▲ 263 ▼ Quebec passes secularism law banning street prayers and prayer rooms in universities (www.ctvnews.ca) submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by Valnao@sh.itjust.works to c/world@lemmy.world 165 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] choui4@lemmy.zip 22 points 4 months ago (2 children) Who tf does this help permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] rwrwefwef@sh.itjust.works 14 points 4 months ago The Quebec right wing, which paradoxically is secular and pro abortion. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (3 children) Secularism? As long as it’s applied across the board - including Christians and others - this seems sensible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 30 points 4 months ago (1 child) This isn't even secularism. Secularism would ban anyone from doing these activities in an official capacity, or public funds from being used for these purposes. Banning individuals from religious expression is not secularism. That's the state imposing religious persuasion (or lackthereof). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 child) Fine by me. Let’s call that extended secularism with aim of ending religions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 11 points 4 months ago* (33 children) So in other words, forcing your worldview on others because you don't agree with theirs? That's no better than forced conversions... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 33 child comments load more comments (33 replies) [–] SalaciousBCrumb@lemy.lol 5 points 4 months ago (1 child) The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread. That’s what this law does, it specifically targets Muslims who need to pray during the day while pretending to be for everyone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 months ago In some ways it will protect Muslim children as well, not being exposed to crucifixes and requiring Catholic schools to accept Muslim students. Also, it could give the children a choice to engage in religious practices. Private religious schools should not exist at all, they are a tool for indoctrination and separating children from those with different beliefs is abusive. That said, the PQ are racists and their goal actually is to discriminate against Muslims. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 months ago (2 children) It would be sensible. But what's the benefit? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 child) Generally speaking? I suspect most of our issues currently and previously are either caused by religions or are using religions in a form or another. Look at USA / Israel if that’s not obvious. Even Buddhists have been killing over religion. Sects in Japan have done horrible things… I could remove 1 trait of humanity I would seriously consider removing the soft spot for the love of mysticisms. And thus limiting religious practices is sensible and has the benefit to decrease exposure to non involved persons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 months ago (1 child) Great harm had been done in the name it religion but you're overlooking the good that's been done. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) I don't think the good comes anywhere close to balancing the evils justified by religion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) Religions do call for a lot of violence don't get me wrong. I'd even make the claim that most evil acts that we attribute to religion tend to have it as a pretense. The crusades for instance each had a main goal that was there independent of religion. But then you have the good that religions mandate. Sikhism with IRS community meals for instance. Zakat in Islam is another good example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) Antisemitism doesn't happen without religion. Think about everything downstream of the Judaism/Christianity/Islam splits. Think about the impact of The Church being the de facto cultural force in Europe for a millennium. Think about how much harder it is to whip a population into supporting your expensive conquest without a Divine Right or Moral Imperative. Sikhism exists because of how shitty life was under Islam and Hinduism in the region, their current "mostly chill" status does not negate the past suffering. And in a broader sense, consider how much fraud exists because people are willing to accept claims not backed by evidence. The normalization of magical thinking is probably as harmful as the actual power wielded by entities like the Catholic Church. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago (1 child) Antisemitism without religion is called racism. And because a corrupt caste of people use religion as a pretext to control and funnel wealth. Doesn't mean the underlying religion itself calls for that. As for having a population supporting conquest independent from religion look at the east India company, both world wars, and many others. I'm not saying religious organizations are a benefit or arguing for or against that. But how is the world a better place because the banned prayer rooms in universities? Whether some of those people follow a good religious leader or not. Their religion generally calls for overall good. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) What a religion calls for is almost never what it enables. how is the world a better place because the banned prayer rooms in universities? I don't think public funds should support any religion, and I don't think universities should support unsubstantiated claims. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) I agree with you on the use of public funds. But a ban goes beyond that. And it's not that the religion enables evil deeds. Evil deeds exist independent of religion. Because some people use it as a thin veil over their actions doesn't mean it's the root cause permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago Because some people use it as a thin veil over their actions doesn’t mean it’s the root cause I firmly disagree with this premise, I think religion's particular mix of social othering and righteous justification are the root of a great deal of evil in the world. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Evotech@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago* (1 child) The population? It stops public praying as a virtue. When praying is only done in private you can’t judge people being a worse Christian etc for not participating. So you’ll have a more secular society with more room for people to practice their religion as they see fit. Not doing things just because it’s expected of you. Like if there’s prayer room at a school. More people will use it because they don’t want to be seen as a bad Muslim. Even if they wouldn’t normally pray at those times. It creates pressures and expectations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago (1 child) Peer pressure will exist regardless though. This provides as space for people to pray in private. Why not make the prayer rooms individual rooms? Would that not solve the edge case you describe? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stickly@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago There is no logic to this person's stance, they just want to do harm to the other. They wrap that in a veil of impartial rational reasoning to quell the cognitive dissonance. If this law was phrased as anti-loitering to keep homeless people off sidewalks or banning private rooms for nursing mothers they would be up in arms. It's functionally the same, but since it targets their preferred adversary they nod in approval. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rwrwefwef@sh.itjust.works 14 points 4 months ago The Quebec right wing, which paradoxically is secular and pro abortion. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (3 children) Secularism? As long as it’s applied across the board - including Christians and others - this seems sensible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 30 points 4 months ago (1 child) This isn't even secularism. Secularism would ban anyone from doing these activities in an official capacity, or public funds from being used for these purposes. Banning individuals from religious expression is not secularism. That's the state imposing religious persuasion (or lackthereof). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 child) Fine by me. Let’s call that extended secularism with aim of ending religions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 11 points 4 months ago* (33 children) So in other words, forcing your worldview on others because you don't agree with theirs? That's no better than forced conversions... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 33 child comments load more comments (33 replies) [–] SalaciousBCrumb@lemy.lol 5 points 4 months ago (1 child) The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread. That’s what this law does, it specifically targets Muslims who need to pray during the day while pretending to be for everyone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 months ago In some ways it will protect Muslim children as well, not being exposed to crucifixes and requiring Catholic schools to accept Muslim students. Also, it could give the children a choice to engage in religious practices. Private religious schools should not exist at all, they are a tool for indoctrination and separating children from those with different beliefs is abusive. That said, the PQ are racists and their goal actually is to discriminate against Muslims. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 months ago (2 children) It would be sensible. But what's the benefit? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 child) Generally speaking? I suspect most of our issues currently and previously are either caused by religions or are using religions in a form or another. Look at USA / Israel if that’s not obvious. Even Buddhists have been killing over religion. Sects in Japan have done horrible things… I could remove 1 trait of humanity I would seriously consider removing the soft spot for the love of mysticisms. And thus limiting religious practices is sensible and has the benefit to decrease exposure to non involved persons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 months ago (1 child) Great harm had been done in the name it religion but you're overlooking the good that's been done. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) I don't think the good comes anywhere close to balancing the evils justified by religion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) Religions do call for a lot of violence don't get me wrong. I'd even make the claim that most evil acts that we attribute to religion tend to have it as a pretense. The crusades for instance each had a main goal that was there independent of religion. But then you have the good that religions mandate. Sikhism with IRS community meals for instance. Zakat in Islam is another good example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) Antisemitism doesn't happen without religion. Think about everything downstream of the Judaism/Christianity/Islam splits. Think about the impact of The Church being the de facto cultural force in Europe for a millennium. Think about how much harder it is to whip a population into supporting your expensive conquest without a Divine Right or Moral Imperative. Sikhism exists because of how shitty life was under Islam and Hinduism in the region, their current "mostly chill" status does not negate the past suffering. And in a broader sense, consider how much fraud exists because people are willing to accept claims not backed by evidence. The normalization of magical thinking is probably as harmful as the actual power wielded by entities like the Catholic Church. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago (1 child) Antisemitism without religion is called racism. And because a corrupt caste of people use religion as a pretext to control and funnel wealth. Doesn't mean the underlying religion itself calls for that. As for having a population supporting conquest independent from religion look at the east India company, both world wars, and many others. I'm not saying religious organizations are a benefit or arguing for or against that. But how is the world a better place because the banned prayer rooms in universities? Whether some of those people follow a good religious leader or not. Their religion generally calls for overall good. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) What a religion calls for is almost never what it enables. how is the world a better place because the banned prayer rooms in universities? I don't think public funds should support any religion, and I don't think universities should support unsubstantiated claims. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) I agree with you on the use of public funds. But a ban goes beyond that. And it's not that the religion enables evil deeds. Evil deeds exist independent of religion. Because some people use it as a thin veil over their actions doesn't mean it's the root cause permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago Because some people use it as a thin veil over their actions doesn’t mean it’s the root cause I firmly disagree with this premise, I think religion's particular mix of social othering and righteous justification are the root of a great deal of evil in the world. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Evotech@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago* (1 child) The population? It stops public praying as a virtue. When praying is only done in private you can’t judge people being a worse Christian etc for not participating. So you’ll have a more secular society with more room for people to practice their religion as they see fit. Not doing things just because it’s expected of you. Like if there’s prayer room at a school. More people will use it because they don’t want to be seen as a bad Muslim. Even if they wouldn’t normally pray at those times. It creates pressures and expectations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago (1 child) Peer pressure will exist regardless though. This provides as space for people to pray in private. Why not make the prayer rooms individual rooms? Would that not solve the edge case you describe? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stickly@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago There is no logic to this person's stance, they just want to do harm to the other. They wrap that in a veil of impartial rational reasoning to quell the cognitive dissonance. If this law was phrased as anti-loitering to keep homeless people off sidewalks or banning private rooms for nursing mothers they would be up in arms. It's functionally the same, but since it targets their preferred adversary they nod in approval. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 30 points 4 months ago (1 child) This isn't even secularism. Secularism would ban anyone from doing these activities in an official capacity, or public funds from being used for these purposes. Banning individuals from religious expression is not secularism. That's the state imposing religious persuasion (or lackthereof). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 child) Fine by me. Let’s call that extended secularism with aim of ending religions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 11 points 4 months ago* (33 children) So in other words, forcing your worldview on others because you don't agree with theirs? That's no better than forced conversions... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 33 child comments load more comments (33 replies)
[–] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 child) Fine by me. Let’s call that extended secularism with aim of ending religions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 11 points 4 months ago* (33 children) So in other words, forcing your worldview on others because you don't agree with theirs? That's no better than forced conversions... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 33 child comments load more comments (33 replies)
[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 11 points 4 months ago* (33 children) So in other words, forcing your worldview on others because you don't agree with theirs? That's no better than forced conversions... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 33 child comments load more comments (33 replies)
[–] SalaciousBCrumb@lemy.lol 5 points 4 months ago (1 child) The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread. That’s what this law does, it specifically targets Muslims who need to pray during the day while pretending to be for everyone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 months ago In some ways it will protect Muslim children as well, not being exposed to crucifixes and requiring Catholic schools to accept Muslim students. Also, it could give the children a choice to engage in religious practices. Private religious schools should not exist at all, they are a tool for indoctrination and separating children from those with different beliefs is abusive. That said, the PQ are racists and their goal actually is to discriminate against Muslims. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 months ago In some ways it will protect Muslim children as well, not being exposed to crucifixes and requiring Catholic schools to accept Muslim students. Also, it could give the children a choice to engage in religious practices. Private religious schools should not exist at all, they are a tool for indoctrination and separating children from those with different beliefs is abusive. That said, the PQ are racists and their goal actually is to discriminate against Muslims. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 months ago (2 children) It would be sensible. But what's the benefit? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 child) Generally speaking? I suspect most of our issues currently and previously are either caused by religions or are using religions in a form or another. Look at USA / Israel if that’s not obvious. Even Buddhists have been killing over religion. Sects in Japan have done horrible things… I could remove 1 trait of humanity I would seriously consider removing the soft spot for the love of mysticisms. And thus limiting religious practices is sensible and has the benefit to decrease exposure to non involved persons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 months ago (1 child) Great harm had been done in the name it religion but you're overlooking the good that's been done. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) I don't think the good comes anywhere close to balancing the evils justified by religion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) Religions do call for a lot of violence don't get me wrong. I'd even make the claim that most evil acts that we attribute to religion tend to have it as a pretense. The crusades for instance each had a main goal that was there independent of religion. But then you have the good that religions mandate. Sikhism with IRS community meals for instance. Zakat in Islam is another good example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) Antisemitism doesn't happen without religion. Think about everything downstream of the Judaism/Christianity/Islam splits. Think about the impact of The Church being the de facto cultural force in Europe for a millennium. Think about how much harder it is to whip a population into supporting your expensive conquest without a Divine Right or Moral Imperative. Sikhism exists because of how shitty life was under Islam and Hinduism in the region, their current "mostly chill" status does not negate the past suffering. And in a broader sense, consider how much fraud exists because people are willing to accept claims not backed by evidence. The normalization of magical thinking is probably as harmful as the actual power wielded by entities like the Catholic Church. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago (1 child) Antisemitism without religion is called racism. And because a corrupt caste of people use religion as a pretext to control and funnel wealth. Doesn't mean the underlying religion itself calls for that. As for having a population supporting conquest independent from religion look at the east India company, both world wars, and many others. I'm not saying religious organizations are a benefit or arguing for or against that. But how is the world a better place because the banned prayer rooms in universities? Whether some of those people follow a good religious leader or not. Their religion generally calls for overall good. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) What a religion calls for is almost never what it enables. how is the world a better place because the banned prayer rooms in universities? I don't think public funds should support any religion, and I don't think universities should support unsubstantiated claims. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) I agree with you on the use of public funds. But a ban goes beyond that. And it's not that the religion enables evil deeds. Evil deeds exist independent of religion. Because some people use it as a thin veil over their actions doesn't mean it's the root cause permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago Because some people use it as a thin veil over their actions doesn’t mean it’s the root cause I firmly disagree with this premise, I think religion's particular mix of social othering and righteous justification are the root of a great deal of evil in the world. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Evotech@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago* (1 child) The population? It stops public praying as a virtue. When praying is only done in private you can’t judge people being a worse Christian etc for not participating. So you’ll have a more secular society with more room for people to practice their religion as they see fit. Not doing things just because it’s expected of you. Like if there’s prayer room at a school. More people will use it because they don’t want to be seen as a bad Muslim. Even if they wouldn’t normally pray at those times. It creates pressures and expectations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago (1 child) Peer pressure will exist regardless though. This provides as space for people to pray in private. Why not make the prayer rooms individual rooms? Would that not solve the edge case you describe? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stickly@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago There is no logic to this person's stance, they just want to do harm to the other. They wrap that in a veil of impartial rational reasoning to quell the cognitive dissonance. If this law was phrased as anti-loitering to keep homeless people off sidewalks or banning private rooms for nursing mothers they would be up in arms. It's functionally the same, but since it targets their preferred adversary they nod in approval. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 child) Generally speaking? I suspect most of our issues currently and previously are either caused by religions or are using religions in a form or another. Look at USA / Israel if that’s not obvious. Even Buddhists have been killing over religion. Sects in Japan have done horrible things… I could remove 1 trait of humanity I would seriously consider removing the soft spot for the love of mysticisms. And thus limiting religious practices is sensible and has the benefit to decrease exposure to non involved persons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 months ago (1 child) Great harm had been done in the name it religion but you're overlooking the good that's been done. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) I don't think the good comes anywhere close to balancing the evils justified by religion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) Religions do call for a lot of violence don't get me wrong. I'd even make the claim that most evil acts that we attribute to religion tend to have it as a pretense. The crusades for instance each had a main goal that was there independent of religion. But then you have the good that religions mandate. Sikhism with IRS community meals for instance. Zakat in Islam is another good example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) Antisemitism doesn't happen without religion. Think about everything downstream of the Judaism/Christianity/Islam splits. Think about the impact of The Church being the de facto cultural force in Europe for a millennium. Think about how much harder it is to whip a population into supporting your expensive conquest without a Divine Right or Moral Imperative. Sikhism exists because of how shitty life was under Islam and Hinduism in the region, their current "mostly chill" status does not negate the past suffering. And in a broader sense, consider how much fraud exists because people are willing to accept claims not backed by evidence. The normalization of magical thinking is probably as harmful as the actual power wielded by entities like the Catholic Church. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago (1 child) Antisemitism without religion is called racism. And because a corrupt caste of people use religion as a pretext to control and funnel wealth. Doesn't mean the underlying religion itself calls for that. As for having a population supporting conquest independent from religion look at the east India company, both world wars, and many others. I'm not saying religious organizations are a benefit or arguing for or against that. But how is the world a better place because the banned prayer rooms in universities? Whether some of those people follow a good religious leader or not. Their religion generally calls for overall good. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) What a religion calls for is almost never what it enables. how is the world a better place because the banned prayer rooms in universities? I don't think public funds should support any religion, and I don't think universities should support unsubstantiated claims. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) I agree with you on the use of public funds. But a ban goes beyond that. And it's not that the religion enables evil deeds. Evil deeds exist independent of religion. Because some people use it as a thin veil over their actions doesn't mean it's the root cause permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago Because some people use it as a thin veil over their actions doesn’t mean it’s the root cause I firmly disagree with this premise, I think religion's particular mix of social othering and righteous justification are the root of a great deal of evil in the world. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 months ago (1 child) Great harm had been done in the name it religion but you're overlooking the good that's been done. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) I don't think the good comes anywhere close to balancing the evils justified by religion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) Religions do call for a lot of violence don't get me wrong. I'd even make the claim that most evil acts that we attribute to religion tend to have it as a pretense. The crusades for instance each had a main goal that was there independent of religion. But then you have the good that religions mandate. Sikhism with IRS community meals for instance. Zakat in Islam is another good example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) Antisemitism doesn't happen without religion. Think about everything downstream of the Judaism/Christianity/Islam splits. Think about the impact of The Church being the de facto cultural force in Europe for a millennium. Think about how much harder it is to whip a population into supporting your expensive conquest without a Divine Right or Moral Imperative. Sikhism exists because of how shitty life was under Islam and Hinduism in the region, their current "mostly chill" status does not negate the past suffering. And in a broader sense, consider how much fraud exists because people are willing to accept claims not backed by evidence. The normalization of magical thinking is probably as harmful as the actual power wielded by entities like the Catholic Church. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago (1 child) Antisemitism without religion is called racism. And because a corrupt caste of people use religion as a pretext to control and funnel wealth. Doesn't mean the underlying religion itself calls for that. As for having a population supporting conquest independent from religion look at the east India company, both world wars, and many others. I'm not saying religious organizations are a benefit or arguing for or against that. But how is the world a better place because the banned prayer rooms in universities? Whether some of those people follow a good religious leader or not. Their religion generally calls for overall good. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) What a religion calls for is almost never what it enables. how is the world a better place because the banned prayer rooms in universities? I don't think public funds should support any religion, and I don't think universities should support unsubstantiated claims. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) I agree with you on the use of public funds. But a ban goes beyond that. And it's not that the religion enables evil deeds. Evil deeds exist independent of religion. Because some people use it as a thin veil over their actions doesn't mean it's the root cause permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago Because some people use it as a thin veil over their actions doesn’t mean it’s the root cause I firmly disagree with this premise, I think religion's particular mix of social othering and righteous justification are the root of a great deal of evil in the world. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) I don't think the good comes anywhere close to balancing the evils justified by religion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) Religions do call for a lot of violence don't get me wrong. I'd even make the claim that most evil acts that we attribute to religion tend to have it as a pretense. The crusades for instance each had a main goal that was there independent of religion. But then you have the good that religions mandate. Sikhism with IRS community meals for instance. Zakat in Islam is another good example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) Antisemitism doesn't happen without religion. Think about everything downstream of the Judaism/Christianity/Islam splits. Think about the impact of The Church being the de facto cultural force in Europe for a millennium. Think about how much harder it is to whip a population into supporting your expensive conquest without a Divine Right or Moral Imperative. Sikhism exists because of how shitty life was under Islam and Hinduism in the region, their current "mostly chill" status does not negate the past suffering. And in a broader sense, consider how much fraud exists because people are willing to accept claims not backed by evidence. The normalization of magical thinking is probably as harmful as the actual power wielded by entities like the Catholic Church. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago (1 child) Antisemitism without religion is called racism. And because a corrupt caste of people use religion as a pretext to control and funnel wealth. Doesn't mean the underlying religion itself calls for that. As for having a population supporting conquest independent from religion look at the east India company, both world wars, and many others. I'm not saying religious organizations are a benefit or arguing for or against that. But how is the world a better place because the banned prayer rooms in universities? Whether some of those people follow a good religious leader or not. Their religion generally calls for overall good. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) What a religion calls for is almost never what it enables. how is the world a better place because the banned prayer rooms in universities? I don't think public funds should support any religion, and I don't think universities should support unsubstantiated claims. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) I agree with you on the use of public funds. But a ban goes beyond that. And it's not that the religion enables evil deeds. Evil deeds exist independent of religion. Because some people use it as a thin veil over their actions doesn't mean it's the root cause permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago Because some people use it as a thin veil over their actions doesn’t mean it’s the root cause I firmly disagree with this premise, I think religion's particular mix of social othering and righteous justification are the root of a great deal of evil in the world. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) Religions do call for a lot of violence don't get me wrong. I'd even make the claim that most evil acts that we attribute to religion tend to have it as a pretense. The crusades for instance each had a main goal that was there independent of religion. But then you have the good that religions mandate. Sikhism with IRS community meals for instance. Zakat in Islam is another good example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) Antisemitism doesn't happen without religion. Think about everything downstream of the Judaism/Christianity/Islam splits. Think about the impact of The Church being the de facto cultural force in Europe for a millennium. Think about how much harder it is to whip a population into supporting your expensive conquest without a Divine Right or Moral Imperative. Sikhism exists because of how shitty life was under Islam and Hinduism in the region, their current "mostly chill" status does not negate the past suffering. And in a broader sense, consider how much fraud exists because people are willing to accept claims not backed by evidence. The normalization of magical thinking is probably as harmful as the actual power wielded by entities like the Catholic Church. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago (1 child) Antisemitism without religion is called racism. And because a corrupt caste of people use religion as a pretext to control and funnel wealth. Doesn't mean the underlying religion itself calls for that. As for having a population supporting conquest independent from religion look at the east India company, both world wars, and many others. I'm not saying religious organizations are a benefit or arguing for or against that. But how is the world a better place because the banned prayer rooms in universities? Whether some of those people follow a good religious leader or not. Their religion generally calls for overall good. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) What a religion calls for is almost never what it enables. how is the world a better place because the banned prayer rooms in universities? I don't think public funds should support any religion, and I don't think universities should support unsubstantiated claims. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) I agree with you on the use of public funds. But a ban goes beyond that. And it's not that the religion enables evil deeds. Evil deeds exist independent of religion. Because some people use it as a thin veil over their actions doesn't mean it's the root cause permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago Because some people use it as a thin veil over their actions doesn’t mean it’s the root cause I firmly disagree with this premise, I think religion's particular mix of social othering and righteous justification are the root of a great deal of evil in the world. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) Antisemitism doesn't happen without religion. Think about everything downstream of the Judaism/Christianity/Islam splits. Think about the impact of The Church being the de facto cultural force in Europe for a millennium. Think about how much harder it is to whip a population into supporting your expensive conquest without a Divine Right or Moral Imperative. Sikhism exists because of how shitty life was under Islam and Hinduism in the region, their current "mostly chill" status does not negate the past suffering. And in a broader sense, consider how much fraud exists because people are willing to accept claims not backed by evidence. The normalization of magical thinking is probably as harmful as the actual power wielded by entities like the Catholic Church. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago (1 child) Antisemitism without religion is called racism. And because a corrupt caste of people use religion as a pretext to control and funnel wealth. Doesn't mean the underlying religion itself calls for that. As for having a population supporting conquest independent from religion look at the east India company, both world wars, and many others. I'm not saying religious organizations are a benefit or arguing for or against that. But how is the world a better place because the banned prayer rooms in universities? Whether some of those people follow a good religious leader or not. Their religion generally calls for overall good. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) What a religion calls for is almost never what it enables. how is the world a better place because the banned prayer rooms in universities? I don't think public funds should support any religion, and I don't think universities should support unsubstantiated claims. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) I agree with you on the use of public funds. But a ban goes beyond that. And it's not that the religion enables evil deeds. Evil deeds exist independent of religion. Because some people use it as a thin veil over their actions doesn't mean it's the root cause permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago Because some people use it as a thin veil over their actions doesn’t mean it’s the root cause I firmly disagree with this premise, I think religion's particular mix of social othering and righteous justification are the root of a great deal of evil in the world. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago (1 child) Antisemitism without religion is called racism. And because a corrupt caste of people use religion as a pretext to control and funnel wealth. Doesn't mean the underlying religion itself calls for that. As for having a population supporting conquest independent from religion look at the east India company, both world wars, and many others. I'm not saying religious organizations are a benefit or arguing for or against that. But how is the world a better place because the banned prayer rooms in universities? Whether some of those people follow a good religious leader or not. Their religion generally calls for overall good. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) What a religion calls for is almost never what it enables. how is the world a better place because the banned prayer rooms in universities? I don't think public funds should support any religion, and I don't think universities should support unsubstantiated claims. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) I agree with you on the use of public funds. But a ban goes beyond that. And it's not that the religion enables evil deeds. Evil deeds exist independent of religion. Because some people use it as a thin veil over their actions doesn't mean it's the root cause permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago Because some people use it as a thin veil over their actions doesn’t mean it’s the root cause I firmly disagree with this premise, I think religion's particular mix of social othering and righteous justification are the root of a great deal of evil in the world. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) What a religion calls for is almost never what it enables. how is the world a better place because the banned prayer rooms in universities? I don't think public funds should support any religion, and I don't think universities should support unsubstantiated claims. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) I agree with you on the use of public funds. But a ban goes beyond that. And it's not that the religion enables evil deeds. Evil deeds exist independent of religion. Because some people use it as a thin veil over their actions doesn't mean it's the root cause permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago Because some people use it as a thin veil over their actions doesn’t mean it’s the root cause I firmly disagree with this premise, I think religion's particular mix of social othering and righteous justification are the root of a great deal of evil in the world. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) I agree with you on the use of public funds. But a ban goes beyond that. And it's not that the religion enables evil deeds. Evil deeds exist independent of religion. Because some people use it as a thin veil over their actions doesn't mean it's the root cause permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago Because some people use it as a thin veil over their actions doesn’t mean it’s the root cause I firmly disagree with this premise, I think religion's particular mix of social othering and righteous justification are the root of a great deal of evil in the world. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago Because some people use it as a thin veil over their actions doesn’t mean it’s the root cause I firmly disagree with this premise, I think religion's particular mix of social othering and righteous justification are the root of a great deal of evil in the world. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago* (1 child) The population? It stops public praying as a virtue. When praying is only done in private you can’t judge people being a worse Christian etc for not participating. So you’ll have a more secular society with more room for people to practice their religion as they see fit. Not doing things just because it’s expected of you. Like if there’s prayer room at a school. More people will use it because they don’t want to be seen as a bad Muslim. Even if they wouldn’t normally pray at those times. It creates pressures and expectations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago (1 child) Peer pressure will exist regardless though. This provides as space for people to pray in private. Why not make the prayer rooms individual rooms? Would that not solve the edge case you describe? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stickly@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago There is no logic to this person's stance, they just want to do harm to the other. They wrap that in a veil of impartial rational reasoning to quell the cognitive dissonance. If this law was phrased as anti-loitering to keep homeless people off sidewalks or banning private rooms for nursing mothers they would be up in arms. It's functionally the same, but since it targets their preferred adversary they nod in approval. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago (1 child) Peer pressure will exist regardless though. This provides as space for people to pray in private. Why not make the prayer rooms individual rooms? Would that not solve the edge case you describe? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stickly@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago There is no logic to this person's stance, they just want to do harm to the other. They wrap that in a veil of impartial rational reasoning to quell the cognitive dissonance. If this law was phrased as anti-loitering to keep homeless people off sidewalks or banning private rooms for nursing mothers they would be up in arms. It's functionally the same, but since it targets their preferred adversary they nod in approval. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] stickly@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago There is no logic to this person's stance, they just want to do harm to the other. They wrap that in a veil of impartial rational reasoning to quell the cognitive dissonance. If this law was phrased as anti-loitering to keep homeless people off sidewalks or banning private rooms for nursing mothers they would be up in arms. It's functionally the same, but since it targets their preferred adversary they nod in approval. permalink fedilink source parent