Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"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?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.
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).
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.
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.
No, that was his philosophical belief, and a means of control.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.
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.
1. If you divided people into 2 groups, the religious and the non-religious, which group would have more racists in it?
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?
Well, apparently it does have some effect, actually.
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...
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.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.
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.