I think you mean allele frequency.

by the way, isn’t this a pretty bad idea (other than the good pun), since the wingnuts who froth about Obama are the same one who froth about Darwin? this is just going to confirm their idea that there’s a grand conspiracy of the left to destroy their hegemonic fairytales way of life.

I think you mean allele frequency.

Aaaaarrrrggghhh!!

Actually, I meant non-disjunction duplications and transposons. Yeah, that’s it.

I loves me some macromutations and Barbara McClintock.

this is just going to confirm their idea that there’s a grand conspiracy of the left

I hope so.

Seriously, I’m over caring what those whackaloons think or fear. Accommodating creationists and fundamentalist medievals has worked about as well as bipartisanship worked for Obama. At this point I think we should just unapologetically do our thing and stop noticing how crazy it makes them. If they ask, we can just tell them “We won. The universe voted and superstition was kicked out of office.”

My concern is that if as flat-earther baptist can convince a moderate wasp that democrats hate christians, rather than that they hate listening to flat-earthers, the political left loses moderate support.

though now that i state that clearly, this poster probably won’t be a problem. even when the moderates don’t care enough to support science or education, they at least know that evolution isn’t anti-christian.

(except of course insofar as evolution is anti-supernaturalist, and thus anti-all-religions.)

“My concern is that if as flat-earther baptist can convince a moderate wasp that democrats hate christians,…”
“they at least know that evolution isn’t anti-christian.”

There was nothing on this blog to convince anyone otherwise.
But then since, “I’m over caring what those whackaloons think or fear.”

Since it is obviously our fault (or possibly our ancestors) that that we aren’t as enlightened as you. All we can ask is that you please have mercy and forgive us for not evolving up to your self-perceived intellegence level.

I think as long as there are people on the left that insist on calling Christians kooks, flat-earthers, whackaloons, etc. then the left won’t get their support. Just because there is a disagreement in belief systems (and evolution is a belief system as well as a scientific one) severe criticism and mocking doesn’t belong. And while there are fanatics on the religious right, there are also fanatics on the anti-religious left. Both groups do not deserve to be heard.

My personal perspective? I believe in creationism. I have had many discussions on evolution and read much on it and I just can’t convince myself to have enough faith to believe in and put my faith in it. That being said, my belief in creationism does not deter me from being willing to look at all options politically. And I would fall into the category of whackaloon as described by KTK and would view him, based on what I have read on here, as someone who hates me based on his comments towards people who hold strong religious convictions.

As long as those on the left continue to mock, deride, criticize and alienate people with religious convictions, they will never garner large support.

BU:

I think as long as there are people on the left that insist on calling Christians kooks, flat-earthers, whackaloons, etc. …

What about the Christians who really are wackaloons? Young-Earth Creationism is really not intellectually distinguishable from flat-earthery. Listen carefully when people like KTK and me deride the religious right. We’re complaining not about Christians but about Christianists. It’s not faith as cosmology that’s a problem, but faith as a substitute for humanity. Even most creationists aren’t the target here; it’s the people who think that their ancient book is the arbiter of American (or Canadian) political policy.

Now, I personally also think plain ol’ normal Christianity is pretty kooky. (I mean, it’s about an undead guy bribing an invisible guy to not beat up ghosts for doing in life what seems reasonable when they can’t see the invisible guy.) But just being part of a group with a rather silly idea about the world doesn’t make one a bad actor.

…then the left won’t get their support. Just because there is a disagreement in belief systems (and evolution is a belief system as well as a scientific one)…

Man, I really thought you were better educated than that. Strictly speaking biogical ‘evolution’ just means the change of traits in populations over time. That’s a plain old fact. Anybody willing to read or spend a couple months playing with lillies or fruit flies can see evolution happen.

So, I assume that you’re using ‘evolution’ as a shorthand for the theory of evolution, which is of course something completely different. But still, a theory isn’t a belief system. Sure, it’s a system of beliefs, but it’s not a system for beliefs. The beliefs that make up the theory are all beliefs about physical reality. Like the belief that some genes directly determine protein structure (This belief happens to be a well-demonstrated fact, too.). And the belief that there can be minor changes in genetic code that aren’t always fatal (This one is much harder to see as a fact, but it’s still pretty obviously true.).

Now, what is a belief system, and is relevent to evolution, is the scientific method. That’s a philosophy and a set of principles for forming new beliefs. It’s a system for beliefs. Most people who use that belief system think it’s pretty cool. It leads to things like understanding the fact of evolution by expressing a theory of how it happens. It’s allowed other such popular things as, being able to ship goods across the globe, and wiping out diseases.

Now, what I find most galling about the anti-intellectualism of Christianistism (not Christianity), is that it stifles the real benefits of the scientific belief system. But, because the Christianists are in fact kooks an wackaloons, they often fail to entirely halt science. And then over the years, they get the same benefits from science as the rest of us. A Young Earth Creationist can buy a GPS, just like I can. Sure, I can savor the irony, but I’d prefer that YEC actually became less popular when its adherents couldn’t use what they argue against.

(Okay, that’s probably not what I find most galling about Christianists.)

…severe criticism and mocking doesn’t belong. And while there are fanatics on the religious right,

If you think you’re with the fanatics, you deserve the abuse. If you think you’re different from them, then you’re not the one getting the abuse.

there are also fanatics on the anti-religious left. Both groups do not deserve to be heard.

Could you actually give an example of a anti-religious fanatic who does get listened to in public. Who’s the left’s Jerry Falwel? Where’s our Ken Ham?

My personal perspective? I believe in creationism. I have had many discussions on evolution and read much on it and I just can’t convince myself to have enough faith to believe in and put my faith in it. That being said, my belief in creationism does not deter me from being willing to look at all options politically.

And this is why you’re not who we’re talking about.

And I would fall into the category of whackaloon as described by KTK and would view him, based on what I have read on here, as someone who hates me — If you were in the US and helping our religious right to force women to keep pregnancies and prevent science from using stem cells to cure disease… yeah, probably. But that’s not whan you’re doing. I’m pretty sure it’s not what you’re doing in Canada. No, this is not hate of people; it’s hate of harm done. — based on his comments towards people who hold strong religious convictions. — It’s not the strength or the religiousness that matter; it’s the results. When beliefs about cosmology and invisible things hurt real people, conviction is a vice, not a virtue.

As long as those on the left continue to mock, deride, criticize and alienate people with religious convictions, they will never garner large support.

Could you actually give an example of a anti-religious fanatic who does get listened to in public. Who’s the left’s Jerry Falwel? Where’s our Ken Ham?
Bill Maher and the ACLU come to mind.

Now, I personally also think plain ol’ normal Christianity is pretty kooky. (I mean, it’s about an undead guy bribing an invisible guy to not beat up ghosts for doing in life what seems reasonable when they can’t see the invisible guy.)

You’re child-like understanding of faith doesn’t give you much credence in criticizing those you consider religious “kooks”.

As long as those on the left continue to mock, deride, criticize and alienate people with religious convictions, they will never garner large support.

Normally I would agree with you, but here in America the mainstream media is now overwhelmingly part of this group and they wield tremendous power. Just look at who they almost single-handedly got elected to the presidency: the most pro-death, liberal/socialist candidate in history.

“Now, I personally also think plain ol’ normal Christianity is pretty kooky.”

And believing that nothing became something that turned into evrything is sensible?

” It leads to things like understanding the fact of evolution by expressing a theory of how it happens.”

I thought science was proving theories with facts, not proving facts with theories.

Last I heard Bill Maher was a commedian. Does anyone care what his political views are? For that matter, isn’t he just pro-separation-of-church-and-state?

Hm, interesting. The top result for the google search “ACLU christian” yields this: http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html It’s the ACLU defending a Christian’s First Amendment rights. I note also that the second google hit that claims the ACLU is anti-Christian is from WingNutWorldNetDaily, which is actually far enough to the fanatical right that even some Christianists try to dissociate themselves from it.

Hell, could you cite a time where the ACLU has opposed Christians in any case where the Christians weren’t trying to force their religion on somebody else? (And, yes, I know you think that Christians should have the power to make the rest of us support Christianity. Just for the sake of argument, show where the ACLU “persecutes” Christians some other way than fighting their God-given right to impose their religion on others.)

bob,
You’re child-like understanding of faith doesn’t give you much credence in criticizing those you consider religious “kooks”.

Tell me what part of that is inaccurate. Heck, tell me how your adult version differs from it.

Regardless of that, you’ve of course missed my point anyway. The point is that Christianity on its face appears to be what I described. That’s just kooky.

I’ll grant Bill Maher as “radically” anti-religion, but it’s worth noting that his fame or influence, to the extent he has much, was not derived from his standing within the aetheist community. He was/is a smarter-, more-talented-than aveage comedian turned politicial commentator. He happens to be an aetheist, and that is part of both his personal belief system and his “schtick.”

I wouldn’t say Maher is a famous aethiest as much as he is a celebrity who happens to be an aethiest. It might sound like I’m splitting hairs, and to a degree I may be. But, it’s worth noting that somebody like Jerry Falwell is famous FOR BEING a religious extremist, and influential because of it.

With his recent documentary, Maher has begun to cross the line perhaps, from celebrity who is aethiest, to an advocate for aetheism. But again, this largely a sidebar to who he is and what he’s known for. On this famous, influential aetheist list, George Carlin would probably have placed near the top over recent years as well. As unbelievably brilliant as Carlin was, if the best we can do in terms of influencers are a couple of high quality comedians, that kinda proves our point, doesn’t it?

But you know what they say about where the truth lies in oppressive society, right? Word to Juvenal.

Not sure if this is what you were asking for Dan M

http://thewideawakes.org/archives/2006/10/25/aclus-bias-against-christianity/

Big U.:

Precisely as Dan said (and anyone could have predicted), the cases mentioned in the incoherent rant you link to are, every one, nothing more than perfectly ordinary First Amendment jurisprudence: most of them are suits to stop officially sanctioned sectarian activities in public schools (i.e., explicitly sectarian prayers or religious expression as part of official lessons or at school-wide activities like graduation); the others are pro-religious suits demanding equal treatment in cases where voluntary religious expression is allowed (such as religious meetings or symbols in military institutions). That’s what the Constitution requires – both that the government shall not require or endorse a particular form of religious expression, and that it shall not ban any form of voluntary or private religious expression (within limits). The ACLU supports both sides of the question and always has. These cases merely demonstrate that (if you take the time to read them; many of the claims in the post you link to are simply falsely reported – yet another of many, many examples of Conservative Reading Comprehension Disorder).

It’s true that it’s almost always Christian groups on the losing side of these lawsuits, but you might want to turn your attention to the question why it’s always Christian groups that are trying to violate the Constitution, either by requiring religious observance or sneaking it in whenever they’ve got a captive audience, or by banning other people’s religious practices in venues where Christian practice is already allowed. If they’d stop violating the law, they’d stop losing lawsuits. You might also note that every suit the ACLU wins represents a federal court that decided in their favor – usually at several levels of appeals, often including the Supreme Court. Why do you think all those judges and Constitutional scholars (most appointed by Republicans) hate Christianity so much?

KTK:

It’s also worth noting that while it’s almost always Christian groups on the losing side of these lawsuits, the people on the winning side are themselves almost always Christians. The overwhelming majority of church-state cases are brought by Christians against other Christians.

Hmmmm . . .

So it’s the Christians who hate Christianity?!

This Christian-on-Christian violence is getting out of hand, and it’s not very, um, Christian. Well actually, I’m not all that distraught. And, actually, yes, it is.

Also, if you go by the jewelry, many rap-related crimes could also be classified as Christian-on-Christian…

KTK:
Emo Phillips:
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”

“Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.

BU.

Try harder.

Just looking at the first several links from your article:

* “Stop The ACLU”: Dead link.

* “the guardian of religious liberty”: opinion, not news; includes claim “Dover v Kitzmiller, [...] was actually a restriction on the liberty of a local school board to determine its own curriculum.”, which is certainly not what the court understood the case to be.

* “number one religious censor”: ACLU asks why Christian-specific plaques are displayed by National Park Service. When NPS changes back to being secular, they call this “restrict the free exercise of religion”

* “compared them to terrorists”: ACLU honcho points out that 9/11 hijackers thought religion trumped law. After a court rules that the school wasn’t following the law because it thought prayer was more important.

* “attack on plan for a Katrina memorial”: “hurricane memorial [will include] a cross[. ...]Parish President [...] reply: “They can kiss my ass.”.” Note that ‘parish’ here means ‘county’, not religious estate.

Of the four valid links, three are cases of the ACLU pointing out that you can’t use government to endorse a particular religion, including particular sects of Christianity and Christianity as a whole. The fourth link is an opinion piece complaining that a court of law agrees with the separation of church and state. (And before you or bob ask how disallowing “intelligent design” creationism in a school curriculum is supporting secularism, look up “cdesign proponentist.)

In “number one religious censor” did you miss the part about the ACLU suing a private Jewish school which led to the school being forced to violate it’s own beliefs and teachings to accomodate two lesbians?

In “compared them to terrorists” the issue is the comment by the ACLU honcho that anyone who believes in a higher power is the exact same as the 9/11 terrorists. How does that not show an anti-religious bias?

“attack on Katrina memorial” – volunteers providing time and donations for a memorial on private land. None of it is being promoted officially by the parish. No council votes have taken place. So really what the ACLU is trying to do is to say that if someone is a public figure, they can’t do something on their own time that reflects as being Christian. The government agency is not doing anything to promote anything. It is strictly private citizens.

It would seem to me that it comes down to a matter of opinion of whether they oppose Christianity or not. From what I have seen, when a group like the ACLU argues that a private religious school can not enforce it’s own beliefs, that shows a definite bias (or at the very least a strong desire to have the state control religion). Keep in mind that the constitutional separation of state was also strongly intended to prevent the state from controlling religion or establishing a state religion (such as what the Church of England was at the time). Seems to me the focus is always on keeping the church or religion away from the state as opposed to keeping the state away from religion.

* As for terrorism, you’re still missing the point: anyone who believes in a higher power and thinks that lets them violate the law is on the path to terrorism. Not exactly the same, and there’s nothing wrong with believing in god, just with thinking that your belief trumps following laws against violating the rights of others.

* As for letting religious institutions enforce their own belief systems, at least in the case of Catholic Charities, the problem is that the organisation takes substantial amounts of money from the US government. It’s illegal for that money to be spend to enforce particular religious beliefs. There’s a very simple solution; Catholic Charities can stop taking government money and hire whoever it pleases. (Now, I will admit that it may make more sense to sue the lawmakers who give public money to Catholic Charities if they know that it’s sectarian. But there are hairy jurisprudential issues there. Maybe somebody else here could better explain what’s going on there.) Anyway, I suspect the Jewish university has the exact same pproblem, though I’ll need to research that.

* Apparently what’s hard to dig up is that the Katrina memorial was proposed by the county commissioner and the first proposal was to use gov’t lang and money: “initially they were going to get involved in the government and on that case Jim would be on the right side of the argument.” http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207482,00.html

This emphasizes a recurring theme. You seem to believe it everytime somebody says that the ACLU is opposing private religion. On the flip side, I tend to believe it when somebody claims the ACLU’s opposition of religion isn’t private. Now, when I bother to do the research, guess which one is the case?

You say “Seems to me the focus is always on keeping the church or religion away from the state[.]“. There’s a reason for that. Here in the US, we have a huge number of lawmakers and other public figures who try putting religion into government. Heck, usually they’re doing it to then put their religion into other people’s lives. (“Under god” wasn’t added to the Pledge to praise god, it was added to make sure atheists had to violate their consciences.)

Yes, I’ve seen a few law suits where somebody has overstepped their bounds and is calling for an end to a private religious endorcement. It happens, though not very often. I honestly don’t remember if the ACLU has every been involved in one.

….“Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.

LOL, if only they’d stayed practicing Catholics as God intended.

It would seem to me that it comes down to a matter of opinion of whether they oppose Christianity or not. From what I have seen, when a group like the ACLU argues that a private religious school can not enforce it’s own beliefs, that shows a definite bias (or at the very least a strong desire to have the state control religion). Keep in mind that the constitutional separation of state was also strongly intended to prevent the state from controlling religion or establishing a state religion (such as what the Church of England was at the time). Seems to me the focus is always on keeping the church or religion away from the state as opposed to keeping the state away from religion.
EXACTLY!!

just to gather some more stats and enlarge the vector space:

* “right call to pull the plug”: This one is almost interesting. The ACLU (and standing case law) recognizes that minors in school are especially succeptible to being influenced by preferential treatment of particular religious views. So, even tacit approval of religious content has the effect of endorsement. Oh, look, it’s another case of not allowing public agencies to endorse Christianity. Hm, is this a theme?

* “eliminate the Mt. Soledad war memorial”. Ah, this one. I remember when it happened. One of the more laughable ones. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Soledad_cross_controversy) When various groups pointed out that a 40-foot cross publicly known as the “Easter Cross” on public land sure seemed like an endorcement specific to Christianity, the local gov’t renamed it, 35 years after its construction (during which time it was used for Easter services), to a “Veteran’s Memorial”. Oh, sure, the citizens who support the local gov’t sure do want their big religious symbol on public land, paid for by public funds. Oh, wait, what’s that? Oh, right, it’s government preference of a single religion! (Oh, and never mind the First Amendment, the California constitution apparently also explicitly disallows pubilc agents from preferring one religion over another.)

* “started early this year”: I can find no indication that the ACLU was involved.

* “ten commandment displays”: Now, this one is actually sort of neat, and does actually show a bias in interpretation. In McCreary County v. ACLU, a 10Commandment display was ruled illegal because the legislative history showed that the lawmakers made the display in an attempt to endorse Christianity. They then tried covering their tracks, but the Court noted that deception after the fact really doesn’t help them. BUT they note that the final display that McCreary made could have been okay if it wasn’t a bald attempt to hide their previous wrong-doing. Then Mercer County set up a display physically similar to this final version. ACLU sued Mercer on the grounds that they were trying to pull the same illegal shit. The 6th Circuit ruled instead that the lack of a history of mal fide lets Mercer County lawmakers off the hook.

Now, here’s what’s interesting. This is the first case cited where the facts are in dispute, rather than the legal result. Mercer County is contending that it invested in an educational display. ACLU things that they’re lying and invested in a religious display. The court didn’t find enough evidence of lying to penalize them. Now, let’s see, either a local county government paid for some free education, or they lied to avoid prosecution for committing the same kind of crime as happens several times a year, including just recently in a similar community, under circumstances that made it easy for them to hide their crime.

The ACLU, which has a pretty clear view of how often local governments try to violate the law, and know how regularly they lose in court when there’s enough of a paper trail, sided with the theory that the Christianists were doing the same thing they always do. The court ruled… that there wasn’t enough evidence to convict

So, how many more of these do i need to go through?

Oh, and as a teaser, I’ve now read enough about the Yashiva University case to realize that it actually is an example of something other than an Establishment violation.

I think there are good arguments in favor the the ACLU position again, but they are different arguments.

But some of you other folks can do some of the work now. (And I’m hoping that the local ethicist will take a turn for my side here.)

And, bob, assuming your comment about the Baptists was meant as a joke, that’s actually pretty funny!

In the Yashiva University case, it involved New York City anti-discrimination laws that apply to anyone who offers housing for a fee. NYC civil rights laws explicitly recognize sexual orientation as a protected class. To allow an exception on religious grounds would amount to special treatment for a religious organization, and would effectively amount to invalidating the civil rights protections altogether, as anyone could just claim they have a “religious objection” to offering housing to “those” people.

Where do you draw the line, Big U? If a private religious organization wants to deny access to, say, mixed-race couples on “religious” grounds, do you think that, too, should be perfectly legal? (This isn’t exactly a hypothetical, as Bob Jones University did exactly that until very recently.)

As much as it is unpopular, I say if a religious institution has set rules and is self-funded, then it should be able to allow or disallow whomever it wants. Why? Because there is no rule saying a person HAS to attend it. They attend by choice. I may not like it, but that is my right. However, to force a religious institution to go against what it preaches and teaches inside its own walls to people who make the conscious choice to be there is wrong. It is just as wrong as trying to force religion on a public institution.

There are restrictions all over the place for all sorts of things. Why is it that everyone is so willing and eager to force private religious organizations to change their rules? If government money is involved, that is different because then there are state and federal rules that are tied to the acceptance of that money. BUT if it is 100% private, then why are people who obviously disagree with some of the organization’s beliefs so eager to force the organization to change to accomodate them rather than just find somewhere else to do what they want to do?

AS far as the mixed-race issue at Bob Jones University goes, I would surmise that the University received federal or state funding meaning it had to abide by the guidelines attached to the cash. If it was 100% private, all the policy would do is serve to show that the school was racist and from my perspective it would do more damage to the school than good in the long-term.

BU:

As with many conservatives, you’re ascribing to both conservatives and the market moral forces which neither possesses.

Bob Jones did not accept any form of federal subsidy, not for research (actually, I’m not aware they did any) or even in the form of student loans. Their reason was specifically to protect their racial-segregation policy. In the early 1970s, the Supreme Court ruled that private colleges – like other businesses, including, most famously, bus lines and lunch counters – could not discriminate on the basis of race, and that doing so would invalidate their claim to tax exemption as a non-profit institution. Bob Jones appealed on the grounds that segregation was part of its religious beliefs. The courts universally turned them down, then the Reagan administration ordered the Justice Department to drop the case and allow them to continue discriminating. (Reagan was like that.) Public outcry forced the administration to reverse itself, and the Supreme Court finally slapped Bob Jones with a million dollars’ worth of back taxes, in the late 70s, because of the segregation policy. Suddenly, God spoke to Bob Jones (the man), and Bob Jones (the university) discovered that segregation wasn’t all that important after all. So they began admitting black students – but only if they were already married (so they would be less likely to prey on helpless white females). Later they admitted unmarried blacks, but banned interracial dating. Students who were of inter-racial heritage had to declare which race they identified with, and were investigated by the university for racial classification purposes. That continued until George Bush’s campaign for President in 2000; he made the same obligatory stop at Bob Jones to genuflect to racism that every Republican candidate before him had made at least back to Reagan, but by that time it was finally an issue. Bush apologized, and Bob Jones changed its policy to allow inter-racial dating . . . if the students’ parents were informed beforehand and gave permission in writing. (That rule may since have been rescinded, but Bob Jones Jr. [the man]’s habit of nasty racial stereotyping was not.)

Yes, the policy served to show that the school was racist. And they liked it that way. And parents continued to send their kids there, without letup. And Republicans continued to campaign there, without break, until well into the 21st Century.

In one sense, I suppose, the policy did more damage than good “in the long term”, but that term, for Bob Jones University, was close to 75 years, and at least 6 rounds of Presidential campaigning. The school only grew throughout that period, and eventually achieved accreditation (from some sort of off-brand Bible-college accrediting board that is accepted by South Carolina). “The market” just doesn’t punish racism very strongly (and other religious nut-job obsessions, including institutional homophobia, misogyny, creationism, chaperoned dating, curfews, and moustache bans, among many others – all still well entrenched at Bob Jones – at all).

In short, being a vicious, bigoted religious loon is not a losing proposition within the right-wing cultural/economic milieu. Bob Jones survived and thrived that way for generations, and still does with only one revision to its most offensive policies. It wasn’t that nobody noticed. It wasn’t even that it was not illegal (it is), or not costly in terms of fines and lost aid (it is). It was simply that the people who make up the core constituency for institutions like that – including more than one Republican President – are perfectly willing to patronize, protect, and support them with those policies intact. Racism – and sexism, and homophobia, and general whackalooniness in all its ways and forms – do not “do more damage than good” to such institutions, given the support they command in certain quarters, at least except over a long term so long they don’t even bother to plan for it.

Big U:

I’m afraid KTK is correct, on all counts. BJU really was and is as bad as he says, and even today in the US, there’s unfortunately a market for racism — and it’s not exclusive to the South, as evidenced by the Milwaukee nightclub story I linked to a while back, wherein the black patrons were being turned away for various invented “dress code violations.” If you were to open a “whites only” club, you’d probably make a lot of money, even today, if such a thing were legal. [People today get around this legal technicality and create de facto whites-only clubs by playing Jimmy Buffet music in their establishments.]

If you were to open a “whites only” club, you’d probably make a lot of money, even today, if such a thing were legal.

There are many such clubs still today. Most of them are country clubs or golf clubs, many of which were officially segregated until the 70s, and then remained segregated, or with one token non-white member, thereafter. You have to be voted into membership in those clubs, so even after they grudgingly removed the official segregationist policies (or in some cases, in fact, did not do so at all) somehow they just never seemed to accumulate any black members.

Anti-female segregation in the same establishments is even more rampant, and remains legal in some cases. Many of the so-called men’s “service clubs” – the Shriners, the Rotary Club, etc. – were vehemently anti-woman until the 80s, when some of them were declared de facto public accommodations, like businesses, and forced to integrate. They defended their privilege to the very last.

Augusta National Golf Club – home of the Masters’ Tournament – had no black members until 1990, when public pressure forced them to admit a few. They still officially bar female members, and chose to forgo all advertising sponsorship for the Masters’ Tournament for several years rather than give in to a PR campaign intended to open the club to women. Past Masters’ Champions lined the room in their traditional green blazers to show support during the club president’s defiant press conference. It was literally worth tens of millions of dollars to them to maintain segregation. The PGA has never hesitated to hold one of its “major” tournaments at one of the most defiantly segregated clubs in America, and continues to do so. (Fun fact: when Tiger Woods, the inter-racial golf god, won the Masters’ Tournament for the first time and was given the traditional privilege of choosing the menu for the celebration dinner, Fuzzy Zeller, a former champion, referred to him as a “little boy” and said he should be advised not to select “fried chicken and collard greens, or whatever the hell it is that they eat”. Golfers – including Tiger Woods – rushed to defend him.)

Just last month, the runner-up candidate for Chair of the Republican National Committee was a white man who had maintained a 12-year membership in an all-white country club that not only had never gotten around to admitting blacks, but still maintained an official by-law prohibiting them; he said he had somehow just never noticed. He resigned his membership just two months before beginning his campaign for the RNC position. He then ran on a campaign platform of his history of racial inclusiveness, and lost on the sixth ballot to Michael Steele, a black man who had previously defended another Republican’s membership in a similarly segregated country club. A different white candidate had dropped out of the RNC election after being criticized for distributing – during the campaign – a CD of anti-Democrat song parodies including one called “Barack the Magic Negro”, sung by a white man in black dialect, and another called “The Star Spanglish Banner” sung in Hispanic dialect. Steele insists that race has nothing to do with the RNC chair election. (I am not making any of this up.)

Religion? When the Mayor of Augusta, GA (perhaps not coincidentally, the city where the Masters’ Tournament is played) called a meeting during Bush’s first term to plan how to get some of that “Faith Based Initiatives” money into the city, he invited only Christian clergy. When a Jewish leader questioned this, he explained that he invited everyone listed in the phone book under “Churches”, and then complained that ‘I suppose you are going to tell me I left out all the imams too.” (Who needs segregation when you can have plain old parochial ignorance?) Just like the golf club, the city of Augusta was willing to pass up money that outsiders were trying to give them in order to keep “those people” where they belonged.

So, segregation is alive and well in America’s most . . . “traditional” . . . institutions. (Basically, any “public accommodation” – a business that caters to the public – must serve everyone on equal terms unless they’re gay. Gays you can still fuck with. But “voluntary private associations” like clubs can discriminate any way they want. Service organizations were considered private clubs, until they were integrated after critics pointed out that they were common venues for business meetings for their male members. Golf clubs, even ones that derive their funding almost entirely from hosting national tournaments for organizations with open membership, are still considered private clubs even though they are also commonly used for business outings. The game goes on . . . .) The Republican Party still sort-of endorses segregated institutions of that kind, and as we saw above only stopped officially campaigning at them in Bush’s second term. And the institutions themselves obviously aren’t hurting from these policies – they not only defend them, but in fact will sacrifice economic gain in order to protect their segregationist privileges. Yes – racism, sexism, homophobia, and religious intolerance: the only things the right wing loves so much more than money that they’ll actually pay for the privilege of hurting people.

(Oh – and, Jimmy Buffett? That’s funny!)

Perhaps Fuzzy was just suggesting that he had the fried chicken before and it wasn’t very good, so it woul be a waste of opportunity…

Of course, The Onion came through here: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29676

BTW, I think if you’re arguing against Big U’s point, the most relevant grounds is that of private institutions are never exactly private. One can make a logically coherent argument that if there exists a market to support bigotry, then bigotry can exist – as long as the instittution is being exclusively, privately funded by bigots. Big U isn’t endorsing the moral underpinnings of such clubs, he’s simply saying they will succeed or fail on their own merits, relative to the sensibilities of the surrounding communities. I don’t think he’s arguing the market is not moral point – but asking, if that market is private, can we publicly enforce morality. I think the way to argue against that is to cite the Constitutionality of various forms of discrimination (which override the public/private debate) and to note that nothing is ever truly private. I’d take a stab, but right now, work is getting in the way -argh!

You’re right about the grounds for enforcing equality in private institutions. That’s essentially the line that was taken with the men’s clubs cases – if they were truly private, they would be allowed to discriminate, but since they are actually a de facto extension of the local business community, they have to be publicly accessible.

My point is that BU’s empirical claim – that segregated institutions can’t survive due to market forces or social pressure – is false as a matter of fact. They have survived decades of social change, and continue to survive to this day. In some cases, they have forfeited millions of dollars in revenue to protect their peculiar institutions, and have garnered widespread support when outside forces attempted to pressure them into the modern age. It’s obvious that there is more than enough demand for segregated institutions still today, in some parts of the country and among some groups of people, for them to be able to count on enough financial and social support to survive.

Digg’s got the best handle on the point I was bringing up.

Do I agree with segregation? No. But regardless of what policy is put in place, someone’s rights, in some way, will be violated. More often than not in today’s day and age, a right is violated in order for a desire to be satisfied. I will use a very simple example.

Augusta does not allow female members. While I disagree with Augusta’s position, what “right” is being denied in all honesty? It is a golf course. It is only one of several in the area so obviously the right to participate in golfing is not being violated (and actually that isn’t really a right anyways as much as it is a want). It is possible that several of the members meet there to discuss business. However, there are likely thousands of places to meet and do business in the area so the opportunity to do that is not being denied.

I would like to know exactly what “right” is being denied. I’m not interested in hearing the “I want to do it so it is my right” argument because that does not hold water with me.

Now, keep in mind, I am talking about a private club and not a public entity. Anything that is open to the public or receives/uses government funds should be subject to the accompanying laws, etc. And I am well aware of the anti-discrimination laws (though not necessarily well-versed in all their complexities) so I know there are laws against discrimination.

My question then becomes, whose rights are more important? Because when someone is granted a right that affects a private institution, it violates the rights of someone in that institution.

KTK, I’m not saying the institution will fail necessarily. In some cases it will definitely fail. In others it will thrive. The fact is, they have shown they are willing to suffer the financial hardship and ridicule they will face in a free and democratic society, I would think that would be their right regardless of whether I agree with it or disagree with it.

By the way, I’d just like to say

BU, thank you.

We pretty much always disagree with you, but you certainly have my respect in that disagreement.

BU,

Gender is a class protected from discrimination, Constitutionally (though not 100%, as race is), and such a protection trumps the preferences of any entity, public or private. Ironically, it is you who is actually confusing “want” and “right.” The woman has a RIGHT to not be discriminated against in terms of playing golf – ANY and EVERYWHERE she desires. The club has a PREFERENCE that only men are allowed to members of the club. Hence, the lady wins.

Led to its own logical conclusion, your point about playing golf elsewhere is tantamount to “separate but equal” which has been deemed unconstitutional.

Now, if the club wanted to say no obese people, then you have a whole different scenario as “the obese” are not formally recognized as a protected class of people, so the bar to legally justify a desire to keep the obese out would be a lot lower than it would to keep women out. *As I noted before, the bar is even higher for religion and race than it is for gender.

*The only hypothesis I can gather as to why that is the case is to keep women exempt from the draft. Anybody have any idea whether this is correct, or what the deal is with that?

I see where you are coming from Digg, but then why is it that women-only gyms are allowed while men-only gyms are not? Why are there women-only and men-only colleges and universities? Those would amount to gender discrimination preventing the person from accessing that particular private establishment because of their gender. And yet exceptions have been made to allow such things.

I guess what it comes down to is who decides when discrimination is okay? Because clearly in some instances it is. In the case of Augusta, I could see it being a major issue if there were no other courses around. I have been denied access to government grants/ special financing on loans/ government programs/ etc. because of my gender. While frustrated at the time for being singled out simply because I am a white male, I’m now fine with that because after some careful consideration I could see the positive benefits to society that the programs were put in place to provide.

But I just don’t get how she has a “right” to golf “any and everywhere” she wants. I can not afford to go golfing frequently because of the costs. But I have a beautiful park in my neighborhood that is often empty and is large enough for me to practice my swing. Unfortunately I can’t because my “right” to golf anywhere and everywhere has been usurped by municipal authorities saying no one can use their golf clubs in that park. I can’t golf on ladies’ night at the course even if it may be the only evening I can get out there. My “right” is being denied because of a gender-based rule that the course has (and this is consistent with clubs all over North America). Now you could argue that I could head to another course or golf during one of the days that are not designated female-only. But if you use that argument for me, why can it not be used for her situation as well?

Gender based decisions are made all the time. My main question becomes “who gets to decide when gender discrimination is okay and when it isn’t?”

Female hockey players can play on the boys’ teams in Winnipeg High School hockey. however the boys are not allowed to try out for the girls’s team. The Human Rights people ruled that preventing the girls from playing on the boys team was discrimination but it was not discrimination the other way. I realize that it is not the US but it is an example of a situation where discrimination is allowed against one sex but not the other. (And as a note, there were both girl and boy teams at their school so it was not a matter of not having any option other than the boys team)

First, let me be a bit more specific. She’s doesn’t have the right to play golf (anyt and everywhere) – she has the right to not be precluded from playing golf (any and everywhere) because of her gender. When the municipal authorities in your neighborhood tell you that you can’t play golf, they aren’t saying no to you b/c you are a man, or b/c you are white, etc. They’re saying nobody is going to golf here.

What is considered discrimination can be allowed if the body advancing the standard can meet the legal requirement for such discrimination. From there, there are different standards of protection offered to different groups, different requirements to justify discriminating on different grounds. For religion and race, the bar is set so high that it is almost impossible to do so. Gender is actually in the middle tier, where it is possible to do so, but difficult, objectively speaking. Then there’s a catch-all group for things non-formally recognized “classes” of discrimination. And, you basically just have to offera compelling argument in order to get away with it. There’s fancy legal terminology for all this stuff, but I don’t know it.

It is kinda surprising that there are women only gyms, I’ll agree with that. But, at the end of the day, I guess those bodies were able to offer powerful enough explanations for why they were excluding men – or men just never cared enough to complain about it. …Just set up an OTB across the street and let them watch the aerobic classes through the glass, and call it even.

The hockey thing is a strawman. This is often brought up in the U.S. b/c girls can play on (boys) hardball teams while boys can’t play on girls’ softball teams – the nuances are slightly different, but it’s the same poorly formed argument. First, in the U.S., Title IX insists equal opportunities need to be afforded for mens and women’s sports, that’s the most important thing. The reason why boys can’t play on the girls hockey team is that it would effectively preclude the existence of a girl’s hockey team. If the top 12 or 15 male hockey players made the team, and all others could just join the girl’s team, then there’d basically just be an A and B (or early birth month and late birth month, gotcha Gladwell!) team, both teams comprised almost exclusively of boys. The girl is allowed to play on the boy’s team because it is seen not as an issue of gender but of skills progression – it’s the same reason why freshman can play on the varsity team, but a senior can’t play on a JV team.

“You crazy? You think ya little bit of rhymes could play me?
I’m from Marcy, I’m Varsity, punk, you JV,
Jigga, Jay-Z
[Bigga, baybee]

/Brooklyn’s Finest’d

The girl is allowed to play on the boy’s team because it is seen not as an issue of gender but of skills progression – it’s the same reason why freshman can play on the varsity team, but a senior can’t play on a JV team.

I’d like to preempt BU’s almost certain response here: Aren’t you assuming that the girls’ teams will always be inferior to the boys’ team? Isn’t that exactly the kind of discrimination liberals are against?

Show me a school where there is more competetion to be on the girls’ team than on the boys’ and I’ll show you a school where the same court would rule that boys could be on the girls’ team and not girls on the boys’.

Ultimately, court cases come down to facts about reality. Nevermind issues of a particular school’s coach choosing mediocre boys over talented girls. (Which i’m sure happens, but is also very hard to prove to any legal standard.) The problem is that by the time boys and girls are in school (even grade school, but let’s just talk about high school for the moment), there has been so much inculturation of sex differences in sports and so many individual parents’ choices in how to encourage their children, that even if there were no sex differences at birth, there’ll be 20 times as many boys trained and encouraged to a particular skill level as girls to that same level.

I’m not really up on my hockey rules, but i’m pretty sure 20 boys could give a coach a third string without ever letting a girl try out.

So, it comes down to this: there’s enough harm done by our culture that the choices of 40 other parents could prevent me from getting my (hypothetical) daughter onto any hockey team ever. That’s not fair, and it’s now not legal. If the choices of those other 40 parents could only make my daughter have to try harder, that’d be fine, but sorry that’s not reality.

When the culture no longer puts limits on what different sexes can do, then we can stop having laws that treat the sexes differently by providing different protections.

Oh – and, Jimmy Buffett? That’s funny!

I was hoping somebody would appreciate it. About eleven years ago, I had an African-American friend who was actively repulsed by Jimmy Buffet music, and that just sort of stuck with me. And this guy lived in Cincinnati, where Buffet still quickly sells out two shows a year at the areas biggest concert venue, every year.

Big U:
Augusta does not allow female members. While I disagree with Augusta’s position, what “right” is being denied in all honesty? It is a golf course. It is only one of several in the area so obviously the right to participate in golfing is not being violated (and actually that isn’t really a right anyways as much as it is a want). It is possible that several of the members meet there to discuss business. However, there are likely thousands of places to meet and do business in the area so the opportunity to do that is not being denied.

This actually is a fine example of why such discrimination is a serious problem. It’s not just about the golf, but about the business that gets done at the country club — women are, by arbitrary rule, excluded from any and all such business. There’s really no comparable example where it works in the opposite direction — a place where women of power and influence meet and conduct business and where men are arbitrarily banned. As such, existing inequalities between men and women in the business world are perpetuated and exacerbated by such arrangements.

If the country club were truly a social club, and nothing more — with no business dealings going on, and no money to be made or influence to be brokered — then it wouldn’t be such a big problem. And this is where a men-only country club differs from, say, a men-only college.

In a more general sense, when you’re a group that has suffered from discrimination for decades, you’re allowed to have your-group-only groups in a way that those who discriminated against you no longer are. You can argue that two wrongs don’t make a right, and I’d be mildly sympathetic to that, but given the history, it’s hard to get TOO worked up about it. See my new front-page post for more on this.

Actually Dan, I can understand and even agree with where you are coming from. Where the issue became sticky was when a boy in rural MB wanted to join the girls volleyball team because there wasn’t a boys team (no interest by enough boys in the school). The same person who said the girls had the right to try out for the boys team said he couldn’t do it because it was inappropriate for him to be part of a girls team even though he did not have the option of being on a boys team. In my mind, that is a double standard.

In a more general sense, when you’re a group that has suffered from discrimination for decades, you’re allowed to have your-group-only groups in a way that those who discriminated against you no longer are. You can argue that two wrongs don’t make a right, and I’d be mildly sympathetic to that, but given the history, it’s hard to get TOO worked up about it. See my new front-page post for more on this.

I may not be the best communicator (especially now, since I’m kinda drunk), but this is a point I’ve tried to make approximately a thousand times here and other places. This is something that is absolutely essential to understand about “discrimination” and more so about so-called “reverse discrimination.” The problem is, this is discrimination, senior seminar, though it would preempt so much contention if it could somehow infiltrate discrimination 101.

Double standards rightfully exist when two standards have actually been perpetuated and ingrained over time. It’s a phenomenal feat of cognitive dissonance to watch white males, who have benefited from the existence of double standards for century upon century to now complain about affirmative action. Oh, that shit ain’t fair? What about you pop-dukes getting that gov’t guaranteed veteran’s loan to buy that house in Long Island that wasn’t extended to the black dude that fought along side him, simply because he was black? If that’s not affirmative action, then nothing is!

BU,

I’m pretty sure that if there were such a school in the US (as if!), the boy could successfully sue the administrator who said he couldn’t try out on the girls’ team.

What a strange, strange place you live in.

P.S. Are there actually any self-identified liberals who supported his exclusion? (And here I mean pundits and policy wonks, not administrators. Administrators err on the side of not making waves, whether that’s erring on the left wind or the right wing. You might even say that they tend to be conservative in their decision-making.)

Dan> Wasn’t an administrator. It was a Human Rights judge. In Canada, if someone feels their rights are being trampled on/ignored, etc. or often times if they just feel offended, they can take a person to the Human Rights Commission which is where the girls went with their case. The person ruling in their case said her ruling only applied to girls trying to play boys sports and that in no way did boys have the right to play girls sports regardless of the circumstances. So, it was a decision made by the only body in Canada able to make the decision short of legislation from the government. And for the most part the Human Rights Council in Canada makes American left wing individuals look like staunch Republicans.

I’m thinking, once again, that the political atmosphere here in Canada likely plays a big part in why I approach left/right issues differently than you guys in the US. I have often heard that our most conservative politicians tend to be pretty well in line with the Democrats while our far left tends to be in line with extreme socialism.

BU,

I find it almost unimaginable that the ruling is as you describe. Could you give me any kind of pointer to the case (i couldn’t find anything myself)?

However, I think you’re right here that our political environments are so radically different that much of what we argue about isn’t even meaningful.

http://www.gov.mb.ca/hrc/english/publications/pasternak.pdf

Dan M.,

Here is the ruling.

http://www.gov.mb.ca/hrc/english/publications/pasternak.pdf

It’s long but you will note that at one point it is made clear that the ruling applies only to girls trying out for boys’ teams (more specifically in this case girls trying out for boys’ hockey) (see pages 41 and 42).

I’ve done some digging but have been unable to locate the comments regarding the specific volleyball case. The male student did not bring a challenge with the Human Rights and I haven’t been able to find the story online yet. For the adjudicators comments though, see this link, second page, second and third paragraphs on right hand side.
http://www.gov.mb.ca/hrc/english/publications/newsletter/bulletin_6_09.pdf

But given the freshman on varsity vs. senior on junior varsity analogy, do you think it would be in the interest of creating as equal opportunities for high school/college athletics for males and females to adhere to the strictest possible interpretation of “equal opportunity.” How would it be enhancing the big picture (equal athletic opportunities) to support a policy that would effectively hemorrhage female representation in academic sports teams?

Quick anecdote, in my last semester of undergrad, one of my outstanding requirements was a phys. ed class. I had a packed schedule and was working, the only time I had to accomodate that class was early Friday morning, so I had to take whatever gym class was offered in that time slot. It was badminton. Now, I’m an easily above average athlete, by general population standards. But, I was horrible at badminton – so horrible that when the class split into its end of year tournament, I was placed in the girls division to reconcile unequal numbers represented in gender… But, that’s not the worst part – I lost in the semi-final round…of the fucking girls badminton tournament. Now, the class was at like 8:30 on Friday mornings, and I was like 22, so I was religiously hungover, but still… pretty embarassing.

BU,

So, about the Pasternak ruling. (By the way, you think 46 pages is a long ruling??! You gotta read more constitutional law.)

Starting at the very top of page 31 and continuing to near its end, the judge explains quite clearly that hir ruling is based on the fact that disallowing the girls from the boys’ team removes from them an opportunity to challenge their skill level. No surprise there. Girls should get to play at the same level as boys.

I think you’re probably most interested in the paragraph that is broken between pages 39 and 40:

“[P]rotection of boys [...] hocky program [is not] a legitimate purpose. Boys have certainly never been a disadvantaged group in terms of hockey and is not in need of protection. If a girl were to succeed is making a men’s team, and thus take the place of a boy, it would be on the basis of merit.”

I have trouble imagining any one seriously doubting this claim. More importantly, it makes quite clear why boys’ and girls’ sports are treated differently. Historical reality is critical. The whole paragraph could be used almost verbatim with boys and girls swapped and hockey replaced with cheerleading. (Which as an entirely unrelated side note gives me an idea for an interesting porno…)

Okay, so the Pasternak ruling seems perfectly clear. And seems to be perfectly consistant with what I was saying before. Historical reality and the particulars of a case determine what legal rights one has, and these will not always be the same for both sexes, not in spite of but because of fairness to both sexes.

Anyway, the only indication I’ve found of claiming that only girls have legal rights to boys teams and not visa versa are some comments quoted here: http://lord-feverstone.blogspot.com/2006/09/human-rights-ruling-on-high-school.html (Note however, that this guy calls himself a “Christian monarchist” and is pointed to favorably by “men’s rights” activists. It that weren’t enough alone to show him to be a piece of shit, actually reading his commentary does so. Thus, I’m not inclined to believe even his quotes of a news article, and the link to the article is now dead.)

Anyway, I’ve done quite some searching and can’t find anything about boys being turned down from girls volleyball in Manitoba. I did find plenty of alarmism and consternation on MRA blogs, but that’s not the same thing.

Also I found the rather laughable example of boys suing (or thinking about suing) for a chance to try out on a girls team (i forget what sport) after being turned down for the boys team.

(Which as an entirely unrelated side note gives me an idea for an interesting porno…)

Been there, masturbated to that…

Seriously, you’ve found vids of chicks in hockey pads banging twinks in pigtails, pom-poms, and flouncy skirts? I wanna know what website you frequent!