#religious-tolerance

[thepersonalwords]

I am the thread of unification that goes through humans of all religions, cultures and ideologies while reinforcing their innate sense of one humanity.

Abhijit Naskar, I Am The Thread: My Mission

[moonsdancer]

jayce is right tbh

Unpopular opinion but given that Viktor's 'glorious evolution' turned everyone he 'healed' into mind-whammed zombies bonded to him through a corrupted cult-like symbiosis to the point where most of them seem to have become extensions of his will (which is why they all shut down when he gets shot, like are they even alive or anything anymore?) -- I am not sure why we should see his version of the 'dream' in a purely positive light.

We don't know what Jayce saw in whatever future or alternate dimension he was in. But I DO NOT judge him harshly at all for trying to kill Viktor in his effort to defend tomorrow.

That commune was frankly creepy and felt like a twisted perversion of what Ekko and the firelights managed to create all on their own without messing up the arcane to do it.

[tangledinink]

OK well now you know I need some Donnie absolutely nerding out and being adorable about Botany. You can't do this to me. How dare

this is his snake plant, it's his favorite~

[blueskittlesart]

Religion is just mind control no matter how you try to fucking frame it. All it ever has been, all it ever will be. If you need fucking religion to know what is good or evil. Then you are fucked in the head and shouldn't be near kids, you stupid fuck.

genuinely are you fucking insane

[theshoesofatiredman]

The problem with so much religious fundamentalism is that it often takes away people's autonomy through its intolerance to other ways of life. Sure it's fine if two people can freely choose celibacy in their dating life, but how many fundamentalists really end up having the autonomy necessary to make that choice? When it's between celibacy and rejection from your entire community, when it's between upholding religious dogma and feeling the love of your family, when it's between parroting talking points you don't believe in and losing your livelihood from your job at the church... it can feel like the choice is being made for you.

Fundamentalist ideas can contribute to larger cultures of shame as well. Christian fundamentalist sex negativity contribute to a larger culture of sexual shame, which does material harm to people. It's not just that John and Sarah choosing what they want to do with their own bodies inside their marriage, they're also going to be saying that anybody who does sex differently (gayer, kinkier, less procreative, with more people, etc) than they do is immoral.

If tolerance is a social contract, then we can't afford to be tolerant of those who are in breach. If you aren't willing to enforce it, then the contract may as well not exist.

[themysticgeek]

I've seen the reactions to the Paris 2024 Olympics opening ceremony. If you're feeling emotionally activated or think, "OMG, they just mocked The Last Supper," take a moment to breathe, ground, and allow those feelings to move through you.

When we perceive things that we hold dear to our sense of self as being challenged, it can lead to a minor inner crisis. So, I get the visceral response.

For those of us raised in the United States, Christianity is so baked into our society that we sometimes see it as the "default" for our culture - even when we're supposed to be a melting pot/salad bowl of people who are free to follow whatever religion they want (or no religion, even!)

For your information, Dionysus is the god of wine and celebration. His mythos involve things like his body being consumed, death, and rebirth - elements that we see in other religions (including Christianity)

The strong response toward the Olympic opening ceremony shows more about the offended than the thing that caused the offense. Some Christians viewed an artistic performance that used motifs from other religions and cultures through the lens of their own worldview rather than trying to understand the overall context.

This is why a nation that espouses freedom of religion needs to be open to education about a multitude of religions, not just Christianity.

[bowtiepastabitch]

Biting off a bit more than I can chew today. I doubt I’ll be able to read them all, but checking them out is good for the library and it’s good for me. Plus I’m being optimistic, maybe something here can fix the burnout. (Neil Gaiman please save me) If not, I shall simply absorb the book magic via the osmosis of keeping them on my bedside table for the next two weeks. Library books are cool like that.

[hussyknee]

I accidentally deleted this ask yesterday but fortunately had a screenshot. Ngl I'm kind of ??? about it because...why would you single out Hinduism to pick the most fundamentalist, cultural and political aspect of it, that's not even practised in most the Hindu minorities outside of India? Nearly every community in India has a caste system regardless of religion. Within Hinduism there's no just one caste system either. Eelam Tamil Hindus have a caste system, but it's not as violent as India's (although of course still violent and oppressive). Sinhalese have a caste system too, and the ones still invested in it would swear blind this was related to Buddhism somehow, a doctrine that preaches against inequality of any kind. Caste systems are literally haram in Islam and yet some Muslim communities managed to rationalize creating one because they wanted to assimilate into the worst of us I guess.

I know fuck all about Hinduism to tell you the truth, but my sister is a convert and devotee of Durga Matha. I asked her about it and she sent me this:

There are as many variants of Hinduism as there are varieties of grass. The only thing they have in common is the Vedas which is a bunch of hymns and stuff. It doesn't really go into detail about caste.

The caste system comes from a book called Manu Smriti. Some accept it as a Hindu text, some don't. Hinduism isn't even a religion actually. It's a bunch of similar belief systems that the Britishers lumped in together for ease of classification. Within Hinduism there are many sects- Saivism, Shaktism, Vaishnavism, etc. So to define Hinduism as some sort of oppressive religion doesn't make sense because it isn't a religion as Westerners define it. Anyway, truth is everyone cherry picks the parts of religion that suits them and discards the rest. Some think that's being dishonest. I think that's just common sense.

This makes sense to me. It's very colonial to monolithize belief systems that evolved from the disparate religious texts and syncretic practices of dozens of kingdoms and dynasties over 4000 years, just because it shares the unique character of belonging to the Indian subcontinent. (Which is precisely why its propagated by Hindutva nutcases. They're imperialist colonizers permanently snorting Indian manifest destiny crack.)

Bestie. Friendo. My guy (gender neutral). Ideology doesn't shape society. People wrap ideology around what they already want to believe and do. This is how you get Zionists (both Christian and Jewish), Wahabi/Salafi Muslims, Hindutvas and... whatever we're supposed to call this current iteration of Theravadin Buddhism that is also characterized by ethnosupremacy and genocide. Religion takes the character of the individuals and ideologues that choose to follow it. There are no exceptions.

To reiterate the point that inspired this ask: Some LGBT folks's queerness is inextricable from their religious identity. Stigmatising and ostracizing religion in queer spaces is alienating, racist and violent. Just like no one should force religion on you, no one should force secularism on people either. There is enough air for us all to breathe free.

[minetteskvareninova]

Me: Sure, I'll watch the preview of The Serpent Queen on YouTube, I know that show isn't very good, but it might be fun to- Catherine de' Medici in said clip: *tells cardinal de Guise that she wants to make France a SECULAT STATE* Me:

[thepeopleinpower]

Capitalism and colonialism took community away from us and I want it back. I’ve heard about it from my grandparents and in books and articles online. All throughout history and still today in some parts of the world. People looking out for each other. Regularly. Relentlessly. Neighbors watching each others children, having enough food to share and actually sharing it, being invested in each others lives because everyone has different strengths.

Today community has been strategically painted as a weakness and something to be skeptical of because it is a threat to the very foundations of capitalism. And that’s a real fucking shame because in reality, growing up with community and still having that through adulthood would probably make most people generally happier and less perpetually tired and stressed. It is renewable resilient versatile adaptable self-sustaining and kind of the Ultimate Resource.

[ninoochat]

''how dare you do this to me when my father dies'' ah yes I planned to get sick and miserable just to ruin your grief, what a cunt

[sixpossumsinaclownsuit]

Remember kiddos, polygamy and polyamory was only demonized for four core reasons:

Tw: homophobia, sexism, religious commentary, political commentary, oppression

1.) America wanted more taxes

Part of the legal institutionalization of marriage is that there is tax benefits for the individual parties when they get married, and financial ties/power is attorney between married people. It becomes messy when these ties extend to multiple people/marriages and the I*RS wants they tax money, and America would rather just make an entire way of life illegal than make laws and systems that accommodate people. See point #4 for more on that

2.) Puritan culture (aka thinly veiled sexism)

Puritan culture relies heavily on systems of control that villainize sex and women (that's a whole other conversation but I won't digress), and lots of marriages/polygamous marriages having sex with each other is obviously bad bad bad!! Hard to control!! Save the defenseless women from their pimp husbands! Orgies, the devil's work! And...

3.) Homophobia

Good god, women being in marriages together! Married to a man, but what if these women end up by being married to each other by extension! And having sex with each other! And what if a woman marries more than one man! Would these men become inferior to their wives? Would one of these husbands be less dominant than another? Would the men function in these complex marriages like a woman?! Disgusting! That's gay (derogatory!) Would these husbands be having sex with each other? But that's gay and gay is bad! Sex is bad! God, purge these sinners of their Sodomy!

(Surprise surprise, homophobia has very little to do with actual gay people and has everything to do with puritan culture, control, sexism and the demonization of sex, and points two and three are actually the same thing)

4.) Christian nationalism

Polygamy and nonmonogamy is normalized and integrated with several non-Christian and alternative Christian cultures going back thousands of years, like Islam, Mormonism, feudal Japanese/samurai cultures, Hinduism, several Native American cultures, etc... even in the Bible in Judeo-Christian history and biblical era cultures nonmonogamy was normalized. Banning nonmonogamy in America is banning the right to engage in non-christian religious rite and practice. It's only something criminal to post-puritan Christians and those beliefs becoming law, regardless of other religious beliefs and practices also existing in America, is the unseparation of church and state.

So before you tell a polyamorous person "oh that's cheating with permission" or "I could NEVER do that," or "I love my partner too much to do that/cheat like that," remember that these are the institutions and the propaganda you're upholding with your judgement. Supporting/ being kind about polyamory is religious tolerance, and biting your thumb at the I*RS.

Tl:dr, the dissolution of separating of church and state, puritan culture and the sexism/homophobia associated with puritan culture is why nonmonogamy is demonized and why polygamy is illegal in America.

Tone indication/post intention: satirical and exaggerated tones criticizing longstanding institutions of oppression with the intent to explain why judging, hating or criticizing nonmonogamous practices is oppressive and a result of propaganda. This post is not intended to persuade people who practice monogamy to practice nonmonogamy instead or to demonize monogamy. It is intended to advocate for breaking the stigma around nonmonogamy.

[bellamygate]

the thing that gets me abt religious ppl is they'll demand u respect their religion & that religion hating your existence but they won't respect ur right to be like yea my belief says god isn't real so thats a dumb reason for hating other people or ye ok then ur god is homophobic thats kinda shitty they go APESHIT like. it goes both ways? like they can say i hate gay ppl bc of my religion but when a gay person says well i dont respect that religion bc it doesnt respect me its ww3. I'm not walking on eggshells for people who are too quick to condemn me to hell

[gxlden-angels]

Shoutout to my therapist for now ending sessions with "We out here sinning! We out here suffering!" as a weirdly hopeful affirmation for me

[anarchonist]

I really need liberals and other non-violence advocates to understand the main problem with their position on non-violence: proclaiming that you're never going to resort to violence is an invitation for violent people to escalate their violence against you or the people you claim to defend.

Moralizing people for not being 100 % openly and proudly anti-violence is not only a tone-deaf, but an actively dangerous thing to do. A person might in their heart of hearts be fully against violence of any kind, but by trying to get them to openly assume a hard pacifist stance in order to claim some intangible moral high ground, you are putting them in a dangerous position: now fascists and bullies will assume that the person is an easy target.

It's a tough pill to swallow for the "marketplace of ideas" crowd, but people don't always treat you the same way you treat them. You assume that if you openly declare your intention to not resort to violence under any circumstances, your opponent will automatically respect that - or if they don't, there will be some kind of consequence from above. From authorities, from the public, hell, from God himself. But that isn't a given. What you're doing is throwing yourself at the opponent's mercy and telling them to do whatever they like. You're assuming a lot about their humanity, which might not even exist.

And that's what this is about. When I keep saying that violence is the only language fascists and bullies understand, it isn't out of some deep immoral desire to hurt people and just trying to find "acceptable targets". It's not even always about the violence against fascists itself. It's about keeping that threat looming, keeping the people who would like nothing more than to hurt you guessing: "If I start escalating violence against this person, will they fight back? Perhaps I shouldn't risk it, I could get hurt. And violence is only fun when it's one-sided in my favor."

Violence is ugly. Violence is brutal. Violence causes damage that may never heal. You maybe shouldn't find violence in itself fun - if you do, then you might be close to the kind of person who's just looking for an acceptable target (like fascists are) - but violence is sometimes necessary. And since fascists, like all bullies, are cowards, even the slightest chance that they might get hurt themselves might deter them, might keep them from more violence.

So no, proclamations of non-violence do not help in deescalating violence, they do the opposite. They are an incredibly dangerous thing to do when confronted with violent fascists who would like nothing better than having a non-resistant punching bag. You do not even always have to openly assume a pro-violence stance, sometimes simply keeping the bully in the dark about whether or not you're going to fight back might make them hesitate.

[hussyknee]

sad how these "freedom for..." posts never include xinjiang because people aren't willing to take a stand against islam the way they are christianity. uygurs are facing genocide on two fronts - from the ccp and from islamists. there's only one uygur temple still standing - all the others have been demolished by muslim extremists. abrahamic religions colonising the world and brutally oppressing native religions and cultures is a tale as old as time, but people are stuck in the weird mindset that abrahamic religions are deserving of respect.

Idk what temples you're talking about, but "Uyghurs are actually a multi-faith society that was forcibly converted to Islam" is CCP propaganda to lie about the fact that they're genociding the Uyghurs for being Turkic Muslims and destroying their mosques and shrines.

I'm just going to lay aside the world-ending irony of accusing "Islamists" (whatever the fuck that is) of colonizing and forcibly converting a people...who live on top of China. I mean I tried to figure out which stage of Chinese history you're trying to erase to get here, but the answer can only be "all of it". China apparently both exists and doesn't exist for you. But Schroedinger's geo-politics or not, I can't let the "Abrahamic religions" bit stand because this horseshit is gaining way too much traction in South Asia.

Judaism, the world's oldest religion, being an upstart colonizing force is a frankly wild thing to say. I even tried to find mention of any colonization by Jews before Palestine and only found a couple of dynasties and vassal states under Ancient Rome. If you're talking about the Khazars in the sixth century, the rulers converted to Judaism voluntarily and there's no evidence it was either imposed or predominant among the rest of the population. Otoh, Jews have been repeatedly expelled, colonized and subjugated by Christians and Muslims (which is why most of their holidays are just "Yay We Didn't All Die"), and Muslims have suffered under Christian colonization for the last two hundred years along with the rest of us, and a lot longer in Europe. Islamic Empires rarely forced conversions (and in fact didn't like having too many Muslim subjects because non-Muslims were made to pay them taxes) and because of that were generally more tolerant than Christian ones, especially of Jews and Christians whom they considered "People of the Book". I mean persecution and ethnic cleansings did happen, depending on who was in charge (the Almohad Empire was particularly awful, which maybe explains the Catholic violence of Spain and Portugal), but in general, mass conversion wasn't the point of colonization. Among the Turkic peoples especially it was trade that spread Islam, not war or colonization, unlike shit-ass Portuguese traders who said, "We come in search of Christians and spices" and proceeded to kill and colonize everyone and torture them into converting. No fucking way you're lumping all of them in one "Abrahamic" colonial basket.

And the Christian legacies that endure in colonized societies are still as legitimate and integral part of their cultural identities. Once something is absorbed into a culture, the way it's shaped and used is unique to that society. Culture is a living, growing thing, like tree roots. It absorbs, merges, winds itself around generational traumas and obstacles and evolves in new trajectories. Whether or not you approve of the contortions of its survival and whether it looks different at the tip than at the root, it's still the same tree. That's why all religions deserve respect. You can't extricate or pathologize them apart from the individuality of the billions of human beings they shape. And all human beings share the same capacity for violence. Ideology has always been a rationalization for the violence we already want to commit. What motivates violence is power, not ideology, which is why we say "history repeats itself"—the dynamics of power are universal and consistent throughout history.

All our civilizations and cultures are as shaped by violent contact as by peaceful ones; ascribing the violence and impact of colonization only to Christian and Islamic empires completely erases thousands of years of histories all over the world (you know, like Imperial China???) Religions don't grow out of the ground; they were always evolved and spread among peoples along the lines of trade, migration, war, annexation, assimilation and resistance. Considering the religious identities of some people (always minorities too—isn't that weird?) inferior or illegitimate because they were "external impositions", and advocating a "return" to a "pure and untouched" past that never existed is the rhetoric of ethnosupremacy, colonization and manifest destiny—in short the language of genocide. I should know, I hear this crap out of fundamentalist Hindus and Buddhists in South Asia all the time. That's why I'm protective of Muslims. Because they're vulnerable to pieces of racist shit like you.