I see by the time stamp of your reply that it is within the same hour as your closing joust with Parasomnium where your emotions and frustrations were quite evident. I’ll keep that in mind as I reply to your post.
I have noted, however, that your replies are beginning to exhibit a deep undercurrent of cynicism and hatred for religious people. That is the bigotry that I have previously identified.
One gets the impression that you consider your fingertips to be soiled by having to touch the keyboard of a computer in response to a post by a believer. Very sad.
contracycle writes:
Bullshit. God made the black man to serve the white, according to the Dutch Reform Church and sundry Calvinists (including Americans, btw). That became the basis for Separate Development, which was refined into Apartheid, or "separateness".
Furthermore, the Dutch settlers declared themself the lost tribe of Israel, claimed that they were now the personal people of god, and that god had given them this new land to be theirs alone. That was why it was immoral to share it with the people who originally lived there, as they had clearly been found unworthy by god.
You spout off responses without offering any independent references to support your inaccurate portrayal of historical events. Where is the source for your quote, God made the black man to serve the white, Did you just make that up? Here is the truth of the matter:
Let me repeat, apartheid in South Africa was about RACISM. It seems ludicrous that I should have to argue such an obvious fact. Religion was not the basis for separate development, racism was. You are plain wrong about that assertion.
Laws were passed that justified apartheid. It was the legal authority of the law that justified the widespread atrocities of apartheid. (Unless noted otherwise, the following quotes are from
Link.)
quote:
The Dutch Reformed Church arrived in South Africa in the seventeenth century, after Calvinist reforms in Europe had entrenched the idea of predestination, and the Synod of Dort in the Netherlands had proclaimed this church as the "community of the elect" in 1619. The church gained recognition as the state religion in 1651, and the Dutch East India Company, as an extension of the state in southern Africa, established the first Dutch Reformed Church at the Cape of Good Hope in 1652.
Ok, so at this point, there is a state religion, a theocracy, that governs politics in South Africa.
quote:
As black Africans and people of mixed race converted to the religion, church members debated the question of racial separation. Pressures grew for racially separate congregations, and the issue was complicated by the demands of some black church members for their own churches and congregations.
Here, we see that black Africans were joining the Dutch Reformed Church. They were being accepted into the faith. Racial pressures grew and black church members then began to demand their own churches.
How could black church members demand their own church if they had not embraced the church to begin with? It was not immoral for the Dutch settlers to share their faith with the people who originally lived there as you suggest. The whites were doing that. They just didn’t want to associate with the black converts, i.e. racism. Racism was the issue, not religious bigotry.
I submit that apartheid would have occurred
with or without religion. If anything, religion served to temper the fear and hostility of the white minority.
If the Dutch Reformed Church had been the Dutch Reformed Atheists. Apartheid would have occurred in much the same way. In addition to their racists views that black africans were inferior to whites based on their skin color, the white minority became increasingly fearful of the black majority because of the potential loss of power and material possessions.
Aside from racism, apartheid was promulgated as a self preservation instinct on the part of the white minority. This self preservation instinct is part of our biological evolution having nothing at all to do with religious belief.
It is religion that teaches us to overcome this self preservation instinct and to suppress it for the benefit of our fellow man and in homage to our God.
quote:
Racial separation was only widely accepted in the church in the early twentieth century, as many Afrikaners came to believe that their own survival as a community was threatened, and as the belief in racial separation was gaining acceptance among white South Africans in general.
Here, racist pressure was building in the early twentieth century. This finally lead to the full realization of apartheid and its subsequent justification via the enactment of apartheid laws in the late 1940’s and 50’s.
It is true that, in the twentieth century, the white africaans began to corrupt their religion by introducing philosophies that falsely supported apartheid on a theological basis.
quote:
The white Afrikaans Reformed churches of South Africa through the years have worked out in considerable detail both the policy itself and the theological and moral justification for the system. apartheid ("separate development") is therefore a pseudo-religious ideology as well as a political policy. Link
But this is a distortion of their own religious beliefs in an effort to justify racism. This was a recent event occurring after institutional racism and the doctrine of segregation had been in place. Racism is the foundation for apartheid, not religion.
Now on to the balance of your reply:
I said:
Then, you agree that medical personnel can be trusted because they, in your own words, are obliged to not indulge their religious fantasies on the job.
contracycle writes:
Nope, I am trusting in their job description, not their character. I wouldn't let them handle my wallet.
I wouldn’t let a medical professional handle my wallet either, your point is nonsense. But you would let a banker handle your wallet, or a teller at a bank, or a financial planner, or a stock broker, wouldn’t you? Again, 8 out of 10 of them are religious.
I said,
You say that you are not bigoted by pointing to the belief of others and that others have been misled. Here again, this is another indication of your negative bias.
contracycle writes:
Of COURSE I am biased, I want religion eradicated.
Spoken like a true bigot. Similar words have been spoken by many bigoted leaders throughout history. You are close to their point of view my friend.
The only difference is that bigots in power have the ability to take this philosophy one step further than you. Their historical solution has been to eradicate religion by eradicating the
people who adhere to religion.
contracycle writes:
But it is pointless to dismiss any position as "bias" because this makes all conversation impossible - bias is mainly important when it is covert, and masquerades as impartiality. I have been totally open in my OPINION that religion is a purposeful fraud and detrimental to human wellbeing. I'm also willing to argue in support of that opinion. Deal with my opinion, don't slander it as dishonest "bias".
So your bigotry is not concealed, fine, that does not diminish the fact that it exists. Two opposing sides can debate a topic without introducing blatant unsubstantiated bias as you have done. It is one thing to disagree with the religious point of view. It is quite another to advocate the eradication of that point of view, as you have said.
Further, you have stated in
Message 151, But religion still indicates a flaw with the thought process of the person, such that they can only be trusted within certain limits. In
Message 126, you describe the religious view as rather like a habitual alcoholic.
You go beyond merely disagreeing with the religious point of view in conversation, you describe that view as a deficiency in the mental process of the individual.
Since you have no faith in God, then this so called deficiency must be biological or biochemical, and since you have no data to support this thesis, then the source of your belief is your own irrational prejudice.
contracycle writes:
bigot
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Very good. Now please examine your own definition very closely with particular emphasis on intolerant of those who differ. That’s you buddy.
contracycle writes:
Perhaps a good example would be ignoring human 100,000 deaths in a foreign land and describing the murderer responsible as a "patriot", eh? Now that would be a clear demonstration of "strong partiality". On the other hand I have no regliion, acknowledge not state, and the only group to which I am aprtial is political.
Now you introduce a political discussion from another thread? Changing the subject eh? That’s often used as a diversionary but weak debate tactic.
contracycle writes:
Indeed - and 99% of the time religion has provided the basis for that bigotry. And continues to do so, as good christians back the murdering bastard Bush, or the National Party government in SA.
Where do you get your information?! You seem to just make it up as you deem necessary. If we are going to play that game, then consider the following statement: 99% of all atheists are racists. Would that be an accurate statement? Of course not, it is ridiculous. But it carries the same weight as your unsubstantiated claim that 99% of the time religion has provided the basis for that bigotry.
I said,
Try and get along in life without the trust of the religious. Unless you choose to live your life as a hermit, it can’t be done.
contrcycle writes:
I've been doing fine for years, thanks. Moving to a state with a much lower incidence of religious irrationality did me a power of good.
But that doesn’t change the fact that the vast majority of your interpersonal relationships are with religious people. You trust them with your health, you trust them with your finances, you trust them with your very life.
You can run, but you can’t hide, we are everywhere.
™ Version 4.2
