Is this " progress "?

[Violet]

Last weekend, the Miss USA beauty pageant was won by Rima Fakih, the first Muslim to be so crowned.
Is this " progress " I ask?

Progress would be letting men compete.

What indeed should it matter what religion a person does (or does not) adhere to if what is being 'measured' is their beauty?

[Paul the Human]

It doesn't matter what religion she is. It's just something that the media knows will inspire incendiary thoughts in a lot of people for a variety of reasons. There are those who may believe she only won because she is Muslim, for example.

[Minimalist]

Is she pretty? Was she the most beautiful girl of the pageant? What difference does her religion make?

Isn't the winner the one who blows the most judges? I'd think religion might impact that.


Or maybe not.

[Atheist_named_Christian]

Isn't the winner the one who blows the most judges? I'd think religion might impact that.

So if she's a "real muslim" she should now stone herself? (would also apply to a "real christian" or jew)

[Tiberius]

The weird thing about the Carrie Prejean thing is that she answered the question honestly and truthfully, apologising if her answer might cause offence, but that it was her belief. It's not even like her views on marriage are unusual in America, with the majority of Americans against same-sex marriage, and even the President on her side.

The whole thing was yet another reason why political correctness is such bullshit. All it does is force people to lie about their beliefs because some people might get offended. That isn't a good thing for society.

[Eilonnwy]

The thing about Carrie Prejean had nothing to do with her holding her opinion, but the fact that when she said it it was nonsensical and she claimed she lost the crown because of it. Then she put herself in the spotlight by campaigning with anti-gay groups, which was against what she should do as Miss California. She had nude photos done, which is also against the rules and then skipped out on Miss California obligations which finally lead to her firing. She complained that her freedom of speech was being stifled, but in truth she was just being ridiculed for being an idiot. She was not arrested for her speech, she possibly just didn't win a crown for silly pageant. She also claimed to be pro wholesome family but when a sex tape emerged she qas shone to be a hypocrite. There was far more to her story than just being anti-gay. If you say something stupid, you can do it and rightly get backlash for it, especially if you continue to be fucking stupid.

[Tiberius]

My point was that such a big deal was made out of her statement. I followed the story through various atheist websites and gay websites that labelled her a bigot when there wasn't anything bigoted about her response (this was before any other details had emerged btw).

Even I support her viewpoint. I'm a secularist; I don't think religion and government should be connected in any way. That means that marriage shouldn't be state supported, and should be a purely religious matter. If some religions want to allow gay marriage whilst others deny it, that is up to them. So in that respect, I'm against gay marriage because I'm against any form of state-sponsored marriage.

[Eilonnwy]

She made it a bigger deal than it really was when she want on to talk shows to complain about loosing, continue spreading her anti-gay vile, and said that "God made her say it", promoting the idea that she is being oppressed for holding a position that treats gays as second class citizens.

In any case, I have no problem with people who don't support gay marriage if they're equally not supportive of marriage. I disagree about marriage being a religious institution only, but that's another issue entirely that also doesn't marginalize and oppress a group of people.

I am of similar opinion on hate crimes. I don't support them for any group. However, if we do have hate crimes law, I at least want gays to be treated equally within that.

[Autumnlicious]

She made it a bigger deal than it really was when she want on to talk shows to complain about loosing, continue spreading her anti-gay vile, and said that "God made her say it", promoting the idea that she is being oppressed for holding a position that treats gays as second class citizens.

In any case, I have no problem with people who don't support gay marriage if they're equally not supportive of marriage. I disagree about marriage being a religious institution only, but that's another issue entirely that also doesn't marginalize and oppress a group of people.

I am of similar opinion on hate crimes. I don't support them for any group. However, if we do have hate crimes law, I at least want gays to be treated equally within that.

I believe the backlash Prejean got was fully expected and, in fact, justified. This was due to her touring around and constant repetition of her statement to elicit more publicity.

In the States here, you, like the Phelps family, can say nearly anything and be fully supported by the most ardent free speech advocates, but that doesn't mean the community you live in or interact with has to support it. In fact, it is their right as well to show their hatred of you and refuse to deal with you. Or do something else. The only thing that protects you is your right to say it, physically or in print (under your own auspices, for if you defer to another for publishing, they rightfully can refuse to publish it, etc). Other than that, it is open season for how others deal with you. If you don't like it, too bad - that is the wonderfulness of free speech - you may say it and we'll let you say it, but don't come crying when the rest of us hate it.

It is also well within the defined rights of an individual to demand (though there is no legally binding deal entered) for her to step down and the organization is within it's rights to terminate their (with respect to Prejean) relationship at any time under certain conditions spelt out within the document.

To me, Adrian's first statement reflects how poorly he understands (and those who agree with him) how the States or other places operate. It doesn't matter if what you say is perfectly reasonable with regards to what people think or desire of you or how others interact with you. The only thing that matters is actions done to the former (as in libel, death threats, etc). If others want your employer to terminate your contract (under many of today's contracts, it is explicitly allowed under the "fails performance expectations" or "doesn't behave according to (the company's) code of conduct), your employer may do so - as long as that is not the final "reason", where reason is what is stated for your termination legally (while this situation could be technically illegal, proving it is improbable). Of course, you may sue, as that is within your rights, and so on hence forth, but I do want to hammer it home that, in practice, only an individuals rights are protected with respect to themself. The minute they operate in a multi-actor environment, whatever happens to them is a product of what they say and do along with how others see it. The state should protect your ability to say and do things and stay away from repressing others.

Free speech is a two way street in most cases.

This is how a pragmatist sees the world. Idealists need not apply.

[Meatball]

What does Miss Teen USA have to do with the Bill of Rights? Why is this even a discussion?