Is Racism a Sin?

[W2L]

Yeah. It's always about silencing people like us. Well I'm outta this thread. Good luck.

exactly.

 

[childeye 2]

What? Liberals and conservatives criticize countries all the time.

But that's not the case here. The President is criticizing her personally as ignorant because she comes from a messed up country compared to America. Hence, the sentiment is go back and fix the messed up country you're from, and then we will welcome you back as our equal. That's racism.

Besides, criticizing someone for not running their country well is not racism.

Fine, but that's not the case here. She was not running the country of Somalia when she came here as a child refugee.

 

[Ken-1122]

Are you being serious right now? No one ever complained about that,

The complaint was to go, fix things, come back and teach us how you did it. Nobody ever complained about that. If you disagree, provide an example

and it was never considered a racist thing to say? If you honestly believe that, you must be living in an alternate reality.

Are you suggesting had those women been caucasian women from say… Greece, Egypt, and Russia; and they were insulting America the way Trump felt these women were, that he would not have attacked them the same way? If this is what you are suggestion, what do you base this on? When has Trump ever neglected to insult someone because they were white?

I'm talking about overall. What's the average? Take 1000 random samples, which way does the data lean?

I’ve never done a cost-benefit analysis for being atheist, so I don’t know.

You seemed to be arguing that it would indeed be racist if he had only said 'go back to the countries you came from', but somehow adding on 'and fix them and then come back here before we listen to your idea on how to fix the US' made it not racist.

How does that addition do so?

I’m saying “go back to the countries you came from” is anti-immigrant; not racist.

Do you think that race, as commonly understood, is actually a genetic reality, or just a social construct?

Social construct. Question; is it possible for Trump to attack personally a black or brown politician without you calling it racist? Not attack their policies, I'm talking about a personal attack against a black or brown person he does not like. is this possible in your view?

 

[RDKirk]

You literally just repeated what I said.

No, I didn't.

 

[Invalidusername]

No, I didn't.

Yes you really did. Read my post again.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Paul called himself the "chief sinner"--does that mean he was wrong to call out the Corinthian who was living with his father's wife?

Do you expect me to call out Paul for committing the sin of self righteousness?

 

[grasping the after wind]

I'll put that a different way, based on my own experience:

If you can rationalize any sin, you can rationalize every sin.

The person who rationalizes a "small" sin will rationalize a "big" sin, if Satan ever puts him into a situation where that big sin is as easy and cheap as that small sin.

It isn't a matter of can one rationalize; it is a matter of how often does one rationalize.

 

[Strathos]

The complaint was to go, fix things, come back and teach us how you did it. Nobody ever complained about that. If you disagree, provide an example

Now you're changing your argument. You first said that you had never heard of the sentiment of 'go back to the country you came from' being racist. Now you're amending that to say that you have never heard of the president's specific version of it (a distinction without a difference) being racist.

That's like saying that calling someone the n word might be racist, but you've never heard of someone getting offended over being called an 'n word platypus', so the latter version is not racist.

The fact that he added a nonsensical 'challenge' to the statement does not in any way nullify or ameliorate the racist language of the statement itself.

At most you could argue that he was not being deliberately racist, and his statement was just tone-deaf.

Are you suggesting had those women been caucasian women from say… Greece, Egypt, and Russia; and they were insulting America the way Trump felt these women were, that he would not have attacked them the same way? If this is what you are suggestion, what do you base this on? When has Trump ever neglected to insult someone because they were white?

It's not that he insulted them, it's that he used racist language to do it. Show me some examples of him telling white Americans to go back to the countries they came from.

Hillary Clinton has probably been the person he has criticized the most over his political career. AFAIK, he never told her to go back to the UK (which is where her ancestors immigrated from).

I’ve never done a cost-benefit analysis for being atheist, so I don’t know.

Well studies have been done for being black, Hispanic, Arabic, etc. people in the US, and they show that certain groups face more discrimination than others. I only brought up the atheist thing because a lot of atheists tend to say that they are marginalized in the US (which may be true).

I’m saying “go back to the countries you came from” is anti-immigrant; not racist.

You keep changing your argument. You insist that it's dishonest to summarize the president's statement as 'go back to the countries you came from', and insist that including his nonsensical challenge at the end somehow makes the statement acceptable. However you have repeatedly refused to explain how it does so.

Social construct.

Then why do you refuse to believe that Irish people were once considered a separate race?

Question; is it possible for Trump to attack personally a black or brown politician without you calling it racist? Not attack their policies, I'm talking about a personal attack against a black or brown person he does not like. is this possible in your view?

From post #97:

Saying 'AOC is a liar, incompetent, and has bad policies' is not racist.

Saying 'AOC should go back to the crime-infested country she came from' is.

The fact that you can't differentiate obviously racist language, which has historically racist connotations, from any kind of criticism whatsoever, indicates that you are really, really naive and sheltered.

Let's use Obama as an example. When Trump criticized him for playing too much golf, that wasn't racist (although it was hypocritical, considering how much golfing he does nowadays).

But when he kept insisting that his birth certificate was fake and he wasn't really born in the US, that was undeniably racist.

You're probably going to say that you see no racism in either of these criticisms, because neither of them explicitly mention race. That's because you lack either the ability or the desire to read between the lines.

Sentiments like 'this person is not a real American', or 'this person should go back to the country they came from' are historically associated with racist attacks on minorities. Yes, it's possible to use them against non-minorities, but when you specifically target minorities with these statements, it's hardly unreasonable for that to be interpreted as racist.

It's like if someone told a woman to 'get back in the kitchen', and you insisted that wasn't sexist because there are examples of men being told the same thing. That doesn't change the fact that the phrase has a historically misogynist connotation, and it was used against a woman, therefore, it comes off as pretty sexist.

 

[W2L]

But that's not the case here. The President is criticizing her personally as ignorant because she comes from a messed up country compared to America. Hence, the sentiment is go back and fix the messed up country you're from, and then we will welcome you back as our equal. That's racism.


Fine, but that's not the case here. She was not running the country of Somalia when she came here as a child refugee.

No, I don't think so.

 

[W2L]

im bowing out. Y'all can keep calling trump racist, and I hope he wins another term.

 

[Invalidusername]

im bowing out. Y'all can keep calling trump racist, and I hope he wins another term.

He will win another term. The silent majority will vote for him.

MAGA

 

[zephcom]

im bowing out. Y'all can keep calling trump racist, and I hope he wins another term.

I did that with Obama. I finally told all my friends who were baiting me on that Obama was a big boy and didn't need the likes of me defending him.

And he did win another term.

 

[Ken-1122]

Now you're changing your argument. You first said that you had never heard of the sentiment of 'go back to the country you came from' being racist.

No I said I didn't believe it was racist.

Now you're amending that to say that you have never heard of the president's specific version of it (a distinction without a difference) being racist.

No ya got it wrong again; I said I didn't believe what he said was racist.

It's not that he insulted them, it's that he used racist language to do it. Show me some examples of him telling white Americans to go back to the countries they came from.

Sure a soon as you show me an example of him telling black or brown people to go back to the countries they came from.

Well studies have been done for being black, Hispanic, Arabic, etc. people in the US, and they show that certain groups face more discrimination than others. I only brought up the atheist thing because a lot of atheists tend to say that they are marginalized in the US (which may be true).

When people who consider themselves a minority are discriminated against, they complain a lot louder, and get much more attention than when those who consider the majority are discriminated against. When such studies are done, those who complain the loudest usually get the most attention.

You keep changing your argument. You insist that it's dishonest to summarize the president's statement as 'go back to the countries you came from', and insist that including his nonsensical challenge at the end somehow makes the statement acceptable. However you have repeatedly refused to explain how it does so.

One comment request that you return, the other does not.

Then why do you refuse to believe that Irish people were once considered a separate race?

Okay; since you insist on making this an issue, let's keep it real.
White has never been considered a race. Black has never been considered a race. The 3 original races were Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongololid. People use the term "white" when referring to the Caucasoid race. The point I am making is Irish was always considered Caucasoid.
Caucasoid

The fact that you can't differentiate obviously racist language, which has historically racist connotations, from any kind of criticism whatsoever, indicates that you are really, really naive and sheltered.

The fact that you take a small portion of what he said and call it racist, while ignoring the majority of what he actually said which shows in context it was not racist; shows your agenda is more important to you than the truth.
It's obvious we aren't going to agree on this; allow me a few questions in order that I might understand this method to your madness (LOL)
According to you, if a white american tells a brown immigrant to go back to where he came from; that's racist right?
How about if an Mexican American tells a Polish immigrant to go back to his country?
How about if an African American tells a Nigerian immigrant to go back to his country?
If an African American tells a Nigerian immigrant to go back does that make the African American a racist against his own race? Does this mean he is a racial sell out because he insulted an immigrant who shares his skin color?

 

[Strathos]

No I said I didn't believe it was racist.

Post #181:

No it means until last week, nobody ever complained about being told to go back to their country because it was never an issue; now since Trump posts silly tweet, now everybody and their mother is claiming this has been a problem forever and they are victims.

You said it was never an issue, meaning it was never considered racist, according to you.

No ya got it wrong again; I said I didn't believe what he said was racist.

Post #203:

The complaint was to go, fix things, come back and teach us how you did it. Nobody ever complained about that. If you disagree, provide an example

You asked for someone specifically complaining about the president's odd challenge along with the language, where in your previous quote, you said that no one had ever complained about it in and of itself. That's called moving the goalposts.

Sure a soon as you show me an example of him telling black or brown people to go back to the countries they came from.

...Are you being serious right now? That's what this entire thread is about. Are you still claiming that it somehow magically doesn't count because he added that nonsensical challenge to it?

When people who consider themselves a minority are discriminated against, they complain a lot louder, and get much more attention than when those who consider the majority are discriminated against. When such studies are done, those who complain the loudest usually get the most attention.

That doesn't follow at all, as the studies I'm referring to evaluate objective factors using techniques like double-blind methodology.

Do you honestly believe that there are no groups in America who are marginalized to a greater extent than other groups?

One comment request that you return, the other does not.

You think he seriously expects them to legally immigrate to nations 75% of them have never been to, run for political office, get elected, fix all of the problems with the entire country, and then return and do the same here? Even if that were possible it would be a lifetime of work. You might as well say that a person who replies to a request by saying 'over my dead body' is really saying yes, since all you have to do is wait until they die.

Okay; since you insist on making this an issue, let's keep it real.
White has never been considered a race. Black has never been considered a race. The 3 original races were Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongololid. People use the term "white" when referring to the Caucasoid race. The point I am making is Irish was always considered Caucasoid.
Caucasoid

As you said, race is a social construct. Meaning that different people and different societies have different ideas of who belongs to what race. Hispanics are also Caucasoid, yet in modern America they are usually considered a different 'race' than a British or Irish person.

The fact that you take a small portion of what he said and call it racist, while ignoring the majority of what he actually said which shows in context it was not racist; shows your agenda is more important to you than the truth.

How does taking the rest of his statement make it not racist? It's a classically racist trope. Just because he included a nonsensical 'challenge' (which could never be realistically fulfilled) doesn't change the fact that he was using racist language.

It's obvious we aren't going to agree on this; allow me a few questions in order that I might understand this method to your madness (LOL)
According to you, if a white american tells a brown immigrant to go back to where he came from; that's racist right?

If the white person is not aware that the brown person is an immigrant, and just makes the assumption that they are based on the color of their skin, or if the brown person is not a first generation immigrant and was born in the US, then it is racist.

If they know for a fact that the person was not born in the US, then it is not necessarily racist, but it is still a pretty rude thing to say.

How about if an Mexican American tells a Polish immigrant to go back to his country?
How about if an African American tells a Nigerian immigrant to go back to his country?
If an African American tells a Nigerian immigrant to go back does that make the African American a racist against his own race? Does this mean he is a racial sell out because he insulted an immigrant who shares his skin color?

See above.

Also refer to my 'get back in the kitchen' example. Just because you may be able to point out instances of women saying that to men, or women to women, or men to men, doesn't do anything to diminish the fact that it is an archetypically sexist thing for men to say to women (of course, in all cases, it's a pretty awful thing to say to someone).

 

[Ken-1122]

Post #181:
You said it was never an issue, meaning it was never considered racist, according to you.
Post #203:
You asked for someone specifically complaining about the president's odd challenge along with the language, where in your previous quote, you said that no one had ever complained about it in and of itself. That's called moving the goalposts.

Post 181 and 203 I was talking about two different things.

...Are you being serious right now? That's what this entire thread is about. Are you still claiming that it somehow magically doesn't count because he added that nonsensical challenge to it?

He didn’t tell those people to go back to their country, he told them to go back to their country, fix it; then come back and show us how it is done. That is what he said; until you are willing to discuss what he actually said, you are not having a fair discussion.

That doesn't follow at all, as the studies I'm referring to evaluate objective factors using techniques like double-blind methodology.

Do you honestly believe that there are no groups in America who are marginalized to a greater extent than other groups?

I didn’t address who has it worse, I simply pointed out when minorities are mistreated, they make more noise than when the majority are mistreated. Do you agree? Or do I need to provide some examples.

You think he seriously expects them to legally immigrate to nations 75% of them have never been to, run for political office, get elected, fix all of the problems with the entire country, and then return and do the same here? Even if that were possible it would be a lifetime of work. You might as well say that a person who replies to a request by saying 'over my dead body' is really saying yes, since all you have to do is wait until they die.

In neither of the two statements are the people expected to do as told.

As you said, race is a social construct. Meaning that different people and different societies have different ideas of who belongs to what race. Hispanics are also Caucasoid, yet in modern America they are usually considered a different 'race' than a British or Irish person.

There are plenty of hispanics who are negroid and caucasoid as well; wanna know why? Because Hispanics is a culture, not a race. Know the difference?

How does taking the rest of his statement make it not racist? It's a classically racist trope. Just because he included a nonsensical 'challenge' (which could never be realistically fulfilled) doesn't change the fact that he was using racist language.

Because it doesn’t insult race, it insults immigration status.

If the white person is not aware that the brown person is an immigrant, and just makes the assumption that they are based on the color of their skin, or if the brown person is not a first generation immigrant and was born in the US, then it is racist.

How about if the white person is unaware the brown person is immigrant, but makes the assumption based on something else other than skin color? Is that racist?

Also refer to my 'get back in the kitchen' example. Just because you may be able to point out instances of women saying that to men, or women to women, or men to men, doesn't do anything to diminish the fact that it is an archetypically sexist thing for men to say to women (of course, in all cases, it's a pretty awful thing to say to someone).

I have never heard of anyone telling a man to get back into the kitchen. But there has been plenty of cases of white people being told to go back to where you came from; thus your analogy does not apply

 

[ruthiesea]

But that's not the case here. The President is criticizing her personally as ignorant because she comes from a messed up country compared to America. Hence, the sentiment is go back and fix the messed up country you're from, and then we will welcome you back as our equal. That's racism.


Fine, but that's not the case here. She was not running the country of Somalia when she came here as a child refugee.

Also, the other three who he said to go back to fix their messed up countries are American by birth and not from another place. Is the president saying that the United States is one of the “.....totally broken and crime infested places.....”?

 

[childeye 2]

Also, the other three who he said to go back to fix their messed up countries are American by birth and not from another place. Is the president saying that the United States is one of the “.....totally broken and crime infested places.....”?

Exactly. Thanks for reassuring my sanity by pointing out that contradiction.

 

[SkyWriting]

This pastor says that it is. And he calls out church leaders to label it as a sin.

Who Will Call Out the President's Racism?

Should national leaders be called out on their sins even if they are believed to support 'Christianity'? Or should only only national leaders who are believed to not support Christianity be called out on their sins?

Should the party who called out Bill Clinton for marital infidelity also call out Donald Trump for racism?? Within the realm of morals and ethics is there any reason why anyone should believe Christians have either morals or ethics?

What should your pastor do?

Romans 13
1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

 

[Ken-1122]

But that's not the case here. The President is criticizing her personally as ignorant because she comes from a messed up country compared to America. Hence, the sentiment is go back and fix the messed up country you're from, and then we will welcome you back as our equal. That's racism.

He never said that. he said "go back and fix the messed up country you're from then come back and show us how it's done! That isn't welcoming her back as our equal, that's putting her in a position of being our teacher! That isn't racism.
Why do so many people have a hard time getting it right? Either you misrepresent what he says, or you take a tiny bit of what he says out of context and call it racism; is it because if you addressed what he actually said you wouldn't get to call it racist? Is calling someone a racist that important to you? tsk tsk.

 

[zephcom]

What should your pastor do?

Romans 13
1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

Fortunately, I don't have a pastor. I will never again have a pastor. The teachings of Jesus are sufficient for me.

With that said, the passage from Romans you quote above is just a snippet out of a two chapter list of instructions from Paul. When one reads it in context of chapters 12 and 13, one quickly discovers that one's obligation to God is also required of the Christian.

The pastors who call out the racism of the President do submit to the government. The pastors who protest in the halls of Congress do submit to the government. As yet I've not seen any pastor protesting the evil of government resist arrest or punishment for their behavior. In that regard they follow Jesus' teachings and the example from His life as He was arrested, tried and convicted by the secular government of His time.

Within the context of Paul's teaching in those two chapters, the life and teachings of Jesus, and even the examples of the Old Testament prophets who spoke out against the leaders of Israel, it is obvious you are attempting to use this passage incorrectly as a method of whitewashing evil in an attempt to lead Followers astray and convince them to embrace evil as acceptable when government commits it.

[Edit] And Paul's own life of being arrested and placed in prison shows that even Paul understood there were limits to what one should endure from government.