• freagle@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    You don’t need to agree with religion in the same way you don’t need to agree with sugary drinks or polygamy. Don’t immediately jump from “this law protects people who are religious” to “maybe we shouldn’t worry so much if violence is incited against innocent people”

    • linkhidalgogato@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      people who practice polygamy or drink a lot of sugar dont have a systematic problem with child rape, nor have they gonna around justifying genocides nor do they have organizations dedicated to marginalizing others nor do said organizations dedicated themselves to indoctrinating more people into their fucked up cult, nor is indoctrinating children before they even have the ability to think critically a crucial, essential, and ubiquitous part of their creed.

      are u seriously trying to compare drinking sugary drinks and sexual freedom (mostly from the backwards cults u are defending) to some of the most dangerous and destructive ideologies and organizations ever to ravage earth?

      • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You’re cherry picking. Yes, sugary drinks resulted in death squads. Just look up the history of Coca Cola. Note that people who threaten violence against religious people never go after the leaders of the institutions, only the adherents, who have no power, just like the people who drink sugary drinks don’t actively participate in Coca Cola death squads.

        Institutions cause genocide, religious or not. Institutions marginalize the weak, religious or not. People who burn the qu’ran aren’t thinking about traveling to the seats of power, they’re thinking of shooting up mosques.

        Please don’t let your inability to separate religious belief from religious institutions drive you to argue we shouldn’t defend innocent people against religious hate. Because the people that we want to protect also have belief systems that could fall to the hatred as well. Colonized people all over the world have belief systems that many would religions, and we aren’t going to see them abandon their beliefs before we decolonize. Focus on institutions. Leave the working class alone, even if they believe in sky daddy.

        • linkhidalgogato@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          hatred isnt some random quirk of some religious institutions it is literally written into most holy books. there is nothing about soda that makes it inherently lead to death squads but the bible states quite clearly the supposed virtues of slavery and murdering infidels and the oppression of women and plenty more, most other religions dont fair any better under any examination. if u wanna talk about a magical fantasy world where religion is devoid of the horrible institutions that have upheld it and been upheld by it for thousands of years go ahead but it has nothing to do with the actual reality of religion as it has always does and seemingly will continue to exits so leave me out of those fantasies.

          And yeah i will certainly argue that when right wingers fight we should stay out of it im certainly not going to argue for defending neither side in an argument where both sides worship a god that want me fucking dead for being a non believer cuz if someone looks at that fucked up shit and say yeah thats my stuff, thats where my morality comes from, that what i want to follow it can only mean that they agree.

          And to be clear some of the problems with religion like the abuse of children (in the form of indoctrination specifically) goes all the way down and it carried out by just about every member of these cults and have little to with the institutions.

          • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think you pull on true facts about the world. I think you marshall them for a position of violence that harms the working class and the colonized. I will not sign up for newsletter. I hope I never find myself defending a working class family against your misplaced violence.

            • linkhidalgogato@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              My misplaced violence? i have never attacked anyone nor do i want to, im just very justifiably afraid of the violence of religion, it has never been atheists that been behind religious related violence it has always been religion and its followers.

              • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                And we should protect the working class from religious violence, which is what this law attempt to do and you seem to be saying that we shouldn’t be doing this but rather let the blood flow.

                • linkhidalgogato@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  this has nothing to do with protecting working people, right wing infighting is not my problem. its curious how defensive u are of religion in this context like if nazis and libertarians fight u would bat an eye but when these 2 particular right wing ideologies fight its a huge deal for u, maybe u have some stuff to think about.

                  • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You’re projecting so fucking hard, man. I’ve been fully atheistic for going on 3 decades. Here’s what’s going on. There’s a proposal to outlaw inciting violence on religious grounds. I support it, because I know so many working class people who are religious, and because I understand the colonizer’s definition of religion to include the cultures of colonized people. You are against it because you’re cool with Christians inciting violence against Muslim. We may both be atheists, but we are not the same. And you are just doing everything you can to make this about my failure of to remain pure to your imagined ideology that all scientific revolution communists must adhere to, when the reality of history is that the USSR’s oppression of religion was actually a tactically bad move that did more harm than good to the revolution, and pretty much anyone who’s studied this case is aware of it.

                    You are literally opposing a law to keep people safe AND developing a dogmatism in order to maintain the consistency between your position of revolutionary liberation and your urge to violence driven by your emotional hatred, fear, anger, and disgust at religion. That is a bad place for you to be. It’s OK to walk back your position to something more reasonable, something more historically informed, and no one is going to punish you for it. But it is contradictory to hold the desire for revolutionary liberation while simultaneously holding the position that religious groups should be allowed to persecute each other violently. That path will only lead to fascism.

              • Madison420@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Don’t worry, they said the same about me. Their argument holds water like an antique strainer so they have to get personal to try to rule up the crowd not unlike a mini ineffective Mussolini.

    • Madison420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re ignoring the potential abuse it could be used for. Can I burn a dianetics book? Bible? Banning expression is almost always a bad thing.

      • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What are you talking about? Are you lost? Banning expression is a requirement for stopping fascism.