Group Membership Identification, Data Collection, and Social Policy

[Boojatta]

Part One:

Would it necessarily be wrong to implement a policy of Affirmative Action based on religion rather than race?

Hypotheticals for part one:

Can people be disadvantaged as a consequence of their religion and is it possible that some people are unable to see beyond their own particular religious views?

Suppose that some people lack the curiosity that they would need to explore religions other than their own and also lack the motivation to study either law or the branch of philosophy known as "ethics."

If they lack the imagination to genuinely conceive of the possibility that the religion of their childhood or the predominant religion of the town or state or country where they grew to adulthood could be wrong, then might they be captive members of a religion?

*********************************************************

Part Two:

Some countries impose racial classifications on their citizens. Some countries require their citizens to claim some racial classification. Should all of those countries provide non-racial geographical options?

Example for Part Two:

For example, suppose that a Palestinian Arab humanist and a Russian humanist who had Jewish grandparents both genuinely believe that their ancestors came from Jerusalem. Suppose neither wants to be associated with either side in the conflicting claims for Jerusalem.

If they both immigrate into the USA, then should each of them have an opportunity to self-classify as "person of Jerusalem ancestry" or should they be required to use labels such as Palestinian, Russian, Arab, Jew, Deist, atheist, or agnostic?

Question provoked by ideas in part two:

Are geneticists able to reliably distinguish between DNA of Palestinian Arabs and DNA of Israeli Jews?

[MADem]

1. They're all semites, at the end of the day

If you want to look at bloodlines. Abdul is related to Abraham, Mohammad to Moishe. But really, if you go back far enough, we're all related, someway, somehow.

[Boojatta]

2. Thank you for responding. Could you attempt to answer some of the

specific questions that I asked?

[Rabrrrrrr]

3. I would try to answer your questions, but your post is such a run-on

hodgepodge of disconnected ideas, that I can't tell what you are actually trying to say and/or trying to ask.

Perhaps if you rephreased things more clearly.

You begin by saying some people aren't evolved enough to study ethics, then you proceed to talk about geography but you're really talking about... I don't know, and then you wind it up by asking if we should give people the right to declare that they are either Palestinian or atheist (among other choices).

:shrug:

[Boojatta]

4. "You begin by saying some people aren't evolved enough to study ethics"

Please quote the words of mine that you are attempting to paraphrase.

[Rabrrrrrr]

5. Of course it's clearly a paraphrase, and an inexact and inelegant one,

of you saying this:

Suppose that some people lack the curiosity that they would need to explore religions other than their own and also lack the motivation to study either law or the branch of philosophy known as "ethics."

[Boojatta]

6. I have added some labels and a dividing line of asterisks.

Is it clearer now?

[Rabrrrrrr]

11. It's a little clearer - I see that you are asking two questions

One if we should do affirmative action based on religion, not race; and the second question being should we allow people to categorize themselves based on their geographic beginnings instead of their race.

I have long thought this: stop categorizing by race! We should eliminate it from the census and from all government forms, and all forms that the government requires schools and other places to fill out. Just toss it out - fuck it, forget it, ignore it, and let's never bring up the issue of race again. We should not be labeling based on where they are from, where their ancestors were from, or what color their parents were. Let's just let everyone be a human being. "What's your race?" they keep asking me. I always put on the form "other: HUMAN". Though sometimes i mark Pacific Islander (I am not), just because I think they need more representation and I know more money will go there way if there are more of them, and I like them. But, mostly, I just say "Human". We're all human. Fuck the color, fuck the ancestry, fuck the place of birth. I also say fuck what religion they are or are not. None of it is relevant, and no one should care, certainly not the government.

I think we'd be a lot better country if we totally ignored it, didn't worry about how men versus women are at a school, or how many black versus asian versus white people are hired in a company.

In my opinion.



But then, on the other hand, there are some things for which race can be important (certain medical conditions come to mind - for the doctor, one's race CAN be relevant in making a diganosis or in doing something preventative); and for which we might still need to worry about race to ensure that some company ISN'T intentionally discriminating against any race or religion.

So ideally, we shouldn't give a rat's ass about it; but practically, I don't think we're evolved enough yet to be able to abolish it.

But I would love to see a day when people are allowed to self-identify themselves however they want. Maybe person A is a "Serbian atheist chess-playing biologist" and person B is simply "Gay Nigerian" and Person C is "Christian Human Male" and person D is "Yellow-loving organic vegetarian American-lesbian" and person E is just "a person who really likes cheese". Let people be whoever they want to be, and identify themselves however they want to be.

God, I'd love to see people do this on the next census.

"Hey, Bill, got a guy who marked his race as 'movie lover' and religion as 'music' - how should I categorize him?"

[MADem]

7. I'm not a fan of grouping people at all

I don't like it. I can understand a need for affirmative action when you've crapped on people for years and denied opportunity, and I can understand it when the schools in some neighborhoods suck (in which case, they should go for AA by ZIP CODE, not race or ethnicity), but I think religion is a private matter. Church/State, never the twain shall meet.

If we treat all people equitably, fairly and with understanding, the need for government-coded categories disappears. I wish I would live to see the day when no one gives a shit what you are, where you came from, except perhaps your family, friends, and the folks you enjoy a given culture with, and people are judged on the content of their character alone. Fat chance, but hey, I have a dream, too.

[Boojatta]

9. If DUers who are very open about saying that they were born where they

now live were to delete "State" from their profiles, might that push the rolling ball in the right direction?

I wish I would live to see the day when no one gives a shit what you are, where you came from, except perhaps your family, friends, and the folks you enjoy a given culture with, and people are judged on the content of their character alone.

[MADem]

10. I think it will only change when we have a government that

focuses on the content of character, prioritizes it, and makes that a part of our national culture through leadership by example, but I see no need for people to self-censor, or not to share their individual stories, states and heritages with people of like mind if they see fit. It would surely put a huge kabash on the state forums, and that would be a bummer with local elections looming.

It's just not an area that I like to see government fussing about with, beyond setting the good example and involving all sectors of the society in public life, unless you've got massive bashing of a particular group due to their race or ethnicity or orientation or what have you. But it's got to rise to a criminal level before the government should involve itself excessively. Making rules about categories of people is just bad for equality for all.

Saying "I don't like those shitheels who worship at the Church of the Porcelain Bathtub" still falls under the Free Speech umbrella. Beating the tar out of them because they worship at said church is another thing entirely. In America, people are still free to be assholes. It would be nice if that sort of thing fell out of fashion, but I am not going to hold my breath.

[Boojatta]

8. Regarding non-racial geographical options...

Some countries impose racial classifications on their citizens. Some countries require their citizens to claim some racial classification. Should all of those countries provide non-racial geographical options?

If a country imposes racial classifications, then the proposed change is that the bureaucrats who are in charge of determining the "correct" racial classification would have the geographical options.

If a country requires its citizens to put themselves into some racial category (for example, for a census) then the proposed change is that the ordinary citizens would have the geographical options.

Example that might help keep this thread out of the "first move and then lock" Israel/Palestine forum: somebody might be classified as "person of Kosovo ancestry" rather than as a "Serb" or "Albanian."

[Nikia]

12. It depends on what area we are talking about

In some parts of the world, like Israel or Yugoslavia, religion is a big part of ethnicity. Genetically similiar people classify themselves differently based on their religion or religion of recent ancestors. In other parts of the world, similiar looking people who speak different languages are considered different and classify themselves differently. In places like the U.S. where people are more ethnically mixed and come from many parts of the world, racial appearance is the major form of classsification.
I also think that it is interesting that "Hispanic descent" is a race because many people checking that category are of mixed race. It is as if Americans cannot deal with mixed racial people.