4 ms·

The problem with your statement on religious intolerance, is that wanting someone to change the fundamentals of their religion can be equated with intolerance o

The problem with your statement on religious intolerance, is that wanting someone to change the fundamentals of their religion can be equated with intolerance of that religion, even having a term specific to it: Islamophobia. I think reform of Islam must involve accommodating people who are considered sinners. The problem is that communicating this critique of Islam can be considered hate speech by the tribalists.

ModernMech 8y ago
When people talk about religious tolerance in the US as an issue, they usually are referring to letting white evangelicals get their way politically and culturally. For instance, I know many people who feel their religious liberty was infringed when gay marriage was legalized, but also voted for a guy who called for the "complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the US". It's not about religious liberty as a concept or ideal. It's about I win You lose.
- assblaster 8y ago
  In what way does "White" play into this discussion? Islam, whether practiced by whites, blacks, Hispanics, Pacific Islanders, is clear in its denouncement of homosexuals as people. Islam doesn't even separate the act from the person, the person must be killed as prescribed in the Quran.
  - ModernMech 8y ago
    White evangelicals are a voting bloc in the US with outsize influence on the Republican agenda.
- humanrebar 8y ago
  > When people talk about religious tolerance in the US as an issue, they usually are referring to letting white evangelicals get their way politically and culturally. It's more that people are concerned that they will have to be closeted in polite society. I think there's anecdotal evidence to support that concern. See the recent New Yorker piece about Chic-Fil-A "infiltrating" NYC. Infiltrating it with what? Sandwiches? No, it's about the conservative Christian owners setting up shop in NYC. It's analogous to a scare piece about Chinese investors buying up American companies or Muslims converting a church into a mosque. Nothing in the article describes is outright objectionable, other than them.
  - croon 8y ago
    > It's more that people are concerned that they will have to be closeted in polite society. I think there's anecdotal evidence to support that concern. See the recent New Yorker piece about Chic-Fil-A "infiltrating" NYC. Infiltrating it with what? Sandwiches? No, it's about the conservative Christian owners setting up shop in NYC. > On June 16, 2012, while on the syndicated radio talk show, The Ken Coleman Show, Chick-fil-A president and chief operating officer (COO) Dan Cathy stated: >I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, "We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage". I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.[1] You use the word "closeted" for having to keep mum about your (not you specifically) belief that people (based on their sexuality) should be allowed less rights than you. I frankly find that remarkably bold. Sure, Chic-fil-A stopped funding most of those organizations after the "incident", and I'm sure people like their food, but I also don't think an editorial about it is out of order. If that is indeed "conservative Christianity", then as a Christian: I'll just say that it's some times old testament, when it fits, and very rarely if ever, new testament. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_...
    - humanrebar 8y ago
      Calling attention to political disagreement is fine. Using language if hatred is not. I presume, as a Christian, you would rather people learn to forgive and reconcile instead of judge and condemn. The concern of Christians is that the goal here isn't to get Chic-Fil-A to change its behavior or speech but to brand it and people in its tribe as an Enemy and as evil. It's mainstream Christianity to consider extramarital sex as sinful. Is that hatred? No. Does it make people defensive? Sure. How do we resolve that tension? Well, hating Christians and ostracising them won't solve the problem. Unless the problem is that there are too many "out" Christians.
      - croon 8y ago
        > Calling attention to political disagreement is fine. Using language if hatred is not. I presume, as a Christian, you would rather people learn to forgive and reconcile instead of judge and condemn. Absolutely, though forgiveness requires remorse, as per the bible. We rarely see that. > The concern of Christians is that the goal here isn't to get Chic-Fil-A to change its behavior or speech but to brand it and people in its tribe as an Enemy and as evil. Let's just say we disagree on this. > It's mainstream Christianity to consider extramarital sex as sinful. Is that hatred? No. Does it make people defensive? Sure. How do we resolve that tension? Well, hating Christians and ostracising them won't solve the problem. Unless the problem is that there are too many "out" Christians. We disagree on this as well. Has anyone been refused service because they had sex before (or outside) marriage? I think it's an outdated view, sure, but I've also never seen it bother anyone to a real effect. There's also a tremendous difference between the vocal "mainstream Christianity" and the non-vocal, actual, mainstream Christianity. The former being the religious propaganda arm of the christian/conservative voting block, with the Pat Robertssons, James Dobsons, etc. The latter being people holding Christian values regardless of politics, meaning it doesn't matter if it's Clintons or Trumps extramarital affairs when deciding support. Conjecture: imagine if Obama had five kids with three different wives, and multiple reports of sexual harassment/assault as well as prostitution. Anyone reacting differently to this should inform you whether they hold Christian values at anything closer than arms length, when it's favorable. It's very blurry in the states, because a lot of Televangelists are insane caricatures to anyone looking in from the outside, whether it be scandinavian protestants or the catholic pope. It's unclear how many people listen to those leaders, and how many don't.

ModernMech 8y ago

When people talk about religious tolerance in the US as an issue, they usually are referring to letting white evangelicals get their way politically and culturally. For instance, I know many people who feel their religious liberty was infringed when gay marriage was legalized, but also voted for a guy who called for the "complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the US". It's not about religious liberty as a concept or ideal. It's about I win You lose.

assblaster 8y ago
In what way does "White" play into this discussion? Islam, whether practiced by whites, blacks, Hispanics, Pacific Islanders, is clear in its denouncement of homosexuals as people. Islam doesn't even separate the act from the person, the person must be killed as prescribed in the Quran.
- ModernMech 8y ago
  White evangelicals are a voting bloc in the US with outsize influence on the Republican agenda.
humanrebar 8y ago
> When people talk about religious tolerance in the US as an issue, they usually are referring to letting white evangelicals get their way politically and culturally. It's more that people are concerned that they will have to be closeted in polite society. I think there's anecdotal evidence to support that concern. See the recent New Yorker piece about Chic-Fil-A "infiltrating" NYC. Infiltrating it with what? Sandwiches? No, it's about the conservative Christian owners setting up shop in NYC. It's analogous to a scare piece about Chinese investors buying up American companies or Muslims converting a church into a mosque. Nothing in the article describes is outright objectionable, other than them.
- croon 8y ago
  > It's more that people are concerned that they will have to be closeted in polite society. I think there's anecdotal evidence to support that concern. See the recent New Yorker piece about Chic-Fil-A "infiltrating" NYC. Infiltrating it with what? Sandwiches? No, it's about the conservative Christian owners setting up shop in NYC. > On June 16, 2012, while on the syndicated radio talk show, The Ken Coleman Show, Chick-fil-A president and chief operating officer (COO) Dan Cathy stated: >I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, "We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage". I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.[1] You use the word "closeted" for having to keep mum about your (not you specifically) belief that people (based on their sexuality) should be allowed less rights than you. I frankly find that remarkably bold. Sure, Chic-fil-A stopped funding most of those organizations after the "incident", and I'm sure people like their food, but I also don't think an editorial about it is out of order. If that is indeed "conservative Christianity", then as a Christian: I'll just say that it's some times old testament, when it fits, and very rarely if ever, new testament. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_...
  - humanrebar 8y ago
    Calling attention to political disagreement is fine. Using language if hatred is not. I presume, as a Christian, you would rather people learn to forgive and reconcile instead of judge and condemn. The concern of Christians is that the goal here isn't to get Chic-Fil-A to change its behavior or speech but to brand it and people in its tribe as an Enemy and as evil. It's mainstream Christianity to consider extramarital sex as sinful. Is that hatred? No. Does it make people defensive? Sure. How do we resolve that tension? Well, hating Christians and ostracising them won't solve the problem. Unless the problem is that there are too many "out" Christians.
    - croon 8y ago
      > Calling attention to political disagreement is fine. Using language if hatred is not. I presume, as a Christian, you would rather people learn to forgive and reconcile instead of judge and condemn. Absolutely, though forgiveness requires remorse, as per the bible. We rarely see that. > The concern of Christians is that the goal here isn't to get Chic-Fil-A to change its behavior or speech but to brand it and people in its tribe as an Enemy and as evil. Let's just say we disagree on this. > It's mainstream Christianity to consider extramarital sex as sinful. Is that hatred? No. Does it make people defensive? Sure. How do we resolve that tension? Well, hating Christians and ostracising them won't solve the problem. Unless the problem is that there are too many "out" Christians. We disagree on this as well. Has anyone been refused service because they had sex before (or outside) marriage? I think it's an outdated view, sure, but I've also never seen it bother anyone to a real effect. There's also a tremendous difference between the vocal "mainstream Christianity" and the non-vocal, actual, mainstream Christianity. The former being the religious propaganda arm of the christian/conservative voting block, with the Pat Robertssons, James Dobsons, etc. The latter being people holding Christian values regardless of politics, meaning it doesn't matter if it's Clintons or Trumps extramarital affairs when deciding support. Conjecture: imagine if Obama had five kids with three different wives, and multiple reports of sexual harassment/assault as well as prostitution. Anyone reacting differently to this should inform you whether they hold Christian values at anything closer than arms length, when it's favorable. It's very blurry in the states, because a lot of Televangelists are insane caricatures to anyone looking in from the outside, whether it be scandinavian protestants or the catholic pope. It's unclear how many people listen to those leaders, and how many don't.