Understanding Religious Bigotry
July 4th 2008 01:32
Understanding Religious Bigotry
How do Catholics and Protestants get along these days? The answer is remarkably well. This may not have been the case in the past but times have changed and people do look at each other as people first. We can ask the same question about Buddhists and Hindus or Taoists and Moslems. The points of differences between them are outweighed by what they have in common. Civilization is what they seem to be striving for and the religions themselves are contributors to the structure and in many cases built the civilizing basis of the society. The rules that are meant to guide the were laid down to keep people from tearing each other apart and it would be very disingenuous to suggest that the only purpose of religion was to oppress people.
So how is it that we still have this deep seated aura of constant antagonism and fear that is often highlighted in hate crimes? The answer is very often the fact that such incidents are rare that they make headlines and shock many of us. We can look at a web site like Jack Chick’s and you will find endless examples of the most dishonest forms fabrications and pseudo histories to sell fear and hate. We can also examine a dozen other sites that are far worse in their pronouncements and ability to invent evidence from thin air to justify a stance or a call for action. Cult sites and political extremists happily trade upon base emotions to stir up more hate. Without this kind of hate mongering many would have out died through lack of interest. Even certain talk back radio hosts trade upon the shock value to keep people listening. It is not so much that people agree but that fact that people disagree that often makes them listen to what a hate monger may have to say. In the contest of getting noticed Hatemongering gets noticed quicker because it is often so shocking people want to be sure that they did not hear or read it incorrectly. Nietzsche’s books sell because just as many people want to understand the roots of his hate as those that wallow in it.
The purpose of offending people is to get attention and the purpose of getting attention is often to sell an agenda and secondly to provoke a reaction. The provocations are designed in such a way that no reaction is claimed to be approval of their agenda and any reaction is claimed to be oppression. The victim card is quickly flung out as the Hatemonger cries foul at any questioning of their motives. The victim card is easy to use because it gives a free kick to the hate monger and no kick to the object of their hate. The KKK use this excuse all the time as they publish on their websites long justifications and selected news stories with a racial twist. Back when they had a membership in the millions they also had a long list of religious enemies that included Jews and Catholics. The hate was not for any theological reason but for a collection of imaginary crimes that never occurred.
We may think that society has come a long way from when the KKK were a force to be reckoned with but hate is very much an internal weakness and can spring up with remarkable ferocity. Many of us have seen the Cronulla Riots that targeted Muslims and people who even looked Middle Eastern. Some of those rioting were ironically carrying Australian flags as they attacked helpless victims. The following day guilty consciences spoke up with regret from what they had done. They were in to following their primal hates because of media reports, encouragement from talk back radio hosts(Alan Jones); SMS messages; alcohol and the mob mentality all pointed them in that direction. The mob is mindless and a dangerous thing but people are individuals and can think if they try.
It may often seem difficult to understand where this internal hate can spring from and I am not about to tackle that issue here. Yet you can see it from time to time when people lash out in wild rages and diatribes that are thinly veiled calls for violence. The result of hate speech is often hate crimes. Scarves torn off women heads, vandalism of churches, temples burned, insults on the street and even murder. At the centre of this can often be a cry of victimhood from the perpetrators of the crimes.
So where does this kind of hate come from? Here is a possible explanation as provided by by Swain and Eric Wodening.
Bigotry of any kind seems to stem from the same source. Sociologists early in the 20th century developed the theory of the authoritarian personality. An authoritarian personality has strong feelings of inadequacy, dependency, and hostility, particularly toward those in authority, even though they may be in a position of authority. Because of these feelings of worthlessness, they tend to displace this anger and hate towards themselves onto another group. The bigot is simply transferring their own sense of low self esteem and their own self hatred to another racial, cultural, or religious group. The bigot will stereotype, lie, about and persecute that group no matter what the truth. They will even go so far as to accuse the persecuted of being the persecutor or fabricate instances of persecution
It may be true that self hatred is externalized to a convenient scapegoat and such people are as also victims of this hate. Yet the results of such hate can transform very quickly into violence and oppression. Even so called secularists can often be at the forefront of incitement as they invent fictions with vitriolic twists or engage in smear campaigns and character assassinations to further their list of causes.
Stereotyping and lying sometimes come naturally to a bigot as it is their defence mechanism against examining their own crimes. They are not a bigot in their own mind but an oppressed person who is suffering and has suffered. Hitler used the words in his speeches where claimed to know what it is like to suffer for his people. He was not unique in this kind of hate mongering, just more successful.
It is easy to stir the passion with great stories of horror and exaggerated tails of oppression. It is even easier to selectively hunt down passages in history and twist them to match an agenda. It is even easy to create a sense of panic and fear in public by continually crying victim. Yet it is much harder to fix the damage that is done when people turn on each other in a mad feeding frenzy of hate.
Jawaharlal Nehru the first Prime Minister was a lone voice when he stood upon the podium and shouted to an angry crowd to stop rioting and killing each other. To stop Muslims and Hindus from wiping each other out in India he only really had word.
“You must have the courage to do what you know to be right!” He shouted with the expressed desire to show his people that Hate is cowardice.
The Jack Chick Universe of Hate Figures
How do Catholics and Protestants get along these days? The answer is remarkably well. This may not have been the case in the past but times have changed and people do look at each other as people first. We can ask the same question about Buddhists and Hindus or Taoists and Moslems. The points of differences between them are outweighed by what they have in common. Civilization is what they seem to be striving for and the religions themselves are contributors to the structure and in many cases built the civilizing basis of the society. The rules that are meant to guide the were laid down to keep people from tearing each other apart and it would be very disingenuous to suggest that the only purpose of religion was to oppress people.
So how is it that we still have this deep seated aura of constant antagonism and fear that is often highlighted in hate crimes? The answer is very often the fact that such incidents are rare that they make headlines and shock many of us. We can look at a web site like Jack Chick’s and you will find endless examples of the most dishonest forms fabrications and pseudo histories to sell fear and hate. We can also examine a dozen other sites that are far worse in their pronouncements and ability to invent evidence from thin air to justify a stance or a call for action. Cult sites and political extremists happily trade upon base emotions to stir up more hate. Without this kind of hate mongering many would have out died through lack of interest. Even certain talk back radio hosts trade upon the shock value to keep people listening. It is not so much that people agree but that fact that people disagree that often makes them listen to what a hate monger may have to say. In the contest of getting noticed Hatemongering gets noticed quicker because it is often so shocking people want to be sure that they did not hear or read it incorrectly. Nietzsche’s books sell because just as many people want to understand the roots of his hate as those that wallow in it.
He just keeps them coming.
The purpose of offending people is to get attention and the purpose of getting attention is often to sell an agenda and secondly to provoke a reaction. The provocations are designed in such a way that no reaction is claimed to be approval of their agenda and any reaction is claimed to be oppression. The victim card is quickly flung out as the Hatemonger cries foul at any questioning of their motives. The victim card is easy to use because it gives a free kick to the hate monger and no kick to the object of their hate. The KKK use this excuse all the time as they publish on their websites long justifications and selected news stories with a racial twist. Back when they had a membership in the millions they also had a long list of religious enemies that included Jews and Catholics. The hate was not for any theological reason but for a collection of imaginary crimes that never occurred.
Any lie will do as long as it works for Jack Chick.
We may think that society has come a long way from when the KKK were a force to be reckoned with but hate is very much an internal weakness and can spring up with remarkable ferocity. Many of us have seen the Cronulla Riots that targeted Muslims and people who even looked Middle Eastern. Some of those rioting were ironically carrying Australian flags as they attacked helpless victims. The following day guilty consciences spoke up with regret from what they had done. They were in to following their primal hates because of media reports, encouragement from talk back radio hosts(Alan Jones); SMS messages; alcohol and the mob mentality all pointed them in that direction. The mob is mindless and a dangerous thing but people are individuals and can think if they try.
It may often seem difficult to understand where this internal hate can spring from and I am not about to tackle that issue here. Yet you can see it from time to time when people lash out in wild rages and diatribes that are thinly veiled calls for violence. The result of hate speech is often hate crimes. Scarves torn off women heads, vandalism of churches, temples burned, insults on the street and even murder. At the centre of this can often be a cry of victimhood from the perpetrators of the crimes.
So where does this kind of hate come from? Here is a possible explanation as provided by by Swain and Eric Wodening.
Bigotry of any kind seems to stem from the same source. Sociologists early in the 20th century developed the theory of the authoritarian personality. An authoritarian personality has strong feelings of inadequacy, dependency, and hostility, particularly toward those in authority, even though they may be in a position of authority. Because of these feelings of worthlessness, they tend to displace this anger and hate towards themselves onto another group. The bigot is simply transferring their own sense of low self esteem and their own self hatred to another racial, cultural, or religious group. The bigot will stereotype, lie, about and persecute that group no matter what the truth. They will even go so far as to accuse the persecuted of being the persecutor or fabricate instances of persecution
It may be true that self hatred is externalized to a convenient scapegoat and such people are as also victims of this hate. Yet the results of such hate can transform very quickly into violence and oppression. Even so called secularists can often be at the forefront of incitement as they invent fictions with vitriolic twists or engage in smear campaigns and character assassinations to further their list of causes.
United in Hate
Stereotyping and lying sometimes come naturally to a bigot as it is their defence mechanism against examining their own crimes. They are not a bigot in their own mind but an oppressed person who is suffering and has suffered. Hitler used the words in his speeches where claimed to know what it is like to suffer for his people. He was not unique in this kind of hate mongering, just more successful.
It is easy to stir the passion with great stories of horror and exaggerated tails of oppression. It is even easier to selectively hunt down passages in history and twist them to match an agenda. It is even easy to create a sense of panic and fear in public by continually crying victim. Yet it is much harder to fix the damage that is done when people turn on each other in a mad feeding frenzy of hate.
Jawaharlal Nehru the first Prime Minister was a lone voice when he stood upon the podium and shouted to an angry crowd to stop rioting and killing each other. To stop Muslims and Hindus from wiping each other out in India he only really had word.
“You must have the courage to do what you know to be right!” He shouted with the expressed desire to show his people that Hate is cowardice.
| 87 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
A Global Citizen
Paranormal Paranormal
Is Why
Alaska Chronicle
Comment by Doug Pollard
Rainbow Reporter
Oh, and that cartoon about the Catholic? Actually not that far wrong - we've had numerous instances lately of Catholic politicians voting the way the Vatican tells them, which is foreign interference in the affairs of a sovereign state. If Communists or Islamists were found to have done likewise, Dubbya would have sent the missiles by now.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
If only it was that simple. Then we could pumble the world to a state of sanity.
However the victimhood card trumps all and the KKK live to fight another day.
Comment by DuskDevi
Rucks and Rolls
Rugby World Cup 2007
Or something like that. Not too good with the proverbials today!
Brilliant as always Damo.
We have all been the 'victims' of someone else's low self esteem masquerading as confidence. Only way to combat it is with a smile. And a sledgehammer.
Hope you are well Damo. Have a great weekend.
Dusk
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I am not sure how I should answer your post other than say:
I do understand what I write and to have someone use an anti bigotry post to sell bigotry is extremely disappointing.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I am good as always.
A bit short on proverbs lately. That is why William Blake is my ghost writer this week.
For my self esteem I usually ask my wife if it still looks good. To which she replies "who listens to you bloggers anyway? You think you run the world from your keyboards."
Have a good weekend and keep that sledgehammer handy.
Comment by stu-kicks
ps. russians rule, croatians drool
Comment by Doug Pollard
Rainbow Reporter
BTW - my final comment - about Dubbya sending missiles - was meant to be a joke.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
For more information you could read this Really Long Link
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
If that was the only thing wrong with what you said I would have let it slide.
However it isn't.
At least half of what you said is purely an attack upon all religions for being nothing more than religions.
Then follow it up with circular argument (dictionary definition) to justify that stance. Whose dictionary?
Not the Oxford that is for sure:
faith
• noun 1 complete trust or confidence. 2 strong belief in a religion. 3 a system of religious belief.
I am sorry if you persist in pushing your prejudices I will have no other choice than to moderate.
Comment by Doug Pollard
Rainbow Reporter
Faith
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom
9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.
My italics
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
You have 9 different definition on the word but select only the one that suits you.
So what are you trying to prove?
That you can select evidence to suit your prejudices?
That is not very clever.
Comment by Doug Pollard
Rainbow Reporter
Faith is belief, hope, wish, confidence, trust, promise.
Faith, in other words, belongs to the realm of the emotions, not rationality, not facts, not proof.
When we say that we believe something, we are 'taking a punt', as Aussies say, we are taking the facts on trust. We are not acting rationally, but emotionally.
We all do it all the time, of course, because nothing is ever entirely certain: but the danger inherent in teaching one religious faith to a child at too young an age is that it encourages them not to try to work things out themselves, not to engage with the facts, but to take things on trust on the basis of a book or a person claiming to have superior knowledge derived from a superior being, whose existence can only ever be a matter for conjecture - or faith, if you prefer.
In other words, it has a strong potential to create bigotry.
I would prefer people to be taught to think for themselves. By all means teach the Bible AND the Koran AND The Book of Mormon, AND the Hindu and Buddhist scriptures, and let people choose the one that feels right for them - because this is all about feelings, not facts.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I think you are full of rubbish as we Aussies say.
Bigotry Potential indeed.
The only person that has been promoting prejudice on this post thus far is you.
Point one:
"To indoctrinate children with religion from an early age is tantamount to child abuse."
Begs the question: Says who?
Point two:
"Oh, and that cartoon about the Catholic? Actually not that far wrong"
That cartoon was taken off the Jack Chick hate site and is almost identical to one that was used by the KKK for years. It was as inaccurate then as it is today. The only purpose of such an image is to instill fear. I was tossing whether I should use the Jewish one instead but guess what won the toss.
Point three:
"We've had numerous instances lately of Catholic politicians voting the way the Vatican tells them"
Oh I get it, if a Catholic votes according to conscience he is a Vatican agent. If a non Catholic votes according to his conscience then whose agent are they? A direct assertion without direct evidence. Interesting prejudice aimed at fear.
Point four:
"which is foreign interference in the affairs of a sovereign state"
Not the dreaded Popery conspiracy again. Pull the other one. You forgot to mention the Jesuit Assassins also. Again you beg the question: Says who? Not only does it beg the question but does so on a false premise that was never proven in the first place. Refer to point three.
Point five:
"How is opposing teaching children 'faiths' - irrational beliefs (dictionary definition) - before they have the mental capacity to understand what they are being indoctrinated with - bigotry?"
Using the definition that you select to prove a case. Hahahaha. Never mind I have a sense of humour about people and semantics.
However since you used the term irrational beliefs you again begged the question. Why are they irrational? and How do you know if they are irrational if you have no idea what people are being taught? You don't so therefore your assertion is irrational and without foundation.
Point six:
"but the danger inherent in teaching one religious faith to a child at too young an age is that it encourages them not to try to work things out themselves"
Begs the question. Work out what exactly?
Point Seven:
not to engage with the facts
Begs the question. What fact are they meant to engage with exactly. You never make that clear.
Point Eight:
"but to take things on trust on the basis of a book or a person claiming to have superior knowledge derived from a superior being, whose existence can only ever be a matter for conjecture - or faith, if you prefer.
In other words, it has a strong potential to create bigotry"
Too many prejudices in this to count but it is a presumptuous statement based upon
circular reasoning. If it comes from a religion it must be inherently more bigoted than if it does not. The premise does not prove it self by being stated. There are plenty of bigoted atheists in this world. What do we blame for that? Poor potty training?
Conclusion:
If you are going to start posting on my site and to spread you own deep seated prejudices I am going to point them out to you. NO point pretending to be the voice of reason if every second word you utter is so full of obvious prejudices and bad logic that a high school student could find it.
Comment by Doug Pollard
Rainbow Reporter
This correspondence is now closed.
Comment by Anonymous
I am a Baptized Catholic Christian , a husband, a father, and a citizen of the United States of America.
If Mr. Pollard, Jack Chick or any other Americanist/Protestants many of whom mistake Protestantist views towards faith and "genuine American patriotic values" -- they are perfectly free to do so. But since this is the Fourth of July, I also hope these Americanist Protestants also remember that their rights to even impugn my fellow Catholic Americans
loyalty has been paid for in blood by the bucketloads millions of times over.
We'll keep on doing so. We love our nation as much as you do Mr. Pollard. But we love our Lord and the ONLY Church He founded directly. Mind you Mr. Pollard you are dealing with the Church that was more than willing to lose the entire English speaking branch of the faith in order to maintain its position--which was Jesus' position--concerning divorce, which thanks to today's relaxed moral standards has become a rather banal matter in sharp contrast to how seriously it was taken by the Holy See against the English crown.
So as you wish, but remember, your right to do so has been already paid for by millions of Catholics.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Apology accepted.
Rational and rationalism are two different things.
Yet rationalist bigotry is just obvious.
You opened with a smear campaign and ended with a pompous statement.
Ditto.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
Most of your comments are directed at Mr Pollard so I will be brief.
I am only concerned when people try to find a point of difference and use it to exploit fear as Mr Pollard has done in an aggressive and divisive manner.
I think that despite the differences in opinion, ideology and theology people can live without together and co-operate on many levels.
Yet I think that it is extremely bigoted to suggest that people are indoctrinating children with evil just because that happen to belong to a religion.