Race and Racism
- Thread starter (Q)
- Start date
While there are many religions, there is only one human race. So no a religion can't be a "race" by my definition.
Religious principles are commonly degraded by the bodily concept of life, where one's place of birth becomes worshipable, etc etc. Not at all unusual since the bodily concept of life is the root cause of ignorance. Successfully applied religious principles, however, gradually diminish the bodily concept of life
Q, under the law its illegal to discriminate by race OR creed so yes its really no different UNLESS the debate is about that religion.
For instance if you were debating economics and someone said "what would you know your just a stupid christan) then its bigotry the same as if they said "what would you know, your just a stupid" aborigional, black whatever.
The law goes further however, it also bans discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, gender identity, sex, sexuality, pregancy, breast feeding, marital statice, disability (there could be more but they dont come to mind right now)
For instance if you were debating economics and someone said "what would you know your just a stupid christan) then its bigotry the same as if they said "what would you know, your just a stupid" aborigional, black whatever.
The law goes further however, it also bans discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, gender identity, sex, sexuality, pregancy, breast feeding, marital statice, disability (there could be more but they dont come to mind right now)
Religions are not a race so you one couldn't call racism. It would be prejudice or discrimination based on religion. I don't know what the actual word would be though. Relgionism? or Religism? lol I don't know
It would be the latter.
Not really, more along the lines of 'stupid religion' or 'stupid god' as opposed to 'stupid person.'
to debate religion is no different from any other debate Q. Its not racisum to debate the idiocy and immorality of the US actions in iraq or the immorality of israil ocupying palistine.
It IS racisum to say that, i dont take and give nothing back "im not a jew" as a member was recently banned for.
This doesnt matter wether its a race, religion, marital statice, sexuality, gender identity, ect. Its just purly WRONG. Racisum is a handy term to dump all those different things under but in reality its cultural biggotry which racisum falls under as well
It IS racisum to say that, i dont take and give nothing back "im not a jew" as a member was recently banned for.
This doesnt matter wether its a race, religion, marital statice, sexuality, gender identity, ect. Its just purly WRONG. Racisum is a handy term to dump all those different things under but in reality its cultural biggotry which racisum falls under as well
There are at least two maybe three logical fallacies there. Nor is this line of argumentation sound or cogent.
If it were, we could conclude that, therefore, refusing service to young males who ride skateboards is racism. I think any rational person would agree that bigotry against the skater culture is not the same as racist discrimination.
In addition, if your argumentation were sound and cogent, we could use substitution to replicate the argument. You're arguing that if racism (A) is cultural (C) discrimination/bigotry and if religion (B) is cultural (C), then discrimination/bigotry based on religion (B) is racism (A).
the structure is this:
All A are C
All B are C
-----------
All A are B
This would be like saying:
all cats are mammals, all dogs are mammals, therefore, all cats are dogs.
In addition, the premises aren't shown to be valid, therefore affecting the soundness of your statement. Racism isn't the discrimination or bigotry based on culture but, rather, the ethnicity or ancestry of the individual. Indeed, racism itself can be a culture. And culture need not be racially inclusive or exclusive.
Finally, religion, while often a function of culture, is not a "race," ethnic category, or ancestral lineage although there are religious cultures and subcultures. Religion is a structure within culture and is often a defining structure; whereas racism comes in varied forms that oscillate between the dichotomy of structure and agency. As a structure, it is unfortunately effective as a hegemonic tool of oppression; as a form of agency, individuals shape their relations and interactions with other individuals based on racist modes of thinking.
actually thats illegal anyway, but sure go ahead skinwalker. Prove that its not bigotry to steriotype by relgion?
You and q seem to want any excuse to be alowed to do it so logically prove why using religion to steriotype someone isnt bigotry?
\
Futher more if i proved that the extermination of the jews included one person who CONVERTED to judeasium rather than was born into it would you suggest that it wasnt racisum that motivated hitler?
How about if the chiness invaded the US and then decided to ethinically clense all the yanks, if someone chose to become a citizan PRE invasion would you suggest that wasnt racisum? or ethic clensing?
Your theory doesnt fit because there is no such thing as RACE, culture exists but races DONT. We are all genetically related and there is very if any biological difference between us. Hell acording to your argument shooting someone because they have red hair would racially motivated, but what if they dyed their hair red?
You and q seem to want any excuse to be alowed to do it so logically prove why using religion to steriotype someone isnt bigotry?
\
Futher more if i proved that the extermination of the jews included one person who CONVERTED to judeasium rather than was born into it would you suggest that it wasnt racisum that motivated hitler?
How about if the chiness invaded the US and then decided to ethinically clense all the yanks, if someone chose to become a citizan PRE invasion would you suggest that wasnt racisum? or ethic clensing?
Your theory doesnt fit because there is no such thing as RACE, culture exists but races DONT. We are all genetically related and there is very if any biological difference between us. Hell acording to your argument shooting someone because they have red hair would racially motivated, but what if they dyed their hair red?
As near as I can discern from your feeble spelling, you're erecting a straw man argument. Much of what you're saying above is not being argued by me at all, but if setting up easy arguments you can knock down helps your ego, go for it.
But I've neither argued that stereotyping the religiously deluded or lumping their superstitions together as deserving of discrimination isn't bigotry nor have I argued that ethnic cleansing wasn't wrong or even racist.
If you want to engage in intellectual discourse with me, you'll need to do two things: 1) pull you head out of your arse; 2) install a spelling extension in Firefox.
But I've neither argued that stereotyping the religiously deluded or lumping their superstitions together as deserving of discrimination isn't bigotry nor have I argued that ethnic cleansing wasn't wrong or even racist.
If you want to engage in intellectual discourse with me, you'll need to do two things: 1) pull you head out of your arse; 2) install a spelling extension in Firefox.
Then it would certainly be bigotry, but NOT racism.
You seem to use the words interchangably, but there is a difference.
I think, very often, what the religious view as "bigotry" really isn't at all. That's not to say there aren't those that hold bigoted opinions regarding religion, clearly that's true. But these opinions are generally from people of different religions more so than non-religious.
Definitely, there are bigoted atheists. No question. We've seen them post in this forum. However, the mere act of questioning and criticizing religion in general or specific cults of religion doesn't imply the questioner or criticizer is bigoted.
Bigotry can be defined as the emphatic or rigid intolerance of ideas different than your own.
If that definition holds, then, yes, I have some bigoted positions. I'm bigoted against pedophiles and serial killers. No problem. I'm bigoted against the drug culture. Definitely.
Where, then, should the line be drawn. I'd go so far as to say there are economic and political ideas to which I'm bigoted.
Why must the line be drawn before I get to religion? Can my bigotry to illegal and immoral practices be okay? Can I be expected and even respected for having bigoted ideas about politics? Can I be rigidly opposed to big government; government intrusion into my private life; and run-away government spending and openly criticize these ideas, expressing my intolerance.
Why, then, can I not rationally examine, question and criticize the illogical and unreasoned positions of religion and express my intolerance for religious intrusion into my private life or exploiting my tax dollars without my "bigotry" being equated to racism?
And, to top it off, I've got to be indirectly blamed for the extermination of Jews?
Poppycock.
I agree, SkinWalker.
Bigotry, while it can be repulsive, can also be constructive.
In addition, someone can be a bigot without discriminating or repressing people.
Where I draw the line is between judging ideas and judging people based on their ideas.
Bigotry, while it can be repulsive, can also be constructive.
In addition, someone can be a bigot without discriminating or repressing people.
Where I draw the line is between judging ideas and judging people based on their ideas.
There's an interesting "zone" here, between justice (maybe not the best word) and clear bigotry .
Try this:
Judging a person based on their actions is just.
Judging a person based on a label attached to them, or on properties beyond their personal control (skin color, sex), is unjust (bigotry).
But judging a person based on their ideas is a fuzzy area, usually addressed on a case-by-case basis.
Try this:
Judging a person based on their actions is just.
Judging a person based on a label attached to them, or on properties beyond their personal control (skin color, sex), is unjust (bigotry).
But judging a person based on their ideas is a fuzzy area, usually addressed on a case-by-case basis.
I would agree that 'judging the person' might be a fuzzy area, but judging the ideology the person follows shouldn't be. It should be just as clear cut as Skinwalkers comments upon other forms of ideologies that may have a negative effect on ones life or on society as a whole.
For example, if a parent allows their child to die rather than have medical treatment because their religion forbids it, we can judge the person to be an idiot for allowing their child to die, but we can also judge the religious doctrines which the parent followed.
I would agree that judging the person as an idiot could be interpreted as a form of bigotry or racism, perhaps loosely or indirectly, but to judge the religious doctrine that caused the death most certainly is fair game. And if the doctrine is the alleged "word of god" for that religion, can the god therefore be judged?
Is this the issue theists have with racism, the judging of their gods as if that god was a real person?
I agree. Judging ideas and ideologies is not bigotry.
But I think that more often the problem is many people (not all theists, and not exclusively theists) have difficulty separating judgment of their ideas from judgment of themselves. Many people take it very personally when their ideas are attacked.
Perhaps, in some situations.
But I think that more often the problem is many people (not all theists, and not exclusively theists) have difficulty separating judgment of their ideas from judgment of themselves. Many people take it very personally when their ideas are attacked.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
I think 'stupid' is problematic since a religion (or any other belief system) has no intelligence, so it is natural to slide that adjective over to the people. Stupid god is problematic also, at least for an atheist to use as a term.
If one says that the religion has unfounded beliefs or is not logical or has dangerous implications, etc., then it is less likely to be taken as a direct insult to the believer (by some).
Further, it is consistent. One of the consistent complaints by rationalists is that believers are anthopomorphizing, so it would perhaps be best not to refer to religions as stupid.
Colloquial use of 'stupid' in this way is common and is not anthropomorphizing. Like when one's car does not start and one screams 'stupid fucking car'. But this seems like a kind of colloquialism best avoided in this context unless one really does want to insult the person.