Does Religion Teach Discrimination

[Simon_Peter]

Hello to all readers,



I must thank Oliver for agreeing to debate with me. I understand he is a very respected member of this website. The topic of debate is whether religion teaches discrimination. But already this is obvious. Once both of us have agreed there is discrimination, within the bible. The real question is whether it’s useful, or positively bad. This issue of discrimination in the bible, I believe has fueled many wars of hate. Many crimes against others. You need only stand out side the abortion clinic when Gods Army arrives. Or the pope himself, condemning gay people to hell. Obviously there is discrimination here.

Firstly let me describe discrimination. Direct discrimination occurs when a person is treated less favorably than another, in a comparable situation because of their racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. An example of direct discrimination is a job advert, which says "no disabled people need apply." However, in reality discrimination often takes more subtle forms. That’s why indirect discrimination is also explained. Indirect discrimination occurs when an apparently neutral provision would disadvantage people, on the grounds of race or ethnic origin, or other things. Unless the discrimination can be objectively justified by a legitimate aim. An example of indirect discrimination is requiring all people who apply for a certain job to sit a test in a particular language, even though that language is not necessary for the job. The test might exclude more people who have a different mother tongue.

Also there is positive discrimination, when a company feels he should hire more people of a different color. There is also negative discrimination. However positive or negative discrimination is split into two fractions of indirect or direct. Many people will agree that positive discrimination is good whether it is direct or indirect. I don't believe negative discrimination, is good in either a direct or indirect form. Therefore it is bad, in whatever form it takes. However there are situations where direct negative discrimination is totally justifiable, and needed. However I think that negative indirect discrimination, is better than a direct approach. Its better to be ignorant of negative discrimination, rather than someone just being upfront about it.

I believe the bible teaches discrimination. Because it indicates that the Tribulation is a relatively short period of time where people who follow God will experience worldwide persecution and be purified and strengthened by it. Also some people are treated more worthy than others. Also all 'Christians' alive on the earth are simultaneously transported to meet the Lord. This does not take into account of other religions. If the only basis of this event is based on religious belief then, surely this is the worst kind of discrimination, negative and direct.

However i believe discrimination is needed, and it is essential. Discrimination is a very complicated subject: someone might feel discriminated against, when actually he or she isn't. And vice versa.

I leave the floor open for Oliver. I Would very much like to hear your feedback. Do you agree or disagree with my statements ?

In regards

[otseng]

I'd like to first distinguish between two types of discrimination.

The first is a general judgement between multiple options.

- The power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.

- The cognitive process whereby two or more stimuli are distinguished

- The power or faculty of the mind by which it distinguishes one thing from another; power of viewing differences in objects, and their relations and tendencies; penetrative and discriminate mental vision; acuteness; sagacity; insight; as, the errors of youth often proceed from the want of discernment.

- The act of discriminating, distinguishing, or noting and marking differences.

With this first definition, I would say it is neither good nor bad by itself.

The second is a type of judgement when something has positive or negative treatment based on criteria that is not relevant.

- Treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

- Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice:

- Unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice

This second definition I believe is what people generally have in mind when they think of discrimination. And I believe this type of discrimination is bad.

I'm not so sure that the Bible teaches this second type of discrimination, but I do see religion exhibiting this type of discrimination.

So, I do not believe that the second type of discrimination is useful and it should be avoided.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination

[Simon_Peter]

- Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice:

- Unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice

I think this type of discrimination is needed in certain cases. I also believe the bible teaches this kind of discrimination, as i have mentioned above about the tribulation and rapture. However if i am wrong, then i am welcome to correction. I believe discrimination of this kind, should only be used for the protection of other people or the person themselves.

Example:

I very nearly got sectioned under the mental health act. The day started out like this:

I woke up with severe pain, and took some pain relief. I then check my testicles, and they were shrunken to the size of a pea. Obviously i started to really panic, and the pain was getting worse. So i immediately phoned an ambulance. And said my testicles have shrunk, they really hurt. The woman on the phone, asked are you clammy, i said yes. Look in the mirror and tell me if your face is abnormally pale, i said yes. How is your breathing, not good i said. She said, gather all your medication and use your in haler NOW the ambulance is on the way!

So i really started to panic, and two ambulances arrived for me. I ran downstairs. And they asked me who the patient was. I said me, he said is this a bloody joke. No i replied. Do you know what a paramedic does? i didnt answer.
He then launched a verbal attack, and the other paramedics joined in. And they said you, phoned for an ambulance for testicles. Anyway they brought me to the hospital. In the ambulance, he asked me if i was taking medication (its a routine question). I said olanzapine, omemprezole, and salbutamol. He paused for a minute and looked at me. And started being civil towards me. And said the only reason why i took this approach we simply have too many calls, that are not life and death. I said i thought it was. He explained how you diagnose yourself before you call 999. Can you walk? then you dont need us. Are you bleeding? will it stop,
you will need us. Anyway by this time i was crying my eyes out.

So i was reffered to the mental health action team, its not a request. i know that if i didn't prove i had insight about my illness. And obviously i was experincing extreme emotion. I would get committed. So i was talking with a mental health docter. Saying that i understand it may not be life and death, but i didnt know that at the time. And being treated like that is very horrible. Then we discussed my emotions, my behavior, my reason why i was upset. How life at home is like. And all sorts of questions. However because i have bipolar, i never remain sad for long. And i fast cycled into elation. And the doctor asked me if had stopped medication. i said yes - reason being it has side effects. Anyway at the end of the talk, the doctor appolgised on behalf of the paramedic and said i was very intelligent. the only reason why i am not going to have you committed is because you have been talking through the exact procedure how to analyse your illness.

She then said, do you want a doctor to do a physical? I said no, it is accident and emergency. The doctor said, you need really do need to be checked, and i said i would go to my GP. Anyway the reason why the ambulance driver was like that. Is simply because he turned round from an RTA. Because, of the breathing and asthma..

Well i am actually very positive about this incident. Firstly testicular cancer, is 100% curable so even if i have it, i am very confident i will be ok. Secondly, this verbal attack incident, should have got me committed. Even though i was 100% innocent in the matter, the criterion is for being sectioned is based on a risk assessment, even though i had committed no offense, i was more at risk due to my treatment. Plus i handled the situation well without being medicated. Lastly, this is proof, i have finally learnt, the mental health legal bullshit, and i know exactly what to say which will avoid me being sectioned. They need to know your not at risk and also your not in danger from yourself.

I talked to someone highly trained in psychology, and i had to convince them i was not a risk. It's very difficult. Normally, the doctor speaks with you for five minutes, before he commits you. I was in for an hour. And well the doctor said, your very lucky i didnt turn around and say you need to stay with us. I wasn’t discriminated by the paramedics. They would have took that stance with anyone. However I felt slightly discriminated, for having to be psychiatrically assessed. But the assessment was really good.

Firstly the mental health doctor, didn’t put me on trial. Nor did she read from a set of questions. I had a fluent conversation with her. She didn’t treated me as a criminal. And I didn’t feel a pressure, to say what she wanted to hear. And she said no one knows your mind, better that yourself. Most mental health doctors act like they know better. She had a genuine interest in my mind. However she did ask me a cliché question. Stating she has to ask if i had any special powers. I said, yes. She winked. Then she said, Fully cognitive, and aware of risks. They were discriminating me for my own protection. Not because they had any anger towards me. Simply it was for my own good. And i have to accept this is the kind of power they have over me, as i am diagnosed with bipolar.

This is and does feel like negative direct discrimination. A normal person would have been slapped on the wrists, however i was nearly locked up for 6 weeks. This is why i think the mental health doctor treated me as though i had control over the situation, but really i didn't. I was at the mercy of the doctor. They were treating me as if they were not taking a hard line approach, however it really is hard line. So in one sense i feel victimized in another sense i understand why it need to be like this. As my testis never changed size, i was hallucinating.

What really annoys me, is that i had to learn by myself what to say to the doctors, if i didnt read about mental illness, my freedoms can and have been taken away in an instant. This is very distressing.

My question, if there is a loophole in the mental health act, which obviously there is why do you think no one teaches you about it. And no one teaches you how to protect yourself, or protect your rights. When your committed you do not go to trial, nor do you see a solicitor.

Do you think this type of discrimination is useful ?
Is discrimination in the bible ethical ?

[otseng]

Well, your story is quite interesting, but I fail to see the relevance of it to discrimination, at least to my second definition. I do see discrimination in the sense of the participants using their faculty of judgement (the first definition). But I fail to see how they have treated you unfairly based on totally irrelevant data (the second definition).

- Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice:

- Unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice

I think this type of discrimination is needed in certain cases. I also believe the bible teaches this kind of discrimination, as i have mentioned above about the tribulation and rapture. However if i am wrong, then i am welcome to correction.

Just because someone is judged based on a category doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. In the case of the tribulation/rapture, whole swaths of people will get judged differently based on their belief system, which is entirely relevant. Again, discrimination can only be bad if irrelevant data is used to judge someone.

For example, I do not support affirmative action. Which in reality is just reverse discrimination. Like in the case of hiring people, if the color of someone's skin is irrelevant as a job requirement, then it should not be a factor in hiring someone.

[Simon_Peter]

Let me say that the purpose of this debate is to determine if discrimination is in the bible, what purpose it has, and if it is good.

I wrote out the mental health example, so that we have something to analyze. I do believe discrimination comes in many forms. And everyone on earth is discriminated - as we are all different. The only factor that arises when faced with discrimination, is whether it is ethical discrimination. If this discrimination is moral.

My personal experience, left me feeling discriminated against. What was totally irrelevant was that i was acting normally and i reacted normally in the above situation. Yet because they check my medical history, they immediately tried to section me, for my own protection. Yet if they had never seen my history, they would have discharged me sooner.

Another example of discrimination is when a diabetic pensioner is not allowed to drive a car. However the reason for this is entirely plausible, it is not a hateful thing. The old pensioner may feel slightly annoyed, or she may feel its a major injustice. However the fact of the matter this is the law, it is created for your own good, and the protection of other road users. So yes discrimination exists, and it may feel wrong. But there is a logical reason why most discrimination exists. So relating that back to my story, i felt injustice, but it was correct of the doctors to treat me this way.

Example Two:

It took a long time for black people, to realize they were being discriminated. And it took even longer for white men, to amend the law by banning slave trade. The reason being that was how society developed, - it was not seen as criminal, white man had their own justification.

A man asked a group of black men, do you want to work on my farm?

Black people could not find a job, as no one would hire them. Therefore they would work for cheaper than the rest. It was only a matter of time when the prisons were full, because black people were being victimized. The prisons put them to work, for no money. When these black people got out of prison, they might have been offered a room and some food, instead of money. If they would work. Obviously they would accept and they started being abused.

I think its only appropriate to ask why Jesus has been deified?
Why we humans are classed as sinful, purely because of original sin?

This certainly is discrimination, but does it have any logic behind it? just to let everyone know, i think the bible certainly teaches discrimination for a purpose.

[otseng]

For the purpose of this debate, I will refer to discrimination only to my second definition - "judgement that results in a positive or negative treatment based on criteria that is not relevant".

Let me say that the purpose of this debate is to determine if discrimination is in the bible, what purpose it has, and if it is good.

Where would my definition of discrimination that I gave above be found in the Bible?

I wrote out the mental health example, so that we have something to analyze.

I'm not sure though that it has any bearing on religion or Christianity. Certainly the medical professionals in your example did not seem to have any religious influence for their actions.

I think its only appropriate to ask why Jesus has been deified?

Not sure why that is an appropriate question.

Why we humans are classed as sinful, purely because of original sin?

Well, I don't believe the Bible classifies all humans as sinful. People might be born with the inclination to sin, but people are not classified as a sinner until they have committed a sin.

[Simon_Peter]

For the purpose of this debate, I will refer to discrimination only to my second definition - "judgement that results in a positive or negative treatment based on criteria that is not relevant".

Let me say that the purpose of this debate is to determine if discrimination is in the bible, what purpose it has, and if it is good.

Where would my definition of discrimination that I gave above be found in the Bible?

I think its highly unusual, why you would want to only look for that kind of discrimination in the bible. Do you have a reason why you would want to do this? I have given many things to discuss such as, tribulation, rapture, original sin, the appearance of a god like figure Jesus.

I wrote out the mental health example, so that we have something to analyze.
I'm not sure though that it has any bearing on religion or Christianity. Certainly the medical professionals in your example did not seem to have any religious influence for their actions.

I am not saying that this particular example of mentally ill people being discriminated, was in regards to relgious discrimination. However it does have a connection with it. That being, most people who follow the bible like an extremist, can be called delusional, and can be held in a mental health ward. However, i did not purposely try to make that connection. It was an example of discrimination...

I think its only appropriate to ask why Jesus has been deified?
Not sure why that is an appropriate question.

It is Appropriate, because, with Jesus being deified, it creates a layer of authority, or a class system. And with any class system there is discrimination.

[Simon_Peter]

Also, you say that the tribulation and rapture, are not discriminatory due to the fact people are being discriminated on something relevant. Correct me if i am wrong.

But, this is discrimination. Even if your a good person, yet actively hate Christianity you will not be saved during the rapture. Is this moral? If not then this is the worst kind of discrimination

[otseng]

For the purpose of this debate, I will refer to discrimination only to my second definition - "judgement that results in a positive or negative treatment based on criteria that is not relevant".

Let me say that the purpose of this debate is to determine if discrimination is in the bible, what purpose it has, and if it is good.

Where would my definition of discrimination that I gave above be found in the Bible?

I think its highly unusual, why you would want to only look for that kind of discrimination in the bible. Do you have a reason why you would want to do this? I have given many things to discuss such as, tribulation, rapture, original sin, the appearance of a god like figure Jesus.

Because it is only my second definition that would be considered bad. My first definition would not be considered good nor bad. My first definition would be found everywhere where any type of decision is made. So of course the first definition would be found in the Bible.

What would determine if discrimination would be considered bad? Simply judging someone would not be considered bad by itself. There would have to be an additional element to determine if it is bad.

I am not saying that this particular example of mentally ill people being discriminated, was in regards to relgious discrimination. However it does have a connection with it. That being, most people who follow the bible like an extremist, can be called delusional, and can be held in a mental health ward. However, i did not purposely try to make that connection. It was an example of discrimination...

I do not subscribe to the belief that most religious people are delusional.

I think its only appropriate to ask why Jesus has been deified?
Not sure why that is an appropriate question.

It is Appropriate, because, with Jesus being deified, it creates a layer of authority, or a class system. And with any class system there is discrimination.

But would my second definition apply?

Also, you say that the tribulation and rapture, are not discriminatory due to the fact people are being discriminated on something relevant. Correct me if i am wrong.

Correct. It is not discriminating in the second sense. But it is in the first sense.

The key point is the relevance of how people are judged. If people are judged by a criteria that is irrelevant, then it would be wrong. But, if judged by criteria that is relevant, then it would not be considered wrong.

Even if your a good person, yet actively hate Christianity you will not be saved during the rapture. Is this moral? If not then this is the worst kind of discrimination

No matter how good a person claims he is, even if he has one single sin, it would be counted against him. Only when someone has not ever committed a single sin would he be guiltless. So, there is nothing wrong about this scenario.

[Simon_Peter]

What you say is interesting, and i agree with everything. However just because someone is discriminated on something relevant, does not mean its moral. So the tribulation and rapture, and man without sin examples. Are discriminatory but is that discrimination moral. How does one judge the ethics of such things?

If you can provide an example of how it is moral. Then i will concede.