Debate discussion

24 views
Religion > Study Links Religion and Racism

Comments Showing 1-19 of 19 (19 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Maurice (new)

Maurice Whitehurst (PhilosophyJones) | 74 comments "In general, the more devout the community, the greater the racism, according to the authors of the analysis...Religious groups distinguish between believers and non-believers and moral people and immoral ones. So perhaps it’s no surprise that the strongly religious people.., who were mostly white Christians, discriminated against others who were different from them — blacks and minorities."


For reference, study show that Jews were inferior to Germans too. beware of those who depend on polls to make conclusions, without them they have non.

There are some things you have to be prejudiced against because you believe them to be right. So to say morality or ethical is only a way. Your post says that those people are wrong (ethic).

But beware of the sentence structure:
"I knew it. Modern Christians are just better at playing lip service to equality, they are just as likely to as racist as fundamentalists."

Who are these Christians you speak of? Do you know them personally? How many are them? Does that include every Christian that exist or ever existed?

You see how misleading your meaning is? Be specific because it these sentences that give a reason to hate.


message 2: by Lauren (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 7365 comments Mod
"Who are these Christians you speak of? Do you know them personally? How many are them? Does that include every Christian that exist or ever existed?""

You don't need to. By them being Christian, they by definition have a belief set in common. If the belief set is proven racist, logically, because they follow it, they mist hold racist ideals, or not follow their own religion.


message 3: by Dan (new)

Dan Does that include every Christian that exist or ever existed? Does that include every Christian that exist or ever existed?

Who cares? In order to criticize Christianity, you don't need to prove that your criticism applies to every single Christian who has ever lived. Certainly, people who extol the virtues of a particular religion don't hold themselves to such a standard. But whenever religion is criticized, people say, "Oh, well that's just some people who happen to be Christians. You can't criticize a religion because of something that some people do."

Well let's see how that reasoning holds up in other scenarios.

Statement: Nazis committed genocide.
Response: No, only some Nazis committed genocide. You can't criticize all of Nazism based on the actions of a few Nazis.

This is a blatantly rubbish defense of Nazism. You don't have to prove that every single member of the Nazi party committed atrocities to condemn Nazism. You don't have to prove that every can of soup donated to every food cupboard in the country ends up in a poor person's stomach to determine that food cupboards help people. But religion, for some reason, ought to be considered good unless every single member of the religion is committing horrible acts? Nonsense.

The bottom line is that religion encourages and nurtures in-group/out-group thinking. This is a fertile ground for racism to prosper and spread.


message 4: by Sheeky (new)

Sheeky (sheekster) But......but....I'm not racist!!!!!


message 5: by Maurice (new)

Maurice Whitehurst (PhilosophyJones) | 74 comments Lauren wrote: ""Who are these Christians you speak of? Do you know them personally? How many are them? Does that include every Christian that exist or ever existed?""

You don't need to. By them being Christian, ..."


Try making that argument to a Protestant in the presence of a Catholic...there are differences...

By definition which is agreement...but some people disagree on definitions,,,


message 6: by Maurice (new)

Maurice Whitehurst (PhilosophyJones) | 74 comments Xox wrote: "Maurice wrote: ""Who are these Christians you speak of? Do you know them personally? How many are them? Does that include every Christian that exist or ever existed?"

Read the first post: US Ch..."


Beware of the men who use studies to make their points...Some studies were done in 1930's germany too...


message 7: by Maurice (new)

Maurice Whitehurst (PhilosophyJones) | 74 comments Lauren wrote: ""Who are these Christians you speak of? Do you know them personally? How many are them? Does that include every Christian that exist or ever existed?""

You don't need to. By them being Christian, ..."


When have you or anyone proved a certain belief to be racist? Proved? Can an idea be proved?


message 8: by Maurice (new)

Maurice Whitehurst (PhilosophyJones) | 74 comments Dan wrote: "Does that include every Christian that exist or ever existed? Does that include every Christian that exist or ever existed?

Who cares? In order to criticize Christianity, you don't need to prove..."




My friend seems to think otherwise of proof than the courts do. Even the courts require evidence and not proof - but this fellow does, as he says he needs it in order to believe. That sounds like the true rubbish.

First.
To make a observation of behavior and then to call attention to or to condemn an idea and not the behavior seem a little backwards. We condemn the actions of the person. To disagree with an idea is justified but to blame an idea seems a little far fetched. Ideas are used by people. That is why the courts try them and not the ideas the people use. The ideas can be determined as invalid, wrong, unethical or some other adjective but it remains an idea.

My point is be specific about the meaning. What Christians? If you are so adamant about your beliefs then call the people out by name. Don't hide behind labels. Be the man you claim to be or the one you make yourself out to be in your posts.

Second.
There were proclaimed Nazis would said they knew little of the gas chambers. Blame them for believing in an idea you disapprove of but unless you have proof I would be hesitant to say anything about anyone.

Third.
Name anyone creation that isn't apart of some group? Atheism encourages within its ranks too.

Call it belief and be done with it.


message 9: by Lauren (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 7365 comments Mod
"Try making that argument to a Protestant in the presence of a Catholic...there are differences..."

Not enough to warrant considering them different groups and different organizations. They follow the same exact book.

"Beware of the men who use studies to make their points...Some studies were done in 1930's germany too... "

That is completely irrelevant.

"When have you or anyone proved a certain belief to be racist? Proved? Can an idea be proved? "

A claim can be stated, proof provided, a warrant given, and it is proven.

"My friend seems to think otherwise of proof than the courts do. Even the courts require evidence and not proof - but this fellow does, as he says he needs it in order to believe. That sounds like the true rubbish."

Stop trying to make everyone believe there is a difference between evidence and proof. For our purposes they are the same.


message 10: by Maurice (new)

Maurice Whitehurst (PhilosophyJones) | 74 comments Lauren wrote: ""Try making that argument to a Protestant in the presence of a Catholic...there are differences..."

Not enough to warrant considering them different groups and different organizations. They follow..."


For your purposes, we can see they are the same. But for the rest of us who think of them differently there ought to be a opportunity, right? But I think you don't think they are the same. If they are the same, they can replace one another. Try it and see if they works every time without exception. Every time.

Here is why I think you think they are different. If you thought the were the same then why are you asking for proof to believe an argument when you have evidence. All I am presenting is evidence, my words, and that is not enough for you. You require proof. You see how you kill your own arguments?

Quick lesson. A man shoots another man in the street. One lady sees the event. When she comes to court to give her eye witness testimony, the court calls it evidence not proof.

When your mother asks you have you cleaned not washed but cleaned your hands after you have been playing in dirt and you say yes, she says LET ME SEE. She wants proof that your hands are clean. Because if they are still soiled then they are not clean.

Test this claim: You were not born.
Now bring us back proof.


message 11: by Lauren (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 7365 comments Mod
I will not play your childish games of infantile logic.


message 12: by Maurice (new)

Maurice Whitehurst (PhilosophyJones) | 74 comments no ammunition is a clear sign of surrender.


message 13: by Maurice (new)

Maurice Whitehurst (PhilosophyJones) | 74 comments Xox wrote: "Maurice wrote: "no ammunition is a clear sign of surrender."

At least try to make sense, you religious fuckturd."


In your mind the interpretation makes no sense. Now which is it - your mind or the sentence...hmmmm...roflmao


message 14: by Maurice (new)

Maurice Whitehurst (PhilosophyJones) | 74 comments Xox wrote: "Lauren wrote: "I will not play your childish games of infantile logic."


Agreed. What a waste of time.

I'm trying to get a full version of the study so that we could see the details. Alread..."


To give truth to him or her who wants it not is to give them more fodder for the fire.


message 15: by Maurice (new)

Maurice Whitehurst (PhilosophyJones) | 74 comments Xox wrote: "Maurice wrote: "Xox wrote: "Maurice wrote: "no ammunition is a clear sign of surrender."

At least try to make sense, you religious fuckturd."

In your mind the interpretation makes no sense. N..."


Fodder for the fire....now thats a fire!


message 16: by Maurice (new)

Maurice Whitehurst (PhilosophyJones) | 74 comments My apologizes for my tactics. Just trying to make a point. If I have offended or mischaracterized some of your statements - I do apologize.

Let us learn from one another. I will do more listening. (reading)


message 17: by Maurice (new)

Maurice Whitehurst (PhilosophyJones) | 74 comments Nathan wrote: "My apologizes for my tactics. Just trying to make a point.

Typing half thoughts and half-baked "philosophies" isn't making points."


ok..half of points...lol


message 18: by Dan (last edited Mar 16, 2010 07:45PM) (new)

Dan My friend seems to think otherwise of proof than the courts do. Even the courts require evidence and not proof - but this fellow does, as he says he needs it in order to believe. That sounds like the true rubbish.

Huh? What are you trying to say. You're making no sense. I seriously have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

To make a observation of behavior and then to call attention to or to condemn an idea and not the behavior seem a little backwards.

Again, what are you talking about? No one's not condemning the behavior. A condemnation of racism is inherent in criticism of religion for fostering racism; otherwise, it wouldn't be a criticism of religion at all.

To disagree with an idea is justified but to blame an idea seems a little far fetched.

This makes no sense. Of course ideas should be blamed for the actions they cause. According to your logic, I can disagree with the popular Christian idea that homosexuals are sinners, but can't blame the idea for causing people to discriminate against homosexuals. This is ridiculous. Of course the idea is responsible.

And your "point" is not only incorrect, but moot. Christianity and other religions are not just ideas: they are institutions; they are practices; they are philosophies; they are organizations. Can we not blame institutions for spreading negative ideas?

If you are so adamant about your beliefs then call the people out by name.

Um, we did "call the people out." In the very first post. A study found a correlation between religiosity and racism. No one is saying this person or that person is a racist. What we are saying is that, according to this study, which many of us find unsurprising, religious people have a higher tendency to be racist than non-religious people.

Don't hide behind labels.

What the fuck are you talking about? What "labels" am I "hiding" behind?

Be the man you claim to be or the one you make yourself out to be in your posts.

What the fuck? When did I "claim" to "be a man"? What does this even mean? And how is it relevant at all to whether or not the results of a study are accurate? I mean, I have a Y-chromosome, male reproductive organs, etc. I am, by definition, "a man." I don't know what this has to do with anything.

There were proclaimed Nazis would said they knew little of the gas chambers. Blame them for believing in an idea you disapprove of but unless you have proof I would be hesitant to say anything about anyone.

Wow. You have entirely missed the point of my post. By 180 degrees. My point was that just because there were - and there were - members of the Nazi party who didn't participate in or even know about the atrocities, this does not mean that one can not criticize Nazism, the institution. I'm not saying anything about "anyone." I'm saying something about institutions.

Name anyone creation that isn't apart of some group? Atheism encourages within its ranks too.

Well, your characteristic lack of language skills makes it difficult for me to tease out your meaning from these strings of words, but I'm assuming you're referring to my observation that religion encourages in-group/out-group thinking. Obviously, everyone belongs to any number of groups. But these are not all organized groups with membership requirements, rituals, rewards for members and punishments for non-members. Atheism doesn't tell its members that they will receive eternal reward for their group loyalty, and that non-atheists are evil and will burn in hell for eternity for their lack of group membership. The degree to which religion fosters in-group/out-group thinking radically dwarfs that for atheism.


message 19: by Maurice (new)

Maurice Whitehurst (PhilosophyJones) | 74 comments I believe you have made the point better than I ever could.


back to top