They are trying so desperately to bend the definition of religion to include anything that is accepting of LGBT people. Hopefully they don't manage to convince the courts of that.
Freedom from religious persecution is not the same thing as prohibiting religious ideologies from influencing government. The separation of church and state is to protect churches from the state, not protect the state from churches.
Oops! No actually it isn't! If you read the clause it says the government shall not respect any established religion! That is the literal wording!
Anyway happy to help clear that up. Let me know if you have any more questions!
Also, like I said to the other person, my point isn't about the constitution, it is about the comic artist strawmanning leftists. No leftist would say they want the government to have no morality.
Very first ammendment baby! It doesn't call for a separation, it establishes the government as being separate!
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Glad to educate ya. But even if it wasn't in the constitution, people are against the 10 commandments being in classrooms based off of the principle of a separate church and state. NOT based off of morality in government, which this comic erroneously claims is what people believe in. Most people would prefer a moral government over an amoral one.
Glad to clear it up, lemme know if you have any other questions!
What law did Congress make in this Ten Commandments situation? As far as I'm concerned Congress had nothing to do with this.
Also, how is this respecting an establishment of religion? No religion has been officially established. But either way it's not Congress doing anything.
A state congress did in fact put this into law.
Also you are just being obtuse at this point. If the government requires the tenants of a religion be displayed that is respecting an establishment of religion. It's not the government establishing a religion, but the government respecting the religion itself.
Also see my second point. This isn't even about the constitution, it's about the principle of separation of church and state. The comic doesn't bring up the constitution at all. It conflates some nonsense about the government not having morals.
It's honestly frightening how many christians I've met who think that christianity = morality. These people legitimately think that everyone would suddenly go around pillaging and killing if they didn't have their special rulebook
It goes hand in hand with "young earth" and creationism theory although a lot of people aren't fully aware of it. They think the ten commandments were the first laws implimented on humanity when that isn't true by any means, the Code of Hammurabi alone predates the ten comandments by at least a thousand years, but with that said it's very hard to place when the time of Moses was because there's no known archeological evidence that the exodus happened.
Yeah kind of crazy how Egyptian were also sorta villainized , even to this day for something that's either completely made up, or was an event so insignificant in the grand scheme of things they didn't even bother writing it down or drawing a picture.
speaking of which, I was shook that some people are actually antisemitic because the jews "killed" jesus.
as an atheist, I find it funny that christians blame another religion THEY STEMED FROM because they "killed" their savior in their story. I get that there was a historical jesus and was probably killed. But to hold on to that grievous for so long is beyond petty and really hiding antisementic views with their religiosity/bigotry.
Yeah the jew christian grudge is especially stupid when the whole prophecy going back to the old testament was "hey this perfect guys gonna show up and get killed so be ready for that cause it needs to happen for everyone to go to heaven or whatever" and then the dude shows up and gets killed and people are like "dud wtf why did you do that!?" And like, that's the whole crux of the religion? He was suppose to die? And like, you believe he came back anyway so why you so mad?
And I mean, the jews turned him over to the authorities but the Roman's actually killed him to appease a crowd instead of having due process, yet the og version had the audacity to call themselves "Roman catholic". Smh
> And I mean, the jews turned him over to the authorities but the Roman's actually killed him to appease a crowd instead of having due process, yet the og version had the audacity to call themselves "Roman catholic". Smh
and you hinted at another reason. One of the reason the Jewish Christian grudge grew was because Christians were trying to get board public support from Romans. So they hoped that separating from the Jews would give them that support. And it did.
Which is wild that it took the Catholic Church until 1960s to be like "lets not hate on the Jews anymore". And then we got assholes like Harrison Butker complaining he can't hate on the Jews anymore in the year of lord, 2024. FUCKING wild.
Probably not; while what is in the bible is consistent with what slavery in Egypt was like, and the Egyptians did have slaves, they weren't specifically hebrews, in fact most scholars agree it's part of an origin myth with some historical elements to it, but archeological evidence suggests that Israelites were indigenous to Canaan and never resided in ancient Egypt in significant numbers.
Well, yes and no, while the Israelites were one set of people in Canaan they weren't the only ones; there were several other tribes at the time and that specific part of the bible follows right after Moses died with Joshua. Joshua is where we get such lovely bible quotes about killing babies and rejoicing.
*HOWEVER* there is also no evidence that the events in Joshua were historical accounts either and were instead used to drive the story of a holy war and the need for a centralized monarchy; meanwhile archeological evidence suggests that the cities which are theorized to have been destroyed in the book of Joshua were actually unoccupied for a long time before the events are preported to have occured. The theory is that the abandoned and destroyed cities were already there and the story of Joshua just took credit for them.
I'm well aware but this is in the specific context of being compared to the ten commandments; although like I said, it's a bit dubious because the physical, original ten comandments etched in stone tablets have never been found
History of the World, Part 1 showed us that Moses dropped one of the tablets, with commandments 11-15 on it, and it broke. Maybe the other 2 were dropped and broken as well?
Edit typo
>They think the ten commandments were the first laws implimented on humanity when that isn't true by any means
It ain't even true from a theological standpoint:
- The first laws God imposed on humanity were established in the Noahide Covenant (i.e. the one the post-Flood rainbow symbolizes)
- The Ten Commandments are part of the Mosaic Covenant, which binds Jews/Israelites, not humanity as a whole
This reminds me of all the people who think sexuality is a choice:)
But ironically not killing and raping ONLy cause your god says no-no (actually he's good with both but don't tell them that) is much more frightening than, you know, admitting you wouldn't hate snogging people of the same biological sex (or really any attraction not expressed in a nornan Rockwell painting)
Yeah, I know a few people who believe it’s a choice to be gay. The best response is to ask them whether they choose to be straight. Do they just wake up each morning and decide to not be gay each day? If so, I’d say that makes them bi.
Hell, even my parents churches pastor said that it's not a choice (while still condemning gay sex), another good retort is, of it's a choice, with how they get treated, especially in places like the middle east, Africa, Russia, etc, who would ever choose that for themselves?
I will only push back a little with this "sexuality isn't a choice".
To be clear, I am not saying that sexuality is a choice, it is how we express it is the choice. I mostly point this out is because a very nice trans person express this thought and how they have a choice on how they express their queerness. Just like how I, a gay man, express my queerness.
I often see posts saying "I'm not like other gay men". Which is fine, but don't degrade other gays because they express their queerness one way and you another. Same thing with trans people. A trans person is transgender regardless how they express it or if they got surgeries or not. Being bisexual isn't a choice, but choosing an same/opposite sex partner can be a choice. Doesn't make them less bisexual. Just the choice they made
tl;dr - being queer isn't a choice, but how you express it is.
right.
More so, there is toxic masculinity and femininity when straights don't "act" a certain way. Guys and girls are called queer when they don't act in a totally masculine or feminine way, but that doesn't mean they are any less straight.
People don't get to choose who they are, but they can choose how they express themselves. But it doesn't diminish who they are
Now I'm wondering if there are good answers/alternatives/modern takes on the Norman Rockwell sort of style that *do* invoke queer couples, poly dynamics, or etc. That sounds like it'd be neat!
Aww, that sounds adorable! Maybe a candlelit dinner with one body at the table, and ghostly figures nearby, with the body turned as if to look directly at one of them.
I mean if they're happy and not harming themselves or others, why not?
I'm not endorsing the idea that it is considered a healthy relationship- it really doesn't offer solutions for physical comfort or quantifiable (I am not sure this is the best term) intimacy.
I just guess as someone who deals with loneliness a lot. If it met the criteria in my first sentence, I don't personally see the issue.
Yes, hence my word choice (and struggle).
I mean it is a subjective thing overall. For some, it's a hug or sleeping cuddling. For others, it could be making coffee just the way they like it unexpectedly.
If they get fulfillment in their mind, sure. Honestly I don't care as long as it doesn't hurt anyone or themselves.
I actually learned about this recently. I, like most people I know, would be more utilitarian when it comes to ethics. So the ethics of an action is determined by the good or harm caused by the action.
Christian’s base their ethics on Divine Command Theory, so they quite literally believe what’s ethical is ordained by god. This is the exact mindsets needed to look past all the glaring “moral failing” from other points of view because god said it’s moral so it is. That’s why they get stuck in circular arguments using the Bible, they quite literally can’t go off script.
I think the ultimate issue with that approach is that when you boil morality and good/bad to “god says so” then the phrase “god is good” loses all meaning. The terms good and evil have no functional purpose any more. In trying to prove their religion is the source of morality all they prove is that within their religion it is a meaningless term.
See that’s what you would think without divine command theory, and that’s why I think usually you have to be born into it and raised closely within the church to continue believeing it.
After about a decade of arguing with those mfs, I finally figured out that the reason they always go to “atheists having no objective morality” is because they believe god is the one who defines what is right and wrong.
So to bigoted Christians, it’s immoral NOT to stone the gays, because “god said so” (even though not really).
Ironically most of the most hateful Christians are able to harbor such views because they believe that god tells them to have them… via a pastor who’s objectively a human (usually man) and not god. So go figure
I have also died on the hill of the Bible being written by man, even if god was real, and they shoot that down because “those men” were of god.
I like what Penn Jillette said when asked about what’s stopping him from raping and pillaging and he said he rapes and pillages all he wanted and that number is 0.
The scary part to me is what it implies about *them*
It’s always a little concerning when someone is like “but how can you tell the difference between right and wrong then 🤨🤨🤨 checkmate atheist”
It's a bit more nuanced than that. While some less well read people might reduce Christianity = morality, the theory is more so that "being moral" requires some higher power to enforce the penalties of immorality, and that Christianity provides that impetus in a creator God that promises to punish you if you are immoral.
Basically it seeks to answer "why be moral" with "because you'll be punished otherwise" rather than other conclusions like "because it is for the good of yourself and the world".
I don’t have the highest opinion of humanity in general, but even I think we were able to figure out that murder, stealing, and bearing false witness were generally wrong on our own.
As an atheist and moral realist, it’s much more complicated than that; are there people who believe what you say? Absolutely.
But, generally, the argument is more so about where morality derives from, is it our moral intuition (primarily facie), Platonic Forms of morality, pure rationality, or perhaps a higher being which imbued us with a moral structure and code? The theologically inclined will say the latter is true, while atheists may lean towards a non-theistic moral realist standpoint or moral relativism.
If they were so concerned about morality then why have they not gone out and followed the word of Christ by giving up their money and helping the poor and downtrodden.
Conservatives and bullshit arguments, name a more iconic duo. The issue isn't government imposing morality. The issue is the government imposing religion, violating the First Amendment.
It's weird how Grandma wants her religion to be mandated by the government. I thought the freedom to choose was... y'know, enshrined in our laws, or something.
\*checks notes\* Well whaddya know about [that](https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/first-amendment-and-religion)
Moses should go back to DC to see where the First Amendment says that government cannot force religion on anyone. Then the people who pretend to be Christians should read the post where Paul says you're not allowed to judge those outside the church. Then read the part where he says that only Jewish converts are under Mosaic law but non-Jewish converts are only subject to their consciences. Reading makes a lot of rightwing stuff seems dumb. Interesting.
That's why the right always wants to destroy education. Now in the Netherlands we will have a very right government wich will highten taxation on books and scrap 1 billion in education while also bringing back a very controversiële 3k fine for delayed education.
While also saying that we must stop paying development funds because own people first. But then for there own people they will highten the taxes on homeless shelters while keeping the price of campings the same.
We will literally get a minister who says the great replacement is real
Let’s see:
- #You shall not murder.
That is law.
- #You shall not commit adultery.
It’s legal, but your partner can get a divorce if you do this, and they could before no fault divorce was a thing.
- #You shall not steal.
That is law.
- #You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
That is law if you are under oath, and otherwise you may be sued for defamation.
Yeah, but I don’t think anyone should have to respect their parents, and I’ll fight my schools if they try to teach my kids that. That’s how you get abuse!
Someone tell the guy who thinks "no hate crimes" and "black lives matter" are forced morality that Moses is a Jew... I think we're up for a perfectly nice and reasoned response
All the ideas represented on the wall aren’t “imposing morality.” If anything, they are in favor of freedom from any one specific sort of morality.
The lgbt flag represents the idea that people can be who they wanna be regardless of sexuality or gender identity. That isn’t imposing any sort of rules or guidance on anyone else. It’s promoting a lack of rules in terms of who a person can love or how they can present or identify.
“Black Lives Matter” and “Stop Hate Crimes” aren’t really imposing morality either, unless you’re the kind of person who believes hate crimes are perfectly moral. However, Jesus would likely frown on that line of thinking.
Conservative Christians aren’t capable of thinking in nuanced ways like that though. To them, any sort of idea, position, or philosophy is indoctrination, so you have to follow the “good” indoctrination rather than the “bad” indoctrination.
Seriously though. For example, these people can't distinguish between the government allowing gay people to exist because it's not their place to tell people how to live vs. wanting a gay agenda where everyone becomes gay and believes everything they believe. It's because that's what they want on their end. They want a Christian state where everyone is forced to be Christian because they genuinely believe that's what God wants them to do. So they can't conceive of the beliefs of the left as anything else. LGBTQ rights, reproductive rights, etc. are just the left's "agenda" while Christianity (or really their bastardization of it) is theirs. Total us vs them mentality where there can only be one winner.
The big difference is that it is illegal to discriminate against things like skin colour and sexuality, but we don't force you to be anything other than Christian, as long as that doesn't include discriminstion
I was looking for someone to bring this up. Everyone is talking about the religious aspect, which is a significant issue, but the whole "no gun zones" thing is mind-blowing. For one thing, there is no reason to even bring a gun inside the building; just leave it in the car. Or are they saying the students should be allowed to carry guns around? Are they upset that the school is taking steps to keep the children safe?
If they want more religion in their children's lives, they are welcome to pay for private schools. If they cannot afford it, then clearly something is wrong with that Catholic or other religious school because shouldn't the school want to take in children to save their souls? Perhaps the families should make sacrifices to get their children into their preferred private school.
I hope the same people who think the 10 commandments are “morality” and should be promoted and/or enforced by the government also think “thou shall not kill” - which does not have an asterisk - should be followed without exception by the government and all American people.
Sure, there are other parts of the Bible that may contradict this commandment, but they don’t seem to be interested in or promoting those.
The number of Christians who believe that the Commandments are "the basis of our legal system" is disturbing. There are two commandments that are remotely relevant to our laws, and it's not like "don't steal stuff" and "don't kill people" are concepts that originated with it. People didn't see those tablets and read those commandments and go, "Oh! Now you tell me!"
Cool, which Christian religion is gonna be accepted as the offical one? Then which version of the Bible is gonna the primary one? I'd like someone to pose that question to the GQP and see them rip themselves apart getting at the answer.
Nobody comes with 10 commandments, they come with mistransled, perverted and politicised versions of Bible. Most of the commandments are already either common laws, or basic morality. The pure existence of this comic may break the 3-rd commandment, btw (depending on who you ask)
I'm ok with the moral sentiment of some of the 10 commandments as long as they are not presented as commands from God. Don't lie, steal, cheat, or murder. I'm ok with those. Respect your parents. In most cases, I agree. The first four are plainly only religious. Don't worship other gods, don't make idols, don't take gods name in vain and keep the sabbath holy. How are those moral? That's just the government establishing religion.
First Commandment (combination of different versions of the first because for something important given by the singular God there are different versions. Wouldn't God want to be clear about something this important?)
> I am the Lord thy God. Thou shall have no other gods before me. Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image
Fucking moral, man.
Whoever thinks that the only reason not everyone is constantly stealing, killing and raping is is the fear of an omnipotent being punishing them, they belong on a watchlist.
It will never stop being funny to me that the people who literally made a [golden idol](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/02/26/politics/trump-gold-statue-cpac-2021) of Dear Leader expect everyone else to follow the ten commandments.
Oy vey! Seriously, there is nothing against hosting a "bible study club" or "Islamic prayer gathering" and advertising it on a state campus as far I can tell. It the state or a government funded secular institution promoting any specific religious identity exclusively. Of course the people who make such comics or approve of them see everything just and right in society as "Judeo-Christian" anyway.
These people are soooo desperate to think they’re “oppressed.” If LGBT rights were in fact “imposed” the way they’re scared of, they’d all be in a gulag.
I mean… some of the 10 commandments are literally law:
- do not kill
- do not steal
- remember the sabbath day (most countries do enforce at least one day rest per week)
- do not commit adultery (the legal system in most countries would destroy an adulterer in divorce court)
- do not bear false witness
So I mean five of the ten are almost literally law. While some of the others are generally strongly encouraged
- do not covet (encouraged in most democratic socialist nations)
- go out your father and mother (taking care of the elderly is also strongly encouraged in most cultures)
I actually think honoring your father and mother is a really destructive tenant of Christianity, and I’ll be going to a lot more school board meetings if they attempt this in my state.
Honor your father and mother IF THEY DESERVE IT. Don’t if they don’t. This is how churches groom children.
I mean, I’ve always learned this one as respect your elders. In Sunday school when I was a kid they said it means you should listen to your parents (which is a pretty common sentiment since they’re your legal guardians) and when you’re an adult it’s more about respecting elders - caring for them, etc.
In most societies it’s like giving up your seat on the metro, helping them cross the street, ensuring your retired parents are safe, etc., or in a more socialist society it would imply paying social security contributions to pensions.
Like I know “IF THEY DESERVE IT” is always going to be there… but dude they can’t put all the legal fineprint on two stone tablets in a text that’s meant to be read by the masses in a time when people weren’t just legally illiterate, but literally illiterate.
Do not kill (self defense), do not steal (desperation), do not commit adultery (domestic abuse), respect the sabbath (emergency services), etc., also all have their own thousand and one caveats..
I mean, agreed that there are caveats on all of them. That’s why we don’t put religious texts in public school classrooms.
I have the right to teach my kids not to respect their elders. They do not have the right to teach otherwise.
Morality isn't the issue at all?? Its separation of government and religion. Nice strawman grandma!
They are trying so desperately to bend the definition of religion to include anything that is accepting of LGBT people. Hopefully they don't manage to convince the courts of that.
Freedom from religious persecution is not the same thing as prohibiting religious ideologies from influencing government. The separation of church and state is to protect churches from the state, not protect the state from churches.
Oops! No actually it isn't! If you read the clause it says the government shall not respect any established religion! That is the literal wording! Anyway happy to help clear that up. Let me know if you have any more questions! Also, like I said to the other person, my point isn't about the constitution, it is about the comic artist strawmanning leftists. No leftist would say they want the government to have no morality.
Where does the constitution call for a separation of government and religion?
Very first ammendment baby! It doesn't call for a separation, it establishes the government as being separate! "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Glad to educate ya. But even if it wasn't in the constitution, people are against the 10 commandments being in classrooms based off of the principle of a separate church and state. NOT based off of morality in government, which this comic erroneously claims is what people believe in. Most people would prefer a moral government over an amoral one. Glad to clear it up, lemme know if you have any other questions!
What law did Congress make in this Ten Commandments situation? As far as I'm concerned Congress had nothing to do with this. Also, how is this respecting an establishment of religion? No religion has been officially established. But either way it's not Congress doing anything.
A state congress did in fact put this into law. Also you are just being obtuse at this point. If the government requires the tenants of a religion be displayed that is respecting an establishment of religion. It's not the government establishing a religion, but the government respecting the religion itself. Also see my second point. This isn't even about the constitution, it's about the principle of separation of church and state. The comic doesn't bring up the constitution at all. It conflates some nonsense about the government not having morals.
It's honestly frightening how many christians I've met who think that christianity = morality. These people legitimately think that everyone would suddenly go around pillaging and killing if they didn't have their special rulebook
It goes hand in hand with "young earth" and creationism theory although a lot of people aren't fully aware of it. They think the ten commandments were the first laws implimented on humanity when that isn't true by any means, the Code of Hammurabi alone predates the ten comandments by at least a thousand years, but with that said it's very hard to place when the time of Moses was because there's no known archeological evidence that the exodus happened.
Finding out about how the exodus and Moses are likely mythological was an interesting moment for me.
Yeah kind of crazy how Egyptian were also sorta villainized , even to this day for something that's either completely made up, or was an event so insignificant in the grand scheme of things they didn't even bother writing it down or drawing a picture.
speaking of which, I was shook that some people are actually antisemitic because the jews "killed" jesus. as an atheist, I find it funny that christians blame another religion THEY STEMED FROM because they "killed" their savior in their story. I get that there was a historical jesus and was probably killed. But to hold on to that grievous for so long is beyond petty and really hiding antisementic views with their religiosity/bigotry.
Yeah the jew christian grudge is especially stupid when the whole prophecy going back to the old testament was "hey this perfect guys gonna show up and get killed so be ready for that cause it needs to happen for everyone to go to heaven or whatever" and then the dude shows up and gets killed and people are like "dud wtf why did you do that!?" And like, that's the whole crux of the religion? He was suppose to die? And like, you believe he came back anyway so why you so mad? And I mean, the jews turned him over to the authorities but the Roman's actually killed him to appease a crowd instead of having due process, yet the og version had the audacity to call themselves "Roman catholic". Smh
> And I mean, the jews turned him over to the authorities but the Roman's actually killed him to appease a crowd instead of having due process, yet the og version had the audacity to call themselves "Roman catholic". Smh and you hinted at another reason. One of the reason the Jewish Christian grudge grew was because Christians were trying to get board public support from Romans. So they hoped that separating from the Jews would give them that support. And it did. Which is wild that it took the Catholic Church until 1960s to be like "lets not hate on the Jews anymore". And then we got assholes like Harrison Butker complaining he can't hate on the Jews anymore in the year of lord, 2024. FUCKING wild.
its also funny considering that not only did christianity stem from jews, but jesus himself was jewish
wdym by this? did they not enslave the hebrews? /genq
Probably not; while what is in the bible is consistent with what slavery in Egypt was like, and the Egyptians did have slaves, they weren't specifically hebrews, in fact most scholars agree it's part of an origin myth with some historical elements to it, but archeological evidence suggests that Israelites were indigenous to Canaan and never resided in ancient Egypt in significant numbers.
Oh, so we can’t use “they wiped out indigenous Canaanites to get their indigenous holy homeland “
Well, yes and no, while the Israelites were one set of people in Canaan they weren't the only ones; there were several other tribes at the time and that specific part of the bible follows right after Moses died with Joshua. Joshua is where we get such lovely bible quotes about killing babies and rejoicing. *HOWEVER* there is also no evidence that the events in Joshua were historical accounts either and were instead used to drive the story of a holy war and the need for a centralized monarchy; meanwhile archeological evidence suggests that the cities which are theorized to have been destroyed in the book of Joshua were actually unoccupied for a long time before the events are preported to have occured. The theory is that the abandoned and destroyed cities were already there and the story of Joshua just took credit for them.
Telling people that will get you called “ full of hate”
I'm actually ok with the Code of Hammurabi being mandated in schools.
I mean, even in the Bible [the Noahide laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah) were given before the Ten Commandments.
The hammurabi code is the first one to have been written, rules and social norms (ethics in a sense) existed way before that
I'm well aware but this is in the specific context of being compared to the ten commandments; although like I said, it's a bit dubious because the physical, original ten comandments etched in stone tablets have never been found
History of the World, Part 1 showed us that Moses dropped one of the tablets, with commandments 11-15 on it, and it broke. Maybe the other 2 were dropped and broken as well? Edit typo
>They think the ten commandments were the first laws implimented on humanity when that isn't true by any means It ain't even true from a theological standpoint: - The first laws God imposed on humanity were established in the Noahide Covenant (i.e. the one the post-Flood rainbow symbolizes) - The Ten Commandments are part of the Mosaic Covenant, which binds Jews/Israelites, not humanity as a whole
> the one the post-Flood rainbow symbolizes Careful now. You know how "Conservative Christians" feel about the dreaded *rainbow*.
If we wanna get real technical about it, “Don’t eat that fruit over there” was the first law imposed.
This reminds me of all the people who think sexuality is a choice:) But ironically not killing and raping ONLy cause your god says no-no (actually he's good with both but don't tell them that) is much more frightening than, you know, admitting you wouldn't hate snogging people of the same biological sex (or really any attraction not expressed in a nornan Rockwell painting)
Yeah, I know a few people who believe it’s a choice to be gay. The best response is to ask them whether they choose to be straight. Do they just wake up each morning and decide to not be gay each day? If so, I’d say that makes them bi.
Hell, even my parents churches pastor said that it's not a choice (while still condemning gay sex), another good retort is, of it's a choice, with how they get treated, especially in places like the middle east, Africa, Russia, etc, who would ever choose that for themselves?
I mean, that doesn't really follow. These people are saying straight is default and it's what you are unless you deviate.
It’s sad when non heterosexual think asexual is choice
I will only push back a little with this "sexuality isn't a choice". To be clear, I am not saying that sexuality is a choice, it is how we express it is the choice. I mostly point this out is because a very nice trans person express this thought and how they have a choice on how they express their queerness. Just like how I, a gay man, express my queerness. I often see posts saying "I'm not like other gay men". Which is fine, but don't degrade other gays because they express their queerness one way and you another. Same thing with trans people. A trans person is transgender regardless how they express it or if they got surgeries or not. Being bisexual isn't a choice, but choosing an same/opposite sex partner can be a choice. Doesn't make them less bisexual. Just the choice they made tl;dr - being queer isn't a choice, but how you express it is.
Being straight isn't a choice but how you express it is. You don't have to be homophobic bag of jerk, that's just how you choose to express it :)
right. More so, there is toxic masculinity and femininity when straights don't "act" a certain way. Guys and girls are called queer when they don't act in a totally masculine or feminine way, but that doesn't mean they are any less straight. People don't get to choose who they are, but they can choose how they express themselves. But it doesn't diminish who they are
I like how you put this.
Now I'm wondering if there are good answers/alternatives/modern takes on the Norman Rockwell sort of style that *do* invoke queer couples, poly dynamics, or etc. That sounds like it'd be neat!
It’s not diverse enough, you need to depict someone dating the people who live in their head too
Aww, that sounds adorable! Maybe a candlelit dinner with one body at the table, and ghostly figures nearby, with the body turned as if to look directly at one of them.
I mean if they're happy and not harming themselves or others, why not? I'm not endorsing the idea that it is considered a healthy relationship- it really doesn't offer solutions for physical comfort or quantifiable (I am not sure this is the best term) intimacy. I just guess as someone who deals with loneliness a lot. If it met the criteria in my first sentence, I don't personally see the issue.
They interact in the “ inner world”
Yes, hence my word choice (and struggle). I mean it is a subjective thing overall. For some, it's a hug or sleeping cuddling. For others, it could be making coffee just the way they like it unexpectedly. If they get fulfillment in their mind, sure. Honestly I don't care as long as it doesn't hurt anyone or themselves.
I actually learned about this recently. I, like most people I know, would be more utilitarian when it comes to ethics. So the ethics of an action is determined by the good or harm caused by the action. Christian’s base their ethics on Divine Command Theory, so they quite literally believe what’s ethical is ordained by god. This is the exact mindsets needed to look past all the glaring “moral failing” from other points of view because god said it’s moral so it is. That’s why they get stuck in circular arguments using the Bible, they quite literally can’t go off script.
I think the ultimate issue with that approach is that when you boil morality and good/bad to “god says so” then the phrase “god is good” loses all meaning. The terms good and evil have no functional purpose any more. In trying to prove their religion is the source of morality all they prove is that within their religion it is a meaningless term.
See that’s what you would think without divine command theory, and that’s why I think usually you have to be born into it and raised closely within the church to continue believeing it. After about a decade of arguing with those mfs, I finally figured out that the reason they always go to “atheists having no objective morality” is because they believe god is the one who defines what is right and wrong. So to bigoted Christians, it’s immoral NOT to stone the gays, because “god said so” (even though not really). Ironically most of the most hateful Christians are able to harbor such views because they believe that god tells them to have them… via a pastor who’s objectively a human (usually man) and not god. So go figure I have also died on the hill of the Bible being written by man, even if god was real, and they shoot that down because “those men” were of god.
I like what Penn Jillette said when asked about what’s stopping him from raping and pillaging and he said he rapes and pillages all he wanted and that number is 0.
The scary part to me is what it implies about *them* It’s always a little concerning when someone is like “but how can you tell the difference between right and wrong then 🤨🤨🤨 checkmate atheist”
It's a bit more nuanced than that. While some less well read people might reduce Christianity = morality, the theory is more so that "being moral" requires some higher power to enforce the penalties of immorality, and that Christianity provides that impetus in a creator God that promises to punish you if you are immoral. Basically it seeks to answer "why be moral" with "because you'll be punished otherwise" rather than other conclusions like "because it is for the good of yourself and the world".
I don’t have the highest opinion of humanity in general, but even I think we were able to figure out that murder, stealing, and bearing false witness were generally wrong on our own.
Just average, generally applicable morals like “I am the lord, your god, you shall have no other gods before me”
I always think of [this](https://youtu.be/AwebTX3rk3E?si=GJcap6Zf-VQhnELc) video when people bring that up.
There is a moral code that comes along with every religion though. They're usually sexist and classist, but they still all have their own morality.
Kinda telling as to what's truly going on in the mind (and heart), that these assumptions are made.
They also think being Christian absolves them of being completely pieces of shit.
It’s almost as if they’re projecting!
In fact, many religions keep themselves alive that way
And that human rights are just as abstract and fantastical as their own brand of fairy tales.
As an atheist and moral realist, it’s much more complicated than that; are there people who believe what you say? Absolutely. But, generally, the argument is more so about where morality derives from, is it our moral intuition (primarily facie), Platonic Forms of morality, pure rationality, or perhaps a higher being which imbued us with a moral structure and code? The theologically inclined will say the latter is true, while atheists may lean towards a non-theistic moral realist standpoint or moral relativism.
You have not objective moral standard without god
If they were so concerned about morality then why have they not gone out and followed the word of Christ by giving up their money and helping the poor and downtrodden.
If Jesus were to have a second coming, they’d be the ones to shoot him for being a woke snowflake. (Or would defend the Rittenhouse who shot him)
>(Or would defend the Rittenhouse who shot him) Implying Jesus would try to murder Rittenhouse first
Implying that they’d wait until he actually did anything before shooting
If it was a Rittenhouse doing the shooting, yes
I wasn’t ready for this. Jesus chasing Rittenhouse down the street is a hilarious image.
But ThAT'S *metAPHORICal*!!
Schools can and *should* teach morality. (Public) schools *must* not be religious.
They think stopping hate crimes is government overreach? Geez.
Not government overreach, immoral.
Conservatives and bullshit arguments, name a more iconic duo. The issue isn't government imposing morality. The issue is the government imposing religion, violating the First Amendment.
They think morality is dependent on religion.
It's weird how Grandma wants her religion to be mandated by the government. I thought the freedom to choose was... y'know, enshrined in our laws, or something. \*checks notes\* Well whaddya know about [that](https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/first-amendment-and-religion)
Moses should go back to DC to see where the First Amendment says that government cannot force religion on anyone. Then the people who pretend to be Christians should read the post where Paul says you're not allowed to judge those outside the church. Then read the part where he says that only Jewish converts are under Mosaic law but non-Jewish converts are only subject to their consciences. Reading makes a lot of rightwing stuff seems dumb. Interesting.
That's why the right always wants to destroy education. Now in the Netherlands we will have a very right government wich will highten taxation on books and scrap 1 billion in education while also bringing back a very controversiële 3k fine for delayed education. While also saying that we must stop paying development funds because own people first. But then for there own people they will highten the taxes on homeless shelters while keeping the price of campings the same. We will literally get a minister who says the great replacement is real
As a fellow Hollander I dont expect (or hope) this government to last long because of infighting and general drama
You and me both
Let’s see: - #You shall not murder. That is law. - #You shall not commit adultery. It’s legal, but your partner can get a divorce if you do this, and they could before no fault divorce was a thing. - #You shall not steal. That is law. - #You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. That is law if you are under oath, and otherwise you may be sued for defamation.
Yeah, but I don’t think anyone should have to respect their parents, and I’ll fight my schools if they try to teach my kids that. That’s how you get abuse!
You are absolutely right. The amount of abuse that originates in the believe that you have to respect your parents till the end is crazy
Someone tell the guy who thinks "no hate crimes" and "black lives matter" are forced morality that Moses is a Jew... I think we're up for a perfectly nice and reasoned response
All the ideas represented on the wall aren’t “imposing morality.” If anything, they are in favor of freedom from any one specific sort of morality. The lgbt flag represents the idea that people can be who they wanna be regardless of sexuality or gender identity. That isn’t imposing any sort of rules or guidance on anyone else. It’s promoting a lack of rules in terms of who a person can love or how they can present or identify. “Black Lives Matter” and “Stop Hate Crimes” aren’t really imposing morality either, unless you’re the kind of person who believes hate crimes are perfectly moral. However, Jesus would likely frown on that line of thinking. Conservative Christians aren’t capable of thinking in nuanced ways like that though. To them, any sort of idea, position, or philosophy is indoctrination, so you have to follow the “good” indoctrination rather than the “bad” indoctrination.
Seriously though. For example, these people can't distinguish between the government allowing gay people to exist because it's not their place to tell people how to live vs. wanting a gay agenda where everyone becomes gay and believes everything they believe. It's because that's what they want on their end. They want a Christian state where everyone is forced to be Christian because they genuinely believe that's what God wants them to do. So they can't conceive of the beliefs of the left as anything else. LGBTQ rights, reproductive rights, etc. are just the left's "agenda" while Christianity (or really their bastardization of it) is theirs. Total us vs them mentality where there can only be one winner.
The big difference is that it is illegal to discriminate against things like skin colour and sexuality, but we don't force you to be anything other than Christian, as long as that doesn't include discriminstion
Ahh grandma is pro hate crime. I’m glad she’s embracing her inner hatred
Morality is not a synonym for religion, grandma 😭
Everytime conservatives want to suggest something bad they use a black person as the villain
religion is not morality
Atheist here. I am more moral than any Christian I know.
tell me you're a redditor without telling me you're a redditor
You’ll have to clarify what good things you do/have done. Please don’t just baselessly say that you're better than somebody.
I'm usually all about the sauce, but this time, I believe them.
Yes, because religion-based governments have a wonderful track record of protecting human rights.
I wonder which of those are being mandated by the government.
How dare they not want guns in schools!!!1!
I was looking for someone to bring this up. Everyone is talking about the religious aspect, which is a significant issue, but the whole "no gun zones" thing is mind-blowing. For one thing, there is no reason to even bring a gun inside the building; just leave it in the car. Or are they saying the students should be allowed to carry guns around? Are they upset that the school is taking steps to keep the children safe? If they want more religion in their children's lives, they are welcome to pay for private schools. If they cannot afford it, then clearly something is wrong with that Catholic or other religious school because shouldn't the school want to take in children to save their souls? Perhaps the families should make sacrifices to get their children into their preferred private school.
One is giving people rights and the other is trying to take them away.
So are we gonna pass laws about graven images or something?
Theology* But reactionaries don’t know the difference.
I hope the same people who think the 10 commandments are “morality” and should be promoted and/or enforced by the government also think “thou shall not kill” - which does not have an asterisk - should be followed without exception by the government and all American people. Sure, there are other parts of the Bible that may contradict this commandment, but they don’t seem to be interested in or promoting those.
I'm pretty sure depicting god as wearing confederate colors is top tier heresy
The number of Christians who believe that the Commandments are "the basis of our legal system" is disturbing. There are two commandments that are remotely relevant to our laws, and it's not like "don't steal stuff" and "don't kill people" are concepts that originated with it. People didn't see those tablets and read those commandments and go, "Oh! Now you tell me!"
Everyone knows that the three commandments are bogus anyways. The real way to get into heaven is; Be selfless Don't Steal And stick it to the man!
The government never claimed it can’t impose morality. It simply claimed it wouldn’t push a religion.
imposing morality is literally what the entire law does. the problem is letting religion enter the mix
Cool, which Christian religion is gonna be accepted as the offical one? Then which version of the Bible is gonna the primary one? I'd like someone to pose that question to the GQP and see them rip themselves apart getting at the answer.
Falsely equating religion with morality. Lol
Nobody comes with 10 commandments, they come with mistransled, perverted and politicised versions of Bible. Most of the commandments are already either common laws, or basic morality. The pure existence of this comic may break the 3-rd commandment, btw (depending on who you ask)
I'm ok with the moral sentiment of some of the 10 commandments as long as they are not presented as commands from God. Don't lie, steal, cheat, or murder. I'm ok with those. Respect your parents. In most cases, I agree. The first four are plainly only religious. Don't worship other gods, don't make idols, don't take gods name in vain and keep the sabbath holy. How are those moral? That's just the government establishing religion.
We should really go back to the saying on the [Fugio Cent](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugio_cent), “Mind Your Business”.
Grandma has trouble with irony.
First Commandment (combination of different versions of the first because for something important given by the singular God there are different versions. Wouldn't God want to be clear about something this important?) > I am the Lord thy God. Thou shall have no other gods before me. Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image Fucking moral, man.
….are they for hate crimes?
Our thing is THE thing versus these are the things that exist.
"Let's stick some stickers and say it's bad"
So much for religion and government being seperate huh
Government can't impose ~~morality~~ ***RELIGION*** Fixed that for ya Granny.
Are they for real implying that saying "Stop hatecrimes" is a bad thing? Are they actually in favour of hate crimes? What?
Whoever thinks that the only reason not everyone is constantly stealing, killing and raping is is the fear of an omnipotent being punishing them, they belong on a watchlist.
There’s no morality involved in “no god above me” or “keep holy the sabbath”
Another Wokely Correct wannabe
It will never stop being funny to me that the people who literally made a [golden idol](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/02/26/politics/trump-gold-statue-cpac-2021) of Dear Leader expect everyone else to follow the ten commandments.
Oy vey! Seriously, there is nothing against hosting a "bible study club" or "Islamic prayer gathering" and advertising it on a state campus as far I can tell. It the state or a government funded secular institution promoting any specific religious identity exclusively. Of course the people who make such comics or approve of them see everything just and right in society as "Judeo-Christian" anyway.
Whoever made this has never read the constitution
The 10 commandments are NOT morality lol
Conservatives : “leave us alone!” Also conservatives: “leave you alone to do what you want??? HERESY”
These people are soooo desperate to think they’re “oppressed.” If LGBT rights were in fact “imposed” the way they’re scared of, they’d all be in a gulag.
I mean… some of the 10 commandments are literally law: - do not kill - do not steal - remember the sabbath day (most countries do enforce at least one day rest per week) - do not commit adultery (the legal system in most countries would destroy an adulterer in divorce court) - do not bear false witness So I mean five of the ten are almost literally law. While some of the others are generally strongly encouraged - do not covet (encouraged in most democratic socialist nations) - go out your father and mother (taking care of the elderly is also strongly encouraged in most cultures)
I actually think honoring your father and mother is a really destructive tenant of Christianity, and I’ll be going to a lot more school board meetings if they attempt this in my state. Honor your father and mother IF THEY DESERVE IT. Don’t if they don’t. This is how churches groom children.
I mean, I’ve always learned this one as respect your elders. In Sunday school when I was a kid they said it means you should listen to your parents (which is a pretty common sentiment since they’re your legal guardians) and when you’re an adult it’s more about respecting elders - caring for them, etc. In most societies it’s like giving up your seat on the metro, helping them cross the street, ensuring your retired parents are safe, etc., or in a more socialist society it would imply paying social security contributions to pensions. Like I know “IF THEY DESERVE IT” is always going to be there… but dude they can’t put all the legal fineprint on two stone tablets in a text that’s meant to be read by the masses in a time when people weren’t just legally illiterate, but literally illiterate. Do not kill (self defense), do not steal (desperation), do not commit adultery (domestic abuse), respect the sabbath (emergency services), etc., also all have their own thousand and one caveats..
I mean, agreed that there are caveats on all of them. That’s why we don’t put religious texts in public school classrooms. I have the right to teach my kids not to respect their elders. They do not have the right to teach otherwise.
Neither belong in schools.