Did you try shrinking the photos a bit? I narrowed the browser to shrink them and my phone camera picked up 11 of 12 of the ones in a grid.

Are you claiming children haven’t been abused because their parents found out they were LGBTQ?

Of course not, that would be nonsense.

I was just avoiding attributing anything like reason to the abusers. The choices of abuse victims are not typically the cause of abuse. The pieces of shit willing to abuse children don’t need a particular reason to do it, and I am not interested in claiming something the victim did was the cause. Even if the abuse ramped up after coming out, it still sounds a bit like victim blaming any way I word it. Which in turn makes me wonder how many of them were already being abused.

Definitely some odd choices here. Condemns the main abuser to a life-time of penance and prayer and then totally dismisses any claims that the abuser’s protege may have seen the abuse.

It does seem he eventually changed his tune, but not before seriously harming his credibility on the issue.

In April, the pope publicly acknowledged that he had erred in handling the situation, saying he had made “serious mistakes” — and summoning Chile’s bishops to an emergency meeting in Rome. Francis said he had misjudged Barros and the events in Chile because he hadn’t been given “truthful and balanced information.”

In May, all of Chile’s 31 active bishops offered to resign their posts, issuing a statement in which they asked forgiveness and apologized for “the grave errors and omissions that we committed.”

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/11/618825779/pope-francis-accepts-resignations-of-3-bishops-over-chilean-abuse-scandal

Probably because they want to avoid the children getting abused at home, or worse

Most abusers do not wait for some specific reason to start abusing. I would be interested to see data how many abused LGBT kids were never abused before they came out to their parents.

Edited in all of the above.

Hmm, I wonder what would happen in we’d apply this to past social issues…

This might be splitting hairs a bit, but it basically is what happened.

Edits in italics: For US women’s suffrage they gained the right to vote in a number of cities, territories, and states then eventually gained the right to vote nationally.

Also when slaves were freed, they certainly did not become equal members of society the next day. It has however gotten significantly better over time.

If you want to push in a certain direction, you take a few steps forward, show people that the world did not burn down, and then take a few more steps forward.

No, that is called having an adult conversation where we acknowledge reality and then discuss how to fix it, or in this case how it is already being worked on.

Sexual abuse happens in virtually every organization. The main issue is how it is dealt with. The catholic church has a long issue of dealing with issues internally, but this was definitely one that was not being handled correctly. Francis has made it clear that he is willing to face the issue head-on now that he has the power.

We do not have to turn a blind eye to their past mistakes, but we should also acknowledge what they are actually doing to work on those mistakes instead of spreading misinformation about them still hiding from it.

My problem with your stance is that you seem very quick to jump at “bigoted hate speech from LGBTQ+ people”

Show me a Christian or conservative acting like a bigot in this post, community, or even instance and I will gladly call them out. I am sure a few are hiding somewhere around here but they are few and far between. I do understand that there are instances where it is more common from them, but I do not regularly visit those places.

admittedly, but understandably, quite vitriolic - responses to that trauma.

This is my main issue right here. None of this conversation would be happening u/I_Fart_Glitter had just acknowledged that u/gravitas_deficiency had spit out some vitriolic bigotry instead of defending. Their opinions may be understandable to you, but a public News forum is the wrong place to be spewing that kind of bigotry. If they gravitas has unresolved issues they need to get off their chest, there are plenty of appropriate forums for it.

This fear mongering is reinforced every single Sunday when they go to their church and get told these things directly by their leadership

This may be true for many Christians, but there are millions of American Christians that believe quite the opposite and would never tolerate that in a church.

I live in BFE Texas and there are ten Affirming Churches in the area; five of them are within about 45 minutes of me. As a comparison there are only two Cowboy Churches in the same area. Every major City I checked had several Affirming Churches.

https://www.gaychurch.org/find_a_church/

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/25/1124101216/trans-religious-leaders-say-scripture-should-inspire-inclusive-congregations

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2023-07-06/one-in-five-united-methodist-congregations-in-the-us-have-left-the-denomination-over-lgbtq-conflicts

A belief system is much more mutable than intrinsic characteristics like gender identity, skin color, and sexuality

Belief is as fundamental to a person as sexuality or gender identity. Some people’s beliefs, gender identity, and sexuality change several times through their lives, others stick with the one assumed at birth, and anywhere in between.

assume you simply misspoke and meant “gender identity”.

You are right, I meant transitioning gender identity, not “gender transition”

based only on the inherently Christian idea that your parents are the sole deciders in the welfare of their children

What? I am sure there are cultures and religions where something different would be the norm, but do any of them represent a significant chunk of the world’s population? I did a bit of web-searching but can’t seem to find anything remotely related to this. I am getting swamped with references to child welfare laws and related court cases.

what’s the transitional stance between “trans rights are human rights” and “we need to eradicate gender ideology from the public world”?

This is the first time I have gotten this deep into trans topics in a loooong time, but off the top of my head, I see two middle grounds between those stances.

“If you want to live your life as a different sex than you were assigned at birth, that is fine but don’t expect everyone else to agree with or support that choice.”

“Let adults live their lives as the sex they choose, but kids need to wait until they are out of high school if their parents refuse to accept it.”

I am sure there are other middle grounds between those stances even if both sides are offended by them.

How might it impact them? That brings me to your direct question.

Who does trans identity affect other than the trans person?

Really? Is this just a setup to call me a bigot instead? Fine, I will express the opinions I have seen or heard from women who could probably be described as TERFs even if they don’t see themselves as such, but only with a spoiler tag and a few caveats.

That’s what afraid_of_zombies has been saying all this time.

Then they have a funny way of expressing it. It sounds a lot more like they were defending a bigoted statement by saying someone can’t be bigoted against people from religions they find disgusting.

There is a difference between attacking someone who chooses a disgusting belief system and bigotry.

https://lemmy.world/comment/4026429

Edit: added people from

Seems like Hitler had more of an issue with the political power of the church instead of their beliefs and even tried making his own Protestant sect.

I fully concede this point. I had only read the bit about Nazis being secular recently while looking up something and clearly did not do enough supporting research before repeating it.

The shift happened in spite of religion, not because of it.

No objection here.

I see you didn’t even try to respond to how Christians were the main opposition to any and every single push for civil rights.

You seem to be stuck on this idea that I think Christians are the real progressives or something. I have not in any way said or tried to imply any such thing. Just that the majority have been moving toward the middle nearly your entire lifetime.

If we sat back and placated them like you believe we should

You should definitely stick to things I actually said, not easy to win stances that I do not hold.

I have made it pretty clear from the beginning that we should stand up to bigoted hateful speech regardless where it comes from. Since you seem to have missed it: That includes Christians, but it also includes LGBT members, and anyone in-between or outside of them.

Pretending that a third of the world all believes the same thing because of certain groups among them is a problem. Treating them all like shit, for something other members of their faith believe, is a reflection on the person treating another human like shit not on their target.

And yet, when you ask about trans identity, they’ll show what they really believe.

Trans identity is a complex issue. One that affects more than just trans people. Surely it will shift in some way over time, though I would not want to even try to guess in what direction at this point. People go nucking futs when it comes to their kids, and in my opinion the Trans community lost some PR ground when it came out that schools were intentionally hiding students who were transitioning gender identities from their parents. Edit in Italics

If you want to make progress on trans issues, I would suggest that the LGBT community take a transitional stance and then move again in the future, rather than losing their minds because they cannot force the whole population to share their views all at once.

This is a tried and true tactic when it comes to gay rights. When Clinton passed, “Don’t ask, don’t tell” it was a highly controversial pro-gay stance. If he had tried to push the military to where we are today there is no telling how the US would have reacted, but it would not have been good.

top ignoring and turning away the victims of your priest’s rape and abuse

Same list as I dropped on your other post. Took like 30 seconds in a web-search to call that claim into serious doubt. Also, I searched for him turning away sexual abuse victims and found nothing.

Monday’s meeting between Francis and the six victims of church sexual abuse was not the first such meeting between a pontiff and survivors, but it was the first of Francis’ papacy.

2014 - https://www.cnn.com/2014/07/07/world/pope-clerical-sex-abuse/

“God weeps” for the sexual abuse of children, Pope Francis said Sunday in Philadelphia, after meeting with victims of sexual abuse.

2015 - https://www.cnn.com/2015/09/27/us/pope-francis-sex-abuse-victims/index.html

Pope Francis said he regularly meets with victims of sexual abuse on Fridays, and that while the percentage of priests who abuse is relatively low, even one is too many.

2018 - https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/37774/pope-francis-regularly-meets-with-abuse-victims-on-fridays

In the evening of the same day, Pope Francis held an audience with Portugese victims of sexual abuse by the Catholic Church.

2023 - https://www.foxnews.com/world/pope-francis-holds-private-meetings-sex-abuse-victims-ukrainian-pilgrims

Every time the pope has turned them away and refused to even acknowledge their existence

Where did you hear that? These articles seem to say the opposite.

Monday’s meeting between Francis and the six victims of church sexual abuse was not the first such meeting between a pontiff and survivors, but it was the first of Francis’ papacy.

2014 - https://www.cnn.com/2014/07/07/world/pope-clerical-sex-abuse/

“God weeps” for the sexual abuse of children, Pope Francis said Sunday in Philadelphia, after meeting with victims of sexual abuse.

2015 - https://www.cnn.com/2015/09/27/us/pope-francis-sex-abuse-victims/index.html

Pope Francis said he regularly meets with victims of sexual abuse on Fridays, and that while the percentage of priests who abuse is relatively low, even one is too many.

2018 - https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/37774/pope-francis-regularly-meets-with-abuse-victims-on-fridays

In the evening of the same day, Pope Francis held an audience with Portugese victims of sexual abuse by the Catholic Church.

2023 - https://www.foxnews.com/world/pope-francis-holds-private-meetings-sex-abuse-victims-ukrainian-pilgrims

Huh, dang I guess you’re right.

You probably should have just stopped that first paragraph right there.

There was no reason to make crazy ass claims that only a fart-for-brains would believe, then spend the time smacking them down. If you really don’t think the opinion of the average Christian has changed towards LGBT folks, then you haven’t been paying attention. Please feel free to check any numbers anywhere and see that roughly half of US Christians are fine with homosexuality now. Compared to 30, 40, 50, 100 years ago, this is a huge shift.

It’d also be insane if the “secular Nazi ideology” was actually heavily Christian

If you wanted to claim that a lot of Christians joined the Nazis, that is one thing, but the ideology itself is incompatible with Christianity.

From the same wikipedia article that you linked:

Nazi ideology could not accept an autonomous establishment whose legitimacy did not spring from the government. It desired the subordination of the church to the state.[38] Although the broader membership of the Nazi Party after 1933 came to include many Catholics and Protestants, aggressive anti-Church radicals like Joseph Goebbels, Alfred Rosenberg, Martin Bormann, and Heinrich Himmler saw the Kirchenkampf campaign against the Churches as a priority concern, and anti-Church and anticlerical sentiments were strong among grassroots party activists.[39]

Hitler’s Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels, saw an “insoluble opposition” between the Christian and Nazi world views.[39] The Führer angered the churches by appointing Alfred Rosenberg as official Nazi ideologist in 1934.[40] Heinrich Himmler saw the main task of his SS organization to be that of acting as the vanguard in overcoming Christianity and restoring a “Germanic” way of living.[41] Hitler’s chosen deputy, Martin Bormann, advised Nazi officials in 1941 that “National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable.”[40]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany#Nazi_attitudes_towards_Christianity

Much of it seems to be a matter of what we think Lemmy and the communities are for.

In my mind, c/News and c/Politics should be group spaces where people of all stripes can express view points in well-reasoned, civil, ways. I have no problem with little corners of the federation that cater to the hurt and angry, my issue is when it spills out into the more public spaces. I will readily acknowledge some of that opinion comes from a stance that does not seem all that popular on Lemmy.

When I first heard about the fediverse, I was excited that the echo chambers would be broken open. I thought everyone could have their radical little corners, but that there would be open communities that we could all meet in and discuss issues in a reasonable way.

When I joined an instance with a “democratic” experiment going on, I quickly realized that my view that it was awesome to federate with everyone was a relative minority; many people there thought it was more awesome to be able to defederate from those whose opinions they never wanted to see. Fortunately, their community found something of a middle ground, but it was still quite the disappointment to me.

The “paradox of tolerance” is people justifying attacking people. This myth does nothing but ensure there’s no way back for people who have drifted out of bounds - it’s a recipe for radicalizing people.

The vast majority of Christians have spent your entire life moving more towards the middle. Yet, all you see is the ground that hasn’t been covered yet. When you push them (not me) back and pretend that they should be judged by the actions of their ancestors instead of their own actions, you make it that much more challenging to have them stay in-bounds, or move back in if they have gone astray.

When you compare the Christian Religion that two-thirds of the US shares, to the secular Nazi Ideology, and claim they have blood on their hands, you push them towards radicalization.

When people that support your stance go out-of-bounds themselves, and aren’t called on it they make it that much harder to show the way back in-bounds to the opposition that have strayed.

Once again, thank you for the well-reasoned comment.

I have to say, much of this sounds very similar to something I might have said while trying to convince someone that there is some nuance to the Christian Right. The rest of if though is still worth thinking over some more for sure. Especially the bit about how this space is a bit tailored towards leftist view points. Maybe I am expecting too much in a place where people should be able to throw an off the cuff “goddam repubtards” without being called on it.

Still, I think some of the comments really do push that boundary; including OC’s immediate accusation of some generic Christian being the murder.

Thank you for the clarification.

I have read that multiple times. I just think it is a shite theory.

I eventually need to put it in my own words, but /u/[email protected]’s post is pretty good for now: (emphasis added)

There’s no paradox in tolerance. Tolerance means you accept everyone existing within the societal contract - period. Doesn’t matter if they’re Republican, a racist, or anything else

Behavior out of bounds should be fought appropriately. If someone uses words to express racism, call them a disgusting asshole. If a bunch of neonazis organize for an act of violence, confront it with violence. Respond appropriately.

Conversely, if a racist can be around people of other races without acting racist, accept them in the group to reinforce their rehabilitation. If someone with braindead opinions bites their tongue and keeps it to themselves, tolerate them.

There’s no paradox - there’s acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior. If anyone, displays only acceptable behavior, you tolerate them - full stop. If anyone goes out of bounds, you respond appropriately to correct the behavior - full stop.

The “paradox of tolerance” is people justifying attacking people. This myth does nothing but ensure there’s no way back for people who have drifted out of bounds - it’s a recipe for radicalizing people.

I’m genuinely convinced the “paradox of tolerance” is a psyops designed to fracture society by breeding extremists… If there’s no tolerance when they behave and no way back, what do you think is going to happen? Either their beliefs that they’re under attack get constantly reinforced and they get further pushed out of bounds, or we kill them all before they destroy our society

There has to be a way back, or the only way forward is ideological purges

https://lemmy.world/comment/3754441

Looks like they are both bigots from here.

I can appreciate that train of thought.

A lot of agnostic and atheistic people have spent a lot of time considering their own moral and ethical values; I know I have. While my own version started with an ethics class I took while at a bible school, I still needed to spend plenty of time once I left that life considering what morals and ethical values I thought were relevant.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find that an unbiased observer thought I was religious until they got to know me better.

You can be a wise, moral and ethical person without religion

I fully agree.

Edit: That in no way discounts the idea that there is a lot of wisdom in religion. Even if some of it is outdated.

That is not really what I was referring to Edit: when I said I doubt we are beyond the need for religion. There is a (debated) theory that religion was important in moving from tribalism towards modern civilization. Specifically, the belief that a god or gods would punish your neighbor if he was doing evil behind your back may have been a necessary concept in our development. Even in modern times, the idea that our fellow citizens may be doing evil without recourse is a serious consideration. It may be adding to our current societal stresses.

Of course, that could be all horse shit, but I am leaned slightly towards that opinion at present.

Thank you for the link. The article from that comment was far superior.

I am sorry to hear that Josh lost his life like that. Seems like Philly lost a good guy.

Hopefully it wasn’t actually the domestic option. It is a hard thought to think that someone he helped out by letting them live there would come back to kill him.

Also, I am glad to hear that his friends are looking into rehoming his rescued cat friend.