGET v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK JP LLC LLCUnited States Court of Appeals,Sixth Circuit.

WINGET v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK JP LLC LLC

Larry J. WINGET and the Larry J. Winget Living Trust, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., JP Morgan Chase & Co., Black Diamond Commercial Finance, LLC, and Black Diamond Capital Management Living Trust, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-1657.

Argued:  March 17, 2008. – August 11, 2008 Before:  RYAN, SILER, and COLE, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

Through a series of transactions and agreements between 1999 and 2002, Defendants JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., and JP Morgan Chase & Co. (collectively, “JP Morgan”), served as the agent for a consortium of lenders that advanced credit to Venture Holdings Company, LLC (“Venture”), which was owned by Plaintiffs Larry J. Winget and the Larry J. Winget Living Trust (collectively, “Winget”).   In 2002, JP Morgan and Winget executed the most recent and significant amendment to their original credit agreement, and, at the same time, also executed guarantees and pledges of collateral. These documents allowed JP Morgan significant access to Winget’s companies, both Venture and its subsidiaries.  

As Venture’s financial situation deteriorated and the company initiated bankruptcy proceedings,

JP Morgan and the other lenders sought increasingly greater control over Winget’s companies, eventually resulting in the takeover of one of Venture’s subsidiaries. etc.

Hmmm, looks like Larry Winget is well acquainted with the inside of courtrooms. This article from Forbes says his company Venture Holdings was sued by a whole lot of people who allege that he siphoned off huge amounts of money ($315 million USD) from the company to…himself. That is where he got the money to buy the golf course according to the complaint. The word the plaintiffs used was “fraudulent”.

So Larry Winget got rich and his company ended up in bankruptcy. Another in the never ending business success stories of the USA. He really jumped the gun though. If he had waited a few years, he probably could have gotten a TARP bailout.

forbes.com:

Legal Detroit Stews As Venture Creditors Boil Nathan Vardi, 04.12.04, 10:15 AM ET

NEW YORK - General Motors, Ford Motor and DaimlerChrysler have been getting nervous watching the carnage at Fraser, Mich., auto parts supplier Venture Holdings.

Last week, Venture, together with its unsecured creditors,

sued its owner, Larry J. Winget, to recover $315 million he allegedly siphoned from the parts supplier.

Unsecured creditors like E.I. du Pont de Nemours (nyse: DD - news - people ), a subsidiary of American International Group (nyse: AIG - news - people ) and bond funds run by Merrill Lynch (nyse: MER - news - people ) and Eaton Vance (nyse: EV - news - people ) are trying to get back some of the $500 million or so Venture has owed them since it filed for court bankruptcy protection last year.

and

The 91-page lawsuit, filed in a Detroit bankruptcy court by Venture and unsecured creditors,

calls the transactions made between Venture and the separate affiliates “a concerted scheme by Winget” that was “fraudulent.”

The suit says Venture funded a sports car maker owned 75% by Winget and a golf course he owned with $38 million. Venture also paid a 3% sales commission amounting to $52 million over six years to a marketing entity owned by Winget.

harold said:

SteveP. said:

Ben Carlson gets dissed cuz well evolution doesnt cut it as most favored explanation for morality.

Now Dawkins gets dissed cuz well religion doesnt cut it as most favored explanation for morality.

What goes around.….…smacks you in the face.

…Also, what is the point of mis-spelling the word “because”? Is that supposed to intimidate people because it makes you sound like a tough guy?

You don’t even scratch the surface of SteveP’s racism here. He is imitating stereotypical black thug speech. He is putting on electronic blackface (and while I have no idea of SteveP’s race, I will note that black minstrel show performers also donned blackface when imitating black stereotypes). What a fine example of Christian morality indeed! And it only took atheist biological scientists to prove that there is no genetic basis for racial hatred like this.

Harvard also sued Larry Winget in connection with the failure of his company.

There might be other lawsuits. I’ve seen enough and am not searching further.

Courthouse New Service:Thursday, August 28, 2008Last Update: 11:36:25 AM excerpt of longer article:

DETROIT (CN) - Harvard University claims JPMorgan Securities and the operators of Venture Holdings Co. defrauded it in the sale of $50 million in securities by hiding the insolvency of a German subsidiary of Venture, Peguform.

Also sued are Venture and Peguform president Michael Torakis of Grosse Point, who Harvard says “actively participated in the misrepresentations”; Venture CFO James E. Butler Jr. of Grosse Pointe Park; and

Venture CEO Larry Winget of Leonard, Mich.

for f$ckin’ cryin’ outloud Helen, you and Harold are a piece of work.

I use iphone shorthand and both of you analyze three letters strung together out of this galaxy.

I mean, how old are you both anyway? Don’t answer that. I dun wanna know.

I’ll accept your reality rain check. You cud use a remedial time out.

For some non-racist credentials, ck out my facebook profile page.

Then stabalize that tongue, would you?

Helena Constantine said:

harold said:

SteveP. said:

Ben Carlson gets dissed cuz well evolution doesnt cut it as most favored explanation for morality.

Now Dawkins gets dissed cuz well religion doesnt cut it as most favored explanation for morality.

What goes around.….…smacks you in the face.

…Also, what is the point of mis-spelling the word “because”? Is that supposed to intimidate people because it makes you sound like a tough guy?

You don’t even scratch the surface of SteveP’s racism here. He is imitating stereotypical black thug speech. He is putting on electronic blackface (and while I have no idea of SteveP’s race, I will note that black minstrel show performers also donned blackface when imitating black stereotypes). What a fine example of Christian morality indeed! And it only took atheist biological scientists to prove that there is no genetic basis for racial hatred like this.

Stanton, what? Atheists sueing a country club for religious discrimination?

But how? Atheist is not a religion.

Or is it? I know, jus a slip of the tongue; Freudian banana slide; subliminal scramble.

Okaaaay.

Is it? That, and I take it that you are not aware that the topic of this thread is actually of atheists suing a country club for religious discrimination. Why should we assume that religion is the most favored explanation of morality when it induces its members to engage in social taboos like religious discrimination?

SteveP. said:

Stanton, what? Atheists sueing a country club for religious discrimination?

But how? Atheist is not a religion.

Or is it? I know, jus a slip of the tongue; Freudian banana slide; subliminal scramble.

Okaaaay.

Is it? That, and I take it that you are not aware that the topic of this thread is actually of atheists suing a country club for religious discrimination. Why should we assume that religion is the most favored explanation of morality when it induces its members to engage in social taboos like religious discrimination?

If a person or group uses their religion as an excuse to discriminate against other people, then they are committing “religious discrimination.”

If you were half as smart as you claim to be, you would have realized this. But, simple logic is far too much to expect from a science-hating bigot, like yourself.

SteveP. said:

Stanton, what? Atheists sueing a country club for religious discrimination?

But how? Atheist is not a religion.

Or is it? I know, jus a slip of the tongue; Freudian banana slide; subliminal scramble.

What? A creationist unfamiliar with Supreme Court precedent? Color me surprised.

Wallace vs. Jaffree, 1985:

At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. 36 But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the [472 U.S. 38, 53] Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. 37 This conclusion derives support not only from the interest in respecting the individual’s freedom of conscience, but also from the conviction that religious beliefs worthy of respect are the product of free and voluntary choice by the faithful, 38 [472 U.S. 38, 54] and from recognition of the fact that the political interest in forestalling intolerance extends beyond intolerance among Christian sects - or even intolerance among “religions” - to encompass intolerance of the disbeliever and the uncertain. 39 [472 U.S. 38, 55]

Questions for Steve P. - Do Christians who accept the theory of evolution consider it the “most favored explanation for morality”?

Do atheist scientists have a disadvantage in scientific work, relative to religious scientists, yes or no?

You forgot these questions in another thread -

Can Steve P provide scientific evidence that will convince Christians who accept the theory of evolution that the theory of evolution is wrong? That’s scientific evidence, not claims that your interpretation of the Bible is better than their interpretation of the Bible.

Does Steve P agree that atheists existed before the birth of Darwin?

And as always - who is the designer, what did the designer design, how did the designer do it, when did the designer do it, and what is an example of something that wasn’t designed by the designer?

One more original one -

Steve P, do you consider yourself “moral”, and if you do, what do you do that makes you moral?

Also, what is the point of mis-spelling the word “because”? Is that supposed to intimidate people because it makes you sound like a tough guy?

I use iphone shorthand

Now how about answering some of the other questions.

raven said:

Harvard also sued Larry Winget in connection with the failure of his company.

There might be other lawsuits. I’ve seen enough and am not searching further.

Courthouse New Service:Thursday, August 28, 2008Last Update: 11:36:25 AM excerpt of longer article:

DETROIT (CN) - Harvard University claims JPMorgan Securities and the operators of Venture Holdings Co. defrauded it in the sale of $50 million in securities by hiding the insolvency of a German subsidiary of Venture, Peguform.

Also sued are Venture and Peguform president Michael Torakis of Grosse Point, who Harvard says “actively participated in the misrepresentations”; Venture CFO James E. Butler Jr. of Grosse Pointe Park; and

Venture CEO Larry Winget of Leonard, Mich.

Well, lucky for him, it’s not as if Harvard has a lot of good lawyers and a big endowment or anything.

SteveP. said:

for f$ckin’ cryin’ outloud Helen, you and Harold are a piece of work.

I use iphone shorthand and both of you analyze three letters strung together out of this galaxy.

I mean, how old are you both anyway? Don’t answer that. I dun wanna know.

I’ll accept your reality rain check. You cud use a remedial time out.

For some non-racist credentials, ck out my facebook profile page.

Then stabalize that tongue, would you?

Helena Constantine said:

harold said:

SteveP. said:

Ben Carlson gets dissed cuz well evolution doesnt cut it as most favored explanation for morality.

Now Dawkins gets dissed cuz well religion doesnt cut it as most favored explanation for morality.

What goes around.….…smacks you in the face.

…Also, what is the point of mis-spelling the word “because”? Is that supposed to intimidate people because it makes you sound like a tough guy?

You don’t even scratch the surface of SteveP’s racism here. He is imitating stereotypical black thug speech. He is putting on electronic blackface (and while I have no idea of SteveP’s race, I will note that black minstrel show performers also donned blackface when imitating black stereotypes). What a fine example of Christian morality indeed! And it only took atheist biological scientists to prove that there is no genetic basis for racial hatred like this.

See how your misogyny flairs up too? You’re infuriated because you’re being challenged by a woman. You even say flat out that you want to silence me–just like your bible wants to silence women in church. What a give away.

Up until now you’ve gotten off easy here. Your beliefs have been challenged because they’re irrational. But Christianity–the source of your misogyny and racism–is evil.

SteveP. said: For some non-racist credentials, ck out my facebook profile page.

And that page would be … ?

… “Biological evolution is how the human brain got here, of course, but the theory of evolution doesn’t provide ethical guidance. (It can help explain how things like empathy, cooperation, aggression, tribalism, sociopathy, etc, came to exist, but cannot state whether one action is more ethical than another action.)” …

Neither can religion. So-called absolutes perpetrated by the various religions are all relative to the believer and his sect versus the other sects who likely have a different set of absolutes. I think the atheist understands this concept far better than the religious person, particularly over those of the fundamentalist/absolutist sects, who cannot help but stumble when confronted by gray issues. So if abortion is bad, then why do we have wars where one can freely take human lives according to the rules of the Geneva Convention, etc? It’s all relative.

SteveP. said: I use iphone shorthand…

…unlike anybody else here. That’s impolite and ignorant.

I dun wanna know.

That summarizes your entire worldview, doesn’t it? That’s the motto of you and your kind.

SteveP. said: For some non-racist credentials, ck out my facebook profile page.

Why, with your profile already splashed all over the PT? Speaks for itself. Nothing of value to contribute either. Seems we know you better than you do yourself.

No Helen, the only one who has issues is you. I said silence that tongue, meaning you should check your own speech. I did not say I would do it for you.

Your accusation of racism was grossly unfounded. Now your second accusation is just plain silly.

Take a deep breath Helen, and exhale slowly. Repeat five times. Then check your pulse.

I suppose once you read that last sentence, you will find some new accusation you can bring to the table.

Alright, lets hear it.

Helena Constantine said:

SteveP. said:

for f$ckin’ cryin’ outloud Helen, you and Harold are a piece of work.

I use iphone shorthand and both of you analyze three letters strung together out of this galaxy.

I mean, how old are you both anyway? Don’t answer that. I dun wanna know.

I’ll accept your reality rain check. You cud use a remedial time out.

For some non-racist credentials, ck out my facebook profile page.

Then stabalize that tongue, would you?

Helena Constantine said:

harold said:

SteveP. said:

Ben Carlson gets dissed cuz well evolution doesnt cut it as most favored explanation for morality.

Now Dawkins gets dissed cuz well religion doesnt cut it as most favored explanation for morality.

What goes around.….…smacks you in the face.

…Also, what is the point of mis-spelling the word “because”? Is that supposed to intimidate people because it makes you sound like a tough guy?

You don’t even scratch the surface of SteveP’s racism here. He is imitating stereotypical black thug speech. He is putting on electronic blackface (and while I have no idea of SteveP’s race, I will note that black minstrel show performers also donned blackface when imitating black stereotypes). What a fine example of Christian morality indeed! And it only took atheist biological scientists to prove that there is no genetic basis for racial hatred like this.

See how your misogyny flairs up too? You’re infuriated because you’re being challenged by a woman. You even say flat out that you want to silence me–just like your bible wants to silence women in church. What a give away.

Up until now you’ve gotten off easy here. Your beliefs have been challenged because they’re irrational. But Christianity–the source of your misogyny and racism–is evil.

SWT, you’ve been here long enough. You know I have given my full name on this site.

Figure it out.

Btw, its a pic of me and an African friend I made while breaking bread with him on a sidewalk in Cairo years back. A racist wouldnt be caught dead having his picture taken appearing all friendly with a person donning charcoal skin.

SWT said:

SteveP. said: For some non-racist credentials, ck out my facebook profile page.

And that page would be … ?

Helena Constantine said:

SteveP. said:

for f$ckin’ cryin’ outloud Helen, you and Harold are a piece of work.

I use iphone shorthand and both of you analyze three letters strung together out of this galaxy.

I mean, how old are you both anyway? Don’t answer that. I dun wanna know.

I’ll accept your reality rain check. You cud use a remedial time out.

For some non-racist credentials, ck out my facebook profile page.

Then stabalize that tongue, would you?

Helena Constantine said:

harold said:

SteveP. said:

Ben Carlson gets dissed cuz well evolution doesnt cut it as most favored explanation for morality.

Now Dawkins gets dissed cuz well religion doesnt cut it as most favored explanation for morality.

What goes around.….…smacks you in the face.

…Also, what is the point of mis-spelling the word “because”? Is that supposed to intimidate people because it makes you sound like a tough guy?

You don’t even scratch the surface of SteveP’s racism here. He is imitating stereotypical black thug speech. He is putting on electronic blackface (and while I have no idea of SteveP’s race, I will note that black minstrel show performers also donned blackface when imitating black stereotypes). What a fine example of Christian morality indeed! And it only took atheist biological scientists to prove that there is no genetic basis for racial hatred like this.

See how your misogyny flairs up too? You’re infuriated because you’re being challenged by a woman. You even say flat out that you want to silence me–just like your bible wants to silence women in church. What a give away.

Up until now you’ve gotten off easy here. Your beliefs have been challenged because they’re irrational. But Christianity–the source of your misogyny and racism–is evil.

The extreme sexism of fundamentalist Christianity is so obvious that it’s barely worth talking about. It would not only be astounding for these guys not to be misogynist, it would be extremely controversial within their own circle for them not to be.

Needless to say we see that standard “endorse the position but deny the name of the position” dodge.

The racism here seems to be, tentatively, of the clueless rather than hateful type.

Btw, its a pic of me and an African friend I made while breaking bread with him on a sidewalk in Cairo years back. A racist wouldnt be caught dead having his picture taken appearing all friendly with a person donning charcoal skin.

However, I do differentiate between clueless condescending racism versus hateful racism (which is currently widespread). Both are obnoxious, but the second type is far more so.

Steve P., would you like this guy to say that he is especially enlightened because he allowed a picture of himself next to someone with “pasty” skin? If you wouldn’t, why do you do it to him? Luke 6:31 - good advice for anyone, regardless of religion.

SteveP. said:

SWT, you’ve been here long enough. You know I have given my full name on this site.

Figure it out.

Actually, I know no such thing; I certainly don’t recall you providing your name. Arguably, it’s not worth my time even to post this, let alone slog through all the dreck you’ve posted on PT on the off chance that you’re telling the truth about this.

It’s this simple: if you really wanted us to check out your FB page, you’d be willing to tell us how to get there. Readers familiar with modus tollens, time to draw the obvious conclusion.

For the record, I thought that charges of racism and sexism against SteveP were unfounded. But I think we have had enough bickering, and I will send further discussion to the bathroom wall.

Just for the record. My remark earlier about Steve P’s profile visible on the PT was made strictly in the sense of a general observation without implying any real or conceived particulars of a profile.

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

SteveP. said:

Helen isn’t much of a gambler I see. Doubles down when the dealer shows an ace.

Let’s get back to the OP, shall we?

Good idea.

Since the OP is about a group of atheists, and Steve P. claims that the theory of evolution is equivalent to atheism, all of the following unanswered questions are directly on topic.

Question for Steve P. - Do Christians who accept the theory of evolution consider it the “most favored explanation for morality”?

Do atheist scientists have a disadvantage in scientific work, relative to religious scientists, yes or no?

You forgot these questions in another thread -

Can Steve P provide scientific evidence that will convince Christians who accept the theory of evolution that the theory of evolution is wrong? That’s scientific evidence, not claims that your interpretation of the Bible is better than their interpretation of the Bible.

Does Steve P agree that atheists existed before the birth of Darwin?

And as always - who is the designer, what did the designer design, how did the designer do it, when did the designer do it, and what is an example of something that wasn’t designed by the designer?

Matt Young said:

For the record, I thought that charges of racism and sexism against SteveP were unfounded. But I think we have had enough bickering, and I will send further discussion to the bathroom wall.

It would detract from the actual point of this blog to excessively focus on whether he is a sexist and racist or not, but I have one final comment.

I am a far cry from being perfectly politically correct, progressive thought I may be, but sexism that any reasonable person would agree is sexism is clearly common.

I perceive creationist fundamentalists, and by extension their political allies, to be sexist by definition, as their agenda clearly advocates discrimination against women. Here I am not making the claim that Steve P particularly stands out on this metric, relative to others who share his agenda, just noting, one final time, that the agenda itself has strongly sexist characteristics.

As for racism, I don’t see the kind of hateful racism that would lead me to call for action from the moderator, but I do see evidence of unintentional, condescending racism. I strongly differentiate between those two things and make some allowance for the latter, which I find to be surprisingly common among both creationists and pro-science people. I believe that hateful racism is a deep character flaw which is not amenable to persuasion, whereas typical unconscious self-serving bias in favor of one’s own coincidental cultural group is highly amenable to improvement via friendly discussion.

Harold might have a point if it were true that I believed evolution was ‘equivalent’ to atheism. But that is not the case. It’s just his erronerous characterization. Therefore he is off topic.

But not as much as his last post, though. I am curious as to why Matt Young has let that one stand for so long.

Is favoritism creeping into PT’s modus operandi?

Whatsupwiththat?

SteveP. said:

Harold might have a point if it were true that I believed evolution was ‘equivalent’ to atheism. But that is not the case. It’s just his erronerous characterization. Therefore he is off topic.

But not as much as his last post, though. I am curious as to why Matt Young has let that one stand for so long.

Is favoritism creeping into PT’s modus operandi?

Whatsupwiththat?

You made the direct statement “Of course evolution is just atheism in drag” not long ago.

I don’t know how to search the comments for keywords, or if that’s possible, but that comment is there, and someone will find it.

I’m going to make this my final comment on the thread.

This issue isn’t so straightforward. For one, there are often opposing state and federal laws (incl. the BOR) to untangle. But that aside, are you sure you want to advocate a position stating that privately owned businesses that involve public use cannot dictate who can and can’t use their property? Because if you do, then you’re forced into the position of supporting Manny Paquiao against the California shopping center that refused to let him give an interview on its property because of his opposition to gay marriage.

In other words, it would be hypocritical to argue that the country club *cannot* prevent Dawkins from speaking but that the shopping center *can* prevent Paquiao from speaking. You can’t have it both ways (which is just another way of saying iustitia caeca est).

In other words, it would be hypocritical to argue that the country club *cannot* prevent Dawkins from speaking but that the shopping center *can* prevent Paquiao from speaking.

You are comparing apples and oranges here and doing it rather clumsily.

1. Did Manny Paquiao have a signed contract with the shopping center? Was he scheduled to speak there? Had he paid them money? The Michigan CFI did.

2. Since when is being a raving Gay hater a religion? You are equating bigotry with a religion. Religions these days in the USA are reservoirs of hate and bigotry of course. But you can be a hater without being religious, although they are rare.

And you can be religious without being a hater. IIRC, someone saw one of those once, but then again, they also claimed to have seen Bigfoot.

I doubt the shopping center refused Paquaio for being a Catholic or fundie or whatever he is. Most of their customers are xians of some sort, after all. They told him to get lost for being a hate filled moron.

It’s not the same situation at all unless your religion is called “Hate”.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Matt Young published on May 14, 2012 2:02 PM.

Odocoileus virginianus was the previous entry in this blog.

Video game for teaching biology is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter