Post this to lemmy.ml/c/worldnews so I can see the white supremacist whining.
Unusual India w.
Eh, I don’t think this is a fair comparison. Obviously those countries that claim China commits are scumbags but I don’t necessarily agree with condemning Quran burning because condemning it seems like a stamp of approval of religion
It’s important to be aware of the context of how Muslims are treated in the West. The issue isn’t burning a religious text, it’s that allowing these far-right rituals just fuels the irrational hatred of Muslim people, especially refugees
Yeah, I understand. I didn’t necessarily think of it that was so I rescind my earlier statement. I don’t approve of religion but do understand the issues with these actions
I used to think religion itself was the problem, but becoming a communist has changed my perspective on this. Capitalism creates unjustifiable hierarchies that allow religion to weild immense power within our society. This can be prevented under socialism, turning religion into just another part of our culture.
This can be prevented under socialism, turning religion into just another part of our culture.
You know who tried? Socialist Poland for example.
Don’t you think this type of thinking is reductive? Does it not give credit to those who claim communism doesn’t work because the USSR tried it? It completely ignores the specific material conditions of the time and place.
Excuse me i didn’t wrote a 50 pages dissertation about that, i assumed you know this never happened anywhere where religious organizations had any significant power.
What is REALLY reductive (and also historically proven incorrect) is writing “Capitalism creates unjustifiable hierarchies that allow religion to weild immense power within our society.”* and “This can be prevented under socialism, turning religion into just another part of our culture.”
*EDIT: while theoretically correct, it does that, all systems of class society before did the same, so it’s not sole fault of capitalism. Hell, even socialist countries didn’t liquidated those hierarchies.
Opposing hate based provocation is not approval of anything, come on, terrible take.
So you’d rather disapprove of religion in a way that provides cover for reactionaries to commit violence against already marginalized people?
Obviously the violence is very bad but I can’t say I hundred percent agree with religion being accepted in a way that a theoretical attack on it is condemned. Though you do have a point about it providing cover. I understand that. I guess I can’t really say. I am sorry of my statement caused offence
You don’t need to agree with religion in the same way you don’t need to agree with sugary drinks or polygamy. Don’t immediately jump from “this law protects people who are religious” to “maybe we shouldn’t worry so much if violence is incited against innocent people”
