quote:
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.
Thank you for patronizing.
[quote] I have noted, however, that your replies are beginning to exhibit a deep undercurrent of cynicism and hatred for religious people.
[quote]
Thats not an undercurrent, thats the top current.
quote:
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.
Its a dirty job, but someone has to do it.
"The social principles of Christianity preach the necessity of a ruling and an oppressed class, [...] declare all vile acts of the oppressors against the oppressed to be either the just punishment of original sin and other sins or trials that the Lord in his infinite wisdom imposes on those redeemed. [...] preach cowardice, self-contempt, abasement, submission, dejection." - Karl Marx
quote:
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:
The source is Baptist preachers who are alive and preaching today. Actual people whom I have met. And of course, the national memory, as it were, of south africa itself.
quote:
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.
No, I'm afraid you are wrong. The whole Boer experience was conducted in a religious framework. The oldest historical documents ion South Africa are bibles, in which records of the lineage of the colonistswas recorded. They were after all religious refugess flkeeing persecution in Europe, and quite literally believed that this was their promised land, and that they were now the chosen people of god.
quote:
When Nelson Mandela was elected President of South Africa in 1994, nearly fifty years of official, rigid racial segregation called apartheid ended. Apartheid became official policy following the 1948 electoral victory by the National Party. That party's ideological roots were in the historical experience of the Dutch-origin "Afrikaners." Especially important was their sense of divine election. They too understood themselves as God's Chosen People. South Africa was their Promised Land. Indeed, through the years the Chaplain's Services of the South African Defense Forces appealed to Holy War to justify military enforcement of the country's rigid racial segregation.
and:
quote:
The Afrikaners believed the British persecuted Dutch settlers. Finally in 1836, the Afrikaners abandoned the Cape area. They set out for the Transvaal region in the north to establish their own republic. This movement north became known as the "Great Trek." In their minds it "forms the national epic--formal proof of God's election of the Afrikaner people and His special destiny for them."2 As they set out in covered wagons, according to their viewpoint:
quote:
They were followed by the British army, like that of Pharaoh, and everywhere were beset by the unbelieving black "Canaanites." Yet because God's people acted according to His will, He delivered them out of the hands of their enemies and gave them their freedom in the promised land.
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/joshua/apartheid.html
quote:
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 never suggested that the Afrikaaners thought it was immoral to disseminate christianity - quite the opposite, they did so quite vigorously. But that does not imply that they did not think of indigenous africans as equals in the eyes of god - they (the afrikaaners) were the chosen people of god, they had a covenant with god just as the jews had had, they had a promise from god that this land was theirs by his dispensation, just as the jews had had. The present incumbents had no rights any more than the peoples displaced by the israelites, because god said they were to be displaced by the Afrikaaners.
Afrikaans culture did try to incorporate black culture into the church, and also of course to suppress indigenous african religion. But it must be understood that this is a master/servant relationship, as in American slavery, and so the developement of black churches occurs precisely to break away from theologically-enforced racism, as also happened in America.
quote:
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.
No you are mistaken - becuase the whole Voortrekker phenomon was conceptualised as the flight from egypt, the arrival in a promised land etc. So BEFORE any kind of political system or even settlement has been established, the Afrikaaners have given themselves a divine mandate to conquor and rule. This occurred in the earliest period of Afrikaaner expansion, not after that expansion had settled down into a structured society.
Supremacism is inherent to the ideology of a divinely chosen people.
quote:
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.
I couldn't disagree more - the religious doctrine of being the Chosen People meant that all other peoples were inherently lesser beings. I mean, I have had people tell me they are only racist in church; that they consider racism a religious duty, almost, and for example that interacial marriages are a pollution of the chosen ones and thus sacriligeous.
The similarities with Judaism are IMO quite apparent. And thats very much how the early trekkers saw themselves.
quote:
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.
Implausible. You see, you are failing to explain WHY afrikaaners saw black people as inferior. Their view was that blackness was a curse given by god making the bearers the perpetual servants of the chosen ones. Black people were inferior BECAUSE THAT WAS GODS JUDGEMENT.
And this phenomeon is not unique to South African christianity by a long way - it was also used to justify Americvan slavery. See this summary fro Amazon:
quote:
The Book of Genesis records an instance of Noah cursing his son Ham's descendants to be slaves. Although there is no biblical evidence that Ham was the "father" of African peoples, various Jewish, Christian and Islamic writers came to believe that he was, and their association helped to justify centuries of African enslavement. When did this interpretation creep in? In this sweeping and ambitious work, Goldenberg shows that early Jewish sources actually had positive or neutral associations for Africa and for Ethiopians (sometimes called "Kushites"), but that postbiblical writers such as Philo and Origen began associating "blackness" with darkness of the soul. Goldenberg's final chapters painstakingly trace the historical trajectories for "the curse of Ham" and "the curse of Cain" in Western thought through the 20th century. (Supporters of slavery thought that the "mark" that God put on Cain after he murdered Abel was black skin. The linguistic discussions in this book can be highly technical, but the research is meticulous and important.
See here:
http://www.amazon.com/...il/-/069111465X/102-4673760-6076163
quote:
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.
Well sure - just Atlantic like slavery. Just like the conquest of Iraq to loot its oil. This is entirely normal - in fact one might say, that is the purpose of religion. To conceal the unpleasant truth, to let the True Believers feel they are righteous while committing atrocities, to obfuscate the terror they rely on while simultaneously decrying such. Thats why religion is inherently irrational - it is purposefully so. It exists first and formeost to justify the murder of others.
quote:
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.
No, there is a third option: that religion is a dogma imposed on people. To demonstrate this I always point to the fact that 90% of people will have the same religion as their parents - its is very nearly an inherited trait, like language. I regard religion as a purposefully deceptive world-view, which is internalised by "believers". I'm fully confident that all people can be cured of religion.
quote:
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.
I see, so you are some sort of post-modernist who thinks the purpose of power is to do nothing? Consdering the uncountable number of Christians who have told me I am actively evil for being an atheist, and that atheists should be shot, and that fighting agsinst the "godless commies" was a religious duty, I'm not very concerned by your attempts to paint as some sort of genocidist-in-waiting.
quote:
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.
But much much less frequently than various religions groups have eradicated rival religious groups - if only because atheism is a rather modern phenomenon. Indeed, the bible is in large part an account of how the Isrelites slaughtered various adherents of other religions, esnalved theor populaces, and then patted themselves on the fact for fulfilling gods will. Then of course there were the major religious conflicts in Europe in the 1600s. Rival religions tend to be much less tolerant of one another than atheism is toward theism: precisely becuase atheism regards theism as merely misguided, while religious bigots necessarily regard each other as evil, or minions of the satan, or similar. This is abundantly apparent in modern Western Islamaphobia.
quote:
Two opposing sides can debate a topic without introducing blatant unsubstantiated bias as you have done.
You are in error - all my biases are substantiated.
quote:
Very good. Now please examine your own definition very closely with particular emphasis on intolerant of those who differ. That’s you buddy.
In what way? Have I advocated you be persecuted? Denied jobs? Deported? No I have not - I have merelyu opined that religion is inherently illogical and dishonest and should be eradicated. Please set aside this extension to an illogical extreme.
quote:
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 pay careful attention and watch them all the while.
quote:
Now you introduce a political discussion from another thread? Changing the subject eh? That’s often used as a diversionary but weak debate tactic.
No, demonstrated how you peronsally, IIRC, are willing to let Bush and Blair off the hook. After all, they were only killing Muslims so it can't be a bad thing in your eyes, eh? Thats why they can be "brave" and "patriots" to you when in fact they are blood-soaked mass murderers. It is that hypocrisy and intolerance, inherent to religion, that I criticise so vehemently.
quote:
Where do you get your information?! You seem to just make it up as you deem necessary.
I am not responsible for your ignorance.
quote:
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.
And which tribes were slaughtered by atheist israleites? Which atheist mesopotamian city slaughtered the theistic inhabitants of another city? Which atheist aztec carried out mass human sacrifice?
Your argument is nonsense, I'm afraid. The sheer quantity of history requires this be true. All the bronze and iron age societies were bloody, and they were all religious. Religion serves as a licence to kill.
quote:
You trust them with your health, you trust them with your finances, you trust them with your very life.
No I don't - they cannot be trusted, becuase they are religious. They can excuse any crime by saying god told them to do it. They can perpetrate any atrocity and excuse themselves by saying it was gods will. The fact of the matter is I do not have to give over trust to any significant degree to get on with my normal life.
quote:
You can run, but you can’t hide, we are everywhere.
Shrug - theres a grim remnant holding out. It won't last.
™ Version 4.2
