After the ban of the c/christians community for having a rule against LGBTQ+ content. I wonder where is the actual line of what is allowed and what is not on this instance. (https://lemmy.world/post/1762563)
There are plenty of instances allowing hate speech against religious people. Looking through them I can see how they can be pretty offensive for someone who was brought up religious.
For example !atheistmemes@lemmy.world.
From their description
No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.
Some of the content:
- https://lemmy.world/post/1783216
- https://lemmy.world/post/1766629
- https://lemmy.world/post/1591110
- https://lemmy.world/post/1585721
To clarify, I do not feel offended, as I am in no capacity religious and I am an atheist also. I also do not ask for the removal of that community as I don’t believe neither of the two should be removed.
But going through the content on atheistmemes the content there is far worse and more offending than it was on c/christians. While on c/christians only the rules where marginally breaking the rules, while there were no content that was in violation. This community in my opinion does both.
Allowing anti religion community while banning the pro religion one is creating a real deficit of different opinions here.
What is your opinion? Do you think that one should be allowed while the other not and why?
Some people are brought up since childhood in religious environments, and for all they know they are Christians. They didn’t really chose to be one.
The same way I don’t want LGBTQ+ people to not feel welcome, I do not want religious people to not feel welcome, just because they were born in such an environment.
The whole point of the fediverse is choice. Religious groups can create their own instances and put in rules that reflect their values. They can federate or defederate from other instances based on their desires.
What you don’t get to do is say “Hey, I want to present my views that are antithetical to your community because you are a popular instance”.
This is an inherently ridiculous position. You can stop being religious at any point for any reason. Hell, if you willingly participate in a system that calls for discrimination against innocents, you are not welcome in any space at all.
I don’t care if the book that tells you to HATE THE DEGENERATE is the Bible or Mein Kampf. Religion is not an excuse to be evil.
Oh, you’re a fun troll.
I’m not sure whether to ask you
a) why, if you “don’t want LGBTQ+ people to not feel welcome” you;re okay with a community who’s basic rule system includes making LGBTQ+ people unwelcome or…
b) if you were brought up in a rich family, would it be unkind or offensive to post about people who have food or shelter insecurity and blame the rich for their problems? Should all socialism or welfare communities be blocked so that you are not offended by people who don’t have money?
No reason for hostility.
a) by the same point I would disagree with a community that is making religious people unwelcome. I am only advocating for applying the same standards across the board.
b) Well you came exactly to my point, no they should not be banned!
In my opinion, the people who have been indoctrinated into a religion from birth, and who have never been exposed to fair religious criticism or alternative ideas, are the exact people who should be.
Like political parties and clubs, religion is an idea, and in my view ideas are never above questioning or criticism.
I agree, but I would not be selective in allowing criticism of one group while banning criticism of another.
It’s a false equivalency. Sexuality and sexual identity are innate characteristics not learned beliefs or behaviors. Sexuality and sexual identity cannot be changed ideas can.
What’s funny is I’ve seen lots of Christians say that going to hell is a “choice.”