Bigotry in Christians, bug, feature, or neither?

[Dānu]

I'm eliding the difference between Christian behavior as practiced by individuals with that which the religion of Christianity itself is responsible for enabling, but that's to a point. It's said that one should not judge a philosophy by its abuse, and that's certainly a valid point, but said in defense of Christian bigotry it implicitly asserts that such behavior represents an abuse of the philosophy advocated instead of a true expression of it, and while either might be the case, the question is not settled by merely asserting your chosen answer, implicitly or explicitly.

So my question is, is bigotry in its followers a bug, a feature, or simply incidental to Christianity?

[Rhythmcs]

Feature. It's an organizing principle meant to benefit the in group in any number of ways. Christianity directly outcompeted (and physically destroyed) any number of other religious movements that lacked this feature...and was especially interested in eradicating those that rejected their claim to divine exclusivity.

Bad actors have an inherent advantage in the religious marketplace. They offer products and services that other market actors will not, do not, or could not.

[Minimalist]

Feature.  Just like every other religion.

[julep]

Feature. As demonstrated by Jesus himself. 

Jesus's stories characterize whole groups of people, such as priests and the rich, as bad, not simply mistaken.
 
In my church job, the service contains readings from the old testament, the gospels, and non-gospel books of the new testament. About every three Sundays the gospel reading has Jesus talking trash about his usual targets, whom he portrays as actively bad, not just mistaken or ignorant. He talks about how his father's gonna separate the sheep from the goats, and suggests that the future doesn't bode well for the goats. The baddies burn in a lake of fire while the poor people look down at them from heaven and aren't allowed to shed a tear. (The baddy in this case being someone who gave a little to the poor, but not enough)

The rot starts at the head.

[Dancefortwo]

As much as I agree with the meme posted, there are atheist who are also bigots.  Not as many though.   Atheists may not see any evidence of a god but that doesn't preclude some of them from being bigots.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I know many religious folk, Christians included, who aren't bigots. But it does make a good fig-leaf for those bigots who have the faith as well,.

Feature or bug? I bet that relies on the individual believer and what their tolerance or bigotry levels are.

[skyking]

I voted and see I am in the popular crowd.
It is part and parcel of lifting up the sheep after beating them down. At least they are better than ( insert other group ).

[jimhabegger]

Other: part of human nature

(later) Bigotry is in the eye of the beholder. 

[no one]

Well, just because parrots can speak any particular language, doesn't mean they can comprehend it.

[Dānu]

I haven't weighed in, but my answer would be threefold, that a) it is a feature of Christianity, but also b) that it is other, that discriminating against those who are like unlike us is an evolved response that aims to protect the integrity of the group, against the corrupting influence of others. Where it becomes truly a feature is in such practice being advocated by a transcendental source, thus embedding correctable errors in a rubric of practices and mores, which, being based upon revelation and dogma, cannot be adjusted as circumstance requires. In short, revealed religions like Christianity freeze societies' moral development and actively oppose it. So it's not a feature in that it is especially true of those who practice the religion, it may not be, but rather because it cannot grow to embrace a less bigoted and more inclusive ethic.

Oh, and I like beer. I neglected to make this a multiple choice poll. My bad.

[jimhabegger]

Where it becomes truly a feature is in such practice being advocated by a transcendental source, thus embedding correctable errors in a rubric of practices and mores, which, being based upon revelation and dogma, cannot be adjusted as circumstance requires.

You’re forgetting that people can, and do, read anything they want to into any writings for any purpose harmful or beneficial, including “what God says” and “what science says.”

[Dānu]

Where it becomes truly a feature is in such practice being advocated by a transcendental source, thus embedding correctable errors in a rubric of practices and mores, which, being based upon revelation and dogma, cannot be adjusted as circumstance requires.

You’re forgetting that people can, and do, read anything they want to into any writings for any purpose harmful or beneficial, including “what God says” and “what science says.”

Can and do are not necessarily the same. You seem to be suggesting that influence originates in present mores and retconning is the only operational effect present, but the causal arrows flow both ways, children are taught lessons before they come to independent judgments about them. Thus, while retconning does occur, it is the exception that proves the rule, in the original sense of the phrase being that by stating an exception you are implicitly supporting the existence of the rule, namely the regressive effect on morals of bodies of knowledge supported by dogma and revelation. It's good that such retconning occurs, but that reduces the ill effect, it doesn't eliminate it.

[Kim]

Other: part of human nature

(later) Bigotry is in the eye of the beholder. 

Ha.

A long tima ago, I saw on a Seinfeld episode ... Jerry was going on a date with Ping's cousin.
George commented, "Ooh nice, I like asian women." & Jerry agrees.
Elaine is listening to the exchange & interjects, "Oh, that is so racist.".
Jerry disagrees, emphatically stating: "If I like their race, it's not racist."

That exchange has always stuck in my mind.

Is the mere recognition of racial attributes, racist?

Sorry - kinda off topic.
****

... one should not judge a philosophy by its abuse ...

Personally, I feel that religion itself is absolutely abuse - both of philosophy and humanity. Faith is fairly inert until, weaponized by religion.

If I was a "person of faith", I'd be just as appalled & disgusted by religion, as any atheist.
****
Faith & lack of faith, may simply be features.
I think fear is the "bug" in the ointment of religion. Fear & it's use of fear, is what makes religion abusive.

That's why religion should be eradicated. It's constructed of bugs.

[Dānu]

Other: part of human nature

(later) Bigotry is in the eye of the beholder. 

Ha.    

A long tima ago, I saw on a Seinfeld episode ... Jerry was going on a date with Ping's cousin.
George commented, "Ooh nice, I like asian women." & Jerry agrees.  
Elaine is listening to the exchange & interjects, "Oh, that is so racist.".  
Jerry disagrees, emphatically stating:  "If I like their race, it's not racist."

That exchange has always stuck in my mind.  

Is the mere recognition of racial attributes, racist?    

My understanding is that in common usage, racism implies three things, a) the attribution is based upon a generalization about a race, b) that attribution is unfair to the person or group to which it is attributed, and c) said unfair attribution is significantly in excess of that which the average person, through implicit bias, obtains.

Needless to say, there are examples of usage that do not require these three elements, but I'm not sure they don't ultimately lead to equivocations when used in other ways. For example, a poster once suggested that any difference in treatment between the races was racism, which prompted me to point out that treating black parents differently than white parents with regard to the risks of sickle cell anemia wasn't racist because it was neither unfair to black parents, nor was it based upon only the color of their skin.

I left out the important point that racism is about treating individuals differently based upon their membership in a group, but rather than revise the above, I'll just add it.

[Rhythmcs]

If it's a comment on what gets you hot and bothered, no. If it's a comment on something you mistakenly believe to be common to all asian women, yes.

[Vera]

A long tima ago, I saw on a Seinfeld episode ... Jerry was going on a date with Ping's cousin.
George commented, "Ooh nice, I like asian women." & Jerry agrees.  
Elaine is listening to the exchange & interjects, "Oh, that is so racist.".  
Jerry disagrees, emphatically stating:  "If I like their race, it's not racist."

That exchange has always stuck in my mind.  

Is the mere recognition of racial attributes, racist?    

Um.... Liking "Asian women" (and men, see below) (and by "Asian" they mean mostly Korean and Japanese because yeah, that about covers it), also known as "yellow fever" is a rather distasteful fetishisation of said women (and men). Some of it is because of they way they look and a sizeable chunk is because of their supposed "submissiveness".

It's especially dumb these days, with K-pop and K-drama accounting for some of it and the idiocy of people who honestly seem to think that everyone in Korea is almost preternaturally attractive and there are no plain or even ugly people there.

Then there's also "rice queens", white gay men who only date "Asian" men (again, mostly Korean, Japanese, Thailandese, etc.). I actually read quite a bit about this some months ago and it was really eye opening but  I can't seem to find the articles I read back then.

"I knew what rice queens were, and they didn't usually go for me. When I worked at A Different Light bookstore in the Castro in 1990s-era San Francisco, I remember selling them copies of OG magazine—short for "Oriental Guy"—these men fantasizing about the sex trips they took to Asian countries like the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, all of them in search of smooth young Asian men living in precarious economic conditions who were willing to do things sexually for, well, probably less than the cost of the magazine, in order to survive."

There's also "bean queens" - white men going exclusively after Latino men. There were others I think but I don't remember them now.


So yes, reducing a human being to a handful of their physical characteristics (not to mention reducing entire populations to an expression of you sexual fetish) does strike me as offensive.

[Aegon]

I gave this a great deal of thought and I decided that it is a feature. I don't think bigotry regarding race or gender is necessarily a feature, but bigotry against non-Christians, generally, is. The whole point of the religion is that Jesus Christ is our lord and savior, and only those who acknowledge this reality and worship Jesus are offered a spot in the kingdom of Heaven. This naturally compels the Christian to look down on non-Christians, consciously or not, and to either judge/ridicule them or very condescendingly attempt to convert them. And of course this broad bigotry can turn into more targeted bigotry against women, gays, etc very easily.

[Minimalist]

I just finished watching Ken Burns "The USA and the Holocaust" and not only is it a feature it is not even a new feature.  The same rhetoric we hear employed by modern Trumptards was used by nativists in the 20's and 30's.  Only the groups they hate have changed with one big exception.  Now they hate Hispanics and Indians instead of Southern and Eastern Europeans.  And Jews.  Jews are the one constant.  With jesus freaks some things never change.

[jimhabegger]

“Racism” can mean very different things in different contexts. One meaning is a philosophy of the superiority of one race over others. Another is hostile attitudes and behavior towards people of one race or another. Another is an oppressive environment and/or oppressive discrimination against people of one race or another in all of society. A person’s attitude and behavior can be part of what is oppressing people of one race or another, even if they don’t believe in the superiority of one race over others, and even with the utmost friendly intentions towards people of that race.

[jerry mcmasters]

It's a feature of pretty much every religion that proscribes some human actions as good and some as bad. I do like beer, but only had one vote.

[jimhabegger]

Deleted

[Rhythmcs]

Sure, every religion has ideas about good and bad, they can't help but have ideas about it - religions are normative beliefs. Not every belief about good or bad is bigotry, though, so it hardly matters to the question of whether the bigotry in christianity is a bug or a feature or neither.... that religions have positions about good and bad

[mordant]

“Racism” can mean very different things in different contexts. One meaning is a philosophy of the superiority of one race over others. Another is hostile attitudes and behavior towards people of one race or another. Another is an oppressive environment and/or oppressive discrimination against people of one race or another in all of society. A person’s attitude and behavior can be part of what is oppressing people of one race or another, even if they don’t believe in the superiority of one race over others, and even with the utmost friendly intentions towards people of that race.

Christianity basically approves of otherizing because it is a simplistic "us vs them", "righteous vs evil", "right vs wrong", "black vs white" ideology. That is much more front-and-center with fundagelicals than with, say, Episcopalians, but the latter have to work to paper over the otherizing as if it were some sort of inexplicable aberration rather than a central concept. Indeed Christianity starts with monotheism, which inherently means "we have the one true god and your god is a counterfeit" as well as "our god is going to smite you for promoting a false god".

So bigotry of the "us vs them" kind IS inherent in Christianity and more broadly in monotheism.

I don't think racism is inherent as such, but one you start otherizing for one reason, and are enabled and even encouraged in it, then it's thinkable and doable and you're bound to otherize other out-groups. Race, sexuality, gender identity, you name it. In the US, historically, Christians have been white, so why would they not tend to be racists or even white supremacists? In theory, Jesus wants Christians to love people of other races, but in practice, they are the Other and Christians have already been socialized to distrust, even hate, the Other.

There was a video that went viral on Twitter a couple of weeks ago where some hispanic truck driver was filming a woman blocking him from backing up his delivery truck in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart. She was in turn on the phone asking the police to come and investigate because the driver "looks like he doesn't belong here and now he's filming me. I think he's Mexican. He doesn't belong".

He doesn't belong is the battle cry of the insular world of the evangelical Christian. I don't actually know this woman's religious affiliation but it is highly likely, especially given the Bible Belt location, that she was a god-and-country fundamentalist who simply saw anything or anyone that's "different" as a threat. Inconvenient facts, oddly colored or clothed people, and unfamiliar ideas intrude in their purpose-built existence that's designed to validate their beliefs and expectations.

[Thumpalumpacus]

“Racism” can mean very different things in different contexts. One meaning is a philosophy of the superiority of one race over others. Another is hostile attitudes and behavior towards people of one race or another. Another is an oppressive environment and/or oppressive discrimination against people of one race or another in all of society. A person’s attitude and behavior can be part of what is oppressing people of one race or another, even if they don’t believe in the superiority of one race over others, and even with the utmost friendly intentions towards people of that race.

Christianity basically approves of otherizing because it is a simplistic "us vs them", "righteous vs evil", "right vs wrong", "black vs white" ideology. That is much more front-and-center with fundagelicals than with, say, Episcopalians, but the latter have to work to paper over the otherizing as if it were some sort of inexplicable aberration rather than a central concept. Indeed Christianity starts with monotheism, which inherently means "we have the one true god and your god is a counterfeit" as well as "our god is going to smite you for promoting a false god".

So bigotry of the "us vs them" kind IS inherent in Christianity and more broadly in monotheism.

I don't think racism is inherent as such, but one you start otherizing for one reason, and are enabled and even encouraged in it, then it's thinkable and doable and you're bound to otherize other out-groups. Race, sexuality, gender identity, you name it. In the US, historically, Christians have been white, so why would they not tend to be racists or even white supremacists? In theory, Jesus wants Christians to love people of other races, but in practice, they are the Other and Christians have already been socialized to distrust, even hate, the Other.

There was a video that went viral on Twitter a couple of weeks ago where some hispanic truck driver was filming a woman blocking him from backing up his delivery truck in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart. She was in turn on the phone asking the police to come and investigate because the driver "looks like he doesn't belong here and now he's filming me. I think he's Mexican. He doesn't belong".

He doesn't belong is the battle cry of the insular world of the evangelical Christian. I don't actually know this woman's religious affiliation but it is highly likely, especially given the Bible Belt location, that she was a god-and-country fundamentalist who simply saw anything or anyone that's "different" as a threat. Inconvenient facts, oddly colored or clothed people, intrude in their purpose-built existence that's designed to validate theirI beliefs and expectations.

I think racism is an expression of tribalist in-group/out-group thinking, focusing on seemingly-apparent physiognomic differences. I also think religion is another IG/OG identifier. Bigots and bigotries often overlap.

[TinyDave]

I voted "other" as indoctrination to be intolerant is part of the meme.