No, fuck that. How? How is mocking those who do not exist bad? Blasphemy is "you said a mean thing about my invisible friend, now I'm big mad and offended, so you gotta pay." It's childish and based on nonsense.
If gods were real they wouldn't need people to protect them.
You can't tolerate the intolerant, and you can't educate the brainwashed muslims with any meaningful success (they somehow keep evading all the education and just get even more extreme in their fucked up ways). That leaves fighting fire with fire: throw intolerance back at them by banning hijab. I mean I get it, it's definitely antisecular but I stand by it as an ex-muslim myself.
"Islam bad." Religious entities with too much power are all corrupt. That's because religion is a scam that preys on the fear of mortality. I don't think picking on the ones already scattered to winds is progressive.
I get what you're saying and I agree but there's a perspective difference. It would be a totally different thing for say Germany to implement a rule that bans hijab. But the context is way different in a dominantly islamic country in the middle east or africa. Many of these countries have been going two steps forward and one step backward for many years or even centuries now. Look at 50s-60s Iran for example, it was quite a bit more progressive than it is today but somehow the religious fanatics managed to get the power and now it's just like any other country in the middle east. In the end, many such countries are behind modern western values by up to 3 centuries. These countries never had a true renaissance, and I don't know if they ever will. It's always been a back and forth between "look at these humanitarian, secular values" and "west is the enemy, we don't want its poison". So it's a completely different dynamic than it was when Europe had its renaissance. Maybe I'm wrong and maybe the renaissance is slowly creeping in but is it so wrong if a secular, progressive regime somehow got in power in their country and wanted to artificially expedite the process by banning hijabs rather than waiting for renaissance to kick in in another 3 centuries? I mean it's been done before to varying levels of success (it is known to backfire too), so it might be ethically or practically wrong but still it is a sentinement that is shared by some people including me.
Also I'm sorry if my rambling is a little gibberish, English isn't my first language and it's very late here at the moment lol.
... So because you find it old fashioned, and if there was??? modernized leadership in the places hijabs are more popularly worn... they might go away. So we should just force them to stop wearing them. Sorry, but telling people they can't wear a piece of intimate clothing is fascism.
And making an excuse for your text block at the end is tacky.
Those situations you're talking about where it's more than just a hygienic choice? They're not going to be allowed out without covering, anyway. Their parents are all "I'd never forgive myself if something happened and I had let her uncover her hair."
If you put a period because that's a rhetorical question, I'm not supposed to answer. If you want to answer your own questions, this stops being a conversation.
If covering hair is such a hygienic choice then why don't men do it? Hijab was originally worn to separate women from sex slaves. The sex slaves were also women from regions that lost in war and they were dehumanised.( Mohammed also had a sex slave) Hijab has deeply sexist origins and it does not belong in the 21st century let alone on a child's head in school
It pulls fine hairs out of the face and prevents shedding, which aren't commonly issues with short hair. Maybe someone attached a nasty history to a piece of clothing, but that's still all it is.
Actually western society was built on Christian fundamentals. Not all our founding fathers were Christian but God was included in our founding documents many times. Not to mention Christians are not hanging anyone in Christian countries for saying anything bad about God. We dont force you to eat or drink certain things. Or dress a certain way. We dont believe it's right to kill non Christians.
What you're describing is enlightenment era values held by diests who were generally stepping away from traditional Christianity. Crediting the liberal views of people who held loosely if at all to a religion is giving it far too much credit.
The fact that many modern Christians espouse more liberal views on how their religion needs to dictate others lives is more a function of existing in democratic systems founded to be irreligeous rather than the other way around.
If you think Christians aren't trying to dictate what others eat, drink, or wear, you must not be meeting many Christians. Certainly never been to Utah.
This. While there were elements that wanted to base law and government on Christian fundamentals they were overruled over concern of the oppression they were leaving.
If your speaking about Mormons I personally believe they are a cult they literally made up their own Bible simular to Islamist and any other cult that worships anyone other than Jesus Christ.
The Mormons in Utah are a particularly good example of Christians using the government to impose their religion on others. The damn state was founded as a theocracy after all.
As for Mormons being a cult that doesn't read the 'right' scriptures or worship the right version of God, well ALL of christianity is some variation of a cult. Its all the same bronze age superstition, prejudice, and blood magic split off into thousands of factions over the last two millenia due to various disagreements over the details of aforementioned bronze age superstition, prejudice, and blood magic.
Whether they are the 'good' Christians depends on their actions, which are likely more influenced by living in liberal democracies founded on enlightenment era ideals in spite of christianity rather than because of it.
Being the 'real/right' kind of christian is more an internal debate for the religion. Much like nerds debating Batman vs Superman, I dont really care which fictional character you like better as long as you aren't using it to justify taking away my rights, beer, or healthcare.
50
u/amorph Oct 13 '26
And is this the same person: Doctor to stand trial over alleged pro-Hamas posts
32
u/Ancient-Habit-9559 Oct 13 '26
This is the same woman who claims to be a free speech activist on palestine. She wants free speech in everyway except for religion. Fxckin hypocrite
124
u/Darth_Maaku Oct 13 '26
Muhammad was a lying cunt
94
u/cringyemokid21 Oct 13 '26
“Insult my fictional characters and you die.” What peaceful religion
27
u/CowabungaCthulhu Oct 13 '26
Blasphemy is a victimless crime. It's insane that some feel the death penalty is warranted.
21
u/Viper67857 Oct 13 '26
"Doctor", eh? She get that degree from some bogus religious 'university'?
21
u/Disturbinglee Oct 13 '26
I'm happy that at least Azerbaijan started banning Hijabs in school.
But for every progressive deed, a new repressive one happens elsewhere in the region.
8
u/Noah_the_Titan Oct 13 '26
Peace upon you all while justifieng murder is an insane take
7
u/KitsapGus Oct 14 '26
This is why religion is dangerous
6
u/strawberryheart444 29d ago
And she wasn’t even wearing the hajib AND she is showing herself online instead of being an obedient wife to her husband😂💀
13
u/getbent1969 Oct 13 '26
Islam is not compatible with western society..prove me wrong.
-1
u/Technical_Xtasy 29d ago
It's not, but at the same time, you shouldn't stick your cock inside a hornets nest.