> everybody seems a-okay with all of it.
Because it's not abuse.
Since when did it become socially acceptable to be bigoted in public? If you want to be intolerant at least keep your nastiness to yourself.
Because it's not abuse.
Since when did it become socially acceptable to be bigoted in public? If you want to be intolerant at least keep your nastiness to yourself.
Religions that push rules based on those appeals to authority into the political realm, and attempt to force others to live by them...
Believers who seek to proselytize under the flag of a false/unverifiable authority (typically explicitly supernatural) to non-believers...
Parents who pass down the mind-virus of such religions to poor defenseless children...
Labeling criticism of any of those bigotry is a panicked attempt to invoke the strong cultural taboo against narrow-minded discrimination, but the criticism and discrimination against those is hardly narrow-minded.
Don't you dare say that it doesn't happen or that it doesn't matter. Don't you dare.
Not all religions/versions of a religion are the same.
I acknowledge that an analogy is not always a particularly strong argument, but it was the first responce I thought of, and it seemed an acceptable responce to me.
Also, it might have made more sense to respond a few levels up, not sure what would have made the most sense to reply to.
My point is that religions seem prone to demonizing people as a quick and easy way to define themselves and maintain cohesion. Look at all the really nasty doctrinal splits through history.