Meme Thread for Both Posting and Discussing Memes

[Captain X]

I just think a lot of people misunderstand the the right and the religious right in particular.

No, I've lived through their bullshit. I looked down on them even when I was religious due to how they seemed to want to make their religious dogma into the law of the land.

*taps first amendment sign*
Freedom of religion.
Becoming a theocracy would go against that.

That wouldn't stop the religious right any more than it has the regressive left.

 

[DarthOne]

Personally, I don't put any more stock into Christian myth than I do in Greek or Roman myth. All @DarthOne's statement does for me is reinforce the idea that the Religious Right must also be kept as far from real power as possible in order to maintain individual rights.

I don’t want the USA to become a total theocracy.

That said, my belief/religion tells me that homosexuality is a sin and shouldn’t praises or seen as ‘normal’. That said, I don’t want to harm or kill them just become they’re homosexual; I’d ideally like them to come to the realization that what they are doing is wrong, repent and stop doing it.

The closest I come to being ‘theocratic’ is saying that we shouldn’t have children’s cartoons with LGBT characters- as we’ve seen it’s been a slippery cliff that has led to grooming both through that material Anne through schools. With the later being something else I am against having happen until at least high school- let kids be kids, for the love of Christ. Or whoever else you believe in.

As for high school and one wards, Id remove anything invoking ‘gender theory’ as it’s based upon some deeply, deeply sketchy research and lines of reasoning. (Look up John Money and Kinsey for why; but the TLDR version can be summed up here)

Also, I wouldn’t have any of the LGBTQ Pride month nonsense- though that’s not so much against homosexuality as it is from my stance that having a celebration over one belonging to a certain sexuality or skin color is stupid and needlessly divisive, no matter who is doing it.

Finally, I would have it that marriage is strictly seen as between a man and a woman- the LGBTQ’s can have their ‘version’ with the same sort of rights, just it’s not legally or socially called ‘marriage’.

 

[Captain X]

I don’t want the USA to become a total theocracy.

Man, how many times have I heard that one before?

That said, my belief/religion tells me that homosexuality is a sin and shouldn’t praises or seen as ‘normal’. That said, I don’t want to harm or kill them just become they’re homosexual; I’d ideally like them to come to the realization that what they are doing is wrong, repent and stop doing it.

Which is almost as bad. I hate to break it to you, but homosexuality and bisexuality is completely normal. It is seen in everything from insects on up to the great apes. Come to terms with the fact.

The closest I come to being ‘theocratic’ is saying that we shouldn’t have children’s cartoons with LGBT characters

Well, that and what you said above.

Finally, I would have it that marriage is strictly seen as between a man and a woman- the LGBTQ’s can have their ‘version’ with the same sort of rights, just it’s not legally or socially called ‘marriage’.

No, I think as far as government is concerned, they should both be treated the same. Churches should not be compelled to conduct ceremonies and no business should be compelled to provide services, but as far as legal rights and such, it should all be the same, and that should also include what it's called.

 

[Zyobot]

That said, my belief/religion tells me that homosexuality is a sin and shouldn’t praises or seen as ‘normal’. That said, I don’t want to harm or kill them just become they’re homosexual; I’d ideally like them to come to the realization that what they are doing is wrong, repent and stop doing it.

Was raised Catholic and don't consider myself Christian anymore, but so long as we're on the subject: No, it's really not.

As I said, it's not clear to me Sodom and Gomorrah explicitly prohibits homosexuality, so much as assembling a literal rape mob to "know" people instead. In that case, I think there's a question about whether God was angry about homosexuality, or if God was angry about the rape mob instead? Odd how the people who cite Leviticus the most never ask themselves that, which seems to be more a reading that appeals to people's prejudices than honest scholarship.

Furthermore, even if the "old-fashioned" reading of Leviticus is correct... well, Christians today still ignore all sorts of passages that are clearly specific to the Israelites' time and place (again, prohibiting mixed fabrics). Kinda' get the use of culturally specific warnings not to emulate the Canaanites at the time. But seeing as we don't observe those in 2023, I'm pretty sure they can do the same for homosexuality and welcome average gay people the same as everyone else.


Having said that, I think enough of your posts have proven that whatever your religious views, you're still cognizant of how bad our century's "Thermidorian Reaction" might be, which I'll certainly credit you for. Unfortunately, there'll be other reactionary-minded faithful who are far more fanatical than you, so I wouldn't conflate your (mostly) reasonable desires with what everyone else thinks. The Religious Right may not be the bloodthirsty, Hitler-worshipping theocrats of secular Wokesters' fever dreams now, but with enough Leftist escalation and needling from their Corporate Media allies... well, imagine what "Neo-Crusader" versions of the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS would look like, and that's what I expect to start popping up throughout the 2040s and '50s.

 

[DarthOne]

Was raised Catholic and don't consider myself Christian anymore, but so long as we're on the subject: No, it's really not.

As I said, it's not clear to me Sodom and Gomorrah explicitly prohibits homosexuality, so much as assembling a literal rape mob to "know" people instead. In that case, I think there's a question about whether God was angry about homosexuality, or if God was angry about the rape mob instead? Odd how the people who cite Leviticus the most never ask themselves that, which seems to be more a reading that appeals to people's prejudices than honest scholarship.

Furthermore, even if the "old-fashioned" reading of Leviticus is correct... well, Christians still ignore all sorts of passages that are clearly specific to the Israelites' time and place (again, prohibiting mixed fabrics). Kinda' get the use of culturally specific warnings not to emulate the Canaanites at the time. But seeing as we don't observe those in 2023, I'm pretty sure they can do the same for homosexuality and welcome average gay people the same as everyone else.

Orthodox Christian over here, and our Church Fathers and leadership say otherwise.

 

[Zyobot]

Orthodox Christian over here, and out Church Fathers and leadership say otherwise.

Sorry to hear that.

Knew you were Orthodox to begin with, but I suppose I was conflating my own (formerly) Catholic background with other denominations' teachings somewhat hastily.

 

[Morphic Tide]

I hate to break it to you, but homosexuality and bisexuality is completely normal. It is seen in everything from insects on up to the great apes.

Well, not "normal" per say given the obvious reproductive matters meaning it needs to be a severe minority, but the sheer totality of it happening in every species able to do such is a major indicator that it's in the camp of "have fun trying to stop it without making worse happen".

 

[Zyobot]

Anyway, in hopes of shelving the theological debate:




That's a view just about all of us have in common, I think.

 

[Scottty]

*taps first amendment sign*
Freedom of religion.
Becoming a theocracy would go against that.

Theocracy as in the government declares one specific form of Christianity to be mandatory for everyone, and bans all other Christian sects and all non-Christian religions?

I don't think anyone here is seriously putting that on the table. But I certainly see the need for freedom of religion, when just mentioning that one's religion teaches something gets one dog-piled by angry unbelievers.

 

[Scottty]

And as for "Muh Constitution"? Zach, seriously, when was the last time that stopped the US gov from doing anything they really wanted to do?
They take a dump on those rights literally every time they imprison or kill someone for having guns.

Also - a large part of the population basically think that the country's written laws mean whatever a group of judges decide to say they do, and that they can get it to mean something different just by getting different people onto the bench.

Bacle has it right there - a peace treaty only holds as long as both sides abide by it. If the "wokies" don't want to accept the limits imposed by the constitution, in the long run they won't get the protection of it either.

 

[Cherico]

And as for "Muh Constitution"? Zach, seriously, when was the last time that stopped the US gov from doing anything they really wanted to do?
They take a dump on those rights literally every time they imprison or kill someone for having guns.

Also - a large part of the population basically think that the country's written laws mean whatever a group of judges decide to say they do, and that they can get it to mean something different just by getting different people onto the bench.

Bacle has it right there - a peace treaty only holds as long as both sides abide by it. If the "wokies" don't want to accept the limits imposed by the constitution, in the long run they won't get the protection of it either.

Honestly its not unque to the west either.


In the meditarian civilization that predated ours, in anchient china, in the bronze age cycle that came before that, the laws, customs and traditions of a people get trampled and treated like toylet paper in the late part of the modern cycle which were in. The problem were dealing with isn't just happening in america but the UK, canada, most of europe, australia new zealands fuck pretty much every ones treating their consitutions, their traditions like something to shit on.

Right now the establishment AKA the wokies are having a grand old time of it.

This will not last, quite frankly put deliberately humilating large portions of your population for what amounts to shits and giggles is not a wise decision. Add to this the wokies base of power is urban environments and well those are being horifically mismanaged to the point where ruralization is happening.

Long term their fucked problem is in the short and medium term their going to make every one elses life hell before they go down.

 

[DarthOne]

Which is almost as bad. I hate to break it to you, but homosexuality and bisexuality is completely normal. It is seen in everything from insects on up to the great apes. Come to terms with the fact.

Will try to reply to the rest later, but this is a clear appeal to a naturalistic fallacy (I suggest you google that), but basically, just because animals do something doesn't mean it's right.

Animals rape, cannibalize, eat their own feces, etc. By your ‘logic’, we should do this too.

 

[Scottty]

Will try to reply to the rest later, but this is a clear appeal to a naturalistic fallacy (I suggest you google that), but basically, just because animals do something doesn't mean it's right.

Animals rape, cannibalize, eat their own feces, etc. By your ‘logic’, we should do this too.

 

[LordsFire]

Personally, I don't put any more stock into Christian myth than I do in Greek or Roman myth. All @DarthOne's statement does for me is reinforce the idea that the Religious Right must also be kept as far from real power as possible in order to maintain individual rights.

A funny thing to say, given the modern concept of individual rights was developed to maturity by Christians, implemented best by Christian, and put into constitutional law in this nation by our Founding Fathers, who were more than 90% Christians.

 

[Skallagrim]

A society where traditionalist sentiments are prevalent and most everyone goes to church is desirable; provided that the government doesn't try to regulate how people live. The punishment for sinful (but not criminal) behaviour should in the final instance be that you are cast out from your religious community, not that you are locked up in jail.

Conversely, it should be noted that a society where progressivist sentiments dominate and religion is mostly excised, while the (secularist) government meddles in every aspect of people's lives is the worst possible situation.

The latter is the extreme form of what we have now (and in some places, it's the practical reality). People really should stop with the false dichotomy where they pretend (or assume) that fully rejecting the modernist bullshit would result in theocracy. Rather, the actual antithesis of the present situation is the far more desirable situation that I have outlined in the first paragraph.

 

[Captain X]

Will try to reply to the rest later, but this is a clear appeal to a naturalistic fallacy (I suggest you google that), but basically, just because animals do something doesn't mean it's right.

Animals rape, cannibalize, eat their own feces, etc. By your ‘logic’, we should do this too.

Except that isn't the argument I'm making. It's pretty obvious that your argument that it isn't "normal", or what others might claim is "unnatural" is completely false and all I've done is show that by example. I'm not the one making any kind of appeal here, you are.

 

[Captain X]

A funny thing to say, given the modern concept of individual rights was developed to maturity by Christians, implemented best by Christian, and put into constitutional law in this nation by our Founding Fathers, who were more than 90% Christians.

Which just illustrates that a lot of Christians are either unaware of this, or believe this to have been some kind of mistake.

 

[Captain X]

A society where traditionalist sentiments are prevalent and most everyone goes to church is desirable; provided that the government doesn't try to regulate how people live. The punishment for sinful (but not criminal) behaviour should in the final instance be that you are cast out from your religious community, not that you are locked up in jail.

Conversely, it should be noted that a society where progressivist sentiments dominate and religion is mostly excised, while the (secularist) government meddles in every aspect of people's lives is the worst possible situation.

The latter is the extreme form of what we have now (and in some places, it's the practical reality). People really should stop with the false dichotomy where they pretend (or assume) that fully rejecting the modernist bullshit would result in theocracy. Rather, the actual antithesis of the present situation is the far more desirable situation that I have outlined in the first paragraph.

The thing is, when you listen to the religious right talk, it's pretty obvious that they do want something more like a theocracy, so no, I'm not making any kind of false dichotomy - I'd actually argue that you're closer to doing that. You'll note that while I very much desire a secularist government, I also very much don't want one which meddles in every aspect of people's lives. It is both the regressive left and the religious right who wish to meddle in people's lives, and it is hardly presenting any kind of a false dichotomy to point out their resemblance to each other.

My ideal would be for a limited, secularist government that leaves people alone unless they represent an actual threat to other people, and does not pick any kind of favorites when it comes to religion.

 

[Skallagrim]

The thing is, when you listen to the religious right talk, it's pretty obvious that they do want something more like a theocracy, so no, I'm not making any kind of false dichotomy - I'd actually argue that you're closer to doing that. You'll note that while I very much desire a secularist government, I also very much don't want one which meddles in every aspect of people's lives. It is both the regressive left and the religious right who wish to meddle in people's lives, and it is hardly presenting any kind of a false dichotomy to point out their resemblance to each other.

My ideal would be for a limited, secularist government that leaves people alone unless they represent an actual threat to other people, and does not pick any kind of favorites when it comes to religion.

The difference being: when traditionally-minded, Christian men have been in charge, they have on several occasions gone to great lengths to establish government that is constrained and leaves other men free to live by their conscience, secure in their private lives.

When the oh-so-tolerant secularists have been in charge, they have never once created anything other than a finger-wagging regime that micro-manages the lives of others.

So, no-- my dichotomy checks out. Your ideals may be fine, but reality doesn't support them. What I hold up as the goal has demonstrably been done. As @LordsFire indicated: it was sort of the whole point of what America's Founding Fathers were trying for. Meanwhile, your stated goal remains purely hypothetical. A secular regime that leaves people alone and doesn't meddle? No such animal has ever been known to exist.

So, basically, I'm saying we should have a good horse instead of an ill-tempered jackass, and you prefer a unicorn instead. Cool idea, but I don't see it working out.

 

[Captain X]

The difference being: when traditionally-minded, Christian men have been in charge, they have on several occasions gone to great lengths to establish government that is constrained and leaves other men free to live by their conscience, secure in their private lives.

When the oh-so-tolerant secularists have been in charge, they have never once created anything other than a finger-wagging regime that micro-manages the lives of others.

So, no-- my dichotomy checks out. Your ideals may be fine, but reality doesn't support them. What I hold up as the goal has demonstrably been done. As @LordsFire indicated: it was sort of the whole point of what America's Founding Fathers were trying for. Meanwhile, your stated goal remains purely hypothetical. A secular regime that leaves people alone and doesn't meddle? No such animal has ever been known to exist.

So, basically, I'm saying we should have a good horse instead of an ill-tempered jackass, and you prefer a unicorn instead. Cool idea, but I don't see it working out.

No, you're just making excuses. Remind me, who exactly championed things like Blue Laws and fought tooth and nail to keep them? "Leaves other men free to live by their conscience, secure in their private lives" my ass. And before you say anything - yeah, I know that's just one example - an easy one I thought of off the top of my head. Your "ideal" of everyone being a church-goer of being "cast out" if they deviate is frankly as much of a dystopia for me as the leftist one you claim is the only alternative. Fuck that and fuck your false dichotomy.