The Problem of Racism
marcyatwork at hotmail.com
Mon Feb 12 12:30:05 EST 2001
If a child grows up being around people of all races, they understand all of
the different facial features, and is not afraid (as adults) of different
looking people. Their notion of what is attractive is also more open minded
because they've had more face types to pull into their world, all being
acceptable and pleasant. People are afraid of what is not as familiar to
them. Racism is an uncomfortabiliy, fear, of the unknown. Ignorance really.
I believe this has to do with exposure. Religion in some cases ensures
little exposure to anything that is different - whether it's other races,
religions, sexual preferences, lifestyles....
So it may not matter if you have a soul or not. Sold mine to the devil years
Click here for Free Video!!
John H. <johnhkm at netsprintXXXX.net.au> wrote in message
news:95bnco$v86$1 at news1.wire.net.au...
> Yes, inbuilt component, racism is not just a doctrine, its part of our
> nature. Recent study suggested that when looking at people from different
> races we have trouble differentiating faces because we are focussing more
> the racial features than the face as a whole. The poison runs deep. As for
> christianity being a cure, well like most religions it only feeds an
> incipient racism. So St. Paul may have stated in Galatians that there is
> Jew or Gentile, slave or master, we are all one in Jesus Christ but that
> crap. The history of the church proves that. Now what was that 100 years
> about in Europe?
> Remove 4x
> liar42 at aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20010126082136.29770.00001032 at ng-fz1.aol.com...
> > > Racism is a doctrine
> > Has it ever occured to you that there might be people who also react to
> > internal bioprograms telling about differences?
> > Someone said in a text about how to make friends in less than some
> > that a lot of people like people like themselves, and therefore to
> > is a rapid way.
> > The observation, that many people like people like themselves, you seem
> > disregard completely, like here could be no natural basics for that and
> > everything to do with racism must just be some doctrine.
> > >Islam (where believed that white people are devils and/or demons),
> > Could you point out where it says that in Islam teachings?
> > >> Nazism (where believed that the Aryans are the master race of the
> world) <<
> > The folks there have advanced, now they honk into space that they want
> > the first world in the universe.
> > It is noteworthy who follows.
> > >Christianity (where believed that only through Jesus can a person
> > obtain spiritual salvation).
> > Thought one of the Gods was considered rather relevant, and some
> > holy spirit, and that Jesus was considered relevant in his teachings.
> > But I am not of that religion, just thought there was some sort of
> > whatever consisting of those three.
> > Seemed to me that they regarded one of the Gods relevant in the
> > thing, and Jesus to be nnot that God, but that he declared himself and
> > everybody, wether Hindu or Buddhist or of Germanic religion or believing
> > Wakantanka, Greek or Roman Gods, etc.
> > to be a child of the God he believed in. Also irregardless if they
> assented or
> > not.
> > >> All racist doctrines fail in all aspects when it is understood that
> > "soul" that resides in any person as the basis of individual existence,
> > exact same "soul" that resides in the people <<
> > I have no soul. You are babbling nonsense.
> > But just to check out of you are also babbling it about yourself,
> > specify exactly what a soul is precisely of,
> > so in case you are coming with some proof there I can get what you mean.
> > You are in your way like a racist. You take your soul belief, and
> > for 6 billion other humans, not even knowing them.
> > Scientific fact is, there is no soul ever proven, that is like the
> > Rabbit.
> > You are taking your sould belief, and try to force such silly stuff on
> > Earth, as if just because you need such a psych-crutch means, that
> > else has to get such forced on him by you.
> > Scientific fact is we are not all the same. We are having different
> > Magically it has been for a long time how differing human people(s) are.
> > You are holding a rant on b.s.
> > That goes not just for trying to force your creed on every human on
> > but also for your near-death b.s.
> > I have no soul, and I was several times near death.
> > There is not one single detail description what a soul is supposed to be
> off of
> > all persons I heard.
> > When I asked some of the spirit traveller, if they can extend to
> > outside, so I can perceive about that, they did that, so for me there is
> > doubt about it, that those people can do, at will when they wish.
> > I could well perceive their spirit centering outside, and the main
> > transconnecting "beam".
> > From the soul claimers they never showed me what a soul is.
> > There always just came hollow babble, that sounded with most like they
> > death, and need some psycho-crutch belief that after death there will be
> > decaying, but some wonderful eternal going on or something like that,
> > to me registered as one of the main reason they were so desperately
> clinging to
> > something as silly as some soul belief.
> > >As a biologist I am convinced of the likelihood of the validity of NDEs
> > the viewpoint of quantum physics.<
> > Have you had the direct view of quantum physics,
> > are you referring to facts there or theories,
> > and why would one need quantum physics opionions for something like near
> > experiences, where there are lots of stories around with people spirit
> > extending out our or perceiving some tunnel; I would assume that such
> > known before quantum physics came up.
> > Not that I wish to say that what in my language might be called
> > and where in your language I might now select magic systems are nothing
> > with what quantum physics is talking about.
> > More that I do not get what they are relevant concerning a near death
> > experience,
> > as I would assume wether they do or do not have, that there are atomes
> > "feinstoffliche" (not hardware) energies in them.
> > Also I am not sure if quantum physics is really into "the likelyhood of
> > validity".
> > But then again, maybe some there are.
> > ;-)
More information about the Neur-sci