It really is time for people to start realising that religion of all varieties has no place in modern society.
this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2023
31 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10166 readers
254 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I would not go that far, but I can never fully understand why people buy into some of this stuff. Keep in mind though there are a huge spectrum of people. We hear more about groups acting badly and often not at all in line with the teachings they claim to follow.
In a broader context people are part of religious organizations for many reasons, and many of them good. It is just when religious people want "freedom" and then go about that by suppressing the freedom of others. At that point it becomes a problem. In that case it is not about freedom but power.
The idea of freedom of religion but not enforcing your religion in others seems painfully obvious.
One would think so, but it does not seem to be so. Hmmm...
That seems extreme...
It isn't.
If you weigh the good that organized religion provides compared to the bad it outputs then it's not even a question. Note that I say organized religion. Individual religion is not a problem but the second that you're actively trying to influence various people, or governments, around the world? Then you're just a cult with a franchise. Not to mention the fact that if you're using your religion as a guide as to how you should feel about people different than you? Well you're probably a bad person.
As a gay dude I've only seen people use religion as a justification for their hate of me. I've seen church people change their minds when they found out I was gay and in need of help.
Genuinely curious, how do you feel about the Episcopal Church, the Unitarian Church, and a couple more, actively providing LGBTQ services, advocating for inclusivity, and sometimes even lobbying for legislation for equal rights? When organized religion is on the right side of history and using the strength of a collective organization, do you feel it’s acceptable?
When organized religion is on the right side of history and using the strength of a collective organization, still trying to influence people but in a good way, do you feel it’s acceptable?
No. This is very much just a religious version of a 'good guy with a gun' situation.
It shouldn't matter here if they are Muslim or Christian. Maybe there's a small amount of "Hey, you were a minority group too and should treat other minority groups a little better" but at the end of the day if social conservatives are democratically elected into power it's going to follow that they will do social conservative things.
As a side note, and this is NOT a "this town should have done" thing, but it doesn't take much qualification to run for city council in most cases. For example, here are the requirements to run for council in the city of Toronto, Canada:
To run for mayor or city councillor, on the day the nomination paper is filed, a person must be:
- A Canadian citizen
- At least 18 years of age
- A resident of the City of Toronto, or
- An owner or tenant of land in the City of Toronto, or the spouse of the owner or tenant
- Not legally prohibited from voting
- Not disqualified by any legislation from holding municipal office
If you're worried about your town encourage people who'd be a good fit to run. Or maybe run yourself.
And as I said this isn't in judgement of the town in the article, but a message for anyone reading the article who may start to feel like there's nothing they can do when they live in a more conservative town. It may not work. But it just may.
I've never understood why Muslims and Christians seem to dislike each other when they both agree we should all have to live under religious law.
In general, Muslims don't. Only the extremely conservative ones do.
Many religions have conservative factions that think that their religious laws should also be general laws.
Muslim religious law, just like Jewish religious law, only applies to people of their faith. For most people in their faith, the religious law is only applied in religious settings. It is independent of non-religious law because both religions realize that not everyone belongs to their faith. It's only when you get zealots that you get the idea that everyone has to follow the religious laws.
It's only Christianity that tries to force non-Christians to live by Christian rules, whether it's businesses closed on the Christian Sabbath (something that's waned in the past 50 years, but I can recall it being hard to find stores open on Sunday in the 1980s), laws about women's reproduction rights (outside of extremists, Judaism is pro-abortion) as well as gender and sexuality, and protests over absurd things like the words "happy holidays."
I've yet to see Jewish people protesting that bacon is sold at Kroger or Muslim people demanding that they're wished Eid Mubarak.
Have you been to Muslim countries?
I'm not talking about Muslim countries. I'm talking about the US, where Hamtramck, Michigaan is. Where Christianity is the force that pushes the laws, while they whine that the other religions are the ones making the laws.
Talking about other countries is disingenuous and irrelevant to the conversation. When I talk about what Judaism does I'm talking about Jews in the US (and Canada, and the UK, and other non-Jewish majority countries), not what Jews in Israel do.
You comment talks about this like it's about Muslims, christians and Jews in general. It has little to do with Islam's, Christianity, or judasim though, and much more to do with who is the majority, and who is historically the majority.
As somebody who grew up in a Muslim country, you're flat out wrong.
The US is not a Muslim country. I'm not talking about Muslims in a Muslim country or Jews in Israel. I'm talking about the US, which this article is about.
Hamtramck is dominated by a Muslim majority. There is not one USA, but many.
There are a bunch of places in SE Michigan that has a large Muslim population. Michigan has more Arabic-language speaking people in it than any other US state.
Yet it's only the Christians who freak out about this. For a while there was a bizarre rumor being spread by Christian bigots that Dearborn, MI, which (last I knew) has even more Muslim people than Hamtramck, was run by a Muslim mayor with everyone forced to live under "Sharia Law." The mayor was Protestant and there is no place in Michigan where Muslim religious law is part of the area's laws.
Your comment is talking about Christians and Muslims in general, there's nothing in there that indicates you're talking about the population in a specific country. Nor is the comment you're replying to referring to a specific country.
Even giving you that, I find it hard to believe. The only reason the Muslims aren't behaving as you say the Christians are is because they don't have the authority or force of numbers. Name a single religious majority worldwide that doesn't push their values onto nonbelievers.
This isn't even true in the US, much less the broader world.
Isn't this illegal under the 1st amendment? Or am I misunderstanding something?
Edit: nvm. Article says it's banned on city property.
For the record, the title should really say that.
It's banned from flying on city property.
Right. That's different from the city banning it altogether.
Know how I know you didn't read the article?
If you look at my comments elsewhere, you'll see I was confused by the title (which I think implies it's banned everywhere in the city) but then later mentioned the article specifies "on city property". The title is needlessly (and probably intentionally) confusing.
Yeah I'm not tracking down all your comments. Titles have been misleading for a long time.
view more: next ›