believe me your oppressive patriarchal religion is much more offensive than an atheist saying “god is pretend”
okay but why does it matter to you what goes on in my religion/why is it necessary to knock what i believe in if you’re not participating in it i’m j/s
because your religion is the reason i can’t get legally married in all fifty statesMy religion isn’t the reason we can’t get legally married in all fifty states. In fact, my religion works for a number of peace and justice concerns, including queer rights.My religion tells me to care for the poor and advocate for the disenfranchised. My religion tells me that any act of kindness and support to the least of my brothers and sisters is an act of service to my God. My religion tells me to remove the log from my own eye before I attempt to remove the speck from yours. My religion tells me that the greatest commandment is to love God with all my heart, soul, and mind, and the second greatest is to love my neighbor as I love myself, and that all other teachings must be examined in light of these two commandments. And my religion tells me that my neighbor is any person I have the capacity to help, regardless of any aspect of their identity.Yeshua ben Yosef was the son of an unwed teenage mother and the stepson of a manual laborer, and he spent his formative years as an undocumented immigrant in a foreign country. He not only socialized and ate with sinners, lepers, tax collectors, and sex workers, he built his inner circle of them. He lost his temper when he found the temple being used as a financial institution but he never said a word against anyone based on who they loved. He treated everyone with dignity and compassion, regardless of race, religion, gender, or creed, and he never said a word about sexual orientation, largely because his culture didn’t conceptualize that facet of human experience in the same way that we do today. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that, had it been an aspect of his culture, he’d have treated queer folk with the same support and dignity he treated literally everyone else who was not actively hurting another person. He did, however, condemn the actions of those who exploited other people, who made a show of their wealth or piety for the admiration of others, and who were so insistent on following the letter of the law that they hurt the people they were supposed to serve.The hypocrites who hurt and oppress people in the name of a judgmental, narrowminded god are not representing or practicing my religion. I’m not sure what religion they are practicing, but their behavior has nothing to do with the life or teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.You don’t have to follow this or any religion, but please don’t use the actions of exactly the sort of people Christ most vocally disapproved of as an excuse to condemn Christianity.
You know what? I am going to get hate for this, but I kind of have to say NO. I don’t often talk about religion, but now I am going to, for a while.
This post is a classic example of moving the goalposts. The OP was talking about a religious institution. As in, made up of leadership figures. Ones that engage in endorsing oppressive actions every day, either actively, or complicity. Not every leadership figure does. But it’s in the interest of many branches of Christianity (meaning: their leaderships, not their spiritual goals or dogmas) that LGBTQ+ people do not receive full social equality, that women do not achieve true equity, even that people of color lose what rights and social standing they have. It is in the interest of many Christian leaders that science education not be taught in schools in a reality-based manner, and that medicine not be applied or studied to some ailments, that birth control should not be endorsed, that various branches of Christianity keep multiplying in an attempt to, in dominionist fashion, convert the entire world.
This has nothing to do with your faith or your Christ or the peace-loving intent of your religious worldview.
This has to do with religious leaders, the agendas of physical, real human beings on planet Earth.
In the USA at least, various branches of Christianity enjoy enormous social privilege. The above post totally disregards that kind of social power and legitimacy (I’m sorry, HOW many of our presidents have followed some sort of Christianity, or forced to affiliate with Christianity to appear ‘electable’? what’s that, ALL of them?) that various christian institutions hold. It disregards the amount of oppression it has brought upon people, the fact that huge amounts of people have been forcibly converted as an attempt at cultural brainwashing, in favor of saying ‘well Christianity isn’t REALLY like that, Christ would have condemned the people you are talking about!’
THEN WHY ARE THEY CHRISTIAN LEADERS? Why has nobody done anything about this, if leadership does not represent the views of the people it represents?
This has NOTHING to do with what Christ would or would not have approved of. This has everything to do about earthly institutions. To say otherwise is to move the discussion out of bounds.
The above post is as nonsense as if somebody complained about the USA’s Republican Party starting a war in Iraq for fiscal gain, but somebody coming in and saying, ‘well, ACTUALLY, the Republican Party is all about small government and reduced spending. Stop complaining about people who aren’t ‘true’ republicans that Teddy Roosevelt wouldn’t approve of!’
It’s nonsense and changes nothing about the fact that bad things have happened. When you’re in a position of privilege, whether you’re white, straight, cis, whatever, even religious privilege, you are going to have to square with the fact that your identity has hurt other people and no amount of ‘but we REALLY stand for good things!’ can change the actions of your leadership.
And really, you should be enraged. People of your faith, who supposedly believe in good will towards all men and women on earth, stopping another human from finding happiness? That ought to make you scream! Before deciding to patronize about what Christianity is or is not to people who obviously have been oppressed by you, maybe you should begin explaining what is and what isn’t cool to people on your own side.
Wearing a hijab isn’t inherently liberating – but neither is baring one’s breasts. What is liberating is being able to choose either of these things. It’s pretty ludicrous to think that oppression is somehow proportional to how covered or uncovered someone’s body is. Both sides of this argument present a shallow understanding of women’s empowerment, which only drowns out the substantive challenges facing all women – issues that cannot be encapsulated in a debate about a piece of fabric.
What the fuck. How is this okay?
we were taught about how David and Jonathan were ~best bros~
when this was
not the case