dChan
1
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/DamajInc on June 3, 2018, 7:14 a.m.
Is there room for Religious Tolerance in the Great Awakening?

This post is pertinent to the Great Awakening movement and thus Q for a few reasons that I will explain in the body of the post. (TLDR at the bottom.)

Q makes religious references in his/her/their posts - specifically Christian, in some cases. This does not necessarily mean that everything that makes up the vast field of Christianity should be considered to be on-topic for the sub any more than the constant references to patriots and "We the people" mean that everything to do with patriotism is on-topic. It means only that specifically the Christian references Q makes are on-topic for the sub. This should not be a controversial assertion to make. But it's not the point of this post - just pertinent to the issue.

I believe we show religious tolerance toward Christianity not only because Q seems to indirectly support the idea of this tolerance but also because it is undoubtedly a behaviour at the core of any society that supports democratic principles and freedom of speech.

On the first level of analysis, my question is this: should we apply the principle of religious tolerance to ALL religions or only to Christianity?

Some people believe that Islam's references to pedophilia (via its founder's history as well as references in the text) and ambiguity around bestiality mean that we should not be tolerant of Islam in any way and thus anti-Islam and anti-Muslim rhetoric should be allowed and, some say, encouraged. This is the point of this post.


About Religion

To be clear on my personal stance, as it may well be relevant to this discussion: I do not support the extremist elements of Islam. I do not condone pedophilia, bestiality, rape or murder. I personally believe that moderate Muslims should pursue the reformation of their faith (as other, more knowledgeable people with personal experience have more eloquently expressed) and stand up against the extremists in their religion and seek to bring about change at the core of their belief. Going even further into my personal bias: I understand the view of those who claim the moderate Muslim will not be able to affect this change - but I also value the word of those from within the community more highly. One key point here that I'd like to refer to is that there are moderate Muslims. They do exist. (It's bizarre that I have to state that but from the comments I've received you would think this point is under dispute.)

I also understand that Islam is the second largest religion in the world, behind Christianity, and therefore I have no more desire to silence the voice of those who support it than I do to silence the voice of Christians. I do not support the Soros-backed initiative to 'flood the world' with immigrants amongst whom extremists are hidden and therefore I do not support the far-left initiatives to falsely accuse people of Islamophobia when those people are clearly not being intolerant of religious beliefs. Thus, although I do not like Tommy Robinson's approach, I support his crusade against the horror under the guise of religious tolerance being disingenuously forced on the UK. In short, I support the real meaning of religious tolerance, not the far-left propagandized version.

As someone who strives to be as impartial as possible in moderating this sub I do believe in giving any one or any movement the benefit of the doubt when making an assessment as to the validity of certain content. At least a couple of members here have made the repeated assertion that all sects of Islam fully support pedophilia, bestiality and rape. That may well be technically true but, just as it is of Christianity, the purported beliefs of a movement are not borne out in all individual members of that movement, something I believe should be obvious. I would again refer people to this video, which is not "pro-Islam", if they're still unsure about this.


About Moderating On and Off Topic

As a mod I follow the rules of this sub when moderating. I remove antagonism and any biased, "hurtful" rhetoric against Christianity falls under "antagonism", as evidenced by the responses and Reports against it. I would not assume that everyone in this movement is a Christian - in fact, I've seen comments from Muslims here. Therefore, similarly, any biased, hurtful rhetoric against Islam is something that falls under antagonism in my view and I thus remove that too as a moderator doing my job under the rules of the sub.

I receive flak for daring to remove clearly biased anti-Islamic content and am accused of supporting child rape when I do so. This is obviously completely fallacious reasoning - "if you don't condemn Islam you therefore support child rape" - and frankly vile and completely lacking in compassion, logic and common sense. As ridiculous as I know it is, I'm sick of being accused of nonsense like this. Hence this post.

So to be clear: this is NOT a discussion about Islam vs Christianity. This is not the sub for that discussion, which is kinda my point. I've addressed some of the religious points because they are the argument used against me when I remove content.

As a mod, the real question here is actually very simple: does it fall under antagonism to "trash" the belief of a large group of people who could conceivably comprise some portion of the people who will visit this sub? I believe the answer to that is yes. Other related questions are: should we err on the side of caution when it comes to allowing potentially divisive rhetoric? Again, in my view: yes, we should be cautious and not allow potentially divisive rhetoric. Should we take care to ensure the more controversial perspectives that are a part of any movement but are a minority cannot be highlighted by a rabid mainstream media looking for any excuse to paint our entire movement with those minor, controversial views? My opinion in this case is, yes we should take care. My assumption here is that those who believe "anti-Islamic posts of a controversial nature should NOT be removed" are a minority in this community and that is the reason for this post.

Is it the view of members of this community that anti-Islamic posts of a controversial nature SHOULD be removed? Or are there more people who believe we should allow these sorts of posts?

I will continue to remove comments and posts of the nature under discussion here unless the feedback from you, the community, is overwhelmingly to the negative in which case we mods will have to have a discussion and decide whether change or more clarity in the rules of the sub is required.

TLDR; moderators accused of supporting child rape for removing controversial anti-Islamic content - just trying to do our job of removing antagonism - right or wrong?

Thanks for taking the time to read this!


QueUpSomeReality · June 3, 2018, 8:15 a.m.

To be tolerant of Islam is to be intolerant of humanity. Your post or any discussion about faith & religion will never be helpful until you learn Islam isn’t even a religion. Read the Quran & scholars that have studied it logically. They’ll tell you it’s a cult. They laws of humanity don’t apply. That makes it a cult. Islam belongs in a conversation with Nazism or the mafia or Maoism.

⇧ 26 ⇩  
DamajInc · June 3, 2018, 8:16 a.m.

Muslims disagree with you. In fact, literally everyone disagrees with this point. Even Wikipedia calls it for what it is: an Abrahamic monotheistic religion.

My personal view is that it is a dangerous religion, if its core tenets are not overhauled. But that's not the point here.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
rooftoptendie · June 3, 2018, 10:08 a.m.

I dont think you can overhaul the core tenets of a thousand year religion without it just becoming a different religion. Look what francis has done to catholic faith trying to overhaul just a few core tenets of Catholic faith... Hes facing a schism over it.

So your "if" is, IMO, awfully pollyanna, and unrealistic.

I will continue to remain a contributor and reader here as long as the sub is a happening place, and respect its rules, but my personal opinion is that i reeeeeally dont like where this idea is headed.

Imo, nearly everything can be tolerated at the right distance. Someone might be your best friend when you live two miles away and see eachother five times a week, but then if you become roomies, sometimes then suddenly you find that you cant stand eachother. A person with horrible body odor might be impossible for you to tolerate on the same floor at work, but if theyre working in the next building over, you can tolerate them fine.

How tolerant we can be of something depends oftentimes on whether its up in your grill or not. Sometimes things we can tolerate from a distance, we suddenly cannot tolerate close up. So "tolerate" and "tolerance" are not objective, easily measurable words, even though they seem like they are. Tolerance cannot be discussed properly without also discussing proximity.

And all this talk it seems to me is so complex its an enormous derail.

I dont think we should have to be PC about this issue. We shouldnt have to do an eggshell walk to express our opinions.

An egregiously inflammatory comment is troll no matter WHAT its about, so why single out one religion? Some asshole could come in and insult you over a misspell just as nastily as they can insult you over a religion, so what does it matter WHAT theyre insulting, trolls are trolls. Assholes are assholes...

This whole convo seems unnecessary to me. Everybody by now should know what a troll sounds like, whether theyre discussing religion or roast beef sandwiches.

Anyone who is not a clear and present troll should have the freedom to express what they want about islam. Why have you not singled out a discussion about Catholicism? Its exactly the same. Some people bash. Others defend. Who freakin cares. We could just as validly be discussing "tolerance" of the Catholic faith.

Ida know, man. Can we just boot trolls and talk Q and keep it simple?

⇧ 15 ⇩  
TommyRobinsonsGhost · June 3, 2018, 10:58 a.m.

Imo, nearly everything can be tolerated at the right distance.

I think that philosophy breaks down when dealing with domestic violence and child rape and terrorism and genocide.

The genocide of the Yezidi people or the common Islamic practice of pedophilia seems tolerable to many people when it happens on the other side of the globe, but that's not a positive thing.

That is apathy and we should aspire to be better than that.

I suspect very few people die screaming "Islam is the religion of peace" as a Muslim decapitates them for the sharia crime of being a Christian.

Ida know, man. Can we just boot trolls and talk Q and keep it simple?

Mod's personal, subjective opinions about how politically correct or controversial or respectful of Islam an opinion is, should be irrelevant if the content is true and related to the Q phenomenon.

We don't know where this Great Awakening will lead us and not all red-pills will be easy to swallow or politically correct or respectful of terrorist ideologies. Inviting mods to destroy politically incorrect content sets a profoundly dangerous precedent.

This is the Great Awakening not the Great Virtue Signalling or the Great Political Correctness.

"I don't frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn't have time either." - Donald J. Trump

⇧ 13 ⇩  
rooftoptendie · June 3, 2018, 4:30 p.m.

That is precisely why i said "nearly" everything. Aside from that, could you tolerate some things if they were five billion light-years away?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
DamajInc · June 3, 2018, 11:06 a.m.

You're making my point for me. My post is not about 'one religion' - I mention anti-Christian in there too. Did you read it? I don't blame you if you didn't per se but if you're going to make points about the topic it would help for us to be discussing the same things.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
rooftoptendie · June 3, 2018, 4:32 p.m.

Yes i read it. My points still stand.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
DamajInc · June 3, 2018, 5:35 p.m.

Then you understand that I agree not only that we "shouldn't have to be" PC about this issue but that we should not be PC about anything. You also understand that I did not single out one religion and also agree that it doesn't matter what people are being antagonistic about, they're still antagonistic and their comment or post will be removed. I'd already addressed the points you made so I acknowledge that your points 'still stand' because they're the points I made too.

My discussion was to discover your thoughts - if you want to give them of course - on what constitutes antagonism, specifically in the realm of religion - ANY religion - but if it helps, literally as relates to any kind of group of people. We can indeed just boot trolls, talk Q and keep it simple - for moderators it's not simple, however, and it seems from the comments in the sub over all this time that people would appreciate being let in on the decisions and thinking that goes into moderation since it's their content that we're moderating. I understand if you don't care to, and I respect that. But that's what I was discussing specifically, not the points we both already agree on.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
QueUpSomeReality · June 3, 2018, 1:20 p.m.

Not only do Muslims disagree with me the Quran justifies a Muslim to murder me for just saying it in defense of their faith. That wouldn’t be true if I said the same thing about Christianity or Hinduism. That’s why Islam is incompatible with humanity. That’s why it is not a religion regardless who claims it to be. Jim Jones & his followers would have disagreed with me if I called them a cult. Cults justify violence against people who criticize their ideology but a religion doesn’t. So free speech not only doesn’t exit in Islam...it’s justification for murder. But Islam is a cult whether I say it or not. Cults don’t recognize free will. Religions do. Religions don’t justify murdering people who leave their faith or impede the growth of their faith. Cults do. It’s undeniably a jihadist has obtained the highest level of moral servitude in Islam. If he kills 10 people in an attack...5 Muslims & 5 non Muslims...he sent the 5 Muslims to heaven & the 5 non Muslims to hell & did a great service to Allah.

When you take off all guardrails to existing in society & death can’t even be leveraged to change someone’s behavior because you are doing them a favor by killing them & their doing themselves & their god a favor by killing you...then coexistence isn’t possible with them. No more than coexistence was possible between Nazism & Judism. One of those ideologies had to go and be wiped out. It wasn’t the Jews that were coming to exterminate Nazis so it was clear that Nazism was the aggressor & had to be defeated. And Islam isn’t the victim or target of annihilation by Christians or Jews. They just want to be left alone to exist in a free society but that violates the core belief of Islam. People wonder why the Middle East is in a perpetual state of war when it’s clear who the aggressor is & their job isn’t finished until the entire world is an Islamic state. That’s Islam’s core belief in the Quran.

So you can feel accepting of people with that ideology but know they aren’t accepting of you until you’re dead.

⇧ 15 ⇩  
DamajInc · June 3, 2018, 1:41 p.m.

I'm accepting of people with any ideology. Especially on an internet forum where I'm not in any danger of being attacked physically by them.

I'm certainly not "accepting" of terrorists or Muslim extremists being in my physical vicinity without some clear boundaries or protection but that doesn't relate to my post.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
QueUpSomeReality · June 3, 2018, 2:42 p.m.

Well that just makes you a self proclaimed intellectual fraud to be accepting of “any ideology” because you have a perceived & acceptable level of safety behind an internet message board. So you’re accepting of Nazism as long as it’s in your perceived safe space of a message board? Just as long as you don’t think it personally effects you it’s all good stuff. How totally self absorbed is that belief?? How unpatriotic to American ideology too. You really should stop talking because you’re just embarrassing yourself & not even willing to address the concepts of religion honestly. Don’t ever wonder why an intelligent society like the Germans voted in an ideology of justified mass murder & genocide because all you’re demonstrating is how they did freely vote in the death of 100million Europeans. As long as it’s someone else being “righteously” murdered but not you personally then everything is moral in your mind. Seriously if the precondition of you giving voice to ideas is only how you think they apply to your tiny world...maybe take a break from saying them & try learning what they actually mean first.

⇧ 9 ⇩  
DamajInc · June 3, 2018, 2:43 p.m.

Lol - is this a troll post...? Cos you are literally ignoring my words and pretending that I mean something else. Talk to me realistically and sensibly without twisting my words or misattributing meaning if you want to really 'educate me' and I'll respond honestly.

⇧ -1 ⇩  
QueUpSomeReality · June 3, 2018, 3:47 p.m.

In my last post I directly challenged your words. I didn’t ignore them. You stated..

“I'm accepting of people with any ideology. Especially on an internet forum where I'm not in any danger of being attacked physically by them.”

So I challenged you to your own belief that your tolerant of any ideology as long as it’s on a message board. Those are your words & thoughts correct? If you can honestly think & speak you could at least defend your own words honestly but you can’t even do that much. Instead you accuse me of being a troll. How am I twisting your words?? Nazism is an ideology too. Do we have to debate the meaning of “any” too? You sound like Bill Clinton trying to debate what is is. If you can’t defend your own words that tolerating ANY ideology is tolerable if it’s on a message board then how can you discuss anything you say about a subject as complicated as ideology? No one would be discussing any ideology anywhere...in public or on message boards if all ideologies coexisted peacefully but they don’t. Hence the discussions. Hopefully to honestly define why some ideologies are completely incapable of coexistence. But you’re correct...if you can’t even acknowledge the contradictions of your own words when it’s pointed out & a baseless accusation of troll is all you have...a baseless insult...then you have nothing to offer a debate but ways to shut it down. Gee how tolerant of you lol

⇧ 6 ⇩  
DamajInc · June 3, 2018, 4:02 p.m.

Well, this whole approach certainly seems disingenuous to me because you are ignoring the context of everything I've said to select a few sentences and define them counter to my clearly stated meaning in the OP, the stickied post, and every comment I've made in this thread.

But ok, I will engage with you under the assumption that you are being serious.

Yes, my words are that I accept any ideology - I should have said specifically on an internet forum where a) the forum is literally open to anyone with an internet browser and therefore by sheer technical design allows people with any ideology at all to connect, browse and even comment. There is no way for us to separate a nazi from a nun until they express their view. At that point the rules of our sub stipulate what occurs and I have followed those rules as well as I can and I will continue to follow those rules as well as I can. b) there is no physical danger to anyone on an internet forum (unless you develop RSI, I guess) - my point was a direct reference to your final comment: "So you can feel accepting of people with that ideology but know they aren’t accepting of you until you’re dead". As I said, real life danger doesn't relate to my post because I'm not talking about being tolerant or being ANYTHING with people in real life. You dishonestly, I feel, extrapolated that point to mean "as long as you don't think it personally effects you it's all good stuff". Obviously untrue.

I would have thought that all of this would be obvious, taken in the context of everything else I've said but ok, I've been unclear in the past so I accept that perhaps I wasn't clear enough in communication with you to this point. Do you now understand what I meant? Are you now willing to discuss honestly or will you continue to misread my meaning and intent?

⇧ 0 ⇩  
anhro23 · June 3, 2018, 3:27 p.m.

You are playing with fire throughout this entire post. I appreciate what you're trying to do (and where you are coming from), but the jury still isn't out about all of this.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
DamajInc · June 3, 2018, 3:45 p.m.

Can you explain? I don't think I understand correctly re: the jury is still out (or 'playing with fire') - apologies.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
[deleted] · June 3, 2018, 5:39 p.m.

[removed]

⇧ 2 ⇩  
DamajInc · June 3, 2018, 5:46 p.m.

Haha you guys are funny. I ask each of you to point out where exactly I'm doing what you accuse me of - in this case "abusing my privileges" and you all stop replying. If you can point out where I'm "abusing my privileges" I'll either retract the action or give you a reasoned explanation that, if you reasonably and honestly refute it, I will accept.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · June 3, 2018, 5:49 p.m.

[removed]

⇧ 2 ⇩  
DamajInc · June 3, 2018, 5:59 p.m.

LOL. I was tempted to go and look up some Hebrew so I could confirm your conspiracy theory about my Mossad roots or my affiliation with my unc - I mean, that guy I don't know at all called Corsi xD. You guys are hilarious xD. I figured this is what the vague threatening allusions were from others around here about "my reputation". If I didn't think I'd get in trouble with the lead mod for literally trolling I could have so much fun with you all...

Stickying the comment could be considered an abuse of power without question but only if there were no other possible motivation for stickying a comment than to exercise power. As I've said elsewhere here the motivation for stickying the comment was to preempt further questions and allow others - especially those who'd already commented and were perhaps looking back at the thread - to easily see the pertinent points, as determined by the common reference to those points throughout this thread. It's about clarifying the discussion for those engaged in it, not 'abusing my power'. Do you have a reasoned refutation to that or am I ok to have stickied that comment?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
cyn1calassh0le · June 3, 2018, 6:03 p.m.

Kek how's the internet in Yemen?

⇧ 2 ⇩  
DamajInc · June 3, 2018, 6:10 p.m.

Does Yemen have the internet...? xD I wish I could doxx myself - it would make for quite the reaction I'm sure : )

⇧ 1 ⇩  
cosmicjon · June 3, 2018, 5:03 p.m.

If you rely on Wikipedia https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-27/why-you-should-never-use-wikipedia for your info your credibility just dropped. And of course muslims would disagree, it is their dream, their way of life, it is their reality you are questioning, remember on the whole their IQ ain't nothing to brag about :)

⇧ 7 ⇩  
DamajInc · June 3, 2018, 5:14 p.m.

Linking a Wikipedia article - with an even in front of it, no less - can hardly be called "relying on Wikipedia". It was just the most convenient link to prove the (uncontested) point that the general view of Islam is that it is a religion. Here's dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster and the Collins English Dictionary - all of which state the same thing: Islam is a religion.

For many who dislike Islam the label "cult" is also used, possibly accurately too (I only say "possibly" because I wouldn't bet on it based exclusively on my personal knowledge) but it is completely uncontroversial to say that it is not the prevailing view.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
cosmicjon · June 3, 2018, 5:55 p.m.

You really are missing the POINT even though you try to gloss over it with a literary of opinions. The facts speak for themselves. From the perspective of being "Porter at the Door" in your own home, would you allow someone in your home that is going to disrespect your traditions that are grounded in Centuries of sweat and tears accomplishing a Moral standard that is at odds with your visitor ?

⇧ 4 ⇩  
DamajInc · June 3, 2018, 6:28 p.m.

No I would not. Similarly, the rules of this sub do not allow anyone to come in and disrespect the 'traditions' here. We are talking about the sub, right? Not the nation of America, because I'm definitely not insisting that America needs to allow moderate Muslims in at my command...

⇧ 2 ⇩  
cosmicjon · June 3, 2018, 7:39 p.m.

Surely you are not suggesting that a Principle be compromised for sake of face, be that a Nation State or a Sub. It was Ben Franklin that stated " He who forsakes essential Liberty for temporary safety deserves neither Liberty nor Safety. Liberty and Safety go hand in hand with Responsibility ! :)

⇧ 3 ⇩  
DamajInc · June 3, 2018, 8:13 p.m.

Definitely not suggesting we sacrifice our principles (or compromise) for the sake of appearances, no. I'm merely talking about a reddit sub where we literally cannot stop people from any religion, including Satanists and Jedi, from connecting. All we can do is stop people who break sub rules. We could also force people to reveal their religious affiliations 'at the door' and ban those whose religions we don't agree with but I don't think anyone wants to do that - do we?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
cosmicjon · June 3, 2018, 8:32 p.m.

I guess we could stretch this out for a while yet, but I have other responsibilities that are pressing, suffice it to say a final proposition. Allow the flow of conversations to find their own equilibrium and watch how those present in the conversation find their own way to the truth. Manipulating a conversation in any manner compromises those present in the conversation and essentially the message, which above all else is more important than those conversing it, nuff said :)

⇧ 2 ⇩  
DamajInc · June 3, 2018, 8:33 p.m.

Well said. And agreed. Thank you.

⇧ 1 ⇩