What's wrong with racism?

[2PhiloVoid]

Not at all. Frankly, I think we can agree, that the Bible is pretty clear in it's assertion that the Canaanites are evil. I'm assuming that whether there is a God or not, the Bible claims that God Himself says that racism, as we've defined it, is Godly.

As "we've defined it"? Uh...I don't think we've reached a definitive definition just yet on this.

That God Himself uses race to determine the attributes of human beings. Canaanites, Hittites are all evil and deserve to die because of it.

I'm seeing a disparity here. On the one hand, you asserting that God has applied a racist evaluation of the Canaanites, but then you seem to be connecting God's judgment with their being evil with their race. Where exactly is this happening in the Biblical texts? Because as I follow the narrative from Genesis to Joshua, I'm not seeing that 1) God is racist, or 2) that evil is attributed to race. As far as I can tell, this is a conceptual connection that you alone are making and doesn't bear out in the overall contexts of the biblical narrative.

So why is it wrong to assume that every member of a race share the same attributes? What's wrong with saying Jews are deceitful, or Africans are savages, and whites are power-hungry? The Bible tells us that Canaanites are evil and every single one of them deserved to die. Why was Hitler wrong to say that Jews were evil and every single one of them deserved to die?

What does Hitler have to do with God's denunciation of the Canaanites? That seems to me to be a Red-herring or a form of anachronism.

 

[JGG]

As "we've defined it"? Uh...I don't think we've reached a definitive definition just yet on this.

Well then present the definition of racism you would like to employ.

I'm seeing a disparity here. On the one hand, you asserting that God has applied a racist evaluation of the Canaanites, but then you seem to be connecting God's judgment with their being evil with their race. Where exactly is this happening in the Biblical texts? Because as I follow the narrative from Genesis to Joshua, I'm not seeing that 1) God is racist, or 2) that evil is attributed to race. As far as I can tell, this is a conceptual connection that you alone are making and doesn't bear out in the overall contexts of the biblical narrative.

The Canaanites are sentenced to extermination as punishment for their collective wrongdoing. So all Canaanites share an attribute that makes their extinction necessary. That is all that matters.

What does Hitler have to do with God's denunciation of the Canaanites? That seems to me to be a Red-herring or a form of anachronism.

Why would the general condemnation of a race of people be morally wrong in one instance but not the other? Is morality relative?

"We should endeavor to evaluate each person on their own merits. On their own assets. They should be measured by their own actions,behavior, beliefs, and character, not our perceptions of their race, tribe, or nationality."

True statement or not?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well then present the definition of racism you would like to employ.

Oh, I suppose we could use one of the standard ones found in Merriam-Webster's:

Definition of racism
1) : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2) a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3) : racial prejudice or discrimination

...the only caveat is that I'll add that 4) our ideas about racism today in the modern world are fed by Post-Holocaust considerations, and in the U.S. by Civil Rights issues, and by the uses and misuses of genetic science. So, we could make a definition that incorporates all of these principles, and I think that would be closer to the mark for what we think today. The only problem is, this is not the structure of "discrimination" that we find in the Bible. (Oh well. Back to the drawing-board!)

The Canaanites are sentenced to extermination as punishment for their collective wrongdoing. So all Canaanites share an attribute that makes their extinction necessary. That is all that matters.

Saying that this is all that matters doesn't do two things: 1) It doesn't take into account the connotations and social problems that have informed and reformed our modern consciousness about racism, and 2) it doesn't take into account the actual narrative structures that contribute to the context of meaning within the Bible. So, we have a 'fail' if we don't take into account both considerations here.

Why would the general condemnation of a race of people be morally wrong in one instance but not the other? Is morality relative?

No, it's not morally relative; rather, it's morally different, because what we see attributed to God's thinking is not parallel to the ideological structure of Hitler's thinking (the latter guy being the typical go-to bug-a-boo for substantiating what it means to be racist ...)

"We should endeavor to evaluate each person on their own merits. On their own assets. They should be measured by their own actions,behavior, beliefs, and character, not our perceptions of their race, tribe, or nationality."

True statement or not?

...false. What you're failing to realize is that that little bit about evaluating each person on their own merits doesn't mean evaluating them also by their own standards or beliefs. Yeah....these aren't the same, so let's not equivocate about it. Not even people at the United Nations' would go with what you're proposing above as "true."

Vulnerable people - Let's Fight Racism! (U.N. Definition)

 

[JGG]

Oh, I suppose we could use one of the standard ones found in Merriam-Webster's:

Definition of racism
1) : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2) a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3) : racial prejudice or discrimination

...the only caveat is that I'll add that 4) our ideas about racism today in the modern world are fed by Post-Holocaust considerations, and in the U.S. by Civil Rights issues, and by the uses and misuses of genetic science. So, we could make a definition that incorporates all of these principles, and I think that would be closer to the mark for what we think today. The only problem is, this is not the structure of "discrimination" that we find in the Bible. (Oh well. Back to the drawing-board!)

Saying that this is all that matters doesn't do two things: 1) It doesn't take into account the connotations and social problems that have informed and reformed our modern consciousness about racism, and 2) it doesn't take into account the actual narrative structures that contribute to the context of meaning within the Bible. So, we have a 'fail' if we don't take into account both considerations here.

Stop me if I'm misinterpreting. It sounds as though you're saying that racism wasn't morally wrong until recently. Racism was morally acceptable during the attempted extermination of the Canaanites.

Still sounds like moral relativism.

No, it's not morally relative; rather, it's morally different, because what we see attributed to God's thinking is not parallel to the ideological structure of Hitler's thinking (the latter guy being the typical go-to bug-a-boo for substantiating what it means to be racist ...)

That's moral relativism.

...false. What you're failing to realize is that that little bit about evaluating each person on their own merits doesn't mean evaluating them also by their own standards or beliefs.

No. Of course not. But you don't evaluate the beliefs of an individual from China based on what you think people in China believe, you evaluate the individual by what they themselves actually profess to believe.

Yeah....these aren't the same, so let's not equivocate about it. Not even people at the United Nations' would go with what you're proposing above as "true."

Vulnerable people - Let's Fight Racism! (U.N. Definition)

Nor did I. With that bit of enlightenment, do you agree with that statement.

 

[Dave-W]

Racism was morally acceptable during the attempted extermination of the Canaanites.

Still sounds like moral relativism.

Canaanites were Caucasian, as were the Israelites.
How is that racism since they are the same race?

If you bother to actually read the text, the reason they were to be exterminated was given: abominable religious practices.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Stop me if I'm misinterpreting. It sounds as though you're saying that racism wasn't morally wrong until recently. Racism was morally acceptable during the attempted extermination of the Canaanites.

Lol! I've tried to stop you....but you just keep on doing it!

Still sounds like moral relativism.

Of course it "sounds" like that to the mind that is in need of more education in the field of ethics.

That's moral relativism.

Nope. It ain't.

No. Of course not. But you don't evaluate the beliefs of an individual from China based on what you think people in China believe, you evaluate the individual by what they themselves actually profess to believe.

No, you evaluate the 'truth value' of what a person from China tells you that he/she believes by YOUR standard, not by theirs. You do this IF you are a moral absolutist. But, if you are a Moral Relativist, then you just say to the person from China, "Oh....I see, O-kay then. Thank you for sharing!!!"

Nor did I. With that bit of enlightenment, do you agree with that statement.

Obviously, I don't agree with it...........................but just because "I" don't agree with it doesn't mean I'm 'actually' right. But it does mean that I will admit that I have a morally different absolute position. See how this works? Maybe you don't. But don't worry, I understand. You weren't in class that day when my ATHEIST Social Philosophy professor explained this to the class ...

 

[Dave-W]

The Canaanites are sentenced to extermination as punishment for their collective wrongdoing. So all Canaanites share an attribute that makes their extinction necessary. That is all that matters.

But that attribute had nothing to do with "race."

 

[JGG]

Canaanites were Caucasian, as were the Israelites.
How is that racism since they are the same race?

If you bother to actually read the text, the reason they were to be exterminated was given: abominable religious practices.

You agree then that this particular "race" of people have abominable religious practices worthy of extermination?

If I were a Nazi, couldn't I basically make the same argument about the Jews?

 

[JGG]

But that attribute had nothing to do with "race."

Yeah, but neither does the alleged deceit of Jews, or the alleged savageness of Africans, or the power hunger associatedcwith whites.

 

[Dave-W]

You agree then that this particular "race" of people have abominable religious practices worthy of extermination?

No - but I agree that those NATIONALITIES (cannanite, hivite, perezite, jebusite) as opposed to "race," had religious practices (like throwing infants into a furnace) deserving of death.

Read up on Molech worship sometime.

 

[Dave-W]

If I were a Nazi, couldn't I basically make the same argument about the Jews?

What religious practice of Judaism was offensive?

 

[JGG]

Lol! I've tried to stop you....but you just keep on doing it!

Perhaps you could correct me then.

Of course it "sounds" like that to the mind that is in need of more education in the field of ethics.

Perhaps you could correct me then. Why is this not relative morality?

Nope. It ain't.

From where I sit, it is. Are you able to explain why I'm wrong.

No, you evaluate the 'truth value' of what a person from China tells you that he/she believes by YOUR standard, not by theirs. You do this IF you are a moral absolutist. But, if you are a Moral Relativist, then you just say to the person from China, "Oh....I see, O-kay then. Thank you for sharing!!!"

Again, you missed my point. Your method of evaluation may be whatever you wish. But the beliefs you evaluate should be those professed by the individual, not the beliefs you expect that person to hold.

In other words: you should reserve judgment of someone's beliefs until you know what they actually believe.

Obviously, I don't agree with it...........................but just because "I" don't agree with it doesn't mean I'm 'actually' right. But it does mean that I will admit that I have a morally different absolute position. See how this works? Maybe you don't. But don't worry, I understand. You weren't in class that day when my ATHEIST Social Philosophy professor explained this to the class ...

I was apparently in another class at the time. But since I have obce again attempted to clarify the quote, do we have agreement yet?

 

[JGG]

No - but I agree that those NATIONALITIES (cannanite, hivite, perezite, jebusite) as opposed to "race," had religious practices (like throwing infants into a furnace) deserving of death.

Read up on Molech worship sometime.

Are we agreed then that because it is not racist, that making generalizations about the beliefs of someone based on their nationality is fine. Norwegians, for example, are Satanists. Which, I think, is a good reason to nuke Norway.

 

[JGG]

What religious practice of Judaism was offensive?

Not worshipping Jesus I suppose. Ask them. I wasn't alive at the time.

 

[Dave-W]

Not worshipping Jesus I suppose. Ask them. I wasn't alive at the time.

Neither did Hitler. (may his name be blotted out)

 

[JGG]

Neither did Hitler. (may his name be blotted out)

Of course he did. He was a Nazi and Nazis were Christian.

 

[Dave-W]

Of course he did. He was a Nazi and Nazis were Christian.

Not at all. His religion was spiritism - seances and familiar spirits and the like. He used Christianity as a cover to convince the German people of his plans.

 

[RDKirk]

No - but I agree that those NATIONALITIES (cannanite, hivite, perezite, jebusite) as opposed to "race," had religious practices (like throwing infants into a furnace) deserving of death.

Read up on Molech worship sometime.

Yes, and moreover, a Canaanite who abandoned those practices--i.e., converted to Israelite belief and practices, such as Rahab--was accepted.

 

[JGG]

Not at all. His religion was spiritism - seances and familiar spirits and the like. He used Christianity as a cover to convince the German people of his plans.

He was a Nazi and he was a German. Both are Christian. That's the whole story.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Perhaps you could correct me then.

I've been trying...but I seem to have misplaced my purple lightsaber.

Perhaps you could correct me then. Why is this not relative morality?

Because to be a moral relativist---that is, to be one who holds that morality is simply relative to each person and/or each cultural group---involves one's commitment to some level of substantial "tolerance" for the views of others. Of course, there are different kinds of moral relativism and various issues within this view.

From where I sit, it is. Are you able to explain why I'm wrong.

I'm having some logistical problems in finding just "where" you sit in all of this, but I have an idea ...