Religion shouldn't be called a race.

[Brian37]

I hate it when Jews or Muslims or Buddhists or Hindus accuse me of being a bigot when I tell them a religion is not a race.

No human picks where they are born, nor can they chose their skin tone or facial features. But one can grow to think and say, "What I was sold as far as claims no longer makes sense to me."

I am a staunch liberal, but have been called bigoted by all those groups above. 

If a religion were a race, then explain Sammy Davis Jr being a Jew. If Buddhism were a race, explain Richard Gere? If Hindu were a race then why can I find atheist websites rooted in India run by atheists born in India? If Catholic were a race, then they should all be Irish or Italian.

Our social norms are based on geography, and while racism does exist, it is an artificial construct. Our social norms do change because humans have always migrated and mixed. 

It is possible to be a former Jew, or former Buddhist or former Hindu just like one can ditch Christianity or Islam. Just like it is physically possible for a Christian to marry a Muslim, or a Buddhist to marry an atheist. Just like it is possible for a black person to marry a white person.

One of the biggest things that pisses me off about the needless conflict between Jews and Muslims is that if THE MAJORITY on both sides took DNA tests they'd both find out that they have more common ancestors who lived in that region prior to either religion existing.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Bigotry and racism aren't the same thing.  For example, this:

 If Catholic were a race, then they should all be Irish or Italian.

is an extremely bigoted comment, but it doesn't make you a racist.

Boru

[Angrboda]

Like it or not, there does appear to be a correlation between belonging to those religions and belonging to certain ethnic or racial groups. It probably requires more than that to conclude from someone's remark about a particular religion or religious adherent that they are stereotyping unfairly on the basis of that ethnic or racial correlation, but it does make a strong prima facie case that such comments might be directed at assumptions about race or ethnicity rather than religion.

[Brian37]

Bigotry and racism aren't the same thing.  For example, this:

 If Catholic were a race, then they should all be Irish or Italian.

is an extremely bigoted comment, but it doesn't make you a racist.

Boru

Explain to me where my logic is wrong, but please do not falsely accuse me of making a bigoted comment.

If you think there are no different skin tones in either Ireland or Italy, then you'd have to presume that migration to those nations never happened.

Irish and Italian are statements of geography, not skin tone. If humans prior didn't migrate to those locations, those nations would not exist.

Just as if Israeli were a race, or Jew was a skin tone, then how does one explain Sammy Davis Jr?






^^^^^ So we should assume all Irish are white? If we shouldn't why should we assume all Irish are Catholic?

https://twitter.com/atheistie?lang=en

Do we assume all Americans are White Christians?

 https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...cs/544754/

Do we assume that all blacks are Christians whom will never leave their former religion?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Vaughn_Finley_Sr.  <--- Look, a black atheist.

Is Islam a race?

I don't think so.

Here is former Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali

Can someone ditch Hinduism or Sikhism? I think so

https://twitter.com/indianatheists?lang=en

Jew is not a race, nationality only describes where one is born, it is not a skin tone.

If you had read Penn's book "God No" you'd have read the story where he had dinner with a fan after one of his shows in which the former Jew ate a bacon cheeseburger.

It is not a bigoted statement to say our artificial borders which never existed 200,000 are not a religion or race. Racism does exist, but for horrible reasons. Mistaking religion for skin tone is one of them, nationality and politics would be the other two.

Jew is not a race. 

Japanese is a Geography, Israel is a Geography, China is a geography, Mexico is a geography, but none of those labels are religions. None of those geographies have ever prevented our species from spreading out and mixing our genes.

[Joods]

I think that some people just want to be angry about something. All. The. Time.

[Brian37]

Like it or not, there does appear to be a correlation between belonging to those religions and belonging to certain ethnic or racial groups.  It probably requires more than that to conclude from someone's remark about a particular religion or religious adherent that they are stereotyping unfairly on the basis of that ethnic or racial correlation, but it does make a strong prima facie case that such comments might be directed at assumptions about race or ethnicity rather than religion.

No, there are social traditions associated to geography yes. But again, our species has always moved around and mixed. And it is possible, just like with Christianity to be spread out and of different skin tones, and belong to the same religion. It is also possible to say to oneself "I no longer buy what my parents/society sold me" regardless of skin tone or geography.

Religion is religion, geography is geography. None of either change the fact that social norms and borders change over time and humans mix. I do not give any religion in the world a pass on this. 

There are Irish and black Catholics and their are Irish atheists. Their are atheist Israelis and Muslim Israelis. There are also Chinese Christians too.

http://www.christiansinchina.com/

And there are Chinese Muslims too.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_China

Geography only denotes geography, and while some social norms are majorities, it still remains humans have always moved and mixed.

---

I think that some people just want to be angry about something. All. The. Time.

Angry? Again how? Angry that I see alot of good in my fellow humans and still we are divided by artificial constructs? Yea and?

It would so suck if we saw each other as the same species and not a separate species.

[Angrboda]

Like it or not, there does appear to be a correlation between belonging to those religions and belonging to certain ethnic or racial groups.  It probably requires more than that to conclude from someone's remark about a particular religion or religious adherent that they are stereotyping unfairly on the basis of that ethnic or racial correlation, but it does make a strong prima facie case that such comments might be directed at assumptions about race or ethnicity rather than religion.

No, there are social traditions associated to geography yes. But again, our species has always moved around and mixed. And it is possible, just like with Christianity to be spread out and of different skin tones, and belong to the same religion. It is also possible to say to oneself "I no longer buy what my parents/society sold me" regardless of skin tone or geography.

Religion is religion, geography is geography. None of either change the fact that social norms and borders change over time and humans mix. I do not give any religion in the world a pass on this. 

There are Irish and black Catholics and their are Irish atheists. Their are atheist Israelis and Muslim Israelis. There are also Chinese Christians too.

http://www.christiansinchina.com/

And there are Chinese Muslims too.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_China

Geography only denotes geography, and while some social norms are majorities, it still remains humans have always moved and mixed.

That doesn't answer the objection. That there are exceptions does not refute the case that there are also valid generalities. Since the correlations I was noting were to race and ethnicity, your claim that they do not correlate to geography is simply beside the point.

[Joods]

Angry? Again how? Angry that I see alot of good in my fellow humans and still we are divided by artificial constructs? Yea and?

It was merely a comment, but your reaction to it speaks mounds.

[Brian37]

No, there are social traditions associated to geography yes. But again, our species has always moved around and mixed. And it is possible, just like with Christianity to be spread out and of different skin tones, and belong to the same religion. It is also possible to say to oneself "I no longer buy what my parents/society sold me" regardless of skin tone or geography.

Religion is religion, geography is geography. None of either change the fact that social norms and borders change over time and humans mix. I do not give any religion in the world a pass on this. 

There are Irish and black Catholics and their are Irish atheists. Their are atheist Israelis and Muslim Israelis. There are also Chinese Christians too.

http://www.christiansinchina.com/

And there are Chinese Muslims too.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_China

Geography only denotes geography, and while some social norms are majorities, it still remains humans have always moved and mixed.

That doesn't answer the objection.  That there are exceptions does not refute the case that there are also valid generalities.  Since the correlations I was noting were to race and ethnicity, your claim that they do not correlate to geography is simply beside the point.

If you accept the age of our species, which is FAR OLDER than any artificial border, and you accept our species is far older than any written religion, and you accept we have always migrated, then I do not understand what your objection is.

A majority existing geographically does not mean our species is static. If our species always stayed in their social norms, our species never would have changed, but we have.

Religions are only religions, and while we need to see the differences for diplomacy sake, we cannot ignore that there are older ancestors that moved long before one's claimed traditions, borders. 

Just like we say rightfully that there were humans in America prior to Europeans invading it, there is not one country that did not arise out of nothing. Migration has happened and mixing has happened throughout our species history.

Italian is a geography not a religion. American is a geography not a religion. Just like atheist is not a religion, or a nationality.

It is only valid to value human rights, it is not valid to always accept social norms just because. 

If you think all Jews agree on everything 100% of the time, you'd be wrong.

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium...-1.6167773

---

Angry? Again how? Angry that I see alot of good in my fellow humans and still we are divided by artificial constructs? Yea and?

It was merely a comment,  but your reaction to it speaks mounds.

Way to focus on my finger while I am pointing at the moon.

This is the second comment in this thread where you seem to be wanting to paint me as equal to what I am objecting against.

No it was not just a comment. You didn't like me aiming my criticism at my fellow liberals. 

Does racism and bigotry exist? YES, both of us should agree on that.

Do people reside over long periods with like minded others? YES.

But those social norms are not the Adenine, Guanine, Thymine, or Cytosine all humans have consisted of prior to our artificial borders or human invented religions. 

If Christian were a race, then all Christians would be white like me. If Christian were a nationality, then how is it I can leave my former religion? If Christian were a skin tone then why do black atheists exist in America? And where does that leave Native Americans who were here prior to European Christians?

Israel certainly has for a long time been a geography associated with Jews, just like Palestine is associated with Muslims. But prior to either existing, just like Native Americans existed before our current Christian majority, there were others that existed prior.

Jew is a religion so is Christian and Buddhism and Hinduism and Islam. Humans cant help what their skin tone is nor can they pick where they were born. But we can change our positions and we do migrate and mix.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Explain to me where my logic is wrong, but please do not falsely accuse me of making a bigoted comment.

Delighted to explain, and your comment was bigoted. Here's why:

If Catholic were a race, then they should all be Irish or Italian.

This statement presumes 1) that all Catholics are Caucasian, and 2) that all Catholics are in Ireland and Italy.  Since the majority of the world's Catholics are both non-white and don't reside in those two countries, you've made a bigoted statement.  A less bigoted (but still inaccurate) statement would be, 'If Catholic were a race, they should all be Brazilian or Argentinian' (there are more Catholics in South American than in Europe).

Boru