Is Religion Racist?

[PoliticalChic]

Atheists tend to be the most racist. Heck, look at Stalin.

Not sure that the following is considered 'racist,' but since you mention Stalin, it brings to mind this from chapter two of Berlinski's "The Devil's Delusion,"...


In 2007, physicists Steven Weinberg addressed the “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival” conference. This Nobel Prize winner claimed “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” He was warmly applauded.

a. What was the religious provenance of poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, Zyklon B, heavy artillery, napalm, nuclear weapons?

Druids?

I'm goin' with Festivus.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is Religion Racist?

Some of them are.

Some are not.

Seriously...you didn't already know this?

You....you....fence-sitter!!!

 

[Cammmpbell]

Saw this on the net...

"SHORT QUESTION: Are religious-intolerant remarks akin to a racist or sexist remarks?

LONG QUESTION: I was reading my local Sunday paper and came about an advice column. The person is seeking advice in response to a friend. They had been close growing up but had grown apart. The advice-seeker married a "nice Jewish boy" (her words) while her friend married an Evangelical Christian and became a missionary. I'm going off of the assumption that the advice-seeker is (or at least grew up as a) Christian too.

The friend sent the woman a book about accepting and living an evangelical lifestyle, and has been, over the years, expressed concerns about the woman's lifestyle (including marrying a non-Christian). The woman was writing in to ask advice on how to deal with the friend and what she should do about the book. At the end of her letter, she mentions that her teenage son "believe this is no different from a racist or sexist remark."

What do you think? Do you think this kind of religious intolerance is on the same level as sexism or racism? If the woman had married a man of a different race and the friend was concerned about her "lifestyle choices" that would clearly be racist but can the idea still apply when it comes to religion?"
thequestionclub: SHORT QUESTION: Are religious-intolerant

1) The church required infant baptism for a thousand years. After people began to doubt that a loving god would burn an infant in eternal hell and protested...the church stopped requiring it. The scripture is still there

2) The church hunted down, tortured and killed young women who had been accused of witchcraft for thousands of years. When ordinary people reali ed that there is no such thing as witchcraft the church stopped mentioning it. The scripture is still there.

3) The church tolerated and often accomodated slavery for thousands of years but when the "Free Man" concept began they shut up. The scripture is still there.

4) The church required the submission of women and kept them pregnant and at home for thousands of years but after the various women's movements demanded equality the church stopped mentioning it. The scripture is still there.

5) After preaching hundreds of billions of hell fire and brimstone sermons across thousands of years when the public began to reject the eternal flames concept guess what....the church began to say it was all a misunderstanding and translation problem so we now have a flame free hell. The scripture is still there.

6) The church has condemned homosexuality and been responsible for the torture and killing of enormous numbers of human's who were born a certain way and had to either hide their lifestyle or falsely reject it. This has continued since the gospel was first preached but now modern lifestyles have even accomodated membership for many homosexuals. The scripture is still there.

Religion is a man's game written by their own interests and and anyone who fails to see the truth in the conceived image of primitive mankind and the similarities to their conceived god which reflects their own weakness has either been brainwashed with the bullschit, is very ill informed or naive.

 

[Sunshine]

Saw this on the net...

"SHORT QUESTION: Are religious-intolerant remarks akin to a racist or sexist remarks?

LONG QUESTION: I was reading my local Sunday paper and came about an advice column. The person is seeking advice in response to a friend. They had been close growing up but had grown apart. The advice-seeker married a "nice Jewish boy" (her words) while her friend married an Evangelical Christian and became a missionary. I'm going off of the assumption that the advice-seeker is (or at least grew up as a) Christian too.

The friend sent the woman a book about accepting and living an evangelical lifestyle, and has been, over the years, expressed concerns about the woman's lifestyle (including marrying a non-Christian). The woman was writing in to ask advice on how to deal with the friend and what she should do about the book. At the end of her letter, she mentions that her teenage son "believe this is no different from a racist or sexist remark."

What do you think? Do you think this kind of religious intolerance is on the same level as sexism or racism? If the woman had married a man of a different race and the friend was concerned about her "lifestyle choices" that would clearly be racist but can the idea still apply when it comes to religion?"
thequestionclub: SHORT QUESTION: Are religious-intolerant

I do not believe that is 'racist'. The Bible teaches Christians not to 'yoke' themselves to (marry) unbelievers. A Jew while a believer in God the Father is not a believer in Jesus the Son. No racism in it. Just unbelief. It is also not 'religious intolerance.' There is nothing in our laws or cultural norms that requires a person to marry someone of a different faith. This is nothing more than an expression of concern based upon the belief system by which both women were raised.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

2 Corinthians 6:14

http://bible.cc/2_corinthians/6-14.htm

Having said that, I will say this: It is still an indescribably profound experience knowing that someone called my name in prayer at the Wailing Wall! I have also had Indian tribes to dance for me. That too is indescribably profound!

 

[Sunshine]

Saw this on the net...

"SHORT QUESTION: Are religious-intolerant remarks akin to a racist or sexist remarks?

LONG QUESTION: I was reading my local Sunday paper and came about an advice column. The person is seeking advice in response to a friend. They had been close growing up but had grown apart. The advice-seeker married a "nice Jewish boy" (her words) while her friend married an Evangelical Christian and became a missionary. I'm going off of the assumption that the advice-seeker is (or at least grew up as a) Christian too.

The friend sent the woman a book about accepting and living an evangelical lifestyle, and has been, over the years, expressed concerns about the woman's lifestyle (including marrying a non-Christian). The woman was writing in to ask advice on how to deal with the friend and what she should do about the book. At the end of her letter, she mentions that her teenage son "believe this is no different from a racist or sexist remark."

What do you think? Do you think this kind of religious intolerance is on the same level as sexism or racism? If the woman had married a man of a different race and the friend was concerned about her "lifestyle choices" that would clearly be racist but can the idea still apply when it comes to religion?"
thequestionclub: SHORT QUESTION: Are religious-intolerant

1) The church required infant baptism for a thousand years. After people began to doubt that a loving god would burn an infant in eternal hell and protested...the church stopped requiring it. The scripture is still there

2) The church hunted down, tortured and killed young women who had been accused of witchcraft for thousands of years. When ordinary people reali ed that there is no such thing as witchcraft the church stopped mentioning it. The scripture is still there.

3) The church tolerated and often accomodated slavery for thousands of years but when the "Free Man" concept began they shut up. The scripture is still there.

4) The church required the submission of women and kept them pregnant and at home for thousands of years but after the various women's movements demanded equality the church stopped mentioning it. The scripture is still there.

5) After preaching hundreds of billions of hell fire and brimstone sermons across thousands of years when the public began to reject the eternal flames concept guess what....the church began to say it was all a misunderstanding and translation problem so we now have a flame free hell. The scripture is still there.

6) The church has condemned homosexuality and been responsible for the torture and killing of enormous numbers of human's who were born a certain way and had to either hide their lifestyle or falsely reject it. This has continued since the gospel was first preached but now modern lifestyles have even accomodated membership for many homosexuals. The scripture is still there.

Religion is a man's game written by their own interests and and anyone who fails to see the truth in the conceived image of primitive mankind and the similarities to their conceived god which reflects their own weakness has either been brainwashed with the bullschit, is very ill informed or naive.

Couldn't you just shut the fuck up every now and then!

 

[Sunshine]

3. And isn't this very discussion an example of the secular view that religion should be frowned on in the public arena?

Now only frowned on; but eventually eliminated all together.

Except for the beheadings, Sunni, we'll let you keep those.

I dunno, female genital mutilation cold be equally as bad!

 

[Sunshine]

It is bigotry but not the same thing as racism or sexism. You can choose your religion, after all.

That's the word I thought of too
Not the same thing, exactly, but I can see it being construed as being in the same vein

So you are a bigot if you want to marry someone of the same faith as you? Groovy!

 

[hortysir]

It is bigotry but not the same thing as racism or sexism. You can choose your religion, after all.

That's the word I thought of too
Not the same thing, exactly, but I can see it being construed as being in the same vein

So you are a bigot if you want to marry someone of the same faith as you? Groovy!

I wasn't specifically addressing the marriage aspect of it.

But it is bigoted to avoid befriending someone because of their particular faith or lack thereof.

 

[Sunni Man]

Now only frowned on; but eventually eliminated all together.

Except for the beheadings, Sunni, we'll let you keep those.

I dunno, female genital mutilation cold be equally as bad!

So called FGM is a cultural practice and has nothing to do with religion.

 

[Sunshine]

That's the word I thought of too
Not the same thing, exactly, but I can see it being construed as being in the same vein

So you are a bigot if you want to marry someone of the same faith as you? Groovy!

I wasn't specifically addressing the marriage aspect of it.

But it is bigoted to avoid befriending someone because of their particular faith or lack thereof.

But the concern expressed in the OP was the marriage of a Christian to a non Christian. Which is an issue in the Christian faith. Who you marry is your choice. And if you choose to marry within your own faith and even your own race it doesn't make you a bigot. Also, there is no Constitutional mandate about who you may or may not befriend. Religious tolerance, as are the other enumerated things we must tolerate, is a Constitutional workplace and marketplace issue. In your own home, in your own marriage, and in your friendships you can do what you want. It doesn't mean you are a bigot. You are also not a bigot if you express concern about someone based upon a tenet of faith you both share.

 

[editec]

Is Religion Racist?

Which religion?

 

[hortysir]

So you are a bigot if you want to marry someone of the same faith as you? Groovy!

I wasn't specifically addressing the marriage aspect of it.

But it is bigoted to avoid befriending someone because of their particular faith or lack thereof.

But the concern expressed in the OP was the marriage of a Christian to a non Christian. Which is an issue in the Christian faith. Who you marry is your choice. And if you choose to marry within your own faith and even your own race it doesn't make you a bigot. Also, there is no Constitutional mandate about who you may or may not befriend. Religious tolerance, as are the other enumerated things we must tolerate, is a Constitutional workplace and marketplace issue. In your own home, in your own marriage, and in your friendships you can do what you want. It doesn't mean you are a bigot. You are also not a bigot if you express concern about someone based upon a tenet of faith you both share.

I was answering the "short question".


I agree that, when it comes to marriage, one should be picky

 

[Cammmpbell]

Saw this on the net...

"SHORT QUESTION: Are religious-intolerant remarks akin to a racist or sexist remarks?

LONG QUESTION: I was reading my local Sunday paper and came about an advice column. The person is seeking advice in response to a friend. They had been close growing up but had grown apart. The advice-seeker married a "nice Jewish boy" (her words) while her friend married an Evangelical Christian and became a missionary. I'm going off of the assumption that the advice-seeker is (or at least grew up as a) Christian too.

The friend sent the woman a book about accepting and living an evangelical lifestyle, and has been, over the years, expressed concerns about the woman's lifestyle (including marrying a non-Christian). The woman was writing in to ask advice on how to deal with the friend and what she should do about the book. At the end of her letter, she mentions that her teenage son "believe this is no different from a racist or sexist remark."

What do you think? Do you think this kind of religious intolerance is on the same level as sexism or racism? If the woman had married a man of a different race and the friend was concerned about her "lifestyle choices" that would clearly be racist but can the idea still apply when it comes to religion?"
thequestionclub: SHORT QUESTION: Are religious-intolerant

1) The church required infant baptism for a thousand years. After people began to doubt that a loving god would burn an infant in eternal hell and protested...the church stopped requiring it. The scripture is still there

2) The church hunted down, tortured and killed young women who had been accused of witchcraft for thousands of years. When ordinary people reali ed that there is no such thing as witchcraft the church stopped mentioning it. The scripture is still there.

3) The church tolerated and often accomodated slavery for thousands of years but when the "Free Man" concept began they shut up. The scripture is still there.

4) The church required the submission of women and kept them pregnant and at home for thousands of years but after the various women's movements demanded equality the church stopped mentioning it. The scripture is still there.

5) After preaching hundreds of billions of hell fire and brimstone sermons across thousands of years when the public began to reject the eternal flames concept guess what....the church began to say it was all a misunderstanding and translation problem so we now have a flame free hell. The scripture is still there.

6) The church has condemned homosexuality and been responsible for the torture and killing of enormous numbers of human's who were born a certain way and had to either hide their lifestyle or falsely reject it. This has continued since the gospel was first preached but now modern lifestyles have even accomodated membership for many homosexuals. The scripture is still there.

Religion is a man's game written by their own interests and and anyone who fails to see the truth in the conceived image of primitive mankind and the similarities to their conceived god which reflects their own weakness has either been brainwashed with the bullschit, is very ill informed or naive.

Couldn't you just shut the fuck up every now and then!

I'm 77 years old. I'll shut up when I phuckin croak!

 

[logical4u]

That's the word I thought of too
Not the same thing, exactly, but I can see it being construed as being in the same vein

So you are a bigot if you want to marry someone of the same faith as you? Groovy!

I wasn't specifically addressing the marriage aspect of it.

But it is bigoted to avoid befriending someone because of their particular faith or lack thereof.

That is not taking experience into consideration. If you aware that one has no faith, and does not practice a moral lifestyle, why would you want to be their friend? If you are aware their faith encourages deception, why would you want to be deceived?

 

[Sunshine]

1) The church required infant baptism for a thousand years. After people began to doubt that a loving god would burn an infant in eternal hell and protested...the church stopped requiring it. The scripture is still there

2) The church hunted down, tortured and killed young women who had been accused of witchcraft for thousands of years. When ordinary people reali ed that there is no such thing as witchcraft the church stopped mentioning it. The scripture is still there.

3) The church tolerated and often accomodated slavery for thousands of years but when the "Free Man" concept began they shut up. The scripture is still there.

4) The church required the submission of women and kept them pregnant and at home for thousands of years but after the various women's movements demanded equality the church stopped mentioning it. The scripture is still there.

5) After preaching hundreds of billions of hell fire and brimstone sermons across thousands of years when the public began to reject the eternal flames concept guess what....the church began to say it was all a misunderstanding and translation problem so we now have a flame free hell. The scripture is still there.

6) The church has condemned homosexuality and been responsible for the torture and killing of enormous numbers of human's who were born a certain way and had to either hide their lifestyle or falsely reject it. This has continued since the gospel was first preached but now modern lifestyles have even accomodated membership for many homosexuals. The scripture is still there.

Religion is a man's game written by their own interests and and anyone who fails to see the truth in the conceived image of primitive mankind and the similarities to their conceived god which reflects their own weakness has either been brainwashed with the bullschit, is very ill informed or naive.

Couldn't you just shut the fuck up every now and then!

I'm 77 years old. I'll shut up when I phuckin croak!

''

Knock yourself out!

 

[Sunshine]

I wasn't specifically addressing the marriage aspect of it.

But it is bigoted to avoid befriending someone because of their particular faith or lack thereof.

But the concern expressed in the OP was the marriage of a Christian to a non Christian. Which is an issue in the Christian faith. Who you marry is your choice. And if you choose to marry within your own faith and even your own race it doesn't make you a bigot. Also, there is no Constitutional mandate about who you may or may not befriend. Religious tolerance, as are the other enumerated things we must tolerate, is a Constitutional workplace and marketplace issue. In your own home, in your own marriage, and in your friendships you can do what you want. It doesn't mean you are a bigot. You are also not a bigot if you express concern about someone based upon a tenet of faith you both share.

I was answering the "short question".


I agree that, when it comes to marriage, one should be picky

One should also be 'picky' when choosing friends. I would challenge anyone who doesn't believe that to cruise on down to the projects and bring home a couple of pimps and hos for their teenagers to be friends with.

Our Constitution guarantees us Freed of Association. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association

BUT:

If a muslim wants to only marry and be friends with other muslims, he/she is not a bigot.

If a Jew wants only to marry and be friends with other Jews, he/seh is not a bigot. (And it's interesting because you aren't a Jew unless your mother is a Jew. They don't take chances.)

If a black person wants only to marry and be friends with other black people, he/she is not a bigot.

BUT.....

If a white Christian only wants to marry and be friends with other white Chrsitians, he/she is a bigot.

And all of the above is largely what's wrong with the concept of tolerance in this country.

 

[Unkotare]

I'm 77 years old. I'll shut up when I phuckin croak!

Still hanging on to that story, spammerfraud?

 

[Cammmpbell]

I'm 77 years old. I'll shut up when I phuckin croak!

Still hanging on to that story, spammerfraud?

If my mother lives six more months she will pass 100...born 1912. She gave birth to me when she was 22. My dad died in 1999...he was 89...born 1910. He was 24 when I was born.

You are about the dumbest motherfucker I've ever run into at one of these boards....'course I didn't start till 1994.

 

[Unkotare]

You just keep hoping that adding more detail will 'sell' the story, huh? It's not working.

 

[The Irish Ram]

But the concern expressed in the OP was the marriage of a Christian to a non Christian. Which is an issue in the Christian faith. Who you marry is your choice. And if you choose to marry within your own faith and even your own race it doesn't make you a bigot. Also, there is no Constitutional mandate about who you may or may not befriend. Religious tolerance, as are the other enumerated things we must tolerate, is a Constitutional workplace and marketplace issue. In your own home, in your own marriage, and in your friendships you can do what you want. It doesn't mean you are a bigot. You are also not a bigot if you express concern about someone based upon a tenet of faith you both share.

I was answering the "short question".


I agree that, when it comes to marriage, one should be picky

One should also be 'picky' when choosing friends. I would challenge anyone who doesn't believe that to cruise on down to the projects and bring home a couple of pimps and hos for their teenagers to be friends with.

Our Constitution guarantees us Freed of Association. Freedom of association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BUT:

If a muslim wants to only marry and be friends with other muslims, he/she is not a bigot.

If a Jew wants only to marry and be friends with other Jews, he/seh is not a bigot. (And it's interesting because you aren't a Jew unless your mother is a Jew. They don't take chances.)

If a black person wants only to marry and be friends with other black people, he/she is not a bigot.

BUT.....

If a white Christian only wants to marry and be friends with other white Chrsitians, he/she is a bigot.

And all of the above is largely what's wrong with the concept of tolerance in this country.

The ACLU is suing a Christian for advertising on their church bulletin board for a Christian room mate.

There has been an update concerning tolerance in Israel. They really didn't take any chances. You KNOW who the mother of a child is.... Even Jesus is Jewish and related to King David through his mother.
The protocol for determining Jewish citizenship is being relaxed, possibly because of prophesy. In the end times God will seal < (incapable of being killed), 144,000 Messianic Jews from all 12 tribes, to spread the Word, and combat the heresy of the One World Church. If these are indeed the end times, those messianic Jews are in preparation mode now. And oddly, they are being given Jewish citizenship through their father's credentials. Prophesy is being fulfilled, that requires it be so.