I feel like this particular aspect has become even more common with the rise of associating Palestinians with the religion of Islam and landing criticism on both of them as if they are one concept. I'm pretty sure a lot of people are already aware of how some people of the muslim background make the claim that certain people criticizing (rightly or otherwise) is racist towards them and I see the argument made time and time again that it's not racist to criticize the religion for it's belief system etc. etc. Since there's a lot of diverse groups of people on this site I wanted to get a read into the situation and how they personally view such criticism and whether or not it's actually racist.
The relationship between racism and religion
- Thread starter borisjohnsonson
- Start date
They're just people, horribly oppressed people, but people.
Just like any other group, there will be zealots and there will atheists.
The warmongers like to try to tie religion into race, it makes it easier to demonize people. Zionists like to try to claim all Jews are zionist in order to accuse rights defenders of racism and also to try to claim all Palestinians are Hamas to justify genocide.
Race is not biological.
There is no such thing as genetically different human races.
So the divisions into race are all cultural, language, religion and skin colour. Move any population closer or further from the equator and over generations their skin colour will change.
I'm no expert on religion, especially those that aren't monotheist, but here's my take in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.
Christians - many centuries ago they would forcibly try to convert "heathens" to Christianity, though not Muslims or Jews. Today they welcome converts, but aren't militant in trying to convert everybody to Christianity
Jews - discourage conversion, have strict rules regarding Jewish maternal bloodlines, and apart from what is going on in Israel do not try to expand territorially. Even in Israel, though many on this forum would disagree, the Jews are only trying to take land as a measure of security and protection, and have no wish to take land beyond Gaza and the West Bank.
Muslims - most are not trying to convert others to Islam, but some of the current radicals believe all non-Muslims are "infidels", and try to force conversion with severe penalties to those who won't comply. Those same radicals want to take as much territory as possible, in order to impose Sharia law in all lands in which they become the majority.
Imho all humans are "tribal", and potentially racist in terms of protecting their territory, financial power, food and water supplies, and especially their women, from "outsiders" whether the "tribal differences" are due to race, religion, or any other sufficiently contentious factors.
Christians - many centuries ago they would forcibly try to convert "heathens" to Christianity, though not Muslims or Jews. Today they welcome converts, but aren't militant in trying to convert everybody to Christianity
Jews - discourage conversion, have strict rules regarding Jewish maternal bloodlines, and apart from what is going on in Israel do not try to expand territorially. Even in Israel, though many on this forum would disagree, the Jews are only trying to take land as a measure of security and protection, and have no wish to take land beyond Gaza and the West Bank.
Muslims - most are not trying to convert others to Islam, but some of the current radicals believe all non-Muslims are "infidels", and try to force conversion with severe penalties to those who won't comply. Those same radicals want to take as much territory as possible, in order to impose Sharia law in all lands in which they become the majority.
Imho all humans are "tribal", and potentially racist in terms of protecting their territory, financial power, food and water supplies, and especially their women, from "outsiders" whether the "tribal differences" are due to race, religion, or any other sufficiently contentious factors.
If your primary metric is land, then you have to start with settler colonialism and Christianity, though it would be a long discussion in figuring out if was the church or the kings and queens of the day pushing to 'conquer the savages'.
I don't know that any of the holy books argue that you should take over the planet, convert them and have them fund the church sure, but looking for real estate?
Religions are inventions by men to oppress and keep their control over women.
All religions are totally useless and brings more violence then anything else on earth.
All religions are totally useless and brings more violence then anything else on earth.
I agree that religion has bought more violence than anything else on earth.
However, as far as being useless:
Religion gives hope in trying times, albeit the same kind of false hope that buying lottery tickets does.
Religion gives comfort to those terrified by the darkness and eternity of death.
Religion creates ties and shared life experiences amongst strangers, as long as they are of the same faith.
People of the same religion tend to give aid and assistance to those of their faith who are in need, usually before giving the same to people in need of other faiths.
So while being an agnostic old Jew, and having no fear of death or need of assistance yet, I still identify as being Jewish, if only because that's how I have felt my whole adult life.
The extremists in both Israel and Palestine see things from a religious perspective. Extremists Jews think the fact that Jews ruled in Israel/Judah/Judea mean that it will always be Jewish land. Mainstream Palestinian factions like Hamas see their war against Israel being a holy war because they believe Muhammed allegedly visiting in the night means it is Islamic land and can never be ceded and that because Muhammed's battles against the Jews of Madinah and Khaybar, they still have a duty to fight Jews. These religious extremists routinely use claims about Jews and Al Aqsa to incite violence and solidify their power.
Of course the conflict is far from that simple. Some like Fatah and more Mainstream Israelis hold nationalism far more significant. Then we can add that groups like PFLP and many of the original zionists were marxists or socialist who allegedly don't back religion.
As for us outsiders, you can throw in the racial perceptions in the west about non-white people and Jews, more recent western experiences like 9/11, and the evangelicals who 'need' Israel to exist so J-dog can return and redeem them.
There's some interesting history about the western definition of race which goes back to the Spanish and the Reconquista who sought ways to differentiate between 'real' Christian Spaniards and the Jews/Muslims who were forced into converting. As that obsessed guy said, race as we describe it is a social construct which is flexible to define who is part of the power group (my Irish ancestors - or at least the Catholic ones - weren't considered white when the came to Canada).
I would say control over people in general, even if the big ones around now have a good history of subjugating women.
And religion has played an important role in helping to promote positive social behaviour in the days before the establishment of a secular legal system. Even though people throughout history have manipulated the system for their personal benefit, there sure seems to have been an evolutionary benefit into having a belief beyond what we can see. Of course in the modern world, many of the evolutionary pressures that benefitted early and pre-humans no longer have the same relevance and religion isn't needed for society to function. If people feel better through faith and aren't promoting hatred of people who disagree, then good for them.
Except that its not religious, its a foreign settler colonial movement vs an indigenous population.
