fred rogers would be proud of ms rachel. nobody carries on his legacy more than her <3
That got me super curious, and I found this about the Mr. Rogers and Ms. Rachel connection.
That explains so much but also idk why it felt like a revalation. She’s an American my age, a ton of us did, especially the ones of us who share his values.
I’m glad kids have an influencer like her. Mr Rogers did a lot of good for my early moral development.
A Christian following Christian teachings!?
No no, she’s clear that this is because of Jesus, not Christian teachings.
Which makes sense, cause Christian teachings are typically what Paul says, not Jesus.
then why do people keep saying “Simon says”???
Who is “Paul”
Went by Saul then broke some laws and had to change his identity
No I’m serious. I’m not super familiar with this stuff. I know Mary is the mom of Jesus, but is Paul the dad or something?
Only slightly joking there. He was Saul of Tarsus, a Jewish Pharisee and persecuted early Christians. He had a conversion and became an early Christian leader. He was one of the first to include gentiles in Christianity. Before it was mostly Jewish people well because Jesus was Jewish. The law breaking joke is that in a vision he was given the ok to eat all foods not just kosher ones, ie he broke religious laws at the time Edit: I misremembered, it was Peter who had the food vision not Paul. But I believe Peter also changed his name, yes he was Simon. Never thought about it much but man they changed their names a lot back then.
He changed his name to Paul after converting. wiki article if you are inclined to read up on your own https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle
Key Bible verses are (iirc): Acts 8.1, 9.1-31. And Romans, which is a letter to the Christians in Rome. And Corinthians, letters he wrote to Christians in Corinth.
So he was born 5 years after Jesus died, but saw Jesus die or something, and spent his whole life telling people how awesome Jesus was and to read these books he wrote…?
Funny you mention parents, after the death of Jesus his parents don’t come up. Or rarely. His father is barely mentioned after the birth story.
no, its like joesph or some guy that starts with a j
the apostle paul is a major component of the new testament as, canonically to the catholic church, he was the first pope and his letters giving theological advice to early roman churches are the backbone of catholic teachings. however, most biblical scholars find the epistles canonized as the pauline texts to be disjointed, and likely a mishmash of paul’s writing, other authors writing as paul, and even marginalia that simply made it into the bible as paul’s teachings, even if they actually contradict other things he said
Man, she must really love getting death threats from right-wingers. /s
It’s so funny cause I don’t really know much about her other than she makes children’s content and Republicans can’t stand her. But literally every single time I hear why Republicans are pissed at her it’s just because she said something like “let’s try and not be assholes to each other” or something lol
All she did was talk about Palestinian children who were being murdered and marred by Israel and how it’s bad. That’s literally it.
They pretend to worship a guy who was like “love your neighbour, turn the other cheek, rich people will most certainly all go to hell”, and who was famously crusified for that.
And even by the biblical telling the Romans were less hateful than contemporary republicans pride themselves in being.
Its… Really something. Imagine what an absurd shitshow the bible would be like if the events took place in contemporary America.
I think there’s a certain element of open defiance at this point. Every bit the “Keep booing losers, you know I’m right”
Your boos mean nothing, I’ve seen what makes your cheer
Which is what she was asked on tv.
How DARE she Utter such UnChristlike Nonsense like TREAT PEOPLE WITH RESPECT and STOP MURDERING CHILDREN! She’s HORRIBLE!
I may be stupid, but this is right in my uncanny-valley for Poe’s Law
Ms Rachel; you are already on your way to be antisemite of the year; You don’t want to be Christian persecutor of the year as well.
just to note - as part of their nomination StopAntiSemetism said:
Miss Rachel, no stranger to controversy, had previously dabbled in politics but, after facing backlash, quickly refocused on her brand and catering to children
what’s the political controversy that caused backlash you ask? she made a video celebrating pride month… that’s it…
and now this article shows she isn’t just doing it to score brownie points but is actually what the genocide defenders fear most - an actually good person.
really makes me disgusted how Isntreal claims to be a safe haven for lgbtq+ people yet use us as both a weapon and a shield whenever convenient…
safe haven for LGBTQIA+ people unless you move there. my mom, back before she understood Israel to be what it truly is, was going to move there with her girlfriend. the military recruiter bringing her girlfriend over got in her ear about how the Jewish race is dying off and a lesbian couple won’t make any new little perfectly Jewish children, so she broke up with my mom.
their position on LGBTQIA+ issues is purely virtue signaling. it’s propaganda for fundraising. the point of a thing is what it does and Israel hurts, not helps, our rights (our here meaning queer, Jewish, and queer Jewish).
Interesting analogy because either way they’re hiding behind you, letting you be in harm’s way first…
It’s a lovely sentiment, and I appreciate what she’s doing, but religion is entirely about exclusion.
exactly. I left my church because the priest said that my tattoo of a fucking BUTTERFLY was “inappropriate and unCristian.” also because they were racist to my Korean friend, said I couldn’t be pansexual, and tried to teach me to “submit to your faith and get a husband as Jesus intended.”
100%. When will people start pointing out to “good Christians” that the things making them a good Christian have nothing to do with Christianity??
Is that why there were shittons of Christian missionaries? And why Hinduism adds any new gods it meets to its existing pantheon of thirty million gods?
Christian missionaries have never gone on mission to accept people. They go on mission to convert, absorb, and indoctrinate people, and then exclude those who refuse. Look at what the Spanish missionaries did in California to the natives… they either got with the program and became good Christians, or got clapped. Sure, it’s less violent today, but still highly exclusionary.
The Spanish and Portugese were notorious for this in the early Modern period. As soon as they had a little taste of success taking out the Moors they were all about spreading Catholicism by the sword.
Christian missionaries operate under the assumption that non believers are excluded from heaven which is fairly patronizing. Christian lore was often used as justification for economies of dispossession (colonialism, slavery) in the modern European world.
Generally Eastern religions are more adaptable but they are also exclusionary in their own way. Buddhism was born out of Hinduism because of disillusionment with caste/ritual purity and ancient norms around animal sacrifice. Buddhism itself is exclusionary depending on how devout you are.
Generally speaking, every belief system / culture has “puritans” that perceive themselves as superior due to following a “less contaminated” or more traditional path. Nazism would be an example that does not have a strong religious basis.
I personally believe religion has two purposes 1) Giving people a sense of meaning in life and 2) Getting them accustomed to submitting to top down authorotarian structures (especially monotheistic religions which are often less decentralized). I think religion has acted as an important pacifier for people who felt fear and anxiety living a life of existential uncertainty, especially in pre-Modern times.
I think religion still has an important role today in helping people find meaning. I think it’s good for people to explore their own spirituality. But as soon as one’s spirituality devolves into seeing others as lesser, it loses both meaning and purpose.
A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one.
I’ve always found it ridiculous that a cult would be so hellbent on making its numbers smaller
Cults grow specifically because there’s an out-group they exclude, so that by joining the cult, you can feel superior to the out-group. It’s an incredibly effective tactic that’s been working basically since the dawn of organized religion.
Although I appreciate her and her sentiment, this changes nothing that the big Ambrahamic religions stand fundamentally opposed to the existence of LGBTQ+ people. To a point of justifying genocide against them.
The only realistic solution to ensure the equality and safety of LGBTQ+ people (and more) is the elimination of organized religion.
Religion is a cancer, and needs to be eradicated through education that specifically analyzes it and destroys it with logic and reasoning.
It seems the only ones fundamentally opposed to their very existence are the ones who see in only black and white terms. That either you’re good or you’re bad. This is mostly evangelists who gain power by tricking people into believing the opposite of deep-seated religious tradition.
This is a problem of con-men abusing established infrastructure, not necessarily organized religion itself. Getting rid of the religion does not get rid of the con-men, just forces them to make a new one (Scientology/Mormon anyone?) or use a different strategy.
Perhaps try and see things in a less black and white way and you might find an actual solution instead of a boogie man you can point to and say “They’re causing all our problems! We should burn them at the stake!”
Religion is fundamentally an irrational belief. The acceptance of wild and complex ideas with absolutely zero evidence to back them up.
We see how this translates to conditioning the masses to accept authoritarian rule and propaganda without question from countless far-right movements.
I wasn’t insulting the religious themselves, I view them as victims of the manipulation of those in their environment who spread the cancer to them. What I said is entirely a criticism of religion and a desire to see it forever removed from society so that everyone is forced to live in the reality they exist in, rather than the fantasies of folks long dead.
the big Ambrahamic religions stand fundamentally opposed to the existence of LGBTQ+ people
Setting aside the navel gazing “um actually if you translate the Greek properly…” nerd theology, the big religions only seem to care when reactionary secular leaders care.
Hostility to homosexuality isn’t a product of religion, it’s a product of socio-economic in-groups and out-groups. Same with misogyny, ethnic bigotry, and xenophobia. You’ll find all the same reactionary tendencies among secular atheists as sectarian dogmatics. And the same progressive attitudes, as well.
Religion is downstream of politics. Always has been
i don’t know if religion is bad so much as zealotry (aware of the irony of my name; but that’s a play on critical role and jester) the place i felt most accepted growing up queer was my family church an summer camp. my childhood pastor was one of the first people to write me and both congratulate and comfort me while also apologising for the national church’s recent stances (a few years ago). granted it was a new england methodist church so i realize my privilge but still
My response, with respect, is that religion is always ever just a small walk away from fundamentalism and zelotry.
I’m sure you and countless billions have had wonderful experiences within an environment that happened to be religious. However, I would strongly disagree that the presence of religion in that environment was a fundamental requirement for the positive sides of those events to happen.
All benefits one can point to of religion can just as easily be present in secular settings as well.
My response, with respect, is that religion is always ever just a small walk away from fundamentalism and zealotry.
Billions currently live and have lived their religious lives without falling down this purported slippery slope which takes away from this point.
I would strongly disagree that the presence of religion in that environment was a fundamental requirement for the positive sides of those events to happen.
What secular equivalent is there to Christmas, Easter, Eid, Ramadan, Holi, Diwali etc? Why has no secular tradition been able to produce days of collective joy or reflection in a similar vein?
All benefits one can point to of religion can just as easily be present in secular settings as well.
Except happiness. Which according to the Pew Research Center is more common among the religious, for whatever reason.
deleted by creator
In general, agreed. Anyone that is religious and tolerant or supportive is absolutely an exception to the rule of religion. I have mostly religious friends, Catholic, even, but I make no mistake in knowing that religion is definitively, fundamentally a hostile force to queer people and anyone not like their most in-group. This has been proven time and time again and is so insidiously structured into doctrine.
Our ancestors had a mind tailored for survival. Religion exploits this.
Virtually all organized religions put heavy emphasis on life after death. This is because religion’s main appeal, most especially to those in environments with high death rates, is the promise of eventual safety and peace in eternity.
Problem is, most of those religions immediately become tools of manipulation where you have to follow a very specific set of rules to get to paradise, or spend eternity suffering in Hell like you’ve never experienced before.
You’re correct about Abrahamic religions but ancient polytheistic/pagan religions and current day Eastern and Dharmic religions often do not discuss life after death. Many do not believe there is only one life but instead there are multiple cycles through which a soul can exist. There is a concept of Nirvana/Enlightenment, which one could say is a type of heaven, but hell is essentially reliving life on Earth with progressively more hardship and struggle if you choose to live poorly.
Now Abrahamic religions do have the most followers, partly because monotheism is highly compatible with centralization and authoritarianism. It enforces conformity which makes it very effective at organizing people. Polytheistic or nontheistic religions (often Eastern) need to be much more flexible. Centralization has been a point of contention within even monotheistic religions with the Protestant split from the Catholic church for example.
Religion has more to it then a population control though. It does give people a sense of meaning and there have always been infights to challenge the power of the priestly class who act as gatekeepers to spiritual meaning and purpose.
It’s also a tool of control, in that people who are being made to live painful, miserable lives, are told that they can live for eternity in paradise.
deleted by creator
Oh look, a Christian who actually read their magic book.
Fuck that stupid book.
Jesus was an excellent dude with an excellent idea; if you’re going to be aware forever then the time you spend here on earth is going to be a microscopic fraction of the time that the you that is you exists. Deciding that you’re above others because of money or race becomes a permanent soul injury after passing on and discovering that souls come in one single value, color and race.
For example; camel in the eye of the needle parable guy would have difficulty in passing on to the next world not because he was rich, but because being rich defined who he was as a person. The parable attempted to explain that the person who needed to be above others as a core component of their identity would be endlessly miserable when put in a situation where they could never be placed above others again.
You shouldn’t need the promise of afterlife to learn how to get along with people.
I think you have it backwards; the concept is that everyone gets an afterlife, and your attitude decides what that afterlife is going to be. “You shouldn’t need the threat of tooth decay to brush your teeth!” is also true in the same kind of way, but brushing isn’t a test you pass to get the completely unrelated gift of good teeth, it’s the process of maintaining good teeth to get to a goal of still having them later.
It’s not ‘Grrr be good or I will punish you’ like Santa Claus, it’s ‘heaven is that way and here’s the map, follow it if you want to get there, or don’t’
You shouldn’t need the threat of tooth decay to brush your teeth!
That’s not even true as an isolated statement. Tooth decay is the only reason to brush your teeth. If my teeth never decayed, why would I brush them?
I honestly don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. You can’t just assume there is an afterlife. And if there isn’t, then you shouldn’t just start being a greedy asshole regardless.
Tooth decay is the only reason to brush your teeth.
Imagine a kid who doesn’t want to brush. If they don’t brush their teeth those teeth are still there in the morning, so why would they ‘believe’ in tooth decay?
If my teeth never decayed, why would I brush them?
That’s the kid, a 12 year old who’s teeth are fine, even when he doesn’t brush. He can test that by skipping brushing every day. The consequences won’t catch up until their early twenties.
The only immediate reason to get into the habit of tooth brushing is because they’re told to do so, and if the lesson sticks then they don’t have to experience the consequence of tooth decay as they grow older. The decay isn’t a punishment dealt out as judgement for not following an arbitrary rule.
shouldn’t just start being a greedy asshole regardless.
Based on what? Greedy assholes have a great time! You certainly can’t simply assume that everyone has a moral core that aligns with your own and have that match reality.
Naturally good-hearted people don’t need compassion explained to them, if only everyone was like that, right? The suggestion ‘learn to get along with people while you’re alive or you never will’ is certainly true whether there’s an afterlife or not, but if there is then it’s even more compassionate to try to give greedy assholes a framework and a reason to try something else.
Imagine a kid who doesn’t want to brush. If they don’t brush their teeth those teeth are still there in the morning, so why would they ‘believe’ in tooth decay?
Even a kid will eventually get cavities if they don’t brush, and cavities hurt. Children also learn from their parents about tooth decay. Again, how is this relevant? Are you saying all people are children that can’t tell right from wrong without being told?
Based on what? Greedy assholes have a great time! You certainly can’t simply assume that everyone has a moral core that aligns with your own.
Sure, but once again, what does this have to do with the Bible and the afterlife? I’m agnostic and I derive my morals by studying the philosophy of ethics. And a big part of ethics is firstly understanding science so you can separate fact from fiction. If you don’t know what is true, how can you know what is moral?
