That kind of statement can only apply to ideas and attitudes that also respect diversity. Christianity and Islam taken at face value are exclusionary of all other religions. A “true” believer therefore has a moral imperative of destroying diversity in order to protect other people.
This is not saying all or even most followers of these religions will follow that path, but that they need to water down or ignore some of the core theology to fully operate in a diverse society.
Actually there are schools of theology in both of these religions that enshrine diversity and embrace interoperability with other religions. They are just not mainstream because guess what? Mainstream religion is owned by power, and all that power is fascist essentially. Sure enough there are no true believers in anything but power in mainstream religions, start stripping them down on theology field and they reveal it.
I mean, just have a look at any works by Hakim Bey and Tim Morton’s latest book.
It’s fairly contradictory, actually. With the whole punishing the children of sinning fathers, then having a verse that says that the sins of the father are not the sins of the son, or something like that.
A “true” believer therefore has a moral imperative of destroying diversity in order to protect other people.
I mean they have a moral imperative to try within whatever limits their interpretation of the religion imposes, but that’s it. It’s not like these religions imply, say, putting followers of other religions in reeducation camps. One can fully operate in a diverse society while still thinking “I’m right and everyone else is wrong when it comes to this thing,” for the same reason having political opinions isn’t mutually exclusive with diversity. BTW Islam =/= Islamism. The former is a religion; the latter is a political ideology based on the religion.
Again, you’re assuming that this belief exists in a vacuum and not as part of an elaborate belief system with clauses specifically meant to address this. Besides, your average leftist believes that if you (well society at large more like) disagree with them millions if not billions of people will be condemned to lifelong poverty for generations. The scale is a bit smaller than eternal damnation, but really this is just how it goes when you have strong/high-stakes opinions about anything.
That kind of statement can only apply to ideas and attitudes that also respect diversity. Christianity and Islam taken at face value are exclusionary of all other religions. A “true” believer therefore has a moral imperative of destroying diversity in order to protect other people.
This is not saying all or even most followers of these religions will follow that path, but that they need to water down or ignore some of the core theology to fully operate in a diverse society.
Minor correction. Islam is the religion. Islamism is, essentially, the attempted application of said religion into politics or state law.
Actually there are schools of theology in both of these religions that enshrine diversity and embrace interoperability with other religions. They are just not mainstream because guess what? Mainstream religion is owned by power, and all that power is fascist essentially. Sure enough there are no true believers in anything but power in mainstream religions, start stripping them down on theology field and they reveal it.
I mean, just have a look at any works by Hakim Bey and Tim Morton’s latest book.
Christianity is arguably the historically most successful attempt at centralizing power. And it was a political tool from start.
ah, but if you completely ignore all that you can pretend it’s just a harmless religion
It’s fairly contradictory, actually. With the whole punishing the children of sinning fathers, then having a verse that says that the sins of the father are not the sins of the son, or something like that.
TL;DR, depends on if you are old testament?
The problem is not in the old testament. Mainstream judaism doesn’t claim you need to be a jew to achieve salvation.
I mean they have a moral imperative to try within whatever limits their interpretation of the religion imposes, but that’s it. It’s not like these religions imply, say, putting followers of other religions in reeducation camps. One can fully operate in a diverse society while still thinking “I’m right and everyone else is wrong when it comes to this thing,” for the same reason having political opinions isn’t mutually exclusive with diversity. BTW Islam =/= Islamism. The former is a religion; the latter is a political ideology based on the religion.
When you believe that if someone disagrees with you they are going to be tortured for eternity, burning books sounds a lot like a lesser evil.
Again, you’re assuming that this belief exists in a vacuum and not as part of an elaborate belief system with clauses specifically meant to address this. Besides, your average leftist believes that if you (well society at large more like) disagree with them millions if not billions of people will be condemned to lifelong poverty for generations. The scale is a bit smaller than eternal damnation, but really this is just how it goes when you have strong/high-stakes opinions about anything.