https://lemmy.world/c/christians

This community does not affirm practiced LGBTQ+ lifestyles

Rule 8 of this community is in clear breach of the first goal from the lemmy/mastodon.world code of conduct

  • Kabe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    To play devil’s advocate (pun not intended), this community poses an interesting quandary.

    When seen in context, their rules do clearly prohibit any hate speech against the LGBTQ+ community:

    Rule #5: Remember that we are all fellow image-bearers. We may disagree with people, but we are never to tear down another person’s inherent dignity and value as someone made in the image of God (Imago Dei). This includes those in the LGBTQ+ community. They need Jesus, too, just like we do, and we can’t say we represent Him while we tear down the works of His hands.

    Rule #6: Banned subjects include … Anything calling for direct/indirect violence against any individual or group, including LGBTQ+ individuals or groups; …

    Rule #8: This community does not affirm practiced LGBTQ+ lifestyles, with the exception of the ace/aroace (asexual/aromatic-asexual) lifestyle in certain contexts. However, abuse towards members of the LGBTQ+ community will not be tolerated. Pro-LGBTQ+ content is not allowed; however, sincere questions and discourse about LGTBQ+issues are permitted.

    I’d be interested to see the admin’s ruling in this case.

    • mathemachristian[he]@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s the ol’ “hate the sin love the sinner” shtick. It tries to separate homosexuality (the “sin”) from homosexuals (the “sinner”). If only they could stop sinning (stop being gay) they would of course be welcome!

      Its not just excluding them from church/christian communities, its the theological basis for conversion camps and the like.

    • TheSpookiestUser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I would think specifically not allowing “pro-LGBTQ+ content” is being pretty bigoted. Just because it is a religious belief does not mean it can’t also be bigoted.

      If this little “loophole” is enough to allow this kind of thing to stay on this instance, I would be worried. But I’ll wait and see what the admins have to say about it. Resolved: https://lemmy.world/comment/1455537

      • Kabe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think that would depend on what “Pro-LGBTQ+ content” means. It’s quite a vague term. Does it refer to posts, discussion topics, or what?

        They do follow up by saying that serious discussion about LGBTQ+ issues is acceptable, so the fact that are open to discussion, in theory, could be a point in their defense.

        • TheSpookiestUser@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Community’s gone now, so it’s a moot point, but:

          Assume they allow casual images. Someone posts an image of a pride celebration out front of a church. It’s removed. Is this not obviously bigoted?

          • rist097@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Are you giving an example of a real situation or are you just imagining? There is a big difference.

            We cannot ban them because you think they would remove a post like that

            • TheSpookiestUser@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, to brainstorm a point, seeing as the community has now been banned and thus I have no idea what specific content they allowed outside the rule snippets posted here. Problem’s resolved, we’re done.

    • Ace T'Ken
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I was going to say something pretty similar to what you were.

      I’m the last one to generally defend religious people, but are they actually being bigoted?

      There’s a pretty large difference between not affirming something and attacking something and frankly flipping through the community I didn’t see either of those things occurring.

      It sounds like the original poster just doesn’t like the rule itself.

      • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        What if it was race? What if they said “this community doesn’t affirm black lifestyles.”

        • monobot@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          It is not like we live in society where everyone is always welcome.

          “What if it was Russians?” (aha we forbade them long time ago), Chinese (them too), native Americans (we killed them off), what is they are from some poor country… Some of those russians and Chinese are lgbt+, what about them? Migrants? no way.

          There are always limits if you don’t see them you should work on your sensibility (or probably information source)

          They have some rules, it is on us all (not only admins) to assess if those rules align with this server or they should make their own instance (or go to known conservative instance).

          I don’t even want to look at their community (i am ignorant of all religions) if they just don’t want some content it is ok with me, if they are hateful and share hate content and contet against lgbt people then delete them.

          • TheSpookiestUser@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Discrimination against Russians, Chinese, or Native Americans based on their demographic is also unacceptable. That it once was doesn’t make it ok now.

        • Ace T'Ken
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I mean, we could play the game “what if they said a thing they didn’t say” all day long.

          What if they said shoes go on your hands?

            • PupBiru@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              100% this… race and sexuality are both pretty similar: things that people just are and can’t change about themselves

              to say they’re not the same is… well, it’s not wrong, however they’re comparable in this context. if you say it’s not the same thing, you’re either arguing in bad faith or you made the exact point we were trying to: the only reason 1 is acceptable and the other is not doesn’t stand on logical foundations

      • style99@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Pro-LGBTQ+ content is not allowed

        That sounds pretty intolerant to me. How else do you define a bigot?

        • Shivaran@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’d say that sounds more like a circlejerk than intolerance but that sounds pretty gay so is probably not allowed there either.

        • Crunkle_Foreskin@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Putting gay content on a Christian community is like putting a Pitbull in a nursery. It’s done only to cause a problem.

          Would you put gay content in a Muslim community?

          • yata@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            What are you on about? There are many Christians who have no problem with LGBTQ+, and there are lots of relevant issues about it to discuss, especially in a Christian community.

                • arkcom@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Well, probably not anymore, since not allowing lgbt discussion is enough to get your community banned without warning. Its always on topic.

                  • TheSpookiestUser@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Then I think you’ve fundamentally misunderstood. If I have a community about baseball, and I don’t allow non-baseball content, I would not have a rule stating “no non-baseball content and no LGBT content”. That doesn’t make any sense, and would only be included if I also wanted to remove baseball-and-lgbt content, which would be bigoted.