• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -210 months ago

    Well, no one, because the problem isn’t the scammer, the problem is the fact they’re still religious.

    • @jj4211
      link
      310 months ago

      Whether you agree with them being religious or not, the fact remains their opinions hold sway and to be utterly dismissive because of their faith is to leave them vulnerable to manipulation.

      Organized religion can be dangerous as it ascribes the authority of a god to the words of man. By refusing to engage at all on their own terms, you would give even more power to the words of unscrupulous people.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        010 months ago

        Who said anything about being dismissive? The solution isn’t to allow them to dominate everyone by capitulating to them thinking we need their help or approval for anything. The answer is to simply move on without them and to build a new empire they’re not allowed to control or participate in out of the old, and to let them rot in the ruins of the old.

        The problem isn’t scammers. The problem is evil religious types.

        • @jj4211
          link
          310 months ago

          In the US, about 2/3rds of people are Christian. It’s hard to argue for moving on without the majority of the population. The vast majority of which can be reasoned with, but they are going to be less likely to be receptive if the people talking are just saying how dumb their beliefs are and that they were raised wrong.

          I may wish we spent less time fixated on the words of people long gone, and trying to claim authority by making up how we think they would have responded to some modern issue they never were faced with. This is not just religion, but also with historical figures (e.g. all the “founding fathers” speculation) or dead celebrities. However we can’t ignore how values were instilled in folks when we have the chance to appeal to the better teachings of their upbringing.