My grandma used to work at a Catholic charity to distribute food for people without resources.
There were a few Muslims who requested food from there, and they always complained that the meat wasn’t halal. Their very Catholic response was that they treated everyone the same, and weren’t going to change the food they offered just because some Muslims were complaining.
Then again, quite very Catholicly, they didn’t offer any meat during Lent to anyone.
If you are getting help from someone you shouldn’t complain about their preferences.
In my country they don’t pay property taxes, and often use charity as a justification. So it’s debatable if their help with strings attached is a net positive.
Give me your wallet and I’ll buy you an acceptable dinner with it.
I just treat that shit like an allergy.
I don’t get your point. They give food away for free and they choose what and when. What’s wrong with that, exactly? That their choices correlate with their religion? Well, duh.
The story is illustrative of the failure of private charities as public institutions.
We’ve got two sets of dietary restrictions, one of which the Catholics disregard and the other they faithfully apply. This makes their charity functionally inaccessible to the chunk of their neighborhood that’s Muslim.
This recalls another common instance in church charities, wherein recipients are pressured into prayer before receiving aid. As many of these charities - particularly in the wake of the Bush 43 era “Faith Based Initiatives” charity privatization initiative - obtain their aid from the federal government, what you have is secular aid filtered through sectarian institutions as a means of cultivating particular ideological views.
What’s wrong with that, exactly?
Set aside the generic legalist “Seperation of Church and State” 1st amendment guidelines, wherein residents aren’t obligated to hold religious views in order to access government services.
The fundamental problem with a state sponsored religious charity is that it polarizes the community into economic haves and have-nots, based on religious beliefs. And that foments discord, bigotry, and ultimately violence.
For the record, the charity I was talking about does also receive funding from the government, due to the religious institutions pressure through their media and their own preachers, so these criticisms are also appropriate for that situation.
so they use public fund?
Yes.
This reminds me of the term “rice christians.” When Christian missionaries would go abroad and offer aid to people only if they converted.
They’re imposing their customs based on dogma on vulnerable people with little to no capacity to choose, with no larger basis than “it’s what I was indoctrinated to believe”. It’s doubly shameful because this is a country that has been trying to unshackle itself from the legacy of a Fascist Catholic dictatorship, the Inquisition, and the forced expulsion/conversion of Jews and Muslims.
Halal/kosher is basically a “farm to table” supply chain requirement. Especially if you’re relying on donations it wouldn’t be simple to source. I wouldn’t expect any charity really to refuse supplies or try to source a ‘duplicate’ set of supplies for a minority of the people they serve. If they were in a Muslim majority area it would make sense to go to the effort.
The donations they took was money. They bought the food directly from the supermarket, which does have halal items here.
Ah.
Yeah that’s kind of a dick move.
Like I get not providing food you disapprove of. Food Not Bombs is supposed to be vegan food, but also when helping people, make reasonable accommodations to ensure you’re meeting needs they have. Haram meat given to a Muslim is useless, you’re better off giving that meat to someone else. No matter how many cheeseburgers you give a vegan, you won’t fill their stomach.
In fact this is one of the issues with charity as a concept. Many who do it expect gratitude for whatever they give and see requests for something that would help better or to stop giving things that will only go to waste as being a choosy beggar. When aiding people you need to ask them what they need, otherwise any help you provide is accidental.
Which religion said I can’t have sex with an ice cream cone in a park?
Because that cops was an asshole.
“my religion forbids me from talking to someone who has ice cream unless i also have ice cream, so shut your fucking mouth.”
I do have an amount of pity for people with extreme religious views. I remember talking to an atheist friends extremely religious mother who was trying to come to to terms with the fact her daughter was going to go to hell one day.
Imagine walking through the park and seeing someone about to eat an ice cream that you know has a powerful psychoactive substance in that will kick in after few years that tricks the persons brain into believing they’re being tortured until their brain turns to mush.
I absolutely don’t agree with people spreading their religious doctrine, especially when unwelcome, but many of those people could be considered victims to that choice and don’t deserve to be antagonised.
All religions are cults in one way or the other, the followers and believers are all victims of their religion and those running their particular sect, but just like we see in other cultic situations the victims often become abusers themselves and many reach sunk cost fallacy levels where they refuse to believe they were duped because of how much time and energy the devoted to a lie. It’s tragic and horrifying
That’s all well and good, but now this guy is calling the cops on you.
uno reverse “hello police? there’s a creepy old man in the park harassing people and i’m afraid he’s after children”
Ask Alan Turing what happens when you call the cops in a country that hates you.
WHY ARENT YOU BEING TOLERANT?
/s
I get the sentiment, but if you eat ice cream on Mondays you are just evil. Ice cream clearly is a Tuesday treat. /s
Excuse me heathen? It’s literally Taco Tuesday it’s in the name!
:P
I see your argument and raise you choco tacos
I’ve been living a lie!
Now that is a taco Tuesday I can get behind. Tacos for dinner, tacos for dessert!
I mean, this but its unironic. “Eating ice cream on mondays in the park is murder and if I catch you doing it I’m going to treat you like I would if I saw you committing a murder”.
I don’t really like this comic, because it trivializes what is generally seen as a serious medical issue. A ban on ice cream would be vastly preferable to a ban on abortion, as you’re not going to die from a lack of ice cream. This feels more akin to a Christian Scientist passing a statewide ban on blood transfusions.
To be fair, this comic isn’t just about abortion. It could also apply to things like “modesty” laws in places like Iran.
It doesn’t matter what the ice cream represents. If the argument for a law is wholly religious in nature, then it is unjust.
Yep. My first thought was a flashback to Catholic school where they were trying to take away my roast beef sandwich and give me a fish sandwich cause it was Friday. They already knew I wasn’t Catholic, or even Christian, they just didn’t know what I was because they weren’t about to find out.
Fuck a ban on ice cream, fuck a ban on abortion, I say ban BANS!
Why is Al Sharpton telling people not to eat ice cream?
deleted by creator
Fuck Al Sharpton.
Sincerely, every Transy Student that attended his talk on our campus in 1998 where he accused us of being UK, for 45 minutes straight.
Whatever religion he’s in, he’s probably the only member.
🍦 🍨
Uhm… nope.
To your religion is yours, to my religion is mine.
There were Muslim fundies in my area who shouted at participants in an lgbt parade.
That being said, if only what you say is that easy then we would not have had wars in the name of religion.
Do you live in the real world?
It’s is illegal to carry an ice cream cone in your back pocket on Sundays in the state of New York
Well, that certainly covers Christianity, Islam, and some select groups of Judaism. It’s not really fair to make such a generalization when it kind of only applies to religions that hold a majority in their respective nations.
nah, this is how vegan treat others
Well “yes,” but “that is because to the ideological vegans, it is a religion,” so not “nah” but “yes and-.”
you’re glitching
No it makes perfect sense, let me break it down for you.
nah, this is how vegan treat others
See, here he denies that this is how the religious treat people with “nah,” offering up vegans as the “true” exhibitors of this behavior. Now to break down my response piece by piece.
Well “yes,”
He is correct, that is how ideological vegans, the ones who feel you should be vegan for moral reasons and as a result are very preachy and evangelistic, operate.
but “that is because to the ideological vegans, it is a religion,”
but the ideological vegans behave this way due to the fact that ideological veganism is tantamount to a religion
so not “nah” but “yes and-.”
So, with this in mind, the “nah” isn’t accurate, as both ideological vegans and the religious both act with the same vitriolic fervor due to them considering themselves morally superior to their respective “out” groups, so instead of
nah, this is how vegan treat others
It is
Yes (this is how the religious treat others), and this is how vegan treat others, as well.
To further explain the “yes and-” joke, Here is a youtube video from some random guy about the rules of improv. #2- “yes and-” is of particular import to this discussion, as it may be key to understanding the reference.
I hope that helped you understand my complex comment, no need to glitch about it.
(Just preemptively, to explain, see, “glitch” rhymes with “bitch,” and so you see a pun was made in which you said I’m glitching and I said “no need to glitch about it,” you see. I hope this one was not similarly misunderstood.)
Don’t forget r/fuckcars
car-centric infrastructure destroys cities and residential areas, you’re stupid if you think r/fuckcars is relevant to this meme. most people on r/fuckcars have a car
https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/uggv41/on_deflating_tires/
Many of them believe they should deflate the tires of people they consider “car heads”. The theme here is forcing others to live how you want them to based on your personal values rather than letting people be.
Seems pretty relevant to me
Generally when tires are deflated it’s people who are in ultra expensive and dangerous SUVs which are basically just killing machines and nothing else. But people deflating tires is a very small amount in the community regardless, although I could see people deflating the tires of those who endanger others very realistic.
Yank tanks (unreasonably gigantic and dangerous SUVs which are almost always American, named so because other countries have started being infected by them and now the rest of the world is mad at us) are just bad. Owning one is bad, using one is especially bad, they only exist to be the bigger vehicle so they can “win” car crashes and crush pedestrians like a tank (and because they cna bypass emissions regulations). It isn’t a matter of “I want to live this way so you have to live this way”, it’s “you’re endangering the lives of everyone around you beyond a tolerable amount”. So no, it’s not relevant at all.
Honestly your argument kind of sounds like someone against no-smoking zones because “let people smoke, just because you don’t want to doesn’t mean they can’t”. Second hand smoke endangers the health of a lot of people around you, it has nothing to do with other peoples’ not wanting to smoke – same goes with SUVs, they’re one of the largest causes of death that isn’t a chronic health problem, they are a danger. If smoking at, say, a middle school were legal, and someone did it with kids around, I’d have no issue with stealing their smokes and chucking them into a trash can, even if what they were doing wasn’t illegal it’s still immoral. Even if it caused them serious issues and withdrawal and stuff, what they’re doing endangers others and I’m fine if someone takes it into their own hands to put a stop to it. You can apply that same logic to yank tanks.
Funny you justify these actions on this post by arguing morality.
To a religious person, the threat of creating an immoral society is worse then say smoking or polluting. The soul is eternal and corruption would result in greater then a lifetime of consequence whereas your examples do not.
Point I’m arguing isn’t to say one is right or wring but can you understand your arguing from the same concern as the person in the meme above.
Religious beliefs aren’t real, they’re delusions, and being gay or some other random “sin” isn’t at all comparable to what I’m speaking of. Cars are the #1 cause of death in the US other than health complications, most of those SUVs, they are demonstratably extremely harmful to society even if you don’t consider how their dominance destroys our infrastructure design, increases stress, and how they pollute the Earth a ton.
It’s silly to cater to people who believe in Christianity or something similar when we have actual problems that we have proven solutions for, like getting rid of car-dependent infrastructure. Compared to say, being gay or uttering the words “oh my God”, which according to Christian belief are equally as bad as murder, slavery, and rape or even worse than it on the sin scale. If a religion believes in a hell, especially when believing in an omniscient and omnipotent future-seeing God, it’s worth immediately disregarding everything from.
Even entertaining the idea that the Christian ideas of morality have any basis in reality, especially putting it on the same level as actual science, is unbelievable.
Religious beliefs aren’t real
That is your opinion and not shared by others.
The point isn’t that you have to do anything. You theme here is that you live your life and respect others living their own life. You have argued as if its a zero sum situation where you can force your belief on others and you refuse to accept that allows others to do the same.
Religion is very real to some people and not respecting that can absolutely lead to the same attitudes being presented in the above. It leads to one group initializing the other and acting like they know better.
Silly strawman caricature of reasonable argumentation.
“Well I think its OK for me to beat my wife, so you shouldn’t mind me doing so.”
Quite different in this case, yet it follows a similar logic. Things can unaffect you diferectly, yet still be wrong.
Using the obscene ice cream example is a unsophisticated attempt to discredit this line of reasoning.
“Well I think its OK for me to beat my wife, so you shouldn’t mind me doing so.”
-
Husband: I consent
-
Jesus: I consent
-
Wife: I don’t
Isn’t there someone you forgot to ask?
Things can unaffect you diferectly, yet still be wrong.
What would you consider a hospital staffer refusing to provide medical aid to a woman in the middle of a deadly miscarriage, because the hospital administrator is afraid of being sued or arrested for performing an abortion?
What would you consider a hospital > > staffer refusing to provide medical aid to a woman in the middle of a deadly miscarriage, because the hospital administrator is afraid of being sued or arrested for performing an abortion?
In that situation it is clearly wrong not to help, because in the case of a miscarriage the fetus would die also presumably. And many Christians would agree.
But for cases of no risk to the mother the morality of facilitating an abortion can be more dubious. The conservatives certainly have a strong position, even if I disagree with it.
In that situation it is clearly wrong not to help, because in the case of a miscarriage the fetus would die also presumably. And many Christians would agree.
Many wouldn’t. The ones that wouldn’t tend to be more well-financed and politically well-connected in my home town of Houston. And therein lays the rub.
But for cases of no risk to the mother
There is no such thing as a “no risk” pregnancy. The question every expectant mother has to ask is how much risk they’re willing to take. And that’s a question some folks would argue is best answered by the woman and her doctor, rather than a state appellate court or a legislature’s pray circle or a police officer with an itchy trigger finger.
There is no strong position. Should the government be able to force donations of blood, kidney, or liver if it saves a life? How would you feel if you had to be a living donor for your rapist’s child?
-
Ok so let’s use a real example. Many Christians are anti-LGBT based on their interpretations of the Bible and their moral beliefs.
So should we ban homosexuality?
Also your argument is just as flawed. The average person has a moral objection to domestic violence. This comic is referring to when there’s a difference between the average person’s moral beliefs and the religious ones, especially the radical zealot’s belief
So should we ban homosexuality?
No because its not morally wrong.
In the case of abortion the conservatives have some strong arguments even though I am in favour of it.
Do they though?
Numbers 5: 11-21
The Bible should trump those “strong
argumentsfeelings”I personally I’ve never viewed abortion as a religious view because babys on their own are pretty useless they are as functional as the dogs and cats we kill on a regular basis we only value babies because they develop into humans that are sentient and capable of speaking so why can’t we apply the same logic to fetuses that develop into babies that develop into humans for that reason I personally believe we should view abortion as a how long does it reasonably take to decide a really important decision personally I think maybe 1 or 2 weeks of finding your pregnant because as a parent id imagine your going to need to make important decisions that can’t wait but hey what do I know im a 19 year old man that has never even had sex or been around anyone pregnant I just feel that if you’re cronicly unsure of weather to keep the kid or not you probably shouldn’t have the kid and the more time that passes the closer you get to the argument of is this child murderer
No because its not morally wrong
Morals are subjective. In someone else’s mind homosexuality could be immoral, and this has been the case historically.
In civilized world laws are not (or should not) be based on “morality”, but to ensure level and fair playing ground for all people. This includes not restricting persons way of expressing their sexuality as long as it doesn’t negatively affect others (ie. Rape, pedophilia, zoophilia, etc)
Of course we don’t live in that kind of utopia but I hope we’re getting better slowly
The point of the cartoon is to extend the argument to the most extreme example. You’re missing the entire message. It’s not that belief is unacceptable and no one can have shared beliefs. It’s, taken to the extreme, religious belief extends beyond what most would consider reasonable.
Its an extreme over generalization. Also all of you keep saying religion, but this applies to all beliefs.
That’s the point. Religion has a lot of extreme beliefs which are only based on, “God said so.”
Where are these non-religious beliefs that are being inflicted on others? By far the most common case in the US are religious beliefs, specifically from the Christian right. Everything else is “well akually” that’s little more than background noise.
There are many such laws that are argued for from a non religious point of view.
Recreational drug use: Laws against possession and use of drugs like marijuana, despite debates around whether adult personal use should be criminalized if it doesn’t harm others. Prostitution/sex work: The exchange of sexual services for money between consenting adults is still broadly criminalized in most states. Gambling: Many forms of gambling, even when just involving individuals risking their own money, remain illegal in some jurisdictions. Obscenity/indecency laws: Restrictions on distribution of pornographic material or public nudity, even if just involving consenting adults. Physician-assisted suicide: While permitted in some states, actively assisting terminally ill people to end their lives remains illegal in most places.
So you just named several things that are predominantly argued for by religious people for religious reasons, even if they don’t come right out and say it.
Flat earthers, anti-vaxxers just to name two american. These are not only based on religion.
Both far left and far right political beliefs are also problematic in the same way. See the pronoun debacle in Canada for instance.
Flat Earthers and Anti-vaxxers have huge overlap with religion.
See the pronoun debacle in Canada for instance.
So asking people to use the right pronouns is equivalent to making rape victims carry their baby to term? I think you have some fucked up bothsideisim here.
That’s not at all what I said. I just listed few examples of where beleifs have gone too far as to infringe the rights of others who don’t share that belief. I haven’t even taken a stand on any of those issues. I haven’t even compared them.
If we must compare them: Yes, I agree that the violations made by religious fanatics are way more worrying than these others.
It doesn’t make them not fit the list of things that are problematic though. You asked for more examples of beliefs. You got them.
