Elect-ism

Racists believe that people from other races are inferior to them, morally or intellectually. Racial prejudice is frowned upon in civilized society. Indeed, explicitly articulating, or acting on the basis of, racist sentiments or beliefs, is illegal in many jurisdictions.

Many religious fundamentalist believe that those who do accept their version of the Truth are morally inferior to them, and deserve to go to hell. However, in civilized society, such "elect-ism" is not as commonly regarded as a prejudice. Nor is it illegal to explicitly articulate the view that heathens are justly destined for eternal hellfire.

Should racism and elect-ism be considered equally undesirable by enlightened and civilized people?

Racist behavior is not always a result of the belief that you are superior. It is quite common for example for a manager to employ people of his/her own race and not always be cause they believe themselves to be superior.

Religious discrimination is also common and it is not uncommon for a persons beliefs to affect their job prospects.

I have experience this myself. I was once working with a group of Christian friends and they started a company but denied me membership because I am atheist. Luckily I didn't actually want to become a member.

But the truth of the matter is that a very significant proportion of management positions are selected based on personal relationships and race/religion and favorite sports do play a significant role.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Racists believe that people from other races are inferior to them, morally or intellectually. Racial prejudice is frowned upon in civilized society. Indeed, explicitly articulating, or acting on the basis of, racist sentiments or beliefs, is illegal in many jurisdictions.

Many religious fundamentalist believe that those who do accept their version of ...[text shortened]... ld racism and elect-ism be considered equally undesirable by enlightened and civilized people?

I don't believe they're the same thing. Racism is apples/oranges. You have this genetic marker (such as skin color) and thus that is used to determine totally unrelated traits (such as intelligence).

On the other hand, religions are saying that if you choose to believe X and act accordingly, good things will be the end result of your behavior, but if you choose not to believe X and act accordingly, bad things will be the end result of your behavior.

One is about interpreting random genetics and the other is about seeing a cause and effect from chosen behavior. I don't see a connection at all. Then again, I don't really care if other people think I'm doomed and going to hell because my church isn't the same as their church or my religion isn't the same as theirs. Their belief about my eternal location isn't reality; it's simply what they've chosen to believe.

Originally posted by pawnhandler
I don't believe they're the same thing. Racism is apples/oranges. You have this genetic marker (such as skin color) and thus that is used to determine totally unrelated traits (such as intelligence).

On the other hand, religions are saying that if you choose to believe X and act accordingly, good things will be the end result of your behavior, but i ...[text shortened]... f about my eternal location isn't reality; it's simply what they've chosen to believe.

Are you admitting that your beliefs are a matter of choice and not based on any form of evidence or reality?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Racists believe that people from other races are inferior to them, morally or intellectually. Racial prejudice is frowned upon in civilized society. Indeed, explicitly articulating, or acting on the basis of, racist sentiments or beliefs, is illegal in many jurisdictions.

Many religious fundamentalist believe that those who do accept their version of ...[text shortened]... ld racism and elect-ism be considered equally undesirable by enlightened and civilized people?

My view is that certain behaviors are condusive to life and others death in both a physical sense and/or spiritual sense. So am I a racist when I tell someone who is smoking that it is bad for them?

Originally posted by whodey
My view is that certain behaviors are condusive to life and others death in both a physical sense and/or spiritual sense. So am I a racist when I tell someone who is smoking that it is bad for them?

In South Africa smokers are quite severely discriminated against in terms of where they are allowed to smoke. I guess other countries have similar laws.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Racists believe that people from other races are inferior to them, morally or intellectually. Racial prejudice is frowned upon in civilized society. Indeed, explicitly articulating, or acting on the basis of, racist sentiments or beliefs, is illegal in many jurisdictions.

Many religious fundamentalist believe that those who do accept their version of ...[text shortened]... ld racism and elect-ism be considered equally undesirable by enlightened and civilized people?

They are different. The physical characteristics most people associate with race are biological. "Electism" is based on peoples' voluntary beliefs.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In South Africa smokers are quite severely discriminated against in terms of where they are allowed to smoke. I guess other countries have similar laws.

Smokers affect the people around them, so this seems reasonable.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Racists believe that people from other races are inferior to them, morally or intellectually. Racial prejudice is frowned upon in civilized society. Indeed, explicitly articulating, or acting on the basis of, racist sentiments or beliefs, is illegal in many jurisdictions.

Many religious fundamentalist believe that those who do accept their version of ld racism and elect-ism be considered equally undesirable by enlightened and civilized people?

Racists believe that people from other races are inferior to them, morally or intellectually. Racial prejudice is frowned upon in civilized society. Indeed, explicitly articulating, or acting on the basis of, racist sentiments or beliefs, is illegal in many jurisdictions.

A penalty for merely articulating racist sentiments? Too damaging to free speech. Who decides what is 'racist'? In the US, if such a law was implemented, it could easily lead to the banning of certain entertainers, comics and rappers of an ethnic minority, along with the KKK member and his ilk.

Many religious fundamentalist believe that those who do accept their version of the Truth are morally inferior to them, and deserve to go to hell. However, in civilized society, such "elect-ism" is not as commonly regarded as a prejudice. Nor is it illegal to explicitly articulate the view that heathens are justly destined for eternal hellfire.

I view the threat of hell as the ultimate mind-control technique, and yet, I'd hesitate to legislate against it - I'd rather know people's beliefs, so I can be on my guard. If the church's actions are causing harm in the real world [denying a heathen a job, a home loan, etc. solely on the basis of his unbelief], then the law should step in.

Should racism and elect-ism be considered equally undesirable by enlightened and civilized people?

In my country/society, racism seems more harmful in the real world. Electism is based on the empty threat of hell. As long as it stays that way, without inflicting serious real-world harm on the non-elect, I'd say "no".

Originally posted by twhitehead
Are you admitting that your beliefs are a matter of choice and not based on any form of evidence or reality?

ALL beliefs are, by definition, a matter of choice. They include interpretation of evidence and reality. This includes choosing to believe the tenets of a religion or choosing to believe that all religions are dopey. Every single human chooses to believe or not believe a ton of things every day.

Originally posted by pawnhandler
[b]ALL beliefs are, by definition, a matter of choice. [/b]

Huh? What definition of 'belief' are you talking about?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Smokers affect the people around them, so this seems reasonable.

Exactly. Most laws are predicated on the moral law that so long as one is no hurting another they are free to do what they will. However, as a person of faith I go a step further and try and show them how they may be hurting themselves even though they may not be hurting others around them. For example, if one decided to smoke in a room all by themselves I would try and dessuade them from doing so even though they may, in fact, be hurting no one else other than themselves.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Racists believe that people from other races are inferior to them, morally or intellectually. Racial prejudice is frowned upon in civilized society. Indeed, explicitly articulating, or acting on the basis of, racist sentiments or beliefs, is illegal in many jurisdictions.

Many religious fundamentalist believe that those who do accept their version of ld racism and elect-ism be considered equally undesirable by enlightened and civilized people?

I personally regard "elect-ism" as a prejudice.

Being of God's "elect," strictly speaking (according to the bible), does not give Christians license to look down upon non-Christians. Jesus Christ did not intend to create an exclusive club. God explicitly charged those who truly wished to follow Him that each should "love thy neighbour as thyself" (Matt. 19:19), and "love your enemy" (Matt. 5:44).

Why?

"That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?" (Matt. 5:45-47).

All people are made in God's image, and as such, are to be honored, respected and loved regardless of whether or not they are believers. This includes those who actively persecute and ridicule believers.

This is Christ's command to all would-be followers, and I question the genuineness of any Christian who neglects Christ's charge to love one's enemies.

Originally posted by whodey
Exactly. Most laws are predicated on the moral law that so long as one is no hurting another they are free to do what they will. However, as a person of faith I go a step further and try and show them how they may be hurting themselves even though they may not be hurting others around them. For example, if one decided to smoke in a room all by themselves I ...[text shortened]... them from doing so even though they may, in fact, be hurting no one else other than themselves.

I just wish Americans would stop going further than your further and remove the laws against victimless crimes.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I just wish Americans would stop going further than your further and remove the laws against victimless crimes.

Such as?