You're viewing part of a thread.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Burning a book is not inciting violence, you can't blame someone for the acts of others. It's legal to burn books, it's not however legal to assault and conspire against someone committing a legal act. You speak of fascism while promoting fascist ideology ie. Banning harmless speech.
There is no legitimate purpose for burning something other people symbolically recognize as important to their culture. Burning a cross on a black persons front lawn is an incitement of violence. Burning qu'ran books is part of a long tradition of incitement to religious violence.
Banning speech is literally the only way to fight fascism. The propagandists of the Third Reich literally wrote about how liberal free speech laws are the perfect conditions for fascism to develop and spread.
Seriously, stop trying to reconcile your violent fantasies with your desire for revolutionary liberation. Understand the use of violence as a necessity, not something we wish upon others. We should not be trying to create conditions for violent christo-fascists to invite violence against marginalized people. This isn't that hard.
Who determines legitimate purpose? You?
Paper is holy in my religion, not burning it is offensive to me and could drive me to religious violence, are you responsible for my actions because you aren't burning paper? To be clear burning a cross on someone else's property is a crime, biting one on your own property or even public property is not only legal but a first amendment protected act, perhaps a shitty one but still. Once you let the government decide which speech is ok you start running down the hill of fascism. Sure it may be a ban on something you agree with today but the next administration might have a more sinister use for it and you've given them the path to do it.
No you fight fascism with policy and munitions, there had never once been a successfully overthrown fascist government with words alone, not once.
Please explain how I'm displaying "violent fantasies" if anything I'm calling both sides ignorant and foolish and little like you short-sighted and historically ignorant but all appearances. I didn't want to resort to ad hominem but I'm certainly willing to return the favor homie.
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.