Faith comes from doctrine. People don't become religious without indoctrination. Everyone is born atheist until they're taught religion.
doubt.jpg
The Satanic Temple.
How do people come to faith without religious texts or proselytization? People don't independently come to believe that Jesus died on the cross for their sins.
To some adherents, i.g. fundamentalists. And to many others it's not. Hence, it's not comparable to political ideologies. There are many ideologies within Islam and people that are related to Islam. Treating Islam as an ideology is indulging in a gross generalization, one that racists always do.
It is though. People have access to religious texts because of proselytizing. The texts themselves are indoctrination. Societies generally treat atheists like second class citizens and they treat religion as though it's the default, when that's obviously not true. People don't scour the earth for a religion that they think is correct, they usually adopt the local religion. There's a lot of pressure and indoctrination at work.
And where did I say or insinuate there hadn't? She was directly responding to a Muslim calling her a dirty lesbian.
come on, you know what I mean... what happens to this girl is terrible, and I don't think for a second she deserved it because of what she said. But shit like that has been happening for a while, with victims being ignored and/or blamed, by the very people who try to paint themselves as free speech heroes this time.
When i first saw this picture i thought it was Matt O'Dowd from PBS Space time
What? Of course it is. All religions are.
I've explicitely mentionned other religions multiple times accross multiple posts. I put the picture specifically to show that it wasn't just aimed at Islam but towards ideologies as a whole. Miss me with the thinly veiled accusation of islamophobia.
Perhaps, but I think the problem lies more with religious identity being too deeply ingrained into certain people than the criticism of religion. No one should ever be attached to an ideology to the point that a criticism of it feels like a personal attack to the person who believe in said ideology IMO.
As I've explained before, I think that people who are discriminating against people who "look like they could be Muslim" are both racist and islamophobe, and they should be called out as such.
Problems with Islam go much farther than "some people on social media said homophobic things to her". Some people use Islam as tool of oppression against women, LBGT+, atheists, theists of other religions, etc... all around the world. Limiting it to what was said to social media feels a bit myopic to me. Even someone who hasn't been victim of harassment from religious zealots can criticize a religion if some aspects of it are objectionable.
Ugh this is a pointless semantic discussion. The islamophobes paint Islam as a political ideology where single thought prevails, which is exactly what fundamentalists want. When people talk of the religion and the culture in such terms, they are doing exactly that. When people say it's justified to say Islam, with its close to two billion people that identify with it in some degree, can be said to be XYZ and attacked like any political ideology, they are doing exactly that. In a world where Islam is so intertwined with ethnicity, cultural identity, and race, these arguments only come across as arguments of bad faith. These arguments can be used when engaging in the debate within Islam, the culture, and the related societies, but using them from outside to attack two billion people who face discrimination is simply racist.
Religions literally teach that their teachings aren't to be questioned. That someone can reform doesn't prove anything, especially not a lack of pressure or proselytizing.
and our acceptance of them further prove my point.
I'm not using a personal definition of religion. People cherry-picking an ideology doesn't make that ideology not inherently flawed. You're either arguing the religious version of "not all men" or you're unaware of the definition of religion.
This kind of stuff always baffles me.
Choosing not to believe the hateful parts of any religion does not rehabilitate that religion. It's not out of line to say X religion sucks because a core tenet is tied to homophobia, patriarchy, or the like. The comment stands on its own merit even if people choose to ignore the nasty bits.
"Different translations" and "interpretations" will only get you so far from the abhorrent shit in these texts. Somehow I doubt that homophobia would be nearly as rampant these days without these "holy" books being used to justify it. If you can chalk all of this cherry picking up to "changing priorities" and "expression" then more power to you I guess. I see it more as an unwillingness to accept a pretty obvious truth.
