The difference between persecution and discrimination

[Aalbiel]

May I humbly suggest that there be two separate forums:

one for persecution: which is the ACTIVE, often violent oppression and torment of a group

one for discrimination: which is a PASSIVE, generally nonviolent suppression and disregard for a group

the distinction is important for those who understand the difference here.

 

[Scostar]

While I agree that there is a distinction, it is not a big distinction.

Persecution often takes the guise of discrimination. If a person is denied a job because of their religion is this discrimination or religion?

For example in Iran, Christians in the military are not allowed to progress beyond a certain rank, otherwise they would hold authority over Muslims, which is forbidden in the Iranian interpretation of Islam. Is this discrimination? Definitely. Is it persecution? I would argue that it is. It is a systematic repression of Christians (and other religious minorities) in order to belittle them, disrespect them, disallow them financial opportunity etc. Denying him rank may be passive, but the intention and the consequences are very active.

Not allowing people of a particular group access to jobs, clean water, medical services, education, voting rights, police protection, justice, freedom of religious choice, welfare etc on the grounds of their religious beliefs is discrimination. But it is also persecution.

You don't have to beat people and burn their houses down to persecute them.

In good faith,

james

 

[Nice Dream]

The distinction between persecution and discrimination are already pretty clear. I see emphasizing the distinction between free speech/thought and discrimination as far more important. Pointing out the truth isn't discrimination in the context many people use it. In order to make discernment between these words we need to look at the definition of freedom which all people are entitled to. Freedom is independent choice: allowance to make your own decisions and discriminations(in the fine/wise choices context). A line needs to be drawn where free choice ends and where prejudice, that being, the irrational hatred of a particular group occurs. Where do you put in this protection for a certain group? I think it is when a person is making hateful statements directly at a person with the intention to cause distress to that person.

Here's an example: If i was to say 'Homosexuality is wrong'. Many people would take it WAY out of context and say i was being hateful when i was just stating an opinion. Now if i were to say 'Everyone should beat up homosexuals, they are evil' without taking the action and actually going out and beating them up, i would be wrong and would be hateful against a particular group and i would consider that discrimination. I think when you start focusing the hate on the group or person that practices it instead of the wrongdoing that is when it becomes discrimination.

 

[Scostar]

Hey Nice Dream,

I think it is when a person is making hateful statements directly at a person with the intention to cause distress to that person.

I agree. In Australia this is legally known as vilification - making statements that are designed to belittle, offend, or cause hatred or violence against a person or group of people.

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]Pointing out the truth isn't discrimination in the context many people use it.

This is a much murkier area than I think you are making out. If I was to say "Muhammad was not a prophet" or "Muhammad had sexual relations with children" or "God hates homosexuality", I could argue truth in these instances, but would offend many people if I said them in a public place. And I could say them deliberately to cause distress or to incite violence against someone.

But you are right in saying that we need to find the distinction. We must not let the desire not to offend people become an excuse for not telling the truth.

In good faith,

james

 

[Nice Dream]

This is a much murkier area than I think you are making out. If I was to say "Muhammad was not a prophet" or "Muhammad had sexual relations with children" or "God hates homosexuality", I could argue truth in these instances, but would offend many people if I said them in a public place. And I could say them deliberately to cause distress or to incite violence against someone.

Yes, i agree only God knows the motives behind what people say. Sometimes people will speak the truth and this will cause offense, the truth does hurt some people and there is no way around that. Rather a truth that causes offense than a lie that causes a false sense of comfort. Sometimes people will use truth to suit their own desires, but this generally can't be proved in the grey areas you refer to. This is why we must be very careful when implimenting laws to protect people from verbal discrimination that we do not put barriers on truths which can be spoken. God's truths being spoken must be seen as more important than man being offended without proper need. One of these cases of a lesser injustice i think.