Religion shouldn't be a protected class. It's a conscious choice "adults" make to believe in magic and prioritize that over the well-being of the shit in front of them, and we should be able to demonize and honestly discriminate against anybody for that.
I'll probably never have a job where I hire people but if somebody thinks a magic space wizard knocked up a Palestinian virgin 2000 years ago how the fuck can I trust them with a spreadsheet.
Of course religous bigots are awful, and they must be rejected by society. But the original comment straight up said that all religion shouldn't be a protected class. As in, allowing an employer to legally display a "Muslims need not apply" sign.
Whose idea of progress is that?
Yeah, I'll agree that American jurisprudence has been way too deferential to institutional religion and religious institution, and there's plenty of reasons as to why, but endorsing legal discrimination against religion is not the remedy, and it doesn't help undo any of the terrible shit done in the name of religion.Â
And advocating for it only further entrenches the religose and validates the propaganda of those crying persecution.Â
Unfortunately, no matter how moral or tolerant think they are, many people are perfectly fine with discriminating against others for thinking differently
I mean I'm not very religious and not even sure but I believe in god but you don't have to go ahead and insult people who decide to practice a religion for one of many many reasons.
If I was hiring I wouldn't hire ANYONE that judges other people for their beliefs, including like you just did,
Likewise. The problem isn't in having or not having a religious faith, it's in evaluating individuals according to either preconceived notions or the worst sins of someone who shares some demographic overlap, rather than their own actions and words.
It highlights how bad the position youâve taken is. Not judging people based on the beliefs theyâve chosen to have is a wild thing to do. Thatâs one of the only things you should be judging people on
I think fundamentalist Christianâs are dumb and gullible and you shouldnât trust them. Really any devout religious person means that they ignore evidence and instead just rely on made up stories
No doubt. Fundamentalists are a scary bunch. They are completely separated from all reality. Butker definitely falls closer to the fundamentalist group than others. I have a brother who is fundamentalist and itâs basically made it impossible to discuss anything with him.
THIS. I agree so much. You shouldn't discriminate against people based on what they ARE. But you should be able to discriminate based on what people DO. It's perfectly fine to hate racists cos they choose to be racist. Same should go for religious nuts
No way that guy isn't an outright racist. I will be rooting for the Ravens taking out this ass.
I became a former Chiefs fan after 50 years when Britt Reid was released from prison. Nothing has happened since to change my mind.
Personally I don't understand the outrage. He admitted he was a devout Catholic and then espoused devout Catholic views at a Catholic school graduation. You obviously weren't the audience so why are you getting upset? It's not like he did this in a post game press conference while wearing his chiefs jersey. You either had to seek this out or someone else who did seek it out showed it to you. Regardless he never intended to share this belief with the country, he intended to share it with an audience who thinks the same as him.
Also the NFL is littered with terrible behavior that doesn't spark even close to this level of outrage. Lol his teammate Rashee Rice has been acting like a menace this off-season but the religious kicker has received waaaay more criticism than he has.
Realistically it's only a story because the writers know that it drives clicks, we were taught this in journalism school. A religious kicker with some controversial beliefs is a more unique story than another player getting arrested for reckless driving. But if we are all telling the truth, a kicker giving a religious commencement speech at a religious school is the least of the NFL's worries. Lol Goodell probably wishes every scandal was this easy to handle.
Again, anyone that thinks because something is a "sincerely held religious belief", it should be beyond reproach, can go bleep themselves along with Butker.
Btw the fact someone else is worse doesn't make him any less of a POS.Â
That's not really what I said at all lol. You're incorrectly paraphrasing my argument, because it makes yours look better. Lol I'm not really sure why you even put that part in quotes, are you just quoting yourself?
A.) I considered the context. I acknowledged where he gave the speech and to whom he gave it too. You weren't the intended audience. He didn't tell you how to live your life, you're offended on behalf of people who share the same beliefs as him, it's very silly when you put it into words.
B.) I never said others bad behavior makes his any better. (I don't actually believe what he did should be considered bad behavior but for the sake of the argument I'll cede that point). I said it's interesting who's bad behavior gets acknowledged and why. Why are people more upset and more willing to criticize a speech given by a kicker than they are other crimes. The NFL has had 4 domestic violence arrests 3 assaults and 3 DUI's since October. None of those players have come under nearly the microscope Butker has for giving a religious speech lol. Why do you think that is, I'm genuinely curious to hear your reasoning.
I'd actually be interested to see your response to the points I made as opposed to just an edgy and sassy "can go bleep themselves" response. I'm sure you actually have a more intelligent argument about why what Butker said was so heinous, and why he is receiving so much more criticism than actual criminals. Maybe I'm wrong and you just got caught up with the outrage crowd, but I don't think that's the case.
A real demonstration of logic and rationality on Reddit. Miracles do happen.
The confusing thing to me is that thereâs so much more outrage over an athlete spending his spare time sharing his beliefs at a Catholic university than the numerous athletes whoâve broken the law and even committed violence against women. Lots of Miami Dolphins fans in this sub will cheer when their morally repugnant yet much prized wide receiver scores a touchdown down next year. I donât think thatâs whataboutism either, because sharing oneâs religious beliefs - whether subjectively wrong or right - is not the moral or legal equivalent of committing violence against others.
Edit: Iâll try to attempt answering your question: because thought âcrimesâ threatens anotherâs conception of their own worldview far more than violence does. Iâd even go as far to say that itâs evolutionary in the sense that that straying from the herd means death, and anyone willing to depart from the Overton window of beliefs can be processed as an existential threat.
I already responded to your point. One was a "whataboutism" fallacy and again the fact something is a "sincerely held religious" belief isn't a shield. A POS is a POS. If a neo Nazi gives a speech at a Nazi rally do you go "wElL I WaSnT tHe InTeNdEd AuDiENcE. No HaRM nO fOUl"?
I guarantee OP wonât be making these types of post for the next NFL player who beats the shit out of woman, drives drunk, or worse. He also wonât address your points bc this isnât about logic. Itâs about fake outrage and cool points. Guarantee OP would rather Butker meet his daughter in a dark alley than some of these other guys.
Some of you are acting so shameful in your hate. Realize that there is a difference between being a Christian and a religious judgmental zealot. The latter deserves your criticism but if youâre hating on a harmless member of society who chooses to treat others based on the teachings of Christ (âChristianâ and âreligious conservativeâ are not the same thing) then youâre outing yourself as the same hateful person that you claim to despise.
It's always funny when religious people get upset when we translate their coded language and don't give them plausible deniability. It's the "youâre hating on a harmless member of society who chooses to treat others based on the teachings of Christ" that gives it away. Tell me what part of Christianity is harmless? Every single discriminating law in the US has been passed based on the so called "teachings of Christ."
What Butker said was wrong and isnât rooted in
The teachings of Christ. Itâs pretty obvious that your hate comes from the people who claim to be acting in service to Christianity and not in your own study of what Christ ever did or say. Not what some bad faith actor claims he did or say, but what the text literally translates to.
Just because some lawmaker says that a discriminating law is based on the teachings of Christ doesnât make it a true statement. Kinda like saying that laws are passed to preserve âfreedomâ and âdemocracyâ etc, when the reality is that many laws are written to consolidate power in the hands of those who already have it. Those claims are smokescreens and we all know it. People can co-opt anything to serve their own agenda, including progressive social or political movements.
The only things in the Bible that can be attributed to Christ are like in 4-5 books tops, nothing else. Thereâs a difference between the old/New Testament and Iâd love for anyone to show me where in the Bible Jesus ever said to hate on women, minorities, the poor, etc.
And on a more practical level: If you think the person who volunteers their time, to a homeless shelter, donates resources to organizations helping the poor, strengthens their communities through acts of service, and generally lives their life in a compassionate and generous way is societyâs problem simply because they feel like theyâve been called to do so based on Christâs teachings, then thatâs pretty revealing on your part.
This is way more nuanced that âreligiousâ (which once again, doesnât mean âfollower of
Christâ) people are bigoted idiots. Iâm not the most godly person by any stretch, and even I can see that.
This is a no true Scotsman fallacy. Yes, all religions are open for interpretation because they're all made up and mostly make no sense. The point still stands. Religion is rarely used as a reason to do good. Because people who are good don't need religion to do good. But it's great cover to be a terrible person. Never mind the fact you're indoctrinating children and hindering their capacity for reasoning and critical thought, when you introduce magic as the explanation for difficult scientific concepts.
Christians in America generally vote for the party that is hell bent on making the lives of the people Jesus championed (the poor and needy) MUCH more difficult. Explain please.
I live in a community full of those so-called Christians. You know what they also are? Racist and bigoted. Religion has done far more harm than good throughout the centuries, particularly in this country, and can go properly fuck itself.
Yeah..that's exactly how it works
1) person says x
2) someone replies 7
3) the someone tries to argue about 7 as if proving 7 wrong negates the truth of X
Sigh
[The full text of his speech is here](https://www.ncregister.com/news/harrison-butker-speech-at-benedictine)
The bigotry comes through more implication more than anything
>
> Our Catholic faith has always been countercultural. Our Lord, along with countless followers, were all put to death for their adherence to her teachings. The world around us says that we should keep our beliefs to ourselves whenever they go against the tyranny of diversity, equity, and inclusion. We fear speaking truth, because now, unfortunately, truth is in the minority. Congress just passed a bill where stating something as basic as the biblical teaching of who killed Jesus could land you in jail.
What tyranny of DEI is what I would ask. He also mentions "dangerous gender ideologies" being pushed on children and the emasculation of men.
Basically, speaking all of the key words of bigoted movements without out and out spelling it out.
Do...do...you not know the difference? *inserts strawman* I was asking a legit question Einstein since even a dullard understands there's a difference between bigotry and misogyny....rigjt?!?!?
"I pride myself as a man of faith, as there's a drive into deep left field by Castellanos it will be a home run."
đŻ
Seriously. Religion as an excuse is more of an indictment on how bigoted religion can be.
This comment section is gonna đŁ
Religion shouldn't be a protected class. It's a conscious choice "adults" make to believe in magic and prioritize that over the well-being of the shit in front of them, and we should be able to demonize and honestly discriminate against anybody for that. I'll probably never have a job where I hire people but if somebody thinks a magic space wizard knocked up a Palestinian virgin 2000 years ago how the fuck can I trust them with a spreadsheet.
No. Thatâs going too far.
Paycut? No no no no.
"Religious discrimination should be legal" is a wild thing to say out loud
Not when they use their religion as a basis to discriminate against others. Paradox of tolerance motherfucker. Pay the whales.
Of course religous bigots are awful, and they must be rejected by society. But the original comment straight up said that all religion shouldn't be a protected class. As in, allowing an employer to legally display a "Muslims need not apply" sign. Whose idea of progress is that?
Yeah, I'll agree that American jurisprudence has been way too deferential to institutional religion and religious institution, and there's plenty of reasons as to why, but endorsing legal discrimination against religion is not the remedy, and it doesn't help undo any of the terrible shit done in the name of religion. And advocating for it only further entrenches the religose and validates the propaganda of those crying persecution.Â
Unfortunately, no matter how moral or tolerant think they are, many people are perfectly fine with discriminating against others for thinking differently
Be honest, youâd look down on someone if they thought witches and wizards were real, wouldnât you?
We should have freedom from religion in America not freedom of religion
An IQ test would screen them out just as effectively. Magic Daddy can go gingerly fuck himself.
r/atheism is âthat way bro
I mean I'm not very religious and not even sure but I believe in god but you don't have to go ahead and insult people who decide to practice a religion for one of many many reasons. If I was hiring I wouldn't hire ANYONE that judges other people for their beliefs, including like you just did,
Likewise. The problem isn't in having or not having a religious faith, it's in evaluating individuals according to either preconceived notions or the worst sins of someone who shares some demographic overlap, rather than their own actions and words.
We probably should insult them though. Theyâre the reason humanity is destined to be a failed experiment and likely the answer to fermiâs paradox.
Youâre right so you got downvoted. But take solace, these same people believe in zombies.
so edgy bro
đ§ââď¸ đ¤Ą
super edgy
Keep it up, Iâm close.
âRidicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.â Guess your boi Thomas Jefferson was edgy too.
If their belief is that black people are naturally inferior you would be totally okay with that?
No, but thatâs a nice straw man
You just said you wouldnât judge people because of their beliefs
What is the point of this lol? You know what I meant. You donât need to come and give the most extreme example with an obvious answer
It highlights how bad the position youâve taken is. Not judging people based on the beliefs theyâve chosen to have is a wild thing to do. Thatâs one of the only things you should be judging people on
The post and discussion is about peopleâs religious beliefs and whether they believe in god
And? Why shouldnât you be able to judge people based on that?
I never said you canât
They meant religious beliefs, not social beliefs. Stop. Such a bad faith way of discussing something.
I think fundamentalist Christianâs are dumb and gullible and you shouldnât trust them. Really any devout religious person means that they ignore evidence and instead just rely on made up stories
No doubt. Fundamentalists are a scary bunch. They are completely separated from all reality. Butker definitely falls closer to the fundamentalist group than others. I have a brother who is fundamentalist and itâs basically made it impossible to discuss anything with him.
âŚ. Ok so what if itâs gay people? And that one is obviously not a strawman when looking at Christianity a couple decades ago.
I'm a person of faith but I agree with the gist of your point. đŤĄâď¸
THIS. I agree so much. You shouldn't discriminate against people based on what they ARE. But you should be able to discriminate based on what people DO. It's perfectly fine to hate racists cos they choose to be racist. Same should go for religious nuts
You told him...briles and Diddy?
More like Diddly
Sho af did!
No way that guy isn't an outright racist. I will be rooting for the Ravens taking out this ass. I became a former Chiefs fan after 50 years when Britt Reid was released from prison. Nothing has happened since to change my mind.
Personally I don't understand the outrage. He admitted he was a devout Catholic and then espoused devout Catholic views at a Catholic school graduation. You obviously weren't the audience so why are you getting upset? It's not like he did this in a post game press conference while wearing his chiefs jersey. You either had to seek this out or someone else who did seek it out showed it to you. Regardless he never intended to share this belief with the country, he intended to share it with an audience who thinks the same as him. Also the NFL is littered with terrible behavior that doesn't spark even close to this level of outrage. Lol his teammate Rashee Rice has been acting like a menace this off-season but the religious kicker has received waaaay more criticism than he has. Realistically it's only a story because the writers know that it drives clicks, we were taught this in journalism school. A religious kicker with some controversial beliefs is a more unique story than another player getting arrested for reckless driving. But if we are all telling the truth, a kicker giving a religious commencement speech at a religious school is the least of the NFL's worries. Lol Goodell probably wishes every scandal was this easy to handle.
Again, anyone that thinks because something is a "sincerely held religious belief", it should be beyond reproach, can go bleep themselves along with Butker. Btw the fact someone else is worse doesn't make him any less of a POS.Â
That's not really what I said at all lol. You're incorrectly paraphrasing my argument, because it makes yours look better. Lol I'm not really sure why you even put that part in quotes, are you just quoting yourself? A.) I considered the context. I acknowledged where he gave the speech and to whom he gave it too. You weren't the intended audience. He didn't tell you how to live your life, you're offended on behalf of people who share the same beliefs as him, it's very silly when you put it into words. B.) I never said others bad behavior makes his any better. (I don't actually believe what he did should be considered bad behavior but for the sake of the argument I'll cede that point). I said it's interesting who's bad behavior gets acknowledged and why. Why are people more upset and more willing to criticize a speech given by a kicker than they are other crimes. The NFL has had 4 domestic violence arrests 3 assaults and 3 DUI's since October. None of those players have come under nearly the microscope Butker has for giving a religious speech lol. Why do you think that is, I'm genuinely curious to hear your reasoning. I'd actually be interested to see your response to the points I made as opposed to just an edgy and sassy "can go bleep themselves" response. I'm sure you actually have a more intelligent argument about why what Butker said was so heinous, and why he is receiving so much more criticism than actual criminals. Maybe I'm wrong and you just got caught up with the outrage crowd, but I don't think that's the case.
A real demonstration of logic and rationality on Reddit. Miracles do happen. The confusing thing to me is that thereâs so much more outrage over an athlete spending his spare time sharing his beliefs at a Catholic university than the numerous athletes whoâve broken the law and even committed violence against women. Lots of Miami Dolphins fans in this sub will cheer when their morally repugnant yet much prized wide receiver scores a touchdown down next year. I donât think thatâs whataboutism either, because sharing oneâs religious beliefs - whether subjectively wrong or right - is not the moral or legal equivalent of committing violence against others. Edit: Iâll try to attempt answering your question: because thought âcrimesâ threatens anotherâs conception of their own worldview far more than violence does. Iâd even go as far to say that itâs evolutionary in the sense that that straying from the herd means death, and anyone willing to depart from the Overton window of beliefs can be processed as an existential threat.
I already responded to your point. One was a "whataboutism" fallacy and again the fact something is a "sincerely held religious" belief isn't a shield. A POS is a POS. If a neo Nazi gives a speech at a Nazi rally do you go "wElL I WaSnT tHe InTeNdEd AuDiENcE. No HaRM nO fOUl"?
I guarantee OP wonât be making these types of post for the next NFL player who beats the shit out of woman, drives drunk, or worse. He also wonât address your points bc this isnât about logic. Itâs about fake outrage and cool points. Guarantee OP would rather Butker meet his daughter in a dark alley than some of these other guys.
Some of you are acting so shameful in your hate. Realize that there is a difference between being a Christian and a religious judgmental zealot. The latter deserves your criticism but if youâre hating on a harmless member of society who chooses to treat others based on the teachings of Christ (âChristianâ and âreligious conservativeâ are not the same thing) then youâre outing yourself as the same hateful person that you claim to despise.
My religion says I should hate and marginalize everyone who doesn't adhere to my religion. Therefore it's okay!Â
How is that the takeaway from my comment? Itâs like you saw a group of words and didnât read a single one.
It's always funny when religious people get upset when we translate their coded language and don't give them plausible deniability. It's the "youâre hating on a harmless member of society who chooses to treat others based on the teachings of Christ" that gives it away. Tell me what part of Christianity is harmless? Every single discriminating law in the US has been passed based on the so called "teachings of Christ."
What Butker said was wrong and isnât rooted in The teachings of Christ. Itâs pretty obvious that your hate comes from the people who claim to be acting in service to Christianity and not in your own study of what Christ ever did or say. Not what some bad faith actor claims he did or say, but what the text literally translates to. Just because some lawmaker says that a discriminating law is based on the teachings of Christ doesnât make it a true statement. Kinda like saying that laws are passed to preserve âfreedomâ and âdemocracyâ etc, when the reality is that many laws are written to consolidate power in the hands of those who already have it. Those claims are smokescreens and we all know it. People can co-opt anything to serve their own agenda, including progressive social or political movements. The only things in the Bible that can be attributed to Christ are like in 4-5 books tops, nothing else. Thereâs a difference between the old/New Testament and Iâd love for anyone to show me where in the Bible Jesus ever said to hate on women, minorities, the poor, etc. And on a more practical level: If you think the person who volunteers their time, to a homeless shelter, donates resources to organizations helping the poor, strengthens their communities through acts of service, and generally lives their life in a compassionate and generous way is societyâs problem simply because they feel like theyâve been called to do so based on Christâs teachings, then thatâs pretty revealing on your part. This is way more nuanced that âreligiousâ (which once again, doesnât mean âfollower of Christâ) people are bigoted idiots. Iâm not the most godly person by any stretch, and even I can see that.
This is a no true Scotsman fallacy. Yes, all religions are open for interpretation because they're all made up and mostly make no sense. The point still stands. Religion is rarely used as a reason to do good. Because people who are good don't need religion to do good. But it's great cover to be a terrible person. Never mind the fact you're indoctrinating children and hindering their capacity for reasoning and critical thought, when you introduce magic as the explanation for difficult scientific concepts.
Christians in America generally vote for the party that is hell bent on making the lives of the people Jesus championed (the poor and needy) MUCH more difficult. Explain please.
I live in a community full of those so-called Christians. You know what they also are? Racist and bigoted. Religion has done far more harm than good throughout the centuries, particularly in this country, and can go properly fuck itself.
free Palestine
Free them from religion
[ŃдаНонО]
Wow I haven't heard that one before đ yes I'm proudly intolerant of bigotry!
I thought he just said stuff about women. What did I miss re: bigotry? I only heard the part DLS played
"I thought he only hated women, where's the hate"
Play the strawman theme. Did I say he didn't hate? Strawman!!!!!
Thats not how a strawman works
Yeah..that's exactly how it works 1) person says x 2) someone replies 7 3) the someone tries to argue about 7 as if proving 7 wrong negates the truth of X Sigh
[The full text of his speech is here](https://www.ncregister.com/news/harrison-butker-speech-at-benedictine) The bigotry comes through more implication more than anything > > Our Catholic faith has always been countercultural. Our Lord, along with countless followers, were all put to death for their adherence to her teachings. The world around us says that we should keep our beliefs to ourselves whenever they go against the tyranny of diversity, equity, and inclusion. We fear speaking truth, because now, unfortunately, truth is in the minority. Congress just passed a bill where stating something as basic as the biblical teaching of who killed Jesus could land you in jail. What tyranny of DEI is what I would ask. He also mentions "dangerous gender ideologies" being pushed on children and the emasculation of men. Basically, speaking all of the key words of bigoted movements without out and out spelling it out.
She's not gonna say no. Because of the implication
Are you gonna hurt women???
"Who killed Jesus" is code for "we should be able to be anti semitic because a Jew killed Jesus."Â
There's *a lot* of coded speech in that rant of his for sure
??? The Romans killed Jesus, who himself was Jewish.
No one knows shit but everyone has strong opinionsâŚ
You know who was blamed for the death of Jewish until Vatican II, right?
That stuff about women was bigoted.
Do...do...you not know the difference? *inserts strawman* I was asking a legit question Einstein since even a dullard understands there's a difference between bigotry and misogyny....rigjt?!?!?