I don’t know any true Christians who are MAGA or racists or even bigots. But with the commonly used definition that if someone says something is bad they automatically are seen as hating the people doing it many people arguing in communities like that would be called haters or bigots and possibly be banned here on lemmy.world. Even though most true Christians don’t like MAGA and hardline rights they might feel the need to create communities like r/TrueChristian oad r/AskAChristian on exploding-heads.com or similar servers because they might think that their opinions are tolerated there. What do you think?
What do you understand as “tolerant”? Does it have to be always affirming? Say, I state that a certain behavior is not good. You disagree. I tolerate your opinion even though I disagree. But you state that my opinion is hateful and want it to be banned. Who of us is “tolerant”?
It’s not that complicated. If someone is in a protected class based on something you disagree with, keep it to yourself. If you’re compelled by religious conscience to pull someone out of a protected class, this isn’t the place for you.
Who defines what is a “protected class”?
Society.
Age, race, national identity, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious identity, etc.
These are all equally protected classes on the society of this instance, and tolerance is a social contract that says “I agree to tolerate your class.” If one can’t tolerate the fact someone is a christian, or gay, or first nations, they break the tolerance contract and will not likely be tolerated in turn.
Tolerance doesn’t mean agreement. It means leaving it alone.
If you can’t leave it alone, please feel welcome to migrate to a social instance that doesn’t protect it.
If someone comes to AskAChristian and asks what does your religion teach about xyz would I not be allowed to answer because the answer could be interpreted as harassment of a protected class?
You could answer that your religion teaches that xyz is bad because Jesus said so, or whatever.
However, the issue is, whilst you are only stating the tenets of your religion, if what your religion states is hateful - thats an issue.
Great answer!
hateful = considered hateful by the immediate society. The speaker doesn’t have to agree that it’s hateful.
By “society” you mean the majority of people? And when the majority of people thinks something is wrong that gives them the right to cancel out a minority opinion just by calling it “hate”?
Some people think it’s fine to abuse kids. Should we indulge their minority opinions too? If you don’t think so, explain to me the difference.
But isn’t religion also one of the protected classes? I would only state what i think my religion teaches I would not discriminate or cancel anyone and let other opinions stand. But when someone tries to cancel me for stating what i think my religion teaches wouldn’t they discriminate against me because of my religion?
Two issues there - I’m personally of the opinion that making religion a protected class is wrong. Having a religion (including mine) is really just an opinion, you choose to believe in it. Someone’s race, sexuality, gender etc are basic facts about their existence with no choice.
Secondly, you’re missing the point. You wouldn’t be cancelled for reciting your bibles beliefs as a statement of fact about what that bible says about xyz. You would be cancelled for believing it to be a valid viewpoint. The difference being, one is you saying yes the bible says this (fact) and the other is saying the bible is right about this.
Your religion is based on judgement and sins, which 2/3 of the world don’t agree with. In developed nations christianity is on the decline. A large part of the reason is the hate, judgement and sin-labelling of normal human activity. People are sick of it and quite rightly see those who cite their christian faith as a valid response to a moral issue as patronising at best and hateful at worst.