I dunno if religion is strictly to blame. The assumption is that the source of bigotry towards trans people is religion but that hasn’t jived with my experiences. A lot of it comes more from people framing us as a logistical or social “problem” that is being encouraged rather than " solved" by the current model of care that places it’s focus on the ultimate well-being of the individual. A lot of that is secular in source.

People will find any manner of sources of justification to reinforce their “ick” response. Science (or a limited understanding of surface level science) and “common sense” is often more the rhetoric that gets splashed around and are often the most brazen objectors to my identity. The “you’ll burn in hell” types are actually decently rare by comparison… Generally heartbreaking to hear of don’t get me wrong but only a fraction of the whole problem.

I know it’s a minor point and food security is an actual very practical concern and valid reason to protest, but I feel like one of the tenants of a successful protest is very much like advertising : make the target directly relevant to the message. “Art and historical conservation efforts aren’t worth your concern as much as (blank)” feels like it’s a muddy message when the whole point of art culture is that it is kind of frivolous. Quite frankly you could throw anything at a beloved historical conservation peice and make the news even if your reason was “I felt like it”. People are probably gunna treat it as a bare faced stunt for attention because it’s already been done and the response is predictable. Our society wide fascination with historical preservation is immediately hostile to anything that seems to be spontaneous. It’s the opposite of exploiting a weak spot in people’s thinking.

I understand and am sympathetic to their cause but I am pretty sure there’s some property damage or mischief stunt that could have been immediately more effective by being somehow tied more directly to food, convenience culture or contemporary targets.

I mean what has actually been said by this Pope is that gay people should not be denied blessings. Not sure if this article specifically got into the nitty gritty but the things he has ALSO said in his original full brief was :

• Being gay is still a sin
• Gay people however should not be denied access to the church because they are sinners.
• You can bless a gay person or couple BUT strictly outside the context of anything resembling a marriage or civil union ceremony because marriage still only counts for heterosexual couplings

Which… Really isn’t anything substantial. There have been people’s pets who have been blessed in the way he is describing… So gay people have finally reached parity with the family cat in the eyes of the Catholic Church! Huzzah!

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2023/12/18/vatican-approves-blessings-for-same-sex-couples-under-certain-conditions&ved=2ahUKEwi7qLqr_-SDAxXbHjQIHTehD84QFnoECBgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw38B032zsvsZsbybf2RgALw

In reality holding the Pope to an actual progressive standard isn’t going to be feasible. The cardinals don’t want to lay hands on us LGBTQIA lepers so even the notion that we deserve anything but to sit mournfully outside the gates is a completely radical notion. The Vatican city was not built in a day and revisiting the bible and throwing out Pauline doctrine, the cornerstone of (very sus) legitimacy the Catholic Church was built on isn’t exactly something they want on the agenda this or any century.

In Canada restricted hate speech works like this :

It requires three parts.

1. It is publicly expressed (if it’s done in a private setting it isn’t chargeable)

2. It targets a person or group of people with a protected characteristic such as race, religion or sexual orientation (the protected grounds for discrimination are outlined in section 3 of the Human Rights Act)

3. It uses extreme language to express hatred towards that person or group of people because of their protected characteristic which means it counts when

• Describing group members as animals, subhuman or genetically inferior

• Suggesting group members are behind a conspiracy to gain control by plotting to destroy western civilization

• Denying, minimizing or celebrating past persecution or tragedies that happened to group members

• Labelling group members as child abusers, pedophiles or criminals who prey on children

• Blaming group members for problems like crime and disease

• Calling group members liars, cheats, criminals or any other term meant to provoke a strong reaction

Punishment wise it’s about on par with a disorderly conduct charge… So about the same as being drunk and yelling your head off in a public place or running nude through the streets. Police aren’t likely to arrest someone for it unless the hate speech is obvious or well documented it and someone actively complains.

Technically it is illegal here in Canada.

I work in set Decoration in Canada and dealing with Nazi paraphernalia has a whole documentation process. There’s a handful of prop houses in the States that traffics in the stuff and the paperwork to import it has to be very carefully handled or else it gets seized at the border. Once the stuff is owned by the production company it must be kept under lock and key when it is not onset and removing it from the set or the lockup without proper signed off on authorization is a firing offence.

Huh. Should I construe this as Anti-Hinduist sentiments now? I mean I guess that counts as new but it’s not exactly a whole new verse just a slightly different refrain. Still dull. Come on, dig deep show me you are just a little bit interesting.

Yeah, sure. You really aren’t coming across as anybody I would count as an authority. More like a screaming middle schooler in full tantrum…but you are progressively are getting more boring. Don’t you do anything new?

Can I unsubscribe or something? I am not interested in your religious tirade.

Not even a little close. Now I just think you’re dumb as shit and don’t know how to read. Are you a bot? Maybe that explains why you just say the same thing over and over.

Welp if you are not bothering to read my replies and pretending you actually understand the meaning of strawman while basing your entire schitck around the least effective ad hominem attacks I’ve encountered then there’s no real reason to continue.

That you won’t answer even two direct questions to nail down a basic ethical baseline to expand from tells me that even you can’t defend your own position for shit. Not surprising you don’t want to look too closely at your own opinions in the mirror.

Anyway, it’s been fun.

Very well. Let’s logic for fun. In philosophy debate there is a means of breaking down a proof into separate points and evaluate an arguement as a series of statements which build on each other. Anything that does not build off of the points but instead on something that isn’t relevant to the arguement is a fallacy . Normally you atomize it and break down each point as a series of statements. In the interest of brevity let’s break yours roughly into two main points.

• That Religion is a Mental illness.

• Mental illness is a valid disqualification from participating in a government service

So let’s take the two halves of your arguement and cut it down to one and deal with the pieces separately. For now we’ll entertain this notion that religion was a mental illness for purposes of getting past you sounding like a bloody broken record.

So in the matter of ethics in the field of mental illness and disability it is widely accepted thay Employers are prohibited from discriminating against mental health in the workplace. Under human rights legislation in the US and any number of democratic societies at this point employers have an obligation to accommodate their employees with disabilities, including mental health concerns, to the extent of undue hardship.

Where I am this is covered under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the main constitutional document of my country. In the US this is covered more by a smattering of federal laws - an overlap of the Equality act, The American with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act which was fought for in the era of civil rights alongside racial discrimination. Both have a history of activism. The disability front at the time is actually quite heroic. I would look up “Ed Roberts and The Rolling Quads”. Think Martin Luther King but paralyzed from the neck down performing sit ins and demonstrations in Government buildings.

Whether something should be illegal (such as mental illness discrimination) usually is built off an ethical arguement. This one, campaigned for so brilliantly by people who had to overcome more than the regular obstacles has a lot of roots in the evolution of thought in Natural/Human Rights. The idea that you as a human simply by virtue of being one have a right to live, not be subject to undue cruelty, and are assured equal participation in your society. At a more fundamental level rests the idea that your natural advantages and disadvantages are randomly determined and a fair society is one that compensates for this randomness by not excluding people by mere lack of effort. There’s this concept that social systems ideally should be created from a standpoint of pretending you are a person who doesn’t yet know what random attributes you will have once you exist inside the society you build.

So the first question as to whether our veiws are at all reconcilable is :

1. Do you believe in the underlying principles of universal human rights?

2. If so, should human rights extend to people with mental illness?

If you do not agree with either of these two points we really have nothing in common and I feel justified that your views are by my standards unethical and there’s very little we can reconcile… because even if we look at religion as an illness it’s my dearly held belief that it should be an unlawful and widely agreed unethical grounds to refuse hiring someone or not reasonably accommodate a mental illness in any job much less one that is a democratic institution that serves “the people”. In all cases where governments decide they don’t have to follow their own rules I rarely like the result.

Okay? What problems? I work for a living in a career (non government,I have no patience for paperwork) that allows me to support an entire household, I am in a rewarding relationship of 15 years, have a host of friends whom I honestly enjoy the company of who do cool things, I have never so much as smoked a cigarette and drink rarely, I still have time for personally rewarding creative projects and I grew up in a family that armed me with the knowledge that the person I am is, was and will be cherished. To phrase it in a slightly whimsical way I am wealthy in many ways that have little to do with money in a lot of categories where others have deficits.

Quite frankly, I don’t really have need of your particular rubber stamp of approval. I more just wonder why in the world you think I desire it?

I do worry about attitudes like yours because I see how people are routinely hurt by them sometimes systemicly and other times very directly. I have a lot of friends who do struggle with burnout, anxiety, depression, PTSD and autism but that isn’t everything they are. It isn’t what defines them. You don’t chuck out the whole bloody person because of a weakness. Even those who struggle have a valid claim to seeking love, acceptance, participation and expression.

You are entirely unclear what “government” actually means to you as well. Do these things mean one should be excluded from being electable? Hardly a democratic principle… By being employed in a government office as a clerk with no particular autonomy? Not exactly egalitarian and definitely a discriminatory hiring practice … I agree that religion being a foundation of a law or constitutional principle is unjust but you seem to be on some other level of exclusion.

I dunno if anyone is interested but of you got some spare coins laying around the Canadian based charity Rainbow Refugee has been helping get out threatened LGBTQIA+ folks from multiple countries including Russia for quite a while now by arranging sponsorships and legal support and advice for LGBTQIA asylum seekers. If you know anyone looking to get out or would like to donate here’s a link :

https://www.rainbowrefugee.com/

I would argue that the zealotry is yours. I am not arguing for the removal of whole subsects of people from positions of government as though atheism ( or whatever term you want to use for your complete absence of belief since you refuse to identify as an atheist) is the only approved belief set of the state and that we should be expunging all others.

I don’t see much value in going through an itemized list of mental health issues to see which ones meet your personal approval either. If an illness causes no physical or mental harm to other people then it’s not a concern. Criminal behaviour is a category apart and I don’t endorse harm done to others intentional or otherwise. Mental illness is not a mandatory prerequisite for people doing terrible things to each other and a lot of people we convict do not actually show signs of a defined mental illness. Indeed there are a lot of mental illnesses make people more likely to be a victim of violent crime rather than particularly predisposed to committing it. A mental illness isn’t an excuse for people being an asshole to other people. Having a mental illness is also not a carte blanc invitation for other people to be assholes towards you.

That I am your archetype for religious zealot I find personally very entertaining given I really don’t care on that front. I don’t believe there’s any justice to be had in an afterlife so making the limited time and place we live kinder is the ethical move. You however seem to have just decided to change your tactics to ad hominem attacks to categorically dismiss me which makes it appear you are operating on a very emotional trigger. Chucking me in a “religion” box is your best attempt to emotionally satisfy your need to not have to deal with anything I say. It’s a tantrum reaction. Are you always this sensitive?

I would not be welcome in a Church. I grew up essentially an atheist and do not believe nor ever have believed in the God prescribed by the Christian, Jewish or Muslim faiths. I am now closer to agnostic. As a queer kid from an extremely Christian town I have my own complicated relationship with Christianity as an outsider and my own history of inflicted traumas. Yet, I hold no issue with those who do not attempt to force their beliefs on me because those people who have harmed me do not represent everyone who has a religious belief. How people comport themselves towards others and their empathy and kindness towards their fellow humans matters to me more than what particularly they individually believe exists.

I recognize that for those people who hold beliefs that they do in fact believe them. They aren’t simply pretending to entertain you and that means that their dogmas have perceived consequences. Religious beliefs aren’t something people can change like their socks. It often lies very close to their personal conception of what it means to be human. To shake that belief they require a lot of evidence that makes a high degree of sense to them and disbelief often causes them to be at odds with their own families and communities.

It is enlightening to see that your definition of “religious nutcase” is someone who has any religious beliefs at all regardless whether they ever attempt to spread them or impact you in any way. I imagine you likely have experienced some sort of religious related trauma yourself but that does not make reacting to everyone with a belief system the way you are right now okay. You also seem to place people who experience mental illness or addiction as a category that makes it ok for you to dehumanize people. You place yourself as the only viable model of intelligence… Something which isn’t healthy. You may just be very young in which case you might grow out of these beliefs naturally over time but if not then you should really be seeking some therapy.

As for addictions and mental illnesses, people’s individual struggles are not my business either. Some people do struggle and it’s not my place to judge them on their quality of life, only the quality of their work.

Being religious is not a mental illness. A lot of people grow up inside the culture and a belief held that dearly is not one you can change so easily. Life is difficult and what helps people navigate it particularly given it’s remaining mysteries isn’t really your problem. People draw their comfort from many sources and stripping them of it isn’t ethical. Nor is it entirely right to look at atheism as not a set of religious beliefs themselves in the context of government work. If a government agent started rattling on about how someone’s beliefs were stupid and that they thought little of them for holding them it would be just as alienating and threatening to the person seeking help as if some religious person decided to use their captive audience to proselytize to an atheists.

But if you still insist on pathologizing the one coming across here as deranged is you. Your complete lack of empathy for your fellow humans sounds like it has it’s root in a particular form of narcissistism or other type two personality disorder. Being an atheist is fine. Being an asshole about it and demanding everyone be exactly like you to be considered worthwhile to participate in their society makes you no different than the religious assholes who insist the exact same.

Like it or not religion is a formative part of people’s lives. If letting someone essentially wear a hat to work is “favouring on religion over another” then I can only posit that comes from a place of extreme pettiness. Where I am we have a large number of Sikh folk and I have gone into government offices and been served by agents wearing turbans a number of times. Not once has it ever been commented on. Not once have they ever mentioned their religion to me nor I commented on it to them. Neither would have been particularly proper because between the both of us in that professional setting it is quite strictly none of our business. I can’t say that what the agents were wearing ever in any way altered my experience.

It is the attitude of killjoys and sour grapes to strip people of the things that make them feel confident in the way they conduct themselves when out in the world or at their workplace. Your feelings about a piece of cloth are not most important. You only have to deal with a government agent once in a while in a professional capacity and your very temporary discomfort is not to be highly weighted. For the person forced to give up the things that make them feel supported and comfortable they feel that lack every single day. It is a crushing and disheartening experience.

Refusing to do part of the job would be an impairment of government function. A headscarf does nothing to impair function of the employee to do their job.

Rather by banning it there creates a undue barrier to the participation of women of this religious backgrounds in government by not realizing the modesty principles of their culture. It is more akin to not allowing a woman to work in a field unless she does so wearing nothing but her underwear.

Gender does give some unique insights to things though. When only one sex are the only ones looking at something, particularly something that has an effect in a psychology or physiology based thing it’s way easier to overlook a detail of something that they have never experienced. When science was the domain of almost exclusively men there were a lot of easily provable false things in regards to women and archeological finds that were just taken as gospel because nobody thought to prioritize or consider different perspectives. When you study a sex like they are an animal with no internal perspective, unique cultural expectations or values you make a lot of mistakes.

Like they never bothered mapping the internal structure of the clit until 1998. The internal structure is actually a lot bigger than you’d think.

You see this all over the place with how things are culturally counted. Like how driveby shootings are not counted by a lot of US statistical data as mass shooting in the US because they are more interested in the phenomenon of a targeted usual murder suicide of a very specific terrorist style execution… but other countries will record drive bys as notable mass shootings for their data.

A lot of places have law enforcement that are very invested in not participating in things that could harm their reputations so not participating in recording data points that assist in the conclusion that a genocide is occurring makes it easier to sweep issues under the rug.