• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we tolerate racist views that are based on religion?

Should we tolerate racist views that are based on religion?

  • Yes. Free expression of religion must always be respected.

    Votes: 3 11.5%

  • Yes, but only if its not harrassing, stalking, or legislation.

    Votes: 5 19.2%

  • No. Keep your religiously-based hatred to yourself.

    Votes: 10 38.5%

  • No. We should seek to end this completely.

    Votes: 8 30.8%
  • Total voters
    26
to recap, I don't believe that hateful & bigoted views should be illegal or censored by the govt.

however, that doesn't mean we have to hold our tongues when someone says hateful & bigoted things. we have the right to condemn them, disprove them, and call-out their ignorance.

that includes hateful views on women, gays, blacks, Jews, etc etc...that are based on religious dogma.
 
It tells how phoney this poll is when in 3 days only 26 people have reponded......
 
Thunder said:
and yet, the thread has 7 pages of responses.
Click to expand...

You mean meaningless one sided drivel, lol. I mean even your Bible quotes in the OP are not accurate which is why the article said "citation needed." We have no idea what the mark was as the Bible says nothing about Canaan being turned black or an entire race of people being turned black. It was only a curse on Hams one son and we have no idea what the mark was. It was an excuse to condone slavery by the Western slave powers.

Emotional anti-religion bigotry and bating thread is all I see here.
 
Blackdog said:
You mean meaningless one sided drivel, lol. I mean even your Bible quotes in the OP are not accurate which is why the article said "citation needed." We have no idea what the mark was as the Bible says nothing about Canaan being turned black or an entire race of people being turned black. It was only a curse on Hams one son and we have no idea what the mark was. It was an excuse to condone slavery by the Western slave powers.....
Click to expand...

and yet, much bigotry against blacks has been motivated by the punishment of Cain and Ham.
 
Thunder said:
and yet, much bigotry against blacks has been motivated by the punishment of Cain and Ham.
Click to expand...

So you missed this part of my quote?

"It was an excuse to condone slavery by the Western slave powers." - Blackdog

It was a lie because the Bible says nothing about race. So religion had little to do with it. How plain do I have to put it?
 
Thunder said:
The Bible is not the end of Christianity, nor the end of Judaism.
Click to expand...

It is the holy book of Christianity and the sole source of the teachings of Jesus. Please point out where in the Bible (or the Torah for that matter) it says Ham's son was turned black? That is the basis of your rant about religion and part of your evidence. Now I know you can't because it says no such thing. Anyone can manipulate people through other things besides religion, nationalism and racism come to mind immediately. That is what happened in this case as the religions main book does not in any way teach this.

So if your initial assumption is dead wrong, what affect does this have on your conclusion?
 
Blackdog said:
It is the holy book of Christianity and the sole source of the teachings of Jesus. Please point out where in the Bible (or the Torah for that matter) it says Ham's son was turned black?....
Click to expand...

I never said it was in the Bible.
 
Thunder said:
I never said it was in the Bible.
Click to expand...

You did not have too, your OP says it all...


Thunder said:
By some traditions, the punishment/mark of Cain....was black skin.

Curse and mark of Cain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And again, some believe that the descendants of Ham, who was punished by God, became modern-day blacks.

Curse of Ham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, since racism against blacks can sometimes be considered to be motivated by religion, should we be expected to have more tolerance for such beliefs...as a way of respecting religion?

some argue that since homophobia is sometimes motivated/excused by religion, homophobia should be tolerated as religious-expression. I want to know how far we should tolerate bigotry, as a form of religious expression.
Click to expand...

Your evidence uses Bible verses to back up your statements. You are wrong and your own words show this.

We are done here.
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
I have a flash for you...LDS has black members..........
Click to expand...

yes, and always has, but the priesthood was denied them til 1978 or so....based not on Joseph Smith's writings, but Brigham Young, who was racist as were so many people of the era.
A lot of the Ham stuff was taught by the Southern Baptists which condoned slavery, but they did not originate the Ham idea. I believe it originated with the writings of some priest in the early catholic church. The Southern Baptist Conference did not apologize for or recant the slavery issue until the mid 1990's...
I am not aware of Talmudic writings on the subject. It was inferred from the OT, never stated outright....
 
sawyerloggingon said:
If you ever read the history of Mormons as I have you realize they were a crazy cult. They had some really whacked out ideas and did some horrific things in history, the Mt meadows massacre for instance. They have kind of folded into the main stream now but there is still some Mormons practicing polygamy that consider more mainstream Mormons to be heretics and no longer Mormon.
Click to expand...

how about the good baptists that ran them out of MO? robbing, raping, killing in the process....
Mt. Meadows was a direct result of that abuse, not that it should be condoned or excused....
 
Thunder said:
if you are insinuating that I was saying that the Bible says that the curse of Ham & Cain was black skin, then you are hopelessly wrong.
Click to expand...

No. I am saying your evidence is wrong which makes your bate thread assumption wrong. All of your evidence comes from the Bible. I have shown it is utterly wrong. Any questions?

PS: If you are going to quote my post, at least be honest enough to not take it out of context and reply to what I am actually stating.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
No. I am saying your evidence is wrong which makes your bate thread assumption wrong. All of your evidence comes from the Bible.....
Click to expand...

you are 100% wrong.

my first two links, discuss religious writings NOT found in the Bible, among Biblical ones.
 
Thunder said:
you are 100% wrong.

my first two links, discuss religious writings NOT found in the Bible, among Biblical ones.
Click to expand...

Where does the story of Ham come from? The whole basis of your argument? :lol:
 
Thunder said:
you're moving the goalposts, friend.

that's not very honest of you.
Click to expand...

What? I have said this from the beginning....

"You mean meaningless one sided drivel, lol. I mean even your Bible quotes in the OP are not accurate which is why the article said "citation needed." We have no idea what the mark was as the Bible says nothing about Canaan being turned black or an entire race of people being turned black. It was only a curse on Hams one son and we have no idea what the mark was. It was an excuse to condone slavery by the Western slave powers.

Emotional anti-religion bigotry and bating thread is all I see here." - Blackdog

No posts to move.

Really? do you want to continue this stupidity?
 
Blackdog said:
...Really? do you want to continue this stupidity?
Click to expand...

first you accuse me of only using the Bible as evidence.

then, when faced with your error, you instead talk about Ham & Cain being originally Biblical stories.

friend, we can play this game all year, but the fact is that racism can indeed be related to religious teachings, stemming from the Biblical curse of Ham & Cain.
 
Thunder said:
first you accuse me of only using the Bible as evidence.

then, when faced with your error, you instead talk about Ham & Cain being originally Biblical stories.

friend, we can play this game all year, but the fact is that racism can indeed be related to religious teachings, stemming from the Biblical curse of Ham & Cain.
Click to expand...

The only game we are playing here is you can't read or are willfully playing stupid. Either way you are wrong, and I guess you don't want to admit this was nothing more than an ill conceived bate thread with no real purpose than to discredit religion in general. I mean I have pointed it out and shown why with facts. You choose to ignore them and that's on you.
 
Blackdog said:
The only game we are playing here is you can't read or are willfully playing stupid. Either way you are wrong, and I guess you don't want to admit this was nothing more than an ill conceived bate thread with no real purpose than to discredit religion in general. I mean I have pointed it out and shown why with facts. You choose to ignore them and that's on you.
Click to expand...

No, you are wrong.

My links quote non-Biblical understandings of the Cain & Ham curses.

deny it all you like.

did you even go to my links? I doubt it.
 
Thunder said:
No, you are wrong.

My links quote non-Biblical understandings of the Cain & Ham curses. <------ :lamo That pretty much sums up this thread. Thank you.

deny it all you like.

did you even go to my links? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

I never went to your link. I used ESP so I would know it said "citation needed."
 
Blackdog said:
I never went to your link. I used ESP so I would know it said "citation needed."
Click to expand...

well then, let me know when you take this debate seriously.

until then, adios.

...oh, and btw, its pretty ****ing juvenile of you to edit someone's post without admitting to it.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
well then, let me know when you take this debate seriously.
Click to expand...

What is there to take seriously? It turns out that this is just another one of your thunderous Christian-bashing threads, that serves no purpose other than as an expression of your obsession with pointing out the motes in other people's eyes while denying the beam in your own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom