Reconciling the imposition of the "White Man's" religion

Got a question:

What is "White Man's Religion?"

Are we saying here that God didn't create both white and black and yellow races?

If not, then what is "Black Man's Religion?"

And while we're at it,

What is "Yellow Man's Religion?"

I think we all ought to know that stronzo, being the intellectual that he is, has the answer, and I just love to learn all I can.

Solong I wonder that you're missing the point a little, as I suggested and Lex clarified I think Stronzo (if I may speak to what I think he meant) asked why was it that those who have been marginalised and disenfranchised would seek perpetuate that behaviour on others? I don't think colour was the key underlying foundation of his question rather than a means of focussing on one common aspect of said behaviour as he had experienced it. It applies to many and not just in religious terms though in the context of this thread that was the question.

I think earlier poster suggested that it may been reactive so if I may paraphrase crudely in 'religious terminology'; it was not so much an example of "do unto others as you would have done unto you" as of "do unto others as has been done unto you"....or in laymens terms, get your revenge in first.

Whatever 'rationale' there may be behind such attitudes, they are, I suspect, as complex as they are subjective and perplexing.

good point Solong. I've sometimes wondered myself what the implications are of identifying religion with your ethnic background. To me, this seems to completely remove faith from the equation. To follow the example of Muhammed Ali and Malcolm X and proclaim yourself to be Muslim simply because this is one of the predominant religions practiced in Africa right now (ignoring the fact that this faith was also imposed on Africans, by their Saudi neighbors) seems to me to be saying that you don't actually believe the core tenets of your faith, but are merely using it as adornment or decoration or as a means to make a political statement. At the point where your religion becomes so intermeshed with your identity as a people, as is the case with Jews today, I feel like asking what's the point of keeping your faith at all? If you recognize it as a social and cultural construct and therefore something culturally/racially relative and not really a question of right/wrong, moral/immoral, heaven/hell... then why bother? Just because of tradition?

I realize I'm probably oversimplifying Ali's and Malcom X's position here and I know there are plenty of Israelis who still believe strongly in their religion. I also think it's fine if you have independently discovered the Qua'ran or the teachings of Buddha and decide that these somehow apply more to your life or make more sense than whatever religion you may have been brought up to believe, be that Christianity or anything else. But converting or belonging to a faith simply because it makes a statement, looks good on paper, or is the same thing that other people with similar amounts of melanin in their skin happen to be doing doesn't make sense at all to me. Also, identifying any faith as belonging to a certain race or culture, even if it originated with that race or culture, also seems to not make sense. Both of these things diminish the religion in question in my opinion.

I think the phenomenon of blacks and other minorities who suffered oppression putting that same bigotry towards gays is a lot like blacks who support racial profiling when it applies to middle easterners wrongly suspected of terrorist involvement while they fight against it being used against blacks for drug raids. When you ask people with these double standards for an explanation all they can really come up with is "Well, that's different." Though they can never seem to elaborate on what makes it different because at the core they don't have a reason.

I think a lot of it also has to do with the fact that black cultures is still overall more homophobic or at least intolerant of gays than America as a whole is becoming. I can't really begin to understand it. I think it's based on a deeper feeling of needing to focus on family and keeping the culture going. Which I think is also the reason why blacks are more likely to have a problem with interracial relationships and still not consider it to be in any way racism.

As far as reconciling religion and homosexuality I really don't know about that. I rejected Christianity during my adolescence. I think it was shortly after I came to terms with my sexuality but I don't think it was because of it. I would've rejected Christianity even if I was straight because it never really felt true to me. Now I consider myself an atheist but I don't think that accurately describes my beliefs. Most atheists don't believe in anything supernatural or metaphysical and place their faith in science but that's not how I am.

Stronzo clarifierd what he meant as did I and Chuck Rich.

If you could stop attacking him maybe you could read the entire thread and learn a little.

[quote=ChuckRich]I think the phenomenon of blacks and other minorities who suffered oppression putting that same bigotry towards gays is a lot like blacks who support racial profiling when it applies to middle easterners wrongly suspected of terrorist involvement while they fight against it being used against blacks for drug raids. When you ask people with these double standards for an explanation all they can really come up with is "Well, that's different."
[quote]

The main problem that I have with the drug raids are the botched ones in which the wrong dwellings are raided and someone is killed in error.
Re: the terrorist suspects: people are being detained for having the same Muslim names as terrorists and those persons more often than not are persons of color too e.g. Muhammed Ali. The persons that favour this measure, of all races, feel another terrorist attack may be prevented by profiling. I do feel empathy for those travellers who are detained and searched, as I have been on occasion. But I know that this is done as a protective measure.


lol dreamer20

Re: the "white" Jesus thing. As a person of primarily Mediterranean decent, I'm offended by a blond, blue eyed Jesus, because he doesn't represent me. While there is a whole school of thought that one of the tribes of Israel settled in Britain, and that the people of the British Isles are all offspring of that, I say "hogwash!" Jesus was born in Bethlehem to Hebrew parents. He would have been dark complected and black haired. Lots of Biblical people had ties to Egypt and North Africa. The Queen of Sheba came up to the Holy Land. There is the story of the Ethopian eunuch being converted. I can go on and on.

Even if a person tried to assert that Rome spread the Christian faith around, let's not forget that Rome is in southern Europe--home to darker complected, dark haired people. Not the fair skinned, light headed people portrayed in pictures of Jesus through the ages. Many of the pictures we know were all painted by people of northern European heritage. This doesn't mean that they're bad, they just date from a time when they didn't know any better.

However, we know now and should be a more accurate in our representations.

Good points. I would agree that it would be logical to conclude that Jesus could be of 'Mediterranean' appearance, as a child I remember the discomfort in many when this idea was mooted, personally it seemed logical but not being a true 'believer' in that sense really I could care less. To many of course, logic denies faith so the idea fell on so many deaf ears.

It has been suggested that Jesus is more of a abstract construct on which to hang our faith rather than a single pyhsical being, again that idea has merit but does undermine traditional faith somewhat. That aside, taking a step further, if people were created in Gods image then each persons God (and thus by inference his 'son' Jesus) could be of similar appearence to them, be they Black, White, 'Yellow' or whatever and with equal validity.

I wonder that the very focus on the ethnical appearance of Jesus and thus the anger and division it can provoke is yet another excuse for us as people to divert our attention from what is important, in the context of this thread the basic Biblical ideals of decent behaviour toward each other, after all, if you turn us inside out and we are all the same.

What "revenge"? I've never felt I need revenge. I just don't think that way, but I also realize that some do, and those that think that way cannot be convinced that everybody else thinks that way, too.

The title of the thread calls it, "White Man's Religion," and so it is NOT ignorant to posit to the forum, "What do you mean, 'White Man's Religion?' "

By White Man's Religion, you purposely exclude, "Black Man's Religion." But now we discover that what is really meant by "White Man's Religion," is "A flaming bunch of hypocrites who can't stand anybody else that doesn't come up to their standards, in their group, and you all are responding to it.

So what's funny to me is, I am absolutely right and you presume to correct me, that I don't know what's going on. Believe me, I know a lot better what's going on that you think I do, and I'm just calling you on it by actually wanting to converse about "White Man's Religion." Stronzo is playing the race card, to generate catamites to his unbelievable hatred of Christianity, which he has exhibited in so many other threads.

And so, since any thorough discussion of a topic also must involve the reflection, or the contrary aspects of a claim, then I'll ask the group here a similar question.

How do you reconcile the imposition of 'Black Man's" religion? Talk about getting stares. Talk about feeling 2" tall. Talk about hatred that you could cut with a knife. Maybe none of you ever walked into a black church, before, and sat down. Let's just say the feeling is NOT that of "Welcome, Brother!"

I hate to disagree, but I have to here. I am on the staff of a historically and predominantly Black church. I have NEVER felt unwelcome or out of place. In fact, it is the most welcoming church I have ever been a part of. The first time that I ever went there, I knew I was "home." My friends and family come to visit and always remark on how the congregation makes them feel so comfortable. Even one of my college professors came to visit a few months ago. This is someone from a different religious tradition (Mormon) and who is very, very WASP-y White. LOL He said that he felt right at home. The focus should not be on the fellow worshippers, but on GOD. When that is the focus, the race or skin color becomes a moot point.

Another thing to think about is that there are historic churches dating from the time of the Apostles in other parts of the world. The gospel was spread to Africa early on. The Coptic church is strong in north Africa. In India, the church there traces its history to St. Thomas. The church has always been a worldwide organization, made up of many groups. The Western church IS NOT the only church. To think of it as the only church is wrong. White, Protestant churches are mere infants when compared to the Orthodox churches in other parts of the world that don't cater to "White" people.

Also, what about Korea, where the majority of people are Presbyterian? Asians are not white, but they certainly practice a historically "White" brand of Protestant Christianity.

Again, you miss the point, I wasn't talking about you or anyone in specific terms, "Getting your revenge in first" meant, when one is convinced that one is going to be victimised then attack can be considered the best form of defence. I'm not advocating it or endorsing it, just making an observation. Not everything is about you or directed at you solong.

Well actually I was responding to you, and yes in a literal word for word interperation of the title you are correct but try and look beyond the headlines and look at the topic in a broader context.


I can't speak to Stronzos motivation but I for one don't believe it was racially motivated in the sense you're implying.

Well actually I have done so many many times, here and in other countries. sometimes alone and sometimes with my partner who is Black. I never felt anything other than welcome.

Let me ask you; If a black person walked into your (hypothetcally as I don't know) white church for example would you or your congregation stare at him...if so why? If not then why would you expect that if the situation were reversed they would stare at you.

By your statement about hatred and stares, I think you just exposed a truth about yourself here solong, and not a pleasant one.

You misunderstand my friend. I'm speaking from a social not a Christian perspective. See if you can detach for the sake of this conversation. Please read anew the original context of my thread-opening post. I bear Christains no greater dislike than any organized faith which presumes to marginalize other peoples. You mistake me. I speak of the White Man's religion in just that way I explained it. My query was clear enough to those not looking to find that which isn't there.

Attempt to understand this thread - irrespective of your overt dislike (hatred?) of me - and perhaps you'll be able to respond with civility and some sense of understanding without viewing it as a "Stronzo" thread therefore taking dead aim. I'm not your enemy, honestly, much as you'd posture me as such. We just come from different worlds. If you're fine with yours perhaps you shouldn't force feed it on others and simply enjoy your bliss. I know I'm happy with mine and don't impose my "Christian hatred" (to paraphrase you) at sites where my point of view would be decidedly unwelcome.

Seems fair I think.



Wow. You're immensely angry. That comment's nigh-on-to racist. May we add that to your resumé? I've attended services in several such churches and the response was the reverse of what you suggest. Roxbuy, Massachusetts (neighboring city to Boston) has some very traditional black Baptist congregations. In my experience each was an uplifting experience in a very tactile way. Did I discuss homosexuality with the congregation? No. I don't discuss homosexuality with Christians generally since it's lost on many of them. But the feeling of inclusion was unmistakably there. And indeed no one commented on my fair skin or my limp wrists ... Weird huh?

Perhaps, just perhaps solong, it's because you're looking for there to exist a problem where none does. So... you simply create one. Do you ever come down on the side of kindness? I gotta tell you dude... you don't seem very kind in that "Christian" charity sort of way. You appear angry with the world.

Sure you can. You just did superbly. He knows it's not but isn't he fun to toy with nonetheless?

I think solongs' statement speaks entirely to his own preconceptions and prejudice which, inadvertantly (I suspect) he just exposed for us all to see.

I suggest everyone who finds solong to be offensive put him on ignore.

He does not know what he is talking about and continues to sling such faulty conceptions that you just have to feel sad when observing them in print.

Prepstud's experiences are typical of White Americans who interact regularly and build a sense of community with African Americans. Social research (which I have cited before) speak to the uber-willingness of African Americans to accept people of other races into their "communities" when those people show a true want and desire to be there and understand. I would say that if solong felt unwelcomed it was because most people can smell disingeniousness when in its prescence.

That being said--this is NOT what the thread is about (as Dong so aptly put it).

Lex,

I love you like a brother, but perhaps Solong did not have a positive experience through no fault of his own. From what I have heard Monty attends a rather progressive church and his experience reflects that attitude. We all know that there are Black and White churches which unfortunately do much to push others away from experiencing God's love though his people. I would say that black people in many cases are embracing but I would not say in all. So there are exceptions to every rule.

Naughty