Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Race And The Limits Of Reason  
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2386 times:

The original sin of the United States of America, it is sometimes said, was, or remains, slavery. Entire populations were brought here against their will because they were often thought suitable for a life hardly better than those of draft animals in the field.

The very contemplation that anyone could believe any human being suitable only for slavery is repulsive in the extreme. But to slavers -- some of them African, some of them Arab, some of them Caucasian -- the moral contemptibility of slavery never mattered.

I have just read the Wikipedia article entitled "Race and Intelligence", and it is most disturbing.

Like many others, I have personally contributed to the Wikipedia, and find it a convenient, if sometimes unreliable, resource.

But a review of the article brings forth some unsettling conclusions -- namely, for example, that the ranking of races is still endemic in today's allegedly enlightened society; and, more importantly, that the moral implications of this kind of thought escapes the application of reason.

Much of the many attempts throughout history to rank intelligence on the basis of race was and is met with rightful revulsion. Race does not matter nearly as much as individual capability. But you would not easily perceive this from a review of the article in question.

I grow ever more fearful that in our technological society, neither the implications nor the importance of faith matter, and that reason, or what passes for it, grips its hand around faith as if to assert its supremacy. For how else does one explain the ever-so-scholarly tenor of the various sources cited in that article, some of which openly imply the superiority of certain races?

I think that the article is instructive to atheists, pure rationalists, and the faithful alike, but for different reasons. The urge to place certain groups above others finds no inherent objection in the fundamental tenets of atheism, because if indeed it is true that certain races are more intelligent than others, there is no bar, if there is no faith, to treating them precisely in that way. It finds no objection, either, in pure reason, since reason admires itself in a manner few could question. And it is up to the faithful, therefore, to apply moral absolutes to forfend against notions of supremacy.

To those who deride faith as unnecessary, therefore, I ask you from what place you may exert your leverage by which to move the world, if that fateful day comes, when racists have their day?

[Edited 2006-09-14 12:44:13]

32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21467 posts, RR: 53
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2354 times:

The absolute overwhelming majority of slave-owners in history were devoutly religious people.

Slavery and servitude in general met widespread resistance and abolition only after the religions had been relegated to a secondary role.

Nothing has historically worked as "well" for racism as the presumable (and unverifiable) "divine selection" of one race (or other group) over the others.

It took secular humanism to finally overcome those notions, even if some of its ideals had been shared by many religions. Unfortunately, that was usually by the letter only, not in real life. And in the modern era several quasi-religious ideologies had taken similar roles as the traditional religions did before, with similar methods and similar results, just a different facade.


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2338 times:

Klaus, since almost everyone back then was a professed Christian, it's hardly surprising that some Christians were slave-owners, or even that all slave-owners professed to be Christian.

I think that you're wrong in the claim that it was only secular humanism that freed the slaves. Neither those behind the freedom railroads, for example, nor Abraham Lincoln, were secular humanists. In fact, secular humanism hadn't even been invented yet.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21467 posts, RR: 53
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2335 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 2):
I think that you're wrong in the claim that it was only secular humanism that freed the slaves. Neither those behind the freedom railroads, for example, nor Abraham Lincoln, were secular humanists. In fact, secular humanism hadn't even been invented yet.

Not true - it has its roots in classic greek philosophy and beyond, and both the french and the american revolutions refused to be bound by religious precepts but only by universal human rights which were deemed to be self-evident instead of bestowed by an assumed deity.

It was no guarantee for a heaven on earth (which is particularly evident in the case of the french revolution), but it was clearly a secular movement and human-centric rather than deo-centric.

Religious belief systems easily adapt to the violation of human rights "because god said so", but secular humanism has no such cop-out: Once you violate human rights, you're wrong, completely irrespective of what your idea of the universe may be otherwise!


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2333 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 3):
Not true - it has its roots in classic greek philosophy and beyond, and both the french and the american revolutions refused to be bound by religious precepts but only by universal human rights which were deemed to be self-evident instead of bestowed by an assumed deity.

But the American Revolution pre-dated the end of slavery by a century. so you're obviously not saying that secular humanism as found in the Greeks freed the slaves.

If you read historical accounts, the most fervent anti-slavery advocates were among the most religious in America.


User currently offlinePROSA From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5644 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2331 times:

The moral of the story is not to get too stirred up over anything you read in Wikipedia. Yes, it's a very useful resource, but do not forget that anyone can write anything, and the after-the-fact editing process is no substitute for traditional, pre-submission editing and fact checking.


"Let me think about it" = the coward's way of saying "no"
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2327 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 3):
Not true - it has its roots in classic greek philosophy and beyond, and both the french and the american revolutions refused to be bound by religious precepts but only by universal human rights which were deemed to be self-evident instead of bestowed by an assumed deity.

But the American Revolution pre-dated the end of slavery by a century. so you're obviously not saying that secular humanism as found in the Greeks freed the slaves.

Indeed, the most fervent anti-slavery advocates were among the most religious in America.

The following account is not far from what is generally known:

Quote:
As with much of the events of the period (the late eighteenth century to the early nineteenth century), the anti-slavery movement was largely propelled by religious influences. Religion permeated most aspects of life and so when large denominations began to preach against (or condone) slavery, their voices were heard. Many abolitionists were either active members in the religious community or had strong religious backgrounds while growing up. The basic beliefs that they held concerning man and God helped to build the foundation for the anti-slavery movement.

Source:

http://cghs.dadeschools.net/slavery/...ery_movement/religious_origins.htm


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21467 posts, RR: 53
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2325 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 6):
But the American Revolution pre-dated the end of slavery by a century. so you're obviously not saying that secular humanism as found in the Greeks freed the slaves.

It's not automatic or immediate by any means, but I'm pretty sure it made the ultimate difference.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 6):
Indeed, the most fervent anti-slavery advocates were among the most religious in America.

And still it happened in a society which put the freedom of individual conscience (fueled from whatever source) before the absolute authoritarian demands which are the hallmark of pretty much every religion on earth.


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2321 times:

Quoting PROSA (Reply 5):
The moral of the story is not to get too stirred up over anything you read in Wikipedia. Yes, it's a very useful resource, but do not forget that anyone can write anything, and the after-the-fact editing process is no substitute for traditional, pre-submission editing and fact checking.

That's a good point. I nevertheless was disturbed the statements attributed to some of the studies that were cited, many of which seemed to place some substantial importance on the ranking of races. What a crock!

The surest way to divide America is to pretend that race matters a whole lot more than it should.

I'm for the Ronald Reagan view of America: America should be colorblind. And I'm also for the Martin Luther King vision for our country: Each of us must be judged only by the content of our character.

Both President Reagan and Martin Luther King were religious people, by the way, which in itself is suggestive of the power of faith.

God requires us to respect the innate spiritual equality of all innocent people, regardless of race. To indulge in intelligence rankings can lead to results that will promote only vindictiveness, on one hand, and resentment, on the other.

In this respect, science, with all its reason, and objectivity, with its disregard for faith, run up squarely against moral teachings. And in this respect, the necessity of faith-based morality, based not on the changing precepts of reason, but on fundamental absolutes, does seem to assert itself.

Faith in what is good is the ultimate ground from which the world may be moved, in my humble opinion.

[Edited 2006-09-14 17:09:28]

User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2318 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 7):
And still it happened in a society which put the freedom of individual conscience (fueled from whatever source) before the absolute authoritarian demands which are the hallmark of pretty much every religion on earth.

Klaus, I don't know if you realize how fundamentally ironic your statement is, because we've established the following:

1. America was founded in part on precepts you say are the roots of modern humanism; and yet,

2. Slavery persisted for a hundred years after America's founding as a nation in its current form; and,

3. It took, in large measure, the lobbying of religious individuals whose intensity of religiosity was promoted by the American system to free the slaves.

The irony is in this: You cite freedom of conscience. But freedom of conscience is powerless unless it is motivated by content. The freedom of conscience you prefer to emphasize is the formal freedom to exercise choice, but the substantive motivation was never secular equality, or else there would have never been any compromise with the "slave states" as there actually was in the early days of the Republic. In the above, despite the fact that you cite freedom of conscience, you have chosen, it seems, to emphasize only the freedom of conscience promoted by America's system while ignoring the fact that it was the application of conscience required by absolutist principles that were never applied by secular humanistic precursors that established the anti-slavery movement that had the most effect. While secularism was perhaps a conducive factor to the abolition of slavery, it was neither demonstrably necessary nor sufficient to achieve the cause. To the contrary: The compromises permitted by secularism had previously ensured that slavery would persist. By contrast, the record shows that it was those of faith who were most fervently anti-slavery and it was because of their faith that the freedom of conscience implicit in the American system permitted them to effectuate to the strongest and most effective motive for freeing the slaves.

[Edited 2006-09-14 17:11:22]

User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21467 posts, RR: 53
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days ago) and read 2297 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 8):
In this respect, science, with all its reason, and objectivity, with its disregard for faith, run up squarely against moral teachings.

You're implying inherent immorality in science from a very much selective example which actually doesn't support such a conclusion.

Racists have often attempted to present manipulated "scientific evidence" for their preconceived notions.

It's still not proper scientific work which could hold up to proper scrutiny but merely the dressing up of ancient prejudices in pseudo-science for the manipulation of the ignorant.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 8):
And in this respect, the necessity of faith-based morality, based not on the changing precepts of reason, but on fundamental absolutes, does seem to assert itself.

I'd be very careful there - religious morality has been far more volatile than the one based on reason and the respect for every human being.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 9):
The compromises permitted by secularism had previously ensured that slavery would persist.

No - slavery has existed much longer than that in religiously-dominated societies.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 9):
By contrast, the record shows that it was those of faith who were most fervently anti-slavery and it was because of their faith that the freedom of conscience implicit in the American system permitted them to effectuate to the strongest and most effective motive for freeing the slaves.

Quite possibly so - unfortunately religious morality is fickle and heavily dependent on the respective superstitions. Respect for every human being is an absolute - but imaginary gods have been known to turn on humans with a disturbing regularity - and as we all know, murder and destruction is quite okay if your religious leaders just say it is...!  hypnotized   banghead 


User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6816 posts, RR: 34
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2275 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 1):
It took secular humanism to finally overcome those notions,

No, it took the near destruction of the United States and the deaths of 620,000+ with 1.1MM total casualties to finally overcome it. And Reconstruction was so badly botched that we're still faced with the shadow of civil rights laws that carried forth into the 20th Century.

And slavery is still rampant in many parts of the world. Today, it is the free Western Civilization that rejects slavery categorically. In the span of a few hundred years, I'd say that's progress.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 9):
1. America was founded in part on precepts you say are the roots of modern humanism; and yet,

2. Slavery persisted for a hundred years after America's founding as a nation in its current form; and,

3. It took, in large measure, the lobbying of religious individuals whose intensity of religiosity was promoted by the American system to free the slaves.



The other irony--whether one wants to label it a necessary evil or not--is that the Republic wouldn't have survived had the slavery question been resolved in 1787. The northerners found it deplorable, spoke against it, while the southerners clung to it just as desperately. Knowing these men's actions would be recorded for posterity, many of the Founders penned their thoughts and the intent, debate and motivations of them are all well-known today. We're fortunate in that regard.


User currently offlineDrDeke From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 830 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2262 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
To those who deride faith as unnecessary, therefore, I ask you from what place you may exert your leverage by which to move the world, if that fateful day comes, when racists have their day?

I'm really sick of these threads which imply that anyone who lacks "faith" lacks morals.

From what place do I "exert my leverage by which to move the world" against racism? From the same place as you or any person of faith: through my personal actions and words.

Maybe you don't trust yourself to "do the right thing" without religious views telling you what the right thing is, but I do trust myself to do so, and so do many others.

-DrDeke



If you don't want it known, don't say it on a phone.
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2260 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 10):
You're implying inherent immorality in science from a very much selective example which actually doesn't support such a conclusion.

Why does it not support such a conclusion? Wikipedia is a joint contribution of Internet users; if anything is representative of a broad popular consensus -- a widespread pretension toward scholarship, one might cynically say -- then Wikipedia would be in that article. My dispute is also with the authors cited in that some of them appear overfocused upon the "validity" of differences in racial intelligence.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 10):
Racists have often attempted to present manipulated "scientific evidence" for their preconceived notions.

Agreed. But this is not an indication that the Wikipedia cannot be taken for the exposition of science in action. And I am not necessarily pointing only at the Wikipedia, but, if you'll recall, the sources themselves that are cited.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 10):
I'd be very careful there - religious morality has been far more volatile than the one based on reason and the respect for every human being.

True enough, but not all religions are necessarily equal.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 10):
No - slavery has existed much longer than that in religiously-dominated societies.

It depends on what religion. Christianity has long repudiated slavery as a matter of doctrine, at least within Europe.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 10):
Quite possibly so - unfortunately religious morality is fickle and heavily dependent on the respective superstitions.

Undeniably, but again, religion cannot be drained of its content and set up, strawman-like, only as a form.

Quoting Slider (Reply 11):
The other irony--whether one wants to label it a necessary evil or not--is that the Republic wouldn't have survived had the slavery question been resolved in 1787. The northerners found it deplorable, spoke against it, while the southerners clung to it just as desperately. Knowing these men's actions would be recorded for posterity, many of the Founders penned their thoughts and the intent, debate and motivations of them are all well-known today. We're fortunate in that regard.

Wise words, and agreed.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21467 posts, RR: 53
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2245 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 13):
Why does it not support such a conclusion? Wikipedia is a joint contribution of Internet users; if anything is representative of a broad popular consensus -- a widespread pretension toward scholarship, one might cynically say -- then Wikipedia would be in that article. My dispute is also with the authors cited in that some of them appear overfocused upon the "validity" of differences in racial intelligence.

If the scientific reasoning is fatally flawed, even the biggest consensus can't salvage it. It takes a minimum of critical thinking, but it's usually discernible.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 13):
It depends on what religion. Christianity has long repudiated slavery as a matter of doctrine, at least within Europe.

Uh, yeah. And "christian" slave traders happily abducted and enslaved people nevertheless!

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 13):
Undeniably, but again, religion cannot be drained of its content and set up, strawman-like, only as a form.

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 
On which planet have you been for (at least!) the past two millenia?


User currently offlineOly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6738 posts, RR: 11
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2228 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 14):
And "christian" slave traders happily abducted and enslaved people nevertheless!

Presumably business and wealth were a higher priority than religious morality. If others were doing the same and making a fortune doing it then it would be foolish not to join in wouldn't it?

I think that there has always been a lot of hypocricy with regard to religious beliefs and religious actions. Someone may follow a particular religion that does not agree with slavery but they are hardly likely to throw away the vast wealth that comes with it unless there are other pressures.

Surely the God fearing folks of the southern states were quite happy to see the blacks as worse than second class citizens well into the 1960's, and there are no doubt many who still feel that way, religious or not.


Slavery is alive and well today. It just has different forms and doesn't follow traditional slavery, i.e. you can enslave your own, not someone different. Girls abducted or deceived into the sex trade by promises of good jobs in the west. Other immigrants forced to work for their traffickers to pay for their travel. It all comes down to economics. If there's money in it, people will prey on their fellow citizens and to be honest, if they don't do it then someone else will.



wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2225 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 14):
Uh, yeah. And "christian" slave traders happily abducted and enslaved people nevertheless!

Don't forget that a very large percentage of the abductors were Arabs.
The ship captains and their owners were more likely to be Christian as were the traders and the "end users" the planters in the new world.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21467 posts, RR: 53
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2202 times:

Quoting Oly720man (Reply 15):
Presumably business and wealth were a higher priority than religious morality.

Indeed - there are pretty much no absolutes in human behaviour. But it shows that the connection between overt religiosity and actual moral behaviour is usually a very tentative one, even if there are laudable exceptions.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 16):
Don't forget that a very large percentage of the abductors were Arabs.

That may well have been the case, but I was more aware of indigenous black slave traders in Africa (probably adhering to their respective traditional faiths, if any).


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2200 times:

Quoting Slider (Reply 11):
The other irony--whether one wants to label it a necessary evil or not--is that the Republic wouldn't have survived had the slavery question been resolved in 1787.

It's an interesting one. Slavery in Britain was finally abolished in 1772 (pre-dating the revolution, and incidentally, all slaves who made it to British shores from then on were free men), the slave trade was abolished in 1807 (and enforced with ever increasing zeal globally) and then slavery itself throughout the British empire in 1833. The US didn't miss all this by much.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 2186 times:

Quoting DrDeke (Reply 12):
I'm really sick of these threads which imply that anyone who lacks "faith" lacks morals.

I make no such accusation.

Quoting DrDeke (Reply 12):
From what place do I "exert my leverage by which to move the world" against racism? From the same place as you or any person of faith: through my personal actions and words.

Maybe you don't trust yourself to "do the right thing" without religious views telling you what the right thing is, but I do trust myself to do so, and so do many others.

It's not a question of whether reason coincides with faith now. It is what happens when reason requires that our most sacred beliefs should yield.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 14):
If the scientific reasoning is fatally flawed, even the biggest consensus can't salvage it. It takes a minimum of critical thinking, but it's usually discernible.

That's clearly false, because it's based -- once again -- on an idealized vision of the world. Even if scientific reasoning is false, it may not recognize that falsity. If it does not, because of the limits of reason, then the abolition of faith would also abolish any possible countervailing influence to preserve our ideas of fundamental decency.

"Fundamental decency", by way of example, is not scientifically recognizable.

Quoting Oly720man (Reply 15):
Slavery is alive and well today. It just has different forms and doesn't follow traditional slavery, i.e. you can enslave your own, not someone different. Girls abducted or deceived into the sex trade by promises of good jobs in the west. Other immigrants forced to work for their traffickers to pay for their travel. It all comes down to economics. If there's money in it, people will prey on their fellow citizens and to be honest, if they don't do it then someone else will.

But this is merely a play on words. Chattel slavery, as an institution, is completely abolished as a matter of law and fact in the United States of America. "White slavery" does exist, but it's not the same thing.

[Edited 2006-09-15 18:22:47]

User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 2169 times:

I just finished reading an interesting book about the Ahnenerbe, which was a scientific institute founded by the SS to, among other things, find evidence that a nordic race actually existed and was superior.

As it happens, modern science since Krick and Watson shows us that the characteristics which we call 'race', i.e., physical appearance and attributes, occupy a relatively minor and unimportant part of the human genome. We're much more alike than different down where it matters in the DNA.

So. Why do we hate each other so? Because we're simply stated a buncha morons that any self respecting neanderthal would have distanced himself from.

One Night in the Cave: A play in one act.

The scene is a pallet on the floor of a cave somewhere in southern France circa 13,000 BCE. In the pile of skins are Ogg and her husband Ugg.

"psst....Ogg....you awake?"
"Yeah, Ugg....whatinhell time is it honey?"
"Jeez, it's pretty late. You know, I was just thinkin' about those hairless dudes and dudettes that moved in across the valley. They're a mean buncha motherfuckers, not our kind at all."
"Yes, dear, that's for sure. Best be looking for another cave when the lease expires on this one, we don't want our daughter to get mixed up with that crew. They're a rum lot, those homo sapiens types. Now go to sleep."

Fade to black.
The rest is history.


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 2155 times:

Dougloid, I think that that's an interesting observation, and it's worth thinking about what it implies.

It implies that there is a certain intrinsic irrationality that uses reason -- or perhaps misuses it -- for purposes beyond what rationality can serve.

Earlier, I started a thread in which I stated that I believe that Pope Benedict XVI was wrong if, by his recent speech (which I had not read in close translation) he meant that rationality and faith were the same thing, or two sides of the same coin. I said that I thought that there are not the same thing at all, and cannot be deemed inseparable. I had in mind the reality of these two concepts in practice.

I now see that the Pope was making a comment about God's relationship with reason and faith -- that in the Platonic sense, God is limited by reason and therefore reason is necessarily a divine attribute immanent with the Deity with which faith is fully consonant. Spoken on those terms, there is no fundamental disagreement that is necessary.

But I nevertheless believe that it is false to say that faith and reason cannot be separate in the real world in which we live, which is highly imperfect. In a non-academic sense, faith is separate from reason, as I said; it puts the brakes on reason -- or, perhaps, "reason", in quotes, because human reason (and human faith, for that matter), is always susceptible to misuse.

Thus, I believe that rationality is no guarantor of morality in the real world. In this, I am very much indebted to Immanuel Kant, who I've always said has been inspirational to me. Despite his recognized status as a rationalist, I think that in some ways he may be seen as being as close to being a transcendentalist as a rationalist can be.

Kant, the rationalist, was also -- perhaps not coincidentally -- a highly religious man.

The implication for the subject of this thread is that in regard to the application of reason as to the volatile, ubiquitous, yet often subliminated topic of race and intelligence, faith must also play a role if, ultimately, "reason" is not to lead to results we wish to avoid.

[Edited 2006-09-16 09:28:47]

User currently offlineAirWillie6475 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2448 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 2140 times:

Look at what is happening with the Mexicans. If this isn't modern day slavery I don't know what is. I was at a family Friends house who has quite a bit of land, he had a few workers and the way he treated them and the level of racism, it's nothing more than slavery. Unfortunately history repeats itself, and people have the tendency of having status que until things go wrong.

User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 2127 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 19):
I make no such accusation.

 redflag  This question takes an accusing tone, especially comming from you.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
To those who deride faith as unnecessary, therefore, I ask you from what place you may exert your leverage by which to move the world, if that fateful day comes, when racists have their day?

This is an excellent answer:

Quoting DrDeke (Reply 12):
I'm really sick of these threads which imply that anyone who lacks "faith" lacks morals.

From what place do I "exert my leverage by which to move the world" against racism? From the same place as you or any person of faith: through my personal actions and words.

Maybe you don't trust yourself to "do the right thing" without religious views telling you what the right thing is, but I do trust myself to do so, and so do many others.

This is why I have to say I HATE the bible, koran, et al. and pitty those who are trapped into believing they are necessary. If you need a BOOK to make good decisions, you are no diferent then a blind person using a cane.

Quoting PROSA (Reply 5):
The moral of the story is not to get too stirred up over anything you read in Wikipedia.

Or any other reading material for that matter. Are there a LOT of books with a LOT of good ideas on how to live? ABOLUTELY. But not everything works for everyone. The happy medium and what should be the high watermark of social disipline is the VERY simple rule of doing unto others as you would have done to you. If EVERY body could follow this ONE simple effing rule we could throw out every government entity that exists and all live happily together.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 6):

http://cghs.dadeschools.net/slavery/...s.htm

I graduated from CGHS  Smile

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Reply 22):
I was at a family Friends house who has quite a bit of land, he had a few workers and the way he treated them and the level of racism, it's nothing more than slavery.

 redflag  unless he A) didn't pay them, and B) physically beat them; your analogy is as weak as Erkel, and is disgusting. Your friend is at best a racist asshole boss, and while he probably would have mexicans as slaves if he could; does not allow you to equate the current circumstance to slavery unless the above conditions are met.


User currently offlineIlikeyyc From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1373 posts, RR: 20
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 2124 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
I have just read the Wikipedia article entitled "Race and Intelligence", and it is most disturbing.

Link for the lazy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_Intelligence

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 8):
Each of us must be judged only by the content of our character.

I don't know how religion came into this discussion. The real problem is not that we place labels on eachother, it is that every person places a label on themselves. "I'm a liberal", "I'm straight" "I'm rich" etc., etc. and tries to fit in to the social norm by identifying with people that have similar labels.

90% of the information we absorb from the world around us is through the sense of sight. Throw some laziness and ignorance into the mix and race becomes a label. Think about it. When you hear "Black person", "Arab" "Whitie", do these words not carry connotations with them or generate a reaction? In theory, they shouldn't mean anything other than a statement of fact, but too often they carry a connotation with them that is hard to get rid of.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
But a review of the article brings forth some unsettling conclusions -- namely, for example, that the ranking of races is still endemic in today's allegedly enlightened society; and, more importantly, that the moral implications of this kind of thought escapes the application of reason.

It is much easier to look at a person and judge them by what you see than it is to strike up a conversation with them to get a fair sense of their character. I admit, I am guilty of stereotyping people too. In our neverending attempt to make sense of the world around us, we categorize things too often. This study, though its conclusions are interesting, shows how much labels and categories are imbedded into our thoughts. In a perfect world, the only label/category that would exist is "human".

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
To those who deride faith as unnecessary, therefore, I ask you from what place you may exert your leverage by which to move the world, if that fateful day comes, when racists have their day?

Faith in what?



Fighting Absurdity with Absurdity!
25 Post contains images AerospaceFan : Might I ask why? It is, indeed, a small world. I disagree, because the tendency is also to place labels on others, which makes the entire issue much,
26 TedTAce : Did you mean mitigating? What does this mean in English EVERYONE can understand?
27 Post contains links Ilikeyyc : Mr. AerospaceFan: Please consider this post as constructive criticism. Please do not infer any put-downs, insults, anger, etc. from my post as this i
28 AerospaceFan : Thank you for your comment, which I will consider carefully. I do sometimes allow jargon to creep into my postings, which is not necessarily benefici
29 Post contains images Banco : Prepare for multiple revisions everyone....
30 Post contains images AerospaceFan : LOL.   Sometimes I'm glad there's only one-half hour within which to do so, because I always find myself tempted to "perfect" my messages, so to spe
31 Padraighaz : So, there's no reasoning with cultural biases... I'm a little more optimistic than that. It does take a while though.
32 AerospaceFan : Whether faith or morality is merely cultural bias has hardly been determined. Nevertheless, even if morality is merely cultural bias, it is still oft
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
And The Winner Of Best Costume Goes To: posted Wed Nov 1 2006 13:55:05 by CV990A
Borat And The President Of Kazakhstan posted Thu Sep 28 2006 22:24:59 by RJpieces
Four Children And The Cost Of War (CNN) posted Mon Jul 24 2006 09:15:49 by SFOMEX
Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire Preview! posted Sun Sep 18 2005 06:19:38 by AA777
The Moon Guy (and The Rest Of The Solar System) posted Fri Aug 26 2005 14:18:23 by Jamman
Blind Men And The Physiology Of Sex posted Fri May 20 2005 04:29:56 by Sleekjet
Report: Torture And The Future Of The Middle East posted Mon Apr 11 2005 02:40:24 by Alberchico
Lawrence Summers And The Battle Of The Sexes posted Tue Mar 29 2005 07:10:23 by MaverickM11
The Downfall: Hitler And The End Of The 3rd Reich posted Wed Mar 23 2005 05:08:50 by NoUFO
Democrats, Schiavo Law And The Culture Of Life. posted Mon Mar 21 2005 01:38:04 by SFOMEX