• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Racism as Original Sin

Skeptic

Banned
Joined
Jul 25, 2001
Messages
18,312
It occured to me that the liberal idea that America is "deeply racist" is an hypothesis that works in exactly the same way as the Catholic idea that we are all born with "original sin".

In both cases, it is something that is just in us, regardless of our actual conduct. Everybody is guilty of "original sin" whatever they actually do, even if they live as a saint; America is guilty of "deep racism" no matter how many black people succeed in it, how much integration exists, what discriminatory laws were declared unconstitutional, or anything else.

In both cases, evidence flows only in one direction. Acts of bravery, generosity, selflessness, and so on do not count as evidence against original sin, but every act of cowardice, avarice, or selfishness "proves" origin sin exists. Similarly, acts of fair treatment, abolishment of discriminatory laws, insistence on minority enrollment in university, etc., do not count as evidence against the idea that America is "deeply racist", but every time somebody uses the N-word is "proves" how, below the thin veneer of civlization, America is "really" deeply racist.

In both cases, salvation can come only by supernatural means. In the case of the Catholic church (roughly speaking) original sin can only be erased by baptism by priests and/or the grace of God. For it is only the priests, with their special consecration ceremonies and other mumbo-jumbo, that have this supernatural power to forgive sins and tell you what God really wants. Whatever laymen say or do does not matter: until the ceremony is performed, or God's grace achieved, one is guilty of original sin no matter what one does.

Similarly, in the case of America's racism, the "deep racism" can only be declared over by members of the new priesthood, that is, academia. The only thing--and I do mean the only thing--that would make the bien pensants agree that America is no longer "deeply racist"--is that a properly consecrated priest (left-wing academic in the humanities) would perform the sacred sacrament that makes America free of racism (i.e., write a think, heavily-footnoted, unreadable book with the title, "The End of Institutional Racism".) How people actually treat each other matters not one whit, until such priestly forgiveness is forthcoming; until then, America is still guilty of "deep racism" no matter what it does.
 
Unfortunately, anti-racism is now an industry in this country. Part of the service sector I suspect. And as any good marketing guy knows, when one has a product and service one must increase, or create, demand in order to obtain the growth that Wall Street has come to expect. It is just business as usual.
 
It occured to me that the liberal idea that America is "deeply racist" is an hypothesis that works in exactly the same way as the Catholic idea that we are all born with "original sin".

This means that 'shallow racism' would be a conservative idea. Which means it is no big deal. Which means no action to fix things is required.

Thanks for clearing that up.
 
"Original sin" just means we are not perfect. We are flawed.

I think part of that original sin is that human beings in general are suspicious of people who are different from them. It may be a survival holdover thing.

I don't think America is special with respect to its racism. It's a human problem, not a national one. But I do think America does a better job of dealing with it than most places.
 
The fact of the matter is this...

People who are racist have the RIGHT to be racist.
Hating another race does not hurt anyone as long as that hate is not expressed in violent means.

The far left in this country are what you call "Overly politically correct". If they had a choice to control our thoughts to eleminate racism they probably would.

"Racism" is simply defined as "the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others."
Racism does not imply violence.

People who THINK one race is better than another have that right. They have the right to hold that opinion no matter how incorrect or revolting it is.

If racists want to protest blacks holding office or want to claim Africans are somehow less intelligent or less important than europeans,They have the right to do so. They aren't hurting anyone by holding an opinion.

The problem is when they commit violence. People generally assume that just because someone holds a specific opinion they will commit violence in support of that opinion. This assumption is baseless and leads to what you call "Reverse discrimination" where those individuals who hold opinions that we disagree with are discriminated against and their rights taken away.

This is another big problem in our country.
 
If racists want to protest blacks holding office or want to claim Africans are somehow less intelligent or less important than europeans,They have the right to do so. They aren't hurting anyone by holding an opinion.

The problem is when they commit violence. People generally assume that just because someone holds a specific opinion they will commit violence in support of that opinion. This assumption is baseless and leads to what you call "Reverse discrimination" where those individuals who hold opinions that we disagree with are discriminated against and their rights taken away.
Whoa there little podner. The problem is bigger than just violence - it also includes when racists non-violently restrict rights and opportunities in support of that opinion.
 
Whoa there little podner. The problem is bigger than just violence - it also includes when racists non-violently restrict rights and opportunities in support of that opinion.



Give me a few examples.

I don't see how it's possible to restrict rights non-violently. Anytime someone's rights are taken away they resort to violence,So inorder to maintain their rights being taken violence must be used.

So give me some examples of how someone can non-violently restrict rights and opportunities of others.
 
Give me a few examples.

I don't see how it's possible to restrict rights non-violently. Anytime someone's rights are taken away they resort to violence,So inorder to maintain their rights being taken violence must be used.

So give me some examples of how someone can non-violently restrict rights and opportunities of others.

Deny them a job. Deny them a house. Deny them a bank loan. Deny them an education.

ETA: Deny them a marriage license.
 
Deny them a job. Deny them a house. Deny them a bank loan. Deny them an education.

ETA: Deny them a marriage license.


Well in my opinion people should not be forced to hire someone or give them a house if they do not choose to. They own the house therefor it is their option who they want to rent or sell it to. Same with a job. If they own a company they should be able to choose who they hire. If they only choose whites that is their loss.

Secondly,If they have government jobs then they are working for the government. Meaning they should not lawfully be able to deny anyone based on their race. Since they don't have the right to do so since they are working for the govt and it's not something they own.
 
Well in my opinion people should not be forced to hire someone or give them a house if they do not choose to. They own the house therefor it is their option who they want to rent or sell it to. Same with a job. If they own a company they should be able to choose who they hire. If they only choose whites that is their loss.

Secondly,If they have government jobs then they are working for the government. Meaning they should not lawfully be able to deny anyone based on their race. Since they don't have the right to do so since they are working for the govt and it's not something they own.

You asked how rights or opportunities could be violated non-violently.

The greatest violence I ever committed toward homosexuals was to take a pointy stick and stab a hole through a piece of paper. Me and a majority of my fellow voters. And the result was greater than any punch to the face.
 
You asked how rights or opportunities could be violated non-violently.

The greatest violence I ever committed toward homosexuals was to take a pointy stick and stab a hole through a piece of paper. Me and a majority of my fellow voters. And the result was greater than any punch to the face.


1.And you failed to. Since I don't agree that it is the right of someone to get a job from someone who does not want to hire them.

2.Im assuming you're talking about voting against homosexual marriage. In which case,Voting against homosexuals being able to be married is NOT a violent act.
 
1.And you failed to. Since I don't agree that it is the right of someone to get a job from someone who does not want to hire them.

Somehow, I knew you would forget your own words. "So give me some examples of how someone can non-violently restrict rights and opportunities of others."

2.Im assuming you're talking about voting against homosexual marriage. In which case,Voting against homosexuals being able to be married is NOT a violent act.

Exactly. A non-violent example. What you asked for.
 
Somehow, I knew you would forget your own words. "So give me some examples of how someone can non-violently restrict rights and opportunities of others."



Exactly. A non-violent example. What you asked for.


Then I take back that about opportunities. "Some" opportunities can be restricted without violence. However that's life.

Secondly,You're the one who said it was a violent act.
"The greatest violence I ever committed toward homosexuals was to take a pointy stick and stab a hole through a piece of paper."
I however agree....Voting can take away the opportunitie non-violently.


But the point is this...Being a racist does not mean you will do any of these things. You can hate other races while still respecting their rights.
I myself don't like homosexuals. In my opinion homosexuality is disgusting. But that's only my OPINION. Even though I don't like homosexuals or the concept of homosexuality,I still would vote support gay marriage. As Bill Maher once said "I don't try to make my OPINION the law."

The same applies to racists. Someone can be racist(and they have every right to do so) without ever infringing upon the rights of others.
 
The fact of the matter is this...

People who are racist have the RIGHT to be racist.
Hating another race does not hurt anyone as long as that hate is not expressed in violent means.

The far left in this country are what you call "Overly politically correct". If they had a choice to control our thoughts to eleminate racism they probably would.

"Racism" is simply defined as "the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others."
Racism does not imply violence.

People who THINK one race is better than another have that right. They have the right to hold that opinion no matter how incorrect or revolting it is.

If racists want to protest blacks holding office or want to claim Africans are somehow less intelligent or less important than europeans,They have the right to do so. They aren't hurting anyone by holding an opinion.

The problem is when they commit violence. People generally assume that just because someone holds a specific opinion they will commit violence in support of that opinion. This assumption is baseless and leads to what you call "Reverse discrimination" where those individuals who hold opinions that we disagree with are discriminated against and their rights taken away.

This is another big problem in our country.

Of course racists have the right to be racists. So do creationists, flat-earthers, geo-centricers and every other brand of woo-woo. At the same time, we all have the right to laugh at them the responsibility to make sure their discredited ideas remain discredited.
 
Then I take back that about opportunities. "Some" opportunities can be restricted without violence. However that's life.

Secondly,You're the one who said it was a violent act.
"The greatest violence I ever committed toward homosexuals was to take a pointy stick and stab a hole through a piece of paper."
I however agree....Voting can take away the opportunitie non-violently.

Since the discussion was about violence, I was making an allegory with my pointy stick (pencil) and the act of stabbing (poking out the chad) to illustrate how a non-violent act can deny human beings their rights and opportunities. :)

But the point is this...Being a racist does not mean you will do any of these things. You can hate other races while still respecting their rights.
I myself don't like homosexuals. In my opinion homosexuality is disgusting. But that's only my OPINION. Even though I don't like homosexuals or the concept of homosexuality,I still would vote support gay marriage. As Bill Maher once said "I don't try to make my OPINION the law."

That is the thing about original sin. It means that we are so flawed that we don't have a chance of meeting the requirements for salvation. My particular flaws caused me to vote my opinion into law.

The same applies to racists. Someone can be racist(and they have every right to do so) without ever infringing upon the rights of others.

But being humans imbued with flaws, they often will when presented the chance to do so.
 
Last edited:
Of course racists have the right to be racists. So do creationists, flat-earthers, geo-centricers and every other brand of woo-woo. At the same time, we all have the right to laugh at them the responsibility to make sure their discredited ideas remain discredited.


You're absoutely right.
 
Since the discussion was about violence, I was making an allegory with my pointy stick (pencil) and the act of stabbing (poking out the chad) to illustrate how a non-violent act can deny human beings their rights and opportunities. :)



That is the thing about original sin. It means that we are so flawed that we don't have a chance of meeting the requirements for salvation. My particular flaws caused me to vote my opinion into law.



But being humans imbued with flaws, they often will when presented the chance to do so.


I don't believe in sin,Or salvation.

Also your assumption that racists will often violate the rights of others is irrelevant. Maybe they will,maybe they won't generally. But that does not change the fact that you can not make racism against the law or prevent them from holding their opinions.
 
The fact of the matter is this...

People who are racist have the RIGHT to be racist.
Hating another race does not hurt anyone as long as that hate is not expressed in violent means.

The far left in this country are what you call "Overly politically correct". If they had a choice to control our thoughts to eleminate racism they probably would.

"Racism" is simply defined as "the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others."
Racism does not imply violence.

Trying to eliminate racism, aka trying to change hate beliefs, is not the same as denying people the right to hold them. If I disagree with you and want to change your belief, it doesn't mean I'm saying that you're not allowed to disagree with me.


People who THINK one race is better than another have that right. They have the right to hold that opinion no matter how incorrect or revolting it is.

If racists want to protest blacks holding office or want to claim Africans are somehow less intelligent or less important than europeans,They have the right to do so. They aren't hurting anyone by holding an opinion.

Doesn't people's opinions and beliefs determine their actions?


This assumption is baseless and leads to what you call "Reverse discrimination" where those individuals who hold opinions that we disagree with are discriminated against and their rights taken away.

This makes me wonder, are you only against discrimination if it's so-called "reverse discrimination"? In your reply, to Luke, earlier you didn't seem to mind racial discrimination, concerning jobs and houses.
 

Back
Top Bottom