Is racism a sin?

[Estevao]

Ah, you seem to be talking about making observations on the strengths and weaknesses within different races, that isn’t really racism.

If I may, as an example, pull from evolution accounting for different races (NOT species/breeds)
of human, lighter skinned people are more abundant further North from the Equator because darker
skin does not absorb as as much sunlight (which is not as abundant away from the Equator) leading
to less production of Vitamin D, thus causing rickets (softening in bone), so lighter skin is beneficial in that
respect. And of course seeing how humans began in Africa, particularly near the Equator, where SUNBURN
is a big threat, darker skin is a plus.

Of course that is more describing a
long time ago, with all our advance-
ments we have a much easier time
being anywhere on Earth.
​

What I did there was not racist, but simply explained how/why there are
lighter/darker skinned people, in light of environmental adaptation, which
is NOT sinful. Saying someone is black because he is the descendent of
Cain, THAT IS BOTH RACIST AND LIKELY A SIN (not to mention that it
may %iss God off to no end).

​

Racism does not necessarily have to be a moral judgement IMO.

Moreover, what you did was, by the usual dictionary definition of the word, racist. Explaining things ultimately by evolution is racist. The evolutionary system is by definition racist, because according to it, evolution is responsible for the distinctions in people that form the races we know today. This would therefore allow one to claim, on the evolutionary system, that one race is better suited to survival than another and therefore superior. Evolution is therefore racist by most people’s definition of the word.

This does not mean that everybody that believes in evolution is a biased racist. But you could do what you just did there with intelligence (in the words of a few darwinist racists Ive read online “does evolution stop at the neck?”), but evolutionists shy away from doing this because we all know the implications that it would lead to…

Of course the Christian explanation is that races exist because a loving God created us the way we are, and “it was very good”. I personally prefer the Christian explanation than the Darwinist explanation, and I think most people of good conscience would as well.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Racism does not necessarily have to be a moral judgement IMO.
Moreover, what you did was, by the usual dictionary definition of the word, racist. Explaining things ultimately by evolution is racist. The evolutionary system is by definition racist, because according to it, evolution is responsible for the distinctions in people that form the races we know today. This would therefore allow one to claim, on the evolutionary system, that one race is better suited to survival than another and therefore superior. Evolution is therefore racist by most people’s definition of the word.
This does not mean that everybody that believes in evolution is a biased racist. But you could do what you just did there with intelligence, but evolutionists shy away from doing this because we all know the implications that it would lead to…
Of course the Christian explanation is that races exist because a loving God created us the way we are, and “it was very good”. I personally prefer the Christian explanation than the Darwinist explanation, and I think most people of good conscience would as well.

Evolution is not racist, Johann Blumenbach’s take on it sure was (and he was SO wrong),
but what you described is an over-exaggeration of what evolution implies. That implication
you brought up of what I said earlier came so only because you folded it up like an origami
you made it so. Evolution does not say one race is superior to another, that was the claim
Hitler and Himmler made, but no scientist or anthropologist would ever support your false
position on evolution.

You have inserted your own feelings into evolution, as any Creationist would.

 

[Estevao]

Evolution is not racist, Johann Blumenbach’s take on it sure was (and he was SO wrong),
but what you described is an over-exaggeration of what evolution implies. The implication
of what I said earlier came so only because you folded it up like an origami you made it
so. Evolution does not say one race is superior to another, that was the claim Hitler and
Himmler made, but no scientist or anthropologist would ever support your false position
on evolution.

You have inserted your own feelings into evolution, as any Creationist would.

1. I am not a “creationist” in the way that darwinists like Richard Dawkins have managed to twist the meaning of this word, do not refer to me as such please.
2. Evolution, as I explained it, is racist. Please see the first definition of the word “racism” below:

rac·ism
/ˈrāˌsizəm/
Noun

1. The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as…
2. Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.

I will take the opportunity to remind those reading that the title of Darwin’s famous work was not “On the origin of species”, but rather “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

The problem I have with darwinistic thinking is that it supposes the REASON why the races are the way they are is through evolution, rather than a loving God. Evolution is therefore by definition racist, and can easily lead to allowing people to take Hitler’s position on it when it comes to survival.

The Christian explanation, as I explained, is much more aggreable to people of good conscience.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

I dont want to be hatred racist. I just sometimes think how black people are faster without hate or how white people are better swimmers or that
white people have different hair that black men. Is this sinful?

I don’t think that is being racist, but the part about blacks run faster and whites are better swimmers is stereotyping. My husband is black and I am white. He is actually a much better swimmer than I am. Stereotypically speaking, black people are supposed to love chicken. My husband can live without it and I could eat chicken for every meal.

Pointing out differences isn’t racist. His hair is curlier than mine. My skin is lighter. Nothing wrong with that or making those statements.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

1. I am not a “creationist” in the way that darwinists like Richard Dawkins have managed to twist the meaning of this word, do not refer to me as such please.

Actually, you are, as seen in your following quote:

I will take the opportunity to remind those reading that the title of Darwin’s famous work was not “On the origin of species”, but rather “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

Creationists attack evolution like this often, as seen in the following video:
youtube.com/watch?v=EXMKPvWqgYk
(Skip to 4:25 into the video for Ad Hominem)

1. Evolution, as I explained it, is racist. Please see the first definition of the word “racism” below:
   rac·ism
   /ˈrāˌsizəm/
   Noun
   The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as**………****…**

Why not give the ending of that definition:**………****…**inferior or superior to another race or races, which evolution does not imply, and that actually does sound like a “moral judgement”, which is not supposed to be your IMO:

Racism does not necessarily have to be a moral judgement IMO.

(This is Over-Simplification by the way, the intentional misrepresentation of something).

The problem I have with darwinistic thinking is that it supposes the REASON why the races are the way they are is through evolution, rather than a loving God.

Science makes no comment about God, either for or against, and Creationists ought not claim that it does. Evolution doesn’t kick God out of the story, Creationists are the ones doing that in the story of Evolution

Evolution is therefore by definition racist, and can easily lead to allowing people to take Hitler’s position on it when it comes to survival.

That is the implication hoped for by Creationists, in using the Appeal to Emotions fallacy, “DON’T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, IT WILL LEAD TO ANOTHER HOLOCAUST!!!” …right.
youtube.com/watch?v=EXMKPvWqgYk

So in total, I think you used three to four different logical fallacies, because the
Creationist cannot dispute evolution by means of logic and especially science.

I’m pretty sure that all these fallacies are seen in the following video:
youtube.com/watch?v=EXMKPvWqgYk

 

[bben15]

I define racism as hatred of another race. It is absolutely a sin. God created all races equal.

 

[Estevao]

JT, all you seem capable of doing is smearing me as a creationist while attributing to me ideas that I did not propose. The red herring about how God should play in our scientific method is not important here, my critique of evolution is not based on a claim that evolution is somehow faulty science.

My original post you did not respond to, just dismissed by calling it an oversimplification without explaning how and then with an appeal to an unnamed authority. I would not advise taking the tactics of cowards like Richard Dawkins who change the meaning of this word “creationist” and run away from actual debates and responses to his ideas like he does. Yes creationists might do some similar things as me. That does not make me a creationist in the modern definition of the word.

I will just quote the original definition of racism without the following “especially” clause, as it does not change the meaning of the definition. (Google cut off the ending of it all, I wasn’t trying to be dishonest here)

“The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race”

Given this definition, putting moral values on racial distinctions is not necessary for racism. Racism only says that there are distinctions between races which are inherent to that race, i.e. saying that all black people run faster is racist or that their skin is darker is racist, even though running faster or being darker is not a moral judgement. You didn’t care to specifically point this out, but these traits such as darker skin, or anything else people have brought up on this subject, are the distinctions which form the races which we know today. Making them is by definition racist.

Here’s my supposedly over-simplified reckoning of evolution once again, please try to explain what is wrong instead of calling me names or appealing to an unnamed authority.

Darwinists will say that all the races of human got that way due to some evolutionary reason. The shape of the eyes, skin and hair color, etc. in their view, all got this way for a reason benefitting survival. This, by definition, is racial.

Moving on to intelligence (which darwinists are always so scared to bring up because they know the implications, besides that book “The Bell Curve”).

If evolution includes human beings adapting to the environment, and differences exist in the groups due to environment adaptation, like you described for skin color, it would seem that certain races would evolve more intelligence than others as well (in the words of a few racist darwinists i’ve read on the internet “does evolution stop at the neck?”). Same goes for strength and running speed, each of which would certainly be open to labeling of “better” or “superior”, even if only on the basis of better for survival, but probably for most people on a more general basis of being “better”. Just because the Nazis did it does not mean that it isn’t inherent in evolution.

All this opposes itself to the Christian explanation for human beings, that he lovingly created us just how he wanted, “and it was very good”, as Genesis says. In this sense I am a creationist, not in the false current sense.

Going back to your first post about evolution:

Ah, you seem to be talking about making observations on the strengths and weaknesses within different races, that isn’t really racism.

I have just demonstrated how it is. Have a nice day. I will not continue with you if you insist on smearing me as a “creationist”.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

The red herring about how God should play in our scientific method is not important here, my critique of evolution is not based on a claim that evolution is somehow faulty science.

I was responding to what you said earlier:

The problem I have with darwinistic thinking is that it supposes the REASON why the races are the way they are is through evolution, rather than a loving God.

I was simply breaking the barrier you made between God and evolution. what exactly then did you mean there, so that I may apparently address the substance of you’re argument?

My original post you did not respond to, just dismissed by calling it an oversimplification without explaning how and then with an appeal to an unnamed authority. I would not advise taking the tactics of cowards like Richard Dawkins who change the meaning of this word “creationist” and run away from actual debates and responses to his ideas like he does. Yes creationists might do some similar things as me. That does not make me a creationist in the modern definition of the word.

I will just quote the original definition of racism without the following “especially” clause, as it does not change the meaning of the definition. (Google cut off the ending of it all, I wasn’t trying to be dishonest here)

By me bringing up those last few words (“inferior or superior to another race or races”), even if you “accidentally failed” to click on whatever link and provide full context, I was rendering your point as invalid. How? Because the “especially” clause brings the entire context into the definition.
I didn’t “just dismissed by calling it an oversimplification”, I provided the full definition, based on what ever “unnamed authority” you copied from, so I assumed you knew, because you copied the incomplete definition from Google.
Also, “Creationist” is essentially a modern word, so I will use the modern
definition, because it isn’t as though it is, as far as I know, an ancient word.

Given this definition, putting moral values on racial distinctions is not necessary for racism. Racism only says that there are distinctions between races which are inherent to that race, i.e. saying that all black people run faster is racist or that their skin is darker is racist, even though running faster or being darker is not a moral judgement. You didn’t care to specifically point this out, but these traits such as darker skin, or anything else people have brought up on this subject, are the distinctions which form the races which we know today. Making them is by definition racist.

There are many definitions of Christian in the dictionary, many of which a Mormon can use to identify himself as Christian, but that doesn’t make them Christian. Racism must be defined not only by it’s basic definition, but it must also be defined by it’s actual usage. Racist/Racism is NEVER a good word, it has a negative usage, and cannot be applied to evolution, no matter how over-simplificated you make it sound.

Here’s my supposedly over-simplified reckoning of evolution once again, please try to explain what is wrong instead of calling me names or appealing to an unnamed authority.

I think the over-simplify part only applied primarily to your definition of racism, but let me bring up one problem again:

The problem I have with darwinistic thinking is that it supposes the REASON why the races are the way they are is through evolution, rather than a loving God.

By making this suggestion, you hold evolution as 100% God free, as something only atheists can believe in, and many people end up losing faith when they cannot hold onto their literalist interpretation.

(hmmm…have to split reply in half…)

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

ANYWAY…

Darwinists will say that all the races of human got that way due to some evolutionary reason. The shape of the eyes, skin and hair color, etc. in their view, all got this way for a reason benefitting survival. This, by definition, is racial.

I can deal with “racial”, as it doesn’t exactly have a negative connotation, as the following definitions I found say:

Race is a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, or social affiliation.

Wikipedia

1: of, relating to, or based on a race
2: existing or occurring between races

Merriam-Webster

Moving on to intelligence (which darwinists are always so scared to bring up because they know the implications, besides that book “The Bell Curve”). If evolution includes human beings adapting to the environment, and differences exist in the groups due to environment adaptation, like you described for skin color, it would seem that certain races would evolve more intelligence than others as well (in the words of a few racist darwinists i’ve read on the internet “does evolution stop at the neck?”). Same goes for strength and running speed, each of which would certainly be open to labeling of “better” or “superior”, even if only on the basis of better for survival, but probably for most people on a more general basis of being “better”. Just because the Nazis did it does not mean that it isn’t inherent in evolution.

Evolution can raise cognitive abilities, but for any unique change to happen, the less intelligent must have some cause to die off, leaving the more intelligent by genes to reproduce, but it doesn’t seem at this point any particular group of humans are going away anytime soon, seeing how we all work together.
We can say that some races have traits better than others, but so do the others. Nothing wrong with identifying better traits, that isn’t racist, but to say that those traits make the race better PERIOD is racist, and that is the problem I don’t think you are seeing.

All this opposes itself to the Christian explanation for human beings, that he lovingly created us just how he wanted, “and it was very good”, as Genesis says. In this sense I am a creationist, not in the false current sense.

Evolution does not deny that humanity was created by a loving creator, no matter how bad you want it so, it doesn’t say man wasn’t “very good”, yes it reveals the creation story of Genesis (including how the Sun goes around the Earth) as allegorical, but you make Genesis do more than it’s supposed to do.

Going back to your first post about evolution:
I have just demonstrated how it is. Have a nice day. I will not continue with you if you insist on smearing me as a “creationist”.

I only smear you as a Creationist because you smear Evolution as “racist”. I personally don’t care if you believe in the Creation Account in Genesis as literal, I don’t think God cares so much about belief in it alone, but when such believers take on scientific fact (Theory DOES NOT mean ‘guess’ of ‘I think’), IT’S ON!

 

[In_Spiration]

For now I’m just going to add what I wrote in another thread on this topic (that is, the really old one very recently resurrected in this subforum).

The ‘-ism’ [in ‘racism,’ i.e., the relevant suffix of the term in question] suggests a genus of proposition or theory (e.g., theism, deism, paganism, materialism, determinism, socialism). Thus racism will likely assert something about the state of reality as it is objectively supposed to be. Such a classification would already rule out attitudes, behaviors, policies, feelings, and the like from being primary examples of this misunderstood concept’s referent. But we must go further than the genus and narrow down the species through differentiation amongst other propositions and theories. Hence, I’ll propose what I think the truest definition is:

Racism is the ethical theory that a human being’s basic personal worth and character, especially with relation to overall moral quality, status, or capacity, is mostly if not entirely determined by the biological race(s) of which he is a genetic descendant and ethnic member to some minimally-significant, phenotypical extent.

So racism is fundamentally a form of biological determinism, and it technically doesn’t take a particular side in favor of either negative or positive racial attributions, as long as both arise out of some underlying assertion of genetic destiny. I suppose it’s arguable that racism has to entail one or another particular affirmation of racial superiority or inferiority as well, but I wouldn’t say such a criterion is at all necessarily or self-evidently the case. Likewise, due to the internal nuances of Man’s theoretical structures of belief, I hardly think it would be easy to point out who does or doesn’t actually ascribe to the tenets of racism; nor should it ever be so apparently effortless and uncontroversial to casually identify racists as it seems today to be in Western standards for acceptable social discourse.