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

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

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 ad hominem attacks I've seen in recent memory.  

It's a horrible thread.  I've neither said nor implied that you are a horrible person.  

19 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

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").

You spoke of and disparaged a broad category of disparate groups of people (religions).

I analogized your disparagement to a broad category of disparate individuals (homosexuals).

So the analogy seems apt after all.

19 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

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.

Right.  And a question like "I fully endorse the idea that not ALL homosexuals are sexual predators" can somehow become non-disparaging if it is offset with some pablum like "Of course, some homosexuals are good."  Is that the way it works?  

-Smac

[DJBrown]

In my little brain, the question being asked should be put into context.  Does religion lead people to discriminate against others more than they would discriminate without religion.  It can be very misleading to ask the question out of context.  

It can be argued that within our lifetime(s), atheism has led to more discrimination and murder than any religious influence.  The self-centered natural man certainly is predisposed to selfishness, even to the degree of murder.  And that nature will often use whatever social construct available to carry out their nefarious desires.  If anything, I would argue that religion tends to temper this nature.  These are, of course, gross generalizations.  But I believe they are true.  Dinesh D'Souza's book What's So Great About Christianity deals with this question fairly effectively.

[Vanguard]

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

I don't have quite the problem with the questions as you seem to. I've taken it as axiomatic that the practice of religion through the ages includes exclusionary / discriminatory practices that have done considerable harm to many. That's not to say that every act of exclusion or discrimination is inappropriate (i.e., going to the temple "excludes" and "discriminates" against those who do not have a recommend).

I'd rather let this exchange continue with the agreement that indeed there have been abuses. The interesting part will come when the inevitable question is posed - "And so what of it?" Is the "opie" suggesting there are parallels in our own faith as compared to those things that happened centuries ago?

 

Van : )

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I don't have quite the problem with the questions as you seem to. I've taken it as axiomatic that the practice of religion through the ages includes exclusionary / discriminatory practices that have done considerable harm to many. That's not to say that every act of exclusion or discrimination is inappropriate (i.e., going to the temple "excludes" and "discriminates" against those who do not have a recommend).

I'd rather let this exchange continue with the agreement that indeed there have been abuses. The interesting part will come when the inevitable question is posed - "And so what of it?" Is the "opie" suggesting there are parallels in our own faith as compared to those things that happened centuries ago?

 

Van : )

Very well.  I'll withdraw and let the discussion continue.  I've said my piece.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It's a horrible thread.  I've neither said nor implied that you are a horrible person.  

You spoke of and disparaged a broad category of disparate groups of people (religions).

I analogized your disparagement to a broad category of disparate individuals (homosexuals).

So the analogy seems apt after all.

Right.  And a question like "I fully endorse the idea that not ALL homosexuals are sexual predators" can somehow become non-disparaging if it is offset with some pablum like "Of course, some homosexuals are good."  Is that the way it works?  

-Smac

No, I didn't disparage "a broad category of disparate groups of people (religions)"--as I mentioned previously, the poll questions as written could equally apply to atheists discriminating against those who are religious (as it was in the case of the Holocaust in the first question).  As such, I continue to disagree that the analogy to homosexuals is apt.

You seem to think I'd object to acknowledging that some homosexuals are sexual predators.  I don't.  I know and acknowledge that some homosexuals are sexual predators.  And admitting or acknowledging such doesn't nullify the fact that some heterosexuals are also sexual predators.  So, your implication that I think that's unjust is unfounded.

D

EDIT: my above post crossed yours saying you're withdrawing from the discussion.  This post wasn't intended to further provoke you or pressure you to participate against any desire to withdraw after having said your piece.  If you wish to comment in response, you're welcome to, but I'm also happy to drop this tangent if that's the outcome.  Best to you.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Daniel2

[kllindley]

I think the issue of not being more specific about harm and discrimination makes the questions less than useful. 

I know where these statements come from, but since you've made an effort to not disclose that, I won't bring it up. But I will say that context matters. 

 

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

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?

To further illustrate the problem of not being clear: Will you call Josh Weed's post about his divorce a despicable piece of rhetoric? I know it caused harm to several people. 

[Rain]

I think just about everything has been used to justify just about everything so if I answer the questions then it won't really say anything of worth. It also doesn't take into account how many are doing it which and if it were specific groups - that would mean a little more.  

Edited February 9, 2018 by Rain

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

To further illustrate the problem of not being clear: Will you call Josh Weed's post about his divorce a despicable piece of rhetoric? I know it caused harm to several people. 

Did Josh Weed's post advocate or call for discriminating against anyone or any group of people...?  Was he using religion to hurt or harm others?

I'm open to a discussion about his piece focused on those question, especially in light of understanding more about your comments about how it's been hurtful to you--perhaps a separate thread...?  (I know I missed most of the last discussion that was closed while I was out of town ).

Edited February 9, 2018 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

I think the issue of not being more specific about harm and discrimination makes the questions less than useful. 

I know where these statements come from, but since you've made an effort to not disclose that, I won't bring it up. But I will say that context matters. 

I agree that context is and always will be beneficial.

You're welcome to share where they come from and how you feel the context matters, and I'll be happy you share my thoughts, as well.

[kllindley]

4 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Did Josh Weed's post advocate or call for discriminating against anyone or any group of people...?  Was he using religion to hurt or harm others?

I'm open to a discussion about his piece focused on those question, especially in light of understanding more about your comments about how it's been hurtful to you--perhaps a separate thread...?  (I know I missed most of the last discussion that was closed while I was out of town ).

Yeah, and my attempt to reopen the discussion yesterday didn't last long. It's okay. I don't want to derail, but I wanted to clarify that I was not personally hurt by the post. I just know some people who were. 

In the context of the third question, there is no qualification restricting the harm to discrimination or explaining the type or degree of harm. 

I also agree with the comments that question the utility of such a broad scope in statements 1 and 2. Did religion motivate discrimination? Or was it an ad hoc justification? Or somewhere in between? Wouldn't it be equally true to likewise blame race? 

Edited February 9, 2018 by kllindley

[california boy]

6 hours ago, kllindley said:

Yeah, and my attempt to reopen the discussion yesterday didn't last long. It's okay. I don't want to derail, but I wanted to clarify that I was not personally hurt by the post. I just know some people who were. 

In the context of the third question, there is no qualification restricting the harm to discrimination or explaining the type or degree of harm. 

I also agree with the comments that question the utility of such a broad scope in statements 1 and 2. Did religion motivate discrimination? Or was it an ad hoc justification? Or somewhere in between? Wouldn't it be equally true to likewise blame race? 

Could you explain how Josh Weeds post hurt some people?  That really surprises me.  But then I can't see how anything Josh Weed did affects my life.  I didn't care one way or another when he got married and when he decided he had enough.  

[Darren10]

On ‎2‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 9:27 AM, Daniel2 said:

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.

I very much am in agreement with you regarding Christianity's role in targeting Jews (I am going to post a link to an article I finally found on this matter) but I find no direct connection to Christianity and the horror of the Holocaust. Also, with Nazism you have to be careful when injecting religion into its makeup. Hitler did not care for religion, especially not to be "religious". But he did think, quiet correctly in my opinion, that religious symbolisms held unifying power and thus used religion in that regard.

Finally, when it's all said and done, nations who were established as officially atheistic have caused far more harm, torture, and death upon the masses than any nation that had a religious identity.

[Darren10]

Last year David P. Goldman, also known online as Spengler, posted an article which outlines a shorty history of Europe's anti-Semitic roots. The article is fairly short but I find enormously insightful. Aslo, for the life of me I could not remember the title of the article and thus spent hours looking for it. Therefore, you will all read it and you will all enjoy it.

Quote

That really is the world turned upside-down. European nationalism from its inception drew inspiration from biblical Israel. Greece was not a nation but a collection of small, quarreling city-states. Rome was not a nation but an empire--as were the Egyptians, Hittites, Sumerians, and so forth. Israel is the only exemplar of a nation in the ancient world, and the Davidic kingdom the only instance of a national monarchy. As I explained in my 2011 book How Civilizations Die, the first national monarchies in Europe--the 7th-century Merovingian kingdom in France and the Visigoth kingdom in Spain--emulated the Davidic model under the tutelage, respectively, of St. Gregory of Tours and St. Isidore of Seville.

Isidore and Gregory, I remarked elsewhere, were the Bialystock and Bloom of the Low Middle Ages: They sold 100% of the deal to every investor. That is, they persuaded each national monarch that his line was the new Davidic dynasty and his people the New Israel. This form of supercessionism gave rise to anti-Semitism (how could the Merovingians or Visigoths be the new Israel if the old Israel was still wandering about asserting its claim to divine election?). It also gave rise to perpetual warfare among Europe's national dynasties for the claim to chosenness. The Thirty Years' War of 1618-1648, Europe's most devastating conflict, was fought by fanatics in France and Spain respectively who believed in the divine election of their respective lands. National exclusivity and hatred had the same roots as anti-Semitism.

There is another path, taken by the United States, which allows that every nation can be "almost chosen," in Lincoln's memorable phrase. It can emulate Israel without seeking to supercede it. What distinguishes American culture is the radical Protestant belief that the City of God cannot be realized in the City of Man, that life is a pilgrimage whose goal is ever beyond the horizon. This concept defines and shapes American literary as well as popular culture, as I tried to show in this essay.

Why Europe's New Nationalists Love Israel

 

[Five Solas]

Well, I think it's a fine thread--so take that, smac97. 

;0)

And interesting it drew about the same numbers of folks agreeing between LDS and non.  

A couple years ago a local hip-hop artist, Jefferson Bethke, authored & performed a spoken word piece at Pacific Lutheran University on the topic.  It went viral and is now at 33 million views on YouTube.  You can find it here.  It's well worth consideration--

What if I told you, Jesus came to abolish religion? What if I told you getting you to vote republican, really wasn't his mission? ...

--Erik

[kiwi57]

7 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Well, I think it's a fine thread--so take that, smac97. 

;0)

And interesting it drew about the same numbers of folks agreeing between LDS and non.

If you are referring to the poll results, it's a push-poll.

7 hours ago, Five Solas said:

A couple years ago a local hip-hop artist, Jefferson Bethke, authored & performed a spoken word piece at Pacific Lutheran University on the topic.  It went viral and is now at 33 million views on YouTube.  You can find it here.  It's well worth consideration--

What if I told you, Jesus came to abolish religion? What if I told you getting you to vote republican, really wasn't his mission? ...

--Erik

What if I told you that I listen to prophets and apostles, rather than hip-hop "artists?"

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

If you are referring to the poll results, it's a push-poll.

You’ve said this before, as well as implying I’ve made some effort to conceal the context. I’ve invited you to share the context and how you feel it’s relevant, but I haven’t seen any comments to that effect yet. 

What do you believe I’m attempting to manipulate, and how so?

 

Edited February 13, 2018 by Daniel2

[kllindley]

37 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

You’ve said this before, as well as implying I’ve made some effort to conceal the context. I’ve invited you to share the context and how you feel it’s relevant, but I haven’t seen any comments to that effect yet. 

What do you believe I’m attempting to manipulate, and how so?

 

Just a quick note. I suspect that you might be conflating kiwi57 and I. 

I don't think you're trying to be manipulative and have tried not to accuse you of that. I chose not to add to the context because I didn't feel it was terribly important to the issues of defining harm. 

I don't attribute any ill intent to your decision to not identify the context. I made that comment as an explanation of why I have reservations about endorsing these specific statements. 

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

You’ve said this before, as well as implying I’ve made some effort to conceal the context. I’ve invited you to share the context and how you feel it’s relevant, but I haven’t seen any comments to that effect yet. 

What do you believe I’m attempting to manipulate, and how so?

 

The first two statements are very vague, and are intended to bring about general agreement.

Then, once respondents have said "yes" twice, comes the third, which is a value judgment.

I know how these things work.

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

Just a quick note. I suspect that you might be conflating kiwi57 and I. 

I don't think you're trying to be manipulative and have tried not to accuse you of that. I chose not to add to the context because I didn't feel it was terribly important to the issues of defining harm. 

I don't attribute any ill intent to your decision to not identify the context. I made that comment as an explanation of why I have reservations about endorsing these specific statements. 

Woops! Yes, I did.... Thanks for correcting me! lol

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

The first two statements are very vague, and are intended to bring about general agreement.

Then, once respondents have said "yes" twice, comes the third, which is a value judgment.

I know how these things work.

Thanks for the explanation. 

In actuality, I hadn't even considered what you're suggesting above, nor was there absolutely any methodology in the questions based on anything near what you're suggesting here. 

 

[Five Solas]

4 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

...

What if I told you that I listen to prophets and apostles, rather than hip-hop "artists?"

I would promptly ask why you consider listening to one or the other to be mutually exclusive--as though you couldn't do both.  And then I'd ask why you put the word "artists" in quotations after hip-hop.  Your reader might reasonably infer you don't consider hip-hop a legitimate art form or expression. 

Is that really what you intended to communicate, kiwi? 

--Erik

_________________________________________________

And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon god they made
And the sign flashed out its warning
In the words that it was forming

And the sign said, the words of the prophets
Are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls
And whispered in the sounds of silence

--Simon & Garfunkel, 1964

 

[USU78]

GIGO push poll.

[kiwi57]

3 hours ago, Five Solas said:

I would promptly ask why you consider listening to one or the other to be mutually exclusive--as though you couldn't do both.

I don't regard the title of hip-hop "artist" to indicate particular knowledge or information about divine things.

Quote

And then I'd ask why you put the word "artists" in quotations after hip-hop.  Your reader might reasonably infer you don't consider hip-hop a legitimate art form or expression.

Really? No kidding.

Quote

Is that really what you intended to communicate, kiwi?

Yep.

If hip-hop is "art" then so is a compost heap.

And of the two, I prefer a compost heap.

Well I've had dreams enough for one

And I've got love enough for three

- The Moody Blues

Edited February 13, 2018 by kiwi57

[Five Solas]

On 2/13/2018 at 12:09 AM, kiwi57 said:

...

Yep.

If hip-hop is "art" then so is a compost heap.

And of the two, I prefer a compost heap.

Whatever else may be said about you, kiwi, you're readers can always count on an authentic, unvarnished LDS opinion.  You may take this as high praise, but your attitude and approach brings to mind local LDS leaders when I was growing up in Southern Utah in the 1980s.  Authentic.  Unvarnished.  And with any luck, the brethren will soon call you to be in charge of their millennial and minority retention initiatives, to say nothing of the subject matter at hand.  

;0)

Until then, let me leave you with a little more compost from Seattle.  (Maybe this is the *real* reason LDS are leaving the area & wards have been closing/consolidating.)  Hey, Macklemore! Can we go thrift shopping?  I'm gonna pop some tags, only got twenty dollars in my pocket...  The safe Chipmunks Version, of course.

--Erik

_________________________________________

Don't go changing to try and please me
You never let me down before
Don't imagine you're too familiar
And I don't see you anymore

--Billy Joel, 1977