If this case makes its way successfully through the Supreme Court, taxpayers will be forced to support religious schools in yet another state. So, churches not only don't pay taxes, they expect taxpayers to fund their ignorant and cruel teachings.
Today, I was traveling from Gwarko to Sinamangal on a tampoo. It was not much packed. Still had 3-4 empty seats. The driver stopped at Koteshwor, where a jogi got in along with other passengers. The driver suddenly became furious for no reason and scolded the jogi to get out. Jogi dude, dwindled, got out after then.
I was in confusion and felt bad for the old jogi. Then, I noticed a christian cross ✝️ on the tampoo glass. I was like whaat ??
I am not sure that if it was a purely religious reason, but there wasn’t anything to be a cause either except for the poor guy being a jogi.
Shouldn’t the public vehicles, in spite of being privately owned , treat everyone equally? Just like the case of renting ?? Where is Nepal going to ??? A serious question for the future.
Martin Luther, revered reformer, was a raging anti-semite.
Way back int he 1500's, he was advocating for genocide of the Jewish people.
He wanted to burn synagogues, Jewish schools and homes.
He wanted to seize Jewish property and money.
He wanted to subject them to forced labor.
He wanted to forbid rabbis from preaching.
He advocated for the denial of legal protections to Jewish people.
He even went so far as to claim that "we are at fault in not slaying them."
He used his platform to blast hatred and bigotry.
And a few hundred years later, the seeds of hatred that he planted finally sprouted and 11 million Jews were slaughtered.
Never underestimate religious bigotry.
Apologies if this type of post isn’t allowed. I’m feeling off from a video I watched and am looking for a place to vent and process in a place where people get it. I watched this video because I was curious. Found it because I’ve been seeking out evangelical perspectives on queer topics (that was my first mistake) and came across this one. I guess I watch these kinds of things to remind myself that these kinds of talking points are out there and I can’t get too complacent thinking that we’ve solved homophobia and religious bigotry.
And, well, I thought I could take it. I thought I could listen to the conservative evangelical nonsense without being affected by it (which was my second mistake). But no. It definitely triggered me and I’m sharing all this because I need to put it out there and I wanted to talk about it in the hopes it would help me process.
The most obvious issue with the video was the fact the video was called Do Christians Harm LGBTQ+ People? yet both panelists were cishet. Not saying you need to be queer to talk queer issues, that’s why allies are important, but this topic definitely felt like one where you have to be queer to really answer it. And the answer is unequivocally yes. Absolutely yes. I’m posting this because despite being in a better place now this video made me feel the trauma of growing up queer in a conservative Christian space. It reverberates. And the fact that they’re talking about this like a philosophical issue when lives are at stake. This is people’s lives you’re talking about, not abstract theology. And the worst bit was when the conservative played the oh I’m being persecuted for my beliefs card. That was the breaking point for me. Dude, this isn’t being persecuted. This is facing the consequences of being a bigot and not at all Christ like so eff off.
Thanks for reading. I feel a bit better.
ETA And I guess I sought out this sort of stuff is because I was lucky enough to get out. I’ve found a progressive church that helped me heal and recover and move on because the people are excellent. And part of the reason I seek this out is because I want to be able to go back into the dragon’s den and well help people the way I was helped and well it helps to know what kind of stuff people are saying so you know how to counter it but yeah there’s still some work to do
Bigotry against specific religious and social groups comes in many different forms. There is antisemitism which is a form of social and religious bigotry. There is Islamophobia which is another form of religious bigotry. One time of religious bigotry that has a history in the West is Anti Catholicism. And one of the ways it manifest itself is propaganda. So lets define our terms first of all
- Anti Catholicism is a hostility, hatred or animosity to anything that has to do with the Catholic Church, whether its its clergy, its spirituality, etc.
- Propaganda is information that is presented in a bias or misleading manner that is used to publicise, promote or push a political cause or particular point of view.
These two definitions are important to set the terms of what I am discussing. There are many people who when the see the term "Anticatholicism" will say "well people have a reason to hate the Catholic Church". Just because people have reasons for a prejudice doesn't mean it isn't a prejudice. There are people who have "reasons" for their Islamophobia because of 9/11, ISIS, or the actions of certain governments that call themselves Islamic like Saudi Arabia or Iran. That does not mean they don't have a prejudice. There are many people who have a "reasons" for their prejudice against the Jewish community due to things like the actions of the Israeli government. So yes, there are "reasons" for Anti-Catholicism. That doesn't mean it is not a prejudice.
Similarly when we talk about propaganda. Propaganda isn't necessary presenting things that are false. Propaganda can have elements of truth to it, but it is presented in a distorted manner for political purposes. One example is WWI when the British were covering the German assault on Belgium. In reaction to this a Committee in the UK parliament was convened that produced what was called the Bryce Report. In it were exaggerations and distortions of what really happened in Belgium that was used and weaponised to push Britain into war with Germany. Now did the Germans commit atrocities? Yes. But the highly distorted report was weaponised as a form of atrocity propaganda. Atrocity propaganda in particular is a major feature of Anti-Catholic prejudice throughout history. With this long pre-amble lets go through examples in history.
(i)The Black Legend of the Inquisition
- The Inquisition is an institution(or series of institutions) that has gained noteriety throughout history for obvious reasons. It has b
For example, it might be considered unacceptable to say that a particular religion is bad, or that fear of a particular religion is justified. But that same religion might express extreme bigotry. It might, for example, say that a certain group of people should be executed. It might say that people of particular religious views deserve to be tortured for eternity.
How does one draw the line? If the bigotry is clearly stated by the religious text, does that automatically make it acceptable?
It infuriates me. People are just spreading hate and if you call them out on that they argue that it's their religion and they have religious freedom.
I'm tired of that. If you are a bigot I don't care about your religious beliefs. But the religious card just makes them untouchable and somehow people aren't seeing it.
I do not understand why this happened or if it is a common misconception all over Pakistan.
TL;DR: Experienced religious discrimination by a fellow Muslim for the first time in Pakistan. I am still in shock and awe about the misconceptions people have.
It started with any other day in the office. A few personnel were being interviewed for the job of an “office boy” as called in Pakistan or someone who maintains the office and fulfills various needs of the people working there. A young man in a neat and tidy attire came for the interview. He seemed well spoken and was way less than other candidates. Upon accepting his demands the interviewer asked him to leave his number so he could be contacted later on. Now comes the strange part, his ID card had a slightly different Christian sounding name due to which another officer raised concern that he is Christian and should not be hired due to him being non-Muslim. When asked why, he responded that he would touch the food and make food which would become ‘inedible’ due to him being unclean as they eat different food than us. Upon hearing this in pure awe I started a slight arguing even though he was my senior (and mind this that he is a very well educated person too) that he was discriminating against a Christian for no reason at all and he was a human being too. The interviewer also caved in and said that he is thinking about hiring another person but if he hires the Christian guy they will keep him just for cleaning work and get him a separate plate and glass for him. If us as Muslims were discriminated against just because of our religion how would we feel.
I do feel horrible for starting the argument due to him being a senior to me but I couldn’t help myself as I have many respectable non-Muslim friends who have looked out for me in the past.
Am I wrong in thinking that Islam forbids us to discriminate against other religions and if we are allowed to marry into other religions of books why can we not sit and eat with them? Why is there this misconception in Pakistan?
Either directed towards you specifically or dealing with a surrounding cultural environment of it
It seems the only punishment ever metered out is someone running into a referee. No wonder we are laughed at as a backwards parochial nothing sport by the rest of the country, if this was a union player he'd have been catapulted into the sun.
Shame the sport is so weak, no wonder it is bleeding fans.
https://preview.redd.it/lmircjeg22171.jpg?width=336&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=150e48f53e020a3ec4909580d8d3998a4b06327d
Due to the extraordinary and unprecedented turn of events that unfolded this morning, I think it prudent that Integrity365 comes together as a community and, in a show of strength, unite in rejecting any forms of religious bigotry, hatred and intolerance.
As the taking of the knee is associated more with Black Lives Matter and issues of a racial nature, might I suggest we participate in the 'Headstand against Hatred' at 7pm tonight. This can either be done in your living room, bedroom, garden or at the front of your house.
Remember, where you do it is not important, it's about why you do it that is.
One voice, One community, One world...
So how does that work?
The latter is such a condemned and criticized statement (both by muslims and others) that even the most extreme of extremists don't say it openly, so why is the average muslim on social media running around and repeating that bullshit to justify apostasy laws, without any remorse and without any condemnation and backlash?
I thought today on social media we were condemning bigotry and hate, so why this doesn't apply to muslims and they are let free to say those things while others are shamed and harassed for less?
Even the exmuslim movement is being attacked for being "too mean" to muslims, while muslims are out there murdering exmuslims just for existing and a lot of muslims are openly advocating for the laws to kill them... and no one except the few exmuslim voices bats an eye?
Even much less radical statements about muslims will get you a thousand times more of shit than muslims get for advocating for murder. Even just saying Islam is misogynistic will get you more of shit than muslims get for saying we must be killed.
A top post on this sub on religious bigotry reminded me of my own similar experiences at an organisation here. The employees were mostly, if not all Barelvi. I am not one plus I was just an intern there.
My family never classified us into anything beyond the basic Shia/Sunni differentiation, but I suppose we follow the Deobandi school of thought? Goodness knows, I don't make the rules.
The employees had asked me right away if my family believed in niyaz and milaads (this was their way of figuring out whether you were a barelvi or Deobandi). I told them no because I was new and didn't know the importance of lying.
The sheer hatred that would come out of their mouths literally all day against Deobandis was insane. I don't know if those conversations were for my benefit, but God, the absolute hate perpetuated by the people made me feel scared. More so because if they could hate Deobandis for relatively minor differences, I could not begin to fathom the kind of sentiment they would feel for Shias/Ahmedis or any other sect or religion.
They would praise each other for cutting out relatives who 'turned' Deobandi. Would pretty much spit on Deobandi scholars and the kind of stuff they said about MTJ is what I wouldn't even want to repeat to anyone. This isn't even half of it. Frankly, it was more of Deobandi hate club than an organisation and Deobandis were considered pretty much one step short of being wajib ul qatl.
They routinely turned away Christians/Hindus that came for help (it was a charity organisation) under the pretence that their areas weren't facilitated by the organisation. Anyone else would be asked the same question I was asked about niyaz and milad before given any help. I don't know if people were smarter than me because I never heard a no to this question and didn't see if they'd turn away the person or not.
As someone who grew up in a very sheltered home where we were never taught hate against any sect or religion, this experience was extremely eye-opening. It also made me realize that this wasn't a minority. These beliefs are held by a good majority of the people and because we live in our middle/upper middle class bubbles, we don't really realize the extent of this sentiment prevalent in our society. Khadim rizvi's funeral is just an example.
P.S: I know not all Barelvis are the same. I wouldn't even have mentioned the sect name but I figured it would have been guessed easily.
I have been in a conversation with a muslim who believes criticizing islam outside of ex-muslim communities is tricky because "it perpetuates the notion that muslims are nothing but barbaric, terroristic savages that should be the deprived of the need to exist amongst non-muslims (in the west)".
"My issue is ex-muslims criticizing the faith to/in front of non-muslims, because that's where the weaponization comes in, the fueling of discrimination", she said.
She gave an example of her friend's hijab being removed and her being attacked afterwards.
She stated if the attackers didn't associate the hijab with islam, if they didn't see 9/11 as something all muslims had certain ties to, etc, there would not have been such an attack in the first place.
"This is a complex issue, and the entanglement of criticism of the religion with anti-muslim/MENA sentiments and bigotry are not exclusive phenomena. Your criticisms ultimately become weaponized by non-muslims/outsiders and make people go against our muslim communities. To say otherwise is naïve and just plain false", she said.
This was about islam in particular, but I have heard this being used against criticism of any religion.
What are your thoughts? Do you have any arguments against these claims?
