6 ms·

Consequence of religion mixing with government leading to polarization and loss of respect for diversity.

by qwerki 4y ago

curiousgal 4y ago
Sounds oddly familiar sadly.
- feet 4y ago
  - dsomers 4y ago
    They call them y’all qaeda for a reason.
  - gboone 4y ago
    If it were truly Christianity it could not be forced. I would propose you are referring to something more accurately described as politically selfish dogmatism made possible by the current state of the culture's biblical illiteracy mixed with people's general need to resolve their identity crisis. I'm an American Christ-follower with a degree in biblical theology. In my view, there is a "brand of Christianity" that has nothing to do with following Christ. It's borrowed the name but not much else.
    - madspindel 4y ago
      Amen. Reminded me about the Regensburg lecture: > The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death..."
    - feet 4y ago
      Well the people who are extremist are representing your views and none of these 'real' Christians seem to be speaking out against them It's only reasonable to assume that due to inaction, the ideas are supported
      - gboone 4y ago
        You are missing the point that they are not. It is more reasonable to assume that one has heard what one has listened to.
        feet 4y ago
        Yes, I must have missed all the Christian leaders coming out against the extremists in the media and in online communities I can't hear what isn't there. The extremists have been taking over the political parties and nobody has said or done anything. If you claim otherwise, perhaps you can inform me with citations It doesn't matter if you think they don't represent your views. The extremists are the ones in media constantly, they're the ones in the public eye. They're representing Christianity to the public at large. That is the important point
        madspindel 4y ago
        There is no thing as Christian leaders. God is one. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2023&version=NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2023&ve...
        vkou 4y ago
        We're dealing with earthly matters, here, not heavenly ones. God may be in charge in the metaphysical sense, but particular individuals are in charge in the physical sense. Heads of churches, pastors, the pope, directors of Christian schools, all sound to me like Christian leaders. They all have an incredible amount of influence over the laymen. Many of them have been, and continue to be actively involved in bringing us to the current state of affairs. Many others are deafeningly silent on the matter. Some of that silence is principled (in the apolitical sense), but much of it is also opportunistic.
    - beebeepka 4y ago
      Preacher, some of us have tried reading the fascist piece of fiction known as the old testament. There's is no christianity brand that is not compromised exclusively of hypocrites. You follow a book that literally tells us certain people should rule us all.
      - acdha 4y ago
        I’m an atheist but this argument is weak: Christianity explicitly breaks with the Old Testament and Christians of the non-fascist persuasion would non-unreasonably say that the problem is the people who are trying to make laws based on their religion (which Jesus explicitly told his followers not to do) and especially based on the superseded Israelite law.
mortenlwk 4y ago
Yeah the Shahs rule was a paradise for regular people...
- eternalban 4y ago
  Let me guess: you've never stepped foot in Iran in your life "..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4M_EJzjItk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4M_EJzjItk
  - sleepyhead 4y ago
    Let me guess you don't know how things were under the Shah. While the revolution obviously resulted in a much worse situation, the Shah was a dictator. https://historyofyesterday.com/the-shah-of-iran-was-not-a-saint-f8d78814f86 https://historyofyesterday.com/the-shah-of-iran-was-not-a-sa...
    - DSingularity 4y ago
      It doesn’t take much scrutinization to understand the underlying motivations of those who speak nostalgically of the rule of pro-western dictatorships. They come from families which used to profit from the theft of the colonized lands and were forced to flee (with whatever they managed to steal) once said lands were liberated. The westener who defends such rule are racists unable to grant the oriental people the right to live and organize in a manner of their choosing. It is a “the-white man’s burden” and into the “heart of darkness” brand of racism which justifies itself by painting the East as backwards. But why is the East backwards? Is it because the East does not buy up the hedonistic materialism that the West has always been peddling as “liberalism” and instead prefers its own culture? So ironic that the first intervention to claim a “public place for women” is one which paints the destruction of brothels negatively as a consequence of the religious gaining too much power. Is there any doubt that those who are claiming to be “enlightened” truly prefer a world where people in general — and women especially —remain objects of sexual desire which are used to herd people through endless cycles of aesthetically-driven consumerism?
webmobdev 4y ago
Kind of true. But the Shah was no champion of anybody's right: > ... Police reports from the Muzaffarī period (1896–1907) show that the most common punishment for women caught selling sex was a practice known as nafie-balad. This was a form of forceful banishment or eviction from the city targeted at sinful, criminal and undesirable subjects and those who defy social and moral conventions of the society ... Public discontent came to a head at the end of the 1910s with the first series of petitions in 1919 calling for sex workers to be banished from Tehran. > The political figure and writer Hassan Ezam-Qodsi notes that sex workers from Qajariyah alley in Tehran were moved to this new neighbourhood in order to avoid sexual assaults on "respectable" women in the city ... One day, all the women suspected of selling sex were gathered and moved by military trucks to a nearby caravanserai outside of Tehran’s wall: “the wayward women were all thrown in there like sheep... later, houses were built and a neighbourhood took shape which was named Shahrinaw”. > The district offered its services as usual until the 1940s when public dissatisfaction surged again ... In this period, the practice of nafie-balad was again deployed as a tool to address the public concern over the rapid spread of sexually transmitted diseases ... the result of an STD test undertaken by Pasteur Institute of Tehran in 1929 showed that 43 per cent of the 3,498 participants were tested positive ... Eventually, in 1953 the municipality bowed to public pressure and ordered the erection of a two-and-a-half-metre tall brick wall around Shahrinaw, restricting entry to a rusty metal gate on the southern edge of the neighbourhood. While the gate was open to men seeking illicit pleasure, women were allowed neither in nor out.
barry-cotter 4y ago
Democracy pretty reliably leads to persecution of religious minorities. I’m not aware of any exceptions in the Muslim world but the pattern held in early modern Europe too. Greater popular involvement in government meant the ruling class couldn’t protect useful but unpopular minorities. Thus everyone who isn’t Sunni supporting Assad in Syria. They know that the good outcome of the US winning is getting out alive. Or see the treatment of the Rohingya in Burma or Tamils in Sri Lanka. Absent a commitment to liberalism that requires generations of propaganda work national self-determination is bad news for religious or ethnic minorities.
- LadyCailin 4y ago
  Please point to a democratic country where people are prohibited from praying five times a day, or are otherwise prohibited from having private religious beliefs? (Religious practices that harm others, or force others to participate, such as ones that require non-consensual subjugation of women don't count.)
  - carbadtraingood 4y ago
    I know in the states, at least, pausing your job to pray could easily get you fired. Is it against the law of the land to fire someone for their religious beliefs? Probably. Do shitty workplaces do it anyways? Almost certainly. If they even hire you in the first place. Have to fast during Ramadan? Job performance suffers because you aren't eating? Companies will absolutely go out of their way to make you miserable. You might not be banned from practicing, but you better believe you aren't really protected either.

Consequence of religion mixing with government leading to polarization and loss of respect for diversity.

by qwerki 4y ago

Consequence of religion mixing with government leading to polarization and loss of respect for diversity.

curiousgal 4y ago

Sounds oddly familiar sadly.

feet 4y ago
- dsomers 4y ago
  They call them y’all qaeda for a reason.
- gboone 4y ago
  If it were truly Christianity it could not be forced. I would propose you are referring to something more accurately described as politically selfish dogmatism made possible by the current state of the culture's biblical illiteracy mixed with people's general need to resolve their identity crisis. I'm an American Christ-follower with a degree in biblical theology. In my view, there is a "brand of Christianity" that has nothing to do with following Christ. It's borrowed the name but not much else.
  - madspindel 4y ago
    Amen. Reminded me about the Regensburg lecture: > The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death..."
  - feet 4y ago
    Well the people who are extremist are representing your views and none of these 'real' Christians seem to be speaking out against them It's only reasonable to assume that due to inaction, the ideas are supported
    - gboone 4y ago
      You are missing the point that they are not. It is more reasonable to assume that one has heard what one has listened to.
      - feet 4y ago
        Yes, I must have missed all the Christian leaders coming out against the extremists in the media and in online communities I can't hear what isn't there. The extremists have been taking over the political parties and nobody has said or done anything. If you claim otherwise, perhaps you can inform me with citations It doesn't matter if you think they don't represent your views. The extremists are the ones in media constantly, they're the ones in the public eye. They're representing Christianity to the public at large. That is the important point
        madspindel 4y ago
        There is no thing as Christian leaders. God is one. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2023&version=NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2023&ve...
        vkou 4y ago
        We're dealing with earthly matters, here, not heavenly ones. God may be in charge in the metaphysical sense, but particular individuals are in charge in the physical sense. Heads of churches, pastors, the pope, directors of Christian schools, all sound to me like Christian leaders. They all have an incredible amount of influence over the laymen. Many of them have been, and continue to be actively involved in bringing us to the current state of affairs. Many others are deafeningly silent on the matter. Some of that silence is principled (in the apolitical sense), but much of it is also opportunistic.
  - beebeepka 4y ago
    Preacher, some of us have tried reading the fascist piece of fiction known as the old testament. There's is no christianity brand that is not compromised exclusively of hypocrites. You follow a book that literally tells us certain people should rule us all.
    - acdha 4y ago
      I’m an atheist but this argument is weak: Christianity explicitly breaks with the Old Testament and Christians of the non-fascist persuasion would non-unreasonably say that the problem is the people who are trying to make laws based on their religion (which Jesus explicitly told his followers not to do) and especially based on the superseded Israelite law.

mortenlwk 4y ago

Yeah the Shahs rule was a paradise for regular people...

eternalban 4y ago
Let me guess: you've never stepped foot in Iran in your life "..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4M_EJzjItk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4M_EJzjItk
- sleepyhead 4y ago
  Let me guess you don't know how things were under the Shah. While the revolution obviously resulted in a much worse situation, the Shah was a dictator. https://historyofyesterday.com/the-shah-of-iran-was-not-a-saint-f8d78814f86 https://historyofyesterday.com/the-shah-of-iran-was-not-a-sa...
  - DSingularity 4y ago
    It doesn’t take much scrutinization to understand the underlying motivations of those who speak nostalgically of the rule of pro-western dictatorships. They come from families which used to profit from the theft of the colonized lands and were forced to flee (with whatever they managed to steal) once said lands were liberated. The westener who defends such rule are racists unable to grant the oriental people the right to live and organize in a manner of their choosing. It is a “the-white man’s burden” and into the “heart of darkness” brand of racism which justifies itself by painting the East as backwards. But why is the East backwards? Is it because the East does not buy up the hedonistic materialism that the West has always been peddling as “liberalism” and instead prefers its own culture? So ironic that the first intervention to claim a “public place for women” is one which paints the destruction of brothels negatively as a consequence of the religious gaining too much power. Is there any doubt that those who are claiming to be “enlightened” truly prefer a world where people in general — and women especially —remain objects of sexual desire which are used to herd people through endless cycles of aesthetically-driven consumerism?

webmobdev 4y ago

Kind of true. But the Shah was no champion of anybody's right: > ... Police reports from the Muzaffarī period (1896–1907) show that the most common punishment for women caught selling sex was a practice known as nafie-balad. This was a form of forceful banishment or eviction from the city targeted at sinful, criminal and undesirable subjects and those who defy social and moral conventions of the society ... Public discontent came to a head at the end of the 1910s with the first series of petitions in 1919 calling for sex workers to be banished from Tehran. > The political figure and writer Hassan Ezam-Qodsi notes that sex workers from Qajariyah alley in Tehran were moved to this new neighbourhood in order to avoid sexual assaults on "respectable" women in the city ... One day, all the women suspected of selling sex were gathered and moved by military trucks to a nearby caravanserai outside of Tehran’s wall: “the wayward women were all thrown in there like sheep... later, houses were built and a neighbourhood took shape which was named Shahrinaw”. > The district offered its services as usual until the 1940s when public dissatisfaction surged again ... In this period, the practice of nafie-balad was again deployed as a tool to address the public concern over the rapid spread of sexually transmitted diseases ... the result of an STD test undertaken by Pasteur Institute of Tehran in 1929 showed that 43 per cent of the 3,498 participants were tested positive ... Eventually, in 1953 the municipality bowed to public pressure and ordered the erection of a two-and-a-half-metre tall brick wall around Shahrinaw, restricting entry to a rusty metal gate on the southern edge of the neighbourhood. While the gate was open to men seeking illicit pleasure, women were allowed neither in nor out.

barry-cotter 4y ago

Democracy pretty reliably leads to persecution of religious minorities. I’m not aware of any exceptions in the Muslim world but the pattern held in early modern Europe too. Greater popular involvement in government meant the ruling class couldn’t protect useful but unpopular minorities. Thus everyone who isn’t Sunni supporting Assad in Syria. They know that the good outcome of the US winning is getting out alive. Or see the treatment of the Rohingya in Burma or Tamils in Sri Lanka. Absent a commitment to liberalism that requires generations of propaganda work national self-determination is bad news for religious or ethnic minorities.

LadyCailin 4y ago
Please point to a democratic country where people are prohibited from praying five times a day, or are otherwise prohibited from having private religious beliefs? (Religious practices that harm others, or force others to participate, such as ones that require non-consensual subjugation of women don't count.)
- carbadtraingood 4y ago
  I know in the states, at least, pausing your job to pray could easily get you fired. Is it against the law of the land to fire someone for their religious beliefs? Probably. Do shitty workplaces do it anyways? Almost certainly. If they even hire you in the first place. Have to fast during Ramadan? Job performance suffers because you aren't eating? Companies will absolutely go out of their way to make you miserable. You might not be banned from practicing, but you better believe you aren't really protected either.