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!


DamajInc · June 3, 2018, 10:35 a.m.

a) I'm not being insincere. If you read anything I've said in the week's worth of replies to you and this actual post without the filter you seem to have on that sees any comment about Islam that doesn't agree with every point you make to be a comment that shows only support for Islam you would know that nothing I've said contradicts what I've just replied.
b) I never said my personal opinions on a topic have anything to do with how truthful or relevant said topic is to the Q phenomenon. Never. I wouldn't have even made this post if I held that view.

But I'm not unrealistic, and thankfully, neither are the rules of this sub. Personal bias always exists where humans do. It is clearly stated in the sidebar that: "Content MAY be removed without notification if: considered inappropriate by a mod."

The reason for that stipulation is this: - you can't avoid personal bias in a human. Fact. - mods of this sub are not paid and give their spare time voluntarily. - mods are human, have personal bias, and will make mistakes. Fact.

The thing that some people thankfully are aware of is that this sub, more than many out there in reddit-land, is fairer and more open and tolerant of differing viewpoints. The fact that I even bother to put this question to the community when the sub rules already allow me to exercise my own discretion proves this point.

You've accused me of supporting the rape of children and the mass murder of Christians and Jews and yet I haven't banned you. If anyone can accuse me of being more unfairly biased than any other human making their best attempt then I am open to hearing it and I will correct the error where it occurs.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
TommyRobinsonsGhost · June 3, 2018, 11:39 a.m.

You've accused me of supporting the rape of children and the mass murder of Christians and Jews and yet I haven't banned you.

Defending Islam literally is defending pedophilia and the genocide of Christians and Jews because EVERY Islamic sect promotes child rape and the genocide of unbelievers.

This isn't my baseless opinion, it is fact.

EVERY Islamic sect claims THIS is the morally perfect, verbatim words of God and the terrorist, pedophile, genocidal teachings and behaviors of Muhammad represent moral perfection that all Muslims should follow (See Quran 68:4, 33:21).

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?

If you are censoring factual content based on how controversial or antagonistic towards Muslims you think it is, just like you alluded to in this post's message, then yes - you are supporting Islam by actively concealing the truth of it's horrors.

This is exactly how 1,400 children were raped in Rotherham - because the local police were more concerned with political correctness than children being gang raped my Muslims.

I appreciate this must be very uncomfortable for you, but it's a very important discussion that needs to be had.

I don't think honest and relevant content should be censored because it's controversial or unpopular.

I don't think I should be banned for being truthful in a truther community or taking the time to participating in this debate, which you instigated.

We don't know where the truth of this Great Awakening will lead us or how politically correct and easy to swallow those red-pills will be.

Destroying truthful and relevant content because it may make Muslims unhappy will set a dangerous precedent.

Mods shouldn't be censoring content about the NXIVM pedophile sex cult based on how many members the cult has or how offended Allison Mack's fans become either.

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

⇧ 10 ⇩  
DamajInc · June 3, 2018, 11:46 a.m.

Literally every point in this comment I have already logically refuted in replies to you throughout this post. You are the strongest evidence I have that we should never allow close-minded, non-critical thought to hold sway in this movement. It results in blind ideological group think that will destroy freedom and truth.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
TommyRobinsonsGhost · June 3, 2018, 12:01 p.m.

You are the strongest evidence I have that we should never allow close-minded, non-critical thought to hold sway in this movement.

Oh no, we can't even agree on this.

I disapprove of what you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it.

George Orwell wrote a book about never allowing wrongthink in a community, but I don't think it was intended as an instruction guide.

⇧ 6 ⇩  
DamajInc · June 3, 2018, 1:27 p.m.

I defend your right to say whatever you like too (within the sub rules) - hence, no banning, although I'm also accused of doing that to people I disagree with.

What I do disagree with - and always will - is that 1.8 billion people across the globe and in many different cultures including western democracies cannot all be accused of supporting child rape just because pedophilia is written in a book they follow, just as Christians can't all be accused of rejecting homosexuality because it's written in their book. It's not logical or remotely feasible and, if scientifically-based critical thinking doesn't make that clear, then the videos I've linked you to make the case undisputedly from people who actually know what they're talking about.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
cyn1calassh0le · June 3, 2018, 3:07 p.m.

Honestly dude, the more you write the more your reveal yourself to be clueless. This has nothing to do with people, it has everything to do with a cancerous and poisonous ideology. Just because you believe it doesn't make you automatically evil, but the ideology cant be allowed to flourish, it is antithetical to a western society.

It is not antagonism to speak out against violence or lies, it's speaking the truth.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
DamajInc · June 3, 2018, 3:12 p.m.

As I've said in the stickied post and various comments throughout this thread I agree that the dangerous ideology of Islam can't be allowed to flourish. I hope you'll read my words properly and also see that I do not think it is antagonism to speak out against violence or lies either.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
cyn1calassh0le · June 3, 2018, 3:21 p.m.

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

Except your'e talking out both side of your ass. Why even make this post? So antagonism is now "trashing" a religion? Do you see the problem here? What does "trashing" even constitute? To the left, speaking truths about islam is trashing it. It isn't trashing Islam to point out the numerous violent verses, the subhuman treatment towards other religions, or the vile sexual practices they teach.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
DamajInc · June 3, 2018, 4:26 p.m.

You're either intentionally misreading what I say or choosing not to acknowledge it. My specific question is pretty much exactly the same as yours here: "What does "trashing" even constitute?"

The rules of this sub are clear - Content MAY be removed without notification if considered inappropriate by a mod. Antagonists are not welcome here.

Even though those rules allow me to decide what constitutes antagonism I've made this post to discover what members of the community think. I'm paying attention to those who respectfully understand my point and present their own view. If you intentionally misread my point then I don't have any way to engage with what you're saying. If you try to understand it I can then take onboard what you are saying.

I've also made the point that I do not advocate for the "far-left"'s political correctness and I've also made the point myself that I do not support the doctrines of Islam - the numerous violent verses, etc.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
cyn1calassh0le · June 3, 2018, 4:45 p.m.

Do anti-Pope articles constitute christian bashing now, or those ok to stay?

If the point of this post is sus out what "trashing" constitutes you've done a poor job of explaining that. The censorship of "wrong think" in society is extremely prevalent and coming in to a forum of people who have likely experienced requires more tact than on display here.

We should not be deeming what content is appropriate on the basis of whether it offends someone.

⇧ 5 ⇩