Driving With Pride

[msj]

Ooops! It turns out the bus driver is a Muslim!

(now watch all the Lefties backtrack and scurry for cover!)

Where did you get this information from? Did you just make it up? Or Breitbart perhaps?

I bet you won't get that retraction/apology.......

No, we won't see it.

But at least we all know Argus' MO: MSU (make stuff up).

[eyeball]

Shooting from the hip because the guy's name, Rau, sounded Islamic would be my guess. Kinda like shooting a running black man because...well....just because.

[Mighty AC]

The mistake made by Argus, does highlight the hypocrisy when it comes to religious issues, of too many on both the right and left though.

[The_Squid]

The mistake made by Argus, does highlight the hypocrisy when it comes to religious issues, of too many on both the right and left though.

I didn't see anyone on this forum excuse the behaviour of the bus driver because he may have been Muslim. The prevailing sentiment seemed to be that whatever religion the driver happened to be, he should shut up and drive his bus. Did you read anything different?

[Mighty AC]

I didn't see anyone on this forum excuse the behaviour of the bus driver because he may have been Muslim. The prevailing sentiment seemed to be that whatever religion the driver happened to be, he should shut up and drive his bus. Did you read anything different?

No...though I have only been skimming the thread.

Argus, thought that introducing the idea that the driver was Muslim would cause more liberals to soften their stance. I expect that if that Muslim angle was presented from the beginning, more lefties would excuse his behaviour or at least not comment. Those on the left often protect visible minorities from what are often hypocritical and racist attacks from those on the right. That protection sometimes extends too far into relativism and leads to us becoming apologetics for heinous, religiously encouraged, acts.

However, Argus either fails to see or acknowledge the reverse hypocrisy from conservatives. Too often those from the right side of the political spectrum seek to condemn any action by a Muslim, while acting as apologetics for Christian encouraged, heinous acts. Had the false Muslim angle been present from the beginning there would certainly be fewer cons arguing that we should honour the driver's refusal to do his job.

The right wing is certainly fraught with ethical problems and the left should continue to drag them into this century. However, with respect to Islam, the left should continue to combat racism, without defending evil acts. When defending the equal rights and social treatment of a minority group, it is still acceptable to denounce the immoral or evil practices committed by some members of that group.

[msj]

Looks like a bunch of straw man BS to me.

Argus has been caught red handed making stuff up.

This does not justify you coming along and also making stuff up.

Focus on the arguments people are actually making rather than what you think some people may make.

How absolutely asinine.

[cybercoma]

If the guy is Muslim that's even more stupid. Does he not realize gay people take the bus? What's he going to do? Kick them off the bus for being gay? Or, wait, I know....he could make them all sit at the back of the bus. I'm sure there will be tons of "lefties" supporting bus drivers making people sit at the back of the bus.

[msj]

If the guy is Muslim that's even more stupid. Does he not realize gay people take the bus? What's he going to do? Kick them off the bus for being gay? Or, wait, I know....he could make them all sit at the back of the bus. I'm sure there will be tons of "lefties" supporting bus drivers making people sit at the back of the bus.

Well, if he was Muslim he may try to throw the gay person off the bus sort of like those ISIS @$$wads throw gays from buildings.

But since he is Christian I suppose he would just deny the gay person from getting on the bus, and, potentially, all gay people from getting on the bus just like that crazy woman in Kentucky denying marriage licences.

Which demonstrates, once again, the stupidity of humanity and, specifically, religion.

[Mighty AC]

Looks like a bunch of straw man BS to me.

Argus has been caught red handed making stuff up.

This does not justify you coming along and also making stuff up.

Focus on the arguments people are actually making rather than what you think some people may make.

How absolutely asinine.

Yeah, Argus made something up, but he unintentionally highlighted a hypocrisy issue shared by both ends of the political spectrum.

I asserted that some on the right skewer Islamic issues while excusing similar Christian issues. Also that some on the left excuse Islamic issues while attacking Christians for similar issues. Which part are you disagreeing with?

Edited September 3, 2015 by Mighty AC

[kimmy]

And yes, contra Argus, it is clear that this guy is a Christian although one would be forgiven if you mistook their freakish behaviour with certain Muslims or Orthodox Jews. Or with that freaky lady in Kentucky who still won't issue marriage licences because it goes against God's word (despite the fact that she has been divorced).

It's better than that! She's been married 4 times! She got pregnant with her twins from husband #3 while she was still married to husband #1. Husband #2 adopted the kids who were fathered by husband #3. If she really believes the Bible is to be taken 100% literally, she should go to town square and beat herself over the head with a brick.

Argus, thought that introducing the idea that the driver was Muslim would cause more liberals to soften their stance. I expect that if that Muslim angle was presented from the beginning, more lefties would excuse his behaviour or at least not comment. Those on the left often protect visible minorities from what are often hypocritical and racist attacks from those on the right. That protection sometimes extends too far into relativism and leads to us becoming apologetics for heinous, religiously encouraged, acts.

However, Argus either fails to see or acknowledge the reverse hypocrisy from conservatives. Too often those from the right side of the political spectrum seek to condemn any action by a Muslim, while acting as apologetics for Christian encouraged, heinous acts. Had the false Muslim angle been present from the beginning there would certainly be fewer cons arguing that we should honour the driver's refusal to do his job.

I don't know if Argus was literally claiming that this guy was a Muslim, or if he was proposing that were that the case, lefties would change their tune on this issue. If it's the latter, he might be right. However, as you point out, righties also tend to be a lot less concerned about the "religious liberty" thing when it's being argued by non-Christians.

-k

[Hal 9000]

Here is another case - the same, but different.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/05/travel/muslim-flight-attendant-feat/?ref=yfp

[Mighty AC]

If beliefs of any kind, religious or otherwise, prevent someone from fulfilling their duties, it's time for them to find a new job or different role within the company.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Michael Hardner
removed superfluous image

[Guest]

Here is another case - the same, but different.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/05/travel/muslim-flight-attendant-feat/?ref=yfp

There were Muslims in the UK who worked in Delicatessans who wouldn't serve pork to customers. As long as the customers got the pork from somebody, I don't see a problem. Same with the flight attendant, the bus driver, the barber and the bakers of wedding cakes. I have no problem with someone following their own religious conscience as long as it affects no-one else and that includes paying customers. If there was only one flight attendant, or one bus driver, and they wouldn't do the job they were paid for then they should quit. Sometimes that's what following one's conscience requires.

As the lady in government service would not issue the licences the law required her to issue, she should have quit (or moved) and allowed someone else to issue them.

Edited September 9, 2015 by bcsapper

[Mighty AC]

As the lady in government service would not issue the licences the law required her to issue, she should have quit (or moved) and allowed someone else to issue them.

That's exactly what she should do, but she is on a crusade for "religious freedom" for Christians only. Which is really a Christian Theocracy.

[msj]

Looks like they found a way to fire this guy: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-transit-driver-jesse-rau-fired-over-pride-bus-controversy-1.3225224

Good riddance.

[michae1]

I believe the man who doesn't want to drive a bus that endorses homosexuality should not have to. If I was his employer I would give him a different route. The man feels he is endorsing something by advertising it. If there are other issues that offend individuals, they should also indicate their unwillingness to be forced into a situation which they are offended by. That's the problem with society. Activists want to force their opinions on others. They can force individuals only so much, then they cause wars.

[Michael Hardner]

If there are other issues that offend individuals, they should also indicate their unwillingness to be forced into a situation which they are offended by. That's the problem with society. Activists want to force their opinions on others.

If the bus company adopted that approach, then they would have to institute a process whereby drivers signed off on the advertising that their assigned bus has, which would increase the complexity and therefore the costs of operation. I don't see this approach being taken by private industry, or companies that are not so sensitive to political pressure.

A similar case involves postal workers who don't want to carry mail that offends them.

I appreciate that they take a personal interest in their jobs, and that what they do is part of their identity. That's a good thing. But their conscience and the conscience of their employer will clash at some point - it does for all of us.

[overthere]

If the bus company adopted that approach, then they would have to institute a process whereby drivers signed off on the advertising that their assigned bus has, which would increase the complexity and therefore the costs of operation. I don't see this approach being taken by private industry, or companies that are not so sensitive to political pressure.

A similar case involves postal workers who don't want to carry mail that offends them.

I appreciate that they take a personal interest in their jobs, and that what they do is part of their identity. That's a good thing. But their conscience and the conscience of their employer will clash at some point - it does for all of us.

No that is not true.

I have never had an employee with a conscience. Except myself. In that case when disputes and moral ambiguities get into a shouting match in my brain I just drink a lot of beer and let them sort it out alone.

Your experience may differ.