Now, you made a (facile) theological argument that such-and-such Old Testament passages could be interpreted in this way, but you failed to connect it to this example (or, you know, any racist church anywhere ever) at all
Your level of condescension is inversely proportional to your level of education, erudition or reasoning on this, or as far as I've ever seen, ANY subject matter.
Theology is the study and interpretation of religious truths, and it's about as far from "I believe this" as science is from "I think X happens because Y".
And people twisting the bible around what they already believe is so common as to be ubiquitous.
Now, you made a (facile) theological argument that such-and-such Old Testament passages could be interpreted in this way, but you failed to connect it to this example (or, you know, any racist church anywhere ever) at all.
I really don't expect to have to educate people on these boards on the veneer of Biblical interpretation used to justify the racial segregation and racism endemic in the American south for most of my nations history. But if you insist its necessary ...
Racial interpretations of the curse of Ham have been used to promote racist religious ideologies, typically based in Abrahamic religions, to justify the enslavement of Black Africans.[5][6][7] Wiki
In the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century, many American states passed anti-miscegenation laws, which were often defended by invoking racist interpretations of the Bible, particularly of the stories of Phinehas and of the "Curse of Ham".[13] Wiki
The trial judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race, proclaimed that
“ Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.wiki again
From a pro christian site now...
There are a significant number of Christians (particularly in America) who would claim that such “inter-racial” marriages directly violate God’s principles in the Bible, and should not be allowed. Linky
So yes, there's a lot of christians couching their racism in terms of the bible. (when answers in genesis calls you nutty its time to give yourself up to the squirrels)
Now, while the paper does say things are getting better, it does point out some of the theology behind churches banning Interacial marriages in the past and present.
Now stop treating everyone that isn't you like a slack jawed moron, or at the very least justify your arrogance with posts that are remarkable in their insight and not just their level of backhanded viciousness.
They were the very definition of sedition, and they betrayed the Union.Personally, I think any federal government which tosses the 9th and 10th amendment into the crapper (without first abolishing them) is the very definition of sedition and a betrayal of the Union.
The Confederates weren't any better in that respect. They didn't want total state's rights, they wanted state's rights on everything they disagreed with the federal government on. Chiefly, slavery. Like it or not, slavery's expansion is what the war was over. Don't believe me? Read the states' declarations of independence and the Confederate constitution.
|
Do realize that the Mason Dixon line was for the southern border of Pennsylvania. As such it has nothing to do with Kentucky (which would have been 'below' it anyways).And southerners wonder why the south has the reputation it does.Ummmm ... while Kentucky is below the MD line, you do realize Kentucky was initially neutral and in 1861 became a Union state, right? ;)
Yep, but the Mason Dixon line did come to also represent a divide between those states which were slave holding and those which were free states. This later was reinforced by the Missouri Compromise Line as well as extensions from Texas Annexation etc. Bottom line though is that as the Mason Dixon may have been a 18th century surveying line, it came to represent more than it truly was/is.
But enough of this derail ...
As to the original post, I have to agree the folks who put this "rule" in place are complete a$$40!3&, but at the same time I would not want to see the government step in. Doing so could lead to a slippery slope.
I am somewhat heartened, however, that the move did basically split the congregation and resulted in the preacher being replaced. Good to see the entire congregation was not so freaking bigoted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The irony of you of all people calling into question someone else's education wrt religion is ludicrous. You're not qualified to make such judgements as you'd have to actually know at least a little something about religion first.
Your level of condescension is inversely proportional to your level of education, erudition or reasoning on this, or as far as I've ever seen, ANY subject matter.
Let me translate: "I'm a christian, and since some of you dislike christianity, or some christians, you're f#@%ing imbeciles so shut up."
The irony of you of all people calling into question someone else's education wrt religion is ludicrous. You're not qualified to make such judgements as you'd have to actually know at least a little something about religion first.
I love you too. Even if you are a geocentrist.
They were the very definition of sedition, and they betrayed the Union.Personally, I think any federal government which tosses the 9th and 10th amendment into the crapper (without first abolishing them) is the very definition of sedition and a betrayal of the Union.
Thank you I needed that belly laugh.
How to be part of religion without mean people. Create your own religion and don't be mean to other people. Also don't convert anyone to it.
How to be part of religion without mean people. Create your own religion and don't be mean to other people. Also don't convert anyone to it.
I did that in the 12th grade. Didn't succeed though. I couldn't manage not to be a mean prick.
Juxtaposition is enlightening
So if I say that these people are following the bible for their beliefs then what.. I'm trashing the bible for being racist. If i say its their interpretation I'm being condescending.
PICK ONE.
All I've ever seen the Bible do for people is be a mirror. You hold it up, people see themselves on the other side. Nice people find a way to read it so its good, mean people find a way to read it so its bad. I think the bible is too big and disparate for true exegesis.
Its what I see. Don't like it, fine. Want to insult me about it? Make your argument good enough to warrant it.
But in this case, they're not. They aren't making reference to the Bible at all when they're asking this couple or interracial couples at all to leave. The stated justification is to maintain the unity of the community, period.
AHEM.... but you failed to connect it to this example (or, you know, any racist church anywhere ---->ever<----) at all.
The fact that some racists in the past have justified their racism with theology doesn't mean that these racists now
(which apparently number in the less-than-a-dozen!) are justifying their racism with theology
Hmmm lets see, an conservative church in an area where religion and racial politics have been intermingled for the last 300 years has a problem with interacial dating. I wonder shy.
I think it makes a dollars to doughnuts bet that they are.
or that your (again, facile)
All you do is insult the argument. Yawn. Goodbye.
Are you laughing at the idea that a legitimate government must restrict its actions to those which are permissable by its own Constitution?Thank you I needed that belly laugh.They were the very definition of sedition, and they betrayed the Union.Personally, I think any federal government which tosses the 9th and 10th amendment into the crapper (without first abolishing them) is the very definition of sedition and a betrayal of the Union.
I think I'll let this guy do the explaining of the constitutional issues involved in the Civil War.
I am NOT a Christian, though - a fact that I've made quite clear on these boards. I'm not even religious.
So, let me translate your post, "I cannot conceive of how anyone who defends religion can do so unless that person is religious."
Personally I can't conceive why anyone would defend religion period, regardless of personal affiliation. But you weren't defending religion, you were defending the precise types of religious people who couch their personal hatreds in religious fervor, because that's all anyone has been railing on.
When you said "all you people" I took it personally. I DO know more than a few things about religion. It's been a personal curiosity of mine as long as I can remember, I went to a catholic school for years, and I've studied religion as an aspect of social science in college. Knowing more about religion, all religions not just major world religions, does NOT make me more sympathetic to the religions as doctrines or to the practitioners. It has simply given me more insight into why people choose to practice any religion and the religion they do.
For the record though, you didn't make your irreligion clear enough to me since I never caught wind. Your political ideologies are even more baffling to me now.
Are you laughing at the idea that a legitimate government must restrict its actions to those which are permissable by its own Constitution?Thank you I needed that belly laugh.They were the very definition of sedition, and they betrayed the Union.Personally, I think any federal government which tosses the 9th and 10th amendment into the crapper (without first abolishing them) is the very definition of sedition and a betrayal of the Union.
Previous discussion with him has demonstrated that he knows remarkably little about religion.
I know a lot about religions as people practice them. I know much of doctrines, creeds, practices, and cultures. I've read the bible, the qu'ran, history, mythology, myths and legends from around the world.
What I don't know anything about is the "true religion" that exists within your own personal definition and philosophies. You treat objective facts like subjective ones and subjective ideas like true facts. That's going to create a lot of communication problems between you and anyone that does the reverse. I don't know what your deal is if it isn't religion: it looks like post modernism, but there is definitely something guiding how you process information.
Now, you indicated that you didn't want to converse with me. If that's true then LIVE UP TO IT and stop taking potshots from the peanut gallery. If you want to say i don't know anything about religion then SHOW the mistakes, don't tell.
If you're going to storm off in a huff when someone challenges your arguments
You don't challenge them. You merely insult them. You twist people's meanings into something that isn't there, debase the person as a moron, insult the argument and switch channels when you're clearly and demonstrably wrong (as you were conclusively shown to be above), accuse people of not backing their arguments when links aren't provided and then insult people for using google to get links because oddly enough I can't take a book off my shelf and wave the page under your nose.
In short, neither myself nor anyone here is your emotional punching bag. Make an argument or make tracks.
This is interesting, too.Are you laughing at the idea that a legitimate government must restrict its actions to those which are permissable by its own Constitution?Thank you I needed that belly laugh.They were the very definition of sedition, and they betrayed the Union.Personally, I think any federal government which tosses the 9th and 10th amendment into the crapper (without first abolishing them) is the very definition of sedition and a betrayal of the Union.That post is laughably bad. It claims that American culture is opportunist and, therefore, even those who didn't own slaves among the south supported slavery.
Regardless of whether those who didn't own slaves in the South supported slavery, arguing that the evidence that they did is that American culture is opportunistic is remarkably bad reasoning.
I disagree. America, more than anything, is a capitalist society. What is capitalism if not opportunism?
I disagree. America, more than anything, is a capitalist society. What is capitalism if not opportunism?
Ever since Bacon's rebellion in the south there was a concerted effort on the part of the elite to keep the poor whites above the blacks and on their side and keep the whites and blacks from finding common cause.
Given that you know remarkably little about religion
SHOW. Don't tell. Sheesh. Why is this such a hard concept?
Personally I can't conceive why anyone would defend religion period, regardless of personal affiliation.You can't conceive why someone would defend their personal beliefs, or the beliefs of others?
I find it hard to believe you are so unimaginative and lack such empathy.
Um, didn't say that. Shame on you.
I said religion. Religion is a certain kind of personal belief not based on evidence. Personal beliefs are not sacrosanct. People believe incredibly stupid things that don't deserve to be defended, no matter how sincerely they are believed. They deserve to be questioned and understood, to further understand the society and culture from which they come however. Furthermore there's a distinct difference between defending someone's right to even the most stupid of beliefs (which I'm all about) and defending the beliefs themselves.Frankly, I don't know how much you, meatrace, have studied of religion. You say that you question why anyone would be religious. Have you read Marvin Harris' work on the sacred cow of India?
Nono, I didn't say I question why people would be religious, I mean I question why rational, educated people would be religious but not people in general. I actually think I have a fair grasp on why people, historically, have become religious and formed religions, big and small. Which is precisely why I'm so puzzled that it continues to exist in post-industrial society.
I've read little of his myself, but I believe I'm familiar. This is one of those places where religion sort of melds with culture. And those places are everywhere, because religion is a cultural construct.
|
You can't conceive why someone would defend their personal beliefs, or the beliefs of others?Um, didn't say that. Shame on you.
I said religion. Religion is a certain kind of personal belief not based on evidence.
So you didn't say you can't understand defending personal beliefs, you said you can't understand defending religion, which is a....personal belief?
I didn't say "all you people".
Derp. My bad, jumped the gun there. Ya know I read it like 10 times and still read it the way I indicated. I guess maybe I get dislexic when I'm tired?
I give references to the work of actual scholars all the time. Just a little bit upthread, I asked meatrace if he'd read Harris, for example.
If someone doesn't know science you point out the mistakes they make in science. if someone doesn't know history you point out the mistakes they made in history. If you want to say someone doesn't know anything about religion you should be willing to show the mistakes, especially if you're going to use their lack of knowledge as part of (or your entire) argument.
So you didn't say you can't understand defending personal beliefs, you said you can't understand defending religion, which is a....personal belief?
You can't conceive why someone would defend their personal beliefs, or the beliefs of others?Um, didn't say that. Shame on you.
I said religion. Religion is a certain kind of personal belief not based on evidence.
Personal beliefs are an extraordinarily broad category. I do not defend all personal beliefs. I do defend most personal beliefs.
Let's try this. All religious beliefs are personal beliefs. Not all personal beliefs are religious beliefs. So you can not defend religion and not be accused of not defending ALL personal beliefs.
Capice?
So I'll defend the personal belief that, say, Teddy Roosevelt was the greatest president despite the fact that I don't agree. You can have a pretty reasoned debate there. I won't defend the belief that the earth is hollow and that nazis in ufos fly out of holes in the earth's crust at night and mutilate cows. Because that's a load of crap.
Also, religion is much more than a personal belief. If I say I dislike religion (which is something I often say) it can and does mean that I dislike the idea of faith, I dislike the idea of people having faith, I dislike superstition, I dislike the actions OF religions, I dislike religion as an organizing body, etc.
Let me ask you, do you defend people's beliefs, not just their right to hold them but the beliefs themselves, which are irreconcilable with your own?
Religion is a certain kind of personal belief not based on evidence.In the same way that politics is.
I'm not sure how you mean that. In some ways you're right, people just pick a racehorse and bet on it. Some people are just ideologues, and their ideologies inform their politics. And sometimes politics just means the dirty business of actually operating the government without respect to the specific ideologies that drive it.
But politics how I mean it, in a very broad sense, is the continual cultural conversation we have with one another about what the government should do. In that sense I think it's very evidence based. Genuinely smart, well-informed people (which isn't necessarily a set in which I include myself) have political debates, they end up debating the relevance or accuracy of said evidence, occasionally, but generally come down to philosophical differences on how best to operate the government in a way that is the best for the most amount of people.
|
|
Let me ask you, do you defend people's beliefs, not just their right to hold them but the beliefs themselves, which are irreconcilable with your own?
Quite often. Haven't you seen me in the rules threads?
Again, why do you find it inconceivable that someone would defend religion? It's a personal belief. You said so yourself. Why can you conceive of one belief being defensible but not another?
Because often the consequences aren't irreconcilable with my own, in my case. Compassion, for example, is just a pretty good idea, regardless of what philosophy or theology lead you to that conclusion. Why would I bother someone about their private rituals if the conclusion of the belief in those private rituals is to be a better person?
There's a huge middle ground between attacking something, on any basis, or defending it. It's called apathy or inaction. What you just advocated is apathy. As long as it doesn't hurt anyone, leave them be. Which I'm totally fine with. But I won't DEFEND it, I'll just try to ignore it.
Compassion, altruism, and the like are a peculiarity to me. I don't disagree, mind you, I'm with you on that. I just agree not because of any personal moral compunction either way, but because it just leads to a better society for me to live in. Which is why I tend to lean left politically in that regard because someone should be compassionate towards those of us who are less fortunate, and I'd rather pay heavy taxes than be bothered to do anything myself. Way off-topic, but whatevz.
I disagree. America, more than anything, is a capitalist society. What is capitalism if not opportunism?This is interesting, too.Are you laughing at the idea that a legitimate government must restrict its actions to those which are permissable by its own Constitution?Thank you I needed that belly laugh.They were the very definition of sedition, and they betrayed the Union.Personally, I think any federal government which tosses the 9th and 10th amendment into the crapper (without first abolishing them) is the very definition of sedition and a betrayal of the Union.That post is laughably bad. It claims that American culture is opportunist and, therefore, even those who didn't own slaves among the south supported slavery.
Regardless of whether those who didn't own slaves in the South supported slavery, arguing that the evidence that they did is that American culture is opportunistic is remarkably bad reasoning.
The fact that America is opportunistic isn't evidence that it supports slavery.
In fact, slavery could result in diminished opportunities for free poor people, so those free poor probably wouldn't favor anyone being slaves.
That could be true. So could the complete opposite. Personally, I'm inclined to believe the opposite.
Let me ask you, do you defend people's beliefs, not just their right to hold them but the beliefs themselves, which are irreconcilable with your own?Quite often. Haven't you seen me in the rules threads?
Again, why do you find it inconceivable that someone would defend religion? It's a personal belief. You said so yourself. Why can you conceive of one belief being defensible but not another?
No. You often defend rulings that you know to be incorrect? By defending, do you mean actually quoting the book to defend the incorrect ruling, or just defending a GM's right to make that ruling. If it's the former, then you're an odd duck. If it's the latter, well you're still an odd duck, but that's something that again I'm fine with.
Let's say I'm out with two friends, one is a flaming homosexual korean guy, and another is an evangelical christian who thinks the bible says gays need to be rounded up and knifed on the edge of a cliff or something. I will defend my bigoted friend's right to feel how he does, I will not defend his beliefs, because I can't, that belief is indefensible despite being a personal belief.
|
|
I will defend my bigoted friend's right to feel how he does, I will not defend his beliefs, because I can't, that belief is indefensible despite being a personal belief.
But you can't understand why your bigoted friend defends his beliefs? Because that's what you said in the post I first responded to.
Any belief can be defended, no matter how wrong you are for defending it. I don't understand how you can say 'I can't conceive how they could defend their beliefs'.
Personally I simply call them Traitor flags -- and no, I don't care if your great grand-daddy did or did not fight for them. They were the very definition of sedition, and they betrayed the Union.Of course, the same claim could be made about the USA in general in regards to England.
It could. Them being traitors doesn't make modern day America any less of a great country, though.
You don't challenge them.Your racist interpretation of Exodus has no historical basis
A number of attempts were made to use the Bible to justify those bans on interracial marriage. Vague assertions were made that God intended for the races to remain separate. Some verses (Exodus 34:10-16, 2 Corinthians 6:14, etc.) were quoted in part or otherwise out of context in an attempt to show that God opposed interracial marriage.
At various times, Phinehas and his acts were cited in the United States by the promoters of laws banning interracial marriages. These so-called anti-miscegenation laws were enforced in several US states until 1967. The story is also used by some Christian Identity groups, naming themselves Phineas Priesthood after Phinehas. They also claim that it is a Biblical injunction against interracial couples, transforming a conflict about temptation to idolatry into one about race. This outlook is ironic as Phinehas' name is shared by those in the same period known as Nubians. [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phinehas]
In the United States, segregationists and Christian identity groups have claimed that several passages in the Bible,[30] for example the stories of Phinehas and of the so-called "curse of Ham", should be understood as referring to miscegenation and that certain verses expressly forbid it. Most theologians read these verses and references as forbidding inter-religious marriage, rather than inter-racial marriage.[31] http://www.answers.com/topic/miscegenation
I actually think I have a fair grasp on why people, historically, have become religious and formed religions, big and small. Which is precisely why I'm so puzzled that it continues to exist in post-industrial society.why are you puzzled?
This requires an in-depth answer, and I'm currently endeavoring to answer it in an Anthro paper that's due in like 2 weeks. I'll try to give you some thoughts though. Warning: incoming wall of text.
Religion is a struggle amongst all members of a society, a constant argument about how society should be structured and how we should treat one another. In a hierarchical society, which all of Western society and its antecedents have been, those in the higher strata use religion to justify the hierarchy and their place in it and those at the bottom use religion to subvert or circumvent it. Religion serves as an outlet for whatever basic psychological need is missing in an individual's experiences. Commonly this presents itself as a petition of last resort, i.e. prayer or magic, when circumstances present no further rational options.
One of the best explanations, then, for the prevalence of religion in America, especially in times of economic hardship, is the weakness of our social safety net. What you see in countries like Norway and France, regardless of how viable you think their political systems are, is that virtually no one is religious in the same way that most Americans are. We have answered a good deal of the answerable questions that religions have purported to answer over the Millenia, but the more socio-economic equality and sense of safety a society has the less it needs to rely on religion. Americans feel like they could be living on the streets at any moment, that terrorists want to take away our freedom and probably have nukes, and whatever group you belong to the other guys probably want to wipe you off the face of the earth. We're so divided and fearful, and our economic future is so uncertain, that people will turn to anything.
To me, religion has always been about what you believe, and you should believe what you do based on empirical evidence. You can't just up and change your religion or cherry pick it, you ought to arrive on a decision based on sincere belief, which is why I became an atheist. The more I look at it, the more religion is just part of someone's cultural identity. But when religion, and religious zealots, acts in ways that are detrimental to society, why doesn't EVERYONE unanimously decry them? We have apologists that say oh that guy wasn't a TRUE x/y/z, or he was a fanatic, but the way I see it it's a symptom of people being unable to reconcile what is a cultural construct created to reinforce a social hierarchy and satiate distinct psychological needs, with its demonstrably and empirically wrong doctrines.
The rational among the religious have begun to tease the two apart, leaving a bunch of silly stories and a set of practices that promote communitas. But if you just need the communitas, there are other more efficient ways, especially in such an interconnected society. The less rational of the religious, the extremists, have reacted the other way and confused their own community's beliefs with that of the religion and tried to rationalize things like flying planes into buildings or lynching homosexuals.
TL;DR-There are legitimate needs that religion fulfills, but in a post-industrial, post-modern society we can be far more creative in fulfilling those needs. Thus it puzzles me why we haven't, as a whole, discarded religion.