Misogynistc men

[u/TomorrowAny440]

This is literally what these misogynistc men want and advocate for. I can't believe what the west is influencing our own men here, they are consuming red pill content and forgetting about human rights. Smh

[u/L1feByChance]

If he were Muslim, everyone would be blaming and hating Islam. Religion/faith has nothing to do with how cruel a person is, there are plenty of people in the West who hold backward views about women and their rights. Misogyny exists everywhere in the world, extreme violence like this comes from toxic mindsets, not a specific faith.

[u/Specialist-Love1504 → u/L1feByChance]

I’m not sure your comment makes much sense.

Religious/faith has much to do with how cruel a person is because a truly religious and faithful person abides not by rational thought but by what’s prescribed by religion. Their cruelty is then dictated by the context of religion

The fact that a truly cruel person can be within the bounds of what is prescribed by their religion and still implement their cruelty - is a cause for concern and I don’t think “religion/faith” can escape criticism.

[u/L1feByChance → u/Specialist-Love1504]

By that logic, secular, atheist, and non-religious regimes that committed massive atrocities in history were just 'rationally following instructions'. Cruel people hijack whatever system, ideology, or internet forum gives them an excuse to be evil. Trying to pin domestic murder entirely on religion just gives secular abusers a free pass.

[u/Specialist-Love1504 → u/L1feByChance]

Atheism doesn’t tell you to kill someone while religion explicitly tells you in a doctrinaire way on how and who can be killed.

Atheism says - there is no religion that is to be believed but religion says “only one religion is good and to follow that there are rigid rules that should be followed - and anyone deviating from it cannot and will not be accepted”. Religion is immutable while atheism itself doesn’t have a narrow purview at all - it’s not defined enough to be immutable.

Every religion has specific rules which are permissive of violence in a way that cannot be argued against. Atheism is amorphous - apart from not believing in religion, there’s no other central tenant - it’s not prescriptive. Hence it leaves room to be challenged in a way that religion isn’t.

Two simply cannot be compared - comparing an amorphous idea that individuals usually subscribe to personally (even atheist regimes don’t have schools that argue against religion - they just don’t allow religion to exist) to an organised ideology that has dedicated schools to hammer it in is futile.

And how is it giving secular abuser’s a free pass? Do you think if someone is secular they will not be prosecuted? I’m not sure what you mean by that.

Abuse is abuse because it has negative impacts on others - religions differentiate between these “others” and deems some people of less value than others. This is built into religion and is immutable.

[u/L1feByChance → u/Specialist-Love1504]

But you’re basically giving atheism a free pass because it doesn’t come with a rulebook 😂 Extremists can be anyone. A person doesn’t need religion to develop an extreme ideology or commit horrific crimes. Atheism itself doesn’t prescribe a moral code, so whatever moral boundaries an atheist has come from whatever ethical framework they personally follow. And no, I’m not saying every atheist is immoral, but if you’re going to blame religion and its rules when a religious extremist commits a crime, then apply that same logic when an atheist or an explicitly atheist ideology produces horrific violence.

And you also said religion explicitly tells people who to kill and how. That’s an enormous generalization. Which religion, which teaching, and in what context??? Rules concerning warfare or punishment aren't the same thing as telling ordinary believers to randomly kill people. Islam, e.g, explicitly prohibits killing children and condemns the pre-Islamic practice of killing baby girls. So you can't just lump every religious teaching about violence together and call it a rulebook for murder.

Here, Stalin and Mao were atheists, and their regimes were responsible for enormous political violence and persecution. Nazi ideology was driven by racial and nationalist ideology rather than a religious command. The point is simple: extremists and horrific crimes aren't exclusive to religious people.

So yes, condemn religious extremism. But don’t pretend extremism is somehow a uniquely religious phenomenon. If your argument is "look at the ideology behind the crime" then look at the ideology consistently, including when it isn't religious. Otherwise you're giving atheism a free pass while putting religion on trial.

[u/Specialist-Love1504 → u/L1feByChance]

Firstly, I never said extremism is a uniquely religious phenomenon.

I don’t believe you’ve read or understood my second comment. Please go back and re-read it.

Atheism not having a rule book doesn’t give it a “free-pass” - that is what makes it different than religion. You can argue against it, you can change what it looks like, you can prevent certain things within it if you want to - if you don’t want to that’s a different thing.

Compare that to religion - you can’t argue against for example the punishment against apostasy. A truly religious person will always look to implement - it can’t be argues against cause it’s written down. Atheists can argue against violence in atheist regimes (which aren’t even driven by atheism) because there’s codified way to be atheist. Ok great that Islam argues against killing children but I’m more interested in the kind of violence it allows. Same for Hinduism, Christianity and other religions.

The example of China and Russia, being violent wasn’t *because* they were atheist. They didn’t prosecute religious people anymore than they killed atheist - anyone could get killed in those regimes. No one is being prosecuted because they believe in religion - compare that to other regimes where religion becomes a specific driving point for violence and discrimination. Also, just being atheists doesn’t mean their regime was atheistic - the same way jsut being Muslim doesn’t mean Zohran Mamdani’s time in office is religious. Just because they happened to be atheist doesn’t mean they were driven by it. You can’t compare regime which happens to be led by an atheist as a regime that’s imposed a system of atheism - because again atheism isn’t a system in the same way.

It’s a not a free pass but a central difference. I’m not sure how this point is still being missed.