Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

[Dreadful Scathe]

As you were the one who ventured the opinion in the first place, I would have thought you would have had the consideration to provide a constructive answer.

It is a particularly stupid question though

[andystyle]

There have been multiple occurences in this thread where I have thought I was being clear, been asked what could be termed a 'stupid' question, and then done my best to explain/clarify.

However, perhaps that is too much to expect from certain others. Anyway, the question has been posed and your responses show a very neat sidestep. I'll let each reader come to their own conclusions.

It seems that certain forumites posting in this thread are quick to make statements but strangely reluctant to justify these when asked, employing juvenile tactics to deflect attention.

The emptiest barrels make the most noise.

[Barry Shnikov]

And 400 years before you were born, too.

Look, Andy, please read the posts more carefully! I made that response because Baruch made specific reference to people he has met. It's reasonable for me to point out that those missionaries he has met are a tiny subset of 'All Missionaries', by making the comment about his birth. But it makes no sense at all for you to point out that that it was also 400 years before I was born; I'm not making the assertion I am by reference to my personal experience so it simply isn't relevant.

Simply because you can't imagine why someone would want to pose a question, Barry, does not mean the question is not worth answering. As you were the one who ventured the opinion in the first place, I would have thought you would have had the consideration to provide a constructive answer. Your posts have been treated with the respect due to that of someone participating in a debate with a worthwhile view. Please extend me (and others) the same courtesy.

That's just silly. All sorts of questions deserve no answer. In any event, I'm not concerned about why the question was asked, but how it the asker came to be so naive. If someone asks 'so how come black people are so much better at athletics than white people' then don't be surprised if I use the 'rolling eyes' smiley rather then give an answer.

[Barry Shnikov]

The emptiest barrels make the most noise.

Arrrrrghghgh!! {gasps, falls to the ground}

not an analogy!

Curse you, Red Baron...{dies}

[andystyle]

{dies}

Best thing you did on this thread, IMHO...

[MartinHarper]

It is a particularly stupid question though

Regardless, I'm interested in your answer to it.

[David Bailey]

Anyway, the question he asked was why would anyone do blah blah blah if they were racist.

The exact question that "didn't deserve an answer" was:

why would missionaries devote part or all of their lives to spreading their religion to people of all cultures, creeds, nationalities and ethnicities if they were racist?

Not "anyone", but missionaries.

Of course, I'll happily accept that slave-owners were racists, in general, because that kind of goes with the territory. But we're not talking about them, we're talking about missionaries.

To be clear, do you think that the "thousands of missionaries" were usually racists (quietly or otherwise), or that some of them were, or what? Because that's a very big accusation to make without some form of argument to back it up.

I'm not saying it's totally ridiculous, but I'm saying you'll need to make a good case to convince me, and I certainly wouldn't accept it as a given.

[Barry Shnikov]

The exact question that "didn't deserve an answer" was:


Not "anyone", but missionaries.

Of course, I'll happily accept that slave-owners were racists, in general, because that kind of goes with the territory. But we're not talking about them, we're talking about missionaries.

To be clear, do you think that the "thousands of missionaries" were usually racists (quietly or otherwise), or that some of them were, or what? Because that's a very big accusation to make without some form of argument to back it up.

I'm not saying it's totally ridiculous, but I'm saying you'll need to make a good case to convince me, and I certainly wouldn't accept it as a given.

Read the history books, people!

The question presupposes that there has been (during the 500 years since Columbus) any necessary relationship between "spreading religion" and (for want of a better phrase, I can't think of one) 'non-racism'.

It seems to me that such a presupposition is specious in the extreme hence my refusal to dignify a silly question with any answer.

It's probably something to do with an unquestioning faith in the good intentions of religious people. I'm sure Torquemada thought he was doing a favour to all those people who went to heaven because he enabled them to confess.

Anyway, DJ, you're looking for a different thing from Andy. What he asked is "why would..." whereas you are asking "what makes you think they were racist".

And I'm not answering that question either, right now.

[andystyle]

Anyway, DJ, you're looking for a different thing from Andy. What he asked is "why would..." whereas you are asking "what makes you think they were racist".

I asked "Why would they be racist?" in direct relation to your statement that missionaires were racist. You can argue semantics if you like but it's clear I was asking the same as DJ.

And I'm not answering that question either, right now.

And my suspicion is that you can't. Convoluted responses and vague references to history isn't quite enough.

[ducasi]

I wonder if this thread is going anywhere apart from in circles...

Anyway, to answer the question...

If you went to a different country and told them that their language wasn't as good as yours and so they should abandon it, I'd call that racist.

It could be argued that all missionaries are racist because they believe that their religion (and by implication, the culture associated with it) is superior to the religion and culture they are visiting.

I think that's exactly what the missionaries of old were doing, and it may be fair to call their behaviour racist. Modern-day missionaries are usually more sensitive to the culture they work within, but I think the same argument could be made of them.

I dunno. I can see both sides of the argument. Certainly, it's probably fair to say that most (if not all?) missionaries are and were well-intentioned.

[David Bailey]

Read the history books, people!

Any particular books you have in mind? Or is this just a general rant?
I have read an occasional history book in my time, possibly others have too, who knows...

The question presupposes that there has been (during the 500 years since Columbus) any necessary relationship between "spreading religion" and (for want of a better phrase, I can't think of one) 'non-racism'.

Well, if the religion being spread was one saying, for example "All black people are inferior", then yes, I can see your point.

But as the prime tenets of Christianity are crazy ideas like loving one another like we do ourselves, the "racism" charge is a little more difficult to justify. And it's not at all obvious, without some specific citations of studies done in this area.

I certainly don't believe historical missionaries were always nice people, or that they all had good motives, or that they did good to all the societies they encountered - there's a lot of room for debate on this area. But saying "Oh, they were all racists" and then not bothering to justify this bald assertion is just silly.

It seems to me that such a presupposition is specious in the extreme hence my refusal to dignify a silly question with any answer.

Yeah, that argument always convinces me: "It's a silly question, and I won't dignify it with an answer. And you smell too."

It's probably something to do with an unquestioning faith in the good intentions of religious people. I'm sure Torquemada thought he was doing a favour to all those people who went to heaven because he enabled them to confess.

OK, you're just getting nutty now. Equating missionaries with Torquemada is not exactly a rational point.

Anyway, DJ, you're looking for a different thing from Andy. What he asked is "why would..." whereas you are asking "what makes you think they were racist".

Thanks for telling me what I'm doing, I really appreciate it. 'Cos I thought that I was asking exactly the same thing as Andy.

[David Bailey]

It could be argued that all missionaries are racist because they believe that their religion (and by implication, the culture associated with it) is superior to the religion and culture they are visiting.

It's an argument, certainly - I'd make the counter-argument that everyone was racist 400 years ago, but missionaries - in trying to save the souls of their fellow man, no matter what colour - might not be self-evidently more racist than their contemporary society.

But Barry's not even bothering to make that argument...

[Stuart M]

I dunno. I can see both sides of the argument. Certainly, it's probably fair to say that most (if not all?) missionaries are and were well-intentioned.

Maybe the phrase "cultural imperialism" is better than racism in describing historical missionary behaviour. Narrow difference perhaps, but the same devastation was generally wrought on indigenous cultures, regardless of skin colour. For an example, look at the role the Free Church of Scotland played in the decline of the St Kilda people.

And now back to your advertised programming...

[Dreadful Scathe]

Regardless, I'm interested in your answer to it.

I'd much rather leave it at rude and unhelpful But any question that asks "why would someone do something if they were racist / short / ginger ?" asked in a way that suggests the racist / short / ginger aspect is false - seems fairly stupid to me a better question would be "why do you think some missionaries were racist?" - it seems Andystyle meant that anyway, but it didnt come across that way to me.

[Barry Shnikov]

I asked "Why would they be racist?" in direct relation to your statement that missionaires were racist. You can argue semantics if you like but it's clear I was asking the same as DJ.

HELLO!?

You did NOT! You asked "why would they do this that and the other if they were racist". That's the exact opposite!! Good grief.

To expand: the thinking behind your question is, look, these people went all over the world and did (what I andystyle think are) lots of really nice and generous things. Why would they if they were racist?

And for those of you who are still struggling: racists are not irredeemably awful, there is no reason to believe they aren't nice to their dogs and make really great neighbours (unless you're black, or whatever), work colleagues, give generously when Poppy Day comes around yada yada.

And in case I still haven't made myself clear it does not follow that because any individual is in all other respects a wonderful person that the same individual is not a racist.

[Barry Shnikov]

No doubt David Franklin will say if I'm right or not, but I think this is a living and breathing example of confirmation bias.

How does it go? You are told that a set of cards all have numbers on one side and letters on the other. You are shown four cards reading A, D, 4 and 7 respectively. You are told to confirm the thesis that all cards with a vowel on one side have an even number on the other.

Which cards do you flip over to test the thesis?

Here, I first wrote that many missionaries were racist. Andystyle then said why would people doing selfless things be racist? And from then most of the other posts (thank you to the exceptions, you know who you are) have been acting as if Andystyle question suggested 'not all missionaries were racist', which is not what he wrote.

I dropped broad hints about plantation owners and stuff, but I wasn't clear enough apparently. Hopefully my last post will help.

[Barry Shnikov]

OK, you're just getting nutty now. Equating missionaries with Torquemada is not exactly a rational point.

...because?

[Barry Shnikov]

I'd much rather leave it at rude and unhelpful But any question that asks "why would someone do something if they were racist / short / ginger ?" asked in a way that suggests the racist / short / ginger aspect is false - seems fairly stupid to me a better question would be "why do you think some missionaries were racist?" - it seems Andystyle meant that anyway, but it didnt come across that way to me.

Thanks, DS. I was beginning to wonder if it was me or everyone else.

So it's everyone else (except you.)

[andystyle]

Thank you for explaining to me the thinking behind my question, Barry. It's nice to see someone knows my own mind better than me.

Of course, everyone who hasn't interpreted my question in the way you deem fit is incorrect. How errant of us!

[Dreadful Scathe]

Thank you for explaining to me the thinking behind my question, Barry. It's nice to see someone knows my own mind better than me.

We can only go by what you write and you didnt write what your mind wanted you to write

Of course, everyone who hasn't interpreted my question in the way you deem fit is incorrect.

If you say so, being a bit harsh on them though aren't you? These people are defending your mistyped question, cut them some slack

How errant of us!

Yes. It is