How do organised religions differ from slavery or racism?

[baftan]

Just as slavery or racism, certain organised religions (such as Islam and Christianity) separate people according to assumptions. And just as slavery or racism, it uses an imaginary argument and demand demonization of other people (non-believers or members of other religions).

Abolishment of slavery and racism have been great steps in human history in terms of redefining human beings -as well as their societies- according to broader perspectives. Slavery or racism were not only wrong, but they were also obstacles in front of peace, cooperation, justice and other humanly possible civilization projects.

On what basis can organised religions and/or their assumptions, beliefs and classifications be different than slavery or racism?

 

[CheskiChips]

What assumptions are you talking about? Are you sure you live in the real world?

 

[baftan]

What assumptions are you talking about? Are you sure you live in the real world?

Slavery assumed that some people deserved to be slaves.
Racism assumes that some people are superior while others are inferior on the basis of races.
Religions, especially the organised ones, assume that God created some people as infidels, or different gender (men/women), or "not normal" according to their belief system. This results in artificial and dangerous discriminations between human beings.

So now you tell us which planet do you live in?

 

[Michael]

One assumption is that somehow and in someway Unbelievers are less. When these books refer to "Unbelievers" they do so with disdain, dismay, pity or/and even hatred. This sets up in the mind of the occultist a clouded vision of the Unbeliever. It's certainly not uncommon for "Unbelievers" to be shunned and even murdered for their lack of shared belief.

I think if we step back and think about it, what were the motivations of the people who made up these religions? WHY was it so important to them to label other people as "Unbelievers"? What purpose does THAT serve? Why call a person such a derogatory term?


Think about the approach taken by Buddhists and Taoists. Very different.

 

[(Q)]

On what basis can organised religions and/or their assumptions, beliefs and classifications be different than slavery or racism?

Certainly, organized religions are a form of slavery, but a little different than the slavery of yore.

A slave will use the first opportunity that comes along to be free. They are being held captive against their will.

Religious indoctrination is being brainwashed from a child to believe the doctrines that hold them are true. They've lost the ability to reason and magic has become part of a reality in their lives. They think they ARE free.

 

[786]

I think if we step back and think about it, what were the motivations of the people who made up these religions? WHY was it so important to them to label other people as "Unbelievers"? What purpose does THAT serve? Why call a person such a derogatory term?

Labeling is important part of identification- it is not meant to be derogatory but a tool to identify someone- but the people usually do take identification to mean something differently.

For example there are people who think all blondes are b---hes- of course that was not the reason for calling someone blonde.

Peace be unto you

 

[(Q)]

For example there are people who think all blondes are b---hes- of course that was not the reason for calling someone blonde.

Hey pal, not all dumbs are blonde.

 

[Lori_7]

Just as slavery or racism, certain organised religions (such as Islam and Christianity) separate people according to assumptions. And just as slavery or racism, it uses an imaginary argument and demand demonization of other people (non-believers or members of other religions).

Abolishment of slavery and racism have been great steps in human history in terms of redefining human beings -as well as their societies- according to broader perspectives. Slavery or racism were not only wrong, but they were also obstacles in front of peace, cooperation, justice and other humanly possible civilization projects.

On what basis can organised religions and/or their assumptions, beliefs and classifications be different than slavery or racism?

i'm trying to figure out why you speak of slavery and racism in the past tense, as if it has been abolished when it most definitely has not.

 

[baftan]

i'm trying to figure out why you speak of slavery and racism in the past tense, as if it has been abolished when it most definitely has not.

You can still find practical examples of racism and slavery, that's correct. But they are not legal, not widely accepted, and they are shamed and blamed in this civilization. Governmental or non-governmental organizations, or economic unions, or cultural elements can not be build upon these concepts anymore. If anyone includes racism or slavery as a part of their social project, this is not acceptable.
Religion, on the other hand, is presented as if it was a part of "normal". My question asks on what basis does religion differs from other two.

 

[baftan]

A slave will use the first opportunity that comes along to be free. They are being held captive against their will.

I can claim that people -who can find a space out of their religious environment, rituals, social rules- would also emancipate themselves. Or not: When slavery abolished, there were example of slaves who could not adapt new freedom right away. It took a generation in certain cases. Because these people were born into it, and they couldn't grasp the meaning of being free.

Yet, this is not my case. I am not talking about slave individuals or racist individuals: I am after the labels, rights, legal position, cultural legitimacy of the concepts of slavery and racism. And to clarify the concept of religion as an institution within contemporary civilization.

 

[Lori_7]

You can still find practical examples of racism and slavery, that's correct. But they are not legal, not widely accepted, and they are shamed and blamed in this civilization. Governmental or non-governmental organizations, or economic unions, or cultural elements can not be build upon these concepts anymore. If anyone includes racism or slavery as a part of their social project, this is not acceptable.
Religion, on the other hand, is presented as if it was a part of "normal". My question asks on what basis does religion differs from other two.

here's an example...we're all slaves to the federal reserve. that counts a bunch.

 

[Doreen]

Just as slavery or racism, certain organised religions (such as Islam and Christianity) separate people according to assumptions. And just as slavery or racism, it uses an imaginary argument and demand demonization of other people (non-believers or members of other religions).

Separating people according to assumptions can be something that simply occurs in one's own mind - for example identifying oneself as a Liberal and seeing some other people as Conservatives - whereas in slavery people were literally and physically separated and treated differently. the slaves being treated horribly.

Are you saying that any thoughts that distinguish between people should be abolished? Should we not notice that some people are women, for example?

 

[Michael]

Labeling is important part of identification- it is not meant to be derogatory but a tool to identify someone- but the people usually do take identification to mean something differently.

Labeling someone an Unbeliever is a bigoted insult. Historically, this small minded bigotry has led to all sorts of violence. In Muslim nations it still does. It's no better than calling someone with dark skin a nigger.

 

[Lori_7]

You can still find practical examples of racism and slavery, that's correct. But they are not legal, not widely accepted, and they are shamed and blamed in this civilization. Governmental or non-governmental organizations, or economic unions, or cultural elements can not be build upon these concepts anymore. If anyone includes racism or slavery as a part of their social project, this is not acceptable.
Religion, on the other hand, is presented as if it was a part of "normal". My question asks on what basis does religion differs from other two.

to answer your question more directly, the god i know values all human beings equally, and through christ, will achieve communion, where all will be at one with the universe and each other, and act in accordance with the greater good. so, i'm not quite sure what you're referring to.

 

[shichimenshyo]

to answer your question more directly, the god i know values all human beings equally, and through christ, will achieve communion, where all will be at one with the universe and each other, and act in accordance with the greater good. so, i'm not quite sure what you're referring to.

But is it possible to acheive such things without christ?

Why or why not?

 

[Lori_7]

But is it possible to acheive such things without christ?

Why or why not?

apparently not.

there's obviously something inherently wrong with us that inhibits, if not prohibits, these things. the message of christ is one of a genetic purification that remedies.

 

[shichimenshyo]

apparently not.

there's obviously something inherently wrong with us that inhibits, if not prohibits, these things. the message of christ is one of a genetic purification that remedies.

But thats the problem, and thats where the comparison holds some validity. How can you say it is not the same as racism when you take an exclusionist view about who can and cant achieve inner/universal peace? You are purposfully excluding groups who do not follow the same doctrine as you.

 

[Lori_7]

But thats the problem, and thats where the comparison holds some validity. How can you say it is not the same as racism when you take an exclusionist view about who can and cant achieve inner/universal peace? You are purposfully excluding groups who do not follow the same doctrine as you.

either you want peace or you don't. either you want the greater good or you don't. either you want true and unconditional love and freedom or you don't. it's an individual's choice. it has nothing to do with any man-made institution.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Are enslaved groups more apt to become religious? Does being conquered and having your land occupied by oppressors weaken or solidify religious beliefs? If you are a slave then you either believe that faith in your religion is eventually going to see you free or if you blame religion for getting you into the mess then it becomes unworthy of faith.

Do you think the Africans who became slaves in America lost faith in their religion when they were captured and forced into slavery? Then once introduced to the Christian religion did they become total converts when slavery became abolished? Think about it, could slavery actually change the religion of an entirely different culture?

The religions that are discarded, can we assume that they are inherently weak? Or if you keep your faith and in the end everything works out then does that religion get stronger? It could simply be that whatever religion you have faith in when set free is the religion of choice.

 

[shichimenshyo]

either you want peace or you don't. either you want the greater good or you don't. either you want true and unconditional love and freedom or you don't. it's an individual's choice. it has nothing to do with any man-made institution.

But what is the greater good? an idea that is completely subjective is what it is. The notion of christ as a savior is arguably a man made institution/idea in its own right.