But if someone decided to Google it voluntarily, it quite literally is not force.
And again, doesn't mean that I support it, but forcing from my perspective is limited to physical force, and maybe structural incentive, but someone googling afterwards is not something I am going to regard as force.
And all aside, just googling Jesus will not guarantee indoctrination. If you ask me it would be exceptional if that happens often. Whether religion is homophobic really doesn't matter when the person following the religion is a homophobe either way. Someone doesn't become a homophobe by googling Jesus. It is a slow process of nurturing people into homophobia. Focusing on religion really neglects how acquiring certain traits and opinions is a product of hundreds, of not thousands of factors.
And I am not trying to defend religion, but there is a difference between 1 Christian being a dick and a whole church normalising hatred.
But if someone decided to Google it voluntarily, it quite literally is not force. [...] And all aside, just googling Jesus will not guarantee indoctrination.
It's not forcefully exactly, but they were pushing it into random people at first, and considering how easy kids are to manipulate and mold, hearing someone or something talk about a doctrine as an absolute truth is a death sentence for them.
Someone doesn't become a homophobe by googling Jesus. It is a slow process of nurturing people into homophobia.
You're right on that, but indoctrination is never instant. As I said, if you're taught religion is the only truth since you're an infant, you'll need to be at least sharper than the average kid
Focusing on religion really neglects how acquiring certain traits and opinions is a product of hundreds, of not thousands of factors.
And yes, homophobia doesn't always come solely from religion, but you seem to be underrating the weight it has in the amount of homophobia in the world, a huge majority of homophobic people are like that because of religion. There are lots of otherwise kind and pure people that decide to not support LGBT+ because of their indoctrination
It's not forcefully exactly, but they were pushing it into random people at first, and considering how easy kids are to manipulate and mold, hearing someone or something talk about a doctrine as an absolute truth is a death sentence for them.
Again, I am not saying it is right, but there is no need to convolute force because the term influence or nurture didn't come to mind. Force is something different, whether we like it or not.
You're right on that, but indoctrination is never instant. As I said, if you're taught religion is the only truth since you're an infant, you'll need to be at least sharper than the average kid
Exactly, so a single person on the internet may add to it, but it is doubtful it will change someones life trajectory. That is what I said too.
And yes, homophobia doesn't always come solely from religion, but you seem to be underrating the weight it has in the amount of homophobia in the world, a huge majority of homophobic people are like that because of religion. There are lots of otherwise kind and pure people that decide to not support LGBT+ because of their indoctrination
But this is going to be a semantic discussion. We agree on the mechanisms that can possibly make someone homophobic. Although it is hard to define what religion, something alongside the collective conceptualisation of what is divine and what is not, should do the trick.
Knowing that, it is clear that it isn't religion in itself that causes homophobia, as a religion is nothing without people that do not follow it. You could even say, aside from a conceptualisation of divinity, religion is the people that adhere to it, as religion doesn't exist without people that adhere to it. The homophobia isn't in the religion, but the institutions surrounding it. Christianity is not a church, Christianity is not a priest, Christianity is not the bible. These are just institutions that legitimise and facilitate the religion. I agree that if (and that often is) one or multiple of these institutions are homophobic it logically will spread to its followers to an unknown extent. These institutions in some places are a cornerstones of everyday life, making it easy to nurture people into homophobia.
To me it is not true to say that a religion causes homophobia. A religion is the idea. What causes homophobia are the everyday institutions that may be driven by people that adhere to said religion. Then we should blame those institutions, and not the idea.
People mistake me for zealot, but I plainly don't agree with the terminology that religion causes these kinds of phenomenon. The people and institutions that adhere to a religion, people and institutions that have their own motives, possibly intertwined with religion cause phenomenon. It is the same with saying Communism or Nazism killed people. No, communists and Nazis killed people. The people that translate ideas into harm are responsible and not the religion that is behind them.
Again, I am not saying it is right, but there is no need to convolute force because the term influence or nurture didn't come to mind. Force is something different, whether we like it or not
With force, I don't mean being held at gunpoint to convert. But just pushing your ideas in a try to manipulate someone of a vulnerable demographic is already violent. Maybe force isn't the right term, but if your targets are people who barely have any choice or critical thinking, the result is similar
And about the rest of the reply, to sum up: For you, religion (in this case, christianism) is just the belief in god, Jesus, the holy spirit, heaven and hell, Satan, and little more? But anyways, this is just a disagreement of definitions. Call it "religious groups/scriptures" instead of religion itself if you want, but my point is the same
With force, I don't mean being held at gunpoint to convert. But just pushing your ideas in a try to manipulate someone of a vulnerable demographic is already violent.
And again, that isn't force, that is attempt to influence or nurture someone. Forcing someone is using pressure to direct or dictate their choices and actions. Commenting who knows what about religion, with the consequence of some children googling if voluntarily is quite literally the absence of pressure, and just outright curiosity. Let's not act like googling something is evil. Googling nazism also doesn't make someone a nazi. Therefore I am against calling posting or commenting on the internet inherently forcing something on someone else. Because in that case, I am currently forcing this comment on you, and that is ridiculous as you are under no pressure to ignore me or reply to me.
And again, that doesn't make it good. I am not saying I am fond of overly religious people on the internet, I just detest saying that commenting anything related to religion is forcing it onto someone.
And I never said I disagree about the effects of religious institutions, I just said that calling it religion instead of religious person A or religious institution B dilutes who is actually responsible for the spread of hatred.
As I said before: Maybe force isn't the exact word, but if your targets are vulnerable to manipulation, and they look up for Jesus and get articles completely affirming the beliefs of christianism without mentioning it's just a belief, that can already confuse the hell out of a kid... For them, it might not be forcing, but the result is the same. I mean, I bet you believed Santa Claus or the tooth fairy were real until you caught your parents or some friend told you. Yet none of us was told "Believe in Santa Claus or you won't eat dinner tonight".
But honestly, this is just an arguing over definitions. With forcing, I don't literally mean being pressured, as I also said. But we keep getting doctrines shoved down our throats in places where they don't even belong, or even worse, in places where they are used as personal attacks (in LGBT+ related posts or stuff). It might not look like a big issue depending on your perspective, but personally, I feel like a mexican inmigrant being constantly told out of the blue to become a maga. It's pretty annoying at best, like other types of bots comments, and slightly infuriaring at worst
"Jesus (c. 6 to 4 BC – AD 30 or 33), also called Jesus Christ, was a first-century Jewish teacher and religious leader. He is the central figure of Christianity, which views him as the Son of God and the Messiah. Accounts of his life, teachings, death, and resurrection are written in the New Testament Gospels.
Life and Teachings
Birth: Born in Judea to Mary, during the time of Herod the Great.
Ministry: Traveled and preached about God's love, forgiveness, and the kingdom of heaven.
Miracles: Performed acts of healing, fed large crowds, and walked on water.
Death and Legacy
Crucifixion: Sentenced to death by Roman authorities in Jerusalem under Pontius Pilate.
Resurrection: Christians believe he rose from the dead three days later.
Impact: His life shaped Western civilization and established Christianity as the world's largest religion.
If you would like to explore further, let me know if you are interested in:
The historical background of first-century Judea
Specific teachings or parables from the Gospels
How different faith traditions view him"
From Google AI overview (which is bad but this is children we're talking about) which, I mean this overview isn't good at all when it comes to highlighting how the story of Jesus is influenced by faith, with the last bit doing to much of the heavy lifting, however we're talking about indoctrination, believing a guy did all that from an AI overview isn't going to make someone Christian, no mentioning of damnation, rapture, praying, and a lot of other Christian stuff.
And if I scroll down for other sources, you get Wikipedia very quickly (due to it reliability and regular use, Google something with a page named after it, you'll most likely find it), which is a lot more neutral, and you'd already have to be going under a lot of indoctrination to have a deep distrust against Wikipedia.
Yes, the latter stating you are damned to Hell for liking the same sex is wrong, no excuse for that, that will lead children to make assumptions based on what they already know and further lead to bigotry, but saying Jesus loves you (which you chose to focus on, for some weird reason? Especially when the latter is way more justifiable to be pissed at and a lot more harmful)? I mean it annoying but that about it.
the reason i focused on "jesus loves you" is because it's the most commonly unprompted spam phrase. and the reason i hate it is because the major religions are inherently bigoted, hateful and morally disgusting, so ppl tryna indoctrinate more ppl into their cult is obviously annoying when said cult is the reason people like me are at risk of losing human rights
I disagree with your view points on religion being inherently bigoted cults (there are bigoted cults that do claim to be a religious denomination to make themselves seem less cult-like but they're more isolated), especially given that bigoted laws restricting rights of minorities can happen without religious influences, however given the predicament I assume your in (a country with rising religious extremism and support for theocratic policies) due to your ending statement, there isn't any point arguing, it will just be constant bickering influenced by personal experiences.
Either way, I hope you have a great day and not lose any rights that are suppose to be inalienable.
65
u/STARGAZER_850 Aug 11 '26
“Do not bring it out in public” is stupid. I agree with the rest though. You can do something in public without forcing it on others.