• Phineaz@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      I mean … I guess you could consider the planned extermination of Nepalese culture and faith or the concentration camps full of Uyghurs for “re-education” an attempt at genocide if you wanted to use the term very liberally?

        • yesman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          You’re being dishonest. The definition of the words rules out the undesirable conclusion. People can’t do anything in the name of atheism.

          If “Religion poisons everything” then removing the poison should rehabilitate the patient, no? So please demonstrate that secular societies are more benevolent than religious ones. Show me that those who invented industrial murder are morally superior to ad-hoc killers.

          Did you know that the word genocide was coined to describe the actions of a government who was actively trying to secularize?

          • Phineaz@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Goodness, you are right: I entirely forgot to name the Holocaust (which probably isn’t what you were going for). That could certainly be considered genocide against a religion.

    • yesman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      This is a semantic game. The honest question is that does becoming more secular make one more moral? I’ve never seen anybody make the case for that (though plenty love to imply it w/o evidence).

      Can we agree that Israel is more secular than her neighbors? Is Israel’s government or people more benevolent? It’s a trope that Muslims are violent, but compared to just half a century of secular Europe’s World Wars, Islam is a blameless kitten.