Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Racism and Religion

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 3 2003 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I think an important point here is that we as a culture are very violent, when the idea the keep the masses in ignorance was prevalent (no reading) the outlet for the violence was other cultures (ie..racism).

When the media began presenting more than just literature and periodicals the issue of Bigotry and using other cultures as an excuse for "animal desires" was made apparent.

My impression is that Racism is the real threat and that religion has acted as a vehicle to make this threat very real.

This is not to say that religions was the protagonist, to be certain the protagonist was a desire for power and control. Which for the record, is related to desire and the acts of individuals who did not understand developing there spirituality is the only outlet for desire that really counts.

No one wanted spirituality to make its way into the masses they preferred racism....

See links

www.no-racism.net...

www.uua.org...

www.12-12-12.org...

www.egospel.org...

Any thoughts?




posted on Jul, 3 2003 @ 07:30 PM
link   
1. People with a predisposition to do so will respond to skin color first, before they know anything about the thinking, background or quality of the person.

2. People might have some impression about the other's religious belief from their skin color, but that defintely requires a modicum more learning. And they are as likely to be as wrong as right, except in isolated parts of the world.

3. People who are racist are racist first, before any other bias.

4. In my opinion, more widespread (in terms of numbers involved) study of comparative religion is relatively recent.

I dislike racists who cannot be helped.



posted on Jul, 3 2003 @ 08:57 PM
link   
re'li'gion: (not complete definition): any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, moral values, etc., resembling, suggestive of, or liked to such a system.

rac'ism: ra'cial'ism: (not complet definition): a belief system or doctrine or teaching; to find difference in character, intelligence, race, etc.



In respect to the History of Man, unwritten and written, racism and or forms of racism, has existed. Its a dark blemish, among many dark blemishes, that Man will surely endeavor to hide if not erase. The true roots of racism are somewhat mysterious if not questionable. But a search for finding the roots of racism is irrelevent, in my opinion. It's relevancy is that it is still present today and still occurs.

Racism's causes and effects are self-evident. There are countless voices who claim that religion has slaughtered, butchered, imprisoned, suppressed, destroyed, and killed in the name of religion. Do we choose to see what we really only wish to see? Has not racism "slaughtered, butchered, imprisoned, suppressed, destroyed, and killed in it's unrightous name? One begs to wonder if racism and religion are not hand in hand or sister and brother in respect to love and hate. They both adhere to a system of beliefs. They both adhere to doctrines, teachings, and include set codes of moral and ethics. They pretty much adhere to a creedo. Does not religion encompass the same as racism? Does not religion have division and diversity? In some people's eye's, does not religion also entell hatred and separation? Does one separate itself from the other by mere word usages of "love" and "hate"? Many will question, finger point and profess other wise but in short, do they not both encompass and express almost the same? How can that be? Religion is of G-d and racism is not. Well, I beg to differ. There are many who profess to be "of G-d" but yet practice the 'creedo' of racism. Where is the logic of that? Personally, I think it is ultimately a matter of interpretation, but then again, is not the Bible "a matter of interpretation?"

Whether the cause for racism is division or diversity, misinterpretation or misunderstanding, it is education and tolerance that can deter it. I don't think racism can fully be defeated. Yes, education and tolerance can help us to learn and understand ethnic differences, beliefs, teachings, etc. But what needs to be overcome is the very nature of Man. And its this nature of Man that no education,tolerance or understanding can touch. Many turn to G-d for this; many turn to themselves for this; many resort to sciences; to philosophies, etc. But it all ultimately boils down to this: "Love thy brother and do unto him as you would wish your brother to love you and thus do unto you."

"Seek to be what you are not; there you will find the true meaning of self and Love."


regards
seekerof



posted on Jul, 3 2003 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
re'li'gion: (not complete definition): any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, moral values, etc., resembling, suggestive of, or liked to such a system.

rac'ism: ra'cial'ism: (not complet definition): a belief system or doctrine or teaching; to find difference in character, intelligence, race, etc.



In respect to the History of Man, unwritten and written, racism and or forms of racism, has existed. Its a dark blemish, among many dark blemishes, that Man will surely endeavor to hide if not erase. The true roots of racism are somewhat mysterious if not questionable. But a search for finding the roots of racism is irrelevent, in my opinion. It's relevancy is that it is still present today and still occurs.

Racism's causes and effects are self-evident. There are countless voices who claim that religion has slaughtered, butchered, imprisoned, suppressed, destroyed, and killed in the name of religion. Do we choose to see what we really only wish to see? Has not racism "slaughtered, butchered, imprisoned, suppressed, destroyed, and killed in it's unrightous name? One begs to wonder if racism and religion are not hand in hand or sister and brother in respect to love and hate. They both adhere to a system of beliefs. They both adhere to doctrines, teachings, and include set codes of moral and ethics. They pretty much adhere to a creedo. Does not religion encompass the same as racism? Does not religion have division and diversity? In some people's eye's, does not religion also entell hatred and separation? Does one separate itself from the other by mere word usages of "love" and "hate"? Many will question, finger point and profess other wise but in short, do they not both encompass and express almost the same? How can that be? Religion is of G-d and racism is not. Well, I beg to differ. There are many who profess to be "of G-d" but yet practice the 'creedo' of racism. Where is the logic of that? Personally, I think it is ultimately a matter of interpretation, but then again, is not the Bible "a matter of interpretation?"

Whether the cause for racism is division or diversity, misinterpretation or misunderstanding, it is education and tolerance that can deter it. I don't think racism can fully be defeated. Yes, education and tolerance can help us to learn and understand ethnic differences, beliefs, teachings, etc. But what needs to be overcome is the very nature of Man. And its this nature of Man that no education,tolerance or understanding can touch. Many turn to G-d for this; many turn to themselves for this; many resort to sciences; to philosophies, etc. But it all ultimately boils down to this: "Love thy brother and do unto him as you would wish your brother to love you and thus do unto you."

"Seek to be what you are not; there you will find the true meaning of self and Love."


regards
seekerof









Another who scapegoats religion(sub) for racism.

How about SIN??

The fault of mankind? Maybe?

By religion* you mean??

[Edited on 4-7-2003 by Tyriffic]



posted on Jul, 3 2003 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Tyriffic, thank you for the comment,was expected.

First off, I don't see this as you see it. (interpretation)

Second, I'm far from being "another who scapegoats religion for racism". I condemn racism but I also condemn religion. The purposes of religion are no where, no how, close to even resembling what the founding originaters of religion had envisioned 'true' religion to be.

"SIN"?

What about it? Sin is something that is all-encompassing, regardless of religion, being religious or being a fascist racist. Just as G-d is all-encompassing.
Explain your position.

"The fault of mankind? Maybe?"

Did I not cover "Mankind" in my posting?

regards
seekerof



posted on Jul, 3 2003 @ 09:56 PM
link   
By in large, well by in WAY large, I concur with your ideas.

But there are a few "twists" of phrases I would "straighten" if it were I speaking.

First, you were right to include the exact definitions:

HOWEVER, reread them: religion is an INCLUSIONARY definition, while racism is an EXLUSIONARY definition.

You state:

"There are countless voices who claim that religion has slaughtered, butchered, imprisoned, suppressed, destroyed, and killed in the name of religion. Do we choose to see what we really only wish to see? Has not racism "slaughtered, butchered, imprisoned, suppressed, destroyed, and killed in it's unrightous name? One begs to wonder if racism and religion are not hand in hand or sister and brother in respect to love and hate."

Yes, racism has done all the stated and as a method for the promoting the idealism of racism.

Yes, religion has done all the stated but not as a method for the promoting the idelaism of the given religion, but as an abhorrent localized using of a Godly doctrine for un-Godly reasons.

Racists are almost all-inclusively committed to preserving a chosen race over any given "unchosen" race. In order to do this, it is NECESSARILY required that some form of mistreatment be applied. Negation/refusal of human right, dimunition of relevance, genocide at the worst extreme.

Religion, (and I feel very comfortable in stating for 90+% of the world's religious believers) has the intent of either merely fostering among it current believers, or promoting among nonbelievers it's basic tenents. ALL religions seek to be inclusionary. That certain localized power-hungry sectors of certain "religions" misused the doctrine of their chosen religion for their own gain cannot credibly be applied as a blanket statement to at the minimum their specific religion, or most definitely to religion in general.



posted on Jul, 3 2003 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
By in large, well by in WAY large, I concur with your ideas.

But there are a few "twists" of phrases I would "straighten" if it were I speaking.

First, you were right to include the exact definitions:

HOWEVER, reread them: religion is an INCLUSIONARY definition, while racism is an EXLUSIONARY definition.

You state:

"There are countless voices who claim that religion has slaughtered, butchered, imprisoned, suppressed, destroyed, and killed in the name of religion. Do we choose to see what we really only wish to see? Has not racism "slaughtered, butchered, imprisoned, suppressed, destroyed, and killed in it's unrightous name? One begs to wonder if racism and religion are not hand in hand or sister and brother in respect to love and hate."

Yes, racism has done all the stated and as a method for the promoting the idealism of racism.

Yes, religion has done all the stated but not as a method for the promoting the idelaism of the given religion, but as an abhorrent localized using of a Godly doctrine for un-Godly reasons.

Racists are almost all-inclusively committed to preserving a chosen race over any given "unchosen" race. In order to do this, it is NECESSARILY required that some form of mistreatment be applied. Negation/refusal of human right, dimunition of relevance, genocide at the worst extreme.

Religion, (and I feel very comfortable in stating for 90+% of the world's religious believers) has the intent of either merely fostering among it current believers, or promoting among nonbelievers it's basic tenents. ALL religions seek to be inclusionary. That certain localized power-hungry sectors of certain "religions" misused the doctrine of their chosen religion for their own gain cannot credibly be applied as a blanket statement to at the minimum their specific religion, or most definitely to religion in general.




Yes Valhall, I failed to mention that one was inclusionary and the other was exclusionary. TO be honest, I did not take those into account upon writing my response to Toltec. Thank you for the correction.


In truth, all this was merely my opinion of how I see things in respect to purpose of. Sometimes my 'vision' tends to become 'clouded' at times but I always endeavor to give a perspective that helps one to see things from another's eye's.

Thank you for the corrections and response. As always, I enjoy your interpretations and appreciate them.


regards
seekerof



posted on Jul, 3 2003 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Proper understanding and adherence to one's religion make racism obsolete.

It is strictly a human failing.



posted on Jul, 3 2003 @ 10:46 PM
link   
and to those who follow no religion - one's own spirituality should take the place of religion.

One who considers his/her self to be 'spirituality mature' or 'enlightened' is either not racist or not enlightened.



posted on Jul, 3 2003 @ 11:25 PM
link   
I'm not sure I have a "religion" either...

I just know that I feel in most respects it would be best to replace "religion" with "spiriutality".

Regards.



posted on Jul, 3 2003 @ 11:28 PM
link   
With respect to Choice I am reminded of a statement made by a member (Truth) , which made clear that accepting Jesus was less important than maintaining
a moral standard.

As a result despite the intent and desire of those who felt the Christian way was the only way, it seems apparent they were wrong (with respect to the system of belief).

The real truth behind Christianity is that mankind as a whole is one, anything else is fraud.



posted on Jul, 3 2003 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
I'm not sure I have a "religion" either...

I just know that I feel in most respects it would be best to replace "religion" with "spiriutality".

Regards.


Be very careful my friend.



posted on Jul, 3 2003 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Don't worry.

I know exactly where I stand.

I just don't agree with the "labels" sometimes.




posted on Jul, 3 2003 @ 11:46 PM
link   
another link....

www.apa.org...

What is relevant is balance and labels have nothing to do with that.



[Edited on 4-7-2003 by Toltec]



posted on Jul, 3 2003 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Tyriffic, thank you for the comment,was expected.

First off, I don't see this as you see it. (interpretation)

Second, I'm far from being "another who scapegoats religion for racism". I condemn racism but I also condemn religion. The purposes of religion are no where, no how, close to even resembling what the founding originaters of religion had envisioned 'true' religion to be.

"SIN"?

What about it? Sin is something that is all-encompassing, regardless of religion, being religious or being a fascist racist. Just as G-d is all-encompassing.
Explain your position.

"The fault of mankind? Maybe?"

Did I not cover "Mankind" in my posting?

regards
seekerof


Hmm, I have not paid attention.

I do not believe in "religion". I see this as a construct used by Man to run away from
God. ...

I believe in spirit-filled belief. Jesus.
I do not equate denominations to political parties.
.....facist??? Whoa Nellie!

Man is at fault because of sin. The garden was the begining............



posted on Jul, 3 2003 @ 11:54 PM
link   
From the perspective of several systems of belief the garden was not an origin or a beginning, but rather a direction from which a path can be discerned.

Potentially there are an infinite number of paths all leading in one direction beyond that I would suggest
my sig.



posted on Jul, 4 2003 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Toltec
From the perspective of several systems of belief the garden was not an origin or a beginning, but rather a direction from which a path can be discerned.

Potentially there are an infinite number of paths all leading in one direction beyond that I would suggest
my sig.



Realitivity = many roads. I understand you.

My point is that there may only be the possibility of one road.

What to do then?



posted on Jul, 4 2003 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tyriffic
Realitivity = many roads. I understand you.
My point is that there may only be the possibility of one road.
What to do then?


With respect to realitivity, I would suggest that there is only one road - but everyone sees it differently.
If one is human, one can't help but be on the right path.

Making progress, however, is a another story altogether.



posted on Jul, 4 2003 @ 12:34 AM
link   
I found this somewhere, and I can't remember where but I wrote it down because to me it spoke volumes, literally, about one's self in relation to G-d,etc.

"What would each of us think if upon truly understanding G-d and His Love, that His greatest moment is the moment we realize we need no G-d?
I know, I know....this is the antithesis of everything we have been taught. Yet our teachers have told us of an angry G-d, a jealous G-d, a G-d who needs to be needed. And that is not a G-d at all, but a neurotic substitute for that which would be a deity. G-d is far more than a deity.

A true Master is not the one with the most students, but the one who creates the most Masters.

A true leader is not the one with the most followers, but the one who creates the most leaders.

A true king is not the one with the most subjects, but the one who leads the most to royalty.

A true teacher is not the one with the most knowledge, but one who causes the most others to have knowledge.

And a true G-d is not One with the most servants, but One who serves the most, thereby making G-ds of all others.
For this is both the goal and the glory of G-d: that His subjects shall be no more, and that all shall know G-d not as the unattainable, but as the unavoidable."


regards
seekerof


[Edited on 4-7-2003 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 4 2003 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Very well said... if you can find the author, please let me know??





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join