Religion

qazplm135

(7,504 posts)

41. I think both should be "tolerated"

Tue Oct 23, 2018, 01:48 PM

Oct 2018

and also that both are symbols of male superiority that I find at the very least backwards and distasteful and are in my open misogynistic and oppressive to women.

But so long as the women are not forced by the government to wear these things, I see no reason to impose a choice upon them.

Is there an argument that their choice to wear them isn't truly voluntary because they have been subject to mental and psychological pressure to conform (often at the price of their eternal souls from their POV)? Absolutely.

But if it's not literal government force or physical force, then the line drawing is too hard to not allow it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

44 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why do some progressive Democrats ignore bigotry and intolerance in religions? [View all] MineralMan Oct 2018 OP

Your question is so general as to be infinitely malleable, but here's my take... FreepFryer Oct 2018 #1

Thanks for your reply. MineralMan Oct 2018 #2

If "examples are easy to find" thucythucy Oct 2018 #5

See my reply to you below. MineralMan Oct 2018 #10

And see my reply thucythucy Oct 2018 #12

And so on and so on. MineralMan Oct 2018 #14

Okay, no problem. thucythucy Oct 2018 #17

I didn't want to go into too much detail... FreepFryer Oct 2018 #7

Perhaps snowybirdie Oct 2018 #3

Beliefs are one thing. Actions are another. MineralMan Oct 2018 #16

Could you be more specific? thucythucy Oct 2018 #4

That denomination is notable for its tolerance. MineralMan Oct 2018 #8

So in part you're answering your own question, thucythucy Oct 2018 #11

In this thread, I am raising a more general issue. MineralMan Oct 2018 #13

Well, again, that's a different question, even if it's only "an expansion." thucythucy Oct 2018 #19

I'm happy to have people explain their own reactions to MineralMan Oct 2018 #21

I'm still not sure I understand then what your question is. thucythucy Oct 2018 #27

See this link for information on the increasing number of Catholic hospitals MineralMan Oct 2018 #28

Here's another link about Catholic Hospitals taking over: MineralMan Oct 2018 #29

At first glance this seems to be less about Catholic hospitals "taking over" thucythucy Oct 2018 #34

Finally, here's another link: MineralMan Oct 2018 #30

On first reading I don't see an explanation as to why thucythucy Oct 2018 #37

I'd agree if the outrage from progressives wasn't selective Jake Stern Oct 2018 #6

Islam, in general, is intolerant of many things. MineralMan Oct 2018 #9

Your question here seems different from the one in your OP: thucythucy Oct 2018 #15

You're welcome to take the thread in any direction you wish. MineralMan Oct 2018 #18

See my post 19 thucythucy Oct 2018 #20

I think both should be "tolerated" qazplm135 Oct 2018 #41

Here I'm going to post a much more general reply thucythucy Oct 2018 #22

Really, there is no "atheist community." MineralMan Oct 2018 #24

All of which supports the point I've been making. thucythucy Oct 2018 #35

Atheism has no intention to do any of that. MineralMan Oct 2018 #38

I understand that. thucythucy Oct 2018 #39

I agree with that, but I'd also add that religious experience is important marylandblue Oct 2018 #26

Excellent point. thucythucy Oct 2018 #36

Early childhood indoctrination is a huge factor. Mariana Oct 2018 #40

I have no problem calling out religion. Cartoonist Oct 2018 #23

Yes. That's why the word "some" is in the title. MineralMan Oct 2018 #25

Looking at your title, guillaumeb Oct 2018 #31

You mean some as in thousands and thousands and thousands? Iggo Oct 2018 #32

4 hours later, we are still waiting for some names of these people. guillaumeb Oct 2018 #33

I'll concur with others who have said qazplm135 Oct 2018 #42

Just because they're being "metaphorically beaten" by the right Jake Stern Oct 2018 #43

I have no idea what deserves means qazplm135 Oct 2018 #44