Religion by its nature is racist...

tomofson

Religion by its nature is racist, at least the Abrahamic religions are racist. Noahs "problem child" was ham who later went on to be the father of the african peoples, Ham's descendants were cursed to carry on hes fathers ways until the messiah returns. So in other words africans are this worlds "problem children" thats what the biblical religions teaches you if you read between the lines...

This sort of bile is believed by radical religious people across the world, could have possibly encouraged the slave trade???

By the way I consider myself an agnostic, but not too keen on organized religion.

Most religions have a racial tone to them mainly practiced by certain "tribes" and unfriendly to others...

seamus

Humans by nature are "racist"; programmed to be wary of other peoples who are not part of our own community and to form a strong bond with and preference for the culture and practices of our own community.

All bigotry is a simple offshoot of this as the scope of "community" widens to refer to a nation, or a race, or members of a religion. We are therefore less favourable to humans who aren't a member of those communities, and hold our own cultures and practices to be superior regardless of objective fact.

In the US, for example, 45% of people wouldn't "trust" an atheist. Those among that group who would like to consider themselves intellectual will give all sorts of cerebral reasons about an atheist having no moral code or no greater social conscience. This is despite the objective fact that being christian doe not require a moral code or a social conscience. In reality it's because the atheist is not "one of us" (i.e. christian), but few people can bring themselves to admit they're a slave to their baser instincts.

silverharp

it seemed to be popular with Protestants in the US to view black people as having "the mark of Cain" but probably more they reading into it more than the bible shouting at them

Drumpot

I agree Seamus.

Swap religion with capitalism v communism, public v private sector , FF v FG or any "idea" that one community subscribes to over another and you get differences that are about the reaction of those communities , not so much the initial community ideals.

People get so hung up and blinded by prejudice against religion that they don't realise the common factor in most it not all problems is man , not religion. Most wars are over resources and power. Sometimes the excuse is religion, sometimes terrorism and sometimes it's just obvious good old conquest...

Religion isn't bad, people interpreting it in a way that's oppressive/aggressive towards others are the problem. Likewise in pretty much any scenario in life, if people stuck to a fairly balanced moral code that respected other people, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The bigger a community gets the more likely it is to have radicals and abusers. How the community reacts can determine how outsiders judge it.

Nick Park

tomofson wrote: »

This sort of bile is believed by radical religious people across the world, could have possibly encouraged the slave trade???

Which explains perfectly why those not belonging to Abrahamic religions never engaged in slavery. Such as the Greeks, Romans, Persians, Chinese, Ancient Egyptians etc.

Absolam

tomofson wrote: »

So in other words africans are this worlds "problem children" thats what the biblical religions teaches you if you read between the lines....

Surely if you read between the lines you can say anything teaches you anything you like?

Speedwell

Absolam wrote: »

Surely if you read between the lines you can say anything teaches you anything you like?

This is a known issue with documentation in general, not even just religious documentation, I agree. Since you are a religious person you may want to go easy on the "you can make the Bible say anything you want to say" talk, anyway.

I quite agree that the Bible is racist. The history of the Old Testament Jews is clearly the struggle of one ethnic group against their "enemies", that is, any other ethnic group that they come across. Given the nomadic lifestyle of the protagonists, this constitutes practically everyone, but it is nonetheless racism on a grand scale.

Whether religion is inherently racist is an interesting question, but the fact is that religion without racism is better than religion with it. Whether we are religious or secular, if racism is the actual problem, it does no good to be blaming religion as a whole for it. Clearly religious people should be fighting entrenched racism and other forms of prejudice within their religions, especially adherents of religions that claim to love all people.

Absolam

Speedwell wrote: »

This is a known issue with documentation in general, not even just religious documentation, I agree. Since you are a religious person you may want to go easy on the "you can make the Bible say anything you want to say" talk, anyway.

Sounds you're reading between the lines a bit there as well, and I certainly never said "you can make the Bible say anything you want to say". I am saying that if you read between the lines, any lines, you can read whatever you like into an empty space.

Speedwell wrote: »

I quite agree that the Bible is racist. The history of the Old Testament Jews is clearly the struggle of one ethnic group against their "enemies", that is, any other ethnic group that they come across. Given the nomadic lifestyle of the protagonists, this constitutes practically everyone, but it is nonetheless racism on a grand scale.

I don't think you can say the Bible is racist. There are stories which pit one community against another, and the Old Testament certainly holds the Jews out as being chosen by God (though the New Testament extends that to everyone), but I'm pretty sure the Jews are now known not to be a race distinct from the neighbouring tribes in the stories, so racism seems a bit of a stretch...

Speedwell wrote: »

Whether religion is inherently racist is an interesting question, but the fact is that religion without racism is better than religion with it. Whether we are religious or secular, if racism is the actual problem, it does no good to be blaming religion as a whole for it. Clearly religious people should be fighting entrenched racism and other forms of prejudice within their religions, especially adherents of religions that claim to love all people.

Well.. yes, pretty much everything without racism is generally considered to be better than anything with racism. That's really all about racism, and nothing to do with religion.

smacl

Speedwell wrote: »

Whether religion is inherently racist is an interesting question, but the fact is that religion without racism is better than religion with it.

I'd say religion is factional and sectarian rather than racist. So members of one religion might consider themselves superior as the chosen people of God, where everyone else are heathens, infidels, and generally lesser beings worthy of contempt until such time as they convert. Sectarianism has also been a major source of violent persecution throughout history, i.e. the eradication of the Cathars at the command of Pope Innocent III being the first genocide on the books. Today we still see violence and hatred surrounding religious differences such the likes of ISIS on one side and Islamaphobia on the other.

No doubt this factional violence would exist to a large degree without religion on different grounds such as ethnicity, but religion certainly has been, and continues to be, a flag for it to rally under.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

I'd say religion is factional and sectarian rather than racist. So members of one religion might consider themselves superior as the chosen people of God, where everyone else are heathens, infidels, and generally lesser beings worthy of contempt until such time as they convert. Sectarianism has also been a major source of violent persecution throughout history, i.e. the eradication of the Cathars at the command of Pope Innocent III being the first genocide on the books. Today we still see violence and hatred surrounding religious differences such the likes of ISIS on one side and Islamaphobia on the other. No doubt this factional violence would exist to a large degree without religion on different grounds such as ethnicity, but religion certainly has been, and continues to be, a flag for it to rally under.

Isn't the extinction of the Neandrathals supposed to be the first genocide on the books? Or if you're not a fan of that theory, the destruction of Melos during the Peloponnesian War? Even the Biblical destruction of the Midianites by the Israelites is 'on the books', though if we're talking only history books, what about 'The First Genocide', the destruction of Carthage? I think the Cathars come fairly late in the tale.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

I'd say religion is factional and sectarian rather than racist. So members of one religion might consider themselves superior as the chosen people of God, where everyone else are heathens, infidels, and generally lesser beings worthy of contempt until such time as they convert. Sectarianism has also been a major source of violent persecution throughout history, i.e. the eradication of the Cathars at the command of Pope Innocent III being the first genocide on the books. Today we still see violence and hatred surrounding religious differences such the likes of ISIS on one side and Islamaphobia on the other.

No doubt this factional violence would exist to a large degree without religion on different grounds such as ethnicity, but religion certainly has been, and continues to be, a flag for it to rally under.

Making generalisations about a concept as broad as religion is like condemning all politics as evil.

Some forms of religion are factional and sectarian. Others are benign and inclusive. Making generalisations that lump ISIS and the Quakers together sounds more like anti-religious dogma rather than serious thinking.

Speedwell

Nick Park wrote: »

Making generalisations about a concept as broad as religion is like condemning all politics as evil.

Some forms of religion are factional and sectarian. Others are benign and inclusive. Making generalisations that lump ISIS and the Quakers together sounds more like anti-religious dogma rather than serious thinking.

Oh, when it comes to that, there are factions of Quakers, based on how they choose to interpret their religion. It's just that the differences are expressed, when you ask a member of one type about the other types, by the almost unnoticeable tension in the air when they say, "Each of us is entitled to follow the Inner Light in our own way".

Absolam

I think ISIS tend to generate a bit more than an 'almost unnoticeable tension' when they're upset though. I'll take the Quaker version myself...

nozzferrahhtoo

Nick Park wrote: »

Making generalisations about a concept as broad as religion is like condemning all politics as evil.

Perhaps, but one "generalisation" we can make is that religion is much more divisive in some ways than race or politics or the other things mentioned on the thread.

Why? Because differences of opinion are often, by definition, irreconcilable. And worse, many of those religions make reconciliation of those differences paramount in terms of the well being of your eternal soul.

I remember in my school days two boys who really clearly loved each other. This was back in the days of "Bums against the wall" and the "Gay Corner" and the like so they could not openly express their strong, but entirely platonic, love.

So they invented an imaginary friend. This "friend" would take turns going to the house over night of each of the boys. And the boys would express their love by saying things like "Oh Stephen REALLY things you rock" "Or Stephen says he missed you SO much yesterday" and more.

In many ways, even to my young mind at the time, it was beautiful to behold. That was, alas, until the day one of them happened to mention that "Stephen" had red hair. The other boy disagreed vehemently that it was in fact jet black.

Because this Stephen did not exist, there was literally no way available to reconcile this difference of opinion. And not only did they fail to, their entire beautiful relationship imploded and ended, including with a touch of violence.

Now think of religion. When a difference of opinion arises about some attribute, desire, moral opinion, or plan of your imaginary friend "god"..... what happens? 33,000+ divisions of Christianity ALONE......... let alone all the other religions on the planet who treat each other accordingly with invective and fist and sword......... tell you what happens. I would not insult your intellect by spelling it out.

And it happens for obvious reasons. The simple lack of any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning from anyone.... much less yourself it seems........ to even SUGGEST this god even exists. So we are not about to contact this entity and seek clarification on any issues we are divided over.

And unlike the two boys I grew up with..... where their difference of opinion had no claimed implications...... many believe the differences of opinion in religion affect their well being, the well being of all their loved ones, for ETERNITY, if they get them wrong.

So maybe religion is not "racist" but it is divisive, and it elevates those entirely irreconcilable differences to a level of the most supreme and primary importance. And that is a recipe for nothing but horror and I tend to worry aloud that I do not think our species can survive our religious differences indefinitely. Especially not with crack pot suicidal fundamentalists making the technological progress slowly, but surely, towards being more than capable of bring about the horrors they actively and positively crave.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

I'd say religion is factional and sectarian rather than racist.

If something is inherently factional and sectarian, then its going to be prone to being racist as well.
For example, Donald Trump has been reported in the US media recently as appearing in "black churches" muttering soothing platitudes. We understand that "black" does not refer to the colour of the actual buildings, but to the people inside. Some might say that these people only formed their own black congregations because they have historically been excluded from "white churches". But then why have "black churches" recently started appearing in Ireland?

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

I think the Cathars come fairly late in the tale.

True enough, the first idealogical genocide was what I was after. From our good friends on Wikipedia;

Mark Gregory Pegg writes that "The Albigensian Crusade ushered genocide into the West by linking divine salvation to mass murder, by making slaughter as loving an act as His sacrifice on the cross"
'
'
Kurt Jonassohn and Karin Solveig Björnson describe the Albigensian Crusade as "the first ideological genocide".[

Anyhoo, Christians slaughtering other Christians in the name of Christianity. No doubt Jesus wept

robindch

The Albigensian Crusade

I dropped by the French town of Albi a few years back and visited its curious brick cathedral to see and hear its rather wonderful organ.

I'm sure it was a simple oversight on the part of the local diocese and clergy, or perhaps I just didn't look hard enough, but I couldn't find a single memorial, or even a short note, to the memory of the unknown tens of thousands of cathars who were murdered by christian crusaders in and around the area.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

If something is inherently factional and sectarian, then its going to be prone to being racist as well.
For example, Donald Trump has been reported in the US media recently as appearing in "black churches" muttering soothing platitudes. We understand that "black" does not refer to the colour of the actual buildings, but to the people inside. Some might say that these people only formed their own black congregations because they have historically been excluded from "white churches". But then why have "black churches" recently started appearing in Ireland?

Agreed, religion often underpins social exclusion which in turn leads racial segregation and ensuing tension. So for example, here in Ireland with the Catholic church pursuing a discriminatory enrolment policy for state funded schools, non-Catholics are often excluded from going to their local schools, and as such are less likely to have local friends and integrate into the local community. If we take Absolam's solution to this that people of different religions should go to schools specific to that religion, for minority religions this will lead to much unnecessary travel. In time this leads them to move closer to one another so they don't have to travel and hey presto we have have a society segregated on a religious basis. If the same people are less well of then other parts of society, we now also have the risk of a ghetto.

The fact that many non-nationals in Ireland are also non-Catholic means that this type of segregation also ends up being de-facto racism. If you doubt this, go to any Catholic school with an ET school close by and guess where the majority of Muslims (who also happen to be of a different race) end up.

silverharp

That seems like an interesting piece of history , I never heard of the cathars before

recedite

robindch wrote: »

I dropped by the French town of Albi a few years back and visited its curious brick cathedral to see and hear its rather wonderful organ.

By way of explanation for this curious post, I should mention that robindch is happiest when out fiddling with other peoples organs.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

By way of explanation for this curious post, I should mention that robindch is happiest when out fiddling with other peoples organs.

Believe me, I've heard every pun and gag about long and leaden pipes, fiddling in the organ gallery, banging away in the church, etc, etc, etc, etc - I think some of them were funny when I was a teenager

Nick Park

silverharp wrote: »

That seems like an interesting piece of history , I never heard of the cathars before

There's a very readable book about them by Rene Weis called "The Yellow Cross".

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

True enough, the first idealogical genocide was what I was after. From our good friends on Wikipedia; Anyhoo, Christians slaughtering other Christians in the name of Christianity. No doubt Jesus wept

Mmm.. odd you didn't mention it in your post... are you sure you weren't just after then first genocide you could attribute to Christians? I just get the impression you may be cherry picking here.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

Mmm.. odd you didn't mention it in your post... are you sure you weren't just after then first genocide you could attribute to Christians? I just get the impression you may be cherry picking here.

Once you google terms like Holy War you end up with no shortage of events where Christians and other religious types were slaughtering those of other beliefs en-masse. Prior to the Cathars, the death toll from the crusades at the behest of Pope Urban II is reckoned to be between 1-3 million people. List of religious massacres in the name of a peaceful faith here which may be of benefit.

Once we get any bunch of people considering themselves superior to everyone else, whether it be via religion, ethnicity or ideology, to the extent that they feel they have the right to oppress and change others, we have a problem. Many religions remain aggressively expansionist and that it is the duty of their membership to spread their beliefs to those with different beliefs. This continues to be a source of violent conflict in the world today.

chillin117

Nick Park wrote: »

Which explains perfectly why those not belonging to Abrahamic religions never engaged in slavery. Such as the Greeks, Romans, Persians, Chinese, Ancient Egyptians etc.

Who built the Roman Coliseum's and The Pyramid's ? Paid Labour ? I very much doubt it. I would imagine workers being very ''Disposable''

smacl

chillin117 wrote: »

Who built the Roman Coliseum's and The Pyramid's ? Paid Labour ? I very much doubt it. I would imagine workers being very ''Disposable''

I think that was what Nick was saying.

chillin117

smacl wrote: »

I think that was what Nick was saying.

No, He said they never engaged with slavery, I have quoted him above

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

Once you google terms like Holy War you end up with no shortage of events <...> continues to be a source of violent conflict in the world today.

Yes, that's my point... cherry picking religious conflicts (for instance selecting by the word 'holy') isn't going to lead you to 'the first genocide on the books' as you said, just the first one that suits your agenda.

Absolam

chillin117 wrote: »

No, He said they never engaged with slavery, I have quoted him above

It's possible he was being a tiny bit sarcastic... he may well have assumed it was very common knowledge that those not belonging to Abrahamic religions engaged in slavery so commonly that it would be difficult to be aware of them without being aware of their use of slaves. Maybe?

smacl

chillin117 wrote: »

No, He said they never engaged with slavery, I have quoted him above

I took that as sarcasm, on the basis that it is common knowledge that these cultures had slavery, but I'll leave it to Nick to clarify.

uck51js9zml2yt

Absolam wrote: »

It's possible he was being a tiny bit sarcastic... he may well have assumed it was very common knowledge that those not belonging to Abrahamic religions engaged in slavery so commonly that it would be difficult to be aware of them without being aware of their use of slaves. Maybe?

Maybe chillin isn't familiar with sarcasm in the same manner s/he's not familiar with the idea that these other cultures engaged in slavery.!!

recedite

chillin117 wrote: »

Who built the Roman Coliseum's and The Pyramid's ? Paid Labour ? I very much doubt it. I would imagine workers being very ''Disposable''

No need to "imagine" when archaeology is out there. The pyramids were built by citizens, not slaves. Bones and dentition show they were fairly well nourished for the times they lived in.

"Many times when I looked at the pyramids, I would ask myself about the workers who built them. Where were they buried? Who were the men and women behind this great enterprise? Because of these graves, we have some clues."

Contrary to earlier conjectures—and some modern guidebooks—the pyramids were not built by slaves or foreigners, says the silver-haired Hawass. "That idea of the slaves came from Herodotus," the Greek historian and explorer, Hawass continues. Herodotus visited Egypt around 450 B.C., about 2,000 years after the pyramids were constructed, and was told that 100,000 men had been forced to toil as slaves on the Great Pyramid of the pharaoh Khufu.

But Hawass's 1990 discovery of this cemetery, along with archaeologist Mark Lehner's nearby excavations of what appears to be the ancient laborers' city, confirms what Egyptologists had come to suspect: Herodotus was misinformed. Ordinary Egyptian citizens built the pyramids, some working as conscripts on a rotating basis, others as full-time employees.

That whole story about the Egyptians taking the hebrews as slaves and The Exodus is a complete fabrication. There is no historical evidence for it whatsoever.

pauldla

recedite wrote: »

.....
That whole story about the Egyptians taking the hebrews as slaves and The Exodus is a complete fabrication. There is no historical evidence for it whatsoever.

Quelle surprise...

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

There's a very readable book about them by Rene Weis called "The Yellow Cross".

Just finished The Cathars: The Rise and Fall of the Great Heresy and have picked up a copy of Massacre At Montsegur: A History Of The Albigensian Crusade. I'd a look for The Yellow Cross but it didn't seem to be available for Kindle, hence the alternatives.

Judging from the reviews, I think you'd need to read a number of books on the subject to get a properly balanced feel for the history, but the barbaric behaviour of the papacy seems in little doubt. Makes one wonder what Christianity would be like as a religion in Catharism had survived.