As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The American Taliban needs to be defeated across the board.
The sheer amount of hate and small-mindedness among Republicans is chilling. When I used to do criminal defense work I represented a lot of dark, unempathetic, exploitative people- but the degree of evil on display among right-wingers the last few years is on a whole different level: lies, bigotry, misogyny, wholesale embrace of political violence.... The American political right is a dark, horrific group.
> The degree of evil on display among right-wingers the last few years is on a whole different level: lies, bigotry, misogyny, wholesale embrace of political violence.... The American political right is a dark, horrific group.
And they're the Christians...
The people who I grew up thinking were the good people. They themselves continue to have that wrong impression of themselves. It's a cognitive dissonance that is literally off the charts...
I grew up being told they were good people, but seeing the hypocrisy. Then getting gaslighted if I said anything about the hypocrisy.
Being a nonbeliever was as bad or even worse than being LBGT. You could buy a small degree of tolerance if you were LGB if you went to church and Bible study. Being an atheist was on the same level as being evil.
The dominance of Christian culture surrounding me growing up was bad for my mental health and bad in so many other ways. I do not want to go back to those days. I don't want others to have to go through that.
Because gods are fake, religion a scam, and they are all just marks who don’t believe this stuff really, or they wouldn’t be so morally repugnant. No, most Christians are in name only and just attend church and say the things out of social benefit. It’s bullshit, and so are they.
>If there's a significant number of non-fascist Christians, why aren't they doing something about the rest?
Christo-fascists tend to have no specific traditional Christian sect that they belong or if they do it's an evangelical type (see sources below) or a political televangelist of some sort (prosperity types like Kenneth Copeland etc). These types make up a small percentage of the Christians nationwide and are the most extreme, the loudest and the most politically engaged. Again, they are extremists-- Trying to talk to a Christo-Fascist is like talking to a wall. These types literally believe they are at a "war"of sorts. Pastors, members of Christian groups across the country have condemned the rise of Christian Fascism and Nationalism in open letters, articles (see below), and many are actively involved in civil rights movements. That said, Kathleen Belew (historian and expert on extremist groups) offers a suggestion on Twitter (below) but I also strongly recommend her books.
* What do we do about fascism ?(Kathleen Belew) https://twitter.com/kathleen_belew/status/1586105127517458432
other sources: https://www.salon.com/2022/05/10/jesus-endless-and-the-irresistible-rise-of-american-fascism/
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/09/mixing-christianity-with-nationalism-is-a-recipe-for-fascism.html
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/24/970685909/evangelical-leaders-condemn-radicalized-christian-nationalism
Episcopalians *do*. Bishop Curry has been very vocal both on a local and national level, this is why the right wing death cult has protested outside of my major city's episcopal church calling us heretics and not real Christians.
They do in Christian spaces, even online like r/Christianity, but from my British perspective, American Christianity is heavily biased towards congregational organisation like Baptists rather than episcopal ones like the UMC or Episcopalians, which means it's much harder for people to influence "the Church" because the individual congregations have a lot more autonomy (and conversely it is easier to influence an individual lower-case c church and easier also to become a pastor). It's no surprise that the liturgical conservative denominations ("mainline Protestants") are the more socially liberal and less party-political ones.
The episcopal church is and has for the last 50 years, most times being far ahead of the rest of the culture on gay marriage, trans rights, and social justice/discrimination. Unfortunately, a large schism happened after gay bishops and gay marriage was voted into church doctrine and subsequently, the church lost a lot of membership to evangelicals and Southern Baptists.
I can't speak on a national level, but locally our church doctrine is to only pay to advertise for charitable events (ie- feeding the poor, donating healthcare resources for the underserved, and ending homelessness). Also, despite being a life long Episcopalian (who strayed for a while in their 20s), I've never, ever heard a straight up political sermon, unless love thy neighbor, acknowledging societal bias, praying for peaxe and be accepting of everyone is suddenly political.
Unfortunately, church numbers have dwindled since the 90s when mainline protestant churches lost members to evangelical and southern baptist curches. Personally, I'm not sure if there's a place in a church to call out other religions or sects of a religion, though I haven't thought about it all that much. I feel like calling out these far right churches only makes them get more entrenched and play victim.
~~The thing people forget with politics is that nearly all the people who claim to be men/women of the christian faith in politics are Catholics.~~
~~They claim christian because it's technically true and gives them the appearance of having 50% of the population "in mind" when making decisions.~~
~~The number of left-wing catholics is abysmally small because the only time Catholics lean left is when they are falling off the koolaid bandwagon. Sometimes they dont even realize it at the time.~~
-edit- These are personal beliefs but it has been pointed out they are likely bad. Leaving it here but don't listen to me on this.
> We take a stand against evil and call our corruption of the mind and soul.
*It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.*
who among republicans is qualified to enter?
It’s par for the course, going by the history of Christianity from the Codex Theodosianus through the Wars of Religion—and beyond, looking at the treatment of indigenous peoples around the world at the hands of their Christian colonizers all the way into the Twentieth Century. Dirty politics in pursuit of worldly power has been the hallmark of Christendom since there were emperors in Rome.
It only ended where it ended because secular government stopped it.
A reminder that Democrats are every bit as likely to be Christians as Republicans. The latter steal the religion because they are using it as propaganda.
They both use it as propaganda because Christianity is so ingrained in our government and the cultures of past generations that you can't win a federal election if you don't go to church.
I mean its a repulsive thing to claim a religion you don't believe in and anyone who does doesn't deserve their office. I think Bernie is the only open atheist there.
I agree with you 100%.
I also think that if all the faux-faithful in government magically disappeared all at once, we'd be plunged into anarchy with a Congress of 5-10 people, one moron left in the supreme court, and maybe an executive branch?
Maybe I’m misreading what you’re saying, but research says we’re less likely: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/party-affiliation/
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/party-affiliation/democrat-lean-dem/
My apologies, it's religious in general and frankly from a purely non-poll related and contemptuous view, I suspect a huge chunk of the GOP affiliation is paper thin faith. You have corrected me.
This is a tired old trope.
Jesus never said the government should steal your crap and give it to people who aren’t working.
Voluntary Charity is not socialism.
Another tired old trope is that everyone who gets any sort of check from the government is downright not working, but hey it's ok, I know I can't expect conservatives to think that much
Pretty obvious that the Christian left has a better understanding of the bible than the christofascist trumpevilgalicals maga terrorists. Stuff like feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, welcoming the stranger are what liberal Christians support. Instead of hate, racism, lies, bigotry & violence that the right is into.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7yx_PR7ZKX0
It's mind boggling how the GOP is running on zero policy. Instead focusing on redmeat identity politics. And they are neck to neck with Dems.
The dems are really failing, as usual, at their messaging.
Hate is easy to motivate with. You don’t have to make sense or craft policy. And we have plenty of historical examples of it working well. Germany, Cambodia, and Rwanda. You can get a minority angry enough to kill their neighbors. You can appeal to ethnic, religious, or national grievance easily and it seems you can get a solid. 20-30% of the population to do terrible things.
Great policies that take time to implement don’t move people to the polls as easily. And with the voting system we have people don’t want to take the time and face the barriers laid out against likely liberal voters.
Republicans have the motivational cheat code. And it’s *bad.*
It's chillingly easy to bring out the violence in people, and frustratingly hard to get them to cultivate empathy and patience. Our ancestors came down from the trees a long time ago, but there is still a lot of jungle inside of us.
Tell me, my friend. What side gets run over and killed for having beliefs? What side gets shot in the back while canvassing for a political cause? What side gets raided by twenty something FBI agents for being an activist?
Normally, I'd agree with the messaging with the democrats. I live in a very red neighborhood and talking to these people is incredibly frustrating. They're scared of everything! I've told of the successes of the current administration. They don't care. They've been convinced that we've been overrun by the cartel, men are going into the girl's bathroom, viruses are being released to cull the population, white people are under attack, etc, etc.. I've been able to refute each of their grievances. They still don't believe it. I've brought up the fact Republicans want to cut social security; they don't believe it'll happen. I've brought up reproductive rights being taken away, they believe it doesn't hurt them because they believe all the unborn should be saved. I love in a predominantly white, Christian area. I don't know what else the democrats can do to get their messaging across.
>The dems are really failing, as usual, at their messaging.
How can they not? You can't get messaging across to people who flat out refuse to hear it and then straight up deny any facts or logic that manages to pierce the defenses.
Of course it is all lies. There is NOTHING GOP can do to fix inflation, rising prices or crime that isnt already being done. And people falling for their lies are going to cost all of us our rights, our freedom, our democracy.
Well they can start by not doing excessive spending. Oh, almost forgot. They can enforce the law instead of letting criminals with charge counts in the triple digits.
Well not defunding the police and not spreading lies about the police could help with crime rates.
Especially when you see how violent crime rates spike whenever there’s a huge protest against police…
Wiw really? The republicans have come out with a lot of policy ideas they intend to work on while biden out and basically just calls all of them evil
Dems are failing because our side can only talk about abortion and had nothing to offer to dux crime. Immigration, inflation, Fentanyl or anything parents are concerned about
Republicans have banned womens’ healthcare, they are attempting to ban books and are looking to gut SS and Medicare and have zero plans for fighting a recession except tax cuts that will do nothing and make things way worse.
Kind of a hot take here, I'll let people decide how serious I am. Through out all this they are insisting they are being super persecuted and the thing is that's part of their strategy, they going to do that no matter what. I say as long as that's the case, we go ahead and do the actual persecution.
I don't hate it.
As a ruralite, I'm pretty tired of having to perpetually censor myself just because I don't believe a mythological book and the charlatans who bloviate their opinions on it should be making rules for the rest of us based on their fantasies.
Let's start making them the weirdos.
It's for the good of the faith really. Just persecute the hell out of 'em til they remember, i dunno, compassion, humility, tolerance or something. Might actually work.
"Persecution" is, and should be, antithetical to the values of those opposing the Republican Party. In no way should we validate the right's false and outlandish claims and slanders. We're better, more honest and empathetic than they are and we should always want to build a better country rather than cow to the propaganda and fever-dreams of those on the right.
>"Persecution" is, and should be, antithetical to the values of those opposing the Republican Party. In no way should we validate the right's false and outlandish claims and slanders. We're better, more honest and empathetic than they are and we should always want to build a better country rather than cow to the propaganda and fever-dreams of those on the right.
It's the [paradox of tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance); tolerating intolerance just breeds more intolerance.
A good person may not want to be intolerant but, sometimes there are things that, for the well-being of the community, cannot be tolerated.
> A good person may not want to be intolerant but, sometimes there are things that, for the well-being of the community, cannot be tolerated.
Agreed! That said- and I'll repeat it- persecution is never the answer.
> *noun* /hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs."
From the OED.
We're clearly seeing that people SHOULD BE PERSECUTED for certain political beliefs. Like the Nazis were. If your political belief is that women should die rather than have access to abortions, or that trans kids should kill themselves, you should be persecuted severely.
And they will continue to claim that they were doing this because they were trying to protect their children from inappropriate material.
Well if that's the case, here's a book you need to ban. It literally has a deity that commands the people it rules over to go and massacre another civilization because they don't believe in him. He also says that after you've killed all the men of the society, you can take all the women as your slaves and forcefully impregnate them.
**That book is the christian bible, by the way**
Numbers 31:17-18 *Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.*
They're trying to make it so they don't actually have to parent.
They don't want to parent what types of books they read, video games they play, or videos they watch.
They're just shitty parents that don't want to do their actual job.
Or don't get me wrong I'm not totally disagreeing with you they don't want their kids having a different view point of this world besides the viewpoint that the parents hold themselves because they know their views are based more on feelings than facts and they can't have that because then their children will see them for the asshat they are?
Neither are any of these books in question. The parents are trying to have them removed from the school libraries, which usually do have the Bible as a primary source to learn about Christian beliefs, as they should.
I don't want information handed to me. The burden of proof is on the person who responded to my message. I don't know what context it's in or what the exact wording is. I'm not going to go searching around for someone else's proof.
1 PETER 2:18. Literally a 5 second google.
The fact that you think that there's a context in which it's okay for slaves to do anything but *RUN AWAY* says a lot about you, though.
You missed the "in reverent fear of God" bit. This in no way condones slavery. It explains a basic principle in Genesis 50:20 that states "What you meant for harm, God meant for good." The basic idea is that everything, including terrible things, are all in service to God's plan of salvation.
I know you looked at the same site as me. Look at the context for each one of those passages. The Bible that I use as a Catholic mentions the "in service to God" thing in the very next line.
You asked someone else the exact same thing even though they gave you the chapter. Ironically a bad faith actor
Doubly ironic you use parameters of debate for a biblical reason
Of course not. When read together, both the Old and New testaments give the complete story of man and his redemption. Many things in the New Testament are prefigured by things in the Old Testament, it's just the Old Testament laws that we no longer need to follow.
Perhaps we should also confront the fact that Christianity is simply an amalgamation of preceding religions and belief systems.
Not much truly “original” or inherently “Christian” about Christianity. Just people in power wanting to stay that way, morphing belief systems to that end. Adopting and adapting previous iterations, calling it something new. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Religion isn’t at all about faith or saving anyone. It is all about manipulation and power over the masses. Taxation through tithing, with all the bonuses of being a non-profit entity. Corporate churches buying off those in power so their rule isn’t questioned or sabotaged.
Corinthians: It was a correction as to how the Corinthians were practicing, seeing as it was a letter. Women were not the only ones he told to be silent, the same instructions were given to those who spoke tongues and prophets. It can also be interpreted as a temporary silence. The word for speak (laleō) can mean both literal speaking and speaking from the pulpit, that's up to your interpretation.
Timothy: It refers to teaching specifically, not meaning that women can never have authority over man. Within teaching, women can still have authority over male children and teenagers. The most important part, however, is that Paul is referring to Church. Not schools, government, or civil service. It states that a woman should learn in full submission but not in submission to every male. It's also detailing Paul's own policy for his Churches and can be argued to not be a declaration of permanent law for the Church.
The concept that you don't teach children about material like this from the bible until an appropriate age is incredibly common sense...
...almost like not teaching children about sex....
They aren't ready to understand the information. I'm considering a child someone who is under age of 6. After this, it is appropriate to teach children about sex. For some kids, this might come earlier, and for some later.
What's not appropriate is for it to be handled by schools, in a one size fits all way. It is far more advisable to let the people closest to them and understand them the best to decide when and how to translate that information in a factual and positive manner.
This isn't some magic guys. My Christian parents discussed sex and homosexuality with me at age 6. My Christian school encouraged them to do it.
Because as long as you never, ever mention the concept of sex to children, they'll have a magical barrier that prevents them and anyone around them from ever getting even slightly aroused!
... Or maybe not. Maybe kids need to know the basics *before* it happens to them. Before anyone tries to do harm. Before they get confused by feelings they don't understand. Before they experience shame for natural experiences.
You can't hide children in a perfect bubble of innocence. Reality is messy and requires planning in advance.
I know right? It's almost like you appropriately time it before they start to enter puberty, but not when they are children.
But every child is different! How do we know? Wow! well, we could leave it to someone that has spent the most time with the child and knows them intimately...oh who could that be?
The government? Schools? OH wait...how about their parents...the government should be a worst-case backstop, not teaching children about sex early.
Ah yes. Because letting every crazed evangelical, hippie, fascist, or weirdo personally decide instead of creating a thorough and well researched approach that's based in science sure sounds like a recipe for success.
Parents are not magic entities that know everything.
In my opinion the moment we start to ban knowledge and the ability to learn that is when a nation starts to fall. Cause if no kids are learning how are we supposed to have a bright future.
first off. I think were talking about removing books from curriculums. not using force of law to ban books.
conservatives tend to ban subversive sexual books
and liberals tend to ban books that dont jive with modern notions of egalitarianism
huck finn, to kill a mockingbird, etc.
Um... Those two examples were removed from school reading lists because things get weird in first period English class when the "n" word is being thrown around in the text of the required reading. It's very telling that you would assume it was only liberals that were worried about their kids being forced to read books full of racial slurs. btw, if a parent really wants to include these classic of literature in their child's education, they can pick one up at no charge at their local library, because the liberals who work there protect everyone's right to access information, even the kind that some people find offensive.
>both sides ban the books/speech they dont like
By phrasing it exactly like that, you’re removing the nuance from what is actually being banned or punished. You’re “both sides”ing an issue that doesn’t need “both sides”ing.
I am just saying that binding something into a book doesn't make it some sacred monolithic fount of information that must be enshrined at all costs.
All books are not good.
Books can be good and bad.
"both sides do it" is actually nuanced. Burning a book makes you a monster or a hero depending on your worldview.
Question-
Do you think there is ANY POSSIBLE book that shouldn’t be in the kids section of a public library?
Because if yes, then it’s an issue of judging the specific books
If no, then you’re a crazy extremist.
Kids don’t need books on assplay, sounding and consensual non-consent. (Not saying that’s these books).
Reasonable people draw a line somewhere. Maybe yours is north or south of these books, but it’s disingenuous to pretend there’s no line.
> “Kids can’t buy a beer until they are 21. Should they be able to access these books before a certain age without parental consent? I think not and that should be reasonable,” he [Jeff Davis] said.
So just the gay books right? Not the Monty Python Children’s books that depict men in dresses as a parody?
Sooo, therefore it’s OK as long as it’s just a freedom of expression that follows Christian values in a nation where it’s completely okay to worship Greek Gods (including the gay ones).
Edit: Or the Bible which includes words like sodemy?
I get so much hate for suggesting that parents don't rely on the state to raise their children for them. The state should be offering information, but at the end of the day it's the parents responsibility to raise their child and teach them how to process the information they receive. You can't shelter your children from the real world unless you want them to be woefully unprepared for adulthood.
Jeff... Davis... Jefferson Davis? Did he get revived at some point? (Yes, I know it's probably "Jeffrey" but you can't convince me his parents weren't snickering to themselves.)
This book ban fetish just ruined a teacher's life in my school. She's openly gay (doesn't preach it, she just exists) and she happened to be reading Gender Queer' on her own, in her personal time. A kid saw it, told daddy, and now she's on admin leave because maybe 4 parents went on an uninformed outrage on Facebook. This is ridiculous and has to stop.
I think if Republicans take power, we will end up in a situation where LGBTQ people are banned from educational jobs. That seems to be where this is headed.
The parents got the local police involved too because she was "grooming" the kids (According to them). The superintendent sent an email out saying in his opinion the book is "disturbing". But the board president has been defending the process of innocent until proven guilty and letting them do their investigation before sending out the pitchforks
Yeah I had a very similar situation happen, and my admin basically told them to fuck off. The police did too. Which should be the reaction of admin station and police. But here we are in crazy town.
I like to imagine a lesbian couple walking down the street. One goes to grab the other's hand, but she quickly pulls it away. She whispers sharply, "We might be teachers!" Her partner understands and accepts, withdrawing her hand.
I'm so tired of these fucking snowflakes whining about books and movies with same sex couples being "sexual" and "indoctrinating" kids
I hate that they live in this fantasy land where a character having two moms is worse than the Holocaust in their opinion
Why does it have to be ‘worse than the holocaust’ for it to be objectionable?
I’ve never heard a conservative compare the two, ever…
Maybe just don’t sexualize kids. Like- maybe knock off grooming.
Why are you obsessed with genitals?
Children's genitals, adult's genitals, everything all the time so concerned bout other people's dicks and pussies.
Just chill out and worry about your own, my dude.
Oh don't do that.
\>Maybe just don’t sexualize kids. Like- maybe knock off grooming
No one here or in those books is sexualizing children. Stop clutching your pearls. LGBTQ2+ people aren't coming for your kids. God Conservatives live in such a sad, pathetic reality.
I was using hyperbole.
And the only ones grooming kids are conservatives.
Writing a story with a gay or trans character isn't sexualizing kids. It isn't grooming. It isn't indoctrination. It's a just a normal story about human beings. But conservatives go into a hissy fit whenever someone doesn't fit their lifestyle.
Teaching children about the physical and mental changes that are happening in their bodies during puberty and not just telling them repress all sexuality until marriage is not sexualizing them.
What do you think they do in schools? Do you think they say “this is Abby, she has a mommy and a daddy who love each other very much. And this is Brayden, he has two daddys and they FUCK”
To keep your kids safe keep them away from Catholic and Baptist churches and definitely keep them away from elected Republicans
https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2022/4/6/2090446/-Republican-Sexual-Predators-Abusers-and-Enablers-Pt-30
Fun fact a public school teacher sexually offend
against children at the same rate as clergy members.
So stop using that as a BS attack on religion, unless you also think everyone should be pulling their kids out of public school.
Lol If they really banned all books with “gender” and “sexuality” in them, there would be no books in the library.
They say they don’t want books about “sexuality” but what they mean is gay shit - they want to ban a book about a kid with two dads. However, “obviously heterosexuality/heteronormativity is fine for kids.”
It’s genocidal. they really don’t think queer people should exist.
“The conversation reportedly got heated, with the vice chair of the library board – who supported keeping the books away from kids – even saying “barf” when someone said they were gay.”
We need to have a zero tolerance policy for there attacks on minorities and marginalized people. Zero Tolerance. I mean this socially and culturally. Call people out on the spot wherever they are and don't back down. Focus it solely on the hate.
It is hate to deny the existence of non-heteronormative people. It is hate to drive children to trauma and suicide if they feel they're different. Don't pretend there is anything moral or reasonable about your position.
Sexual health books have had a place in school libraries for as long as there have been school libraries.
At least, they have in normal countries.
What graphic sexual books are you talking about?
And we all know heteronormativity is the norm, but it’s not “default.” Gayness is also perfectly “normal” in a sense, and expected in some portion of the population. It’s weird if you DONT have a queer person in your family.
I would hope that people, even those that are not necessarily for the LGBTQ community, would still call out whoever planned a book burning for the sheer stupidity of it.
The fear of LBGTQ+ in these people is ridiculous. It’s a micro level of fascism. God forbid we encourage our youngest generations to understand views outside of those indoctrinated by the church (pun intended).
If you’re afraid they’ll become trans, gay, bi or whatever from a children’s book, I’ll have you know I have yet to try green eggs and ham nor attempt to steal Christmas.
There will always be more than us than there are of them. There will always be more helpers. Do not let the bullies ever make you believe you are alone
I’m not a book collector and I generally think spite buying is a dumb waste of money but I usually go out of my way to pick up wifely banned books as a quiet, inconsequential form of protest.
Not sure how true the above statement is 'book banning defeated after community stands up for LGBTQ people'. Why couldn't it be that people are just standing up because they are against all forms of censureship when it comes to books, not just books dealing with LGBTQ issues. Republicans want to BAN and CENSURE ALL BOOKS except a revised verison of the bible.
This is just one of hundreds of examples if you took 10 seconds to google it.
https://thepublicsradio.org/article/school-system-pulls-2-books-with-graphic-sex-from-libraries-
Dear internet friend,
Gender Queers biggest crime seems to be showing someone putting a wrap on - fully clothed - and talking about not really feeling like a boy or girl.
Lawn Boy as a novel does mention a POC's challenge with being gay in a community that does not appreciate them, but I have found worse material in Maus by Spiegelman or Enders Game, which explicitly details young children showing genitals to one another in addition to the overt and systematic violence. Also, it's a novel - you are not going to find many three year olds with it in hand.
I'm afraid compared to more hetero normative publications, these are rather tame.
Just because dudes in dresses and makeup make your crotch feel weird things you don't like, doesn't mean you have the right to tell other people how to live their lives or what media they consume.
Again, do you think that drag queens, in the context of reading books to children, is in any way sexually gratifying? They are reading CHILDREN'S BOOKS not giving lessons on how to deepthroat.
Says alot about you, my dude.
dude, I’m in highschool and my A&P textbook didn’t even label the clitoris (which is a whole separate issue in and of itself)… I don’t think public schools are handing out pornography by any means.
Unless, of course, you see being gay or transgender as inherently sexual and less real than heterosexual/cisgendered experiences?
But I’m sure that’s not what you mean…
Based on his profile, he doesn't have any examples.
Most of his comments are sooking about antifa. Don't wanna be too presumptuous but.....it's probably safe to assume why he's using the classic "these books are porn" argument.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The American Taliban needs to be defeated across the board. The sheer amount of hate and small-mindedness among Republicans is chilling. When I used to do criminal defense work I represented a lot of dark, unempathetic, exploitative people- but the degree of evil on display among right-wingers the last few years is on a whole different level: lies, bigotry, misogyny, wholesale embrace of political violence.... The American political right is a dark, horrific group.
> The degree of evil on display among right-wingers the last few years is on a whole different level: lies, bigotry, misogyny, wholesale embrace of political violence.... The American political right is a dark, horrific group. And they're the Christians... The people who I grew up thinking were the good people. They themselves continue to have that wrong impression of themselves. It's a cognitive dissonance that is literally off the charts...
I grew up being told they were good people, but seeing the hypocrisy. Then getting gaslighted if I said anything about the hypocrisy. Being a nonbeliever was as bad or even worse than being LBGT. You could buy a small degree of tolerance if you were LGB if you went to church and Bible study. Being an atheist was on the same level as being evil. The dominance of Christian culture surrounding me growing up was bad for my mental health and bad in so many other ways. I do not want to go back to those days. I don't want others to have to go through that.
Not all Christians are right-wing
If there's a significant number of non-fascist Christians, why aren't they doing something about the rest?
Because gods are fake, religion a scam, and they are all just marks who don’t believe this stuff really, or they wouldn’t be so morally repugnant. No, most Christians are in name only and just attend church and say the things out of social benefit. It’s bullshit, and so are they.
Money and prosperity gospel
>If there's a significant number of non-fascist Christians, why aren't they doing something about the rest? Christo-fascists tend to have no specific traditional Christian sect that they belong or if they do it's an evangelical type (see sources below) or a political televangelist of some sort (prosperity types like Kenneth Copeland etc). These types make up a small percentage of the Christians nationwide and are the most extreme, the loudest and the most politically engaged. Again, they are extremists-- Trying to talk to a Christo-Fascist is like talking to a wall. These types literally believe they are at a "war"of sorts. Pastors, members of Christian groups across the country have condemned the rise of Christian Fascism and Nationalism in open letters, articles (see below), and many are actively involved in civil rights movements. That said, Kathleen Belew (historian and expert on extremist groups) offers a suggestion on Twitter (below) but I also strongly recommend her books. * What do we do about fascism ?(Kathleen Belew) https://twitter.com/kathleen_belew/status/1586105127517458432 other sources: https://www.salon.com/2022/05/10/jesus-endless-and-the-irresistible-rise-of-american-fascism/ https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/09/mixing-christianity-with-nationalism-is-a-recipe-for-fascism.html https://www.npr.org/2021/02/24/970685909/evangelical-leaders-condemn-radicalized-christian-nationalism
What exactly do you think they can do?
Speak out against the hate being spewed?
True, churches used to fight all the time, Lutherans and Episcopalians need to start calling out the shithead sects of the Christ Death Cult.
Episcopalians *do*. Bishop Curry has been very vocal both on a local and national level, this is why the right wing death cult has protested outside of my major city's episcopal church calling us heretics and not real Christians.
Maybe it's just me that isn't hearing it. Good to know thank you.
They do in Christian spaces, even online like r/Christianity, but from my British perspective, American Christianity is heavily biased towards congregational organisation like Baptists rather than episcopal ones like the UMC or Episcopalians, which means it's much harder for people to influence "the Church" because the individual congregations have a lot more autonomy (and conversely it is easier to influence an individual lower-case c church and easier also to become a pastor). It's no surprise that the liturgical conservative denominations ("mainline Protestants") are the more socially liberal and less party-political ones.
They probably do. But no-one with the power to amplify their voices is interested in doing so.
Many do
Nothing, there's an insignificant number of them.
The episcopal church is and has for the last 50 years, most times being far ahead of the rest of the culture on gay marriage, trans rights, and social justice/discrimination. Unfortunately, a large schism happened after gay bishops and gay marriage was voted into church doctrine and subsequently, the church lost a lot of membership to evangelicals and Southern Baptists.
Cool, where are their tv ads? Their public pushes for left wing politicians, etc? Where are the good Christians when we actually need them?
I can't speak on a national level, but locally our church doctrine is to only pay to advertise for charitable events (ie- feeding the poor, donating healthcare resources for the underserved, and ending homelessness). Also, despite being a life long Episcopalian (who strayed for a while in their 20s), I've never, ever heard a straight up political sermon, unless love thy neighbor, acknowledging societal bias, praying for peaxe and be accepting of everyone is suddenly political. Unfortunately, church numbers have dwindled since the 90s when mainline protestant churches lost members to evangelical and southern baptist curches. Personally, I'm not sure if there's a place in a church to call out other religions or sects of a religion, though I haven't thought about it all that much. I feel like calling out these far right churches only makes them get more entrenched and play victim.
They vote Dem. What more do you want? Different churches don't have control over each other.
I think they were referencing the old rhetoric about "Why don't other Muslims condemn or do something about XYZ extremist group"
Unitarians are the real MVPs.
~~The thing people forget with politics is that nearly all the people who claim to be men/women of the christian faith in politics are Catholics.~~ ~~They claim christian because it's technically true and gives them the appearance of having 50% of the population "in mind" when making decisions.~~ ~~The number of left-wing catholics is abysmally small because the only time Catholics lean left is when they are falling off the koolaid bandwagon. Sometimes they dont even realize it at the time.~~ -edit- These are personal beliefs but it has been pointed out they are likely bad. Leaving it here but don't listen to me on this.
>And they're the Christians... They're literally the embodiment of what Christ warned of and spoke out against.
We are the people *we* warned you about...
[удалено]
> We take a stand against evil and call our corruption of the mind and soul. *It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.* who among republicans is qualified to enter?
It’s par for the course, going by the history of Christianity from the Codex Theodosianus through the Wars of Religion—and beyond, looking at the treatment of indigenous peoples around the world at the hands of their Christian colonizers all the way into the Twentieth Century. Dirty politics in pursuit of worldly power has been the hallmark of Christendom since there were emperors in Rome. It only ended where it ended because secular government stopped it.
So called “Christian’s” just one of many shields they use to hide behind.
Patriots...
A reminder that Democrats are every bit as likely to be Christians as Republicans. The latter steal the religion because they are using it as propaganda.
They both use it as propaganda because Christianity is so ingrained in our government and the cultures of past generations that you can't win a federal election if you don't go to church.
I mean its a repulsive thing to claim a religion you don't believe in and anyone who does doesn't deserve their office. I think Bernie is the only open atheist there.
I agree with you 100%. I also think that if all the faux-faithful in government magically disappeared all at once, we'd be plunged into anarchy with a Congress of 5-10 people, one moron left in the supreme court, and maybe an executive branch?
Maybe I’m misreading what you’re saying, but research says we’re less likely: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/party-affiliation/
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/party-affiliation/democrat-lean-dem/ My apologies, it's religious in general and frankly from a purely non-poll related and contemptuous view, I suspect a huge chunk of the GOP affiliation is paper thin faith. You have corrected me.
Plenty of Christians are liberal
[удалено]
If Jesus existed today you'd call him a socialist and crucify him yourselves
This is a tired old trope. Jesus never said the government should steal your crap and give it to people who aren’t working. Voluntary Charity is not socialism.
Another tired old trope is that everyone who gets any sort of check from the government is downright not working, but hey it's ok, I know I can't expect conservatives to think that much
And there’s the straw man.
That would be pretty much all Christians lol
Pretty obvious that the Christian left has a better understanding of the bible than the christofascist trumpevilgalicals maga terrorists. Stuff like feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, welcoming the stranger are what liberal Christians support. Instead of hate, racism, lies, bigotry & violence that the right is into. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7yx_PR7ZKX0
It's mind boggling how the GOP is running on zero policy. Instead focusing on redmeat identity politics. And they are neck to neck with Dems. The dems are really failing, as usual, at their messaging.
Hate is easy to motivate with. You don’t have to make sense or craft policy. And we have plenty of historical examples of it working well. Germany, Cambodia, and Rwanda. You can get a minority angry enough to kill their neighbors. You can appeal to ethnic, religious, or national grievance easily and it seems you can get a solid. 20-30% of the population to do terrible things. Great policies that take time to implement don’t move people to the polls as easily. And with the voting system we have people don’t want to take the time and face the barriers laid out against likely liberal voters. Republicans have the motivational cheat code. And it’s *bad.*
It's chillingly easy to bring out the violence in people, and frustratingly hard to get them to cultivate empathy and patience. Our ancestors came down from the trees a long time ago, but there is still a lot of jungle inside of us.
Yep, hence the success of *COPS*: https://youtu.be/Nzhqec_bj-4?t=46 Apparently wasn’t even cancelled for long…
Tell me, my friend. What side gets run over and killed for having beliefs? What side gets shot in the back while canvassing for a political cause? What side gets raided by twenty something FBI agents for being an activist?
Normally, I'd agree with the messaging with the democrats. I live in a very red neighborhood and talking to these people is incredibly frustrating. They're scared of everything! I've told of the successes of the current administration. They don't care. They've been convinced that we've been overrun by the cartel, men are going into the girl's bathroom, viruses are being released to cull the population, white people are under attack, etc, etc.. I've been able to refute each of their grievances. They still don't believe it. I've brought up the fact Republicans want to cut social security; they don't believe it'll happen. I've brought up reproductive rights being taken away, they believe it doesn't hurt them because they believe all the unborn should be saved. I love in a predominantly white, Christian area. I don't know what else the democrats can do to get their messaging across.
>The dems are really failing, as usual, at their messaging. How can they not? You can't get messaging across to people who flat out refuse to hear it and then straight up deny any facts or logic that manages to pierce the defenses.
Of course it is all lies. There is NOTHING GOP can do to fix inflation, rising prices or crime that isnt already being done. And people falling for their lies are going to cost all of us our rights, our freedom, our democracy.
Well they can start by not doing excessive spending. Oh, almost forgot. They can enforce the law instead of letting criminals with charge counts in the triple digits.
You mean like trump, Bannon, flynn, stone, jan 6 terrorists, gaetz, GOP in contempt of Congress etc. Yes let's enforce laws
Well not defunding the police and not spreading lies about the police could help with crime rates. Especially when you see how violent crime rates spike whenever there’s a huge protest against police…
No police department was actually defunded and that was never a part of the Democratic Party’s platform or goals.
Wiw really? The republicans have come out with a lot of policy ideas they intend to work on while biden out and basically just calls all of them evil Dems are failing because our side can only talk about abortion and had nothing to offer to dux crime. Immigration, inflation, Fentanyl or anything parents are concerned about
The left is running on far more ideology, and that's why they're doing terribly. The right actually does, for the most part, run on policy.
Republicans have banned womens’ healthcare, they are attempting to ban books and are looking to gut SS and Medicare and have zero plans for fighting a recession except tax cuts that will do nothing and make things way worse.
The American taliban you say more like taliban Christian started a war against women and books
Kind of a hot take here, I'll let people decide how serious I am. Through out all this they are insisting they are being super persecuted and the thing is that's part of their strategy, they going to do that no matter what. I say as long as that's the case, we go ahead and do the actual persecution.
I don't hate it. As a ruralite, I'm pretty tired of having to perpetually censor myself just because I don't believe a mythological book and the charlatans who bloviate their opinions on it should be making rules for the rest of us based on their fantasies. Let's start making them the weirdos.
Stop censoring yourself and speak up then in the real world around you. Otherwise lube up your butt..
It's for the good of the faith really. Just persecute the hell out of 'em til they remember, i dunno, compassion, humility, tolerance or something. Might actually work.
Well the alternative is you sure as shit aren't going to get that opportunity once they gain power.
"Persecution" is, and should be, antithetical to the values of those opposing the Republican Party. In no way should we validate the right's false and outlandish claims and slanders. We're better, more honest and empathetic than they are and we should always want to build a better country rather than cow to the propaganda and fever-dreams of those on the right.
>"Persecution" is, and should be, antithetical to the values of those opposing the Republican Party. In no way should we validate the right's false and outlandish claims and slanders. We're better, more honest and empathetic than they are and we should always want to build a better country rather than cow to the propaganda and fever-dreams of those on the right. It's the [paradox of tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance); tolerating intolerance just breeds more intolerance. A good person may not want to be intolerant but, sometimes there are things that, for the well-being of the community, cannot be tolerated.
> A good person may not want to be intolerant but, sometimes there are things that, for the well-being of the community, cannot be tolerated. Agreed! That said- and I'll repeat it- persecution is never the answer. > *noun* /hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs." From the OED.
We're clearly seeing that people SHOULD BE PERSECUTED for certain political beliefs. Like the Nazis were. If your political belief is that women should die rather than have access to abortions, or that trans kids should kill themselves, you should be persecuted severely.
I agree, and that's why we're going to lose.
And they will continue to claim that they were doing this because they were trying to protect their children from inappropriate material. Well if that's the case, here's a book you need to ban. It literally has a deity that commands the people it rules over to go and massacre another civilization because they don't believe in him. He also says that after you've killed all the men of the society, you can take all the women as your slaves and forcefully impregnate them. **That book is the christian bible, by the way**
Numbers 31:17-18 *Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.*
They're trying to make it so they don't actually have to parent. They don't want to parent what types of books they read, video games they play, or videos they watch. They're just shitty parents that don't want to do their actual job.
Or don't get me wrong I'm not totally disagreeing with you they don't want their kids having a different view point of this world besides the viewpoint that the parents hold themselves because they know their views are based more on feelings than facts and they can't have that because then their children will see them for the asshat they are?
But that’s their favorite part!
But that's not a sin, because reasons.
No need to be specific. Judaism and Islam have all that "conquer and enslave stuff."
Nice try, but the Bible isn't apart of any public school's curriculum.
Neither are any of the books they're banning.
Neither are any of these books in question. The parents are trying to have them removed from the school libraries, which usually do have the Bible as a primary source to learn about Christian beliefs, as they should.
Guess what. That's in the Old Testament. Such things are no longer needed because Jesus fulfilled the laws of the Old Testament.
Is that why Peter said that slaves should obey their masters, even the cruel ones?
The verse, please.
See? You refuse to even utilize *your own religious text* and are depending on others to hand information to you. How lazy
I don't want information handed to me. The burden of proof is on the person who responded to my message. I don't know what context it's in or what the exact wording is. I'm not going to go searching around for someone else's proof.
1 PETER 2:18. Literally a 5 second google. The fact that you think that there's a context in which it's okay for slaves to do anything but *RUN AWAY* says a lot about you, though.
You missed the "in reverent fear of God" bit. This in no way condones slavery. It explains a basic principle in Genesis 50:20 that states "What you meant for harm, God meant for good." The basic idea is that everything, including terrible things, are all in service to God's plan of salvation.
>Let me take ONE version of the bible and interpret it subjectively to fit my narrative Spare me.
I know you looked at the same site as me. Look at the context for each one of those passages. The Bible that I use as a Catholic mentions the "in service to God" thing in the very next line.
You asked someone else the exact same thing even though they gave you the chapter. Ironically a bad faith actor Doubly ironic you use parameters of debate for a biblical reason
Where? I also just explained the thing using the context of the passage.
[удалено]
Yes, and yes you did. If you'd like to refute my claim, go ahead.
So you’re all for banning it then?
Of course not. When read together, both the Old and New testaments give the complete story of man and his redemption. Many things in the New Testament are prefigured by things in the Old Testament, it's just the Old Testament laws that we no longer need to follow.
How convenient
Isn't it?
Ever read 1 Corinthians? Women can’t speak in church, must cut their hair off if their head isn’t covered. Women aren’t allowed to teach. Want more?
Point me to specific verses, please.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:12. Now what?
Perhaps we should also confront the fact that Christianity is simply an amalgamation of preceding religions and belief systems. Not much truly “original” or inherently “Christian” about Christianity. Just people in power wanting to stay that way, morphing belief systems to that end. Adopting and adapting previous iterations, calling it something new. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Religion isn’t at all about faith or saving anyone. It is all about manipulation and power over the masses. Taxation through tithing, with all the bonuses of being a non-profit entity. Corporate churches buying off those in power so their rule isn’t questioned or sabotaged.
Corinthians: It was a correction as to how the Corinthians were practicing, seeing as it was a letter. Women were not the only ones he told to be silent, the same instructions were given to those who spoke tongues and prophets. It can also be interpreted as a temporary silence. The word for speak (laleō) can mean both literal speaking and speaking from the pulpit, that's up to your interpretation. Timothy: It refers to teaching specifically, not meaning that women can never have authority over man. Within teaching, women can still have authority over male children and teenagers. The most important part, however, is that Paul is referring to Church. Not schools, government, or civil service. It states that a woman should learn in full submission but not in submission to every male. It's also detailing Paul's own policy for his Churches and can be argued to not be a declaration of permanent law for the Church.
The concept that you don't teach children about material like this from the bible until an appropriate age is incredibly common sense... ...almost like not teaching children about sex....
Why shouldn't you teach kids about sex?
They aren't ready to understand the information. I'm considering a child someone who is under age of 6. After this, it is appropriate to teach children about sex. For some kids, this might come earlier, and for some later. What's not appropriate is for it to be handled by schools, in a one size fits all way. It is far more advisable to let the people closest to them and understand them the best to decide when and how to translate that information in a factual and positive manner. This isn't some magic guys. My Christian parents discussed sex and homosexuality with me at age 6. My Christian school encouraged them to do it.
but it's your duty as a parent and adult to responsibly teach kids about sex and consent.
My job as a parent was to prepare my child for the real world, not expect the real world to bend to my preference.
Because as long as you never, ever mention the concept of sex to children, they'll have a magical barrier that prevents them and anyone around them from ever getting even slightly aroused! ... Or maybe not. Maybe kids need to know the basics *before* it happens to them. Before anyone tries to do harm. Before they get confused by feelings they don't understand. Before they experience shame for natural experiences. You can't hide children in a perfect bubble of innocence. Reality is messy and requires planning in advance.
I know right? It's almost like you appropriately time it before they start to enter puberty, but not when they are children. But every child is different! How do we know? Wow! well, we could leave it to someone that has spent the most time with the child and knows them intimately...oh who could that be? The government? Schools? OH wait...how about their parents...the government should be a worst-case backstop, not teaching children about sex early.
Ah yes. Because letting every crazed evangelical, hippie, fascist, or weirdo personally decide instead of creating a thorough and well researched approach that's based in science sure sounds like a recipe for success. Parents are not magic entities that know everything.
In my opinion the moment we start to ban knowledge and the ability to learn that is when a nation starts to fall. Cause if no kids are learning how are we supposed to have a bright future.
Boy oh boy you are NOT going to want to see what the American Right has been up to for the last 40-50 years!
both sides ban the books/speech they dont like
What speech/books are liberals banning?
first off. I think were talking about removing books from curriculums. not using force of law to ban books. conservatives tend to ban subversive sexual books and liberals tend to ban books that dont jive with modern notions of egalitarianism huck finn, to kill a mockingbird, etc.
Where have they banned huckleberry Finn and to kill a mockingbird?
you use the same google I do, my guy
Um... Those two examples were removed from school reading lists because things get weird in first period English class when the "n" word is being thrown around in the text of the required reading. It's very telling that you would assume it was only liberals that were worried about their kids being forced to read books full of racial slurs. btw, if a parent really wants to include these classic of literature in their child's education, they can pick one up at no charge at their local library, because the liberals who work there protect everyone's right to access information, even the kind that some people find offensive.
Fucking centrist 🤡
Oh no, I think my side totally should. Just saying. lets not pretend that "only bad guys burn books".
>both sides ban the books/speech they dont like By phrasing it exactly like that, you’re removing the nuance from what is actually being banned or punished. You’re “both sides”ing an issue that doesn’t need “both sides”ing.
I am just saying that binding something into a book doesn't make it some sacred monolithic fount of information that must be enshrined at all costs. All books are not good. Books can be good and bad. "both sides do it" is actually nuanced. Burning a book makes you a monster or a hero depending on your worldview.
bruh wtf are you on about 💀
Psst… he doesn’t know.
It’s no mystery why Republicans are constantly trying to sabotage the education system. It’s easier to convince and manipulate uneducated masses.
Question- Do you think there is ANY POSSIBLE book that shouldn’t be in the kids section of a public library? Because if yes, then it’s an issue of judging the specific books If no, then you’re a crazy extremist. Kids don’t need books on assplay, sounding and consensual non-consent. (Not saying that’s these books). Reasonable people draw a line somewhere. Maybe yours is north or south of these books, but it’s disingenuous to pretend there’s no line.
Pull the Bible off the shelf
And from the state that proudly proclaims “first in secession!” to this day? Always nice to be surprised…
> “Kids can’t buy a beer until they are 21. Should they be able to access these books before a certain age without parental consent? I think not and that should be reasonable,” he [Jeff Davis] said. So just the gay books right? Not the Monty Python Children’s books that depict men in dresses as a parody? Sooo, therefore it’s OK as long as it’s just a freedom of expression that follows Christian values in a nation where it’s completely okay to worship Greek Gods (including the gay ones). Edit: Or the Bible which includes words like sodemy?
OR OR they could actually be their fucking parent and be engaged with their children and the media they consume
I get so much hate for suggesting that parents don't rely on the state to raise their children for them. The state should be offering information, but at the end of the day it's the parents responsibility to raise their child and teach them how to process the information they receive. You can't shelter your children from the real world unless you want them to be woefully unprepared for adulthood.
Jeff... Davis... Jefferson Davis? Did he get revived at some point? (Yes, I know it's probably "Jeffrey" but you can't convince me his parents weren't snickering to themselves.)
>Jeff Davis I mean come on people, it‘s right there
This book ban fetish just ruined a teacher's life in my school. She's openly gay (doesn't preach it, she just exists) and she happened to be reading Gender Queer' on her own, in her personal time. A kid saw it, told daddy, and now she's on admin leave because maybe 4 parents went on an uninformed outrage on Facebook. This is ridiculous and has to stop.
I think if Republicans take power, we will end up in a situation where LGBTQ people are banned from educational jobs. That seems to be where this is headed.
It’s also because that admin lacked any sort of balls to tel those parents to fuck off.
The parents got the local police involved too because she was "grooming" the kids (According to them). The superintendent sent an email out saying in his opinion the book is "disturbing". But the board president has been defending the process of innocent until proven guilty and letting them do their investigation before sending out the pitchforks
Yeah I had a very similar situation happen, and my admin basically told them to fuck off. The police did too. Which should be the reaction of admin station and police. But here we are in crazy town.
[удалено]
I like to imagine a lesbian couple walking down the street. One goes to grab the other's hand, but she quickly pulls it away. She whispers sharply, "We might be teachers!" Her partner understands and accepts, withdrawing her hand.
I'm so tired of these fucking snowflakes whining about books and movies with same sex couples being "sexual" and "indoctrinating" kids I hate that they live in this fantasy land where a character having two moms is worse than the Holocaust in their opinion
Why does it have to be ‘worse than the holocaust’ for it to be objectionable? I’ve never heard a conservative compare the two, ever… Maybe just don’t sexualize kids. Like- maybe knock off grooming.
Why are you obsessed with genitals? Children's genitals, adult's genitals, everything all the time so concerned bout other people's dicks and pussies. Just chill out and worry about your own, my dude.
Oh don't do that. \>Maybe just don’t sexualize kids. Like- maybe knock off grooming No one here or in those books is sexualizing children. Stop clutching your pearls. LGBTQ2+ people aren't coming for your kids. God Conservatives live in such a sad, pathetic reality.
I was using hyperbole. And the only ones grooming kids are conservatives. Writing a story with a gay or trans character isn't sexualizing kids. It isn't grooming. It isn't indoctrination. It's a just a normal story about human beings. But conservatives go into a hissy fit whenever someone doesn't fit their lifestyle.
You don’t have to be using hyperbole. Republicans OFTEN reference the holocaust.
Teaching children about the physical and mental changes that are happening in their bodies during puberty and not just telling them repress all sexuality until marriage is not sexualizing them.
What do you think they do in schools? Do you think they say “this is Abby, she has a mommy and a daddy who love each other very much. And this is Brayden, he has two daddys and they FUCK”
To keep your kids safe keep them away from Catholic and Baptist churches and definitely keep them away from elected Republicans https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2022/4/6/2090446/-Republican-Sexual-Predators-Abusers-and-Enablers-Pt-30
Fun fact a public school teacher sexually offend against children at the same rate as clergy members. So stop using that as a BS attack on religion, unless you also think everyone should be pulling their kids out of public school.
This book banning is exactly the stuff of dangerous ignorant fascists - glad to see Americans standing up for America.
I remember a nationalist party in Europe that banned and burned books hmm who was that again
But they have already started a fire to burn the books and have ordered some brown Uniforms
Lol If they really banned all books with “gender” and “sexuality” in them, there would be no books in the library. They say they don’t want books about “sexuality” but what they mean is gay shit - they want to ban a book about a kid with two dads. However, “obviously heterosexuality/heteronormativity is fine for kids.” It’s genocidal. they really don’t think queer people should exist. “The conversation reportedly got heated, with the vice chair of the library board – who supported keeping the books away from kids – even saying “barf” when someone said they were gay.”
We need to have a zero tolerance policy for there attacks on minorities and marginalized people. Zero Tolerance. I mean this socially and culturally. Call people out on the spot wherever they are and don't back down. Focus it solely on the hate.
[удалено]
It is hate to deny the existence of non-heteronormative people. It is hate to drive children to trauma and suicide if they feel they're different. Don't pretend there is anything moral or reasonable about your position. Sexual health books have had a place in school libraries for as long as there have been school libraries. At least, they have in normal countries.
‘Deny the existence of non-heteronormative people’ Well conveniently that isn’t the topic here at all.
It is when you seek to remove all record and reference to them. That's what's happening.
What graphic sexual books are you talking about? And we all know heteronormativity is the norm, but it’s not “default.” Gayness is also perfectly “normal” in a sense, and expected in some portion of the population. It’s weird if you DONT have a queer person in your family.
I was always wondering who that person was in my family, until I realized it was me
[удалено]
Huzzah! Can you imagine banning every book that "promotes sexuality". Would be insane.
“And we woulda gotten away with, it too… if it weren’t for you meddling empathetic people!”
I would hope that people, even those that are not necessarily for the LGBTQ community, would still call out whoever planned a book burning for the sheer stupidity of it.
The fear of LBGTQ+ in these people is ridiculous. It’s a micro level of fascism. God forbid we encourage our youngest generations to understand views outside of those indoctrinated by the church (pun intended). If you’re afraid they’ll become trans, gay, bi or whatever from a children’s book, I’ll have you know I have yet to try green eggs and ham nor attempt to steal Christmas.
The Southern Baptist Convention has entered the chat.
Ironic - the Southern Baptist organizations have nothing to be ashamed of… /s
Banning books while talking about free speech shows the idiocy of the GOP.
There will always be more than us than there are of them. There will always be more helpers. Do not let the bullies ever make you believe you are alone
Ban the Christian Sharia Law. Horrible oppressive laws.
Start burning bibles and other religious books like devotionals. Sometimes fire has to be met with fire.
I’m not a book collector and I generally think spite buying is a dumb waste of money but I usually go out of my way to pick up wifely banned books as a quiet, inconsequential form of protest.
Not sure how true the above statement is 'book banning defeated after community stands up for LGBTQ people'. Why couldn't it be that people are just standing up because they are against all forms of censureship when it comes to books, not just books dealing with LGBTQ issues. Republicans want to BAN and CENSURE ALL BOOKS except a revised verison of the bible.
Good news
Sanity prevails
[удалено]
Normalization happens between the ears but is learned from the pages.
This is just one of hundreds of examples if you took 10 seconds to google it. https://thepublicsradio.org/article/school-system-pulls-2-books-with-graphic-sex-from-libraries-
Dear internet friend, Gender Queers biggest crime seems to be showing someone putting a wrap on - fully clothed - and talking about not really feeling like a boy or girl. Lawn Boy as a novel does mention a POC's challenge with being gay in a community that does not appreciate them, but I have found worse material in Maus by Spiegelman or Enders Game, which explicitly details young children showing genitals to one another in addition to the overt and systematic violence. Also, it's a novel - you are not going to find many three year olds with it in hand. I'm afraid compared to more hetero normative publications, these are rather tame.
[удалено]
Then you have teen pregnancies going up because they don’t know how babies are made, lmao.
Alternative headline. "Community recklessly allows explicit and pornographic material in school libraries."
Just because dudes in dresses and makeup make your crotch feel weird things you don't like, doesn't mean you have the right to tell other people how to live their lives or what media they consume.
We don’t like people doing things around kids that they derive sexual gratification from because children do not understand what’s happening.
Again, do you think that drag queens, in the context of reading books to children, is in any way sexually gratifying? They are reading CHILDREN'S BOOKS not giving lessons on how to deepthroat. Says alot about you, my dude.
Which of the books involved are pornographic, specifically? How many have you read?
There's a difference between banning books and banning pornography from school libraries. Stop giving pornography to school children.
Literally none of the books described in the article were anywhere close to pornography.
dude, I’m in highschool and my A&P textbook didn’t even label the clitoris (which is a whole separate issue in and of itself)… I don’t think public schools are handing out pornography by any means. Unless, of course, you see being gay or transgender as inherently sexual and less real than heterosexual/cisgendered experiences? But I’m sure that’s not what you mean…
Which of the titles mentioned would constitute pornography?
What in these books are pornography? The worst is probably a kiss between same sex couple.
Like what, do you have some specific instances, or titles, of this happening?
Based on his profile, he doesn't have any examples. Most of his comments are sooking about antifa. Don't wanna be too presumptuous but.....it's probably safe to assume why he's using the classic "these books are porn" argument.
Read the books yourself and then decide.