Race and Racism

[Simon Anders]

Funny. I generally agreed with Q's formulation, other than my problem with the adjective 'stupid' but at least one dictionary seems to support bigotry being used in relation to ideas rather than people. I included intolerance since it seemed a key word in the definition of bigotry.

big⋅ot⋅ry
  1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

in⋅tol⋅er⋅ance 
1. lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.

From here it seems to hinge on figuring out what 'respect' for contrary opinions would mean.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I have no moral obligation to respect absurd and/or cruel beliefs.
1111

 

[(Q)]

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.

Uh... Simon, it is appreciated that you would go to such lengths to critique the use of the word 'stupid' in the EXAMPLE presented, although the word stupid was only used as an example, even though the example might not have been a very good one. Kudos for pointing that out.

Now, do you have any comment in regards to the OP or are you here to convince us that nitpicking is your forte?

 

[(Q)]

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.

I would agree. That would present a problem for the person who does take their ideas personally and for anyone else discussing those ideas with them.

How do we deal with these situations? How do you make those who do take their ideas personally understand that their ideas are separate from them, and that they as a person are to be respected while their ideologies are fair game?

 

[(Q)]

Funny. I generally agreed with Q's formulation, other than my problem with the adjective 'stupid' but at least one dictionary seems to support bigotry being used in relation to ideas rather than people. I included intolerance since it seemed a key word in the definition of bigotry.

From here it seems to hinge on figuring out what 'respect' for contrary opinions would mean.

Again, much appreciated, but do you have a comment about the OP?

 

[S.A.M.]

How do you make those who do take their ideas personally understand that their ideas are separate from them, and that they as a person are to be respected while their ideologies are fair game?

So you respect Nazis, but not Nazism? How does that play out?

 

[(Q)]

So you respect Nazis, but not Nazism? How does that play out?

Please stick to the topic. Do you have any comment on why your ideology cannot be criticized because you take the critique personally?

 

[S.A.M.]

Sure, you cannot attack a persons beliefs and pretend that it has nothing to do with the person.

e.g. if I were to say that atheism is a mortal sin, I cannot at the same time be "accepting" of atheists, not in any way that is meaningful to them. Or, if I say idol worship is a mortal sin, I cannot be "accepting" of Hindus or pagans, again, not in any way that is meaningful to them. To say that a racist is separate from racism or a liberal from liberalism is a strawman, that attempts to separate the physical body of a person from his mind.

 

[(Q)]

Sure, you cannot attack a persons beliefs and pretend that it has nothing to do with the person.

Why? Beliefs of person are NOT the person themselves. If you believe in Islam, that doesn't mean that Islam is YOU, since Islam was created by other people and is an ideology that millions follow.

e.g. if I were to say that atheism is a mortal sin, I cannot at the same time be "accepting" of atheists, not in any way that is meaningful to them.

Ah, then you are intolerant to the person themselves because of their ideals. That is wrong.

- I have no problem with you as a person.
- If you believe in Islam, I have no problem with you.
- On the other hand, as an ideology, I have a problem with Islam.
- As a person who acts on their ideologies in a way that affects me negatively, I have a problem with that. However, I will not attack the person themselves, I will still attack the ideology, because the ideology is at fault, not the person.

 

[S.A.M.]

Why? Beliefs of person are NOT the person themselves. If you believe in Islam, that doesn't mean that Islam is YOU, since Islam was created by other people and is an ideology that millions follow.

So you are not what you think?

Ah, then you are intolerant to the person themselves because of their ideals. That is wrong.

- I have no problem with you as a person.
- If you believe in Islam, I have no problem with you.
- On the other hand, as an ideology, I have a problem with Islam.
- As a person who acts on their ideologies in a way that affects me negatively, I have a problem with that. However, I will not attack the person themselves, I will still attack the ideology, because the ideology is at fault, not the person.

You cannot accept or not have a problem with a person, if you are denying them their identity.

 

[(Q)]

So you are not what you think?

You tell me.

If you consider yourself a member of the Democratic party, does that mean I am not allowed to criticize the Democratic platform? If you consider yourself a Shriner, am I not allowed to criticize the Shriners ideals, their funny hats and tiny cars?

You cannot accept or not have a problem with a person, if you are denying them their identity.

No one is denying anything Sam, you're being paranoid. I can accept the person, even though I don't accept their ideology.

 

[S.A.M.]

You tell me.

If you consider yourself a member of the Democratic party, does that mean I am not allowed to criticize the Democratic platform? If you consider yourself a Shriner, am I not allowed to criticize the Shriners ideals, their funny hats and tiny cars?

If you say Democrats are evil liars, does that not include me?

No one is denying anything Sam, you're being paranoid. I can accept the person, even though I don't accept their ideology.

So if you knew a person was a racist, you could accept the person even if you were against racism? Personally, I don't see how that is remotely possible.

 

[(Q)]

If you say Democrats are evil liars, does that not include me?

Sam, your attempt to derail the thread has been noted.

So if you knew a person was a racist, you could accept the person even if you were against racism? Personally, I don't see how that is remotely possible.

Racism is another ideology Sam, please don't act so dumb.

 

[S.A.M.]

Sam, your attempt to derail the thread has been noted.

Okay, so make an argument about MY religion that does not include ME.

Racism is another ideology Sam, please don't act so dumb.

So explain how you separate the racist from his racism.

 

[(Q)]

Okay, so make an argument about MY religion that does not include ME.

Any argument about Islam would be one that wouldn't include you.

So explain how you separate the racist from his racism.

That is another topic altogether.

 

[Ophiolite]

Q, under the law its illegal to discriminate by race OR creed

Really? Like there's just one legal system for the whole planet? Wow!
Is it illegal to discriminate againse persons who make thoughtless generalisations? Can you write a three hundred word essay outling the distinctions, if any, between thoughtless generalisations and stereotyping?

 

[S.A.M.]

Any argument about Islam would be one that wouldn't include you.

For example?

That is another topic altogether.

Nope, thats the title of this thread. Explain how it is different from any idealogy and its believer

 

[Simon Anders]

Uh... Simon, it is appreciated that you would go to such lengths to critique the use of the word 'stupid' in the EXAMPLE presented, although the word stupid was only used as an example, even though the example might not have been a very good one. Kudos for pointing that out.

Now, do you have any comment in regards to the OP or are you here to convince us that nitpicking is your forte?

1) examples, especially if there is only one, may be telling. I could not know you would agree. In fact a careful reading of the above leaves it unclear. 'might not have been a good one' which I pointed out. If you actually agree that it was a poor choice then it's easy to drop. If you don't then it is not nitpicking.
2) I also went beyond that example and gave examples of ways in which someone could criticize a religion without the trap involved in 'stupid'. a)you did not respond to this - so I don't know if these suggestions seem inadequate. b) this was not nitpicking.
3) three I answered in good faith and got a mocking response.

 

[Simon Anders]

Again, much appreciated, but do you have a comment about the OP?

It relates directly to the OP and further to what was being discussed in the thread. A couple of people - including you - seemed to be putting forward the idea that bigorty related to opinions about groups of people rather than a belief system. I actually thought you were right in this distinction. I was surprised to find that the dictionary directly described bigotry in relation to ideas, beliefs, etc.

1) I thought others might find that surprising and might be a little less certain about the distinction they were making and
2) I raised the issue of how one respects beliefs one does not think have the little chance of being true.

I was directly responding to ideas presented by you and others. If you and they were on topic, so was I.

 

[Simon Anders]

Is a religion a race?

No.

Can a Christian or Muslim cry "racism" if you denounce their religions or their gods?

It would be silly to since such a wide range of races are followers of those religions.

I've read several articles on 'race' that don't mention this relationship. Any arguments in favor of this relationship?

Only with religions that are one race deals or primarily and one suspects that racial issues are mixing in with a critique of the religion.

Sorry. I found the OP a dead end. But it led to an interesting discussion.