A Jew, a Muslim, a Christian, an atheist, a pagan, a Communist, a National Socialist, a homosexual, a lefty, a conservative, a junkie, a rapist, a climatologist and a genetic engineer all walk into a pub. But because it is a philosophical pub, the publican can only bar entry to one of these people.

Which one should he bar? Which one is the worst person, and why?

Well, if you included a tax paying middle income, middle-aged, Caucasian family man then he would definitely be forbidden.

The reason why is because the publican would have never have heard of one of these before and so would be very, very wary of him. After all, since his type are never mentioned in the media how would the publican have any idea what he would want, do or stand-for.

(By, the way: It is most likely illegal in this country for someone to post their own truthful, upfront opinions that you are seeking. So don't be surprised if not too many people comment on this thread)

"Which one should he bar? Which one is the worst person, and why?"

This is a trick question unless you give us information about the gender and/or gender identity of the people so that we can make a more informed decision.

But the 'catch-all' answer will be whichever one I say it is... which is also the reason why!

Why are Jew, Muslim, Christian given a "CAPITAL LETTER" and us ASTEIST'S and our friends the PAGAN'S only a piddly small 'a' and 'p' we demand equality. NOW!
toni (note the small 't' in your name, my form of protest), before I can answer your question I need to know who's shout it is, they can stay, providing its not me the ATHEISTS shout (note the capital spelling for ATHEISTS, more protest) if its my shout I can go to the "Cock and Bull" down the road and drink on my own, besides it 'happy hour' down there with 'schooners' at 3 bucks, what's the price at 'The Philosophical' a trendy $8 for a fancy Pina Banana, real men drink Beeeer! Or with my friend the PAGAN who also feels slighted, and cry in our beers about this all being a commie, socialists, lefty etc etc conspiracy. Do not think I have not noticed your blatant discrimination against us legless people, a state I often attain after a night at the pub, walk in you say, WALK IN! with causal disregard for us the beer guzzling legless! I have not even mentioned the fact that my other dear friend 'PINKO' has been total ignored in this whole sorry exercise. Where is your political correctness? LOL

p/s I forgot to add, the worse people at the pub are the ones with long pockets and short arms! You know who you are!

'A Jew, a Muslim, a Christian, an atheist, a pagan, a Communist, a National Socialist, a homosexual, a lefty, a conservative, a junkie, a rapist, a climatologist and a genetic engineer all walk into a pub'

all sinners falling far short of God's mark. The only person worthy to walk in the pub is Jesus Christ Himself.

"because it is a philosophical pub, the publican can only bar entry to one of these people."

Not if his philosopshy is Absurdism.

A genuine Muslim wouldn't be there. Alcohol is haraam.

The "worst" people could be most of those listed, as most come under the generic definition: utopians/puritans.

It is people who think they can perfect people/the world that are the "worst", generally making life hell for anyone who dissents from their utopian vision.

Why bar the worst? I would bar the best and let the worst drink themselves to death!

Toni,

I had my little joke with your thread, but now I'll be serious. Please accept my apologies.

The people who are the biggest dangers to our society are all or none of the above. The danger is the extremest, like the religious fanatic who believes god is on his side, and therefore he can do no wrong. The communists or fascist who is so ideologically blinded that he believes he can do no wrong. The others who are dangerous are those that stand ideally by and let the radical extremest impose their will. Those mild mannered in society who allow conditions of inequality to develop to such an extent that it allows extremism to gain the upper hand. All are a danger in their own way.

Actually there were only six people

A Jewish, conservative, rapist
a Muslim, Communist, genetic engineer
a Christian, lefty, homosexual,climatologist
an atheist, conservative, genetic engineer
a pagan, National Socialist, junkie

Or pick your combination, and try not to fall into stereotypes.

The only characteristics that are mutually exclusive are the religions. Anyone from any religion can also be any of the others (except perhaps a Jewish National Socialist - but then the latter is basically a religion, no doubt why it was capitalised).

And since the publican would not have known which was which, he would have philosophically let them all in.

The sixth person was Jesus Christ, not because he was 'the only person worthy' but because he associated with all sorts of sinners, and treated them with respect and as worthy of his company. Pity more people don't follow his example.

Dear runner,

Jesus Christ lived and died a Jew. He was not a Christian.

Toni, I would have to say the rapist should be barred, as he is the only known criminal amongst the group.
I fail to see why there was a need to bring up JC, when he is dead, and not on the list of possible patrons?

There is no way any of these people can be barred legally before they enter the place, and actually do something on the premises that would entitle the publican to bar them. Even the rapist cannot be discriminated against. Why not simply ask people who they think is the worst person?

I cannot decide who is the worst person simply by their label. To make a judgment on a person solely by their label is prejudice.

david,
Jews are a race of of people of which Jesus was one, Christianity is the religion founded by him, as he taught his followers. There were and are many religious sectors among Jews. Religion and race are separate distinctive features of a person.

All descriptors given can equally be as bad as each other. Remember "bad" is a moral descriptor of character.

Jesus did not found Christianity. He was not a Christian regardless of how hard you try to make him one. After Jesus was dead other people made his worship into a religion. Jews are not a race. There are blond blue-eyed Jews. There are black Jews and everything in between. Jesus observed the Jewish religion and never denied it. That makes him a Jew.

I agree with your last sentence.

Hi David,

If we are to assume Jesus Christ actually existed, and is not some compensate character in the guise of a King Arthur or Robin Hood, or even one of those mythical characters. One of the few things that Christians and myself agree on is the existence of Christ. There is no evidence even from Christian sources that Christ set out, intentionally or accidentally, to form a complete new religion based on the concept of a "new god" with "new teachings", but rather was a devout Jew, committed to the traditional god and the tradition practices and teaching of the common Jewish religion, it was so to the very end, as demonstrated by the celebration of the Jewish Passover (last supper) shortly before his death. The acceptance of the Jewish Bible by his followers attests to their faith in Judaism, although there have been several rewrite of the book, but even to this day it has at least retained the essence of the original. Christ from a Christian view point tried to give interpretation to the teachings of Judaism rather than create complete new teachings. The Gospels written well after Christ, do not try and recant what is contained in the Bible but rather attempt to give prominence to Christ himself as part of the development of the Jewish religion. Christianity has been most successful, and is today the leading sect within Judaism, although somewhat fragmented, with Catholicism being the main denomination. Islam is the other prominent sect to have grown out of Judaism, whilst the traditionalist, mostly Jews themselves, have slipped to third place in the order.

I agree, Jesus Christ was of the Jewish religion. Most likely Judaism developed from some other ancient form of worship.

//A genuine Muslim wouldn't be there. Alcohol is haraam.//

But going to the pub is not. It's not actually a legal requirement to consume alcohol in licensed premises.

//The only person worthy to walk in the pub is Jesus Christ Himself.//

Jesus is already barred. He kept getting free glasses of water and turning them into wine, so the publican told him to 'Buy something or piss off, I'm not running a bloody charity here you tight-fisted Jew.'

//Why bar the worst? I would bar the best and let the worst drink themselves to death!//

The best people in society and you wouldn't let them have a beer? Harsh, dude.

//Toni, I would have to say the rapist should be barred, as he is the only known criminal amongst the group.//

No, the junkie is a known criminal as well: use and possession of heroin are illegal.

//There is no way any of these people can be barred legally before they enter the place//

Never worked in hospitality, ttbn? Do you know why licensed establishments have dress codes? It's not because they want their patrons to be in uniform and they will very often turn a blind eye to their own dress code. I often go to my local club straight after work, still in my uniform. In summer I often go in thongs. Both breach the dress code and nobody cares. Dress codes are there so you can bar anybody you don't like the look of BEFORE they cause any trouble.

For the purposes of this exercise, everybody is wearing thongs.

Toni Lavis, "Dress codes are there so you can bar anybody you don't like the look of BEFORE they cause any trouble"

That may be the case and often security or other staff have information about previous problematical behavior.

However the winds of change are blowing and the opportunist professional litigants and ambulance chasing lawyers are always at the leading edge where there is any prospect of getting a cool $30,000 legal settlement. Any who can represent themselves as to be a victim can claim discrimination on that basis even though it was likely never a consideration in the refusal of entry or service.

I often worked in hospitality as a student. Still have unpaid roles in services affecting the public. Yes, 'injury' claims and insurance are increasingly the subjects of concern in management meetings. As well as the ever-increasing range of regulatory risks, there is the ever-increasing prospect of prospecting professional litigants.

There are people in taxpayer funded advocacy services who actually advise their clients how to set up and take advantage of vulnerable businesses. A topical example is rental housing where the over-supply of lawyers is encouraging them (lawyers) to build a new industry for rental lawyers. That is NOT good news for the bulk of responsible tenants and providers, driving up the costs of overheads and insurance.

The public can expect the Parliaments that are filled with lawyers and the courts of course, to support more regulation, which is always complex.

The answer to the OP is that the 'philosophers' pub needs to revise its risks assessment. Because there are only some of its clientele who could be refused anyhow, even where there are reasons for doing so. The others could easily construe any refusal as discrimination.

While the litigant might not be able to win a case, the various costs of defending a suit that is being sensationalised in the media and pushed from behind by taxpayer-funded advocates will increase the incentive for the luckless business to make an out of court settlement.

Ever wondered why services are withdrawn and prices go up?

Tony Lavis "But going to the pub is not [haraam]. It's not actually a legal requirement to consume alcohol in licensed premises."

But it is a requirement of entry that you "associate" with sinning infidels.
Why would a genuine Muslim, or any other puritanal type, want to do that?

The "worst" types listed fall into two basic categories: those who are defined as "sinners" and those doing the defining.

So, the real question is which of these types does the owner want excluded.

Easy enough. Answer this question before entrance permitted: Do you believe there is a true and good way for humans to live?

If he wants the puritans, the correct answer is yes.
If he wants the sinners (and they will probably spend more), the answer is no.

Dear Toni,

If I had to choose one to ban - it would be the rapist.

Why?

Because rape is forcible sexual intercourse against the
will of the victim. It is a terrifying, brutal, and
sometimes life-threatening crime, one that often leaves,
deep, long-term psychological scars.

One reason that rape is so under-reported is that many
victims are unwilling to relive the experience by
submitting to police interrogation, medical examination, and
court proceedings.

Foxy, I was wondering who would state the obvious.

But...

If he's walking free that means (a) he's already served his time or (b) nobody knows he's a rapist.
So how could you ban him in either case?

A rapist can do a lot of harm.
To one person at a time.

Puritanical believers can harm hundreds, thousands, even millions of people, devastating entire nations, even to the point of genocidal extinction.

No rapist could cause an equivalent tragedy.

Dear Shocker,

Of course you're right.

People have done a great deal of damage
in the name of religion. However, we can't blame
religion for the actions done in its name by
people.

And seeing as I only had what was given in the opening
post here - the rapist seemed to be the logical choice
to ban.

Cultural relativism at its best again from Foxy. The PC pinup girl.

I think its this one who disguise themselves as a religion. What do you really know about this Satanic Cult? Have you ever heard of their Talmud bible (their true bible)?

“We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers for ever. Nothing that you will do will meet our needs and demands. We will for ever destroy because we need a world of our own…”

– Maurice Samuels, You Gentiles. 1942.

Jewish site:
http://come-and-hear.com/download.html#flyers

"Find out about the
Jewish People
* their laws * their culture * their religion

http://www.Come-and-Hear.com
Dedicated to increased inter-faith understanding

Jewish law -- the law laid down in the historic Jewish holy book, the Talmud -- is being integrated into American law and society. What are the Jewish teachings on the burning issues of the day? Don't listen to ignorant second-hand reports. Read important sections of the Talmud in context and on-line at

http://www.Come-and-Hear.com

What are the Talmud doctrines about marriage and divorce? Child-adult sex? The death penalty? How does Jewish law treat Gentiles? Learn about the rabbi-designed religion that all peoples of the Earth will soon be following, and learn about the rituals we can expect to see when Israel builds the Third Temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

cont...

..Cont

"Help bring about inter-faith understanding. Come-and-Hear.com is easy to download,
ready for copying to CD's for broad distribution to people of good will.

http://www.Come-and-Hear.com

http://come-and-hear.com/editor/about.html

Some Question the Talmud
While many praise the Talmud, many have questions about it. The late American Protestant writer Elizabeth Kirkpatrick Dilling, author of The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today, (31) is one of those. (Ellipsis indicates omitted text.)
The Babylonian Talmud is the law for so-called Judaism. However, its pornographic, anti-Gentile and anti-Christian doctrines have often caused hostility against it. …

The Bible under Talmudic Judaism is considered to be a collection of simple tales fit only for fools, women and children. The Talmud "sages" thus must find new meanings in it by letter and number tricks which reverse the plain meaning and create out of it the permission to do otherwise forbidden crimes and misdeeds. The words of the Bible are continually misused and misquoted for purposes of blasphemy and reversal.

Stealing for themselves the title of "Israelites," the Talmud "sages" teach that "God made a covenant with Israel only for the sake of that which was transmitted orally." (See Exhibit 60) And the Biblical "basis" of this is given as Exodus 34:27. But that verse states, instead: "And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel" — the opposite! (Talmud, Gittin 60b, See Exhibit 204) The Talmudic reversal of Moses' written words are said to have been transmitted "orally," and through Moses himself — believe it or not!

America Is Rapidly Becoming Talmudized
In 1991, the US Congress declared the Talmudic Noahide Laws to be the basis "upon which our great Nation was founded" (see America's New Government Church). Under Noahide Law regulations, idolaters (which includes Christians by definition) are put to death.

Cont...

...Cont

"In 1999, the Supreme Court agreed to consider an amicus brief based wholly on Talmudic law (see Sentence and Execution).

In November 2002, the American Orthodox Jewish community held a kosher dinner in the Supreme Court building to celebrate the establishment of the National Institute for Judaic Law. (22) The dinner was attended by 200 people, including three Supreme Court Justices. The purpose of the Institute is to introduce Talmudic laws into the US legal system and law schools.

It is thus the clear civic duty of every American to become intimately acquainted with the Talmud. Read articles at:
America's New Government Church: http://www.come-and-
hear.com/editor/america_1.html
Death Penalty: http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/capunish_1.html
Kosher Dinner: http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/cp-jp-11-09-2002 and http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/cp-jw-01-08-03

http://come-and-hear.com/editor/america_1.html
“The Jews have the 613 commandments of the Torah to observe. Non-Jews have the Noahide commandments, included within which are prohibitions against idolatry, theft, murder, adultery and incest, cruelty to animals, blasphemy and the responsibility to establish and maintain courts of justice in a just society.”

Just a few revolting things from the Babylonian Talmud that’s nothing compared to some of the other stuff, and what they really thing of us so called Gentiles. I haven’t sited the paedophilia part – look for yourself.
Jewish Harems in Talmud Law — Though a medieval synod discouraged polygamy because it upset Christians, some still do it in Israel. The Word of God in the Talmud provides laws for handling a harem. Up to 48 wives are permitted, perhaps.
Appendix A: The Jewish Encyclopedia on Polygamy
Appendix B: Polygamy and the Slave Hagar
• Talmud Daughters Become Talmud Wives — Under Talmud law, the acquisition of a wife is much like the acquisition of any other property. Curiously, in 50 years of feminism, none of our Jewish feminists have made an issue of the sexual inequalities in the Talmud.
from The Plot Against Christianity
by Elizabeth Dilling"

Answer: The rapist.
Why: It has not been established that any of the other people have deliberately harmed anybody else;
- even if some of them have the potential to do so;
- and even if some of them might have what some people might consider to be questionable beliefs or practices.