It was a God-fearing society that introduced slavery to America; it was a God-fearing society that saw fit to unseat Native Americans from their ancestral lands and drive them West. If we started digging back further through history, the dirty laundry of Christianity would start to show.
Again, I would claim that all societies claim to fear God, so that point is a bit mute. The question is, did Biblical society do these things? Not exactly. Remember John Newton who was a slave ship captain, converted to Christianity, and wrote the timeless song Amazing Grace. John Newton inspired William Wilberforce, also a Christian, with his anti-slavery zeal. William Wilberforce, a wealthy member of Parliament, based on his Christian views, sought, and eventually won the end of the slave trade.
Remember Thomas Jefferson who said
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Specifically to address slavery. He was a Christian. And it was based on these words that the largely Christian abolitionist movement fought against slavery.
I went ahead and assumed that you were referencing morality as defined by religion, if I was in error please let me know. The assumption that the only valid moral code derives from God, however, does not and cannot work in a plural, democratic society, simply because not everyone believes in the same God (and, therefore, the same set of religiously-mandated rules). While a hefty portion of Western morality, whether it be religious or secular, is based on Christian notions of morality, to state that morality must derive from a specific God is far too limited.
If we can derive morality from more than a singular source, can there be any morality? If all morals can be based on any dreamed up world view, than there is no right and wrong, in which case how can one claim slavery is wrong? Is it not possible for there to be a dreamed up (g)od that says owning another person is ok? Then wouldn't their morality have to be respected as well?
In India, Buddism had thousands of slaves. Although they were considered 'free' from slavery from their former masters, they could not leave the temple, and had no control over their life. Free from man, but slave to Budda? The Toaist view made it clear, only a slave could be "freed to serve Budda" only if their master gave them to be. A run away slave was not allowed to join the group.
In fact, some even to this day argue that the teachings of Buddism support slavery, that you are born a slave to live as a slave, due to karma, the bad karma from a previous life has doomed you in this one.
Now on what moral basis are you going claim they are wrong?
Socio-economic discrimination gets in the way of this idea. Remember, the problem is that the discrimination itself gets in the way of hard working leading to accomplishment; that's one of the top reasons it's bad. It's not enough to say, "Go work hard," in a world where the color of your skin or your preference for romantic partners prohibits you from rising up through hard work.
Not true. If this were true, there wouldn't be any wealthy black people anywhere in the US. Obviously this isn't the case. I've also know some wealthy gay people. Discrimination only limits you in specific instances, and you simply choose another path.
We're talking about breaking through discrimination as well as breaking down racial stereotypes. How does one "live a good life," "work hard at a job," and "raise a family in the best possible manner" if one can't find a decent job simply because of the color of one's skin?
I disagree with the presupposition. I knew a guy from many years ago, a black man from Somalia. Barely knew english, no education. Worked at Wendy's when I was there during high school. He worked hard, showed up every day, was on time, did the best he could. He moved and work at a Hertz rent a car, and became a manager, and last I heard, now owns the franchise.
He came here with almost nothing. No car, two kids, and a wife that didn't work. She walked to the store, his kids rode beat up second hand bikes to school, he walked to work the first year. Now if he can do that... you explain to me how people in our country who can speak perfect english and have a high school education, can not? Are they completely discriminating with only Americans, and not immigrants of the same color?
How about this story of Chris Gardner. He was black, and broke, and on the street, and everyone left him. He had nothing, as in complete and utter destitute. Did he start complaining about discrimination? No. Did he talk about social equality? No. He got back on his feet, worked his rear off, and put his life back together himself, and now he has a net worth of $65 Million. So let's get this straight... with this overwhelming discrimination, he went from being homeless in 1982, to CEO of his own company in 1987, to $65 million as of 06. This is what I'm talking about. (btw, so much for the Reagan years being so bad.)
There are incentives for diverse workplaces for a reason. Without them, your theory is that employers will hire based on merit, not race, correct? How is this measured? How is it enforced? Unless you plan on enforcing meritocracy, you're going to have racist hiring policies. Remember, up until very recently, white people and...purple...people weren't even considered to have the same mental capacity; the idea that a purple person could be as smart as a white person was considered absurd. If the government had stepped back, kept their hands off, whistled and ignored the whole thing, would that stereotype have died?
This is true. Under the atheistic darwin view, some groups were considered lower species, and less developed. They were discriminated against, and viewed as left overs from Neanderthal eras. That said...
I don't see how this is valid theory. If you add incentives to hire purple people, then the yellow people will automatically be discriminated against. Having been in this position myself, I can see how this isn't ending racism, but rather reinforcing it. If the goal is to simply give one group preferential treatment, this is a good policy. If the goal is to end racism, this does the opposite. If you hire someone based on a government benefits due to someone's race... that by definition is... racism.
However, without that, people tend to hire based on what qualifications, or what view they have of that person being a benefit to the company. For example, where I work, the top 2, now possibly 3 highest paid Engineers are all immigrants. One from the Ukraine, one from Asia, one from Africa. All very obviously not American. Yet all very brilliant, and good at what they do. None of it based on Race, simply skill and ability.
Yet, I have worked at another company, and can say without question the reason some people were replaced with others, had nothing to do with work ethic.... it was 'tax break'. And the people who were let go, had a bran new view of racial relations. This is a good thing in your mind? Creating new racist people one job at a time?
We look forward to seeing more of you.
