Before modification by Joel at 15/02/2016 11:53:12 AM
Now, I'm thinking that this is a remnant from the more enlightened Age of Legends, where such things probably truly were nonexistent. But isn't it a bit implausible? We're treated to a lot of other signs of provincial attitudes (2rivers initial hostility to strangers) and outright xenophobia (Aiel) and since black people appear fairly rare in the main continent, I would expect some prejudice at least. Or maybe a character wondering if a random Sea Folk person was badly sunburnt or something.
Homophobia, and to a degree racism, is rooted in religion, especially in religions like Christianity and Islam. These don't exist in Randland and no one ever said 'guys can't be together' in some tome from the AOL, so homophobia never started.
Discrimination always has a chronological but usually senseless origin. Rand has encountered 'racism' for looking like an Aielman because of his red hair. That came from the war with the Aiel as well as the general 'barbarism' witnessed by people when they met the Aiel.
This point might be more suited to the CMB, but: Even if we presume [your bigotry here] comes from religion simply because 1) they are common in religions and 2) both originated in prehistory, that still does not explain why religions THEMSELVES would incorporate bigotry in the first place.
The most logical and likely explanation is that bigotry arose from prehistoric TRIBALISM, either in concert with or independently of religion. Homophobia and racism are prime candidates because separate local tribes (i.e. races) were direct and mortal competitors with ones own, and infertile mating impairs competition with rival tribes. That may seem and even be trivial now, but when the GLOBAL population was less than a large modern city (as was true for most of human existence) and production levels FAR below current ones, such issues were existential ones. Religions developed in that period could not help but reflect that--any religion that did NOT would have been at best superfluous and at worst an existential threat in its own right. To say that makes religion the SOURCE of bigotry is like calling religion the source of clothing: While some religions make the claim, that most likely reflects those religions attempting to vicariously GAIN legitimacy by endorsing PREEXISTING sentiments generally perceived as positive ALREADY, not CREATING them in the first place.
Again, this might be more of a CMB point, but I suspect that is how most bigotry arose, and (with the possible exception of homophobia) why most of it persists. To take another example, women simply never worked by choice prior to about a century ago, so one could take for granted that any and all women who DID work were socioeconomically vulnerable to exploitation, just as minority races and religions were (and are) vulnerable to the more numerous and wealthy racial and religious majority whose numbers, wealth and dominance had been inseparably linked from the start. Even in the extreme colonial examples, there is a good argument that local tribalism prevented a unified response to European colonization that progressively seized control by playing native groups off against each other while subjugating (or eradicating) them individually.
More simply: No religion every caused any of humanitys problems, but all religions seek to remedy (while too often reflecting) all humanitys problems. I submit that the solution to that problem is spending more time listening to God and less trying to put our words in His mouth (by no coincidence, I believe most religious doctrines at least nominally argue the same.)
Joel the Bible is outright homophobic. It is from this that homophobia stems in modern Christian society. If you look at the current Republican movements then the move against gay marriage is because of the need for these voters to follow biblical principles, on both marriage and homosexuality. The candidates say it directly. If you think that religion has never caused any of humanities problems then you are completely out of touch with history. Christianity and Islam are the principle reasons for the subjugation of women. The Catholic church will still not recognize women as priests.
While all religions do promote being a good human being as their base, most religions also have direct laws related to men, women, sexual relationships, race, slavery, food and other issues. Conservative Christians clutch to books such as Deuteronomy and completely ignore the vastly more important principles in the New Testament. The same can be said against Islam that is essentially peaceful, but there are once again rigid laws that people cling to and kill for.
There is nothing wrong with Christianity per se, it's the followers of the religion who pervert it and create hell on earth.
My point is that unless one contends a particular religion and all ITS particulars genuinely came directly from Gods mouth at the Big Bang, all of it had some LATER origin in HUMANITY. At some point somewhere in our murky but extensive prehistoric past, someone decided for some reason that homosexuality is wrong and THEN produced a religious rationale reflecting that. There are a great many things like that in ancient religious texts, frequently with practical merits well known now but unknowable then (dietary laws are the classic example; explaining trichinosis and cholesterol to Bronze Age people is a lot harder than simply saying, "Do not eat pork or shellfish.")
Saying customs and mores exist because of tradition (religious or otherwise) evades the question, because at SOME point EVERY "tradition" was a novelty. Each one came about for a reason and STAYED about because it worked. Newborn humans cannot even RAISE THEIR HEADS for the first month or so of life; it is no accident the world and civilization has been predominantly populated by people who 1) produce children and 2) reserve those who bear and nurse them for precisely that role. Just as it is no accident that the predominant race in each and every region has historically tended to aggressively ensure it REMAINS dominant in that area.
Many such traditions have large Machiavellian dimensions distasteful to genuinely moral people--often directly contradictory to much of their religious code--so "rationalizing the rationale" into religion is the only way to get everyone onboard with it. That is one appeal of atheism: The need to distinguish between Gods creation from humanitys vanishes if ALL religion is man made, and our own creations are neither unassailable nor inviolable.