To discriminate is to make a distinction. There are several meanings of the word, including statistical discrimination, or the actions of a circuit called a discriminator. This article addresses the most common meaning of the word, social, racial, religious, sexual and ethnic discrimination.
The effects of discrimination span the spectrum from mild, such as slow or unhelpful retail service, through racial and ethnic slurs, denial of employment or housing, to hate crimes and genocide.
Use of the term carries the implication that the factors on which the discrimination is based are intrinsically irrelevant to the decision being influenced. Generally, the aggrieved group is considered by the discriminator as inferior to others.
Even in western or more secular countries, the government have discriminatory practises. The most obvious is that the government can provide better treatment to its citizen than to its non-citizen. The best example is that unemployed citizen may received welfare payments (funded by the taxpayers) while unemployed non-citizen may be denied the same welfare payments. Furthermore government have the power to forcefully expel non-citizens but have no such power on its citizens. Discrimination based on citizenship status is not considered illegal by any governments in the world.
Religious intolerance often manifests itself in discriminatory behaviours. During the Middle Ages, in the Crusades, Popes, kings, and emperors tried to draw on Christian unity to defend their lands from some followers of Islam, which was spreading along Europe's southern and eastern borders. Roman Catholic countries have historically persecuted dissenters, for example with the Spanish Inquisition. Rulers of Protestant countries sponsored discrimination against members of the Roman Catholic faith. During Tudor and Stuart times, rulers of the United Kingdom persecuted both Catholics and non-Catholics at intervals for political reasons. Non-Muslims are discriminated against under many Islamic theocratic states. Jews and Christians have historically had fewer rights than Muslim citizens under Muslim states; non-Muslim monotheists have been consigned to the status of dhimmis in some cases. Marxist states have discriminated against all religions at some time or another.
For example, the Kingdom of Jordan forbids Jews from becoming citizens, although peoples of any other group are allowed to do so (law No. 6, sect. 3, of April 3, 1954; restated in law no. 7, sect. 2, of April 1, 1963). Saudi Arabia forbids non-Muslims from practising their religion in public, and clergy may not enter the country to lead ceremonies of other faiths. Christians asking Muslims to convert to Christianity have been persecuted and arrested; Muslims who have converted to Christianity have been executed as apostates. Fictional tales of Jews committing diabolic crimes are published by the state. The article on discrimination against non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia discuses this subject in more depth.
According to reports from the U.S. Department of State, non-Muslims also suffer discrimination in many non-Arab Muslim nations. Separate articles discuss discrimination against non-Muslims in Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Mauritania, Pakistan and Sudan.
Some New religious movements often claim that they are discriminated for their non-conformist beliefs. They claim apostates of these movements are the ones carrying the discrimination.
The key to the paradox is the subjectively interpreted phrase "more favorable treatment". Different people have different ideas about what constitutes "favorable treatment". To a male who does not want to die, favorable treatment means not being forced to go to the frontline. To a female who wants to defend her homeland, favorable treatment means being allowed to defend her homeland.)
Different groups of people will have different perceptions of a situation. Four people who witness a car accident will have four different perceptions of what happened and how it happened.
Therefore it is possible to have a situation where two groups of people vehemently oppose each other, both objecting to the same piece of legislation on the grounds that it "gives more favorable treatment" to the other group.
