Religion
Related: About this forumWe Cant Ignore the Racism of the Most Famous Humanists in American History
May 15, 2017
by Hemant Mehta
Is there a connection between Humanism and race? There are no doubt atheists who believe the question of God marks the end of what we all have in common, but Dr. Anthony Pinn argues that the two subjects must go hand in hand. If were committed to making this life as good as it can be, we must be active in fighting for racial justice, especially when religion has been used to justify oppression and discrimination.
In his powerful new book When Colorblindness Isnt the Answer: Humanism and the Challenge of Race (Pitchstone Publishing, 2017), Pinn makes the case for why Humanists have failed to provide a more compelling alternative to theism for various minority groups and how we can change that.
In the excerpt below, Pinn points out how some of the Founding Fathers atheists point to in admiration cant be separated from their own racist behavior.
"Celebration of humanists across the centuries often fails to acknowledge the underbelly of humanism, or the ways in which it is similar to theism: both have a long legacy of problematic stances toward race.
"According to Susan Jacoby, only two freethinkers, or humanists, have received appropriate attention Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. I am not in a position to advance nor deny that argument. And for the purposes of this text such an exploration isnt necessary. Suffice it to say, they are important figures within the history of the United States and within humanist circles. And, the relationship between freethought and race presented by such figures is instructive. Both were men of great intellect and profound importance for the establishment of the United States as a secular nation, and both at least passively endorsed (e.g., inherited slave estates) the system of slavery.
"What I offer here isnt a history lesson on the philosophy of these two figures, but rather something about them and humanists appreciation for them speaks to challenges regarding race worthy of addressing. Im not especially concerned with the details of their secular thinking, the degrees to which they were definable as humanists based on contemporary understandings of the terminology. The fact that humanists claim them and do so with significant energy, for my purposes, is sufficient. They, as some might put it, are case studies of a sort that point to some incorrect assumptions made by some humanists. Secular government was and remained intimately linked to the problem of race acted out as racism. What are contemporary humanists to say about this?
"For instance, again take Thomas Jefferson and his undeniable importance with respect to the articulation of the principles, values, and ideals that shape democracy in the United States, as well as his significance regarding public, higher education vis-à-vis the University of Virginia. Jefferson was also a slaveholder, whose wealth and influence was dependent upon a system of brutality that held in inhumane bondage peoples of African descent beings whose humanity was questioned and who were without will to determine their own life options. He framed the workings of democracy as the political system of the new United States, but he supported the system of slavery through his direct participation in it. Ive not heard much made of this latter point. Yet, isnt it important? Doesnt it provide a warrant for humility, and for a more balanced presentation of humanism, warts and all?
"Theists assume the plausibility of perfection and as a consequence demand its significant figures be without flaws or at least like the biblical figure King David have notable signs of Gods favor that blur out the messiness of life or at least point beyond it. Paradox and tension are difficult for theists, certainly when the paradox isnt resolved or the tension eased. For theists, history is purpose driven; the universe is concerned with and about humanity. And, situations and topics that challenge the pleasantries of this assumption trouble theists. On the other hand, humanists, with a more mature sense of humanity, shouldnt hold to the same demand for a stain-free existence. But yet, there appears to be at least a passive effort to remove the taint of racism from humanist legends such as Jefferson. Yes, Jefferson feared slavery would destroy the nation in that it was a plague with dire consequences. He believed ending slavery in Virginia and elsewhere also held the potential to flood the nation with a population it could not absorb and that couldnt integrate in a significant manner because of its inherent and undeniable inferiority.
"Here we have it in brief: a significant humanist figure with significance to the United States from its initial formation to the present is also a prime example of the status quo in the form of race-based oppression. In a word, Jefferson represents both humanism and racism. One might argue Jefferson and those like him were men of their age trapped in the workings of their time period and shaped by the sociocultural codes of that historical moment. This is true and this is why I would never suggest we ignore, for instance, Jeffersons contributions to our particular structuring of democracy and our resulting best practices of collective life. However, recognizing this doesnt free humanists from also recognizing the manner in which he represents some of the most troubling practices of race-based violence witnessed in the modern period. The former is to be celebrated and the latter acknowledged with every effort to learn from bad policy and behavior, and not repeat it. Will such an admission despite the fact that plenty of Christians bought and traded in slaves, disregarded American Indians, and abused Latinos/as fuel hostility toward humanists and prove for the general U.S. population that humanism is immortal and flawed? Can humanists acknowledge participation in racism and maintain their critique of theistically fueled injustice?
"Its a delicate balance to be sure: a problem and solution wrapped in one and tied together nicely with a bow of energetic prophecy that screams accept these proclamations or experience eternal damnation
because God loves you to death. Within Christianity, the dominant tradition in the United States, this tension is in part a consequence of a really low opinion of humans and human nature. Based on a rather bizarre creation story, humans start out behind the curve, with a warped nature the stories go marked by a tendency toward immorality, disobedience, and questionable values. Left to their own devices, this demented story continues, humans will do no good. And so Christians spend so much time trying to correct for this original flaw, while also thinking of their condition as an opportunity for God to prove Gods goodness.
"Those who are despised take every opportunity to demonstrate that actually they are beyond reproach upstanding people, with integrity, values, and an important role to play in the life of the nation. A type of respectability guides this thinking: if we can prove ourselves acceptable whatever that means at the time we will gain the status and' the position we merit. As I see it, some version of that thinking is in play in many humanist circles concerning a variety of topics. Still, to claim figures such as Thomas Jefferson and in this way lodge humanism in the workings of the United States is also to tie humanism to various modalities of racial injustice. What to do?
"Humanists embrace this respectability position with issues such as racism; and, racial minorities such as African Americans have been forced to do it with respect to virtually every social ill. Any crime implicates all; any social slip implicates all, and so on. Will theists use this information (as well known as it is) against humanists? And, would such a strategy harm the effort of humanists to make the United States a more secular nation? And so there is in some quarters a tendency to hide the unpleasant dimensions of life lived by some humanists, to downplay any significance. This is an understandable approach, but it does raise a point worth consideration.
"Still, to embrace Jefferson, then, is to acknowledge at least a subtle connection to both a legacy of profound humanist thought and a legacy of profound humanist racism. This does not mean humanism and humanists are inherently racist; but it does do damage to a too popular assumption that humanism doesnt bend to the social construction of race in ways that would make it a significant part of the racism problem."
When Colorblindness Isnt the Answer: Humanism and the Challenge of Race is available now online and in bookstores.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/05/15/we-cant-ignore-the-racism-of-the-most-famous-humanists-in-american-history/
heaven05
(18,124 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)"Anthony B. Pinn is the Agnes Cullen Arnold Professor of Humanities, professor of religious studies, and founding director of the Center for Engaged Research and Collaborative Learning at Rice University. He is the first African American full professor to hold an endowed chair in the history of Rice University. He is also director of research for the Institute for Humanist Studies and is a member of the Board of Directors for the American Humanist Association. He is the author of The End of God-Talk and Writing God's Obituary, and he lives in Houston, Texas."
https://www.amazon.com/When-Colorblindness-Isnt-Answer-Challenge/dp/1634311221/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&qid=1491836302&sr=8-3&keywords=anthony+pinn&linkCode=sl1&tag=wwwfriendlyat-20&linkId=b0d0bf8aec717f84a14be93eb84251cf
Igel
(35,348 posts)An appeal to authority.
In this case a kind of moral authority rooted in the marginal. For many, race, class or ethnicity must be correct before we hear facts or logic.
Proletariat engineers and academics, often less well trained than those with incorrect backgrounds, were often more highly valued. This was an economic, not just an intellectual or moral disaster.
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Kinda like some say we shouldn't talk about the coverup of pedophilia in the Catholic Church?
I don't recall seeing any atheists or humanists saying we can't talk about the bad behavior of other atheists or humanists.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)I wonder why someone would think otherwise. Have they not heard of Hamilton?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Have you talked about the very human bad behavior of atheists and humanists?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But given the huge number of negative posts about religion, I will eagerly await these posts highlighting negative behavior of non-theists.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Perhaps you can answer your own question:
Have you talked about the very human bad behavior of theists and Christians?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But at one point, when I posted about intolerant Boston atheists, the uproar from certain non-theists was deafening. Apparently some have a very different standard.
One example:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218250715
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)About a horrible person. By the end I almost thought maybe he isn't such a bad guy. Then I remembered who the subject was. If that's your idea of calling out theists, then no, you haven't.
And yea, your article about the Boston atheist did cause a stir, and you conveniently forgot why that hit piece from a trump troll was objected to (because it was a hit piece from a trump troll)
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And your mischaracterization of the intolerant Boston atheists post is not supported by the facts of the post. To refresh your memory, the Boston atheist group was not set up as a political group. It was only when the victim, a long time member, defined himself as a Trump supporter that he was banned. Classic example of intolerance in action.
By the way, I am still waiting for the examples from the other poster. I have patience.
Allow me to help you:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218250716
And another:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218250131 Only one page in.
If you wish, you also can reply with posts of your own that are critical of non-theists. I will wait patiently.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)The first article is about a racist professor resigning because the school is moving to address the issues of systemic racism. The second a) makes it seem like it's a problem among evangelicals (and not, say, the dogma of the RCC) and b) doesn't paint it as the oppressive culture that it is, rather and college hijinks "The LGBTQ students are being trouble for the Dean, tune in next week!"
You are equating an article which flat out calls humanists racist with some milquetoast articles where evangelical christians are being tut-tutted for being actual monsters.
Any more false equivalencies?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Making you of course the "decider" as to how critical a critical post must be. And I am still patiently waiting for reciprocal posts wherein non-theists criticize other non-theists.
It is always easier to remove the speck from another's eye rather than remove the beam from one's own eye.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Hint: they aren't.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I will wait patiently.
You'll be waiting a long time for people to simply fulfill your arbitrary requests.
The Internet must be a very frustrating place for you.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)but if one can only search for (and find) negativity when looking at the actions of theists, what does that say?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I have to admit several years ago it bothered me but after several years of posting in the religion room I accept it for what it is. But I always did find it amusing how several here have certain posts bookmarked for future use.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Or, as Jesus said:
"remove the beam from your own eye before removing the speck from your brother's eye".
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)As do we all. But it helps to recognize this fact.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Some here in this very room have helped me see my own faults.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)From your position of religious privilege.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)The thing is that while there may be some Atheists who behave badly, they aren't doing it because of atheism. The theists that behave badly are doing it either because of, or claiming they aren't bad because of their beliefs.
So really there is nothing negative that can be said about atheism, and comments about atheists are pretty much ad homs.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)It might work in other groups.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)How typical.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Or formulaic, if you prefer.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Something to consider for all of us.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Asking questions that for some reason never get answered.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)answer, those questions might be dismissed as non-productive and provocative.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Says way more about what I'm asking about than the questions.
For example, I asked you if you supported the courts ruling on the religious right to discriminate, if there is only a negative answer to that, then is it my question that's the issue?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)but my opinion is not the deciding one here.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Thanks for answering a question straightforwardly.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)"racist professor resigns over University'science' diversity program" is much different from "Christian University has diversity issues"
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Please do not trip over the very low bar I have set. All that is needed is one single critical post.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Another formulaic, anti-religion article, full of nasty name calling. Please try again.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I just gave you a link to a post (and thread) that's CRITICAL of an atheist, IN the atheist group.
Your challenge has been met. Enjoy the crow.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)balanced(?) against the constant stream of attacks on religion and believers?
Perhaps Bill Mahar should be the subject of a post? I believe he is a non-theist.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Moving the goalposts when you lose. Again. You asked for ONE POST. I gave you a whole thread.
I'll gladly let anyone else still reading this thread judge for themselves.
That crow will be waiting for you.
And many of the posts critical of religion are posted by self-described people of faith. As opposed to the 1 single post by a non-theist that criticizes another non-theist because of political differences, but in that mild, singular instance of criticism, the non-theist manages to include gratuitous insults against people of faith.
Balance? Equivalence?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You asked for one.
I gave you one.
But now you're moving the goalposts, as you always do.
And once again, I'll remind you: no one has to satisfy your arbitrary needs for "balance" or "equivalence" on an anonymous message board on the Internet. Quite honestly, you are humiliating yourself with this behavior. I, of course, am all too happy to assist you in that effort. It's truly a delight.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Light tut-tuttings don't stand to blanket statements about atheists.
Btw, most criticism about theists is actually about the religion, not the person while most criticism about atheism is directed at Atheists. Why is that do you think?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)are actually directed at faith?
Again, an interesting attempt at framing but the posts here can be read by all.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Let's look at them and see if this claim holds up like your others.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Please can you provide an example?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)The "intolerant Boston atheists" tossed out a Trump supporter.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218242092
That is all.
Mariana
(14,860 posts)That of the disgruntled Trump supporter. As we all know, Trump supporters are paragons of honesty and trustworthiness. If the Trump supporter SAYS he was tossed for being a Trump supporter, and that there was no other reason, there's just no need to investigate any further, is there?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)What I find most hilarious is, THAT is the most horrific supposed example of atheists being intolerant that he could find.
Kicking a Trump supporter out of an atheist group.
Really.
THAT is supposed to prove that "everybody is intolerant and religion has nothing to do with it" when we point out the role religion plays in intolerance against the LGBT community, or women, or other races, etc.
WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THAT POOR TRUMP SUPPORTER!!!
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I cannot speak to posts prior to becoming active here. But based solely on my experience as an active member, I cannot recall any such posts either.
But I am willing to be enlightened.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)For the umpteenth time, please let me remind you what forum we're in.
The RELIGION forum.
Atheism and humanism certainly come up as related topics from time to time, however they are not the primary focus of this forum.
I understand that it really, really bothers you when negative aspects of religion and religious people are discussed here. But you're just gonna have to deal with it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I have seen what I expected to see as responses to my question. And in response to another's question, I posted 2 of my own posts outlining negative behavior by theists. Better to follow Jesus' admonition to "remove the beam from your own eye......" but far too many apparently only see negative behavior by theists.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But I will wait patiently for the posts about negative behavior by non-theists.
Cartoonist
(7,321 posts)Even harder to find a connection between their bad behavior and their atheism.
We all have our faults. Mine have nothing to do with my atheism. In fact, some of them can probably be traced back to my strict Catholic upbringing.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)What do you feel about the concept of personal responsibility?
Cartoonist
(7,321 posts)Tell me, is your religious belief the same as your parents? Then you may be a victim of brainwashing as well.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Are all members of the armed forces brainwashed into believing what they are told about US history?
If children are born into an atheistic household, and if these children are also atheists, were they brainwashed?
Cartoonist
(7,321 posts)Only if their parents told them that atheism is the only true way. I doubt it though. I would think that atheist parents would expose their children to many philosophies instead of only letting them attend one church.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)but that might not be the case at all.
EvilAL
(1,437 posts)I allowed my children to decide what they wanted to do.
I didn't tell tthem religion was stupid or that religious people were stupid or anything bad about religions at all.
Just that in didn't believe in any of it.
If they asked why I told them I'd explain it when they were old enough to understand.
They played on Sunday, relaxed and had fun while their friends were in church, never thinking about religion or worrying about burning in hell like their friends were told would happen. I explained it all to them when they were old enough to understand.
They are atheists. They have no belief in a deity. They do not have a belief that there is no deity, like so any claim atheism is, they never knew god or jesus growing up other than what others told them and the day my daughter came home from her friends house and was laughing, at age 9, that her friends parents thought 2 of every animal could live on a boat for a year and couldn't explain how, it made my day. I knew I did it right, allowed her to figure it out on her own. Like Santa Claus, leprechauns or the tooth fairy.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)If your children live with respect for the choices of others, I would say that they are living a good life.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)"No, we can't. Was someone saying we should?
Kinda like some say we shouldn't talk about the coverup of pedophilia in the Catholic Church?
I don't recall seeing any atheists or humanists saying we can't talk about the bad behavior of other atheists or humanists. "
SO I asked if you had ever written one article pointing out negative behavior by atheists or humanists. And to date you have not given an answer. So, if one can assume that you have never written one post about negative behavior by non-theists, either in this group or in the relatively closed non-theist group, one might wonder why that is so.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Given an answer to what? Have I been critical of other atheists or humanists? Hell fucking yes. ARE YOU HAPPY NOW?
Have I done it in this forum? Pretty sure I have, but I don't have my entire posting history cataloged in my head to provide specific citations for you. So given the "gotcha" logic you have readily employed to date, you can therefore claim it's never happened because I have no proof.
So yay, you win!
But here's the thing: I don't write posts to please you. And given your demonstrated behavior here, I highly doubt I'm going to start doing that anytime soon.
Perhaps if you apologized for your repeated false accusations against me, and your mischaracterization of atheism as a "belief system," you would help convince me of your sincerity.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And apologies apply to both sides.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)It is patently obvious you don't.
I'm going to continue to post items critical of religion in the Religion group, and you're just gonna have to deal with it. Continue to try and shame me, or pretend like I have some kind of double standard, if that's what you feel you need to do. If you continue to make it personal, as others have done in this group, I will eventually put you on ignore, as I have done with a few people. I only removed rug from that list once I learned he got himself flagged for review.
But I have observed what kind of Christian you are, and I am glad you are around to provide a perfect example of why I post what I do.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Why would you assume that?
I also have observed the various types of non-theists who post here. And both types are examples.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I am glad you are around to show people what Christian behavior is all about.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)So that must mean I never thought of that.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)you just might be one of those people.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)It is probably for the best.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)edhopper
(33,606 posts)for Civil Rights and America in general. Both our Democracy and Humanism have evolved over the past 200+ years.
To put this as a sleight against Humanism is absurd.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Considering the constant stream of posts that just happen to focus solely on the faults of believers and various faith organizations, a stream of posts that can make one assume that the "Religion" group is intended solely for negative news, perhaps Rug is attempting to remind non-theists that perfection eludes us all. Even the scientifically literate.
One might wish to consider this point.
Or not.
edhopper
(33,606 posts)we have not seen anti-atheist post here in the past?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)And now that some people got their wish her(not you) I suspect we will see even more anti-religion posts.
edhopper
(33,606 posts)What did I miss?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)I haven't had any granted recently.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)but I cannot speak to prior iterations of DU.
But does that excuse the intolerant behavior?
edhopper
(33,606 posts)criticizing religion in this forum is intolerant.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And it is. But criticism of any bad behavior is of course needed.
edhopper
(33,606 posts)criticism of illogical and harmful beliefs, not just behavior.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)How about this belief: "I believe that no one should ever harm anyone else."
Thank you for making it so easy to disprove - by making such a ridiculous universal claim, I only need one counterexample to prove you wrong.
Now can we talk about the elements of religion that truly do enable people to harm each other, and not just "excuse" it?
Like, oh I dunno, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)you're going to see primarily religion-inspired and religion-based intolerance expressed.
You have two choices: Deal with it, or don't.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I am looking for similar posts but so far I can find none. It could be proof of my inferior search skills, or............
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Who made you the topic police of DU? People are allowed to talk about anything they want to. And you can't stop it.
Here's another DU lesson for you. The Religion forum is open to all viewpoints. Groups like the Atheists group are focused on a non-believer POV. There exist a shit-ton of religious groups that don't allow negative posts about religion - your dream groups! Of course, they are as dead as can be. Maybe you can go liven them up?
But if you post in this forum, you're gonna have to deal with negative news about religion. You can get over that, or don't. The more you protest though, the sillier you look. That's fine by me, of course.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Guess what I found?
Well isn't that interesting?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Many of them are by self-described theists.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)The article about Franklin Graham that left me actually admiring the man, until I remembered who it was actually about? Many like that?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Or the "devotionals" that were lifted from a religious hate site, preaching bigotry against the LGBT community. Thankfully he finally deleted those and stopped posting new ones.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)We get accused of making excuses for religion sometimes, but the reality is for me I as a gay man have experienced bigotry based on religious views and I have no problem telling them off.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)articles that criticize religion and believers. If only this willingness were reciprocated.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Miss him.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)With your title.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I saw the joy in the other room over it. I expected no different.
But you did not see me jumping for joy when several of your friends were no longer able to post here.
I even made a case for one of them to return because despite our differences on religion l like him.
You got what you want and now want to rub it into my face. I expected no different.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)But the poster in question was actively hostile to me and several others. I can't control what other people do and post.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)You know rug is my friend.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)I'm just balancing out the coverage.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Do me a favor please and let us not go on about this anymore. Rug is a friend.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)And we both risk following his footsteps. So walking away.
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)his behavior isn't atrocious towards atheists. He has a deep and unbending hatred of atheists and agnostics and spends thousands of posts being unpleasantly denigrating towards non-believers.
There are lots of believers that are here interacting with atheists, debating/discussing, even getting into heated arguments where feelings are hurt, but we all move on to the next topic or argument. But none of those believers sunk to the level of sheer, seething hatred that your friend did. He did not comport himself well.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)And you and your friends can celebrate his absence all you want but leave me out of it. I didn't gloat when your friends were flagged. Several of them who made clear they personally disliked me, but I didn't gloat.
I understand you didn't get along and have your complaints but please don't include me in it.
Your friend has a thread in the other room you host celebrating his flag so enjoy.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)What happened?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)He called a long time poster a troll.
Eko
(7,339 posts)Slavery is and was a horrible practice. We should also address the numerous times the Old Testament and New Testament promote and condone slavery.
Freethinker65
(10,036 posts)Like most critical thinking humans, Humanists believe history is something you can learn from.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)Disengenuois exercise. True meaning of Monday morning quarterbacking
LeftishBrit
(41,209 posts)Racism was the accepted norm in most circles until quite recently.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)but it's always good to remember that bigotry is a human flaw first and foremost. Man created religion after all, so it's only natural that both religious and non-religious sources have some things like this in common. Especially in the days where people had even less knowlege of the sciences than they do today.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)The bigotry is not only codified, but placed into the category of "sanctified by god." It becomes protected against the facts, it becomes an article of faith which even moderate believers will staunchly defend as legitimate.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)It adds an extra layer of near impenetrable armour to combating bigotry in general.
Gore1FL
(21,151 posts)Matthew 15:21-28 he compares non-Jews to dogs and only reluctantly helps the woman when she traps him in logic.
Even what is commonly translated as "Love your neighbor as yourself" Matthew 22:36-40 uses the word "reyacha" really translates to "fellow Jew."
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Because I can do that, I mean as long as we're discussing the history of racism and which faiths are more culpable.
Then we can move onto Christian participation in the slave trade.
And then we can discuss Dominionism and how it was used to wipe out Native Americans.
Oh and if you're interested in more recent events we can dicuss white supremacist hate groups and which religious ideology they're affiliated with (hint: it's not Humanism).
Sure, let's compare!