3 ms·

Hating people for their ethnicity, or hating people for their religion - both seem to come from the same cesspool of ignorance and impotent rage (you're angry a

by isr 5y ago

Hating people for their ethnicity, or hating people for their religion - both seem to come from the same cesspool of ignorance and impotent rage (you're angry about something else, but resign yourself to picking on another group to vent on - much easier) Why do you feel the need to justify one over the other?

arp242 5y ago
The difference is that religion is something you choose, whereas ethnicity is not. I can choose to be a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostic, or any other religion. I can't choose to be black or white, or Asian or European. Criticising people for their ethnicity is essentially always wrong. There is very little – if any – nuance that applies here. Criticising religion is a lot more nuanced though; for example I don't think it's especially controversial to criticise Matthew 25, where Jesus says that "A woman a should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." I don't think it's especially controversial to criticise Christians who believe this either (many don't, but some do). It gets a bit more murky if you start criticising the entire religion on the whole for containing this sort of stuff. Personally I feel that's unfair, but I don't think it's "hateful" either as it's still criticising ideas rather than people. And it's of course bad if you start criticising people on only being adherents to a religion, without any nuance or recognition of the many different interpretations. But even then, you're still disliking people for ideas they hold and are free to choose, rather than attributes beyond their control. So while still bad, I'd consider it "less bad".
- isr 5y ago
  The comment I was responding was specifically talking about "hating" Muslims & Islam. You're talking about criticising with arguments (using Christianity and a quote). The arguments may be bunk (taking a quote out of context - something that happens all too often amongst Islamophobes), or it may be spot on. There's a world of difference there.
- subsaharancoder 5y ago
  > Criticising religion is a lot more nuanced though; for example I don't think it's especially controversial to criticise Matthew 25, where Jesus says that "A woman a should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." 1) Jesus did not say this, Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ did. 2) This is not from Matthew 25 but from 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and is one of Paul's letters to Timothy. https://nasb.literalword.com/?q=1+Timothy+2%3A11-12 https://nasb.literalword.com/?q=1+Timothy+2%3A11-12 3) Matthew 25 consists of the parable of the ten virgins, parable of the tenants and the judgement of God. https://nasb.literalword.com/?q=Matthew+25 https://nasb.literalword.com/?q=Matthew+25 If you're going to use the Bible to make a point, at least make the effort to accurately do so.

by isr 5y ago

arp242 5y ago

The difference is that religion is something you choose, whereas ethnicity is not. I can choose to be a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostic, or any other religion. I can't choose to be black or white, or Asian or European. Criticising people for their ethnicity is essentially always wrong. There is very little – if any – nuance that applies here. Criticising religion is a lot more nuanced though; for example I don't think it's especially controversial to criticise Matthew 25, where Jesus says that "A woman a should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." I don't think it's especially controversial to criticise Christians who believe this either (many don't, but some do). It gets a bit more murky if you start criticising the entire religion on the whole for containing this sort of stuff. Personally I feel that's unfair, but I don't think it's "hateful" either as it's still criticising ideas rather than people. And it's of course bad if you start criticising people on only being adherents to a religion, without any nuance or recognition of the many different interpretations. But even then, you're still disliking people for ideas they hold and are free to choose, rather than attributes beyond their control. So while still bad, I'd consider it "less bad".

isr 5y ago
The comment I was responding was specifically talking about "hating" Muslims & Islam. You're talking about criticising with arguments (using Christianity and a quote). The arguments may be bunk (taking a quote out of context - something that happens all too often amongst Islamophobes), or it may be spot on. There's a world of difference there.
subsaharancoder 5y ago
> Criticising religion is a lot more nuanced though; for example I don't think it's especially controversial to criticise Matthew 25, where Jesus says that "A woman a should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." 1) Jesus did not say this, Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ did. 2) This is not from Matthew 25 but from 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and is one of Paul's letters to Timothy. https://nasb.literalword.com/?q=1+Timothy+2%3A11-12 https://nasb.literalword.com/?q=1+Timothy+2%3A11-12 3) Matthew 25 consists of the parable of the ten virgins, parable of the tenants and the judgement of God. https://nasb.literalword.com/?q=Matthew+25 https://nasb.literalword.com/?q=Matthew+25 If you're going to use the Bible to make a point, at least make the effort to accurately do so.