jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (41 posts)

Do you agree that equality requires special protections for minorities

  1. dutchman1951 profile image61
    dutchman1951posted 6 years ago

    I Have a Question I would love folks here to participate in and answer, if you would be so kind to.

    It has been stated in Congressional meetings, that to have Equal Citizenship, and folks willing to participate in and want to be Citizens, we should gaurantee some rights exclussive to Minorities.

    Question: Do you agree that equality requires special protections for minority cultures?

    Remember; there is a difference between Social Justice and Constitutional Justice.

    1. Stump Parrish profile image60
      Stump Parrishposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      If you are seeking equality you can not possibly achieve this by treating one segment of society differently than the rest. Square peg, round hole problem. To achieve equality the laws need to be in place to protect the minorities from abuses by the majority but, this is no way special treatment.

      Suppose we are In America where everyone is supposed to be equal and have the same rights. Now the majority seeks to punish a minority for thinking differently and seeks to violate and deny them equal rights. Should there be laws in place to protect the minority? If you answered  yes, do you also support the rights of gays who seek to be married? In America legal marriage does not require a church or a religious ceremony to be valid. Church weddings are optional even among religious people. Many are married in civil ceremonies each day. What gives the christian community the right to deny  the homosexual community the right to marry in a civil ceremony. They legaly can not have nothing to do with a marriage unless those being married ask them to participate. To them the fact that those seeking to be married are gay, gives christians the right to serve up a big steaming pile of in-equality and abuse and some times death. But everyone is equal in America, honest.

      1. kephrira profile image59
        kephriraposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I absolutely agree. Two wrongs don't make a right.

    2. lady_love158 profile image60
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I don’t believe people are equal so if that is what the government is trying to achieve they will fail. I also don’t believe you can change the past. The best we can hope for is to not repeat the same mistakes and that can only happen if es study the past. That said we are a nation of laws and all of us should be treated equally.

    3. PhoenixV profile image83
      PhoenixVposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It begs the question of who is the minority. I think that men are a minority when compared to the population of women. A black man walking in a predominantly white neighborhood is a minority, likewise a white man walking in a predominantly black neighborhood is a minority. Minority figures change also. Everyone is a minority in comparison to the population of China.

      Everyone is equal in the classroom (under the authoritative direction of a teacher, forcing equakity) but it isn't until everyone is out on the playground, settling their differences is true equality achieved.

    4. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No I don't agree that it requires special protections.
      America is now (and has been for a long time) the land of equality.  When slavery was ended and then blacks obtained total equality during the civil rights movement, it fixed the wrongs that were done and adhered to the Constitution as it should've. Everyone has the same rights.  Or had, until liberalism for the last couple of years has tilted the balance toward undue and unnecessary and very socially-harmful tangents.

    5. Jeff Berndt profile image89
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Minorities must absolutely have protections. That's the basis of a constitutional democracy: so that even a large majority cannot subject everyone else to the tyranny of the mob.

      But do you mean should there be special set-asides for people of non-majority races and cultures? That's a problematical question, especially when we consider that white folks (like me) benefit form a culture in which we get special treatment by default.

      If it were possible merely to remove the special advantages that we white folks get, I'd say go with that.

      1. profile image59
        C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Agreed. However neuro science has proven...people see skin color and BAM we loose our minds....some more than others of course. That being said, it's impossible.
        As long as the majority is not oppressing the minority, the majority rules. That means the minority doesn't have to like it. It just can't be oppressive. Who ultimately decides? I'm guessing the majority? It's a "problematic" question as you said..

  2. Flightkeeper profile image72
    Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago

    Dutchman, that's an oxymoron that comes from Animal Farm.  We are all equal but some are more equal than others.

  3. Jed Fisher profile image88
    Jed Fisherposted 6 years ago

    As far as I can tell, your question is about immigrants. I guarantee you, they were not minorities in the country they left. To exetend priviliges to immigrants based on their skin color is an exercise of racisim. I find it hard to accept that the sufferings and sacrifices of brave Americans of the past are being used to accomodate the desire of modern immigrants who want to come to America and cash in, now that civil rights struggle has been settled.

    1. William R. Wilson profile image61
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this



      Yes, the sufferings and sacrifices of the brave Americans who exterminated the natives and brought slaves here to work the land.  Wouldn't want anyone cashing in on their brave exploitation of two continents, now would we?

      1. profile image59
        C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Are you making an argument against American sovereignty?

        1. William R. Wilson profile image61
          William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I'm making an argument against American citizens being somehow entitled to more than people in the rest of the world by virtue of some mythical past.

          1. profile image59
            C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            The American people are entitled to what they earn for themselves. Americans owe the rest of the world NOTHING. Americans would do themselves a HUGE favor if they would mind their own business.

            1. William R. Wilson profile image61
              William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Well then we better get started on reparations for the descendants of slaves, then, right?

              1. profile image59
                C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                No. The reparations were paid in blood. Good luck determining who were decendents of slaves. For every one you find, there are ten you will not.

          2. lady_love158 profile image60
            lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I'm so sick of hearing that bologna! Americans don’t think they're entitled,well unless they're liberals that is. Americans got what they earned and what we deserved! Many before us did the same exact things the difference is they didn't last as long because they didn't value individual freedom the way we do and didn't limit the power of their governments like we do or used to! That's why America is exceptional and the greatest country ever and if we canget rid of the libs we'll continue to be!!!

      2. Jim Hunter profile image61
        Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I totally agree.

        Progressives are baaaaaaaaaad.

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image89
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "now that civil rights struggle has been settled."

      Yes, white people and people of color are on a perfectly equal economic, social, and legal footing. Yep. By the way, I have some beachfront property in Oklahoma that you might be interested in...

  4. profile image0
    china manposted 6 years ago

    Co-incidentally this arises in two completely different Chinese documents I am re-editing.  China has laws at the highest levels to protect minorities within China, including relaxation of the one-child policy to two and even more  in the smaller minorities.  Every contract that deals with public issues contains required clauses that forbid allowing any kind of abuse or inciting unrest between minorities.

  5. SpanStar profile image61
    SpanStarposted 6 years ago

    Most certainly if you’re talking about minorities being or having been denied the same freedoms and rights as the general population.

    There are so many ways to keep minorities from moving ahead in life that it’s not even funny, take job promotions for example, “I’m afraid you’re just going to have keep waiting for that next promotion since you were the last hired their about 80 other candidates before you.”

  6. profile image59
    C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago

    No, I do not agree. All that is required is equal opportunity and equal protection under the law.

    1. Jim Hunter profile image61
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Thats funny, the equal protection clause dealt specifically with race.

      Not anything else.

      1. profile image59
        C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        And it's "principle" has been applied through the courts. Your point?

        1. Jim Hunter profile image61
          Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          My point is obvious.

          Sorry you don't get it.

          1. profile image59
            C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Afraid to say it?

            1. Jim Hunter profile image61
              Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I already said it.

              Are you afraid to read it?

              1. profile image59
                C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Not at all. Speak in parables if you like. What other issues has the "equal protection" clause been brought to bear? Do you agree with them?

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Laws were passed to assure implementation of the 14th Amendment which had been ignored wrt voting rights, public accommodations, employment discrimination, etc. Moreover, even after the laws were passed, lawsuits and court decisions were required to bring about change and provide for equal treatment.

      1. profile image59
        C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        EXACTLY! The work has been done. I guess it's hard to understand how social norms and political ideology can be so different. The words the founders used were in NO way supportive of slavery. However it existed at the time of the countries inception and thrived for over a hundred years. Why/How? The founders set the bar high. Each generation pushes farther into the great experiment. Utopia is not the destination, it doesn't exist.

  7. mikelong profile image74
    mikelongposted 6 years ago

    If I remember correctly, our system was devised so that minorities would be protected from the tyranny of a majority...

    Minority populations, whether grouped based off gender, ethnicity, immigration status, religious affiliation, or political ideation do deserve protections.

    1. profile image59
      C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, that was the reasoning behind a republic democracy versus a pure democracy. In fact Madison's arguments were based on "property rights" issues. Rights that are often trampled upon in a pure democracy. I believe Jefferson said it best:

      "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

  8. SpanStar profile image61
    SpanStarposted 6 years ago

    Is it ironic that many of the leaders, forefathers of freedom and justice for America..Owned slaves.

    1. profile image59
      C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Most of the concern at the time was related to religous freedom, property rights and taxation. So one could say that it was the founders very statements that led to the Civil Rights Movement. What can we learn from this? Social norms change. The principles of our government don't.

  9. SpanStar profile image61
    SpanStarposted 6 years ago

    From fools, idiots or people who just don't understand rights and wrong I could tolerate this kind of behavior but from learned men and women who should know better I can find no excuse.

    1. profile image59
      C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      to what end does your logic flow? What are you saying? That because the founders were moraly flawed ,so are their ideas that contributed to the founding of our nation? That our country has NO moral right to exist?

      1. SpanStar profile image61
        SpanStarposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "Because the funders were morally flawed, so are their ideas" in many ways you are correct.  A court room judge can not say I standard for fair and equal treatment under the law except when it comes to Blacks, women, hispanics.  Let's not forget that law of the land supported slavery and while those around these Black America received the beneficts of being Americans in a free land suffered and died not only civil rights but human rights long after the Constitution was signed.

        1. profile image59
          C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You can't continue to punish the current generation for the errors of the past. It's like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer because it feels good when you stop!

          1. SpanStar profile image61
            SpanStarposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            May be you are correct about not punishing the people of today for issues in the past. The position now is has racism been eliminated in American Society? Now if equality is to exist in a free society then we need to eliminate that which we have never eliminated, bias, racism, bigotry, prejudice, and all the rest that keeps one race down while another race continues to prosper, then and only then can we say there is no reason to play the race card.

  10. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    Equality and Equal Rights are two distinct things. hmm

    1. SpanStar profile image61
      SpanStarposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I personally do not know what reference material you are talking about or referring to regarding equality and equal rights. Below are the definition I have found online which clearly indicate that equality at equal rights are the same.
         

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Equality

      e·qual·i·ty Show Spelled
      [ih-kwol-i-tee]  Show IPA

      –noun, plural -ties. 
      1. the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability


                             http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/

      The Equal Rights Amendment, first proposed in 1923 to affirm that women and men have equal rights under the law, is still not part of the U.S. Constitution. 


                             http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

      Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction.  Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

 
working