OptionalOnly The Best Groomers
MacN'CheezusTIL following the Ten Commandments makes you a Nazi
Putting it up at every classroom in the state does.
How is that different from putting pride flags in every classroom?
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
irreticentHe also just admitted that he doesn’t believe LGBTQ people are “welcome.”
Why would you say that, because it was a leftie who came up with it?
“The paradox of tolerance states that if a society’s practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them.”
This totally applies to the supposed “all are welcome” of LGBT, because clearly, people who don’t agree with LGBT aren’t welcome. In the same way, it also explains why many Christians are wary of LGBT people because they tend to be explicitly anti-Christian, and those churches who do admit them often end up being completely overtaken by LGBT worship.
My point being, any group claiming to be more tolerant than anyone else is ultimately lying. Tolerance is always a matter of likeness and cohesion. Those who don’t fit the norms will always be excluded.
Cool story bro
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?
Republicans want to legislate putting them into the classroom, how exactly does that prove that they are against this sort of thing?
Well that’s a great question. Let’s brainstorm.
Republicans have pushed against SEL, which is all about being empathetic and kind to your neighbors, and being aware of your own emotions and how to handle them. These are all things Jesus would love. These are things that the portions of the ten commandment I highlighted support.
At the same time, Republicans are pushing for the ten commandments to be included in the classroom.
These are both objectively fact, right? We can see this happening, there are news stories, there are people talking about it. So how would you explain this dissonance?
I’m always a little suspicious when people who don’t even believe in Jesus try to tell me what he would have loved but let’s have a look at why those evil, evil Republicans might have been on the fence about it, shall we?
A number of conservative publications and groups, including National Review and The Federalist, have criticized social-emotional learning as a “Trojan horse” used to bring in ideas such as critical race theory, sexual orientation and gender identity, and other left-wing politics to the classroom.
Ah well, that sounds pretty typical, doesn’t it. And it’s funny because SEL lists self-awareness and responsible decisionmaking among its primary goals, but somehow, the people who are pushing for it can’t seem to
Not the best advertisement for SEL’s effectiveness, don’t you think?
Scary buzzwords, to be sure. The second two topics are about accepting people for who they are. The first is about recognizing that our current laws are unfair to some people.
These are not unreasonable things. But I will not be able to convince you of that. I imagine nothing would.
So regardless. If they wanted to teach ethics, they can do so by posting a short list of things everyone should do. They aren’t doing that. They’re pushing one religion’s agenda, and we don’t do that in America.
Okay, you admit then that the criticism is factual and SEL is in fact a vehicle for pushing left-wing politics into the classroom?
In that case, can you blame right-wing politicians for wanting to do the same? Because that’s just the pot calling the kettle black. In other words, politics as usual.
No, I admit that people have unfounded concerns about SEL, and that I’m not going to be able to change the mind of someone so entrenched in fear of those topics. It also isn’t relevant to the point.
And I can’t tell if you’re being snarky in that last comment, or if you’re saying that it’s clearly the GOP trying to push a religious agenda? I mean, you may think that’s justified. But that is what they’re doing?
No, I admit that people have unfounded concerns about SEL
That’s not an admission, that’s an accusation.
It also isn’t relevant to the point.
It’s very relevant because your failure to demonstrate even ONE of the proposed learning goals of SEL while still defending its implementation in public schools is evidence that you care more about the left-wing politics that are embedded in it than the package they’re wrapped in.
And I can’t tell if you’re being snarky in that last comment, or if you’re saying that it’s clearly the GOP trying to push a religious agenda?
Of course they’re pushing a religious agenda. But at least they’re being honest about it. Meanwhile, you’ve already admitted that the Trojan horse theory is true and STILL act as if its somehow a great moral evil to condemn that.
I think you’re not reading my words. SEL was an example, and clearly not a good one so I should not have brought it up. It’s irrelevant to ten commandments in the classroom except as an example. So it’s not relevant here. Happy to have a different thread about that later. But this thread is about ten commandments.
People should not be pushing a religious agenda. That’s it. Full stop. If you can’t agree on that, then we cannot find any place to agree.
No, it was a perfect example, because it showed very clearly that you don’t really care about principles or values, and it’s all about political power and influence for you.
You seem like you have a lot of hostility. To the point where you feel the need to attribute random bad things to someone you just met. Honestly, that’s not healthy. You might want to speak to your pastor or trusted friend. Not being able to have a normal conversation is a symptom of very big underlying problems.
Okay, so now that you’re out of arguments, you’re trying to shame me for beating you in a debate that YOU decided to have. And you don’t even seem to realize that by doing so, you’re just providing more evidence that you have no principles whatsoever and it’s all about power for you.
A rational person would just admit when they’re beat instead of digging their own hole deeper. Your lack of self-awareness is truly astounding.
There’s no winning and losing in discussion. It’s not a contest. The point of sharing ideas is to learn and have better ideas.
But like I said, you and I differ at a fundamental level. I say no religion in the classroom, unless it’s taught like a cultural class and includes many religions. You want religion in the classroom, but only if it’s your religion. We will never see eye to eye.
And I’m not trying to shame you. I’m telling you you’re being a dick for no reason, and that’s a personal problem you should work on. I don’t care if work on it or not, I don’t know you. But I bet you’re surrounded by people who would appreciate if you worked on yourself a bit.
But hey, don’t take advice from a heathen. You might end up in hell and burn for all eternity.
Oh no! Those filthy liberals might use this program as a Trojan horse to teach our children that checks notes
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.
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.
The impulse behind one act is inclusive, welcoming persecuted minorities. This is fundamentally egalitarian.
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.
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.
BlackmistAnd I’m pretty sure that the people pushing for that don’t follow all ten. 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.
AeonFelisAt most it makes you a Fascist, not a Nazi. There is a difference.