1426
Iranian chess player who removed hijab gets Spanish citizenship
(www.reuters.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2023
1426 points (98.6% liked)
World News
37441 readers
2876 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yeah the whole thing sucks just remember their are religious fanatics within all religions.
Fanatics and extremists exist regardless of religions. The latter just allows them to control people easier, and islam happens to be particularly good at that.
Of course, most 'religious' people have enough common sense to not follow them to the T. When the government is religious though, like islam encourages, you have a big problem
This is more accurate.
It's not that "fanatics exist in all religions", it's "fanatics exist", and religions just give them a cover that is depending on society difficult to challenge as in many places, a religion's influence on society and rules is quite normalized, completely ignoring how ridiculous this influence is.
It isn't much of a leap to understanding that religions have always served the purpose of controlling people.
When a leader has a tool that allows the people to think his pronouncements have the endorsement of a God, that leader is going to use that tool.
Islam isn't better at it than other religions it just happens to be the major religions in the countries where those fanatics managed to seize the power. You can find similar examples with Christianism (Europe, USA), Judaism (Israel), Hinduism (India), Buddhism (Myanmar) and probably many more.
That's no coincidence imo.
I see all religions as negative, but Islam is the only one I can personally attest to, being an ex muslim. It's cult-y and tends to bring out the worst in people, more so than most religions from what I've seen.
Your personal experience is not a good argument.
Here's a recent exemple of Hindu fanatics attacking Muslims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Delhi_riots and another from Christian fanatics attacking the institutions of the USA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack
Let's not compare atrocities committed by religions; islam's would be never-ending if we did, as your comment also suggested.
I will add though that buddism's continued oppression of muslims in Myanmar is sickening, in addition to your examples
Isn't it what you do when singling out Islam ?
If the poster hadn't specifically stated that they were commenting because that was their former religion, yes. But given the context, no.
Yup. I think the conclusion is obvious, as my comment indicates, so there's not much need to compare them here.
Islam doesn't encourage any more for theocracy than other Abrahamic religions. The existence of religious fundamentalist Islamic theocracies is a lot more complex than Islam. A lot of it can be traced to colonialism, the decolonization process and Western interference in Islamic countries. This is largely why Iran is one of those. The last Shah was seen corrupt autocratic puppet of the West by many. As a counter to it, the country over-corrected and landed in fundamentalist Islamic theocracy. Radicalization of Islam leading to similar governments happened in other Islam-majority countries. Before the 60s and 70s, many Islamic countries didn't differ a lot from Western countries when it came to social liberties. There are a lot of images of Tehran and Kabul with women in mini skirts for example.
While I am not saying that modern Islamic countries are not problem or thousand when it comes to civil liberties and democracy, Islam in my knowledge was more tool and less reason behind it.
The problem is when a government is captured by religion.
There is nothing quite so bad as religious types getting power based purelly on being religious types.
I suspect that, because it's the most fanatical power-hungry types (Moralism is really just a way of justifying the forcing of others to your will) who both have the most motivation to seek positions were they can have free rain to really go on powertrips on other people, and display more overtly the very religiosity that is the whole reason for a government whose power is based on religion.
Certainly those who feel no need to impose their will on others and who can even *gasp* see some actions as overzealous, don't have anywhere the same drive, zealotry and backstabbing instincts to climb up the ladder in such power structures.
You are very right the same is being seen in the united states with Evangelical fanatics taking over all forms of government and a disturbing pace.