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]

This is probably not the best example, but it's something that I was thinking about today.

Members of the KKK claim that they are Christian. They have a hatred for all blacks and claim that blacks will not get into heaven. Why? Simply because of their race. However, race is not a relevant criteria to entrance to heaven. They have judged them based on something that is irrelevant.

However just because someone is discriminated on something relevant, does not mean its moral.

Perhaps. Though I can't think of an example where something is judged on relevant data and it would be considered improper.

So the tribulation and rapture, and man without sin examples. Are discriminatory but is that discrimination moral.

Based on the concept that God is holy and that no one with any sin can fellowship with God, I would say that these examples of discrimination are moral.

How does one judge the ethics of such things?

That's a good question. How exactly do you determine what is right and wrong, good and bad? That's a whole debate in itself!

[Simon_Peter]

Hey Otseng,

The bible states, that some people are worthy, and others are not. This discrimination may or may not be moral. However it is based upon divine law, as such it is a dictum of who may enter heaven. However just like a normal legal system, people can take law into their own hands. And begin discriminating against others, who are supposedly damned. I think the bible itself, is moral. However such justice or judgment should only be in the hands of the savior. This is the fine line between ethical discrimination and immoral action. The pope himself, states many things that are very controversial. And other relgious leaders enforce rule upon mankind. Just like any government or authority.

Its the ego of the people trying to save a lesser individual. The bible itself may be infallible, but the interpretation has lead to many misunderstandings. So the bible itself may not have negative discrimination but many people who follow it have. Such a lesson, as this worthy vs unworthy. Has clouded many minds, not focusing on their love for mankind. The people such as the KKK, or Gods Army. Are perfectionists, and as such, there dream of a perfect society can never be achieved. There will always be room for improvement. So in one sense these people are trying to do whats best, and improve humanity. However their vision of the future is certainly perverted.

Just as Jesus said, the man who has committed no sin, may he throw the first stone. So this leads to the question of, why does the pope teach us how unworthy we are, or how sinful we have become, always judging someone who is lesser than thine own ego? is this not throwing stones, or rather throwing judgment.

Seemingly religious leaders has been stating that gay sex is a sin just like abortion, or prostitution. Seems very closed minded. Also there is a do nothing about it 'attitude'. Rather let God reep his vengeance, almost cursing the infidels to hell. Jesus spent most of his time with exactly these kind of people. He didn't profess how wrong they are, he simply loved them. And eventually his words made them realize something. Many people just actively state how wrong something is, without lifting a finger to help. Or trying to understand the sinners mind. My personal belief is Gods word can be found in every aspect of nature. Rather than just from one book. The writers of the bible had to come to their own conclusions. Are they more worthy than us, that we ourselves cannot derive divine reasoning from other sources. The apostles have been defied, and their word is not questioned, due to the layer of authority.

Such people who dish out such judgement, like televangelists. Make millions of pounds. Religion has become a very profitable business. This in itself is not bad, however, it is still a business. Where the people at the top are more privileged. Than the working class. They are so judgmental. But can they really comprehend the difficulties of the working class?

Regards
Simon

[otseng]

So the bible itself may not have negative discrimination but many people who follow it have.

I would agree that many Christians exhibit negative discrimination.

Just as Jesus said, the man who has committed no sin, may he throw the first stone. So this leads to the question of, why does the pope teach us how unworthy we are, or how sinful we have become, always judging someone who is lesser than thine own ego? is this not throwing stones, or rather throwing judgment.

I don't read up on what the Pope says, so I'm not sure about this.

Seemingly religious leaders has been stating that gay sex is a sin just like abortion, or prostitution. Seems very closed minded. Also there is a do nothing about it 'attitude'. Rather let God reep his vengeance, almost cursing the infidels to hell.

I agree with the religious leaders points that a sin is a sin. But, their method of presentation needs to be worked on. I don't think it's close minded to state what is a sin. But, I do think the way to lead people to salvation shouldn't be a taking a "holier than thou" approach. We all sin. This includes religious leaders, and even the Pope. Nobody is better than any other person. And we should all take a humble attitude towards God's eventual day of judgement.

Jesus spent most of his time with exactly these kind of people. He didn't profess how wrong they are, he simply loved them.

True. And I'll also add that they knew they were sinners when they were in Jesus' presence, even though he didn't have to state what their sins were.

Where the people at the top are more privileged. Than the working class. They are so judgmental. But can they really comprehend the difficulties of the working class?

This is not limited to just religion, but also to all areas, including politics and business.

[Simon_Peter]

Hey Otseng,

You really threw me, i thought you were going to be putting up more opposition. However its good we both agree. I have been thinking over discrimination in religion. I would say, that the architecture of religion, purposely divides the population. right verses wrong, Justice verses Injustice, Sinner verses Saint, Damned verses Saved. But my favorite discrimination is Believer verses non-believer. This type of thinking inevitably leads us into segregation. Therefore is religion a good thing based upon this discrimination?