Religion in and of itself does not cause bigotry. Signed, an atheist.

[jpgray]

It's easy to get caught up in condemning the current -vehicle- of bigotry, and in the most general terms, whether it be religion, patriotism, nationalism, ethnocentrism, or whatever else you care to mention. You can also get caught up in demographics, defining humanity down into discrete groups, slicing up the population in a false and misguided effort to isolate "homogenous" sectors for blame or approbation. Pitting such loosely-defined groups against one another on any given issue generates a lot of heat, but very little light. Both lead to error and both are impractical--I'll try to explain why I believe that's the case.

1. The road to mass bigotry is universal

Asian, white, black, male, female, young, old--whatever the demographic, mass bigotry is generated in the same way, for all peoples, and for all of history. Social leaders appeal to an edifice of authority to exploit popular ignorance of a certain group. This is done as a means to some end the leaders have in mind. The edifice of authority may be religion, as in the case of prop 8. It may be nationalism, as in the case of Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia or Pol Pot's Cambodia. It may be patriotism, as in the case of Bush's America. The only thing shared among those creeds generally is that they are all edifices of authority, they are tools, means for generating social solidarity.

2. These nebulous edifices of authority do not inherently cause bigotry

They can undeniably be used for such purposes, true. But they also are used for noble, humanistic and just purposes. Martin Luther King Jr. constantly appealed to religion to promote his quest for justice. Gandhi likewise did so for the causes of peace and tolerance. The council of nuns that battled Catholic Church voter intimidation on issues like abortion and gay rights did not do so in spite of their religion, but rather because of it. Nationalism and patriotism were ably used by Lincoln, JFK and FDR to advance just, progressive, humanistic policies. All three, incidentally, also used patriotism and nationalism to advance decidedly unjust policies. In other words, these nebulous authorities are tools--the goals and character of those who wield them determine whether the cause is justice or hatred. The authority itself, so long as it exerts control over a heterogenous group, is not necessarily bigoted or beneficent in and of itself.

To put it another way, the American flag has represented many great and many evil things--the greatness and evil were never present in the actual cloth, but rather in the leaders whose actions it came to represent.

3. Those who use a major religion to promote bigotry must emphasize some aspects of its teachings and subvert others

To make one example, you cannot follow the teachings of Christ and vote to deny any human being her rights, much less actively judge that human being. So how does this bigotry happen under religion's banner? Because religious leaders have rarely been directly concerned with the actual Scripture or holy laws: they elevate those parts useful for achieving their ends, and happily ignore any that would stand against them. John Stuart Mill nailed this total paradox very well:

Yet it is scarcely too much to say that not one Christian in a thousand guides or tests his individual conduct by reference to those laws. The standard to which he does refer it, is the custom of his nation, his class, or his religious profession.

...

All Christians believe that the blessed are the poor and humble, and those who are illused by the world; that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven; that they should judge not, lest they be judged; that they should swear not at all; that they should love their neighbor as themselves; that if one take their cloak, they should give him their coat also; that they should take no thought for the morrow; that if they would be perfect, they should sell all that they have and give it to the poor.

They are not insincere when they say that they believe these things. They do believe them, as people believe what they have always heard lauded and never discussed. But in the sense of that living belief which regulates conduct, they believe these doctrines just up to the point to which it is usual to act upon them. The doctrines in their integrity are serviceable to pelt adversaries with; and it is understood that they are to be put forward (when possible) as the reasons for whatever people do that they think laudable. But any one who reminded them that the maxims require an infinity of things which they never even think of doing would gain nothing but to be classed among those very unpopular characters who affect to be better than other people.

The doctrines have no hold on ordinary believers--are not a power in their minds. They have an habitual respect for the sound of them, but no feeling which spreads from the words to the things signified, and forces the mind to take them in, and make them conform to the formula. Whenever conduct is concerned, they look round for Mr. A and B to direct them how far to go in obeying Christ.

This is likewise shown in wholly secular debates, which are riddled with calls to secular authority. How many DUers have ironically quoted the lines written on the statue of liberty? "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses longing to be free?" Where is that seen in the flag-draped anti-immigration movement? Again, it's not the edifice of authority that brings out the worst or best in us--it's those who make appeals to that authority in order to control large numbers of people.

[The2ndWheel]

1. It's just another form of organization

There's nothing special about it. It works the same way as every other organized effort does.

[jpgray]

3. I disagree somewhat. It can be used in a very similar way, true

But each specific form of social organization has its quirks, and my theory only really holds for large, heterogenous groups that believe in a relatively elastic system of authority. In groups where there is inelastic authority held over a more homogenous group (like, say, the KKK) you can more fairly generalize about the members of that group.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. I think you've got something there

I've always had the feeling that religion has been abused by the so-called "leaders" who forget the teachings of their prophets and cater to the fear and hate of their flocks instead (I'm referring to Islamic mullahs as well as Christian fundamentalist preachers). I know that the ministry attracts con men, but that not all ministers are one. The ones who tell ME how to believe, who tell ME how to interpret scripture are the ones I innately distrust.

[provis99]

5. in what way have these evil people misinterpreted the prophets?

As far as I can tell, the prophets of the abrahamic religions were all monstrously evil. So why be surprised if the followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are monstrously evil as well?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. Kindly realize that you are the one using the term "evil"

I don't know what life experiences have made you believe that the prophets were evil--it would be interesting, to me, if you would explain.

What I have found in the experiences of my life is that one's feelings about religion rarely has anything to do with how a person behaves--I've known kind and generous atheists and greedy and cruel believers, and vice-versa.

[provis99]

8. Luke 19:27 seems to fit the definition of evil

"But those my enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring here, and slay them before me." -Jesus

If that ain't evil, than there isn't any such thing as good and evil, and we have nothing further to discuss.

[jpgray]

7. Like most everything else, there are good and points to the Abrahamic faiths

One could easily take a similar view of this country. It was founded on monstrous evil, grew by monstrous evil, and persists by monstrous evil. However, there were and still are always some good bits mixed in with the evil. In calling to the authority of patriotism in this country, our leaders have brought out the very best and very worst of our collective history, the best and worst our individual ideals. One could take the position that all the evil has tainted anything under the American flag beyond repair, but I'm of the belief that our flag can stand for good things, given the right leadership. I believe the same is true of Abrahamic religion--its noblest impulses and ideas deserve their place amongst respected moral philosophy. That's not at all to say morals can't exist without religion, but religion can contain some profound moral thinking.

It can also contain hideous evil, but you've made that point already.

[JerseygirlCT]

4. Thank you for some rationality here

We've got to look a little deeper if we want to get to something approaching the truth of this.

And if we don't do that, we don't have the tools necessary to combat the fear and ignorance that lead to things like Prop 8.

[jpgray]

9. That's the way I see it.

While analysis of the demographic convergences of bigotry can be interesting, identifying its causes is more useful. Why did 70% of blacks support prop 8? Why did mothers support prop 8 at a similar rate? It's very hard to say if you ask what it is about such and such a group specifically that led to the behavior. If you can find a common thread that drove ignorance of GLBT rights amongst most supporters as opposed to just a subset of them, then you might have something better to work with.

[bluedawg12]

10. Religion in Politics does cause bigotry.

http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=Daughter+of+Martin+Luther+King+Marches+in+anti+gay+marriage+rally&fr=slv8-tyc7&u=www.nd.edu/%7Edcampbe4/SAMESEX.pdf&w=daughter+daughters+martin+luther+king+marches+anti+gay+marriage+marriages+rally&d=DfdWf0LURvL6&icp=1&.intl=us

Religious Coalitions For and Against Gay Marriage: The Culture War Rages On

David E. Campbell University of Notre Dame
Carin Larson Georgetown UniversityNote:

To be published in The Politics of Same-Sex Marriage, eds. Craig Rimmerman and Clyde Wilcox, University of Chicago Press.

“We come here today for the audience of One,” proclaimed the president of the Family Research Council, Tony Perkins. He stood before a cheering crowd gathered for the Mayday for Marriage rally on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. “While our troops battle terrorists and tyrants abroad, a parallel battle rages here on our soil for the family and ultimately the future of our nation.”1

On October 15, 2004, more than 200,000 people gathered in Washington, D.C. to defend what they see to be the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman. The Mayday for Marriage movement was organized in response to the rise of same-sex marriage on the national political agenda—on the west coast the mayor of San Francisco had authorized the marriage of same-sex couples, on the east coast the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts had issued a ruling mandating gay marriages in the Bay State, and in between gay marriages were being performed in a handful of jurisdictions.

A number of conservative pro-family groups, such as the Family Research Council, have since mobilized to host rallies across the country, attracting defenders of traditional marriage from a variety of denominations and faiths. To foreshadow the argument of this chapter—namely, that opposition to gay marriage unites religious traditionalists across the denominational spectrum—it is interesting to note that while the Family Research Council’s constituency is predominantly white evangelicals, Mayday for Marriage was begun by an African-American pastor.2

At the rally in D.C, the speakers included Rabbi Daniel Lapin who encouraged attendees to “remember marriage at the voting booth.”

A Catholic group, the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, waved banners and cheered following the Rabbi’s speech.

An English-speaking Chinese pastor translated the message for members of his congregation who stood holding a sign that read “Marriage = 1 Man + 1 Woman” both in English and their native language.

An Assemblies of God group joined hands to pray for the speakers.

Members of a local African-American church served as volunteers helping to pass out programs, humming to the worship band playing “Great is Thy Faithfulness” in the background.

Gary Bauer, a prominent spokesperson for the Christian Right, proclaimed to the attendees, “You are not some small special interest group. You are America. You are the heart of America.” 1

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, in remarks made to attendees at the Mayday for Marriage Rally in Washington, DC on October 15, 2004 and in the event’s program. 2

Ken Hutcherson, senior pastor at Antioch Bible Church in Kirkland, Washington organized the first Mayday for Marriage Rally in Seattle that drew approximately 20,000 people.

[jpgray]

11. So does patriotism. So does nationalism. It depends on the leader

Religion in politics can also fight bigotry. Look at Gandhi, look at MLK Jr. These appeals to authority are a tool. The use of that tool can be as malevolent or beneficent as the range of human behavior permits. Such movements are not borne whole and breathing out of religion itself, but are promulgated by distinct and identifiable leaders who appeal to its authority in order to enact some agenda.

[bluedawg12]

13. True. Religion, on a political level appeals to

patriotism and nationalis.

I have no problem with a faith nor spirituality, but I have a great problem with using an unimpeachable source as a cover for a political agenda.

[jpgray]

17. That's where I'm at. Unfortunately, everybody does it to some extent

Even me. :P You could conceivably argue that religion is a particularly useful vehicle for pushing an agenda based on ignorance--my point is that religion itself has nothing unique in it that generates bigotry. There are many other vehicles out there. Absent religion, bigotry can get along just fine by appealing to other social authorities.

[GirlinContempt]

26. I think you're

stuck on what it is like *now*, that is not what it has to be, has always been, or will always be. Just as far as this goes: Religion, on a political level appeals to patriotism and nationalis.

[mondo joe]

21. Disagree. It's an excuse for bigotry among the bigoted - not the cause.

The religious deviate from their religion frequently when they want to. Look at the rates for sex outside marriage, abortion and divorce. Religion doesn't MAKE anyone do anything.

Bigoted people align themselves with bigoted religion.

[Stellabella]

12. Religion gives bigots cover.

That's the big problem with it. You can find justification for every kind of bigotry in the Bible.

[jpgray]

14. So does patriotism. So does nationalism. Religion also gives cover to those who fight bigotry

Golden rule? Judge not lest ye be judged and all that? You can pick and choose amongst Scripture easily to promote any given agenda. You can also couch almost any given agenda in an appeal to patriotism. There's some great moral philosophy and some bigoted shit in religion; both the best and worst of humanity have appealed to it in history for the best and worst of causes. There's both Gandhi and the Inquisition, in other words.

There's nothing inherent in religion that leads inevitably to bigotry. An obvious proof of that is the existence of both irreligious bigots and pious humanists. You can drape bigotry in the American flag, but that doesn't necessarily mean America is inherently bigoted, since the flag has also represented some great actions by great people. In all instances it comes down to the specific leaders who appeal to the symbol of authority to drive their agenda, be it religion, patriotism, nationalism--whatever. The symbol doesn't drive the behavior on its own--in fact the behavior can be in direct contradiction to what the symbol is widely agreed to represent.

[Lumpsum]

15. The " bad" religion causes out-weighs the "good."

Er go, religion is "bad."

End of discussion

[jpgray]

16. You could say the same for the USA. Or the advent of agriculture. Or the human race as a whole.

Where do these truisms get us, exactly?

[Lumpsum]

20. Agriculture?

That's a bit of a stretch, friend.

I think most forward thinkers can agree that the world would be a better place without religion.

[jpgray]

22. Just going by your standard of "causes more bad than good."

There's a great book out there all about the horrors of materialism, greed and large-scale violence that are derived directly from organized agriculture--the title slips my mind at the moment.

Most forward thinkers wouldn't wear slave-labor t-shirts, make gluttonous use of impoverished nations' resources, or indeed be typing windily about this very topic.

:dunce:

If you carry the big picture view far enough, unraveling injustice from injustice back to a common source, we may as well just all starve ourselves. Because we're it. Rather than kvetch about the utter failure of almost all human institutions, damning all with a broad brush's sweeping strokes, I'd rather point out the few truly vicious bastards that are doing the most harm. The moneymen and church leaders who funded the signature drive for prop 8 would be a nice start.

:D

[GirlinContempt]

27. Who are these forward thinkers?

How do you define a 'forward thinker'? What is the measure to be used of bad and good? How do you figure out what each thing 'weighs'?

As jp has pointed out frequently in this thread, religion doesn't do the 'bad', people do. And they can do it under the guise of religion, or nationalism, or any number of things. Religion is incapable of acting. People who wish to do violence to other nations, to oppress other peoples, to subjugate a group, they will accomplish this with or without religion. It is the people involved who make the decisions and take the action, not the religion.

[defendandprotect]

18. Patriarchal, one-male-god religion, is used historically to oppress

their enemies -- i.e., those they fear --

Nature, women, homosexuals, Jews, native peoples, Africans --

they fear their intelligence -- and act in violence out of their own self-hatred --

while creating a "god" to vouch for their superiority ...

and the inferiority of their enemies --

[jpgray]

19. Which is why atheist regimes, such as Stalin's, were so cheerful and inclusive

This is not to say Stalin was nasty because he was an atheist, it's just to point out that religion isn't a necessary factor for bigotry and hate. What you say is true--religion has been used historically for oppression. However, religion's usefulness as a tool of oppression is not unique--absent organized religion, bigots have gotten along just fine. They can simply appeal to nationalism, patriotism, good ol' ethnocentrism--all have proved themselves up to the task. Symbols of secular authority are just as susceptible for abuse. Look at the guise of patriotism our anti-immigration folks wrap themselves in, for example. The true problem is tribalism, which is universal and not limited to religion. You can argue that religion is a particularly pliable tool for bigotry, but it is not the only social authority bigots can appeal to with great success.

[bluedawg12]

23. interesting point, power in the hands of a few

and all top down power sucks historically.

[defendandprotect]

35. No .. PATRIARCHY is the center point -- was Stalin female--??

Was Stalin non-violent--??

Stalin's role was authoritarian/dictator --

Stalin also studied to be a Catholic priest, if I recall correctly.

And Hitler was a baptized Catholic and understood ritual and pagentry as he
experienced it in the RCC. Hitler also well understood the Vatican's 1,100
year oppression of Jews - forcing them to wear yellow stars on their clothing,
segregating them from society in ghettoes, barring them from education/jobs/
professions. Hitler also understood the role the Vatican's vile and
widespread propaganda against the Jews interplayed in their long oppression.*

Another sad reality of both Stalin's and Hitler's young lives is that they
both had fathers who brutally and mercilessly beat them.

PATRIARCHY uses its invention -- organized patriarchal religion based
on a one-male god - to control society and those it sees fit to oppress.

Patriarchy used the Bible to cement patriarchy.
NATURALLY these hatreds and prejudices begin with patriarchy ...
patriarchal religion is its underpinning, its tool, its propaganda.

Yes ... many tribes fear -- yet many also foolishly embraced and helped
"discovers."

The true tale is told in "Introducing the cross with the sword" ...
"Christianity/missionaries has long been used as an introduction to eventual
conquering of native peoples...

Vatican Bulls also called for enslavement or murder of native peoples amd
same for Africans enslaved in America.

Later Mormons and RCC Church ran and profitted from the "church schools"
which brainwashed,tortured, beat and murdered native youths.

As the natives say,

"When they came, we had the land and they had the book -
When they left, they had the land and we had the book -"

*
That's why, post-WWII, the international community called upon the RCC
to sign a "Confession of Guilt and Co-Responsibility for the Jewish
Holocaust in Germany." Europe had been well prepared as a breeding ground
for anti-semitism by the Vatican over centuries and more.




Which is why atheist regimes, such as Stalin's, were so cheerful and inclusive
This is not to say Stalin was nasty because he was an atheist, it's just to point out that religion isn't a necessary factor for bigotry and hate. What you say is true--religion has been used historically for oppression. However, religion's usefulness as a tool of oppression is not unique--absent organized religion, bigots have gotten along just fine. They can simply appeal to nationalism, patriotism, good ol' ethnocentrism--all have proved themselves up to the task. Symbols of secular authority are just as susceptible for abuse. Look at the guise of patriotism our anti-immigration folks wrap themselves in, for example. The true problem is tribalism, which is universal and not limited to religion. You can argue that religion is a particularly pliable tool for bigotry, but it is not the only social authority bigots can appeal to with great success.

[enigmatic]

24. Of course not.

And you've shown it in your examples. But North American Evangelical Christianity is the strain that fixates on the sin of homosexuality the most, and it's not close.

It may be Tribalism, Nationalism, and ethnocentrism elsewhere but here, it's squarely religious.

[GirlinContempt]

25. Bravo.

I agree 100%. I have been saying similar for years here, and elsewhere in my life. Very nicely put, very well done. Thank you.

[lelgt60]

28. Just because there are many reasons for oppression doesn't mean religion isn't one...

A key difference between many of the other reasons people use to justify oppression of others and religious reasons, is that people can change the basis for many of the other reasons.

People in the USA can decide slavery is bad and change the Constitution. People in Germany can change their government (or have it changed) to one that does not kill or oppress Jews.

Most religions, however, have no mechanism for changing the "official" word of God. If God decided that homosexuality was bad, as written by his Prophets, how do you "officially" change that?

I guess you could have a new prophet. That worked out well for the Mormons.

[shadowknows69]

29. But it can't definitely help

Signed a former fundy.

[gollygee]

30. Some religions really do promote hate IMO

I know quite a few Mormons, and I can't think of ONE who would have voted against Proposal 8. They're all pretty seriously against any gay rights - ANY at all. If they could vote to keep gay people from having access to oxygen to breathe, they would.

Now, I do know Catholics who are very liberal, including about gay rights and other causes that are not at all conservative. With Catholics, IMO it's more about the church leadership than the members.

But Mormonism really is about supremacy and hate.

[knitter4democracy]

31. I agree with all of that.

It's about power and control, not the faith.

[Snarkoleptic]

32. Lot's of bad ideas gain traction in sheeple groups.

[Midlodemocrat]

33. Nice post, jpgray. I hadn't realized you were an atheist.

As a person of deep faith, I thank you for this post.

[Duppers]

34. John Stuart Mill is exactly right...

"Whenever conduct is concerned, they look round for Mr. A and B to direct them how far to go in obeying Christ."

Exactly! Their bottom line is conformity.


As a person of no faith, I've great respect for John Stuart Mill.