why not religionism ?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Racism is called "racism", but discrimination against a religion is called "xenophobia".
Why is it not called "religionism" ?

i'm sure someone has pointed this out already but just incase..

xenophobia

• n.
  A fear of strangers or foreigners.
  
  
• n.
  A strong antipathy or aversion to strangers or foreigners.
  
  
• n.
  a fear of foreigners or strangers
  

As you can see Xenophobia has nothing to do with religion but a fear of strange or foreign people. 
so why isn't religion called religionism meant as a identifier of hate? because religion is not intrinsically hateful. rather in some religions hate can be identified like xenophobia or even racism but the idea of all religion needs to be identified as a form of hate is not an intellectually honest assessment of all religion.

Winterhold mentioned discrimination, not ‘hate’. While there is admittedly some overlap between the two, it’s not reasonably deniable that virtually all religions are inherently discriminatory towards both other religions and the irreligious (some of the neo-pagan loonies and a few others are exceptions).

Even the particular god you worship is capable of both discrimination and hate.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Racism is called "racism", but discrimination against a religion is called "xenophobia".
Why is it not called "religionism" ?

i'm sure someone has pointed this out already but just incase..

xenophobia

• n.
  A fear of strangers or foreigners.
  
  
• n.
  A strong antipathy or aversion to strangers or foreigners.
  
  
• n.
  a fear of foreigners or strangers
  

As you can see Xenophobia has nothing to do with religion but a fear of strange or foreign people. 
so why isn't religion called religionism meant as a identifier of hate? because religion is not intrinsically hateful. rather in some religions hate can be identified like xenophobia or even racism but the idea of all religion needs to be identified as a form of hate is not an intellectually honest assessment of all religion.

We've already gone over the definitions of the terms religionism and religionist, they very much do reference what is specifically hateful.  Religious zealotry. It's an honest assessment of any religion taken to it's limits.

The rest of you are suffering a crisis of faith, comparatively. None of the religious non-religionists believe their shared religion quite as much as the religionists do. It's a mixed bag for me, personally. I prefer the guy in the cult of stabby stabby to be right out in the open and frank with it. Fence sitting stabbers have you looking in more than one direction for the knife - less than ideal.

[Drich]

i'm sure someone has pointed this out already but just incase..

xenophobia

• n.
  A fear of strangers or foreigners.
  
  
• n.
  A strong antipathy or aversion to strangers or foreigners.
  
  
• n.
  a fear of foreigners or strangers
  

As you can see Xenophobia has nothing to do with religion but a fear of strange or foreign people. 
so why isn't religion called religionism meant as a identifier of hate? because religion is not intrinsically hateful. rather in some religions hate can be identified like xenophobia or even racism but the idea of all religion needs to be identified as a form of hate is not an intellectually honest assessment of all religion.

Winterhold mentioned discrimination, not ‘hate’. While there is admittedly some overlap between the two, it’s not reasonably deniable that virtually all religions are inherently discriminatory towards both other religions and the irreligious (some of the neo-pagan loonies and a few others are exceptions).

Even the particular god you worship is capable of both discrimination and hate.

Boru

sorry didn't realize i needed to hold the great boru's hand though my use of the word hate. as discrimination is not synomous nor intrinsically holds any ill will in the simple act of discrimination. A person who understand this term and does not jump the gun understand discrimination is a neutral act. it can be used it identify people in need or the extremely smart among us. it can also be uses as a tool to group like minds together to teach more effectively and or treat a group a certain way. where discrimination becomes a problem is when people use this tool as a means to isolate and hate others. because discrimination is a netural tool it can be used to build up and tear down. only the indoctrinated see discrimination as a tool for only the wicked. in fact this whole thread is about discrimination between religious and non religious people. which in of itself is a non issue, but the follow up to this line of separation is why are religious treated as people who use discrimination as a means to separate and hate? to which i pointed out not all discrimination leads to hate in fact i went so far as to identify the types of discrimination that are tied to hate which are not tools of the church alone.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Winterhold mentioned discrimination, not ‘hate’. While there is admittedly some overlap between the two, it’s not reasonably deniable that virtually all religions are inherently discriminatory towards both other religions and the irreligious (some of the neo-pagan loonies and a few others are exceptions).

Even the particular god you worship is capable of both discrimination and hate.

Boru

sorry didn't realize i needed to hold the great boru's hand though my use of the word hate. as discrimination is not synomous nor intrinsically holds any ill will in the simple act of discrimination. A person who understand this term and does not jump the gun understand discrimination is a neutral act. it can be used it identify people in need or the extremely smart among us. it can also be uses as a tool to group like minds together to teach more effectively and or treat a group a certain way. where discrimination becomes a problem is when people use this tool as a means to isolate and hate others. because discrimination is a netural tool it can be used to build up and tear down. only the indoctrinated see discrimination as a tool for only the wicked. in fact this whole thread is about discrimination between religious and non religious people. which in of itself is a non issue, but the follow up to this line of separation is why are religious treated as people who use discrimination as a means to separate and hate? to which i pointed out not all discrimination leads to hate in fact i went so far as to identify the types of discrimination that are tied to hate which are not tools of the church alone.

I must have missed where you explained about the different forms of discrimination. My apologies.

Yes, discrimination can be a neutral and even a useful act, but that is manifestly not the tone taken by the OP. Winter was clearly referring to religious discrimination in its most negative sense, and I’ve chose to follow his lead.

No one is claiming that negative discrimination is a exclusively tool of the church - people discriminate for all sorts of reasons. But - not to belabour the point - this particular thread happens to be about religious discrimination. And I stand by my earlier point that the majority of people doing it are religionists. I’ve been discriminated against by these types and I’m not even religious.

Boru

[Brian37]

I invite every Muslim, every Christian, every Hindu, every Buddhist, every Jew, every religion in the world's followers to pontificate about how great ABBA is. Pretty sure even Bob Marley has his limits.

[arewethereyet]

I invite every Muslim, every Christian, every Hindu, every Buddhist, every Jew, every religion in the world's followers to pontificate about how great ABBA is. Pretty sure even Bob Marley has his limits.

Shut up.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I invite every Muslim, every Christian, every Hindu, every Buddhist, every Jew, every religion in the world's followers to pontificate about how great ABBA is. Pretty sure even Bob Marley has his limits.

So, you want groups with histories of getting things wrong to tell us ABBA is great?

Boru

[WinterHold]

No, America has a "dark and savage" history that included:
1-The massacre of a whole races -the native Americans-.
2-The utilizing and usage of the first Atomic weapon ever deployed against "civilians".
3-The enslaving of Africans.

America has a demonic history and it will keep paying for it if no serious fixes were done.

American barbarism is kept at bay because the far Right didn't make its coup there, but we all saw how close they were in Trump's era.

You should answer the questions about Islamism for yourself because I frankly don't see the "ISIS" beards but when American invasions are happening

None of that sounds like a revision of your obsolete documents.  Until you can offer up serious fixes, a person can continue to reject islamism for all of the same reasons they reject christian dominionism - and no matter how frustrated that makes you, it's not discrimination.

Islam is a sectarian idol with two main heads: Sunni Islam and Shiite Islam.
Inside that idol, there are believers in secular law, believers in the old ways (aka Salafies), the Shia have their Twelver cult,... .

So which one are you pinpointing to ? I understand that the Islamism you are against is the infrastructure that contains a school of thought guarded by some old beards, and a group of followers for it, with the goal of global domination via war.

I can understand the above being a threat but imagine a country bombing civilians and threaten its enemy with atomic Holocaust, what to do in front of its invasion? greet it with flowers?

In other words the chasing people and killing them will make them chase you too.
Just like Americans chased the British once.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nah, I don't have an ideological issue with the militants. I don't think global domination is a credible goal, but control of a nation - well..sure, they seem to be able to handle that.

Islamism is the belief that islam should guide social and political life and institutions.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Nah, I don't have an ideological issue with the militants.   I don't think global domination is a credible goal, but control of a nation - well..sure, they seem to be able to handle that.  

Islamism is the belief that islam should guide social and political life and institutions.

If Muslims want Islam to guide the sociopolitical lives and institutions of Muslims, I’m all for it. If Christians want to do the same, go ahead - the first principle of freedom is the right to go to hell in your own handbasket.

But Islamists and Dominionists don’t stop there. They want THEIR fairy tales to control MY society, politics and institutions. I’m not having it.

Boru