Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

No

Only Judeism

Only Islam

Yes to both Judeism and Islam

[Neonivek]

Then don't comment on it, because I can't see any "serious" issues with it and if you're not willing to share what issues you see, it's a non-post. An anti-post.

At best, the choice of symbols they used, some of them I could see someone takin' issue with, but other than that?

I figured it was obvious and that people would step up.

Because you know... prejudice against everyone who holds an idea based off of preconceived notions and may or may not be true... ISN'T PREJUDICE BECAUSE YOU ARE PREJUDICE AGAINST AN IDEA!

The picture is... well... wrong. I know what it wants to say, that criticizing an idea isn't the same as criticizing the people who share that idea. Yet it doesn't say that because ISLAMIPHOBIA isn't isolated to the idea. NO one is "Phobic" to ideas.

[Descan]

You mean that governmental subpoena that was issued by contract lawyers before the government lawyers could take a look at it? Or the sub-poena that the government said "Yeah, this went over the bounds, dudes we got to write it went over-board, we're workin' on it." OR the sub-poena that was about any "speech, sermon, or public speaking" related to the Equal Rights Ordinance, homosexuality, or related, to make sure the pastors were providing information that was factually correct in regards to getting signatures on petitions to block the Ordinance, considering that recently there were petitions thrown out because of improper procedure, and the city was being sued for wrongfully throwing out the signatures, so the city wants information on what exactly the pastors told their congregations (if anything) about getting those signatures for the case?

Yeah. Not quite what you've been told happened.

Edit: Neo, you missed the point, I don't care about the islamophobia bit at the end and it wasn't relevant. So there weren't any "serious issues" with the image, considering the context :v At any rate, it wasn't saying "Islamophobia doesn't exist," it was saying "Criticising an idea/Islam is not 'islamophobia'" Like if someone says "Obamacare isn't socialism!" they aren't saying Socialism doesn't exist, they're saying you mis-categorized.

Editedit: Hm. Maybe I was wrong, re-reading the blurb, though I'm leaning towards it just being poorly written in regards to actually-racist Islamophobes who think all Muslims are brown people who live in huts in the desert and hate our Freedums and all that... At any rate, my point about it being irrelevant in-context still stands :v

[Neonivek]

It was saying Islamiphobia is perfectly acceptable. because that is prejudice against an idea... while fundamentally misunderstanding what it is.

"I'm leaning towards it just being poorly written "

Yeah I agree. That is why I said I know what it is trying to say.

[Frumple]

And I feel a wave of persecution is about to hit the US

This is hilariously unlikely. I realize that a lot of the rhetoric coming out of some sources say it's coming, but there is a noted supermajority of christian adherents in the US -- and they're overrepresented in political positions. The chances of actual persecution, especially anything systemic or wide spread, is so close to zero it might as well be nonexistent. It'll take at least two or three more generations before something like that becomes even the faintest of possibilities.

That doesn't necessarily mean that state-side churches might not be reigned in a bit, but they've been kinda' rampant for a while and could probably stand it. Treatment coming more in line with everyone else definitely isn't persecution.

[Descan]

Read my edits. :v

[TheDarkStar]

That's... probably a pricklier topic than it should be, grak. A fair number of the religious institutions in the US have a very different interpretation of "persecution" than... well, what's probably sane. I wish there was a nicer way of putting that, but I can't really think of one

And the public dialectic such groups put out regarding the subject is kinda' toxic. We're talking cries of persecution for stuff like having to pay equitable taxes or follow constitutional law, iirc.

And unsurprised works just fine, I think.

It's been a while since there was coordinated persecution of a Christian religion here in the US, yes. 125 years or so?

[Neonivek]

Read my edits. :v

Yeah I got to them.

Yeah The picture is more badly written then wrong. If I just take the intent of the picture that then the literal meaning of its words it is fine.

And I agree there is nothing above scrutiny and just because you criticize or dislike an idea it doesn't make you a bad person or one deserving of scorn.

This idea doesn't always hold up in practice, but it is a sentiment I can get behind.

The only issue, I guess, is that people strongly believe in this sort of "You need these characteristics to take part in this discussion"... But that is another topic.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

I'm simply bothered by the fact that they are doing that to a church
Even if they are teaching incorrectly they have the right to do so
I'm not supporting the wrongful teachings or anything
Just that they have the right to say whatever they want
Ya know right to free speech
Seperation of church and state
Right to have whatever religion you want
Yada yada yada


Edit: I suppose the city wanting to make sure they got the correct signatures and such isn't too bad
Sorry for the above rant

And I feel a wave of persecution is about to hit the US

This is hilariously unlikely. I realize that a lot of the rhetoric coming out of some sources say it's coming, but there is a noted supermajority of christian adherents in the US -- and they're overrepresented in political positions. The chances of actual persecution, especially anything systemic or wide spread, is so close to zero it might as well be nonexistent. It'll take at least two or three more generations before something like that becomes even the faintest of possibilities.

That doesn't necessarily mean that state-side churches might not be reigned in a bit, but they've been kinda' rampant for a while and could probably stand it. Treatment coming more in line with everyone else definitely isn't persecution.

While this may be true, it's not an even spread
So some states may have a bit more leeway for being able to get away with bit by bit



((So many ninjas!))

[Neonivek]

Well Cryxis, in a way it is ironic.

People want a strong separation between Church and State... but they never thought that the whole idea of a Nanny state was stronger then the Church's influence.

But that is because people want their way of life to be enforced upon people by the state... which is quite normal.

It is hard enough now adays to even talk about tolerance because the rhetoric has started to become "Aren't we being too tolerant?"

[Descan]

Yeah, I don't think the intent was ever to say "You cannot say that," but instead to ask "So... what exactly DID you say?" in a legal context.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Yeah, I don't think the intent was ever to say "You cannot say that," but instead to ask "So... what exactly DID you say?" in a legal context.

Ya that makes a bit more sense

[Frumple]

I'm simply bothered by the fact that they are doing that to a church
Even if they are teaching incorrectly they have the right to do so
I'm not supporting the wrongful teachings or anything
Just that they have the right to say whatever they want
Ya know right to free speech

... free speech is not, actually, the right to say whatever you want. Being behind a pulpit doesn't actually protect you from what acts of speech violate the law. You cannot slander, certain forms of hate speech are, indeed, prosecutable, even if given during a sermon, etc., etc. If a preacher said to their congregation, "Get up, get your guns, and go kill muslims", they could readily get thrown in jail for it. Last I checked, anyway. A mitre isn't a blank check to break the law, et al.

As to the leeway, not really. Insofar as I'm aware, every single state in the union has an -- at the least -- majority of professed christian adherents. Church attendance actually gets pretty low in some places (but still, y'know, ~a fifth of the population at the lowest), but that's about the furthest it gets. As I noted, the chances of actual persecution, especially systematic or wide spread persecution, of christian adherents are vanishingly small. I'd say it would take at least another 60-80 years before that has much of a chance to change. At the absolute least, both my generation and the one succeeding it will have to die off, first.

As said, though, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if religious institutions stop getting away with so much bullshit over the next couple decades. Both their actual attempts to subvert law and political institutions, and the attempts of certain more politically inclined groups to use them for such, appears to be grating on the public a bit more than it used to.

[Orange Wizard]

It's not exactly free speech if (some) speech is prosecutable.

[Rolan7]

The persecution will continue.  And the religious right will continue to play the victim when called out on it.  And the American public will shrug and tacitly side with them...

[Gentlefish]

Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

Every government restricts speech to some degree. Common limitations on speech relate to: libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, hate speech, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, right to privacy, right to be forgotten, and campaign finance reform. Whether these limitations can be justified under the harm principle depends upon whether influencing a third party's opinions or actions adversely to the second party constitutes such harm or not.

The term "offense principle" is also used to expand the range of free speech limitations to prohibit forms of expression where they are considered offensive to society, special interest groups or individuals. For example, freedom of speech is limited in many jurisdictions to widely differing degrees by religious legal systems, religious offense or incitement to ethnic or racial hatred laws.