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”
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”