• TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)A
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    As someone of color, I wonder if she would agree with the KKK discriminating against her, as they also consider themselves “Christians” spreading hate against people over things they do not control.

    • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yeap, a lot of slavery in America was perpetuated and validated by religious beliefs. Plantation owners believed that black people were cursed by the mark of ham, and thus were entitled by an act of God to enslave people.

      • Dasus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Also, the Bible literally says: “but I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” 1 Timothy 2:12

        So according to Christian dogma, SHE wouldn’t be allowed to speak up against men, even if they are breaking some other rules, or try to teach the theatre world anything.

        But it’s a fair bet saying she’s never opened a bible in her life, seeing she can’t be bothered to even check out what the story is about when applying for roles.

        Edit I realised this might read quite neutral, so I’m adding a fuck monotheism here just to make my view on the matter clear

        • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          3 months ago

          Eh, fuck all religions, not just monotheism. Religions are the worst, the amount of gods doesn’t matter much. They’re abusive and a detriment to society and progress.

          • Dasus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            “Religion” is a every wide term though.

            Dogma makes religions bad, but not all religions have dogma. Also when does faith become religion?

            I get your point and I don’t mind saying fuck all religions, but historically, polytheistic societies were more tolerant and usually pretty progressive. Much less (if any) dogma.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_monotheism#Violence_in_monotheism

            The intolerance of narrow monotheism is written in letters of blood across the history of man from the time when first the tribes of Israel burst into the land of Canaan. The worshippers of the one jealous God are egged on to aggressive wars against people of alien [beliefs and cultures]. They invoke divine sanction for the cruelties inflicted on the conquered. The spirit of old Israel is inherited by Christianity and Islam, and it might not be unreasonable to suggest that it would have been better for Western civilization if Greece had moulded it on this question rather than Palestine.

            • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              get your point and I don’t mind saying fuck all religions, but historically, polytheistic societies were more tolerant and usually pretty progressive. Much less (if any) dogma.

              Idk, I think that’s a pretty hard claim to make. One that’s mainly dependent on the fact that the majority of written history happened after the advent of monotheism, especially in the west.

              If we examine the body of evidence of polytheistic cultures outside western influence, things get a bit more complicated. Especially considering that terms like progressive and tolerant are subjective concepts entrenched in the eurocentric cross-examination of cultures.

              In ancient Mesopotamia, people were more able to accept the concept of dualism and polytheism, however they were also much more likely to participate in the destruction of entire cultures to capture the idol of a rival god. How do you weigh that with the modern understanding of concepts like progressiveness or tolerance?

              • Dasus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                You’re literally making my point for me.

                In ancient Mesopotamia, people were more able to accept the concept of dualism and polytheism, however they were also much more likely to participate in the destruction of entire cultures to capture the idol of a rival god

                “RIVAL” god.

                a person or thing competing with another for the same objective or for superiority in the same field of activity.

                That’s the proto-version of dogmatic monotheism. That’s the origin of the first commandment. That’s THE reason monotheism is so unaccepting and violent.

                I’m not going to write a several page essay detailing why this is so. Do you know why Jesus was accepted as a deity to the Roman and Greek pantheons at the time, instead of being seen as a rival god? How the same thing happened later in the North of Europe as well with norse polytheism?

                Polytheism by its very nature has more explanatory power, as not every explanation is “God works in mysterious ways” as one god is considered omnipotent and infallible, whereasin polytheism gods are often more humane, fickle, and fallible, despite being very powerful.

                terms like progressive and tolerant are subjective concepts entrenched in the eurocentric cross-examination of cultures.

                Not really. Do you kill everything different from you? Then you’re not too tolerant. “Progressive” is also not too subjective. Before the Christianisation of the Nordics, for instance, “Viking” rape laws were far more progressive than their so-called “civilized” European counterparts. On the continent, women were considered property and so rape was a property crime – there was no “victim,” but the father or husband, whose property had been damaged.

                That’s not really subjective of a take, is it? To think that an attitude of “women are people” is more progressive than “women are things”?

                Or do you consider that a subjective thing…?

                • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  You’re literally making my point for me.

                  I beg to differ. I think you’re making some assumptions about the innate qualities of polytheistic societies.

                  Just because deities within certain polytheistic religions were rivals, doesn’t imply the advent of monotheism. Most polytheistic religions had sects or cults that conflicted with other sects within the same pantheon.

                  Not really. Do you kill everything different from you? Then you’re not too tolerant.

                  Okay, then explain the Mongol empire? They were polytheistic, and more liberal with religious freedoms than nearly any other empire in history… Does their use of violence negate their tolerance?

                  We can look at branches of the Mongolian empire 200 years later that would transition from polytheism to monotheistic islamist. Did they become more violent after the transition? Nope, they assimilated into the culture and became the local government for generations.

                  “Progressive” is also not too subjective. Before the Christianisation of the Nordics, for instance, “Viking” rape laws were far more progressive than their so-called “civilized” European counterparts. On the continent, women were considered property and so rape was a property crime – there was no “victim,” but the father or husband, whose property had been damaged.

                  We have no written record of any laws of the Viking. We have second hand information from the perspective of Christian priest, but I’d hardly claim that gives us any information about the actual practice and context of “Viking rape laws”.

                  For all we know these laws could have been based on the same proprietary motivation of monotheistic societies who recorded it. And if you are interpreting secondary sources as your primary sources, then we must assume their other observations of the same culture to be true. That the Viking culture was based on the rape and pillage of Christianity, not exactly a progressive perspective…

                  That’s not really subjective of a take, is it? To think that an attitude of “women are people” is more progressive than “women are things”?

                  First of all, that argument is entirely dependent on assuming that Viking in Viking culture women were thought of as equals…which is doubtful. Just because they aren’t labeled as property, doesn’t mean they weren’t second class citizens. More than likely Viking cultures just didn’t have the same cultural understanding of property as their monotheistic counterparts.

                  Secondly, yes with added context that statement is entirely subjective. If a society treats their own women as people, but is perfectly fine with raping and enslaving women in other cultures, are they truly progressive? Or do they just understand that what’s good for the cow is good for the farmer?

                  I do find it funny that one of my primary complaints with this historical interpretation is that it is too dependent on a eurocentric representation of history, and your rebuttals have only been composed of European examples.

            • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              Whenever there is a belief in something supernatural, it will be abused, it will end badly, because we’re already talking about people believing things without any proof. Sooner or later, a leader will pop up and it’s it’s rather easy to make these people do your bidding by inventing new wonders or dogma or whatever works for said leader(s)

              People need to grow up. Yeah, maybe there is a mighty system operator that manages our simulation, or maybe I’m a Boltzmann brain or whatever. Thinking about it, these two ideas are more plausible than any religion out there, yet we don’t have the great Boltzmann church.

              Science is finding out reality, maybe we should focus more on that

            • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Agreed. I have faith in science, I have faith in people, I have faith in real things.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            Religions are the worst

            Religious philosophy is fine. Not everything needs to be crammed into the framework of hard sciences. And the social aspects of religious organizing are no more good or bad than the individuals who take part in it.

            You can just as easily find religiously motivated abolitionists as slavers. You can just as easily find religiously motivated homeless shelters as pedophile priests. The spiritualist language used to describe our social bonds is no less legitimate than some Evo-Devo prattle about brain chemicals, at least from the perspective of setting useful policy.

            They’re abusive and a detriment to society and progress.

            You can just as easily find abusive and detrimental habits in business economics and the hard sciences. Rationalization of a perverse or destructive behavior often follows the decision to embark on it. And you don’t need religious beliefs to rationalize bad behaviors.

            • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Yeah, no. How many wars were fought over atheism? None. How many over religions? Too many to count.

              The average Catholic is a fine person, I’m sure, but the Catholic church is a horror show. How many people have suffered because of that organization? More than I could count. How many wars has it started? More than I’d like to know.

              Want to try a different religion? Any religion? Any cult? Scientology, maybe? No? How about Jim Jones temple of what was it called again?

              Individual spiritualism then? In on itself harmless, maybe, but it’s still pure nonsense in the level of believing in unicorns and Santa Claus, and it still will end in either groups starting to form, that makes cults that either die out or become organised religion. And in its entire trajectory, it WILL cause suffering and abuse.

              Yes, abuse is possible in any organization, but no organization will allow and tolerate abuse as religious organizations do. Give us your money, old grandpa with cancer, god will cure your cancer and return you your money double, I swear! Climate change isn’t real, god would not allow it! All our thousands, millions of followers should just continue to pollute the hell out of this world because God will fix it, people! Hurricanes are caused by gay wickedness and women won’t get pregnant from rape, god will stop that unless they like it.

              I see no positive point in any religion or spirituality that could not be made without it.

              So yes, fuck all religions, they’re a detriment to the growth of humanity.

              But what about the charities then? Charities don’t require religion, you can do one perfectly fine without the other, and that ignores that charities only exist due to governments not fixing issues.

              • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                How many wars were fought over atheism? None.

                The entire Cold War was a protracted struggle between hard right Christian fascists and Communist Rationalists.

                Look up the history of the John Birch Society. The entire movement is based on the Chinese Maoist treatment of Western Evangelicals.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeap, a lot of slavery in America was perpetuated and validated by religious beliefs

        Goes even beyond that. Christianity - specifically, the New Testament verses that extolled the virtue of earthly toil on behalf of a secular lord in exchange for heavenly reward - was leveraged to convince the slaves themselves that their lot in life was justified. And for a great long period of time, it was successful. Even after the Confederacy’s back was broken, mobilizing a population that had been wiped into submission for centuries was legitimately difficult. The Freedman’s Bureau had a herculean effort put at its feet - to engage, re-educate, and empower millions of newly emancipated black men and women after a lifetime of debasement and degradation.

        When you get into why Reconstruction failed, a big part of it was like looking at a spouse in an abusive relationship trying to get out from under a hyper-domineering partner and scaling that sociological problem up to the scale of whole cities and states.

        • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          3 months ago

          When you get into why Reconstruction failed, a big part of it was like looking at a spouse in an abusive relationship trying to get out from under a hyper-domineering partner and scaling that sociological problem up to the scale of whole cities and states.

          I mean that, but also Andrew Johnson was a horrible person and even a worse president