[POLITICS] Religious Discrimination

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

You can't in good conscience, claim you should have religious freedom to state your opinions on matters while, with the same breath, say that people will suffer a fate worse than death (hell) for not sharing your supposed religious views.

This is a have your cake and eat it too scenario. Freedom of religion also includes freedom FROM religion.

Saying that people will go to hell for a particular belief/practice should be tantamount to hate speech as "hell" is - in the very mind of the person who believes in it - the worst possible thing that can happen to a person. Contextually, going to hell is worse than being raped by a gang of silverback gorillas, being sawed in half from groin to gullet, being dipped in molten metal, or any other horrible fate one could think. "X go to hell" should be treated as the same as any other horrible slur directed at a group.

The hypocrisy of this asshole, who states he is being persecuted for his religious beliefs, when if anyone else had said the same things without a religious motive would have suffered the same disciplinary action from their employer as well. Religion should never grant someone privileges that are not extended to all other members of society.

You hit the nail on the head.

This guy is a fucking hypocrite. And guess what? There is a circle of hell that houses the hypocrites.

My issue is I think we're all being Hypocrites. And we're not going to get better unless we acknowledge it and move from there.

Abomination's example is mirrored by Atheists.

"You should have an open and free mind. Be accepting of everyone. Be the opposite of close minded religious pundits."

*finds out someone is Religious*

"Shit, he must be dumb. I'm now allowed to believe this person accepts and/or is capable of everything dumb I've heard someone do in Religion's name"

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

SNIP

That is a nonsensical argument. You can't say there is a difference between a belief, and a belief system. Can't have one without the other.
If in the Quran there is vague enough language than a radical or fundamentalist has the wiggle room to say rape is a punishment, not a crime, then the Quran by definition has that vague enough language. If another Islamic group chooses to interpret that differently, great, good for them! But the words are still there. The potential is still there.
And seeings how the Quran in the Islamic world is a legal system, we get to compare it to other legal systems. For example no where in the United States legal system is there vague enough language that a Judge can interpret rape to be a thing a person can be sentenced to.

And in that light, yes we do get to say our culture is better because we don't have the 'Yes maybe rape' clause, even if some of the other culture is choosing not to use the 'Yes maybe rape' clause.

 

[Silvanus]

Your personality is just a random assortment of chemicals that are funneled through life experiences and stimuli. Your 'self' as it were is there for modifiable with the correct prescription of medications, education, and 'correct' social upbringing to make you into the perfect cog for the 'betterment of the whole'.

A sense of self is just an unguided, faulty instrument to cultivation of the perfect expression of our DNA. Love is misfiring of some neurotransmitters that promotes an unhealthy attachment to a singular individual.

Well, parts of self are modifiable. Other parts are inherent or otherwise innate.

Otherwise, I have no great problem with describing personality/ self in chemical terms... although I do have a problem with attaching that concept to value judgements (such as "betterment of the whole" or "unhealthy attachment").

Look, you might not value religion. I might not see the need for it. But it's a facet of certain people's expression and/or identity in this world. We correctly allow the freedom of expression of all aspects of the individual's identity, as long as it doesn't bring Harm to an individual. We protect it. Religion has to fall into that, or we can start picking and choosing what else we can limit because we don't put that much faith (if you'll excuse the pun) into it.

Hence my stipulation that the same rights and freedoms apply that anybody else is entitled to.

The topic at hand is quite aside from common-or-garden freedom of expression, though: it is about making additional allowances for hate speech when it has some spurious connection to religious ideas.

That's what's nonsense. It shouldn't matter one fig where somebody has derived their opinion; it should be an utter irrelevance.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

That is a nonsensical argument. You can't say there is a difference between a belief, and a belief system. Can't have one without the other.
If in the Quran there is vague enough language than a radical or fundamentalist has the wiggle room to say rape is a punishment, not a crime, then the Quran by definition has that vague enough language. If another Islamic group chooses to interpret that differently, great, good for them! But the words are still there. The potential is still there.
And seeings how the Quran in the Islamic world is a legal system, we get to compare it to other legal systems. For example no where in the United States legal system is there vague enough language that a Judge can interpret rape to be a thing a person can be sentenced to.

And in that light, yes we do get to say our culture is better because we don't have the 'Yes maybe rape' clause, even if some of the other culture is choosing not to use the 'Yes maybe rape' clause.

Nonsensical Argument? Are you serious? We're gamers. We play video games. We don't play all video games. We don't play the video games we mutually like the same way. We don't like every genre that the other likes. Some people are for Epic, some people don't care, some people are die hard against it. Some love Microtransactions and others are thinking of getting out of the Hobby because of them.

We are Americans, I doubt we have the same ideals. But we were raised in an American Culture. Most Americans in the forum don't even believe in Gun ownership. Even though the right to do so has been basically preached to all of us since birth. And it's right there in our Bill of Rights. We're supposed to be a Secular State but religion has as much sway as politicians.

And you want to speak about what's in a document? America hasn't even fully recognized that Women have Equal Rights [https://theconversation.com/in-2019-womens-rights-are-still-not-explicitly-recognized-in-us-constitution-108150]. We're two steps away from the Handmaid's Tale here as well. What a culture that let that slip by, hmm?

To say it's a Nonsensical Argument is to literally look at the World and ignore what it is showing you.

Well, parts of self are modifiable. Other parts are inherent or otherwise innate.

Otherwise, I have no great problem with describing personality/ self in chemical terms... although I do have a problem with attaching that concept to value judgements (such as "betterment of the whole" or "unhealthy attachment").

What I was referring to with Betterment of the Whole and Unhealthy Attachment were variations of ideals that totalitarian states had which believed their citizens were only there to serve the government and nothing more.

The more nations strip concepts like that away from people (freedom of expression, love, thought), the more they tend to resemble pre-totalitarian societies.

Hence my stipulation that the same rights and freedoms apply that anybody else is entitled to.

The topic at hand is quite aside from common-or-garden freedom of speech, though: it is about making additional allowances for hate speech when it has some spurious connection to religious ideas.

That's what's nonsense. It shouldn't matter one fig where somebody has derived their opinion; it should be an utter irrelevance.

I agree that Hate Speech shouldn't be allowed for any reason, nor any harm to others due to beliefs. As I said in my first response to this thread, that anyone should be allowed to believe in anything as long as it doesn't bring mental or physical harm to others.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

SNIP

So you're saying states not ratifying the Equal rights for women's bill is the equivalent of other countries specifically saying women do not have equal rights?

That not explicitly being recognized as equal is the same as being explicitly recognized to not be equal? That 1=-1

And how do you square this 'All cultures are equal, full stop!" mentality with the circle of historical development? Like do you think the America of 2019 is literally, full stop, just as bad as the America of 1819? That although things have changed, medicine, women's rights, blacks no longer slaves, white men aren't the only ones in power, that those changes mean literally nothing and that both cultures, while not being the exact same, are 100% equal? 'cause that's the argument you're putting forward. No one culture is better than another. So no one incarnation of a culture can be better than the incarnation of another culture.

 

[Silvanus]

What I was referring to with Betterment of the Whole and Unhealthy Attachment were variations of ideals that totalitarian states had which believed their citizens were only there to serve the government and nothing more.

The more nations strip concepts like that away from people (freedom of expression, love, thought), the more they tend to resemble pre-totalitarian societies.

Well, sure, but nobody is wanting those freedoms stripped away.

Society goes to hell when freedoms are unequally afforded to people, as well.

I agree that Hate Speech shouldn't be allowed for any reason, nor any harm to others due to beliefs. As I said in my first response to this thread, that anyone should be allowed to believe in anything as long as it doesn't bring mental or physical harm to others.

Well, then we might be in agreement in how to approach this, practically at least.

You mentioned protections, though-- what form do you have in mind? The entitlements that religions currently enjoy go far beyond what is afforded to people for their non-metaphysical opinions-- such as tax-free status, influence over education (regardless of evidence), and enormous media presence.

 

[Trunkage]

A religious belief is little more than an opinion on a metaphysical topic, which someone has taken deeply to heart.

I see no reason it should afford someone protections or rights that are not afforded to people who don't share it.

A religious belief is what someone reckons about something. That's all.

I think we should just get rid of the term religious in this debate. That automatically makes it feel like only those that go to church get protection and that's nonsense. Why are their beliefs more special than an agnostic/ atheist? (Other than the typical "Christians are the best" mentality.) Because they go to church? I thought we got rid of these shenanigans with concept of Jefferson's Wall. I thought we rehashed this with the Sharia Law panic of... I want to say 2010. The fact that Christians are doing more to make Sharia Law possible in Western countries than those nasty libtards is ironic.

When you realise that Praeger U and its ilk have been saying that the West is synonomous with Judeo-Christian culture is just trying to sell this religious freedom idea, particularly only applying to Christians and no others, you realise that virtue signalling/dog whistling is real. Also, the fact that the West develop IN SPITE of Judeo-Christian culture is just not a concept they seem to be able to grasp.

If you want to protect beliefs, its everyone's or no one's. Christianity (or any other religion) is not special. If I wanted something like that, Id move to Tehran.

 

[Hawki]

If people were worried about discrimination against Christians, they'd be better off looking at areas like Indonesia, the Middle East, and China.

I have no sympathy for Folau. He can be a bigot if he wants, but this isn't an issue of free speech, it's an issue of him breeching his contract.

 

[Abomination]

I have no sympathy for Folau. He can be a bigot if he wants, but this isn't an issue of free speech, it's an issue of him breeching his contract.

Essentially he's stating that "Yeah, but I did it religiously, so that makes it okay." and one could then think "Can I apply that to theft, or murder?"

"Yes, I did kill them, but I did so with my religious beliefs in mind - don't persecute me!"

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

You can't in good conscience, claim you should have religious freedom to state your opinions on matters while, with the same breath, say that people will suffer a fate worse than death (hell) for not sharing your supposed religious views.

This is a have your cake and eat it too scenario. Freedom of religion also includes freedom FROM religion.

Saying that people will go to hell for a particular belief/practice should be tantamount to hate speech as "hell" is - in the very mind of the person who believes in it - the worst possible thing that can happen to a person. Contextually, going to hell is worse than being raped by a gang of silverback gorillas, being sawed in half from groin to gullet, being dipped in molten metal, or any other horrible fate one could think. "X go to hell" should be treated as the same as any other horrible slur directed at a group.

The hypocrisy of this asshole, who states he is being persecuted for his religious beliefs, when if anyone else had said the same things without a religious motive would have suffered the same disciplinary action from their employer as well. Religion should never grant someone privileges that are not extended to all other members of society.

I mean I agree with the sentiment, but then you need to realise this is the core tenants of many religions "Believe in this particular one or God will punish you." It's designed into them that they need to save us all from hell so they have to spread the message, in a weird way if you actually believed in hell its arguably worse not to try your best to save us from the worst torment for eternity, real insidious design there. Everyone who is christian pretty much believe you are going to hell if you aren't one of them, it's their big motivator to evangelise, they just don't say it.

Also OP: being atheist essentially means having slightly less rights than other citizens who get religious based concessions, of course the atheist won't get anything good for them in a religious discrimination bill. Stating the very core of atheist belief, that god isn't real, is considered discrimination or hateful by religious people, only they get to evangelise because when the atheist does its considered hateful.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

So you're saying states not ratifying the Equal rights for women's bill is the equivalent of other countries specifically saying women do not have equal rights?

That not explicitly being recognized as equal is the same as being explicitly recognized to not be equal? That 1=-1

And how do you square this 'All cultures are equal, full stop!" mentality with the circle of historical development? Like do you think the America of 2019 is literally, full stop, just as bad as the America of 1819? That although things have changed, medicine, women's rights, blacks no longer slaves, white men aren't the only ones in power, that those changes mean literally nothing and that both cultures, while not being the exact same, are 100% equal? 'cause that's the argument you're putting forward. No one culture is better than another. So no one incarnation of a culture can be better than the incarnation of another culture.

What I'm doing is reporting the fact that America can't get it's act together to ratify Equal Rights for Women into the Constitution. You talk about a document and how people can interpret it in ways to commit vile acts? How about the most important document in this Nation's history can't even fully state that women are equal under the law. Do you want to have conjecture on what would happen with that if it was common knowledge?

I 'square' all Cultures are equal with the simple fact that all cultures are populated with humans. Each human has infinite capability for malice, kindness, bravery and cowardice. They can be lions and leaders, or criminals the likes of which we have never seen. No culture is devoid of this capability to produce varying people.

The ideals we consider unquestionably vile are vile to our sensibilities. Hey, Austria is a nice place. It's sexual age of consent is 14 [https://www.ageofconsent.net/world/austria]. That is way too young for me, but it's because of the sensibilities I was raised with. Should I shun Austrians for being Statutory Rapists [https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/statutory-rape.html]? Which they would be if they came over here and tried to have sex with a 14 year old.

Since every person has the capability of change, every culture has the capability of change. That's what I value.

Well, sure, but nobody is wanting those freedoms stripped away.

Society goes to hell when freedoms are unequally afforded to people, as well.

Undeniably so. Hence why I feel that people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect others in a harmful manner. Power unfairly distributed is Power unfairly consolidated.

Well, then we might be in agreement in how to approach this, practically at least.

You mentioned protections, though-- what form do you have in mind? The entitlements that religions currently enjoy go far beyond what is afforded to people for their non-metaphysical opinions-- such as tax-free status, influence over education (regardless of evidence), and enormous media presence.

I... did?

The closest I got was referring to Protecting Freedom of Expression as long as it doesn't harm others.

Look, you might not value religion. I might not see the need for it. But it's a facet of certain people's expression and/or identity in this world. We correctly allow the freedom of expression of all aspects of the individual's identity, as long as it doesn't bring Harm to an individual. We protect it. Religion has to fall into that, or we can start picking and choosing what else we can limit because we don't put that much faith (if you'll excuse the pun) into it.

That's it. Just the expression of it. You believe in the Force like the Jedis? Cool. You can do that. Go ahead.

... and that's about it.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

I thought we rehashed this with the Sharia Law panic of... I want to say 2010. The fact that Christians are doing more to make Sharia Law possible in Western countries than those nasty libtards is ironic.

Look no further than the Park51 (AKA the "Ground Zero Mosque") lunacy.

If you want to protect beliefs, its everyone's or no one's.

Should be. Polygamy was banned in the US to suppress the Mormon church. Ritual peyote use as part of Native American religious ceremony was ruled by SCOTUS outside the protection of free exercise. Let's not forget the bans on niqab and burkas that are consuming the West like wildfire. Religious freedom, more often than not, is anything but.

And indeed, there are cases and circumstances where religious freedom shouldn't be absolute. Underage marriages and grooming represent the dark side of Mormonism. Alfred Smith and Galen Black worked at a drug rehab clinic for fuck's sake, and there's a compelling interest in preventing employees from working while impaired, even if impairment came from religious observation. But, those circumstances don't justify infringing on religious exercise beyond the absolute minimum, and the power to infringe should lie exclusively with the state.

That said, being a tit on social media isn't a reasonable exercise of religious expression. Religious discrimination in this case would have been termination for professing Christianity. If he had a "don't be a tit on social media" clause, he certainly violated that, so fuck 'em.

 

[Trunkage]

I thought we rehashed this with the Sharia Law panic of... I want to say 2010. The fact that Christians are doing more to make Sharia Law possible in Western countries than those nasty libtards is ironic.

Look no further than the Park51 (AKA the "Ground Zero Mosque") lunacy.

If you want to protect beliefs, its everyone's or no one's.

Should be. Polygamy was banned in the US to suppress the Mormon church. Ritual peyote use as part of Native American religious ceremony was ruled by SCOTUS outside the protection of free exercise. Let's not forget the bans on niqab and burkas that are consuming the West like wildfire. Religious freedom, more often than not, is anything but.

And indeed, there are cases and circumstances where religious freedom shouldn't be absolute. Underage marriages and grooming represent the dark side of Mormonism. Alfred Smith and Galen Black worked at a drug rehab clinic for fuck's sake, and there's a compelling interest in preventing employees from working while impaired, even if impairment came from religious observation. But, those circumstances don't justify infringing on religious exercise beyond the absolute minimum, and the power to infringe should lie exclusively with the state.

That said, being a tit on social media isn't a reasonable exercise of religious expression. Religious discrimination in this case would have been termination for professing Christianity. If he had a "don't be a tit on social media" clause, he certainly violated that, so fuck 'em.

We'll find out. It's going to the courts. They might not have specified homophobia in the contract but not being a tit was there. (Possibly not exact wording.) So there may be some legal recourse there. It's the problem with contracts. It's hard to write down everything that might come up in the future.

But I'd agree, its not the Christianity that was the issue. It's the discrimination against someone you dont like just because you say God says so that's the issue. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter how holy it is

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

SNIP

So...yes. You think America where states have not ratified the Equal Rights clause are equal to Islamic states where women do not have any rights. These two are equal in your eyes because both cultures are made up of people, and "Each human has infinite capability for malice, kindness, bravery and cowardice"[small]Which no, to most people malice is nonsensical. Being evil is not just as easy as being nice[/small] and no regard to what variable means in respect to different cultures, "No culture is devoid of this capability to produce varying people"

Here's a fun little mental exercise. Think of cultures as dice. Lets make fundamentalist Islamic cultures a D3, lets make American modern culture a D10, Netherlands a D20, and Star Trek Federation a D100. Every human born into these cultures rolls their respective dice to see how moral they are. To your credit every single culture is capable of rolling a 1, a 2 or a 3. Every single one is capable of producing a right bastard.
However, some cultures have extra numbers added on. Those numbers are Representative of separation of church vs state, bills of rights, democracies, oversight, educated populace, etc...
So while any one person can be a bastard regardless of culture, some cultures have a way higher chance of producing someone not a bastard, based on the variables offered.
A 1 is a 1 is a 1. Always the lowest. But the highest can be a 3, a 10, a 20 or a 100. And those are different numbers. Meaning different variables, ie values, per culture.

 

[Silvanus]

I... did?

The closest I got was referring to Protecting Freedom of Expression as long as it doesn't harm others.

Look, you might not value religion. I might not see the need for it. But it's a facet of certain people's expression and/or identity in this world. We correctly allow the freedom of expression of all aspects of the individual's identity, as long as it doesn't bring Harm to an individual. We protect it. Religion has to fall into that, or we can start picking and choosing what else we can limit because we don't put that much faith (if you'll excuse the pun) into it.

That's it. Just the expression of it. You believe in the Force like the Jedis? Cool. You can do that. Go ahead.

... and that's about it.

Ah, right. I took that line-- "we protect it. Religion has to fall into that"-- to mean that society offers broad protections for religion because of freedom of expression, not just that the same protections apply.

After all, as it stands, religious institutions enjoy substantial additional entitlements.

A 1 is a 1 is a 1. Always the lowest. But the highest can be a 3, a 10, a 20 or a 100. And those are different numbers. Meaning different variables, ie values, per culture.

This seems awfully close to arguing that some countries cannot produce good people, or are very unlikely to. Which is reductionist bollocks, of course.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

This seems awfully close to arguing that some countries cannot produce good people, or are very unlikely to. Which is reductionist bollocks, of course.

I mean it is yes, but the counter is look at historically "evil" cultures. Lets take the Nazis. Histrionically they produced about 100 "good" people. Certainly more unheard of, lets time that by 100. 10,000 good people in a culture of tens of millions. And we're judging good not on disagreed with Nazis but went along, but by actively protested Nazi ideology

I'm not saying its impossible. But if culture A believes -1, -2, -3, -4, on into -100, its unlikely a singular person then believes 1, 2, 3 and 4 and on into say...70. It should be noted and lauded, sure. But even the smartest, best, German Scientist recruited by Paperclip were not recruited on a morality, pro-American ideology rule, but on a kill-them-all, anti-communist gradient.

The point being no culture should be judge on their extremes, either way, but on the average.
And one average can be compared to another average.

 

[Silvanus]

I mean it is yes, but the counter is look at historically "evil" cultures. Lets take the Nazis. Histrionically they produced about 100 "good" people. Certainly more unheard of, lets time that by 100. 10,000 good people in a culture of tens of millions. And we're judging good not on disagreed with Nazis but went along, but by actively protested Nazi ideology

I'm not saying its impossible. But if culture A believes -1, -2, -3, -4, on into -100, its unlikely a singular person then believes 1, 2, 3 and 4 and on into say...70. It should be noted and lauded, sure. But even the smartest, best, German Scientist recruited by Paperclip were not recruited on a morality, pro-American ideology rule, but on a kill-them-all, anti-communist gradient.

The point being no culture should be judge on their extremes, either way, but on the average.
And one average can be compared to another average.

Can you appreciate the myriad shortcomings with attempting to describe a culture as a numerical expression?

A culture is not an individual thing: it's a web of attitudes, shared histories, behaviours, habits, values and (a little more rarely) institutions, numbering in the millions. Any individual person existing in that culture may be impacted by hundreds of these factors, or may be barely aware of hundreds of others, to the degree that individuals coexisting in the same culture may have very little crossover in terms of shared experience.

There are not many subjects for which the complexity reaches such a level that attempting to render any value judgement on the whole is trite. But culture is one such topic.

By all means, render those value judgements on the individual beliefs, for they at least can be separated.

 

[Abomination]

I mean I agree with the sentiment, but then you need to realise this is the core tenants of many religions "Believe in this particular one or God will punish you." It's designed into them that they need to save us all from hell so they have to spread the message, in a weird way if you actually believed in hell its arguably worse not to try your best to save us from the worst torment for eternity, real insidious design there. Everyone who is christian pretty much believe you are going to hell if you aren't one of them, it's their big motivator to evangelise, they just don't say it.

Here's the fun thing though, if it's the same as stating that you believe they will go to hell and want them to "change their ways" then, in context - since homosexuality is NOT a choice - they are stating that homosexuals are flawed. That their flaw is homosexuality.

Replace homosexuality with any other demographic and we're back to the phrase being a bigoted slur.

"Going to hell" literally means "deserving of incredibly violent and savage punishment for eternity". How one can reconcile this or hold on to this belief and think it's deserving of protection is the sign of a psychopath.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

SNIP

So...yes. You think America where states have not ratified the Equal Rights clause are equal to Islamic states where women do not have any rights. These two are equal in your eyes because both cultures are made up of people, and "Each human has infinite capability for malice, kindness, bravery and cowardice"[small]Which no, to most people malice is nonsensical. Being evil is not just as easy as being nice[/small] and no regard to what variable means in respect to different cultures, "No culture is devoid of this capability to produce varying people"

Here's a fun little mental exercise. Think of cultures as dice. Lets make fundamentalist Islamic cultures a D3, lets make American modern culture a D10, Netherlands a D20, and Star Trek Federation a D100. Every human born into these cultures rolls their respective dice to see how moral they are. To your credit every single culture is capable of rolling a 1, a 2 or a 3. Every single one is capable of producing a right bastard.
However, some cultures have extra numbers added on. Those numbers are Representative of separation of church vs state, bills of rights, democracies, oversight, educated populace, etc...
So while any one person can be a bastard regardless of culture, some cultures have a way higher chance of producing someone not a bastard, based on the variables offered.
A 1 is a 1 is a 1. Always the lowest. But the highest can be a 3, a 10, a 20 or a 100. And those are different numbers. Meaning different variables, ie values, per culture.

So here's the part where it seems actual conversation is proving meaningless.

You talked about a document. I talked about a document. That doesn't prove cultures are equal. And I would have no problem saying they are in the first place. But I'm responding to your comment here.

If in the Quran there is vague enough language than a radical or fundamentalist has the wiggle room to say rape is a punishment, not a crime, then the Quran by definition has that vague enough language. If another Islamic group chooses to interpret that differently, great, good for them! But the words are still there. The potential is still there.
And seeings how the Quran in the Islamic world is a legal system, we get to compare it to other legal systems. For example no where in the United States legal system is there vague enough language that a Judge can interpret rape to be a thing a person can be sentenced to.

And in that light, yes we do get to say our culture is better because we don't have the 'Yes maybe rape' clause, even if some of the other culture is choosing not to use the 'Yes maybe rape' clause.

In this case, the words aren't there, but the actions are. The potential is still there that those states go "Lulz, no. Women, get back into the kitchen because that's where we decided you belong".

If we're talking about two cultures' ability to look at the documents that government them and decide what to do after, yeah, sure, if it will make you happy I'm saying America and Islamic are equal. But the truth of the matter is that I will say any culture that has a governing rubric, because it all can be opened to interpretation.

That is my essential point. It feels like you're ignoring it for the "Superior/Inferior Culture" angle. If some people 'justified' rape because of an interpretation of Quran, they are wrong. If some people chained up women in their basement in America and said it was allowed because women aren't even mentioned in the Constitution, they would be equally wrong and villainous. But, and I need you to stay with me here, my overarching point is that as there exists equal ambiguity in both documents, there exist equal chance of unsavory and morally deranged people to use that ambiguity in order to excuse their actions.

I'm not talking about America as a whole, I'm not talking about Islam as a whole... but those few disgusting people who exist in both cultures who look for any justification for their perservation. That doesn't make one culture better, that doesn't make another culture worse. People can be horrible in whatever culture they were born in.

We wouldn't want other cultures to view us as inferior due to Guantanamo Bay, Rampant Police Brutality and the Citizens that blindly support it, The Disappearing Native American Women and how we're largely clueless about it, Trump's embarrassing actions, The administration's appalling treatment of our Allies, our Abysmal Health Care records, The shameful way we treat our Vets (spoiler alert, sometimes we deport them after promises), the Fourth Reich kicking off here, and so on.

Oh, and lastly, The Staggering amount of Native American Women who are raped and can't find justice because their assaulters were white men not apart of their Native Laws [https://whowhatwhy.org/2019/02/26/the-sexual-assault-crisis-facing-native-american-women/].

So we shouldn't cast judgment until we can sort our own shit out. Even if we're 31th, that is shameful. And the thought of "Hey, look at 32th being worse than us" is not only embarrassing, but it's distracting from getting us to a better place.

Ah, right. I took that line-- "we protect it. Religion has to fall into that"-- to mean that society offers broad protections for religion because of freedom of expression, not just that the same protections apply.

After all, as it stands, religious institutions enjoy substantial additional entitlements.

I understand. And if I'm honest, I'm not a hundred percent against some extra protections. But if actually used correctly.

Like if a Church was actually non-for-profit in a poor neighborhood and can't keep the lights on? Yeah, sure. As long as they are doing the best to provide services such as outreach and guidance to the less fortunate, I'm happy to support that with my Tax Dollars.

But if it was one of those Mega-Millions Churches in Texas where the pastors fly jets across the country to one of their different 5-story, opulent churches where literally tens of thousands of people each week are giving money in the collection plate, complete with brand merchandise? Go stuff yourselves. Pay taxes, stop exploiting people, and stop giving the idea of actual spiritual healing a bad name.

 

[Satinavian]

I mean I agree with the sentiment, but then you need to realise this is the core tenants of many religions "Believe in this particular one or God will punish you." It's designed into them that they need to save us all from hell so they have to spread the message, in a weird way if you actually believed in hell its arguably worse not to try your best to save us from the worst torment for eternity, real insidious design there. Everyone who is christian pretty much believe you are going to hell if you aren't one of them, it's their big motivator to evangelise, they just don't say it.

Here's the fun thing though, if it's the same as stating that you believe they will go to hell and want them to "change their ways" then, in context - since homosexuality is NOT a choice - they are stating that homosexuals are flawed. That their flaw is homosexuality.

Usually it is not "being homosexual" that is a problem according to religion but the act of homosexual sex. Which means, yes, homosexuals could just not have sex to avoid hell. Similar as in many situations heterosexuals are supposed to suppress their sex drive to avoid sinning.
And that is a choice. No one has to have sex.

Replace homosexuality with any other demographic and we're back to the phrase being a bigoted slur.

There are religions with some kind of chosen people, but christianity is not one of them.

"Going to hell" literally means "deserving of incredibly violent and savage punishment for eternity". How one can reconcile this or hold on to this belief and think it's deserving of protection is the sign of a psychopath.

Did the person say that he wants those people to go to hell or is happy about it ? Usually those lectures are suppossedly about showing people how to not go to hell, because you pity them.



I know that a lot of bigots abuse religious texts to harass homosexuals. And that is a problem. But i still can't see this particular instance as hate speech.