Y’know usually I ask myself why I open up Lemmy; often the events that reach the top are basically doom scrolling.
But this made my day. There’s also a related article I should repost about Christians mobilizing and struggling to reclaim our faith’s narrative from the fascists.
You’re not going to get a significant portion of religious people to abandon their religion. But if tolerant religious people reclaim their narrative from intolerant religious people, relegating the intolerant back to the shadows of obscurity where they belong, then you no longer need to convince people to give up their religion.
If you’ve never “practiced” a religion, then its pretty easy to be judgmental towards it. Many people grow up in very religious households and it’s hard to beak away from what was so normal for so long. I grew up in one of these households, and while I don’t actively participate in going to church anymore, it still helped shape me to be who I am, and I wouldn’t have such a strong core group of friends without it.
All the crazy stuff people associate with Christians is due to televangelists mostly being predatory, movies/TV, bad spotlight or events coming to light (like ~20 years ago there media focused on all the Catholic boys who were molested by various priests).
I, myself, am not about to get preachy and defensive towards religion, but I would like to play devils advocate and argue that the racial equality fight, women’s rights, and more recently LGBTQ movement towards equal healthcare and or acceptance is no different than a simple:
“If you’re going to be accepting of somebody, you should be accepting of everybody”.
Funny how some (not specifically picking on you or anyone) can get so defensive and upset fighting for acceptance of one thing while simultaneously they themselves can’t accept others merely for their beliefs… Kind of hypocritical, isn’t it?
Ah, the acceptance of non- acceptance argument. Most religious groups are against a lot of those groups you mentioned, especially LGBT - some actively so. You don’t get an exemption from morality for being religious.
You can reject non-acceptance. But in that case, then how does the argument apply against tolerant religious people mobilizing to reclaim the narrative from intolerant religious people?
It sounds like you’re failing to discern between the two, which is called an overgeneralization.
Understandable, and that’s the issue. I’m not saying morality should be an exemption, but there’s a difference between actively supporting, condemning, and just allowing people to coexist-knowing we’re the same yet not all the same.
The majority of religions are based on imposing some sort of rule based morality. And often these rules seem to go against the notion of letting certain different people coexist - at least that’s how it plays out in practice. So I think the default suspicion of any religious group is reasonable and founded in reality. You may have an all inclusive religion and that’s great, but you then must see how that conflicts with most other religions. I don’t care what gods you believe in, but I care if you try to impose an arbitrary morality on others.
Touché. Again, just playing devil’s advocate for this topic, having lived both sides. More so it’s easy to be dismissive of something one does not understand.
I’m not saying you’re an asshat nor do I think you came across that way! Thanks for being civil at the very least and adding to a debate without getting heated. It’s nice to have a great discussion!
Y’know usually I ask myself why I open up Lemmy; often the events that reach the top are basically doom scrolling.
But this made my day. There’s also a related article I should repost about Christians mobilizing and struggling to reclaim our faith’s narrative from the fascists.
Today is one of those rare “hope scrolling” days!
Hey Monke, in case you missed it, there’s a related gallery of pics from all the protests happening today across the country:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/gallery/2026/may/01/photos-may-day-protests
I love seeing this, even though I know it’s being vastly underreported: at least it’s getting reported in the UK. NYT doesn’t have anything at all.
I’d rather still see Christians mobilize to just recognize fairytales and dump religion altogether, it’s the only sure way forward for them
You’re not going to get a significant portion of religious people to abandon their religion. But if tolerant religious people reclaim their narrative from intolerant religious people, relegating the intolerant back to the shadows of obscurity where they belong, then you no longer need to convince people to give up their religion.
If you’ve never “practiced” a religion, then its pretty easy to be judgmental towards it. Many people grow up in very religious households and it’s hard to beak away from what was so normal for so long. I grew up in one of these households, and while I don’t actively participate in going to church anymore, it still helped shape me to be who I am, and I wouldn’t have such a strong core group of friends without it.
All the crazy stuff people associate with Christians is due to televangelists mostly being predatory, movies/TV, bad spotlight or events coming to light (like ~20 years ago there media focused on all the Catholic boys who were molested by various priests).
I, myself, am not about to get preachy and defensive towards religion, but I would like to play devils advocate and argue that the racial equality fight, women’s rights, and more recently LGBTQ movement towards equal healthcare and or acceptance is no different than a simple:
“If you’re going to be accepting of somebody, you should be accepting of everybody”.
Funny how some (not specifically picking on you or anyone) can get so defensive and upset fighting for acceptance of one thing while simultaneously they themselves can’t accept others merely for their beliefs… Kind of hypocritical, isn’t it?
Ah, the acceptance of non- acceptance argument. Most religious groups are against a lot of those groups you mentioned, especially LGBT - some actively so. You don’t get an exemption from morality for being religious.
You can reject non-acceptance. But in that case, then how does the argument apply against tolerant religious people mobilizing to reclaim the narrative from intolerant religious people?
It sounds like you’re failing to discern between the two, which is called an overgeneralization.
Understandable, and that’s the issue. I’m not saying morality should be an exemption, but there’s a difference between actively supporting, condemning, and just allowing people to coexist-knowing we’re the same yet not all the same.
The majority of religions are based on imposing some sort of rule based morality. And often these rules seem to go against the notion of letting certain different people coexist - at least that’s how it plays out in practice. So I think the default suspicion of any religious group is reasonable and founded in reality. You may have an all inclusive religion and that’s great, but you then must see how that conflicts with most other religions. I don’t care what gods you believe in, but I care if you try to impose an arbitrary morality on others.
I am judgemental against people who value “belief without evidence”
That is a fucking stupid principle around which to organize your life, and it is inherently incompatible with a modern technological civilization.
Touché. Again, just playing devil’s advocate for this topic, having lived both sides. More so it’s easy to be dismissive of something one does not understand.
and ofc I fight hard not to be a militant Dawkins-style asshat.
I try to be more like Apu the vegetarian than Lisa the vegetarian.
But… sometimes, for the sake of making an invective polemical point, I fail.
I’m not saying you’re an asshat nor do I think you came across that way! Thanks for being civil at the very least and adding to a debate without getting heated. It’s nice to have a great discussion!