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

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

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.

I think that depends on the person and whether or not he believes the person has any insight into how God thinks.

The only reason I can think that someone would feel better if another told them "I and God love you" is because they believed the other.  I think an atheist hearing that would simply see it as a nice thought, but it wouldn't make them feel better about themselves if they didn't believe there was a God who loved them.  The love of the individual, otoh, would have an impact because that person exists in their view.

If an atheist heard someone say "God hates you", wouldn't he interpret it as the individual projecting his own feelings on to God and therefore if he was upset about it, then the atheist is upset only by the individual's hate.

I have been told I was hated by God, I have been told "I hate you".  I was much more hurt by the personal hate.  The institutional hate, I just feel sorry for those people because I know they are wrong.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Calm

[CA Steve]

14 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

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.

I really find this interesting that someone who is religious does not see a qualitative difference between discrimination and religious discrimination. Shouldn't someone who believes in God be more offended by someone else claiming God hates a particular group, than would an atheist or agnostic? As Christians shouldn't we be more bothered when someone else claims God is backing their bigotry?  I find what the Westboro Baptist Church does even more odious because they claim to be Christians.

[Vanguard]

24 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.

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.

Hate is hate - that is correct. But collective hate expressed through an institutional mechanism can have much more destructive consequences to the individual than one person simply expressing his hate irrespective of whether the institutional mileu endorses it. Religion - or a distortion of it - has been the purveyor of considerable institutional hatred (guised as the will of God) through the ages.

Van

[CA Steve]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think that depends on the person and whether or not he believes the person has any insight into how God thinks.

The only reason I can think that someone would feel better if another told them "I and God love you" is because they believed the other.  I think an atheist hearing that would simply see it as a nice thought, but it wouldn't make them feel better about themselves if they didn't believe there was a God who loved them.  The love of the individual, otoh, would have an impact because that person exists in their view.

If an atheist heard someone say "God hates you", wouldn't he interpret it as the individual projecting his own feelings on to God and therefore if he was upset about it, then the atheist is upset only by the individual's hate.

I have been told I was hated by God, I have been told "I hate you".  I was much more hurt by the personal hate.  The institutional hate, I just feel sorry for those people because I know they are wrong.

So I guess the difference is I am less willing to excuse bad behavior when someone falsely claims God is on his side than I am of someone who acted out of other motives. In both cases wrong is done, but in the former it is inexcusable, in my opinion, to claim God as an excuse for doing it.

 

"Hey, we didn't know any better because we thought God was behind it."  Does it lessen the culpability of a terrorist bomber because he thinks God is commanding him to kill people? Were slave owners less to blame because they thought the Bible said it was okay? 

 

[Vanguard]

14 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

So I guess the difference is I am less willing to excuse bad behavior when someone falsely claims God is on his side than I am of someone who acted out of other motives. In both cases wrong is done, but in the former it is inexcusable, in my opinion, to claim God as an excuse for doing it.

 

"Hey, we didn't know any better because we thought God was behind it."  Does it lessen the culpability of a terrorist bomber because he thinks God is commanding him to kill people? Were slave owners less to blame because they thought the Bible said it was okay? 

 

I think I've drifted from the point. If we are talking about the motivations of whatever entity expresses hate, that is one argument. If on the other hand we're talking about the potential consequences of an individual hating another as opposed to an institution claiming the wrath of God against another, it is hands down the institutional hate that can cause the most damage.

Which issue are we addressing?

Van

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Hate is hate - that is correct. But collective hate expressed through an institutional mechanism can have much more destructive consequences to the individual than one person simply expressing his hate irrespective of whether the institutional mileu endorses it. Religion - or a distortion of it - has been the purveyor of considerable institutional hatred (guised as the will of God) through the ages.

Van

I don't think either I or Danzo would disagree that numbers make a difference.

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

So I guess the difference is I am less willing to excuse bad behavior when someone falsely claims God is on his side than I am of someone who acted out of other motives. In both cases wrong is done, but in the former it is inexcusable, in my opinion, to claim God as an excuse for doing it.

 

"Hey, we didn't know any better because we thought God was behind it."  Does it lessen the culpability of a terrorist bomber because he thinks God is commanding him to kill people? Were slave owners less to blame because they thought the Bible said it was okay? 

 

Did Danzo ever say anyone was "less to blame"?

"I am less willing to excuse bad behavior when someone falsely claims God is on his side"

Why?

Edited February 9, 2018 by Calm

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

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 think the next analysis would be to identify the point where a religion (and I use the term most broadly) promotes discrimination (the unjust, unfair or unequal treatment of different categories of people) that warrants a removal of freedom of expression. I think any criminal activity would the liminal point for that to occur, and this seems to help keep unpopular and extremist discriminatory groups from committing practical abuses. What do you think should be considered a crime that is not currently on the books, and which such groups get away with perpetuating it?

[Vanguard]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't think either I or Danzo would disagree that numbers make a difference.

But it's more than just about numbers. It also depends on whether the "numbers" are viewed as representing the institution and whether said institution is viewed by the individual as representing the will of God. I could virtually care less what the NFL as an institution may or may not think about my standing with God. This reaction flips, however, when the institution is my own faith - a faith that I hold in high regard on matters of inspiration.  

[Calm]

Okay, but where in the question or Danzo's response or mine was it indicated that statement from the hater that God hated the individual as well was backed by the individual's own faith institution?

 

[Darren10]

9 hours 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.

How so? (I have not read the comments yet but if they are typically this short it should not take long. So if you answered this I'll see them and respond accordingly).

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

How so? (I have not read the comments yet but if they are typically this short it should not take long. So if you answered this I'll see them and respond accordingly).

The anti-Semitism of Europe at that time originated in Christianity. It was relatively muted but Nazism fanned it to a flame and most of the population went along with it.

[Darren10]

I answered mostly agreed to the last two but mostly disagree for the first. I realized after I submitted that I clicked on former/inactive LDS. Ooops.

Question one I mostly agree because Islam was undoubtedly used to justify slavery, and it still is. But Freedom of religion is not at all recognizable to me in Islamic societies. In fact, Muslims who live in societies which have freedom of religion by and large oppose slavery it seems. Therefore "freedom of religion" is not part of that justification in my view.

I agree with question 2 but "discrimination" is a very vague word. "That is yellow and that is red" is discrimination. Likewise, "that s morally right but that is morally wrong" is also discrimination. Therefore, I mostly agree with the question. I assume that Daniel2 meant discrimination to oppress others and in that it is despicable and therefore I mostly agree with question #3.

[Darren10]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Or a Maserati.

My Maserati does 185. Does your Maserati do 185? My Maserati does 185. (Life's been good to me so far"  )

[Darren10]

6 hours ago, Danzo said:

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

Let's create our own club.

You in Daniel2?

[Darren10]

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The anti-Semitism of Europe at that time originated in Christianity. It was relatively muted but Nazism fanned it to a flame and most of the population went along with it.

Absolutely it did and it purveys today, well, in today's much more religiously apathetic Europe anyway but its origins are definitely Christian. But, the Holocaust? I do not know of any Christian who would have supported it. Perhaps a puppet Christian used by the Nazis but definitely not an authentic Christian.

The connection I am looking for is Daniel's assertion that religion played a part in the Holocaust with his original poll question to "justify" it. You're probably correct in that religion was not directly connected to justifying the Holocaust but Hitler, a strong anti-Semite, used that sentiment to his favor.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Darren10

[The Nehor]

30 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Absolutely it did and it purveys today, well, in today's much more religiously apathetic Europe anyway but its origins are definitely Christian. But, the Holocaust? I do not know of any Christian who would have supported it. Perhaps a puppet Christian used by the Nazis but definitely not an authentic Christian.

The connection I am looking for is Daniel's assertion that religion played a part in the Holocaust with his original poll question to "justify" it. You're probably correct in that religion was not directly connected to justifying the Holocaust but Hitler, a strong anti-Semite, used that sentiment to his favor.

Now we are in the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

[Darren10]

40 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Now we are in the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

Don’t know what that is but OK. 

[kiwi57]

Plot spoiler: the purpose of this set of push-polls is to persuade the reader, by slipshod and inaccurate analogy, to believe that the only reason to refuse to back a cake, take the photographs, or otherwise personally participate in a same sex wedding is "discrimination," and religious freedom arguments are merely an excuse.

[Daniel2]

9 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Let's create our own club.

You in Daniel2?

 ROTFLOL... Love it!

[Daniel2]

9 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Absolutely it did and it purveys today, well, in today's much more religiously apathetic Europe anyway but its origins are definitely Christian. But, the Holocaust? I do not know of any Christian who would have supported it. Perhaps a puppet Christian used by the Nazis but definitely not an authentic Christian.

The connection I am looking for is Daniel's assertion that religion played a part in the Holocaust with his original poll question to "justify" it. You're probably correct in that religion was not directly connected to justifying the Holocaust but Hitler, a strong anti-Semite, used that sentiment to his favor.

To clarify: I don't believe that Christianity per se or as a whole is to blame for the Holocaust...

I do believe it's accurate to say that religion (among other things) played a role because Jews were targeted in the Holocaust (in other words, anti-Semitism), even if those targeting them weren't 'true' Christians in name or by action.

Atheists or members of any Faiths targeting Jews is still a function of religion, whether or not any specific branch/s Christianity were or weren't resonsible.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

5 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Plot spoiler: the purpose of this set of push-polls is to persuade the reader, by slipshod and inaccurate analogy, to believe that the only reason to refuse to back a cake, take the photographs, or otherwise personally participate in a same sex wedding is "discrimination," and religious freedom arguments are merely an excuse.

I can understand why you'd assert that, but... nope.

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Don’t know what that is but OK. 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=No+true+Scotsman+fallacy

[smac97]

"1. Do you mostly agree or disagree with the following statement?: '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.' Please feel free to explain your response in the comments below."

I decline to respond to this question.  I decline for the same reason as I would decline to respond to something like "Homosexuals are responsible for all kinds of sexual abuse throughout history."  You are painting with far too broad a brush.

I also decline to respond because "discrimination" is way, way too vague a term, and is loaded with way too many connotations.

"2. Do you mostly agree or disagree with the following statement?: 'We can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion and/or religion itself have been used to justify discrimination.' Please feel free to explain your response in the comments below."

I again decline to respond to this question.  I decline for the same reason as I would decline to respond to something like "We can list hundreds of situations where homosexuals have committed sexual abuse."

Again, way too broad a brush.

"3. Do you mostly agree or disagree with the following statement?: 'One of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use is to use religion to hurt or harm others.' Please feel free to explain your response in the comments below."

I again decline to respond to this question.  It does not make sense.  Using religion "to hurt or harm others" would seem to be more of an act, not "rhetoric."

Moreover, "hurt or harm others" is way, way too broad and subjective a statement.

I am curious how would you respond to a loaded question like, say: "One of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that homosexuals can use is to cite their sexual orientation as a carte blanche justification for any and all decisions they make which hurt or harm others."?

This series of questions is a stacked deck, of the "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" variety.

For someone who seemingly wants to build bridges between people like you and people like me, you sure have some strange methods.  Loaded questions like yours do not build bridges.  They blow 'em up.

Consider your subsequent statement: "I fully endorse the idea that not ALL religion is toxic."

Wow.  Mighty magnanimous of ya. 

That you can come to an LDS message board and say such a thing is appalling.  Imagine if someone went to a message board populated by homosexuals and said "I fully endorse the idea that not ALL homosexuals are sexual predators."  What would be an appropriate response to that, in your view?  (For the record, I deplore the above sentence.  It does not reflect my views at all.  It is deeply prejudicial and false.) 

To me, the point of saying such a horrible thing is to be suggest, rather strongly and obviously, that most or a very significant portion of homosexuals are "sexual predators" (like how you are suggesting that most or a very significant portion of "religion" is "toxic").  Both statements are false.  And despicable.

What a horrible thread you've created, Daniel.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"1. Do you mostly agree or disagree with the following statement?: '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.' Please feel free to explain your response in the comments below."

I decline to respond to this question.  I decline for the same reason as I would decline to respond to something like "Homosexuals are responsible for all kinds of sexual abuse throughout history."  You are painting with far too broad a brush.

I also decline to respond because "discrimination" is way, way too vague a term, and is loaded with way too many connotations.

"2. Do you mostly agree or disagree with the following statement?: 'We can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion and/or religion itself have been used to justify discrimination.' Please feel free to explain your response in the comments below."

I again decline to respond to this question.  I decline for the same reason as I would decline to respond to something like "We can list hundreds of situations where homosexuals have committed sexual abuse."

Again, way too broad a brush.

"3. Do you mostly agree or disagree with the following statement?: 'One of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use is to use religion to hurt or harm others.' Please feel free to explain your response in the comments below."

I again decline to respond to this question.  It does not make sense.  Using religion "to hurt or harm others" would seem to be more of an act, not "rhetoric."

Moreover, "hurt or harm others" is way, way too broad and subjective a statement.

I am curious how would you respond to a loaded question like, say: "One of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that homosexuals can use is to cite their sexual orientation as a carte blanche justification for any and all decisions they make which hurt or harm others."?

This series of questions is a stacked deck, of the "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" variety.

For someone who seemingly wants to build bridges between people like you and people like me, you sure have some strange methods.  Loaded questions like yours do not build bridges.  They blow 'em up.

Consider your subsequent statement: "I fully endorse the idea that not ALL religion is toxic."

Wow.  Mighty magnanimous of ya. 

That you can come to an LDS message board and say such a thing is appalling.  Imagine if someone went to a message board populated by homosexuals and said "I fully endorse the idea that not ALL homosexuals are sexual predators."  What would be an appropriate response to that, in your view?  (For the record, I deplore the above sentence.  It does not reflect my views at all.  It is deeply prejudicial and false.) 

To me, the point of saying such a horrible thing is to be suggest, rather strongly and obviously, that most or a very significant portion of homosexuals are "sexual predators" (like how you are suggesting that most or a very significant portion of "religion" is "toxic").  Both statements are false.  And despicable.

What a horrible thread you've created, Daniel.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for the feedback, Smac.

To start off with, kudos on your comment of "What a horrible thread you've created, Daniel" as one of the stealthiest, well-poisoning ad hominem attacks I've seen in recent memory.  

I don't view the thread in the same negativity as you do, because I haven't personalized the questions as you did in your response.  Namely, the questions themselves aren't directed at any specific religion (nor against religion in general) as your false analogy is in comparing them to a specific sexual orientation (in your use, "homosexuals").

The opening poll questions don't target any specific entities--they don't say, "Christianity (or Mormonism) have been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, the holocaust, etc."  In fact, as written, it easily include atheists using religion as a reason to discriminate against others just as much as they could use one religious group discriminating against another.

A more apt analogy using 'sexual orientation' would be "Sexual abuse has been committed as a function of sexual orientation throughout history"--NOT "Homosexuals have committed sexual abuse."

You say it's appalling that I come to an LDS message board and say that "not all religion is toxic."  Umm.... OK.  The poll questions above aren't specifically directed at Mormonism, and my previous post (the one you call "appalling") was a defense of the many good aspects of religion.  Weird that you find that acknowledgement "appalling."  But I suppose that's your choose to personalize that comment or read mal-intent into something that wasn't intended.

I suppose "the deck is stacked" in the opening questions, but only as much as any poll stacks a deck by asking a series of questions.  However, as mentioned in the OP as well as the questions themselves, I welcome additional discussion including justification for your reaction to the poll, as you have chosen to share.

In response to your question of how I would respond to the following statement: "One of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that homosexuals can use is to cite their sexual orientation as justification to hurt or harm others," I would absolutely agree with that statement.  If any homosexual I know used their homosexuality as justification to hurt or harm others, I'd find it despicable.  Why would that be bad for me to acknowledge?  I'm confused as to why you'd find that offensive for me to even contemplate, as it seems to be a simple and obvious conclusion for me to admit, and one that I'm happily ready to do so.

In a similar fashion and as a Unitarian Universalist, I can absolutely say that one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that any fellow Unitarian Universalist could use would be to cite our religion as justification to hurt or harm others.  Again, why would that be bad for me to acknowledge? 

And while there is a reason I've posted the poll questions as they are, it's not as nefarious nor as accusatory as you've attempted to imply.  Further, many active members of the LDS Church have already responded by acknowledging that they mostly agree with the statements as written, without horrible-izing/personalizing or them as you seem to have.

As an active member of another Religious Faith myself, I can concede that religion has been used to justify discrimination (as well as a force for much good, as I subsequently admitted) throughout history without taking personal offense or making the question about me or as an incitement of my Faith or all religion.  Can you...?

D
 

Edited February 9, 2018 by Daniel2