toldailytopic: Racism. Should people have the right to be racist?

[elohiym]

Personally, I think when some people use the word racist as a pejorative, they're being non-racial bigots.

 

[Nick M]

First, Who cares what Thomas Jefferson thinks.

We are to judge righteously, and hate evil. The amount of pigment in your skin does not determine righteousness.

And you can hire whomever you feel like.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Personally, I think Jesus was, by definition, a racist.

Mat 15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.

Jesus, a racist?! That is absolutely ridiculous! Why didn't you show the whole passage regarding the caanite woman?

A: He doesn't call her a dog as some seem to think

B: When she answers in return Jesus tells her that her faith has healed her daughter!

Jesus a racist? The mind boggles :dizzy:

 

[Rusha]

Racism. Should people have the right to be racist? If so, how far should those rights extend?]

Yes ... people should have the right to be racist. It should extend no further than their own life.

Example: A private business owner should have the right to serve or ban ANYONE they please from their business just because they feel like it.

Outside of this, their rights should extend no further than anyone else's rights.

FTR, I am not endorsing racism but rather every individuals right to not be made to associate with others inside their own personal space.

 

[Granite]

Are they really scum?

Let me give you an example and then you can respond.

My father is one of the sweetest, most gentle, caring, and loving fathers you will ever meet. Yet he is a bit racist towards Koreans. He will use terms that I would never use and I always cringe when he says them. I often say... "pop, you shouldn't say those kinds of things." My dad would never cause any Korean any harm and he would probably be the first to risk his own life saving them if their house was burning down.

You see, my dad fought on the front lines in the Korean war for two years. His feelings towards Koreans is deeply ingrained into his brain from those years of his life.

And while I believe my father shouldn't have these feelings towards Koreans I certainly can understand why he has these feelings and I don't think he is "scum" for having such feelings.

What say you?

Considering how little you seem to think of my opinion these days, I'm surprised you asked for it.:chuckle:

There's a difference between being a product of your times and simply being a bigot. Sure. My grandfather referred to "Japs" for the rest of his life.

I guess I distinguish between people of that generation (not that age is any excuse for the persistence of racism) and those born after them who know much better and who deliberately choose to continue in their hatred.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Are they really scum?

Let me give you an example and then you can respond.

My father is one of the sweetest, most gentle, caring, and loving fathers you will ever meet. Yet he is a bit racist towards Koreans. He will use terms that I would never use and I always cringe when he says them. I often say... "pop, you shouldn't say those kinds of things." My dad would never cause any Korean any harm and he would probably be the first to risk his own life saving them if their house was burning down.

You see, my dad fought on the front lines in the Korean war for two years. His feelings towards Koreans is deeply ingrained into his brain from those years of his life.

And while I believe my father shouldn't have these feelings towards Koreans I certainly can understand why he has these feelings and I don't think he is "scum" for having such feelings.

What say you?

This reminds me of a family friend who had an ingrained dislike of the Japanese after his experiences during the second world war. There's certainly a difference between the type of mindless 'white supremacist' racist bigotry and the ingrained variety which while regrettable isn't just ignorant prejudice.

IMO

 

[DocJohnson]

Personally, I think Jesus was, by definition, a racist.

Matthew 15...

22And a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, "Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed."

23But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him, saying, "Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us."

24But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

25But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, "Lord, help me!"

26And He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."

27But she said, "Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters' table."

28Then Jesus said to her, "O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed at once.

So, Jesus calling the Jews "sheep" is fine, but calling the Canaanites "dogs" is racist?

 

[elohiym]

Jesus, a racist?! That is absolutely ridiculous! Why didn't you show the whole passage regarding the caanite woman?

We like brief posts here, when practical. The verse I quoted in context proves that, by definition, Jesus was a racist.

A: He doesn't call her a dog as some seem to think

Right. He called her god, but the author of that book was dyslexic. Silly me. lain:

B: When she answers in return Jesus tells her that her faith has healed her daughter!

That's entirely irrelevant to my point. Jesus only went to the lost house of Israel; he was discriminating against all other nations at that time for a purpose. It's racism by definition.

Jesus a racist? The mind boggles :dizzy:

The Bible is full of examples where God practices racial discrimination. Try reading the Bible instead of being a bigot towards racism.

 

[elohiym]

So, Jesus calling the Jews "sheep" is fine, but calling the Canaanites "dogs" is racist?

Seriously? You missed the point, even after highlighting verse 24? :idunno:

 

[MaryContrary]

A: He doesn't call her a dog as some seem to think

Um...yes He did. Maybe the "little dog" pejorative didn't carry the same meaning then that it does today. Still clearly a diminutive and not at all complimentary term to apply to someone.

B: When she answers in return Jesus tells her that her faith has healed her daughter!

By which He affirmed even a "little dog" can have faith enough to impress Him. Enough even that He'd make an exception to His until then firm position that He had not come for Gentiles. That He would not even share the Gospel with them. There's a lesson here you're missing over the sound of those politically correct warning bells and whistles going off in your head.

Jesus a racist? The mind boggles :dizzy:

Objective assessment. Try it. You might discover you've confused hateful bigotry with a simple act of racial discrimination.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

This reminds me of a family friend who had an ingrained dislike of the Japanese after his experiences during the second world war. There's certainly a difference between the type of mindless 'white supremacist' racist bigotry and the ingrained variety which while regrettable isn't just ignorant prejudice.

IMO

Yeah, I agree there is a distinction there, but it's still racism.

Therefore, racism in and of itself must be morally neutral. It's the motivation behind racism and the degree you act on that racism that may or may not be immoral.

If a black family owned a restaurant near my house and they hired other blacks instead of hiring my children to work for them I wouldn't be offended. It's their right to hire who they want to work in their restaurant.

 

[Rusha]

That's entirely irrelevant to my point. Jesus only went to the lost house of Israel; he was discriminating against all other nations at that time for a purpose. It's racism by definition.

The Bible is full of examples where God practices racial discrimination. Try reading the Bible instead of being a bigot towards racism.

I never really thought much about it at the time I was in private school, however, considering how often the Jews are referred to as "God's chosen people", I can see how it *could be* argued that God practiced racism.

 

[noguru]

Not necessarily.

For instance, there's nothing wrong with simply calling someone a racial slur or stating that you can't stand a particular nationality or race.

If you take that a step further and incite a mob to beat up an individual because of his nationality or race, then you should absolutely be held accountable.

How about refusing to hire someone based on their race/ethnic group?

But to answer the question in the OP. It is the right of any individual to have their own opinions, but when does this opinion become an action that harms other people.

 

[elohiym]

How about refusing to hire someone based on their race/ethnic group?

I have no problem with that. People who provide jobs should have the right to hire who they want, and refuse to hire who they don't want.

 

[DocJohnson]

How about refusing to hire someone based on their race/ethnic group?

I already covered that. Read up, please.

 

[The Berean]

Are they really scum?

Let me give you an example and then you can respond.

My father is one of the sweetest, most gentle, caring, and loving fathers you will ever meet. Yet he is a bit racist towards Koreans. He will use terms that I would never use and I always cringe when he says them. I often say... "pop, you shouldn't say those kinds of things." My dad would never cause any Korean any harm and he would probably be the first to risk his own life saving them if their house was burning down.

You see, my dad fought on the front lines in the Korean war for two years. His feelings towards Koreans is deeply ingrained into his brain from those years of his life.

And while I believe my father shouldn't have these feelings towards Koreans I certainly can understand why he has these feelings and I don't think he is "scum" for having such feelings.

What say you?

Hey! My wife is Korean!!! :madmad:

Just teasing ya Knight.

Seriously, though, I can understand your father's view based on his personal experience. Sounds like he saw some nasty fighting in Korea. But there is a time to forgive and move on, not for the sake of Koreans, but for your father. Holding on to such feelings after nearly 60 years is not good for him. What kind of conversations have you had with him, Knight? Do you think it's an issue of forgiveness?

I found this story about a WW II vet who fought in WW II, was captured by the Japanese, and tortured. After the war he went to Japan as a missionary, even leading a pilot who bombed Pearl Harbor to Christ.

 

[DocJohnson]

Therefore, racism in and of itself must be morally neutral. It's the motivation behind racism and the degree you act on that racism that may or may not be immoral.

Good point.

If a black family owned a restaurant near my house and they hired other blacks instead of hiring my children to work for them I wouldn't be offended. It's their right to hire who they want to work in their restaurant.

Neither would I. Those who experience it more frequently might be a little more sensitive to it, though. I've been discriminated against due to my race while living in a 90% Hispanic area, and it's not a pleasant feeling.

 

[Town Heretic]

toldailytopic: Racism. Should people have the right to be racist? If so, how far should those rights extend?

I'd reduce it to this: think as you like, but act in accordance with the law. That is, the right of a man to his own mind is fundamental to the Republic. The right to express that thought within reasoned limitations is similarly foundational (as in the right to yell fire does not extend itself to crowded theater lobbies absent an actual fire). But your right to think as you will cannot abrogate my equality before the law.

Or, to put it another way, a man can deny my worth by that measure, but cannot use that measure to restrict my right. :e4e:

 

[MaryContrary]

I'd reduce it to this: think as you like, but act in accordance with the law. That is, the right of a man to his own mind is fundamental to the Republic. The right to express that thought within reasoned limitations is similarly foundational (as in the right to yell fire does not extend itself to crowded theater lobbies absent an actual fire). But your right to think as you will cannot abrogate my equality before the law.

Or, to put it another way, a man can deny my worth by that measure, but cannot use that measure to restrict my right. :e4e:

I'm very happy whenever I'm granted the opportunity to agree with you, TH.

I still think racial bigotry is stupid, though. :chuckle:

 

[DocJohnson]

Seriously? You missed the point, even after highlighting verse 24? :idunno:

No, I didn't miss the point. Jesus was sent for the Jews whom He refers to as sheep. He was not sent for the Gentiles whom He refers to as dogs.

Yes, he was purposely discriminating against the Gentile at first... but it wasn't a racist gesture... it was a religious one.