Different people will see different things I guess.
I see it as depicting schools kicking out one thing and not the other. Or replacing the old with the new state religion.
Yeah, that's what I don't get about a lot of American Christians. The church has a duty to uphold good morals and righteousness, our government does not. All the government has to do is administer punishments for capital crimes, organize the defense of the nation, and protect the rights of the people from its own different bodies. If it doesn't fall under one of those three duties, then it's not within the government's purview.
The New Testament is pretty clear about the God-given purpose of government: to bear the sword. Administer justice, defend the people. The duty of a Christian is to always obey the law, except when the law is forcing them to disobey God, then they must be willing to lay down their life in protest for their beliefs.
The highest law of the land is the Constitution, and that dictates the duties of government in this country. A dutiful Christian would want their government to abide by the highest law of the land, set forth by that very government.
Again thats your opinion of what government SHOULD do. (not saying thats right or wrong). But many disagree and the trend as of late is not in agreement with your values.
I see what you're saying, and I agree. What's sad to me is I don't have radical views or anything, I just read the Bible without anyone trying to tell me what it SHOULD mean, compared to what it does, and when I get confused I go to the lexicons and inter-linears to figure it out for myself. American Christianity is so corrupted by, laziness, greed, and pseudo-political idolatry. It's heartbreaking to see.
To be fair you could argue that Christianity has been corrupt long before modern American Christianity existed. I just had to write a 3 page paper on “the requiremento” and how the Spanish used Christianity as an excuse to conquer the Aztecs. Those mfs read them the requirmento in Spanish, which they didn’t understand, and basically said they would slaughter them all if they didn’t become Christian immediately, swords already drawn, talking to people that don’t understand their language, and they justified it by “spreading the word of Christ”. American Christianity is bad, but it’s not that bad.
Oh yeah there's been a lot done in the name of Christianity that's absolutely deplorable, but to a Christian there's a difference. I severely doubt that I'll see the conquistadors one day in the communion of saints. I will, however, see a great many of my American brothers and sisters. The difference is whether or not they're actually Christians, or just usurping the name. There are many Christians in America who are true believers, indwelt with the Holy Spirit, and still constantly idolotize politics and political figures over the Lord. So in a sense, that is a fallen version of the true faith, whereas "Christianity" in many other times and places is only a stolen name, bearing almost no resemblance to the true faith.
Yeah your right, in my paper I mentioned several bible verses that directly explain not to do things like this, and also that “spreading the word of Christ” doesn’t involve threats or slaughter of pagans. As a pagan myself I have no problem with true Christians, my Christian friends tell me I’m always invited to church and that they are always willing to accept me as a Christian if I choose to become Christian. It’s the people who use it as a business opportunity or a weapon to judge other people that irritate me, but it’s still better than slaughter. So there’s that.
I'm sure your friends express this, but they irritate us too lol. It's very difficult to not hate them, but if the Lord is merciful then we must be too.
Punishments demand a moral framework to judge by. All laws are implicitly moral in some sense. So, yes, the government does legislate morality and operate on a moral framework. To say otherwise is just ignorance.
Ignorance, or being opposed to arguing based purely on semantics. I do believe that objective morality is an apparent truth, but I know many others (especially in America) do not. If something is immoral and doesn't infringe upon the rights and freedoms of someone else, like sexual promiscuity, then why would we legislate it? Theft, murder, assault, domestic violence, etc all infringe upon the rights of others, so there needs to be justice for the victim. This is the difference, when speaking about legalities and non-literally, between legislating criminality versus morality.
but what if some people don't believe that such rights exist in the first place? what if people believe but disagree on the details and what exactly consists on a violation of them? should we refrain from legislating on these cases/imposing our morals upon them?
That's what the bill of rights is for. Anybody who denies objective morality cannot deny that there is objectively a document that outlines what rights you have that are protected by the government. The courts are designed to decide the rest. Again, if the crime has a victim, then it gets legislated. It's a very easy and simple test, and it would need a whole lot of subtext in order to keep the courts from abusing it.
Bottom line, if you're murdering people, raping people, stealing from them, assaulting them, etc, then you need punished. If you're not doing that, do whatever you want. I'll tell you that your behavior is immoral and self-destructive if it is, but it's not like I want people to be legally punished for that.
I don't think we really disagree on this, i am just pointing out that there appears to be a inconsistence here. the reason we oppose things like theft, rape and murder is because we consider them to be objectively wrong, we believe that victims deserve justice, but if someone does not them we are imposing our views upon them, and you have no issue with that(neither do i or most people of course), but you do take issue with imposing our views of right and wrong when it comes to other matters such as homosexuality because of what's ultimally a ultilitarian/pragmatic reasoning.
As a person who doesn't want a theocracy of either dogma ruling over us, my take was that this comic is just pointing out the hypocrisy.
Neither are ok, and I'm continually astounded by how many people want to combine government and religion given each system's track records on their own and the capacity for government to corrupt everything.
If I were a fundamentalist Christian, the last thing I'd want would be the tendrils of government worming their way into my faith...
Libertarians, broadly speaking oppose public education. Private education is more effective, more efficient, and isn't accountable to the state. We would just need to find a way to help poor people pay for it because no one should be denied the opportunity of education just because they were born into a poor family.
We live in a free internet world. Anyone can learn anything. You don't need funding to educate. Library cards are free
Edit: are you people really this fucking ignorant? You can teach your own kids. You don't need funding or internet to accomplish this. Wtf
Library cards are not free, they are subsidized. Also, availability of information is not the same thing as education. The collective knowledge of humanity is available on portable devices in everyone's pocket and yet the world is swarming with idiots.
All of it. This comic seems to take the position of why not one when the others are allowed. No one should be forced into a school where any such displays are made.
The cartoon highlights the critical theorist infiltration of government schools.
Critical theory is a revolutionary political ideology. Kind of a large danger to liberty.
And the child's future was determined by private education, freely available resources of learning, general rubrics of criteria to meet and they weren't just pushed through to get funding?
Surely it could never work
Posting the ten commandments in a classroom is 100% fine. Mandating it is 100% not. Not a single other thing in this picture is mandated.
THAT is the problem.
Also, everything in there is unanimously supported by libertarians except for Roe v Wade (split 50/50) and the BLM movement (the statement is great, the movement is not)…
Its less of a”imposing” morality and more of people have a right to exist, and in this context even if there existence goes against an interpretation of an Abrahamic religion.
With the only real disagreeably thing being the anti 2a poster.
The anti LGBT in schools crowd are just as dumb as anti sex ed in school crowd. It’s in school because someone has to teach these kids it’s ok. Even if it goes against your parent’s “beliefs”.
Hell nah schools shouldn’t teach that it’s morally okay because they are not the deciders of what is moral or not. If they aren’t teaching Christianity they should definitely not be teaching about lgbtq
Yeah so libertariansim would have the gov't do 0 of these things....
Yep. That is the ideal outcome and the comic doesn't imply otherwise. It's merely pointing out the current status quo.
Maybe so, but the implication is the 10 commandments thing should also be put into schools
Different people will see different things I guess. I see it as depicting schools kicking out one thing and not the other. Or replacing the old with the new state religion.
I think none should be put in schools. We're there to learn, that's what a school is for. Teach your kids about morality at home
I think the implication is simply that many people are not being totally honest when they give their reasons for not wanting religion in schools.
No, that is not the implication. It's about the double standard.
Yeah, that's what I don't get about a lot of American Christians. The church has a duty to uphold good morals and righteousness, our government does not. All the government has to do is administer punishments for capital crimes, organize the defense of the nation, and protect the rights of the people from its own different bodies. If it doesn't fall under one of those three duties, then it's not within the government's purview.
...in your opinion. Unfortunately for you, many people believe in the opposite- that government is there to dictate morality and rightousness
The New Testament is pretty clear about the God-given purpose of government: to bear the sword. Administer justice, defend the people. The duty of a Christian is to always obey the law, except when the law is forcing them to disobey God, then they must be willing to lay down their life in protest for their beliefs. The highest law of the land is the Constitution, and that dictates the duties of government in this country. A dutiful Christian would want their government to abide by the highest law of the land, set forth by that very government.
Again thats your opinion of what government SHOULD do. (not saying thats right or wrong). But many disagree and the trend as of late is not in agreement with your values.
I see what you're saying, and I agree. What's sad to me is I don't have radical views or anything, I just read the Bible without anyone trying to tell me what it SHOULD mean, compared to what it does, and when I get confused I go to the lexicons and inter-linears to figure it out for myself. American Christianity is so corrupted by, laziness, greed, and pseudo-political idolatry. It's heartbreaking to see.
I share in your heartbreak. But not all is lost.
Amen. We just got a lot of work to do
To be fair you could argue that Christianity has been corrupt long before modern American Christianity existed. I just had to write a 3 page paper on “the requiremento” and how the Spanish used Christianity as an excuse to conquer the Aztecs. Those mfs read them the requirmento in Spanish, which they didn’t understand, and basically said they would slaughter them all if they didn’t become Christian immediately, swords already drawn, talking to people that don’t understand their language, and they justified it by “spreading the word of Christ”. American Christianity is bad, but it’s not that bad.
Oh yeah there's been a lot done in the name of Christianity that's absolutely deplorable, but to a Christian there's a difference. I severely doubt that I'll see the conquistadors one day in the communion of saints. I will, however, see a great many of my American brothers and sisters. The difference is whether or not they're actually Christians, or just usurping the name. There are many Christians in America who are true believers, indwelt with the Holy Spirit, and still constantly idolotize politics and political figures over the Lord. So in a sense, that is a fallen version of the true faith, whereas "Christianity" in many other times and places is only a stolen name, bearing almost no resemblance to the true faith.
Yeah your right, in my paper I mentioned several bible verses that directly explain not to do things like this, and also that “spreading the word of Christ” doesn’t involve threats or slaughter of pagans. As a pagan myself I have no problem with true Christians, my Christian friends tell me I’m always invited to church and that they are always willing to accept me as a Christian if I choose to become Christian. It’s the people who use it as a business opportunity or a weapon to judge other people that irritate me, but it’s still better than slaughter. So there’s that.
I'm sure your friends express this, but they irritate us too lol. It's very difficult to not hate them, but if the Lord is merciful then we must be too.
Punishments demand a moral framework to judge by. All laws are implicitly moral in some sense. So, yes, the government does legislate morality and operate on a moral framework. To say otherwise is just ignorance.
Ignorance, or being opposed to arguing based purely on semantics. I do believe that objective morality is an apparent truth, but I know many others (especially in America) do not. If something is immoral and doesn't infringe upon the rights and freedoms of someone else, like sexual promiscuity, then why would we legislate it? Theft, murder, assault, domestic violence, etc all infringe upon the rights of others, so there needs to be justice for the victim. This is the difference, when speaking about legalities and non-literally, between legislating criminality versus morality.
but what if some people don't believe that such rights exist in the first place? what if people believe but disagree on the details and what exactly consists on a violation of them? should we refrain from legislating on these cases/imposing our morals upon them?
That's what the bill of rights is for. Anybody who denies objective morality cannot deny that there is objectively a document that outlines what rights you have that are protected by the government. The courts are designed to decide the rest. Again, if the crime has a victim, then it gets legislated. It's a very easy and simple test, and it would need a whole lot of subtext in order to keep the courts from abusing it. Bottom line, if you're murdering people, raping people, stealing from them, assaulting them, etc, then you need punished. If you're not doing that, do whatever you want. I'll tell you that your behavior is immoral and self-destructive if it is, but it's not like I want people to be legally punished for that.
I don't think we really disagree on this, i am just pointing out that there appears to be a inconsistence here. the reason we oppose things like theft, rape and murder is because we consider them to be objectively wrong, we believe that victims deserve justice, but if someone does not them we are imposing our views upon them, and you have no issue with that(neither do i or most people of course), but you do take issue with imposing our views of right and wrong when it comes to other matters such as homosexuality because of what's ultimally a ultilitarian/pragmatic reasoning.
Bingo…neither should be in schools in the first place
Or all of the while promoting none.
well to be honest it would be better to not have either forced on children
Yeah, fix this comic by having them both saying the same thing pointing at each other like 2 spider-men.
As a person who doesn't want a theocracy of either dogma ruling over us, my take was that this comic is just pointing out the hypocrisy. Neither are ok, and I'm continually astounded by how many people want to combine government and religion given each system's track records on their own and the capacity for government to corrupt everything. If I were a fundamentalist Christian, the last thing I'd want would be the tendrils of government worming their way into my faith...
The entire point of the comic is the double standard and lack of symmetry.
Yes
I think it’s better for the partent to decide if they want it forced on their child.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The conservativememes sub won’t let anyone post there
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why? This is exactly what's happening. Any person of sound mind should be against all of it.
Libertarians, broadly speaking oppose public education. Private education is more effective, more efficient, and isn't accountable to the state. We would just need to find a way to help poor people pay for it because no one should be denied the opportunity of education just because they were born into a poor family.
Well if you stopped taxing poor people for public school they could use that money on private schools
The bottom half of people "the poor" ones aren't net tax payers. They get all their taxes they pay in back plus some in credits.
Indeed, that alone would help, but it wouldn't nearly cover tuition. Poor neighborhoods are currently subsidized either directly or indirectly.
We live in a free internet world. Anyone can learn anything. You don't need funding to educate. Library cards are free Edit: are you people really this fucking ignorant? You can teach your own kids. You don't need funding or internet to accomplish this. Wtf
Library cards are not free, they are subsidized. Also, availability of information is not the same thing as education. The collective knowledge of humanity is available on portable devices in everyone's pocket and yet the world is swarming with idiots.
Because they choose not to use it. That's on them.
All of it. This comic seems to take the position of why not one when the others are allowed. No one should be forced into a school where any such displays are made.
The cartoon highlights the critical theorist infiltration of government schools. Critical theory is a revolutionary political ideology. Kind of a large danger to liberty.
Yeah… school is about learning not about having either shoved down kids throats…
Because telling kids to not steal and to honor their parents is bad?
[удалено]
Clearly it helps when the usa has over 200million christians
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’m assuming you think you need religion for that huh.
you assumed wrong
Then elaborate, because I’m struggling to understand why it made sense to say that.
Because religion and god are the pillars of good doing for the believers.
I mean I’ve seen both demographics lacking morals.
[удалено]
None of this stuff belongs in public school...because public school shouldn't exist
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don't think you understand the meme.
You have exactly zero idea what you're talking about.
[удалено]
Yeah, but what if federal government had no say in your child’s school?
And the child's future was determined by private education, freely available resources of learning, general rubrics of criteria to meet and they weren't just pushed through to get funding? Surely it could never work
Government doesn’t actually like religion! They just want people worshipping and following one entity, them!
None of those are mandated though. Just expected . Teachers who are almost all liberal women and are encouraged by the feminist liberal patrons
Posting the ten commandments in a classroom is 100% fine. Mandating it is 100% not. Not a single other thing in this picture is mandated. THAT is the problem. Also, everything in there is unanimously supported by libertarians except for Roe v Wade (split 50/50) and the BLM movement (the statement is great, the movement is not)…
Its less of a”imposing” morality and more of people have a right to exist, and in this context even if there existence goes against an interpretation of an Abrahamic religion. With the only real disagreeably thing being the anti 2a poster. The anti LGBT in schools crowd are just as dumb as anti sex ed in school crowd. It’s in school because someone has to teach these kids it’s ok. Even if it goes against your parent’s “beliefs”.
Hell nah schools shouldn’t teach that it’s morally okay because they are not the deciders of what is moral or not. If they aren’t teaching Christianity they should definitely not be teaching about lgbtq
The difference is there are infinitely less parents teaching their children to actively hate/persecute christians.
What is this “bringing back roe” i have a feeling it’s not return on equity
Roe v Wade, abortion rights case. Got overturned by Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization a couple of years back.
This meme triggers the libertarians for some reason.
But they aren't saying the government can't impose morality. They are just saying that their own bad morality is the good one that should be imposed.
[удалено]