In fact, the term "reverse discrimination" is logical, in a sense. Throughout our nation's history, white guys have experienced the reverse of discrimination -- it's called "entitlement." No wonder they want it back.

And here's another problem with dignifying this legal position with the term "discrimination": proponents of these conservative legal views aren't actually against discrimination. They're fine with discriminating against everybody who isn't a white guy or a Christian of the type who wants to see the 10 Commandments in courthouses.

Having once been a Christian (I'm now cured, thank God), I used to hear all the time about "persecution" coming from those who did not believe,and it was supposed to be really bad. They would try you in court and imprison you and all that. Well, beyond a few sneers, it never got quite as bad as they described. This is America, after all, and the rhetoric about direct discrimination against Christians is about as overblown as the suggestion that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and the clear intent to use them against the US. Unfortunately that rhetoric still sticks in some parts of the country. The truth is a little more shall we say, "nuanced". If this were anyplace other than the USA, let's say Afghanistan, where a man was about to be executed for his Christian profession, they might have room for alarm. Sadly for them, this is a country of laws (at least, last I checked) where your religious faith shouldn't get you in trouble (usually). But the Jerry Falwell crowd has to find a reason to scrap so they come up with this twisted bullshit that Christians are "under attack" when the truth is that Christians historically have made more of a nuisance of themselves before cooler heads prevailed. Whether it's the Puritans in Colonial times or the Mormons getting run out of every place they settled in, or the boycotting of "The DaVinci Code" by Catholics, or the continuing intrusion upon our laws and the Constitution, they cry "persecution" when anyone disagrees with them or just wants to be left alone. The truth is, as long as we remain a democracy, the worst they'll get is a legal rebuke instead of the real persecution they're crying out for. Like being fed to the lions. Not to channel Ann Coulter here (dear God, not here!), but I never met a group of people who enjoyed their suffering so much.

The POINT is, that Bush is stacking that department with "Christian" lawyers who are helping whites at the expense of other minorities--and then calling it "civil rights." Does that make sense? It is called "reverse discrimination" because it reverses the advancement of minorities--what little advancement they've been able to make.

is insulting. Can we please stop using this term. As if one form of racism is more backwards than any other?

There is no such thing as "reverse discrimination"; only "discrimination". Not that that's your fault, you're probably just quoting the guy.

You might make the case that "reverse discrimination" is discrimination as retribution for previous discrimination, but that's not what they're talking about here. Doesn't "reverse discrimination" imply that "discrimination" by its defininion can only be white to black? And as big believers in language affecting action, shouldn't we try to be a little more precise?