You're viewing a single thread.
TIL following the Ten Commandments makes you a Nazi
Putting it up at every classroom in the state does.
And I'm pretty sure that the people pushing for that don't follow all ten. Like "thou shalt not covet". Have you seen American society? Damn thing is built on coveting.
I doubt some of them have even read all ten.
Eleven. The Louisiana law, at least, specifies eleven commandments. They basically doubled-down on the coveting, ironically.
At most it makes you a Fascist, not a Nazi. There is a difference.
How is that different from putting pride flags in every classroom?
How is that different from putting pride flags in every classroom?
1- this is not happening 2- flags are abstract representations, text of religious laws are specific (specific to a religion, which is another level of difference) 3- no government is mandating ‘pride flags’ 4- you already know all this, so the question is in bad faith
Bad faith question about pride flags = trolling.
I've seen enough evidence to be convinced that it absolutely IS happening.
Yes, there is no government mandate to do that, but it is happening nevertheless. There are tons of videos on YouTube of teachers explaining why it's important to them. And while it's true that LGBT doesn't meet the definition of a traditional, organized religion, it does strike me as having quasi-religious character, as evidenced by the automatic assumption that anyone speaking out against it is acting in bad faith (i.e. committing blasphemy).
I think the word you’re looking for is culture. You know, the thing where people share ideas and traditions as a group.
And comparing symbols of individual acceptance that certain people are OK to exist with government mandated displays of religion mandated rules seems strange. Almost “both sides.” Almost bad faith.
Okay, culture works. But it nevertheless strikes me as odd that you keep using the word "bad faith", because it implies that there IS a component of faith involved which you are accusing me of being in violation of. Hence I am going to maintain my position that LGBT has at least a quasi-religious character.
Also, I can't help but notice that by saying "certain people are OK to exist", you are elevating their right to exist over that of everyone else, i.e. you are creating in- and outgroups, those whose rights are worth protecting and those whose aren't — something the Nazis knew a thing or two about.
Dude your mental gymnastics game is on point. You practicing for your fox news interview? Like you know words can have multiple definitions right? Bad faith has nothing to do with religion and you know that. Also to say that a historically persecuted group trying to be "ok to exist" somehow degrades others rights is complete bullshit. Explain how. You proposed the idea I want you to explain how someone's right to exist peacefully somehow takes away from someone else's right. I'll wait. 🙄
Alright, I looked up the definition and this is what I found:
Bad faith is a sustained form of deception which consists of entertaining or pretending to entertain one set of feelings while acting as if influenced by another. It is associated with hypocrisy, breach of contract, affectation, and lip service. It may involve intentional deceit of others, or self-deception.
So in order for me to be guilty of this, I would have to pretend that I am in favor of LGBT while simultaneous arguing against it. If you can show me where I did that, I will accept the charge. But you can't, because I never did that. Ergo, you are simply misusing the word in order to convict me of some sort of wrongdoing. It is, in fact, you who is acting in bad faith here.
So you're just an openly ignorant bigot, thanks for clearing that up.
You’re welcome
Paragraph 1: “bad faith” is arguing or acting in an intellectually dishonest way. Like if I were to say this paragraph was written in bad faith, I might accuse you of knowing the term has nothing to do with religion yet still trying to shoehorn it into this whole “religion of LGBT” thing you have going.
Paragraph 2: wat
LGBT rights are human rights. If by "has a quasi-religious character" you mean that it is ideologically derived, then sure. Human rights are normative ideology. But to say that the idea of individual liberty and human rights are ideologically equivalent to watery tarts handing out swords, is to demonstrate an extremely profound ignorance of moral philosophy.
LGBT rights are human rights.
No. Human rights are human rights. They predate the LGBT movement by at least two decades. And while there's nothing in there that would deprive LGBT individuals from any essential liberties, I've noticed at least two items that many of them seem to take issue with:
Article 16.3: The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 20.2: No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
The fact that you cited that article specifically tells me a lot about what you believe a family should be. I dream of a world in which "family values" is not a code word for "queer people fuck off", or at least not so universally one that fuckwads infer the latter from a UN document stating that parents and their children deserve state protection from groups that would try to separate them.
Additionally, if you think being homosexual in general, or worse, believing that homosexual people should not be prosecuted for being so, constitutes belonging to an organization, I do not know what to tell you.
I'm assuming that you are actually asking this sincerely.
A pride flag is a symbol of acceptance. It's saying that it's okay to be gay. It's not saying you have to be gay, it's not saying you have to like that people are gay, just that it's okay to be gay.
The ten commandments are rules. It's not a message saying that it's okay to be Christian, it's saying that everyone must follow these rules.
The second one is authoritarian. It is restricting everybody, even those outside the group who created it. The first one is not authoritarian. Not giving orders to anybody, and not restricting people outside the group that created it.
I hope that actually answers the question.
A pride flag is a symbol of acceptance. It's saying that it's okay to be gay. It's not saying you have to be gay, it's not saying you have to like that people are gay, just that it's okay to be gay.
Well, in the same way you could say that the Ten Commandments are just a symbol of respect. You don't have to like them, you don't even have to follow them, but it would be nicer if you did.
The first one is not authoritarian. Not giving orders to anybody, and not restricting people outside the group that created it.
Try seeing what happens when someone dares to remove the flag, or even just says in its presence that they don't like gay people. I bet you the authoritarianism is going to show up real quick.
You mean see what happens when someone dares to remove the symbol of acceptance of an entire group?
It is like removing a sign that says "everybody welcome". You do that because you think some people are not welcome.
What do you expect to happen?
Ah, the old paradox of tolerance strikes again.
Your comparison is invalid because clearly, the rainbow flag does NOT mean "everybody is welcome". It means "everybody who agrees with us about who is welcome is welcome".
Bro fr doesn't even understand the point of the "paradox of tolerance" and thinks it's a weapon in this argument lmao
He also just admitted that he doesn't believe LGBTQ people are "welcome."
That's correct. If you'd just been invited into a tight-knit circle of friends, you wouldn't say "I don't like Joe. His nose is too big. I think he should be kicked out." and expect to be allowed to stick around.
Again, I'm going to assume you're being serious here and respond as if it's a real conversation.
You say that the ten commandments are a sign of respect. A respect for whom or what?
Again, I'm going to assume you're being serious here and respond as if it's a real conversation.
I appreciate that, and I will do my best to honor that.
You say that the ten commandments are a sign of respect. A respect for whom or what?
They're a sign of respect for and recognition of the essential humanity of others. No one likes to be lied to, stolen from, murdered, or envied. There is no exception made for rich and powerful people, nor for different races, creeds, or sexual orientations.
Yes, you can make the case that they also proscribe a requirement to believe in the Christian God, in which case I would say that's no different than arguing that the pride flag is not saying that you have to be gay.
So the pride flag is necessary because, historically and very recently, non-straight people have been oppressed. Oppressed so badly that many kill themselves because of how they're treated. It is a travesty that we treat other Americans this way just because they're different.
Christians do not suffer like that. It's literally impossible for Christians to suffer like that, as they make up the vast majority of the country. No one can possibly oppress a majority. Hurt their feelings, maybe, but not oppress.
I think if we are putting up religious tenets as a way of showing respect, we should put up the tenets of a religion that is actually oppressed in this country. One that is treated with hostility, and whose members are hated for no reason other than their beliefs. That would show them that we're an accepting country, who actually follow Jesus' values of loving our neighbors.
Christians do not suffer like that. It's literally impossible for Christians to suffer like that, as they make up the vast majority of the country. No one can possibly oppress a majority. Hurt their feelings, maybe, but not oppress.
Right. It’s not like the symbol of their religion isn’t literally a dead guy hanging on a cross. Totally a sign of how much they don’t suffer.
You’re acting as if Christians are somehow a completely homogenous group who all constantly agree on everything all the time. If anything, this shows how blatantly ignorant you are of the reality.
It’s not just that there are hundreds of different denominations whose only commonality is that they agree on who God is, but who constantly feud about various aspects and interpretations of their theology, but even within individual churches you’ll rarely find two individuals who are in complete agreement with each other about everything.
And it’s not as if Christians are somehow immune to addiction, self-harm, or even suicide. The smallest minority is the minority of one, and that’s in fact what the crucifix stands for, because Jesus went up alone against a mob full of murderous rage to defend the rights of the individual to be free from religious prosecution.
But I like your suggestion, so in the spirit of reconciliation, might I offer the following compromise: instead of the Ten Commandments, we use Jesus’s version found in Matthew 19:18:
- You shall not murder
- You shall not commit adultery
- You shall not steal
- You shall not bear false witness
- Honor your father and your mother
- You shall love your neighbor as yourself
There, no more reference to any God, creed, or mandatory holy days. Gay or straight, male or female, brown or white, Muslim or Buddhist, no one is excluded or unduly put upon. Except people whose religion tells them it’s good to kill or steal from other people I guess…
Those are worded in an inaccessable way. "You shall not...". How about "don't lie"? It's the same message without the clear religious overtones that are obviously steeped in the Christian translation from Latin and Greek.
I also disagree with #5. Not everyone's parents deserve honor. Some are horrible and we shouldn't make children feel bad for not loving shit parents.
But even if I agreed to the rest, it wouldn't work. Those things are the basis of social emotional learning. The GOP is explicitly legislating against teaching that.
Those are worded in an inaccessable way. "You shall not...". How about "don't lie"? It's the same message without the clear religious overtones that are obviously steeped in the Christian translation from Latin and Greek.
If that's the worst you have to say about them... sure, I'm not married to a specific translation.
I also disagree with #5. Not everyone's parents deserve honor. Some are horrible and we shouldn't make children feel bad for not loving shit parents.
Honoring them isn't the same as loving them, you know. And even if they're complete shitbags who don't deserve any respect at all, you can still honor them for having given you life by becoming a better person then them. But sure, we can strike that one if you can accept the rest.
But even if I agreed to the rest, it wouldn't work. Those things are the basis of social emotional learning. The GOP is explicitly legislating against teaching that.
Ah well, but of course you can't... because Republicans exist. But if rules like this are the basis of social emotional learning, and Republicans want to legislate putting them into the classroom, how exactly does that prove that they are against this sort of thing? Or are you arguing that these rules are getting in the way of such learning? If so, how?
Right. It’s not like the symbol of their religion isn’t literally a dead guy hanging on a cross. Totally a sign of how much they don’t suffer.
Tell me you are not dredging up literal ancient history from 2000 years ago to justify why you are oppressed today
Calling you an asshole is not authoritarian
That’s true. It’s just childish and immature.
The impulse behind one act is inclusive, welcoming persecuted minorities. This is fundamentally egalitarian and strengthens society.
The other is intended as part of a drive for cultural hegemony where a specific ingroup is underlined as sovereign. A hierarchial society of a majority of innate winners and, importantly, subgoups of losers/outsiders (to be feared/hated) is the backbone of fascism.
Of course, a single piece of straw will not break society's back and manifest fascism on its own but pressure towards it is created by an aggregation of such straw.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's nothing in the Ten Commandments that is inherently unegalitarian.
There is no commandment that says "thou shalt steal from minorities" or "thou shalt give preferred treatment to the rich and powerful". It does not create any in- or outgroups either — everyone is considered worthy of the same protection, and I don't think I need to explain how not stealing, not killing, not lying, and not being envious of others strengthens society.
It seems to me that you are projecting an awful lot onto this text that isn't actually there.
The first rule is that you literally can not have any god except for the Christian one.
Okay, how about Jesus's rendition of the commandments as found in Matthew 19:18 (which basically drops the first three, and replaces the last two with "love your neighbor")?
You're wrong.
There, you've been corrected.
Why did you post a selfie?
We all know what Catholic fanatics look like, thank you.
The Bible and it's mostly commendable teachings are an uncritically examined votive for a cargo cult that is being weaponised against America's democracy. What the ten commandments are, or are not, is immaterial. The critical lesson is the hegemony of Christians over non-Christians and, most importantly, distilled to the naturalness/righteousness of hegemony/hierarchy.
It is a thin entering wedge that is intended to open up the possibility of inculcating children with divisive conceptions and undermining critical thinking.
Yes the ten commandments could be put up on the wall with egalitarian intentions but that is implicitly not the case with the MAGA movement.
Pride flags have never been used as a symbol of hate?
What’s with all that hate for Christianity then?
The majority of the followers of Christianity believe that being gay is a sin. We do not tolerate the intolerant.
That's not what is said in the post.
No, but it is implied.
How do you miss all of the context like that?
What other context is there? It's literally implying that hanging up a copy of the Ten Commandments will groom children into becoming Nazis.
The context, my dear daft friend, is forcing religion onto children in public, tax payer funded, schools.
Okay, how about a set of non-religious rules of ethics, or at least something all major religious groups can agree upon?
Don't steal, don't lie, don't murder/use violence, don't make any unwanted sexual advances, those seem general enough that everyone should be able to agree, no?
at least something all major religious groups can agree upon?
You don't know much history I'm guessing.
Oh in that case, why ever try to improve anything? History shows us some asshole is just gonna come along and mess it up anyways. Perhaps the founding fathers should have just paid their stupid tea tax and stayed subject to the British crown.