Here's where I think the crux of the disagreement is on this particular point.
Posted by
TWuG
Jan 16 '15, 11:04
|
Racism was tolerated and condoned by society. Sexism was/is tolerated condoned by society.
What those to isms do is provide a way of holding people down through societal pressure.
You are arguing that depicting a sacred prophet is similar to being racist or being sexist. That we should probably be less tolerant of that type of depiction because it offends strongly held religious beliefs.
(the "you" in the following paragraphs is an impersonal you and not meant to replace Jack)
And I disagree with that for one very strong reason: Religion is a choice. You don't get to choose your race, nor choose your sex. Those are immutable characteristics.
You *do* get to choose to believe your god will be offended by drawings and while I respect your right to hold that opinion, that does not give you the right to impose that opinion on me. I am not beholden to your god and his rules unless I choose to be. And your attempt to force me to abide by them will be met with contempt and derision.
(Switching back to a "you" that means Jack)
That's where I disagree with your implication that religious belief is on par with race and sex and, therefore deserving of the same social place and deference.
It's not an anti-relgious stance, but a "don't expect me to abide by your religious beliefs just because you strongly believe in them" stance.
|
Responses:
|
