Seperate but equal

[Lady_Jean_La]

I was reading a thread where the claim was made that seperate but equal never works, never has worked and never will work. That sounds reasonable until one starts thinking a little deeper.

I'm thinking it works fairly well when it comes to religion. The various religions are separate but treated equally.

I think it works fairly well when it comes to gender. At least in sports and education.



:thumbsup:

[Details]

Religions are not treated equally, and by their very separation, they are able to be treated differently. For just one example - there's a list of permitted religious symbols on tombstones in military cemeteries- not all religion's symbols are allowed - in particular, up until recently, following decades of fighting, was the wiccan symbol allowed on the tombs of wiccan soldiers who gave their lives fighting for our country. Sound equal?

Genders are not equal either - it was only a fairly recent law that made sports in schools remotely equal - but yet, they are not equal - how much is spent on the boys football team- how much on the girls? And would you really think a school for boys only, and a school for girls only, if anyone around has any prejudices.

Separate but equal does not work.

[LisaM22]

I was reading a thread where the claim was made that seperate but equal never works, never has worked and never will work. That sounds reasonable until one starts thinking a little deeper.

I'm thinking it works fairly well when it comes to religion. The various religions are separate but treated equally.

I think it works fairly well when it comes to gender. At least in sports and education.



:thumbsup:

as long as the "EQUAL" part is in there as in if you are able to do something, so is the other, if you can marry one consenting adult man, then every other concenting adult should have equal rights as well - christians should be able to marry muslims, one race able to marry another, ect... separate but equal refers to keeping the groups separate but equal, when it comes to same sex marriage we do not even have the "equal" there yet

[Lady_Jean_La]

Religions are not treated equally, and by their very separation, they are able to be treated differently. For just one example - there's a list of permitted religious symbols on tombstones in military cemeteries- not all religion's symbols are allowed - in particular, up until recently, following decades of fighting, was the wiccan symbol allowed on the tombs of wiccan soldiers who gave their lives fighting for our country. Sound equal?

Genders are not equal either - it was only a fairly recent law that made sports in schools remotely equal - but yet, they are not equal - how much is spent on the boys football team- how much on the girls? And would you really think a school for boys only, and a school for girls only, if anyone around has any prejudices.

Separate but equal does not work.

Would you rather have one religion with one symbol? :confused:

[LisaM22]

Religions are not treated equally, and by their very separation, they are able to be treated differently. For just one example - there's a list of permitted religious symbols on tombstones in military cemeteries- not all religion's symbols are allowed - in particular, up until recently, following decades of fighting, was the wiccan symbol allowed on the tombs of wiccan soldiers who gave their lives fighting for our country. Sound equal?

Genders are not equal either - it was only a fairly recent law that made sports in schools remotely equal - but yet, they are not equal - how much is spent on the boys football team- how much on the girls? And would you really think a school for boys only, and a school for girls only, if anyone around has any prejudices.

Separate but equal does not work.

I do not think she gets it, many Christians are married to people of different faiths then their own, religions are not separate but equal, it's perfectly legal to marry someone of another faith, for muslims to use the same bathroom as Christians, ect

[Lady_Jean_La]

Why separate?
What's the motive behind the separation?People are different. Trying to make everyone compete equally doesn't always work. jmo

[LisaM22]

Would you rather have one religion with one symbol? :confused:

I would prefer the law to consider all religions... as religions

[Tracian]

I was reading a thread where the claim was made that seperate but equal never works, never has worked and never will work. That sounds reasonable until one starts thinking a little deeper.

I'm thinking it works fairly well when it comes to religion. The various religions are separate but treated equally.

I think it works fairly well when it comes to gender. At least in sports and education.



:thumbsup:



I have to disagree, in some ways:


Many religions are not treated equally under the law, or by the government.

For instance, many pagans are still fighting to get the pentagram accepted as symbol for military markers. Some progress has been made, but IIRC only in certain states, not federally.


Schools in inner cities and rural areas tend not to have the same updated materials, as those schools in the suburbs or higher priced neighborhoods.

[LisaM22]

People are different. Trying to make everyone compete equally doesn't always work. jmo

what are you referring too exactly? we should not allow interracial marriage? same sex marriage, interfaith marriage, what exactly - why do you think everyone does not deserve the same rights as you?

[Details]

Would you rather have one religion with one symbol? :confused:Nope - but that doesn't mean separate is equal. That is your assertion, that is not correct.

To make all religions equal, there should be no list of approved religions, nothing to say who can and cannot have their symbol on their tombstone. Just like to make marriage equal, there should be nothing in the law of what gender you must be to marry a man or woman.

Some things are not equal - the genders are not equal. Nor are all things called religion. But by itself - separate is never equal. Were it equal, there'd be no reason for it to be separate.

Anyplace there is no reason to have things separate, no reason to make something unequal, we should not do so. All religions should be equal - with an equal view of keeping an eye out for damaging views (those that require practitioners to hurt children, scams, etc.) Men and women are not equal in a few small areas - but anyplace outside of those areas, the laws should be equal. And since there's no reason to make marriage only for heterosexuals, it should be open to homosexuals as well, because there is no reason for them not to be equal.

Separate is never equal. Were it, there'd be no urge to keep it separate.

[Lady_Jean_La]

what are you referring too exactly? we should not allow interracial marriage? same sex marriage, interfaith marriage, what exactly - why do you think everyone does not deserve the same rights as you?I was thinking along the lines of seprate toilets according to gender. Medical professionals whose expertise is in treating women. Having professional sports leagues for women only where they do not have to compete against men.

I don't doubt there are situations where seperate is not equal. But I do doubt that everyone treated exactly the same is not always the best.

IN SOME CASES, I believe separate but equal is the best solution. jmo :hat:

[Lady_Jean_La]

Nope - but that doesn't mean separate is equal. That is your assertion, that is not correct.

To make all religions equal, there should be no list of approved religions, nothing to say who can and cannot have their symbol on their tombstone. Just like to make marriage equal, there should be nothing in the law of what gender you must be to marry a man or woman.

Some things are not equal - the genders are not equal. Nor are all things called religion. But by itself - separate is never equal. Were it equal, there'd be no reason for it to be separate.

Anyplace there is no reason to have things separate, no reason to make something unequal, we should not do so. All religions should be equal - with an equal view of keeping an eye out for damaging views (those that require practitioners to hurt children, scams, etc.) Men and women are not equal in a few small areas - but anyplace outside of those areas, the laws should be equal. And since there's no reason to make marriage only for heterosexuals, it should be open to homosexuals as well, because there is no reason for them not to be equal.

Separate is never equal. Were it, there'd be no urge to keep it separate.

If there is no list of approved religions how would the government deal with fringe or pseudo religions?

[Tracian]

If there is no list of approved religions how would the government deal with fringe or pseudo religions?


What would they consider a pseudo religion? What about a fringe religion?

Do you think the government should be able to pick and choose what quailifies as a 'approved religion'?

[LisaM22]

I was thinking along the lines of seprate toilets according to gender. Medical professionals whose expertise is in treating women. Having professional sports leagues for women only where they do not have to compete against men.

I don't doubt there are situations where seperate is not equal. But I do doubt that everyone treated exactly the same is not always the best.

IN SOME CASES, I believe separate but equal is the best solution. jmo :hat:

unisex bathrooms are common as well and work just as well, the issue is not that people can be treated separate it is when the government mandates it via law

[Details]

I was thinking along the lines of seprate toilets according to gender. Medical professionals whose expertise is in treating women. Having professional sports leagues for women only where they do not have to compete against men.

I don't doubt there are situations where seperate is not equal. But I do doubt that everyone treated exactly the same is not always the best.

IN SOME CASES, I believe separate but equal is the best solution. jmo :hat:In those situations, unequal care is necessary, due to a true inequality in the situation (different diseases and physical structure, differences in musculature).

There's no such reason in marriage - a gay marriage is no different from a straight marriage where one or both partners are infertile or do not plan to have children together. If we don't say straight infertile people have fewer rights, then how can we say it when the couple is 'infertile' for any other reason? What's the difference to make inequal treatment appropriate?

[Details]

If there is no list of approved religions how would the government deal with fringe or pseudo religions?Fringe - why should they be considered differently just due to size? If people stop being Catholics until there's only a few hundred of them - should we be able to discriminate in any way against Catholics?

The way to go is to make it all equal - rules that are intended to target a psuedo religion (scam, cult or something that hurts it's members) should not be written with any religion's names in it as exclusions or inclusions - the rules should apply EQUALLY to all. No separation of group A religions versus group B religions. The FLDS child abuse, the Waco cult's endangering of it's children and the Catholic pedophile scandals should all be treated equally.

But if new religion A is doing something we allow for established religion B - we should allow it for A, or if we don't like it, disallow it for B as well. Equal, not separate. If a rule cannot be made that applies equally to all, that's a good indication that the problem is not the behavior, but some prejudice against the religion in question.

[Lady_Jean_La]

unisex bathrooms are common as well and work just as well, the issue is not that people can be treated separate it is when the government mandates it via law
Are you opposed to men having to register for the draft and women not?

[Lady_Jean_La]

Yes. And you're not answering any questions posed to you????No, I am not. I think most if not all would derail the thread.

I am trying to stay on topic.

[Lady_Jean_La]

But there is no topic, with the current thread!!!! Too vague, and I know you have a point. state it!

I believe I did in the opening post. That in some cases seperate but equal may work.

People have said it never works and I was suggesting some areas it might.

I have had some interesting replies causing me to think of other situations. But I really don't want to debate each idea.

[Lady_Jean_La]

I'm still thinking seperate but equal education might work as it has in some areas for boys and girls. jmo

[Vortex]

As Clinton said, it's the economy, stupid. In this case, we only need to substitute: "it's the stupid dogma" - call it the Law of Leviticus. :wink:

Yes, Leviticus...... and the whole "born that way" hypothesis. I think that even if it is scientifically proven beyond a doubt that you are born gay, Leviticus would still hold the upper hand in the minds of many.

As a gay Christian I say, what is wrong with "live and let live?" (Please, lets not bring up pedophiles, polygamy and marring our sisters or furniture just this one time.) And if somehow, someway its wrong - well, let God sort it out. I'd rather stand before Him and say I loved and respected all as best I could rather than explain why I did His job and judged. JMO

[Vortex]

The Law of Leviticus includes when to stone and kill your children.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones

My mother and I were discussing this whole thing the other night. It's not easy being condemned to hell by your own mother. When I asked about such things as divorce, eating shellfish and many other issues than so many chose to ignore, I get the standard answer of (and I am paraphrasing) "Jesus made the Old Testament null and void."

So here we have this whole big book we are to study and read; a book we are to live by - yet only judge people by the end of the book and not the beginning. *baffled* JMO

[LisaM22]

I'm still thinking seperate but equal education might work as it has in some areas for boys and girls. jmo

I think that separate but equal would also carry over into the job market after school, so no I do not agree, public schools should not discriminate based on sex

[Tracian]

My mother and I were discussing this whole thing the other night. It's not easy being condemned to hell by your own mother. When I asked about such things as divorce, eating shellfish and many other issues than so many chose to ignore, I get the standard answer of (and I am paraphrasing) "Jesus made the Old Testament null and void."

So here we have this whole big book we are to study and read; a book we are to live by - yet only judge people by the end of the book and not the beginning. *baffled* JMO


I have heard that line too, Jesus made the Old Testament null and void, which always led me to these questions:

1. Then why do churches still give sermons from the OT
2. Then why to those that wish to condemn others, keep referring to OT scripture as an excuse to do so?

[Lady_Jean_La]

I have heard that line too, Jesus made the Old Testament null and void, which always led me to these questions:

1. Then why do churches still give sermons from the OT
2. Then why to those that wish to condemn others, keep referring to OT scripture as an excuse to do so?

Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. I would compare it to the Amendments modifying the US Constitution. End of slavery, women's right to vote etc did not mean the US Constitution is void, it just fulfilled the promise. jmo

[Details]

It seems to me people are just picking and choosing, deciding that Jesus meant to keep these bits of the Old Testament - even though he never ever mentioned them in his preaching - but not those bits of the Old Testament.

So - gays are bad, but the bits about killing your children, eating shellfish, and wearing mixed cloth clothing are ignored - even though they are side by side. Makes no sense to me. Either Jesus said it - or he didn't. One or the other. Either it all applies (other than anything he explicitly said no longer did), or none of it does.

We have Constitutional amendments - and they say explicitly what has been modified.

[CookieCutter]

People are different. Trying to make everyone compete equally doesn't always work. jmo


Vonnegut got the whole "making everyone equal" this 100% correct in Harrison Bergeron. For those who haven't read it, it might be enlightening.

[Details]

Vonnegut got the whole "making everyone equal" this 100% correct in Harrison Bergeron. For those who haven't read it, it might be enlightening.I've read it. The classic logical error of black and white extremes. Pretty boring - take a position, misinterpret it, take it to the extreme, then keep hammering the same dumb point over and over again - even though it's not a position anyone is actually taking. No one has ever suggested we make everyone equal - not even anything approaching that. Classic strawman there as well. Did not like that book.

Treating everyone equal is quite a different thing than making everyone equal.

[CookieCutter]

I've read it. The classic logical error of black and white extremes. Pretty boring - take a position, misinterpret it, take it to the extreme, then keep hammering the same dumb point over and over again - even though it's not a position anyone is actually taking. No one has ever suggested we make everyone equal - not even anything approaching that. Classic strawman there as well. Did not like that book.

Treating everyone equal is quite a different thing than making everyone equal.


And you will notice that I said "making" as opposed to "treating".
As for the story, I quite enjoyed Vonnegut's take on Utopian society.

[CookieCutter]

I think that separate but equal would also carry over into the job market after school, so no I do not agree, public schools should not discriminate based on sex


So you think it is discrimination to take two groups of people, who learn in different ways, and focus on the ways that each learn best?
One of my children participated in a gender separate class in middle school and her performance that year was better than it had ever been before.

ETA: I have a child who is dyslexic and has Asperger's Syndrome. Is it discrimination, in your opinion, to have him in a class room where he will learn the best?

[Brentwood]

So you think it is discrimination to take two groups of people, who learn in different ways, and focus on the ways that each learn best?
One of my children participated in a gender separate class in middle school and her performance that year was better than it had ever been before.

Is your point that we should separate our society by groups? I couldn't disagree with that more.

[CookieCutter]

Is your point that we should separate our society by groups? I couldn't disagree with that more.

No, my point is that when schools are separating classes by gender, it is during the middle school years where, for a couple of years, girls and boys are on different levels, and are learning in different ways.
I do not think it is discrimination to take 12 to 14 year old girls and boys and separate them so that they can receive the best educations possible.

[Brentwood]

No, my point is that when schools are separating classes by gender, it is during the middle school years where, for a couple of years, girls and boys are on different levels, and are learning in different ways.
I do not think it is discrimination to take 12 to 14 year old girls and boys and separate them so that they can receive the best educations possible.

I guess I am confused about the topic of this thread. I thought it was aimed at gay and lesbians, civil unions, separate but not equal or something like that.

[CookieCutter]

I guess I am confused about the topic of this thread. I thought it was aimed at gay and lesbians, civil unions, separate but not equal or something like that.

I was commenting on someone's post that is was discrimination to have gender separate class rooms in schools.

[Details]

And you will notice that I said "making" as opposed to "treating".
As for the story, I quite enjoyed Vonnegut's take on Utopian society.I know - that's why I called it a strawman - not from you, from Vonnegut. No one has ever remotely proposed making everyone equal. Not the most idealistic extremist has ever thought we should do any little tiny thing to reduce someone's abilities to make them more in line with others.

It's a nice ego thing if you are intelligent and such - and I am - but it was too blatantly a strawman for me to ever appreciate it even slightly. There was nothing remotely utopian there - but also nothing that resembled even an extreme version of something anyone has ever proposed.

If I make a distopia novel about an equal rights society forcing people to walk on their hands and knees everywhere, and a dolphin expected to be your brain surgeon, so as to be equal to the animals - is that a scathing retort to PETA and animal rights activists? Or is it a nonsensical story based on a point that no one has ever made (even the most extreme don't want people to be animals - just want animals to be treated as equals).

Sorry - but I found that one just dumb. A nice appeal to emotion, as attacks on strawmen usually are - but it's still a strawman, it's still the appeal to extremism as a way to say nothing should be done.

[Details]

I guess I am confused about the topic of this thread. I thought it was aimed at gay and lesbians, civil unions, separate but not equal or something like that.It was related - IMO. In a thread about gay marriage, I made the reply to the OP, that separate is never equal. This thread is a spin off, IMO, part gay marriage, part philosophical debate of if separate can ever be equal.

[Details]

No, my point is that when schools are separating classes by gender, it is during the middle school years where, for a couple of years, girls and boys are on different levels, and are learning in different ways.
I do not think it is discrimination to take 12 to 14 year old girls and boys and separate them so that they can receive the best educations possible.It may not be discrimination - you have to be so careful about that. How easy is it for these split classes to end up where one has a significantly better teacher, better supplies, in any somewhat backwards district where women are considered worth less than men ... or in some district where overcompensation means the girls class is considered more important than the boys?

However - even when it is the right thing to do - separate is not equal. Two things that are different cannot be equal to each other. We can try to make them as close as possible, but one will have a better teacher.

It may be the right thing to do, and the fact that they cannot be perfectly equal doesn't mean we shouldn't look at doing it WHEN there is reason, WHEN the situation is that there is a true natural inequality (differences in boys and girls) that can be worked with here - but we'd have to be extremely careful that lots of monitoring was in place to keep the two classes of comparable levels of quality, to make sure gender assumptions (girls aren't good at math anyways, why emphasize it? boys are not good in communication - let's just skip most of the English) that are false or irrelevant are not slipped in.

For gay marriage - there is no such reason to make them separate - nothing is needed to be different.

[CookieCutter]

It may not be discrimination - you have to be so careful about that. How easy is it for these split classes to end up where one has a significantly better teacher, better supplies, in any somewhat backwards district where women are considered worth less than men ... or in some district where overcompensation means the girls class is considered more important than the boys?

However - even when it is the right thing to do - separate is not equal. Two things that are different cannot be equal to each other. We can try to make them as close as possible, but one will have a better teacher.

It may be the right thing to do, and the fact that they cannot be perfectly equal doesn't mean we shouldn't look at doing it WHEN there is reason, WHEN the situation is that there is a true natural inequality (differences in boys and girls) that can be worked with here - but we'd have to be extremely careful that lots of monitoring was in place to keep the two classes of comparable levels of quality, to make sure gender assumptions (girls aren't good at math anyways, why emphasize it? boys are not good in communication - let's just skip most of the English) that are false or irrelevant are not slipped in.

For gay marriage - there is no such reason to make them separate - nothing is needed to be different.


Actually, the way it worked in our district was that they children had the same teachers, just at different times. Say first block was girls English and boys math, second block was boys English and girls math, and so forth and so on.
The children were given the same material, the same supplies, but the material was presented in different ways.

While the homosexual couple next door have no affect on my marriage, and I believe that two people who are committed and dedicated to each other should be entitled tot he same legal rights that my husband and I have, my religion tells me that a MARRIAGE is between a man and a woman. Don't ask me why, because I do not think I could articulate a clear answer, but I have no issue with civil unions, as opposed to the term marriage.

[Details]

Actually, the way it worked in our district was that they children had the same teachers, just at different times. Say first block was girls English and boys math, second block was boys English and girls math, and so forth and so on.
The children were given the same material, the same supplies, but the material was presented in different ways.

While the homosexual couple next door have no affect on my marriage, and I believe that two people who are committed and dedicated to each other should be entitled tot he same legal rights that my husband and I have, my religion tells me that a MARRIAGE is between a man and a woman. Don't ask me why, because I do not think I could articulate a clear answer, but I have no issue with civil unions, as opposed to the term marriage.Yeah, that sounds like some pretty good safeguards.

Do you believe your religion should be written into the laws for all? Because that's the true question on gay marriage. You don't have to consider it a marriage as your religion defines it. Your church does not have to marry them (churches do have that right to decide who they marry). The question is whether the secular, legal term of marriage should be restricted to a religiously based definition, or not.

[Lady_Jean_La]

It was related - IMO. In a thread about gay marriage, I made the reply to the OP, that separate is never equal. This thread is a spin off, IMO, part gay marriage, part philosophical debate of if separate can ever be equal.Yes and no one has come up with an uncontested situation. Which seems to prove the point that seperate is never equal. Thanks to all for your input. jmo