Who's more racist... the religious or the non-religious?

[MSizer]

I think the question begs that we have to stay reminded that corelation does not mean causation.

 

[Smoke]

Seriously, I find it interesting that you could find a question like this offensive... especially when it is worded relatively "nuetrally". Or is it the answer(s) and/or other people's opinion you are offended by?

"Religious" and "non-religious" are both very broad categories, and are also left undefined. If I believe in god and belong to the Baptist church, but I haven't actually been to church for twenty years, am I religious or non-religious?

I just don't think it's a fair question. I could name plenty of Christian clergy who took a stand in favor of segregation, for instance, and justified their position from the Bible. I could name plenty of other Christian clergy who took the opposite stand.

Religion tends to be conservative, and in the United States conservatism tends to be racist. But the United States is a weird country, and even in the U.S. there are far too many exceptions to tag the religious with either the racist or the non-racist label.

 

[sonofskeptish]

"Religious" and "non-religious" are both very broad categories, and are also left undefined. If I believe in god and belong to the Baptist church, but I haven't actually been to church for twenty years, am I religious or non-religious?

I just don't think it's a fair question. I could name plenty of Christian clergy who took a stand in favor of segregation, for instance, and justified their position from the Bible. I could name plenty of other Christian clergy who took the opposite stand.

Religion tends to be conservative, and in the United States conservatism tends to be racist. But the United States is a weird country, and even in the U.S. there are far too many exceptions to tag the religious with either the racist or the non-racist label.

Fair point. This is one of the first threads I started, and I'm learning how important it is to be very specific and avoid generalizations. I'm evolving as an RF member (or in some peoples view devolving)

 

[sonofskeptish]

Here's an interesting and related article...

Racism and religion: partners in crime?

 

[footprints]

A recent thread entitled "Are Athiests Racist?" got me thinking...

1. If you divided people into 2 groups, the religious and the non-religious, which group would have more racists in it?

And question 2...

2. If being a particular race caused a group to be more likely to be religious or non-religious, which of these groups would be more racist against the other?

Whatever your thoughts, I'd like to hear why you think this to be the case.

(for the record... I do NOT think race (color) is a factor in determining if you are more likely to be religious or non-religious... 2. is a hypothetical question).

1: Simply based on numbers, the religious group would. There are more religious people in the world, so therefore this should be understood.

2: Too far fetched and illogical, even for a hypothetical.

 

[dust1n]

A recent thread entitled "Are Athiests Racist?" got me thinking...

1. If you divided people into 2 groups, the religious and the non-religious, which group would have more racists in it?

And question 2...

2. If being a particular race caused a group to be more likely to be religious or non-religious, which of these groups would be more racist against the other?

Whatever your thoughts, I'd like to hear why you think this to be the case.

(for the record... I do NOT think race (color) is a factor in determining if you are more likely to be religious or non-religious... 2. is a hypothetical question).

Yet to find a case where an atheist engulfed any religious person in flames solely for religious reasons.

 

[footprints]

Yet to find a case where an atheist engulfed any religious person in flames solely for religious reasons.

Is very easy isn't it. We need look no further than Pol Pot to see this happening.

 

[dust1n]

Is very easy isn't it. We need look no further than Pol Pot to see this happening.

It's called politics. It would be entirely misinformed to say that a secular Communist killed **** loads of people solely for religious reasons.

 

[footprints]

It's called politics. It would be entirely misinformed to say that a secular Communist killed **** loads of people solely for religious reasons.

As is everything, crusades et al. However many people live with double standards.

Pol Pot hated religions with a passion. This was his religious belief.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Pol Pot hated religions with a passion. This was his religious belief.

No, that was his philosophical belief, and a means of control.

Democratic Kampuchea, Constitution, chapter 15, article 20
“reactionary religions which are detrimental to Democratic Kampuchean people are absolutely forbidden”.

In the Pol Pot regime, religion was thought to lead to conflicts between sects, and the state and the people. So Pol Pots Khmer Rouge decided to abolish all religious worship.

Just as he used used ethnic cleansing and abolishing all other political parties to tighten his grip and further his own philosophical beliefs.

 

[footprints]

No, that was his philosophical belief, and a means of control.

Democratic Kampuchea, Constitution, chapter 15, article 20
“reactionary religions which are detrimental to Democratic Kampuchean people are absolutely forbidden”.

In the Pol Pot regime, religion was thought to lead to conflicts between sects, and the state and the people. So Pol Pots Khmer Rouge decided to abolish all religious worship.

Just as he used used ethnic cleansing and abolishing all other political parties to tighten his grip and further his own philosophical beliefs.

Yeah, Islamic religious extremist use the same sort of excuses.

Perhaps you and the Islamic Extremist are right.

Therefore I concede.

 

[dust1n]

Yeah, Islamic religious extremist use the same sort of excuses.

Perhaps you and the Islamic Extremist are right.

Therefore I concede.

I don't think he was agreeing with Pol Pot, he was showing how his particular genocides were not 'religiously motivated', they were politically motivated.

As far as the Crusades go, there was much less politics involved. It was a religious war.

 

[footprints]

I don't think he was agreeing with Pol Pot, he was showing how his particular genocides were not 'religiously motivated', they were politically motivated.

As far as the Crusades go, there was much less politics involved. It was a religious war.

Yeah, every side has their apologetics.

When it is an atheist it is because of other causes. When people of a religious faith are involved, it has to be religious.

No I get the point which was being made.

By the way, the first crusade was due to the Islamics invading Europe. The second crusade was due to the Islamics taking back some of the conquered land and defeating the crusaderers. The third crusade was a second attempt to regain the aforesaid conquered land, in which they succeeded.

 

[sonofskeptish]

[youtube]bhY3EU32rWc[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhY3EU32rWc

 

[KalithAlur]

I consider racism generally fear oriented, a reaction of hostility toward unfamiliar territory. I suspect mass market organized global slavery amplified racism by providing slave owners a seudo-rational reason to experience hatred toward their "property": to justify its mistreatment without experiencing profound guilt.

Religion can amplify hatred and prejudice through superstition, but I consider the root of spirituality to be love, the emotion most likely to negate prejudice.

 

[Autodidact]

Haven't read the whole thread, so apologize if anyone besides me googled the research. It seems to indicate a link between religiosity and racism:

A meta-analysis of 55 independent studies carried out in the United States with more than 20,000 mostly Christian participants has found that members of religious congregations tend to harbor prejudiced views of other races.
In general, the more devout the community, the greater the racism, according to the authors of the analysis, led by Wendy Wood, Provost Professor of Psychology and Business at USC College and the USC Marshall School of Business. The study appears in the February issue of Personality and Social Psychology Review.

 

[Dezzie]

1. If you divided people into 2 groups, the religious and the non-religious, which group would have more racists in it?

I think it would be even on both sides. I don't think having a religion determines whether or not someone is racist. Even hypothetically...

2. If being a particular race caused a group to be more likely to be religious or non-religious, which of these groups would be more racist against the other?

Again... I think it would be the same. I think the way a person is brought up determines if you are racist or not racist against another.

 

[Autodidact]

I think it would be even on both sides. I don't think having a religion determines whether or not someone is racist. Even hypothetically...

Well, apparently it does have some effect, actually.

Again... I think it would be the same. I think the way a person is brought up determines if you are racist or not racist against another.

The evidence appears otherwise. If the way you are brought up includes a strong religious belief, you are more likely to be more racist. At least, that's what the research shows.

 

[Dezzie]

The evidence appears otherwise. If the way you are brought up includes a strong religious belief, you are more likely to be more racist. At least, that's what the research shows.

I see what you mean but there are a lot of people who are very religious that do not care about race at all. I'm just trying to see both sides before I assume anything. There are religious people who care about race and there are those that do not. I mean... how would I know really? I have never done a survey for every single person in the world. I don't think that research is 100% accurate either since not everyone in the world has done this "survey". If there was a survey that every single person did, I would feel a lot better about the results.

 

[Autodidact]

I see what you mean but there are a lot of people who are very religious that do not care about race at all. I'm just trying to see both sides before I assume anything. There are religious people who care about race and there are those that do not. I mean... how would I know really? I have never done a survey for every single person in the world. I don't think that research is 100% accurate either since not everyone in the world has done this "survey". If there was a survey that every single person did, I would feel a lot better about the results.

Good methodology accounts for that. This is a meta-research article that collects the data from 55 different studies. That's a LOT of people. It doesn't mean that every religious person is racist, or every atheist non-racist. It means that the more religious you are, the more likely you are to be racist.

Why do you think that is?