Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: German Awareness Campaign Blames White Germans for Sexual Assault Epidemic
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 04:47:04 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <1052248$3855v$1@dont-email.me>
References: <10510ov$2tebq$1@dont-email.me> <105164l$2uu2f$1@dont-email.me> <1051ao0$3060t$1@dont-email.me> <1051bqs$2vqp3$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 06:47:05 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="555e0a0cc9a8911cb237839daa83c7cc";
	logging-data="3413183"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+dByiUwBa6+hym4wRFx3rtnH5/oN5fQBg="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jcDynopSGo5KBYRNGeudZxVzc+Y=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>>. . . 

>If your religious values hold women in such low esteem that rape
>is considered a right for men to exercise casually at their whim,
>then keep that religion the fuck out of my country. It deserves to be
>discriminated against.

>Where is it written that we must accommodate and tolerate any and all
>savagery merely because it's done under the imprimatur of religion?

This remains my concern with the elevation of the right of free exercise
of religion in Supreme Court rulings over the last several decades, even
when I agree with the outcome in a case like Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025)
since religion may not respect the right of conscience of everybody
else. I know you disagree.

It's the 100th anniversary of the Scopes "Monkey Trial". A historian
pointed out that laws promoted by William Jennings Bryan prohibiting the
teaching of evolution were comparable to Mahmoud, in that they protected
the right of parents to raise their children in their own religion what
with compulsory education through high school being brand new at the
time when the theory of evolution would have been taught. In some
states, it was prohibited to teach the theory to college students in
state schools.

However, Scopes' conviction was appealed on Establishment Clause
violation, not Free Exercise, and the Warren Court finally found such a
law unconstitutional in 1968 as an Establishment Clause violation.

>Would a bunch of neo-Aztecs have a valid discrimination complaint if we
>banned them because of their curious habit of ripping the still-beating
>hearts out of children to appease their gods? Is that something we'd be
>required to tolerate and embrace so that no one will point at us and say
>'bigot'?

When I was a kid, they were still tossing virgins into the volcano to
appease the gods. I miss those days. It was so much easier to get laid.

>>  My point is simply that easy answers are usually neither.

>Well, it's certainly no answer to put up a bunch of posters portraying the
>white people as the rapists and molesters and the immigrants as the victims.

Mean people were calling the rapists, well, rapists.