![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8f2046ae-5d2e-495f-b467-f7b14ccb4152.png)
I feel like school shooters are rare enough that a policy about cell phones wouldn’t need to factor them in.
I feel like school shooters are rare enough that a policy about cell phones wouldn’t need to factor them in.
Yes well the nature of government is changed now, so the divine right of kings would be more like the divine right of the democratically elected government, including all of the limits, checks and balances established by that government. As such, a government exceeding its own authority, as determined by itself, is not within the established divine rights.
And so your argument about forcibly vaccinating the populace (as though they were sheep), and it being justified by a divine right to rule, does not hold up unless laws were written specifically to allow that. But even that might be exceeding the scope of current western governments and would certainly be challenged along those lines.
I guess it’s political in that it is an acknowledgement that Jesus is the highest authority, higher than governments on earth. I don’t think it’s saying that the king of the land (or the government) is Jesus. Most Christians view government as being subjects of God, subject to God’s authority. The government makes laws that are within its scope to do, but cannot exceed that scope. The constitution was written with this in mind, very intentionally, as a way to limit the power of government, although they used the term natural law I think, which Christians interpret as God’s authority.
But that said, obedience to government is a duty and obligation for Christians as well.
I’m still not really sure what your point is, so I’m kinda just spewing what I know on that general topic.
OK so in your analogy, the government is the shepherd, which is Jesus? Pretty sure that’s not how Christians view the government…
You can’t jump to full authoritarian without going through the first steps. I actually don’t understand your second point at all though, about being a Christian.
When it comes to laws, I agree that the whole point of laws is to benefit society and that people who don’t want to follow the laws are subject to an authoritarian response. In the case of covid vaccines, the law stopped short of requiring them by law. It nearly did so through executive mandates, but not quite. But even if it were so, dehumanizing language like “plague rat”, and it being a step towards a dark societal path, is not the same as consequences for breaking the law in the context of what a healthy society looks like. ANY dehumanizing language is bad and dangerous and there are no exceptions.
What do you think about when unvaccinated were called plague rats during covid? Do you think we could have ended up down the same path with them?
No, but I’m also not sure where you are going with that question. I suppose hezbollah flags directly have something to do with the Palestine protests, whereas nazi flags didn’t really have anything to do with the convoy, so maybe it’s more understandable to have hezbollah/hamas flags there. But they are still terrorists, right? Or are we OK with them now? I’m just not sure what you mean.
This is the standard that was applied when a few nazi flags showed up at convoy rallies. You either need to reclaim the cause for your protest, or admit that it actually stands for something else and then ask yourself if you want to be part of that.
Overdoses and drug deaths skyrocketed during covid, so it’s no surprise for them to settle down afterwards.
It’s entirely possible that the question has never been considered, and that it is technically legal. In that case we should probably close that gap, and soonish.
For the sake of discussion, voting rights should belong to everyone the laws apply to. If you go by a different set of laws (tribal or territorial), why would you have a say in laws (by voting) that apply to everyone but you? Similarly, if you demonstrate that you won’t follow the laws, then why should you get a say in making them?
And I got down voted for saying that distrust in the judicial system is becoming a bipartisan effort (following the Trump verdict).
It’s been 8 years of accusations and promises of an imminent conviction, with no actual results until now. It’s not that weird for people to be a little exhausted and unimpressed by it, especially when the charges are a bit convoluted and confusing to the average person. But his opponents are working hard to simplify the message to “he’s a felon”, so maybe that will kick in eventually.
The appeal to heaven flag, despite what the name implies, is not really religious in spirit. The whole idea is that there is a right to revolution if the laws of the land are truly unjust. It’s an acknowledgement that the laws of the land can be wrong and that revolution is necessary under certain circumstances. Hard to say exactly what his intent was in flying that flag, maybe in direct relation to Jan 6, but possibly as a an acknowledgement of the limitations of the highest court in the land. If the latter, then I think it’s commendable for him to fly it.
I’m not sure if these people are propagandists or just dumb. It seems like a very obvious non story if you actually read what happened.
The charges were about collusion, and not about whether or not the Russians tried to interfere.
The entire system is being challenged from top to bottom, with supreme Court justices and Judges all over being called into question.
It’s a little confusing what Biden even meant. I assumed he was asking if white people were swapped out for Black people on Jan 6, and all else were equal.
I’m still not seeing how that justifies forced vaccinations.