Religious Discrimination and Scientific Racism

jcrawford · Post by **jcrawford** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 12:29 am

Since there seems to be a lot of confusion about what exactly constitutes the nature of religious discrimination and scientific racism, I thought it advisable to start a thread on the matter which might not become too discursive.

I'll open the conversation with the fact that most neo-Darwinist 'scientists' seem to believe, if not assert, that such topics as race, racism, religion and discrimination based on such categories are beyond the purvue of scientific enquiry.

The first question I would pose to supporters of neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution is whether you agree with the above presumptions and propositions. If so, why, and if not, why not?

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:01 am

Cathar1950 wrote:It seems to me that the charge that evolutionary theory is racist was unsupported and found to be invalid. When unable to show this hearsay was used as proof. The charge was made largely as a ply to discredit some ones poor view of evolution in support by default of creationism. Soon the topic will take another turn and end in rejection for the racist charge which will be further move along at some other complaint. I still think that it would be more productive and fairly easy to show that The Bible is racist and even Paul in his universal mystical body of Christ is racist in it's foundation. After all the Union with Christ thru magic and belief are just means to become Jews by promise so that the gentiles have a chance to become a new and different race of Jews grafted on to the original trunk of the vine. This is pretty racist stuff because any one not of the new race of adam is bound for death and hell. So both the NT and the OT are inherently racist with penalty. I don't sound to crazy do I?

Cathar, I would agree with you up to the point where you imply that the Christian scripture are consistent with regard to racism. There are some very racist teachings and some significantly anti-racist teachings in the Christian holy books. This is to be expected in such a vast collection of writings.

jcrawford · Post by **jcrawford** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 3:31 pm

McCulloch wrote:
Cathar1950 wrote:It seems to me that the charge that evolutionary theory is racist was unsupported and found to be invalid. When unable to show this hearsay was used as proof. The charge was made largely as a ply to discredit some ones poor view of evolution in support by default of creationism. Soon the topic will take another turn and end in rejection for the racist charge which will be further move along at some other complaint. I still think that it would be more productive and fairly easy to show that The Bible is racist and even Paul in his universal mystical body of Christ is racist in it's foundation. After all the Union with Christ thru magic and belief are just means to become Jews by promise so that the gentiles have a chance to become a new and different race of Jews grafted on to the original trunk of the vine. This is pretty racist stuff because any one not of the new race of adam is bound for death and hell. So both the NT and the OT are inherently racist with penalty. I don't sound to crazy do I?
Cathar, I would agree with you up to the point where you imply that the Christian scripture are consistent with regard to racism. There are some very racist teachings and some significantly anti-racist teachings in the Christian holy books. This is to be expected in such a vast collection of writings.

Since no Christian holy books are presently being used as fundamental textbooks in U.S. public schools, only neo-Darwinist theories of racial extinction and survival are now being funded by all U.S. taxpayers.

Chimp · Post by **Chimp** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 3:36 pm

I assume you mean in the teaching of the sciences however, comparative
religion classes could make a case for religious materials being used.

jcrawford · Post by **jcrawford** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 5:57 pm

Chimp wrote:I assume you mean in the teaching of the sciences however, comparative religion classes could make a case for religious materials being used.

Yes, comparative religion classes could make a case for "religious materials" being used. They would have a good case too.

Did you mean racist material? You know, like that used in biology class?

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:22 pm

McCulloch i over stated my case of course. Yes you are right there are many statements concerning abuse and racism and even sacrifice.
You can just about find some conflicting opinion in the bible some even claim to be the words of God. There is even passages in the writings of the prophets that say the priest were making up stories. Scholars have found many cases of tampering and rewriting the Torah and the prophets.
David is a Moabite and depending which writing is either off limits or blessed. Ezra and company(if the records can be believed) outlawed marriage with other then Jews. People left their families. It was the law rewritten and backed up by the Persians. But despite my over stating it seems more credible then the contention that Neo-Darwinist are racist.

jcrawford · Post by **jcrawford** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:02 pm

Cathar1950 wrote:McCulloch i over stated my case of course. Yes you are right there are many statements concerning abuse and racism and even sacrifice.
You can just about find some conflicting opinion in the bible some even claim to be the words of God. There is even passages in the writings of the prophets that say the priest were making up stories. Scholars have found many cases of tampering and rewriting the Torah and the prophets.
David is a Moabite and depending which writing is either off limits or blessed. Ezra and company(if the records can be believed) outlawed marriage with other then Jews. People left their families. It was the law rewritten and backed up by the Persians. But despite my over stating it seems more credible then the contention that Neo-Darwinist are racist.

The botton line seems to be that creationists and neo-Darwinists alike may perceive elements of racism in each other's historic accounts of the common ancestral origins of modern human racial groups.

It should also be taken into account that no one on these forums is accusing any follower of neo-Darwinism or creationism on these forums of practising either an overt or covert system of racism, whether under the rubric of science or religion, although leading public authorities of either system may be referred to as racists, provided our generous hosts and moderators tolerate it. I, for one, am not going to call any leading neo-Darwinist theorist a racist on this forum (although Lubenow does in his book, and I might quote his specific references upon query) because I appreciate the fact that most human beings may become unwitting dupes to systems of thought which upon closer examination, scrutiny, hindsight and insight, may be found to be inherently, implicitly and inescapably racist.