“Religion as justification for discrimination in history”—Agree or Disagree?

[Daniel2]

I’m curious as to how active Mormons vs. in/non/never-Mormons May perceive if/how religion has been used as a justification for discrimination throughout history.

Please feel free to elaborate discuss on you’re views after taking the poll in the comments below.

Edited February 8, 2018 by Daniel2

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I’m curious as to how active Mormons vs. in/non/never-Mormons May perceive if/how religion has been used as a justification for discrimination throughout history. Please feel free to elaborate on you’re views after taking the poll.

How was freedom of religion used to justify the holocaust? 

[Daniel2]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

How was freedom of religion used to justify the holocaust? 

I don't think "freedom of religion" was used to justify the holocaust, but "religion" itself certainly seems to have played an important part.

[Robert F. Smith]

27 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I don't think "freedom of religion" was used to justify the holocaust, but "religion" itself certainly seems to have played an important part.

Which goes back to the old question of whether Judaism is a religion or an ethnicity.  For example, Hitler didn't care whether someone had converted to Christianity -- if they were genetically Jewish (to a certain degree), they were still Jews and subject to annihilation.  The same applied to the gypsies, who were also exterminated in the Holocaust.

[Danzo]

Not sure I like the poll very much.  Seems too much like one of those push polls that happen around election time. Using the word religion is very broad encompassing everything from Unitarians, to Aztec human sacrifice,  to Jim Jones, to Methodism. 

The first question, the way it is written, just requires one instance, somewhere in the world history to make the whole statement true..

likely, if someone did enough research you would find may hundreds of instances of it, making statement two to be true.

As far as the third questions, using religious rhetoric to harm other is just about the same dispicableness as using any other rhetoric to harm others.  

 

[CV75]

While agree with the statements, I also see where freedom of religion and religion have also been used to promote great good in our world. Discrimination is not the only ill to be fostered or stopped in the name of freedom of religion and religion. The organized hurting and harming of others is the result of some kind of religion, whether secular or theistic. Freedom of religion and religion are not ideals that should be dispensed with, but rather promoted. I think the principles of Zion exemplify the reasons freedom of religion and religion should be held sacred and protected by governments.

[kiwi57]

Q1: "Freedom of religion and/or religion itself have been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, the holocaust, etc."

My answer: It depends rather heavily upon what is meant by the expression "used to justify." It could mean anything on a continuum from casual pro-forma appeals to conventional religious expressions, to actual motivation based upon specific religious doctrines. I'm assuming that you meant the weakest possible meaning, in which case, the answer is obviously yes. The perpetrators of the Holocaust (not all of whom were "straight," just BTW) used all manner of arguments to whip up anti-Semitic feeling, including (but not limited to) labelling Jews as "Christ-killers." However, I have never seen any evidence of any kind to show that actual religious zeal was an even marginally significant contributing factor.

Q2: "We can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion and/or religion itself have been used to justify discrimination."

I'm sure we can. "Hundreds" is not actually very many, when we are talking about millions of people over thousands of years.

Q3: "One of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use is to use religion to hurt or harm others."

My answer: First of all, that isn't a "piece of rhetoric."

Second, the terms "hurt or harm" have become so utterly vitiated as to be virtually devoid of meaning. Generation snowflake feels "harmed" if Dad says no when they ask for a Lamborghini.

Third, there are a number of highly despicable pieces of rhetoric in view. The most despicable piece of rhetoric I've seen lately is the claim that Freedom of Religion is merely a cover for prejudice, and that therefore it doesn't mean anything.

[CV75]

50 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I don't think "freedom of religion" was used to justify the holocaust, but "religion" itself certainly seems to have played an important part.

Ideology is functionally religion.

19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Which goes back to the old question of whether Judaism is a religion or an ethnicity.  For example, Hitler didn't care whether someone had converted to Christianity -- if they were genetically Jewish (to a certain degree), they were still Jews and subject to annihilation.  The same applied to the gypsies, who were also exterminated in the Holocaust.

The Nazi ideology, in essence a secular religion, incorporated evolutionary humanism principles to engineer super-humans.

[CA Steve]

17 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Not sure I like the poll very much.  Seems too much like one of those push polls that happen around election time. Using the word religion is very broad encompassing everything from Unitarians, to Aztec human sacrifice,  to Jim Jones, to Methodism. 

The first question, the way it is written, just requires one instance, somewhere in the world history to make the whole statement true..

likely, if someone did enough research you would find may hundreds of instances of it, making statement two to be true.

As far as the third questions, using religious rhetoric to harm other is just about the same dispicableness as using any other rhetoric to harm others.  

 

I am not a big fan of polls either since it is difficult to phrase a question such that all respondents understand it the same way. As far as the third question goes, I believe that using religious rhetoric is significantly different (worse if you will) than other types of rhetoric for the simple reason is that in doing so implies that God approves of the discrimination. Telling you that you are not allowed in my club because I don't like people whose names start with 'D', is nowhere near as bad as telling that you cannot join because God doesn't like people whose name starts with 'D'.

[Robert F. Smith]

It is certainly true that “One of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use is to use religion [or anti-religion] to hurt or harm others.”  Wars of extermination have been fought, and genocide carried out on that basis on into recent times in Ireland, Yugoslavia, Myanmar, etc.  Muslims have been exterminating Christians and Jews in the Middle East now for a long time, and the Indonesian Muslims carried out such a program against Christians on one of their islands several decades ago.  Murder and rape are among the primary tools brought to bear.

It is also undeniably true that “We can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion and/or religion itself [or anti-religion] have been used to justify discrimination.”  That has been the nature of society for as long as records have been kept.  In some cases, it is merely traditional and innocuous, carrying with it various etiological explanations (whether true or not).  In other cases, it can be very harmful to freedom in general.

A more nuanced answer must be given to the assertion that “Freedom of religion and/or religion itself [or anti-religion] have been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, the holocaust, etc.”  After all, slavery may simply be a traditional practice having nothing to do with religion.  In the NT, slavery was not opposed by Christianity (Paul plainly advises against making it an issue), probably for the very practical reason that the Roman Empire would quash any opposition of that sort.  In ante-Bellum America, religions both supported and opposed slavery, and even after the Civil War white Southerners continued their segregated religious practices, even burning crosses in the yards of Black people and those opposed to Jim Crow.  In Northern Ireland, the Protestants controlled govt and systematically persecuted the Roman Catholics.  In Yugoslavia, the Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats both tried to exterminate the Muslims, even establishing rape camps.  I could go on endlessly.

The bottom line is that secular or religious ideology (either one) is fully capable of inspiring the mass murder or mass persecution of those not sharing the same partisan views.  We have seen this secular program carried out in the old Soviet Union, in China, and elsewhere.

[Robert F. Smith]

11 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

.................. Generation snowflake feels "harmed" if Dad says no when they ask for a Lamborghini...................

Or a Maserati.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

I’m curious as to how active Mormons vs. in/non/never-Mormons May perceive if/how religion has been used as a justification for discrimination throughout history.

Please feel free to elaborate discuss on you’re views after taking the poll in the comments below.

I would also say that religion has not just been used to justify discrimination, but religion has been a catalyst for discrimination throughout history.  That doesn't mean religion has been the cause of everything bad, I'm not absolutist, but religion has definitely been the source of much bad throughout history.  It has also been the source of much good.  Its really a mixed bag.  

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

While agree with the statements, I also see where freedom of religion and religion have also been used to promote great good in our world. Discrimination is not the only ill to be fostered or stopped in the name of freedom of religion and religion. The organized hurting and harming of others is the result of some kind of religion, whether secular or theistic. Freedom of religion and religion are not ideals that should be dispensed with, but rather promoted. I think the principles of Zion exemplify the reasons freedom of religion and religion should be held sacred and protected by governments.

Well said. 

While I myself agree with the three opening statements, I ALSO agree that religion has been a force for much good in the world. 

Like most things that we humans deal with, we can often make a choice to exercise religion as a function for:

• goodness
• healing
• beauty
• growth
• purpose
• community
• identity
• understanding
• charity
• service, and
• love. 

While this poll focuses on the negativity, I fully endorse the idea that not ALL religion is toxic, even within any given Faith or congregation--and oftentimes, that's even true within any of us as individuals.

I appreciate you pointing that out as a function of recognizing the good in religion, too.

D

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

Not sure I like the poll very much.  Seems too much like one of those push polls that happen around election time. Using the word religion is very broad encompassing everything from Unitarians, to Aztec human sacrifice,  to Jim Jones, to Methodism. 

The first question, the way it is written, just requires one instance, somewhere in the world history to make the whole statement true..

likely, if someone did enough research you would find may hundreds of instances of it, making statement two to be true.

As far as the third questions, using religious rhetoric to harm other is just about the same dispicableness as using any other rhetoric to harm others.  

 

It wasn't my intent to point fingers or blame any single religion, or suggest that all religion(s) are bad.

And I agree with your last three statements.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

I am not a big fan of polls either since it is difficult to phrase a question such that all respondents understand it the same way. As far as the third question goes, I believe that using religious rhetoric is significantly different (worse if you will) than other types of rhetoric for the simple reason is that in doing so implies that God approves of the discrimination. Telling you that you are not allowed in my club because I don't like people whose names start with 'D', is nowhere near as bad as telling that you cannot join because God doesn't like people whose name starts with 'D'.

Not much difference for me, either way, Danzo can't get in your club.

[CA Steve]

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Not much difference for me, either way, Danzo can't get in your club.

Seriously? You don't see a difference between me telling I don't like you and that God does not like you?

 

It isn't about getting in the club, it's about my claim to speak for God against you. One is individual discrimination and the other is institutionalized.

Huge difference.

Edited February 8, 2018 by CA Steve

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Seriously? You don't see a difference between me telling I don't like you and that God does not like you?

 

It isn't about getting in the club, it's about my claim to speak for God against you. One is individual discrimination and the other is institutionalized.

Huge difference.

Personally, I don't see the difference.

I don't believe you speak for God, so you saying God does not like me is just another way of you saying you don't like me.

[CA Steve]

19 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Personally, I don't see the difference.

I don't believe you speak for God, so you saying God does not like me is just another way of you saying you don't like me.

It isn't about what you believe or whether  or not I really speak for God, it's about the effects of those claims.

Here, look at it this way.

Your daughter Danette goes to parochial school and has a kid on the play ground who just hates girls whose name start with 'D'. No big deal, he only speaks for himself and no one pays him much attention.

 

Or

 

Danette shows up to a parochial school and finds out they do not allow kids with names that start with 'D' to even attend, and they give the reason because God says so in some religious text. Soon you find out that everyone who is part of that religion believes that to be true and that religion is the largest in the area. Now instead of one bigoted individual's opinion you are faced with an institutional bigotry claiming God is telling them to do this. When a religion, which is an institution by definition, is claiming justification for discrimination in the name of God you are faced with a much worse problem that just some individual's say so. While you can tell your daughter to ignore the bully on the playground, there is a whole lot more to it when the bully's opinions are spewed from the pulpit by adults claiming God is on their side.

Look I could easily substitute skin color in here for the letter 'D' and then I think the point is much more obvious. 

Edited February 8, 2018 by CA Steve

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

It isn't about what you believe or whether  or not I really speak for God, it's about the effects of those claims.

Here, look at it this way.

Your daughter Danette goes to parochial school and has a kid on the play ground who just hates girls whose name start with 'D'. No big deal, he only speaks for himself and no one pays him much attention.

 

Or

 

Danette shows up to a parochial school and finds out they do not allow kids with names that start with 'D' to even attend, and they give the reason because God says so in some religious text. Soon you find out that everyone who is part of that religion believes that to be true and that religion is the largest in the area. So now instead of one bigoted individual's opinion you are faced with an institutional bigotry claiming God is telling them to do this. So when a religion, which is an institution by definition, is claiming justification for discrimination in the name of God you are faced with a much worse problem that just some individual's say so. So while you can tell your daughter to ignore the bully on the playground, there is a whole lot more to it when the bully's opinions are spewed from the pulpit by adults claiming God is on their side.

Look I could easily substitute skin color in here for the letter 'D' and then I think the point is much more obvious. 

Institutions can do harm as well as individuals.  

It still doesn't matter, in my opinion if the school doesn't like my daughter because she is mormon, she is mixed race, or her name starts with a letter d, the damage is still the same (I am not saying there is no damage, I am just saying the reason for the damage doesn't matter)

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

It isn't about what you believe or whether  or not I really speak for God, it's about the effects of those claims.

Here, look at it this way.

Your daughter Danette goes to parochial school and has a kid on the play ground who just hates girls whose name start with 'D'. No big deal, he only speaks for himself and no one pays him much attention.

 

Or

 

Danette shows up to a parochial school and finds out they do not allow kids with names that start with 'D' to even attend, and they give the reason because God says so in some religious text. Soon you find out that everyone who is part of that religion believes that to be true and that religion is the largest in the area. Now instead of one bigoted individual's opinion you are faced with an institutional bigotry claiming God is telling them to do this. When a religion, which is an institution by definition, is claiming justification for discrimination in the name of God you are faced with a much worse problem that just some individual's say so. While you can tell your daughter to ignore the bully on the playground, there is a whole lot more to it when the bully's opinions are spewed from the pulpit by adults claiming God is on their side.

Look I could easily substitute skin color in here for the letter 'D' and then I think the point is much more obvious. 

The two situations are not comparable, imo.

If you are saying institutional discrimination is worse than one individual's discrimination, sure.  And traditions of hate make it harder to get rid of.

But institutional hate can exist for other reasons than they believe God told them to hate.  And to examine the result of attaching God's authority to a statement of hate, the statement needs to be identical save for the attachment of God...so either choose institutional hate or an individual hating, but comparing the case of a hundred or more kids expressing hate for whatever reason to one kid expressing hate doesn't work for comparing impact.

[CA Steve]

12 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Institutions can do harm as well as individuals.  

Not on the same scale. Not close to the same scale. Institutions carry the imprimatur of authority, in this case Divine authority. They also affect all aspects of a society, even those who do not wholly agree with them.

 

12 minutes ago, Danzo said:

It still doesn't matter, in my opinion if the school doesn't like my daughter because she is mormon, she is mixed race, or her name starts with a letter d, the damage is still the same (I am not saying there is no damage, I am just saying the reason for the damage doesn't matter)

If you think authoritarian institutionalized bigotry is no worse than individual bigotry, then we are not going to agree.

[CA Steve]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

The two situations are not comparable, imo.

If you are saying institutional discrimination is worse than one individual's discrimination, sure.  And traditions of hate make it harder to get rid of.

But institutional hate can exist for other reasons than they believe God told them to hate.  And to examine the result of attaching God's authority to a statement of hate, the statement needs to be identical save for the attachment of God...so either choose institutional hate or an individual hating, but comparing the case of a hundred or more kids expressing hate for whatever reason to one kid expressing hate doesn't work for comparing impact.

Calm I am not sure you are following the conversation between Danzo and me. He objected to the third question by saying

 

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

As far as the third questions, using religious rhetoric to harm other is just about the same dispicableness as using any other rhetoric to harm others. 

So I think my comparisons to religious institutionalized rhetoric and individual rhetoric are spot on.

Edited February 8, 2018 by CA Steve

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Calm I am not sure you are following the conversation between Danzo and me. He objected to the third question by saying

 

So I think my comparisons to religious institutionalized rhetoric and individual rhetoric are spot on.

But he wasn't saying just one individual would cause as much harm as a whole institution. 

He was saying if an individual expressed hate, it didn't matter the reason he gave.  Hate is hate.  So you have to look at one individual hating for either a religious or nonreligious reason and compare that.  Or an institution expressing hate for either a religious or nonreligious reason.

Religious belief isn't always institutional.

I have seen a number of religious systems of belief that consisted of one individual.

I also am aware of a number of people who appear to believe God agrees with everything they say, including when they inform us who God hates and loved...and that belief has no source in the institution of religion they claim membership in, but springs from their ego...usually twisted.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Calm

[Danzo]

18 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Not on the same scale. Not close to the same scale. Institutions carry the imprimatur of authority, in this case Divine authority. They also affect all aspects of a society, even those who do not wholly agree with them.

 

If you think authoritarian institutionalized bigotry is no worse than individual bigotry, then we are not going to agree.

Institutional bigotry is worse than individual bigotry.

My opinion is that Religious Institutional bigotry is no bettor or worse than Non religious Institutional bigotry

Edited February 8, 2018 by Danzo

[CA Steve]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

But he wasn't saying just one individual would cause as much harm as a whole institution. 

He was saying if an individual expressed hate, it didn't matter the reason he gave.  Hate is hate.  So you have to look at one individual hating for either a religious or nonreligious reason and compare that.  Or an institution expressing hate for either a religious or nonreligious reason.

Calm,

 

He didn't limit his remark to individuals vs religious individuals. He said "any other rhetoric".

"Any other" would include religious institutions, wouldn't it?

 

Even so I still think there is a sizable difference between an individual stating he hates you for secular reasons and one who would also claim God hates you along with those secular reasons. The opposite side of that coin would be the difference between telling people you love them and telling people that you and God love them. Got to be a difference there.

Edited February 8, 2018 by CA Steve