You are not ready for this conversation, you don’t want a conversation at all. Just the opportunity to gloat over how good your own words sound to you.
Last July, the U.N. adopted a resolution condemning Quran burning, calling attacks on the Muslim holy book “religious hatred.” The same month the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution that deplores all acts of violence against holy books as a violation of international law.
Holy books shouldn’t be protected as some sort of sacred existence especially not globally. Religions should be scrutinised at all levels, putting any religious relic on a pedestal and enshrining protections that seem less focused on protecting followers of that religion and more on the idea of it is absurd. What’s next you can’t call scientology a cult because it hurts people’s feelings.
When a group of people considers a symbol to be special/beloved, it’s bad when someone else destroys that symbol in a performative way. Very often it comes from a place of hate, and it’s done to try and incite a reaction. This would include actions such as vandalizing pride flags, places of worship, places where a group tends to gather, etc.
We don’t need any more of any of that.
This is also different from having good faith discussions about the issues. Having discussions is actually productive, holding burning events does the opposite
Nope. Might apply for any other book, but not for one directly espousing the most barbaric rules, that a braindead but powerful minority screams for.
The tolerant must not tolerate the intolerant lest they be swallowed by them.
It helps if you look at tolerance as a social contract (I will tolerate you as long as you tolerate me) rather than as an unbendable principle (I will tolerate you even to the detriment of others)
Replying to the edit, I think you misunderstand what the UN call was for
It’s not saying that we should arbitrarily defend objects globally. It’s not saying that the artifacts or texts are above criticism or academic scrutiny.
It’s recommending that countries take measures to
prevent and prosecute acts and advocacy of religious hatred that constitute incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence
It’s saying that countries need to update their laws to address when someone does an action in order to incite discrimination, hostility, or violence.
It’s something you recognize when you see it, and it’s about the intent of the person doing the action.
The Quran is a symbol of hate and oppression for a lot of people (ex-muslims, some LGBTQ people). It’s also true of other religious books, for which I also support public denigration of all kind
Funny that you must specify in the West. Gay people are dying in many places because of religion. But since it doesn’t happen here (and even then it happens really), it’s all dandy.
And the Gay Pride flag is a symbol of hate and perversion for the regressive right, do you think their opinion is equally valid? Because they sure as fuck do.
I know you think that your snarky little quip is some kind of mic drop moment but take a second to realize that I’m not promoting the idea that the Gay Pride flag is a symbol of perversion. The opposite in fact. I fully support the LGBTQ movement in word, actions, and donations.
I’m pointing out that any symbol can be taken out of context and reinterpreted in a less than kind way to dilute the message of that symbol.
I’m trying to give you insight into the mindset of our most vocal opponents, but all of you fucking idiots can do is get snarky.
Any symbol can be taken out of context, yes. But in religious books, where it literally commands the murder of certain people, that’s pretty damn undeniably clear that it’s a bad thing.
There’s no required context to understand “if men have sex kill them both”, for example. It’s just bad.
When you and others like you say ‘religion should be scrutinized on all levels’, what you really mean is ‘lol look at those silly theist believing in words’.
Add comment