I’m guessing it’s like Christianity where there are leftist Christians who follow Jesus’ more progressive messages such as giving to the less fortunate and healing the sick, and then there are the scary Christian evangelicals that want A Handmaids Tale and conversion therapy. Logically, Islam probably isn’t a monolith in a similar way other religions aren’t.

However, I have never heard about what those of the Islamic faith actually believe outside of the hysterical post 9/11 Islamophobia I’ve been indoctrinated with as a child.

I want to know what the truth is and hear the other sides story. To me it’s obvious that Islamophobia is wrong, however when Islamophobes make wild claims about it, I can’t really refute them confidently because I’m simply ignorant of the facts. Please educate my dumb, white ass.

  • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    15·
    16 days ago

    Your words not mine

    Yes, so get some reading comprehension so you can contextually understand them.

    Marx himself said that a post-religious society was a good thing, many steps ahead.

    There is no step of being a smug condescending fedoralord while capitalism is still crushing people. Or, as another poster just put it here:

    “Hah, fine, I’ll read Marx”

    Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.

    shoulder-grab and that’s why i left the Left"

    You may not be leaving the left, but if all you have to contribute is being a divisively condescendingly smug fedoralord, maybe you should because Reddit beckons you back.

    • Monk3brain3 [any, he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      61·
      16 days ago

      Is religion a progressive force or not? I’m just here to point out it’s not. Dressing up my stance with your imagined motivations is a you problem. And I actually think that religion and capitalism are so tied up together at this point that a post capitalist world will have to come hand in hand with a post religious world.

      • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        15·
        16 days ago

        AGAIN.

        READ. MARX.

        You are so fucking excited about the no religion part that happens after capitalism’s end that you are using it to such smug and divisive ends in the here and now that even here you’re just pissing people off and you somehow expect your fedorable messaging to win the working class over outside of here?

        Do you build a table by trying to have dinner on the unassembled nails and planks first?

        And I actually think that religion and capitalism are so tied up together at this point that a post capitalist world will have to come hand in hand with a post religious world.

        You’re clownishly ignorant if you don’t notice that Silicon Valley’s corporate sector is absolutely stuffed to the gills with New Atheists, right now.

        Could you at least try to be as cool as this cat if you’re going to be tipping that fedora of yours?

        • Monk3brain3 [any, he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
          10·
          16 days ago

          The new atheists are just a bunch of racists and that piece of shit Dawkins literally calls himself a cultural Christian.

          Also in case it isn’t clear the religion most tied in with capitalism is Christianity and the religion that has caused by far the most damage and will continue to do so in the future is Christianity.

          I think all this Islamophobic propaganda which is at its core an racist project and not an anti religion project has made people reluctant to see or unaware of the harm other religions cause.

          • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
            6·
            16 days ago

            You’re retreating to the old and tired “oh they don’t count as real atheists because that may make my position look as clownish as it is” position.

            Your circus act is old and tired. I’ve seen your smug tiresome act from plenty of other New Atheists many times before.

            I ask once again, exhaustively, for you to ONCE AGAIN actually READ MARX and actually try to understand what he said beyond what you got out of it, which is apparently “religion bad” and “being smug and condescending toward religious people will surely rally the working class in the present and near future!” over-your-head

              • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
                4·
                16 days ago

                is obviously an atheist but a racist

                Are you that fucking dense that you think there’s some magical euphoric racism-free default state of atheism that Dawkins and millions of affluent tech capitalists and their minions are somehow banished from (and somehow cease to be atheists) the moment they become racist?

                Do you seriously believe that racism comes specifically and exclusively from religious belief? clown

                • Monk3brain3 [any, he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
                  14·
                  16 days ago

                  And or a racist. I’m saying he is a racist and an atheist. The two are independent. But his racism finds a good home in Christian fundamentalism as it would.

                  I’m just trying to clarify what I meant and Ill be honest I have no idea what you’re saying or arguing at this point.

                  • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
                    5·
                    16 days ago

                    You’re too high on Sam Harris’ farts to actually read and understand what Marx wrote, apparently, so I’ll instead ask you to at least read the room.

                    Looking down on crushingly oppressed people around the world because they didn’t become le enlightened gentlesirs of le atheism yet is making a clown of you here.

                    Ill be honest I have no idea what you’re saying or arguing at this point.

                    I repeated myself many times regarding what Marx actually said compared to what you are pretending he said. No investigation, no right to speak.

      • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        4·
        16 days ago

        It wanders deep into apocrypha, but the subtext is there even at the start of the better-known Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, which is where the “Opium of the People” line is derived from:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Hegel's_Philosophy_of_Right

        The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

        Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

        The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

        The conditions were ideal, even exceptional, for the people of China to reject religion in their proletarian revolution. The people attained an early post-religious viewpoint on their own; they didn’t need, or even have use, for someone to approach them as they toiled and suffered pre-revolution and tell them why were, quoting this thread, “dumb” for what they believed. The revolution, as I said before, provided the post-religious societal movement as the will of the people, not some ideological conversion from some self-appointed luminary looking down on them from afar.