I spend a bunch of time on spaces for former muslims and there is an arguments I’d like to know what irreleligious people on here think of.

Some pro-Israel exmuslims claim they would rather support a state where people will not call for their death (the same is repeated by some queer exmuslims, Israel even has pride parades they will point out) than one that undoubtedly will hate them even if it might not legally enforce punishment for apostasy.

I don’t support the occupation myself. Something about the argument seems strange (should justice depend on whether a group likes you?) but I can see the appeal of it and I’d like to hear what you non-exmuslim atheists think of it.

  • WhiteHotaru@feddit.deEnglish
    2·
    1 year ago

    This whole Argumentation is a little bit strange from my perspective. I think you mix several perspectives together, which do not have any dependencies.

    The statement I read out of your second paragraph is:

    „I as a queer member of society would rather support (and possibly live in) a state where the law protects me, as a state where I am legally persecuted because of my sexual orientation.“

    Even if the legal punishment is not enforced at the moment, this would be the worse situation for my day to day life, because I would have to live in constant fear, that this temporary halt could come to an end. An accepting society offers additional security for me. I would not have to hide my sexual orientation.

    Your third paragraph confuses me. You shift the Argumentation from a personal day to day live perspective to a world politics perspective. Reading your last paragraph I See two statements you make:

    • Israel’s actions and politics around Gaza are bad (your first sentence)
    • the justification of a political system should not only be based on how this system judges me as a citizen (your sentence in brackets, although I am not sure what you mean with justice).

    As an atheist I would judge the first statement by legal systems like human rights or Geneva conventions and the like. Basically it is a discussion about the existence of the state of Israel. This is a total different level of discussion, than your question implies and not part of this discussion.

    The second statement together with your whole text implies, that it is not justified to support a state, which grants me personal freedom and security for living my sexual orientation, if people in this state follow a different religion than my (former) own religion.

    Basically this is why we have a separation of state and church in all modern democracies. And how a political system judges my way of life is basically the only method I as a citizen can use to decide if I want to live there. If the constitution does not fit your own standards you are in conflict with this state. And there are even some constitutions that have a right to resistance against the state written into them, if the basic principles they are based on are violated.