The gays already stole the velvet mafia from the Italians.
Now they’re trying to rob the Arabs of their Jihad?
What’s next? Geriatric AIDS patients marrying newborn infants? Bestiality? Sex with a bowl of oranges? Where does the madness end, if righteous conservative christian dominionist theocrats don’t stomp the inflamed genitals of the godless sodomites?
Well, at least a cool logo has been spawned from all this vile Christian bigotry and hatred:
Frankly, I think it’s a testament to how decent and non-violent most gays are that there hasn’t already been a murderous “jihad” against bigoted Christians thus far. Instead, a lot of gays tragically end up killing themselves in the face of all this rampant ignorance and hatred. I bet if a lot of these Christian bigots were on the receiving end similar to how gays are treated, they’d choose a very different, outwardly destructive path because they are selfish, scumbag pieces of shit.
I think for some it’s the blindness of privilege. When asked they’ll say they’re concerned about the mistreatment of [minority], and they may even feel bad about it, but because they’re not confronted with it on a regular basis they have other priorities.
Or maybe I’m being overly generous. I also frequently encounter an attitude of “I don’t discriminate against [minority] but I can’t criticize fellow Christians”. I find the intensity of their faith disturbing.
So “Jihad” is the the new buzzword for any movement that Cruz disapproves of or that doesn’t conform to his version of Christianity. I expect the term to be thrown around quite loosely over the next few years.
No, but see “crusade” is about freeing people, while a “jihad” is inherently about imposing one’s beliefs on another (only not, because that’s not really what jihad means)…
Why should “fear” be an excuse? Whatever stripe of religious nut or devout believer you can name, there are probably some with a bias against it. Some religions say that adherents need to fear their own god, so could fearing other people’s religion be a meaningful factor?
Another sticky problem with “satanism” is that it tends to be a catch-all pejorative in many circles. Satan may be important in some circles, but many don’t believe or attribute any significance to this character. Yet many pantheists/occultists/pagans/heathens/natives/etc get lumped by Abrahamics as practicing a defiled version of their own religion - ie “Satanism”. Somebody in another religion is probably as thrilled by being identified with Satan as your average Christian would be if people said that the Christian’s god is really Shiva. It’s a cheap and dishonest device to cause controversy.
There are some people who do identify personally as Satanists, but most of what Christians decry as being satanic are merely other religions which have nothing to do with Christianity. Since Christianity teaches about Satan, this family of beliefs is actually far more “satanic” than most. The problem is fairly insidious, with complaints of “satanism” and “witchcraft” having been used for decades as a pretext for official harassment and biased legislation.
Some identify as such. Certainly others think of the OTO that way! One of my wife’s best friends is longterm OTO and has written works on straight up Satanism. I find it all a little silly but then I’ve most been an agitated Buddhist for more than a decade.