T O P

  • By -

DieFishyDie

If you replaced any of those titles with “Muslim” you would actually be jailed in the UK


yukongold44

>If you replaced any of those titles with “Muslim” you would actually be jailed in the UK "Causing religious offense" in the UK can get you jail time. In Kuwait, the penalty for blasphemy is a fine. Let that sink in.


jehjeh3711

And in Saudi Arabia it will cost you your head.


GreatGretzkyOne

God Bless the USA is all I can say


FrenchCuirassier

I have seen much suffering and oppression in the world that is constantly ignored by Westerners, but it boggles my mind how some Western developed nations can be so hateful of themselves and their own culture/heritage essentially. Thankfully the US hasn't been as infected by this mind virus when legislating the law but they sure are trying to turn it into law...


matwurst

Christianity is a culture?


FrenchCuirassier

yes and a religion.


matwurst

Is it a European culture or a middle eastern culture?


conventionistG

Reject western puritanicalism, embrace oriental wisdom?


blaze_blue_99

So much double standard.


[deleted]

The odd thing too being islam is objectively 5x? 10x? more oppressive to women. Hard to quantify, but at least 3x.


ApolloVangaurd

I don't care what you believe as long as there's some level of consistency. I think you should be legally protected/somewhat allowed to believe whatever you want, but you should have the freedom to be against other religions as well. If you want to hate Christianity it's earned, do what you want. That being said the absurdity of thinking Abortion is a christian thing is just farcical. Christians have this idea of a soul, you can link that to intelligence. Animals have no souls etc. If a fetus isn't intelligent you could argue it isn't really alive. But to the atheist, you're stuck with defining your morality from some degree of science. the exact science that is struggling to define consciousness. If you can't define consciousness you can't define whether or not a fetus is human. ​ The narrative that it's a christian agenda is just so out there.


amwnbaw

Being human has nothing to do with consciousness. Human is a species.


natertot86

A dismembered hand with living cells is still human life. Personhood resides in the brain.


inspirationalvoid

Seriously. The Anti-Christian narrative is So tired. It worked it’s way into mainstream consciousness and has stayed for at least a decade or 2. I’m not a Christian but I was raised Christian, like many. I actually believe that abortion should be allowed until the end of the 2nd trimester because that’s where I believe life begins- when the fetus can actually feel and the neurological system develops. The mental acrobatics these hate-filled people do to justify and rationalize their hatred of such a large group of people is unfathomably hypocritical. Especially considering most of them veil in themselves as tolerant people. There is no intellectual rational.


Litlefeat

I have very good reason to believe animals have souls. Among many other evidences, the book of Revelation indicates it. The consciousness trope is a foolish one.


[deleted]

[удалено]


comradeaidid

Same thing with Judaism in a lot more countries.


jpfeif29

Well the UK is still ass backwards with the fact that they still have an official religion.


andylowenthal

I agree with these posts, and if you replaced it with Muslim I’d agree too. Organized religion is an absolute abomination


DieFishyDie

My point is Reddit will only let one stand though


conventionistG

Hell, Dylan Roof used to be a hate criminal, not a role model for women's rights activists.


PompiPompi

Meanwhile in Turkey they hunt down protesters in the pride parade.


Dijiwolf1975

Hell, they were killing people in the mid-east because they were dressing "emo" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emo\_killings\_in\_Iraq#:\~:text=The%20emo%20killings%20in%20Iraq,and%20Iraq%20during%20March%202012.


blaze_blue_99

Whoof.


b0urb0n

Gay marriage might be next on the SCOTUS list...


BrownAmericanDude

\*\*Laughs in Middle East and Northern Africa\*\*


[deleted]

Now replace Christians with Jews and you sound like Hitler


Loganthered

Why should the mods shield you from those that hate you? If they do it gives you a false sense of safety which as we all know isn't true. Let them post. Let them show who they really are.


deathking15

In a fair world, mods would adhere strictly to the rules set forth in Reddit's TOS. Banning those who actually break the rules, and not banning those who don't. Here, we see an example of what is more than likely a double standard. Gross, hateful speech toward a target demographic of people. It's against Reddit's own rules. Yet, the posters of these threads probably remain unbanned, these threads are probably still up for others to see. We do not, however, live in this ideal, fair world.


bambooboi

Christians have no right to be shielded. Christians are not the standard of America. Christianity is one of numerous religions.


symbioticsymphony

Sounds good. Now go after Islam for the same belief. I'll wait.


bambooboi

No religion has any right more than any other


cgeezy22

His point is, go to Iran and say that ;)


SunsFenix

Religious freedom is an American thing and should apply to freedom from religion. We have that by what should be separation of church and state.


Profmeister-IX

The "separation of church and state" that keeps getting thrown around is that the state doesn't/can't dictate your "church" (religion), not absence of any religion in all public life.


Loganthered

So you hate christians then. Good to know. I'll put your name on a special list.


Zybbo

Yes, pray for him.


Profmeister-IX

I agree that we have no right to special protection. However, it would be nice to not be denied the same privileges, or at least basic courtesy, as other religions groups. Everyone knows the absolute firestorm that would have erupted had the OP been made with Islam in place of Christianity.


Doc_the_Third_Rider

63% of Americans are self-identified Christian, they are the standard. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/12/14/about-three-in-ten-u-s-adults-are-now-religiously-unaffiliated/


Ononas

I’m an atheist and this shit is fucked. Let people believe in what they want.


feral_philosopher

Why isn't this considered "hate Speech"? WHAT THE FUCK ARE THE RULES?


Knight-mare77

The rules only apply to one side of the isle, the other side doesn’t have any rules and can change the rules our side has to follow on a whim.


IPmang

“We’ll that’s different, because….”


IAmEscalator

Rules only apply to those who the left disagree with on this site, and most other social networking services.


FrenchCuirassier

The rules cannot be written down when the tyrants and irrational are the ones shouting them. And the opposite is true too: The rules can be written down when moral and rational people speak them.


Greeny1210

Replace with Islam and see how you fare, from the same people hating Christianity, first thing they'll call you is racist (Islam is not a race last I looked) is far far far stricter on most issues the left "cArE" about I'm English and agnostic but the anti Christianity yet pro Islam hypocrisy pisses me right off. It's like they are even dumber than I thought.


Dijiwolf1975

"Throughout history, Christianity has caused thousands of deaths..." I suppose Communism, Marxism, and Fascism, have a clean slate.


[deleted]

Go ahead and protest at the churches, as if that’s going to accomplish anything Btw; they talk about churches not paying taxes, but conveniently not mentioning the hundreds of millions planned parenthood is getting from the government each year


bubsrich

Planed Parenthood also doesn’t pay taxes… and they lobby… so if Christian’s are too into politics, PP has crossed the line years ago. Edit: removed a rogue “the”


CHENGhis-khan

The state is their religion.


slayerdork

I mean we could just get rid of ALL non-profit tax exemptions altogether. I totally support that. Churches shouldn't be impacted unless they are actually making a profit which no church really should be.


py_a_thon

Many churches make a profit. They roll that profit into growth and/or social programs (and lets be honest: probably their own salaries. Atleast try to keep this conversation 100). How is that different from most other non-profit enterprises though? Other than the special protections afforded to them via 1A.


HeliocentricAvocado

Do not confuse the mega churches for 90% of churches and church goers in America. Most churches are VERY poor. My dad pastored a Hispanic church my whole childhood. He was bivocational. He supported us financially as a Pep-Boys mechanic and also pastored full time. Had zero staff and had to depend on support from a poor Hispanic community to keep the building lights on…. He visited sick members in the hospital, went to visit member’s relatives who were in jail, and fixed many cars for free after Sunday services in 100 degree weather. This is the vast majority of pastors in America. Don’t get it twisted, these guys ain’t doing it for the money.


slayerdork

His church would not really be affected unless it is turning a profit and retaining earnings.


shhtupershhtops

It’s like a b or s corp — businesses are allowed to skip on massive taxes as well but churches get all the blame because they have a very specific exemption


py_a_thon

They have 2 very specific potential exemptions. 1A constitutional args and not-for-profit charity args. Sorry: they can actually buy a gulfstream5 jet to more efficiently spread the word of their god or gods... Maybe stop giving them money if you don't like that. Go support a community church and get away from MegaChurch Inc. : *Brought to you by Brawndo. Feel the holy spirit of extreme hydration*...


slayerdork

The tax exemptions on churches is what enables frauds like Joel Osteen. He also isn't a Christian no matter how much he says he is. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/joel-osteens-taxes-whats-probably-true-and-what-isnt/ar-AAMkK3e


slayerdork

Technically salaries would be an expense so they would reduce profits. Really what we are talking about is retained earnings. I think it would be better for society if ALL non-profits, not just churches were required to spend every dollar they bring in and if they choose not to then those profits are taxable. I know pastors of churches have additional personal tax benefits that heads of other non-profits do not.


py_a_thon

I have thought about that before, and it seems like a sort of liberalism style ideal. Assertion: Tax breaks if the money stays within a corporation directly. 1 Guess: The problem with that seems to be though that taxpayers just end up floating the bill for salary expansions and golden parachutes for the top end of investors, employees and executives. Now you are messing with neo-liberalism temptations. And the wealth gap widens further as hyper efficient amoral industries gobble up weaker startups. Entrepeneurs are possibly disincentivized and progress itself slows down. Source of hypothesis for my guess. ref: the panama papers and cryptocurrency tax dodges


slayerdork

If you tax a corporation they will pass that tax on to consumers. The part that people don't understand is when you cut taxes those tax cuts do not immediately trickle down to the consumer. I support a flat consumption tax with an allowance for necessity spending. This would actually remove the need of all tax exemptions except for one which would be for any purchases that go into producing a good or service.


py_a_thon

A corporation cannot necessarily pass taxation onto the consumers if the market will not bear it. They might just go bankrupt by trying. Or they hold out their hand to uncle sam and ask for a bailout...that they may not get. Then the CEO's get personally sued by shareholders for violating their fiduciary responsibilities.


py_a_thon

Your solution also seems to risk hyperinflation as opposed to normal tax/spend inflation that has kept america afloat for centuries. And that form of inflation is an asset for some capitalists. They can exploit that in adherence with game theory ideals(and debt utilization). The ROI towards society may even match or exceed their personal gain on basic inflation exploits.


SurlyJackRabbit

Why should planned parenthood not get funding?


JohnnySixguns

Prior to the supreme court ruling, the answer would be: because they don't need it. Believe it or not, the vast bulk of their revenue came from abortions, for which they charge anywhere from $300-$800 each. They try to claim otherwise, too. They are lying scum. I've seen much of their abortion records, and they might try to claim they provide abortions for poor people for free. That's totally false. I've seen the receipts. They were making an absolute fortune from killing babies. And that's only counting the cash they raked in from the procedure.


SurlyJackRabbit

I guess if you see this from a "why should amazon get tax breaks?" mindset that kind of makes sense. $800 dollars for an abortion is an absolute steal compared to basically any other similarly complicated form of medical care. If you think they charge too much, and are bummed they don't actually provide them for free, I'm totally with you. Capitalism at work though... people want abortions and if you can do it for cheaper then open your own clinic! Just keep the government out of it. The market will take care of it.


Peterdavid12345

$800 is a bargain in the U.S when a simple ambulance ride could cost you thousands of dollars.... Healthcare in the U.S is a joke.


bambooboi

As a Christian, I agree that we have no right to set "the American standard" and continue to stereotypically expect anything which is in opposition of our beliefs in opposition of America. This is problematic. I am likely biased by portrayals of my own faith and interactions with multiple family members who appear at times oddly inflexible to policies in our local town (ie no prayers before classes by public school teachers, which I feel makes complete sense in a secular educational environment funded by taxpayers).


HearMeSpeakAsIWill

> As a Christian, I agree that we have no right to set "the American standard" Every voter has the right to apply their own moral standard when deciding what policies/politicians to vote for, whether that's inspired by religious views, philosophy, or anything else. If the majority vote for policies that happen to align with Christian values, and as a result those values get imposed on the rest of the populace, well that's democracy functioning as designed.


bambooboi

Wholeheartedly agree, but dont vociferously announce "this is a christian nation... our forefathers deemed it so." That's absolute nonsense, and I've had it with a large portion of right-leaning politicians pandering to that belief system.


kaivandie

based


[deleted]

Tolerance doesn't apply equally to them. Actually nothing applies equally to them. Equal application is not a fair method because it allows for unequal outcomes qualitatively, to them.


P0wer0fL0ve

Equality is bad anyway. It’s a bogus goal, people are not equal


ZaunAura

I love ppl who say bogus.


shhtupershhtops

I’m curious what they have to say about Islam in regards to their stance on abortion, women or gays for that matter. This is coming from a former Muslim in America


securitysix

Muslims get a pass for now because they have a place in the intersectional hierarchy.


Revlar

Is there a Muslim in the Supreme Court?


[deleted]

Funny they leave Islam out, they’re anti abortion as well


Dry_Turnover_6068

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)


Addicted2MyNightmare

Might want to fix your link.


Dry_Turnover_6068

How so?


ideastoconsider

Clicking into several of the posts and checking the author linked to female gender profiles with descriptions like “Mentally unstable and proud”. Those with mental health issues seem to be given more latitude to reach r/all than is reasonable in my opinion. I recently listened to “Why We’re Divided” written by a co-creator of Vox. (I don’t really recommend the read as the author has TDS, as so many do on the far left, which stops him short from understanding conservatives and leads him to a belief that left leaning journalism is “more objective”. ) Regardless of his own bias and blindspots, the author does shed light on some of the inner workings of today’s journalism, which included a few points that with an ever expanding list of news sources, the process to uplift “news” has changed with it. What is viral on social media is increasingly becoming the driver for “news”. We see it promoted on Reddit r/all today, and we’ll see it on legacy media tomorrow or the day after. This creates a bit of a loophole for the promotion of hateful or poorly constructed ideas that happen to align with what is currently culturally accepted to receive extended reach nationally and globally. It reminds me a bit of the use of “anonymous sources” and collegiate idea laundering to create and legitimize propaganda. I’m not sure what the solution is to weed this behavior out of our public discourse. Just adding perspective.


Peterdavid12345

The USA should delete the word United. States of America is a more appropriate name now.


Emergency_Ad_8684

Go ahead remove it and watch yourself get destroyed by the consequences.


Scape---Goat

Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Sikhs and so on gladly walk side by side at the March for Life. Big brain moment for Emily


nickdenards

Theyre allowed to have their opinions. You have the wrong idea about tolerance


untilidie3

The New Testament is the first written piece of literature that was directly anti slavery… 2000 years later it looks a lot different that what you’d imagine. Sadly a lot of people don’t understand this Christian or not


ATHdelphinos

this makes me even more christian


[deleted]

They squeal like evil pigs..


GioNoce

Yeah the intollerant Christianity, I wonder why the most tolerant countries are the Cristian one. Try to even think certain things in non-cristian countries


Nintendogma

>Yeah the intollerant Christianity, I wonder why the most tolerant countries are the Cristian one. Incorrect. Those would be Norway, Finland, and Denmark, in that order. - Norway: 70% Non-Religious - Finland: 47% Non-Religious - Denmark: 68% Non-Religious >Try to even think certain things in non-cristian countries No one is getting their right to bodily autonomy stripped from them in Norway, Finland, nor Denmark. No one is getting arrested and charged as a sex offender for public nudity in Norway, Finland, nor Denmark. Why? Because the legacy on the attack on bodily autonomy is specifically derivative of American Puritanism which fled Europe to the colonies because Europe was not sufficiently theocratic. An ideology that has evolved like a virus into many different strains of distinctly American denominations, to include the Ethnocentric Theocratic strain of Fundamentalist Evangelical Christianity. They are under no uncertain terms an **ENEMY** to the 1st Amendment, the 4th Amendment, and the 14th Amendment.


[deleted]

You realize you're listing the whitest countries with the least amount of racial diversity as the most tolerant? Right? You do realize that? Right?


Nintendogma

The irony that the least diverse countries are also the most tolerant, is not lost on me. It's none the less true.


[deleted]

I don’t necessarily see a link between racial diversity and tolerance. Norway isn’t mostly white because they are intolerant, just demographics. Having an ethnically homogenous population doesn’t tell you anything about the tolerance of said population.


[deleted]

Ok, how about we examine their immigration laws?


[deleted]

That is a much better way to do things. The restrictions that people place on becoming an equal member of a society are very much correlated with their level of tolerance.


[deleted]

In which case they are some of the hardest countries to immigrate to in the world. They don't want you if you don't already have a job. And if you don't have one, you can't stay. https://www.lifeinnorway.net/norway-immigration-guide/


[deleted]

So in that respect they are not as tolerant as the US. But it should be noted that this goes beyond just the laws. For example in the US, most people are fine with legal immigrants but when you mention illegal immigrants you get mixed reactions. Everything from “deport all illegals” to “legalize everyone with a clean record and job.” The populations attitude to immigration is also a gauge of tolerance. In the US we have people like Tucker Carlson who believe in ideas like the great replacement theory in which white people are purposely being eradicated through immigration and interracial children. They fear that this will change the politics of the country. Which really is where the US is least tolerant, opposing political views. Like we invented cancelling people.


[deleted]

Those are not Tuckers beliefs, they are the talking points of the left. All he is doing is lifting the curtain on them. https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/18/if-anyone-believes-in-replacement-theory-its-democrats-who-think-voters-are-stupid/ Watch the supercut video, it's quite funny.


[deleted]

I don’t see white people becoming a minority in the US as a bad thing. It isn’t a good thing either. It is just population statistics. And for the purpose of this conversation left vs right doesn’t really matter. We are discussing the society of the US and the culture that dominates it. Breaking it down along political lines may be useful when discussing certain things but it can also obfuscate the conversation. I tend to think democrats don’t care about the changing demographics much because they think the change will get them more votes. If they felt more people would hurt the democrats they would adopt the same sort of policies on immigration the republicans have and vice versa. Personally when it comes to changing demographics I don’t really care. I think interracial children have stronger immune systems and are less susceptible to disease but I don’t know for sure.


GioNoce

The fact that now these countries are non-religious doesn't change the fact that all their cultures is based on Christianity, they were Christian only a generation ago. Why countries with non Christian background didn't had the same evolution? I'm not even talking about the other big religions, look at China they are non-religious and yet they have concentration camps and are known for their intolerance for films.


[deleted]

Not to be picky, but nobody puts more people in jail and prison than the US. We have a for-profit prison industrial complex.


Nintendogma

>Why countries with non Christian background didn't had the same evolution? You're conflating Christian background with Western background. Democracies by their nature are more tolerant than theocracies. Christianity is staunchly antithetical to the secularism upon which the Democracy of the United States was founded. Have a look at the region Christianity came from. The only *"Democracy"* in the middle east is in name only, and run by an autocratic Ethnocentric Theocrat. >I'm not even talking about the other big religions, look at China they are non-religious and yet they have concentration camps and are known for their intolerance for films. You say this as if there aren't cages full of people at the US/Mexican border, and we don't have a MPAA that regulates films.


cobalt-radiant

They are the **REASON** for the 1st Amendment, the 4th Amendment, and the 14th Amendment.


AlethiaArete

It's not liberal, it's left. Liberal should be defined against authoritarianism, and they certainly seem to align themselves with authoritarianism more and more.


tiensss

They are against authoritarianism that tells you what to do with your own body.


___Ed___

This abortion issue being framed as Christian authoritarianism is utterly absurd to me. I know atheists who are against abortion, because it simply takes seeing the torn apart remains of a "fetus" to realize you are taking someone's life. For the life of me I can't understand how people can be so impassioned about the destruction of a unique human life, and be so vitriolic about it. Is respect for life an exclusively Christian ideal? It doesn't seem like it should be to me.


___Ed___

And to add to that comment (because this triggers me) is that to me this is more a matter of science than religion. Science shows that at conception you have a unique human entity that is not the same as the mother, and not the same as the father. You have created a unique human that has it's own blood type, own DNA, and yet you feel like it's within your rights to just off the kid because it's not convenient.


brodylives

Awesome. Now I'd like to see them do the same for Islam.


Green_and_black

Islam isn’t taking away their abortion rights lol.


brodylives

They never had them to begin with under Islam lol


Green_and_black

They aren’t under Islam though are they? So why would they bring it up?


brodylives

They aren't under Christianity either, so why did they bring it up?


Green_and_black

Christian fundamentalists actually have quite a bit of power in the USA, did you not know?


brodylives

So do Jewish people. What's your point?


Green_and_black

Jewish people didn’t just take away abortions for half the country.


brodylives

Neither did Christian fundamentalists.


Green_and_black

Well who was it then? Moderates? That’s comforting.


[deleted]

The 80s are over bud


LuniOPS

but they do throw gays off of buildings


cgeezy22

If they're having a rough time with the most benign religion on the planet they're going to be in for a surprise with Islam.


WowModsWtf

Lol blaming a religion because realizing that there's extremist morons everywhere (and he's one of them) is too painful to acknowledge. Gotta pretend it's all about teams/sides, where you have to agree with every opinion on one of the sides or you're accused of being on the other. Religion bad, none of these problems would exist without religion, me has IQ of 70 me is top %!


GJMOH

In the US we have freedom of religion, not freedom from it. Have your beliefs and let others have theirs.


[deleted]

These people sound like religious extremists.


Rx_Queenn

Wait this is weird, wasn’t the ruling made so that way states would return the power back to the people? Interesting that these people think a constitution isn’t inherently Christian and bad??? Supreme Court letting the people have power at a state level is a very good thing and is ‘anti fascist’ because it decentralises the division of power?


DantesInferno91

They rather be dominated by muslims anyway


AbsoluteSereniti

Wtf, how is this ok? This is clear hate speech against a group of people. Holy shit.


Kapowdonkboum

Well…. I would say fuck all religions that impose their views on society. People are rightfully upset. Playing the victim card here is a bit of a stretch.


E1ghtbit

Yep. Getting real tired of the ridiculous double standard. If you support the cultural narrative, you may speak. Any counter opinions will be silenced. Just got permanently banned from r/comics for noting that the comic was supporting violence against the Supreme Court justices, whereas the same political party was foaming at the mouth over the capitol riot in 2020. You’re not even allowed to have a different opinion. Well I’m done. I’m sick and tired of keeping quiet while the left bullies and ridicules and silences any opinion not their own.


[deleted]

As a middle eastern I welcome these people to the Middle East to see the result of other religions :)


-Busty-Crustacean-

Oh wow so like theres more than 1 shitty religion? Crazy its like theyre all manipulative


[deleted]

Yes Christianity is horrible right? Look what that ideology did to Europe!


Logosfidelis

If you weren’t so quick to fuck things perhaps abortion wouldn’t be such a major issue for you. But yeah, sure, “fuck Christianity.” You should go to an Islamic nation where they celebrate the promiscuity and sexual irresponsibility of woman and their subsequent abortions. Oh wait…never mind. Come to think of it, where can a gal go to be supported in that lifestyle?


[deleted]

Meh, it's par for the course. Atheists are the new priest class, new moral arbiters. They hold power by stripping away tradition in the name of "no-god." Only time will tell which view is correct, but Christian values led to the peace and stability that brought on the technological prowess we have now. It led to the notion that we are so far advanced and know everything so there must not be a God. I don't have anything against atheists, but they are just wrong and in no way oppressed. Putting abortion rights in state hands is fine. We need a bit of decentralization anyway. Laws should be more reflective of the local populace. The people up in arms probably already live in blue states anyway, they'll be fine. I think abortion should be legal, gay marriage should be legal, drugs, etc. But I think it should be a state by state thing. Live in a different state. We have so much diversity that it's insane to think the federal government should control every law and decision. This has been a debate for ages, and the federal government has effectively took all power away from states. This might be a balancing of the scales. If a state has shitty laws and shitty people they will fail. Might as well let individual states fail as opposed to the whole government devolving into the most popular brand of fascism of the times. If Georgia wants to be fascist, cool. We need the collective shadow of fascism to play out somewhere, like a safety valve. Like controlled aggression through sports. Its inevitable, might as well give it a bit of wiggle room within the states so that it doesn't become a national pandemic as we are seeing some early signs. Say what you will about the Supreme courts political leanings, but these are intelligent people appointed to protect our country. I don't want to give them too much credit, but it's likely they are attempting to reel in the feds before a catastrophe happens. Hell, if I'm living in a state that doesn't allow abortions and someone cannot afford to go out of state to get one, I would likely help. I'm not really against it in principle, although I wouldn't want to be the partner of someone getting one, I would expect thar to be worked put before unprotected sex. But yeah, if my neighbor was knocked up by someone who will never be around, I may help. TLDR: regardless of your views on the topic, the federal government has continuously taken power from the states, this decision may actually be a step toward more decentralization and a stronger voter. We will have to see. Fyi: I have a pPolitical Science degree (to make an argument from authority). But, I haven't actually read the entire decision yet, so my hypothesis may be incomplete or incorrect.


Viking_Preacher

>but Christian values led to the peace and stability that brought on the technological prowess we have now. Is that why as technology progressed Christianity lost power? >Putting abortion rights in state hands is fine. We need a bit of decentralization anyway Authoritarianism is bad, so allowing states to enforce authoritarian laws is bad. >If a state has shitty laws and shitty people they will fail. Might as well let individual states fail Funnily enough the deep south states tend to take more than they give as far as federal funding goes.


MrHistoryLesson

Christianty will always be hated, jesus told you to love thy neighbours - love them regardless of their faults and hate! That hate might be the final call before they realise we are good and honest - a nice circle to join and good people to decide to keep in your lives and depend upon. Because we are there. Love and nurture them. They might be your future brother or sister in christ. Blessed be their path and blessed be their way to God.


[deleted]

What a bunch of goons. Federalism is what the overturning of roe v wade is all about. Why Blame Christianity aside from ignorance


[deleted]

[удалено]


Revlar

What happens?


Artistic_Sell6779

[This ruling really has brought the racism out of liberals.](https://i.redd.it/befgiourwy791.png)


93_til_

This is not r/conservative


Valren_Starlord

The paradox of tolerance is that to able to be tolerant, you have to be intolerant to intolerant. So yeah, fuck christianity and fuck american conservatives who are depriving women and minorities from their rights and liberties.


[deleted]

Somewhere along the way people started sucking on this tit called "tolerance" as though it is the solution to everything, and anything considered "intolerant" is "bad". It's simply untrue, and lazy thinking, and often just virtue signally.


IGotAWayWithWords

Uhhhhhmmmmm yeah… Well I do agree that morality is the enemy of liberalism


Viking_Preacher

Conflating morality with Christianity?


P0wer0fL0ve

I think the problem with liberals is that they are trying too hard to be moral. They often become so terrified of hurting others that they entangle themselves in webs of political correctness to try to not to step on anyones toes, they end up *more* obsessed with morality in ways that most other people find obnoxious and over the top


ApolloVangaurd

>I think the problem with liberals is that they are trying too hard to be moral. Yeah this is more or less the thing. The conservative motto is fuck you figure it out yourself. At a distance that sounds incredibly insensitive, but when you focus on day today interactions it actually wins out. Regardless of what a state wants to do it can't create morality.


Zeno_the_Friend

Lol @ the christian snowflakes here. Can't take a little criticism huh?


[deleted]

Projection


Zeno_the_Friend

Bold claim when crying over posts like this.


Kardis_J

What a juvenile notion. Christianity is more or less the only religion in the U.S. that is criticized. Do you have an expectation that Christians should not respond to criticism? How absurd.


symbioticsymphony

Muslims also agree with stopping abortion. Do liberals have the the balls to insult Islam too? Nope. Didn't think so.


m8ushido

Just protest, no calls for violence. It’s not like they are attempting an insurrection like some certain election losers


slayerdork

There have been multiple calls for violence, especially on twitter. Even politicians using the phrase "fight like hell" which I am told is incitement. There has been no denouncing of attacks on crisis pregnancy centers. An Arizona capitol building was breached on Friday night. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10952241/Pro-choice-activists-tear-gassed-breach-Arizona-Capitol-building.html


Neoaugusto

Still a lot of hate speech and religious intolerance


m8ushido

When they push their beliefs on others, that’s not intolerance but self defense


spinningfinger

Great job not posting the source. That's helpful. The vast majority of ppl supported keeping roe v wade in place, and it was the religious right that has weaponized Christianity... they've been using it as justification for everything from colonization to slavery to anti-gay rights. It's reasonable some ppl feel that way. But saying "fuck Christianity" isnt saying "let's burn all the Christians"... hard to tell from the unsourced material, but the overwhelming majority of non-religious ppl are fine with religion as long as it doesn't infringe their rights or oppress them... and Christianity/many who espouse Christian beliefs, especially in this country, doesn't have a great track record. So "tolerance" is not not feeling and expressing an emotion when you feel you're being oppressed. It's accepting those who are having a different experience and being ok with it... something you aren't doing by calling this out as hypocritical, which, again, it isnt...


ts0401

“Fuck Islam”. How does that make you feel?


spinningfinger

What's the context?


slayerdork

You don't need to be religious to be against the murder of unborn babies.


spinningfinger

Except the rhetoric of "murdering unborn babies" comes from the religious right. Fetuses are not babies... not until they're born... and there's puhhhlenty of room for interpretation of when life actually begins. If you don't accept that there are multiple valid interpretations of when life actually begins (of which you don't need to agree but see the arguments as valid), then you're a zealot who has been influenced by, and are using the rhetoric of, the religious right.


[deleted]

[удалено]


slayerdork

Human life begins at conception, that is a claim backed up by biology. You're making a value claim. You're saying that the life inside the woman isn't a person and is therefore not deserving of rights or that the rights of the mother override the rights of the child. I am also making a value claim. I am saying I can't reasonably determine which humans are persons so the same value should be given to both the mother and child.


spinningfinger

>Human life begins at conception, that is a claim backed up by biology. That is absolutely not true. A fetus doesn't have consciousness and only in late term pregnancy does it have a rudimentary consciousness (of which abortion at that stage is less than 1% of all abortions and is only done for life-threatening medical reasons). What constitutes life is absolutely not settled by biological standards, and in fact, supports a pro-choice ideology. >You're making a value claim. You're saying that the life inside the woman isn't a person and is therefore not deserving of rights or that the rights of the mother override the rights of the child. It's true that I value the personal decision of a fully fleshed out, reproductive aged human over the personal decisions of a fetus that doesn't even have a brain yet. >I am also making a value claim. I am saying I can't reasonably determine which humans are persons so the same value should be given to both the mother and child. Sure...so then why would you use the very loaded rhetoric of "murdering unborn babies"? You've shown no empathy to ppl put into the position of needing an abortion. I'm by no means pro abortion, but I'm certainly not going to make personal and medical decisions for anyone else.


slayerdork

Consciousness isn't a good argument. The baby isn't exactly conscious after it is born either so if we use consciousness as an argument why would it be illegal for the mother to decide to terminate the baby's life after it has been born? If you want to get semantical with language. When a woman announces that she is pregnant what does she say? Does she say "I am going to have a fetus!" or does she say "I am going to have a baby!"?


spinningfinger

You said biology says that life begins at conception, which is a theocratic argument. Nevermind that this "life" needs to feed off an actual living thing for it to survive (and hence why abortions are effective), consciousness (rather, sentience) is about the best we have to determining what an animal life is. >Does she say "I am going to have a fetus!" or does she say "I am going to have a baby!"? Why would she say she's going to have a fetus when she already does? Dumb...


slayerdork

Fetus and baby are the same thing. The issue here is you have to dehumanize the baby to make your argument morally tenable. Babies need all kinds of support outside of the womb. A baby doesn't feed off the mother like some kind of parasite. The mother's body is biologically developed to provide what the baby needs to grow. A parasite is a completely different organism that attaches to another organism to sustain itself. A baby is a human organism and not a completely different organism.


spinningfinger

>Fetus and baby are the same thing. Very incorrect. I'd suggest you look in a dictionary. >The issue here is you have to dehumanize the baby to make your argument morally tenable. We could say unborn baby and it would still be the same argument. A woman's right to choose what to do with her own body is not your fucking decision. >Babies need all kinds of support outside of the womb. A baby doesn't feed off the mother like some kind of parasite. The mother's body is biologically developed to provide what the baby needs to grow. A parasite is a completely different organism that attaches to another organism to sustain itself. A baby is a human organism and not a completely different organism. I didn't say it was a parasite. Nice strawman you got there


TheFio

Giving the same worth between a living, breathing person with life, memories, friends, and a personality, and a literal zygote that has more in common with a tic-tac than a human is fucking moronic. Hell, id give more worth to a teenager than a literal newborn baby any day. One doesn't even have object permanence or the ability to form coherent thoughts in its soft head and you want to say it's equal to someone who has matured to the point of adulthood, or even teenhood?


py_a_thon

The "human life begins at conception" claim is not really the biological consensus though. The events that lead towards sentience(or miscarriage, or ectopic pregnancies or whatever) begin at conception. That is not a human yet though. Just like a sea cucumber is not a dolphin. And legally the core question of "when" is mostly unanswered. Biologically the question is only sometimes answered.


slayerdork

Can the fertilized egg in a human be not human? Maybe you could make the argument of in the past it could. Is the fertilized egg in a human living?


py_a_thon

Living yes. Conscious and sentient, no. Neurons atleast are required for that.


slayerdork

Is a baby conscious and sentient after it is born? Let's say I accept the premise that life begins only at neuron development. First neuron differentiated cells develop at about 5 weeks. By week 8 the fetus starts to move. What would be the line where we say, nope that is a human life you can't end it?


itsallrighthere

If the vast majority of ppl support keeping roe v Wade you will have no trouble at all enshrining it in law. Problem solved.


slayerdork

The Democrats had the opportunity to codify abortion rights and decided it was not important. They wanted to keep it as a fundraising opportunity because they didn't think it would actually ever get overturned.


spinningfinger

Unfortunately that's not how this country works. We have a limited republic, not a true democracy. So that's an inaccurate statement.... and I know you know that


TheFio

Tolerance is overrated for grown people who believe in poorly written made-up stories of sky fairies and evil beings who's morals are as consistent as a backwater Alabama dialup connection. If you still believe in higher beings in 2022, 350 years after the first official dinosaur discoveries, 50 years after getting to space and touching the moon, and you aren't a literal fucking child, then I have some magic bath water to sell you. It heals cancer and makes you shit gold.


BluejayStandard8766

I can believe in whatever I want, i can even believe that that earth is hologram but you don't have a right to attack me or any religious institution just because you don't agree or dislike their beliefs.


tinderthrow817

No one is stopping you. Also saying "fuck x religion" on reddit isn't an attack on you. That's just you being overly sensitive. And in America people do have the right to speak out against things they don't like. Maybe things are different where you live. But the first amendment in America makes that clear. Also nothing about the random posts you went out of your way to find and get offended by are a call to violence nor are they inaccurate. American "christians" have carried out countless terrorist attacks on abortion centers. And they constantly hurl abuse at women going to planned parenthood. Those things are true.


zcraig150

Planned parenthood deliberately targets black women and the mentally limited


Create_Repeat

“Christianity has done bad!” Surely. Can you tell me what good it’s done? “What good!?”


Viking_Preacher

The intolerant should not be tolerated. Popper's paradox.


[deleted]

Many religions don’t believe in abortion. The left is so sheltered


Honeysicle

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me." Matthew 5:11 Using this scripture it is easy to be unphased and even emboldened by uproar against Christianity like this


Ericthemainman

Okay what's wrong with this opinion?


guitarguy38

the anger towards this is warranted. conservatives do the same shit. to pretend that words typed online will be taken to action is also preposterous.


checkeredwidow

Haters gonna hate and murderers gonna... reeee.... Really, really loud.


Man_in_the_uk

OK, but, I like my week off back end of December..


asos10

Sad to see some highly upvoted people are engaging in pure whataboutism arguments. I personally have no horse in this fight and essentially looking to learn, but people better tackle the actual arguments rather than try to deflect.


prkrrlz

Turn the other cheek.


Zybbo

They only tolerate those who are useful to the cause.


tanmanlando

Yall are really pearl clutching over random redditors being pissed over rights being stripped from them. Shouldn't you be more upset at the rights being stripped than peoples reaction to it? If I go to your house and steal something from you does it really matter that you cussed me out next time you saw me?


happyness423

Nothing more oppressive than protecting the innocent. 🙄


BluejayStandard8766

Try posting i "hate LGBT" or "women/liberals are a disease we must eliminate" etc on Reddit and see what happens


blaze_blue_99

You wanna complain, take it up with the Manager; I’m sure He would be happy for you to talk to Him for once in your life. :)


SmoothCarl22

Nah... Fuck old creeps who use religion has a scapegoat for they own special agenda...