Is ethno-religious identity oppressive?

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

I vote yes. It's a restriction on the freedoms of anyone born in an ethno-religious group and violation of their rights to make their own choices and identify according to their preference.

[DC Al Fine]

You can always tell a BRTD thread by just looking at the title

I'd agree that ethno-religious identity affects people, but it's not oppressive in any meaningful sense of the term.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Can it be? Obviously. It is inherently? Of course not, and I can't think of a self-respecting anthropologist or historian currently working who would argue otherwise.

[Robert California]

I'm guessing you'd favor any Hebrew wandering in the desert to abandon their "ethno-religious identity" in favor of the Egyptians.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I would think that any religious identity that someone is born into would be oppressive.  Your ethnicity determines your religion/beliefs = no choice.  Your parents tell you what your family believes = no choice.  I think everybody ought to experience the world for themselves and then make their own decision.  It's horrifying to me that I was baptized.  I'm sure it was all nice and cute for those in attendance... but all I can think of is this. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSQt2Gztqws

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The question makes no sense.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

I would think that any religious identity that someone is born into would be oppressive.  Your ethnicity determines your religion/beliefs = no choice.  Your parents tell you what your family believes = no choice.  I think everybody ought to experience the world for themselves and then make their own decision.  It's horrifying to me that I was baptized.  I'm sure it was all nice and cute for those in attendance... but all I can think of is this. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSQt2Gztqws

But you have the option to reject that baptism now. You can reject it and all it entails and label yourself whatever you want. You don't have that label stuck on you permanently. That's the point.

Also that idiotic pile of sh!t show you linked to is far more offensive than any baptisms.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I would think that any religious identity that someone is born into would be oppressive.  Your ethnicity determines your religion/beliefs = no choice.  Your parents tell you what your family believes = no choice.  I think everybody ought to experience the world for themselves and then make their own decision.  It's horrifying to me that I was baptized.  I'm sure it was all nice and cute for those in attendance... but all I can think of is this. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSQt2Gztqws

But you have the option to reject that baptism now. You can reject it and all it entails and label yourself whatever you want. You don't have that label stuck on you permanently. That's the point.

Also that idiotic pile of sh!t show you linked to is far more offensive than any baptisms.

The fact that it was South Park wasn't the point. 

And I'm horrified that I was baptized because we were never a very religious family, but apparently baptisms and christenings are "just what you do".  I'd have liked to have been asked first, and I'd like it if everyone else is asked first.  Children are very capable of having opinions about religion if they are not told they HAVE to believe in something. 

[TJ in Oregon]

I vote yes. It's a restriction on the freedoms of anyone born in an ethno-religious group and violation of their rights to make their own choices and identify according to their preference.

By this definition, sure. Everything that makes a statement about morality is oppressive by this definition. If a religion (or most anything else for that matter) doesn't restrict you in some way, it probably doesn't stand for anything. Swim practice is restrictive. Running is restrictive. The Rotary Club is probably restrictive.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I vote yes too, with the perfect example being White American Protestantism.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

I vote yes too, with the perfect example being White American Protestantism.

If a white American raised Protestant doesn't believe in God or converts to Buddhism or whatever, you never hear anyone claiming that they are still Protestant and that can never be changed.

Really if you're going to count that then basically EVERYONE has an ethno-religious identity and thus no one can ever convert ever. And how do you handle people from mixed marriages? The Midwest has tons of Catholic/Protestant ones (one factor I theorize as to why this type of identity is quite weak here.)

I'm guessing you'd favor any Hebrew wandering in the desert to abandon their "ethno-religious identity" in favor of the Egyptians.

Better example would be an Egyptian abandoning their "ethno-religious identity" (after all they had one too with their pagan state church.) to join the Hebrews. Or even better how pre-conversion Paul, then Saul, hunted down Jewish converts to Christianity, since the abandoning of their ethno-religious identity is what he enraged him so much.

Great example of how it's oppressive right there. Here's another modern example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Joy

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

BRTD, none of these anecdotes cross the gap between can be and is.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

BRTD, none of these anecdotes cross the gap between can be and is.

How about "more often than not"?

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

BRTD, none of these anecdotes cross the gap between can be and is.

How about "more often than not"?

In order to determine whether it's more often than not oppressive, one would have to somehow survey the proportion of people raised in ethno-religions or ethnic groups associated with particular religions who feel oppressed by it, which seems like it would be difficult and probably not lead to the results you're looking for. Or, if you prefer--people can admittedly be unconscious of being oppressed--one could somehow try to determine how many people would convert if they felt that the option were available again, how many felt a sense of place or empowerment from their identity, and so on, and try to draw conclusions from that. One could do these things, but it would be a futile exercise even if one got what were in the moment usable results, because different types of ethno-religious identity the world over aren't nearly as fungible as you seem to think. The extents to which and ways in which being Irish is linked with being Catholic, being ethnically Jewish is linked with specific religious traditions, being a member of certain Syrian tribes is linked with being Alawite, and being Japanese (at least in Japan) is linked with a certain social baseline of Shinto and Buddhist practice really are not the same and are not always directly comparable, certainly not in the terms necessary to define whether they're 'more often than not' 'oppressive'.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Well in a sense as well it's kind of like the supposed difference between "Guns do kill people" and "Guns can kill people" since it's probably true that the vast majority of guns in the world have never been to used to kill anyone. But the point is clear.

I might also point out that there is a huge difference between "Various ethnic groups have had a strong attachment to Catholicism/Judaism in their history" and "Every single person raised Catholic/Jewish is Catholic/Jewish for life and nothing they believe or do can ever change that regardless of if they want to or not." Because I usually hear ethno-religious identity described more along the lines of the latter than the former.

[memphis]

Religion, in actual practice, is far more of an oppressive thing than any vague notion of identity that it produces. I was raised Jewish in Memphis. I'm familiar with being a tiny minority. It's not all that terrible.

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

Can it be? Obviously. It is inherently? Of course not, and I can't think of a self-respecting anthropologist or historian currently working who would argue otherwise.

This, basically.

[Zioneer]

This is the most Tumblr-esque thread I have ever seen.

[Beet]

One of the biggest problems with BRTD's argument is that the only way to get rid of ethno-religious identity itself would be to have a global uniculture, and the global uniculture would have to be enforced to prevent the development of ethno religious identities. If you tried to do such a thing it would quickly become clear that you could only do so by massive repression. (In fact I can't think of much that would be more oppressive)

So you have to accept the existence of ethno religious identities. Once you do, you have to accept that once established, there are costs for switching. It's not the same thing to ask 16-year old Sally Smith to be a member of the Smith family, and to ask 16-year old Lucy Jones to be a member of the Smith family. Sally Smith is already a member of the Smiths. Lucy has grown up with the Joneses for 16 years. Even if the Smiths are a better family by "objective" measurements (like income, marital stability, moral values) Lucy would have very good reasons to stay a Jones.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

What type of costs? Like I've said before I know plenty of people raised Catholic at my church, none of whom have appeared to suffer any disadvantages because of their conversion. Of course I don't consider "Catholic" an ethno-religious identity as its obviously not an ethnicity, but many here seem to disagree.

[Beet]

Learning new doctrine, associating with new people, changing your lifestyle, putting stress on or even ending relationships with family, friends, associates, communities, dealing with non acceptance by people in your new life, the cognitive dissonance of giving up one's beliefs, possibly moving to a new location, needing to find a new job, unlearning things ingrained in your childhood, and so on.

Obviously there are degrees to all of these. With ethno religious identity, you may not ever find acceptance. For instance, there is a stereotype of what Jews are supposed to look like. The Ethiopian Jews will never look like that. They will always have to deal with discrimination in the Jewish community or surprise from both Jews and gentiles that they are Jewish. Disbelief that they could be descended from Abraham, and so on.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Converting from Catholic to Protestant does NOT result in any of that except perhaps the new doctrine one. Even Jews that convert don't have to deal with most of that stuff.

[DemPGH]

I would argue that such an identity is because it is 1) not innate and 2) it is not chosen, at least, I can't imagine, very often. So yeah, and all kinds of norms, mores, expectations, obligations, etc. come with such an identity that a person is certainly not born with and which they very well may not choose if they were able. If they do choose it, however, then I would argue no. But people, of course, ram these things onto children, including whatever weird things they believe, so anything like that I think is at least mildly oppressive.  

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Perhaps 'choice' is 'oppressive'.

[Beet]

Converting from Catholic to Protestant does NOT result in any of that except perhaps the new doctrine one. Even Jews that convert don't have to deal with most of that stuff.

Converting from lax 21st century north American Catholic to lax 21st century north American Protestant is like moving from 1234 Oompa Loompa Street, Tatertown, Land of Oz, Unit 503, Apartment 1B to 1234 Oompa Loompa Street, Tatertown, Land of Oz, Unit 503, Apartment 1A.