Freedom of religion? Not for innocent Muslims

[scouterjim]

I see Betsy making a comment about Obama possibly being a Muslim in the "Harper/Obama" thread.

Edited May 23, 2011 by scouterjim

[Guest American Woman]

If it is discriminatory, there's nothing wrong with the discrimination.

So there's discrimination that there's nothing wrong with?? How does one tell the difference between discrimination that's wrong and discrimination that there's nothing wrong with?

[Smallc]

I'll leave that in your capable hands. If you can't figure this out (how there's a difference between citizens and non citizens, but that there really shouldn't be two classes of citizens) then you're quite lost.

[Guest American Woman]

I'll leave that in your capable hands.

Didn't think you'd be able to answer the question.

[bud]

overruled AW and BC2004!

any person is able to run to be a prime minister once they become a citizen. some will have to wait to become citizens, but the important issue is that they do have the option of becoming able to run for the prime minister's office.

whereas in the states, if you're a citizen but were not born in america, you will never be able to run for presidency.

[guyser]

whereas in the states, if you're a citizen but were not born in america, you will never be able to run for presidency.

Oh boy....not true

[Guest American Woman]

overruled AW and BC2004!

any person is able to run to be a prime minister once they become a citizen. some will have to wait to become citizens, but the important issue is that they do have the option of becoming able to run for the prime minister's office.

Let me get this straight - it's not discrimination because the person can change their status? What if they don't want to change their status and become a citizen? They are still living in Canada, raising their families there, working there, spending their money there, contributing to society there. So how is it not discrimination to exclude them while the US qualifications are? It's still discriminatory to permanent residents, which was my point.

whereas in the states, if you're a citizen but were not born in america, you will never be able to run for presidency.

And in Canada, if you're a permanent resident but not a citizen, you will never be able to be an MP or arguably PM. It's discrimination against a group of residents who are not citizens as surely as the US qualifications are discrimination. Or it's not discrimination as surely as the US qualifications are not. Take your pick.

Edited May 25, 2011 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

Oh boy....not true

Thanks for pointing that out. I've grown weary of correcting the erroneous claim.

[bud]

Let me get this straight - it's not discrimination because the person can change their status? What if they don't want to change their status and become a citizen? They are still living in Canada, raising their families there, working there, spending their money there, contributing to society there. So how is it not discrimination to exclude them while the US qualifications are? It's still discriminatory to permanent residents, which was my point.

you cannot compare the two. it's very simple; one has the option of becoming eligible (in canada) and the other can never become eligible (in the u.s.).

[Guest American Woman]

you cannot compare the two. it's very simple; one has the option of becoming eligible (in canada) and the other can never become eligible (in the u.s.).

So if one has the option to change it's not discrimination?

[bud]

So if one has the option to change it's not discrimination?

yes. it's not discrimination because they are not a canadian citizen. however, if they want to become prime minister, they have the option of becoming a canadian citizen. in the u.s., for some, being a citizen of u.s. is not enough and they can never run for presidency. this is discrimination.

are you done or are you going to continue with your ridiculous comparison?

[Guest American Woman]

American Woman, on 25 May 2011 - 12:19 PM, said:

So if one has the option to change it's not discrimination?

yes. it's not discrimination because they are not a canadian citizen. however, if they want to become prime minister, they have the option of becoming a canadian citizen.

I see. So it's not discrimination because they have the option to change. One is not being discriminated against if they have the option to change.

So applying that same logic to this situation, it was not discrimination even if the pilot did deplane the Muslims because of their faith and/or clothing - because they had the option to change their religion, or at the very least change their clothing, whereas they would have blended in and been treated the same as everyone else according to those accusing the pilot of deplaning them solely because of their religion/clothing - those accusing him of discrimination. But evidently it's not discrimination if one has the option to change, so there's no such thing as discrimination against Muslims. All they have to do is change their religion.

Edited May 25, 2011 by American Woman

[bud]

I see. So it's not discrimination because they have the option to change. One is not being discriminated against if they have the option to change.

it's not discrimination because they're not citizen of canada. immigrating to canada (or any other country) and becoming a citizen is a process and in order to get a passport and be able to vote or run for PM, they have to first become a canadian citizen. once they choose to become a citizen, they will have the exact same rights as any other canadian.

in the united states, one group of citizens have a privilege over another. that's discrimination.

So applying that same logic to this situation, it was not discrimination even if the pilot did deplane the Muslims because of their faith and/or clothing - because they had the option to change their religion, or at the very least change their clothing, whereas they would have blended in and been treated the same as everyone else according to those accusing the pilot of deplaning them solely because of their religion/clothing - those accusing him of discrimination. But evidently it's not discrimination if one has the option to change, so there's no such thing as discrimination against Muslims. All they have to do is change their religion.

that's not applying the same logic. that's just babbling.

why don't you just accept that you're wrong, instead of dragging yourself in the mud like this?

[jbg]

that's not applying the same logic. that's just babbling.

why don't you just accept that you're wrong, instead of dragging yourself in the mud like this?

There's a site for babbling (link). I'm sure given its bent you'd be at home there.

[Guest American Woman]

it's not discrimination because they're not citizen of canada. immigrating to canada (or any other country) and becoming a citizen is a process and in order to get a passport and be able to vote or run for PM, they have to first become a canadian citizen. once they choose to become a citizen, they will have the exact same rights as any other canadian.

As I already pointed out ad naseum, it's discrimination against those who choose not to become citizens. You can't just apply the principle to one group. So what if you treat all citizens the same. I've asked you over and over why a permanent resident would be incapable of doing the job and you've yet to give me a reason. You simply keep repeating over and over again that they aren't citizens.

in the united states, one group of citizens have a privilege over another. that's discrimination.

Nope, it's not, and I've explained why ad naseum. Our reasons are just as valid as your requirement that your MPs and arguably your PM be citizens. On the other hand, no one has yet to explain to me why your head of state can't be a Catholic or married to a Catholic in a secular state.

that's not applying the same logic. that's just babbling.

Let's recap. You said it's not discrimination against permanent residents because they can change and become citizens. I said then it's not discrimination against Muslims because they too can change. Yep. It's the same logic.

why don't you just accept that you're wrong, instead of dragging yourself in the mud like this?

Talk to yourself often?

[g_bambino]

[N]o one has yet to explain to me why your head of state can't be a Catholic or married to a Catholic in a secular state.

You've been told more than a dozen times why that is.

Talk to yourself often?

Just out of curiosity, are you over the age of eleven, AW?

[+]

Edited May 26, 2011 by g_bambino