9 ms·

Agree that politicians are to blame here, but SESTA / FOSTA laws have bipartisan support, not just from the religious right.

devmor 5y ago
Both major parties cater to Christian interests over anything else. The US is a "light theocracy". Until that changes, we will constantly have to defend our industries and personal lives from the intrusion of the church.
- saghm 5y ago
  To expound on this, we've still yet to have a president who doesn't identify as Christian. I don't think we're particularly close to a point where a self-professed atheist could get elected president either, although I could see someone of another mainstream religion getting elected in the not too distant future.
  - spindle 5y ago
    As a non-American, can anyone please tell me how the media reacts to Tulsi Gabbard not being Christian? (She's Hindu ... and religious, so this is not relevant to the atheist part of your point.)
    - saghm 5y ago
      I actually don't think I was aware of this! Most of the media coverage I've seen on her is about her coming across as fairly unconventional for a Democrat in the debate performances, but I think the field was so large then and then narrowed down quickly enough that she didn't get much extended attention. I imagine if she makes it further into a national campaign, it might end up coming up though.
    - int_19h 5y ago
      Chris Butler's cult isn't Hindu, although they would sure like people to believe that.
  - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
    Trump is very clearly not a Christian. Seemed to be loved by people who call themselves Christian but seemingly don't follow any of Jesus' message. It's really curious.
    - krapp 5y ago
      >Seemed to be loved by people who call themselves Christian but seemingly don't follow any of Jesus' message. That describes most Christians, honestly. Trump identifies as a "non-denominational" Christian (as opposed to atheist or any other religion), employs Christian symbols in his politics (likely not in good faith, but again that isn't unusual) and has strong support within the Evangelical Christian community, who clearly find something within him that resonates with their faith.
      - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 5y ago
        > That describes most Christians, honestly. In your experience, perhaps, but it's exceptionally dishonest, and frankly hateful, to say that describes "most Christians." I know more Christians than non-Christians and the behavior discussed here describes maybe 4 of them (out of about a thousand). That'd be like someone saying "most LGBTQ are pedophiles." I'm sure it's true in some cases, but is highly unlikely to be true for "most". Honestly, I get tired of everyone using hyperbole so flippantly. It gives your opponents easy targets to completely discredit the point you were making. So, just...stop.
        krapp 5y ago
        >In your experience, perhaps, but it's exceptionally dishonest, and frankly hateful, to say that describes "most Christians." It isn't hate, it is experience, and it's something a lot of Christians would admit about themselves. Even the Bible says most followers of God are hypocrites who fall short of their own principles. I'm not getting into a religious argument here, but you shouldn't talk about giving your opponents an easy target. Christianity is one hell of a glass house to live in. Maybe instead of attacking me, you should consider why so many Christians believe so deeply and fervently in a man of such excremental moral character like Donald Trump. You can't simply dismiss the question by claiming none of them are real Christians. Take the plank out of your own eye before pointing out the speck in someone else's, as the man said.
- adventured 5y ago
  > The US is a "light theocracy". That's not remotely close to being true. The US has among the strongest separation of church and state laws of any nations and they're well protected decade after decade. If the US were actually a light theocracy, the conservative majority Supreme Court would wreck the US promptly with crazy theocratic changes that would make Iran blush. It was the first nation in history to explicitly codify such a strict separation in its constitution as well. Those separation lines have, on average, been made stronger over time. You can dislike the Christian culture that exists in the US, certainly. It hasn't made any consequential inroads into state in two centuries, in fact the opposite is the case: Christianity (and religion more broadly) has been pushed back out of US life in numerous significant ways (and properly so; eg: gay marriage, abortion rights, making it illegal to discriminate based on religion, acceptance and ease of divorce, sunday alcohol sales & business activity, drug legalization laws, press dominance and positioning (the press is ~95% left-leaning now and very much not religious in nature)). That there have been occasional set-backs in things such as abortion rights, doesn't nullify the overall point. Religion has been losing political and cultural ground in the US for a long time and that's likely to continue. Religion used to dominate US life and heavily factor into US politics, as recently as the post war 1950s-1980s era, and that is no longer the case (the left for example is drastically less religious than it was just 40-50 years ago).
  - rat9988 5y ago
    I'm not sure you disproved his point. You disproved it was a theocracy which no one has argued.
  - KyeRussell 5y ago
    The fact that religion is losing ground doesn’t make the point any less true. I do not live in the US. Looking in from outside, it’s obvious that religion plays a material part in lawmaking, including maintaining a status quo that is increasingly untenable. Of course, you need to read between the lines. Even though it is becoming increasingly hard to do so, the US obviously relies on historical prestige to get away with saying one thing (“separation of church and state!” being drilled in to all kids as part of their Freedom Class) and doing another.
  - 5y ago
- refurb 5y ago
  Theocracy tells me you don’t know what that word means.
UberFly 5y ago
Exactly. The whole goal originally was to counter online sex trafficking which is easy to be for, not for religious zealots to "censor nipples" as some here who probably didn't read the wired article think. It's just that like everything there are unintended consequences.
- loeg 5y ago
  The goal was to shut down online prostitution; trafficking is just a performative excuse.
  - UberFly 5y ago
    Don't pretend trafficking wasn't/isn't a major problem made even bigger and easier by the internet. Here's one example: https://abcnews.go.com/US/woman-allegedly-trafficked-backpage-legislation-brings-closure/story?id=54390501 https://abcnews.go.com/US/woman-allegedly-trafficked-backpag...
    - loeg 5y ago
      This is not responsive to my comment.
    - Bandeau 5y ago
      it was never clear that FOSTA / SESTA was the solution. Law enforcement came out against the law because the law makes their job harder. Before Craigslist and Backpage cooperated with them in turning over data and traffickers. Now the traffickers are using other methods or working with less LEO friendly operators.
- dbspin 5y ago
  You have cause and effect backwards. Historically 'trafficking' meant human trafficking for the purposes of prostitution. The terminology creep to extend that to any kind of organised prostitution (for example brothels), is absolutely the result of the Christian right, as is the war on porn. Here's one piece Wired ran in 2015 exploring that - https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/03/christians-and-sex-trafficking-how-evangelicals-made-it-a-cause-celebre.html https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/03/christians-and-sex-... Here's a deeper journal article exploring the same territory from 2014 - https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5305/amerjintelaw.108.4.0609?seq=1 https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5305/amerjintelaw.108.4.0609...

devmor 5y ago

Both major parties cater to Christian interests over anything else. The US is a "light theocracy". Until that changes, we will constantly have to defend our industries and personal lives from the intrusion of the church.

saghm 5y ago
To expound on this, we've still yet to have a president who doesn't identify as Christian. I don't think we're particularly close to a point where a self-professed atheist could get elected president either, although I could see someone of another mainstream religion getting elected in the not too distant future.
- spindle 5y ago
  As a non-American, can anyone please tell me how the media reacts to Tulsi Gabbard not being Christian? (She's Hindu ... and religious, so this is not relevant to the atheist part of your point.)
  - saghm 5y ago
    I actually don't think I was aware of this! Most of the media coverage I've seen on her is about her coming across as fairly unconventional for a Democrat in the debate performances, but I think the field was so large then and then narrowed down quickly enough that she didn't get much extended attention. I imagine if she makes it further into a national campaign, it might end up coming up though.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    Chris Butler's cult isn't Hindu, although they would sure like people to believe that.
- pbhjpbhj 5y ago
  Trump is very clearly not a Christian. Seemed to be loved by people who call themselves Christian but seemingly don't follow any of Jesus' message. It's really curious.
  - krapp 5y ago
    >Seemed to be loved by people who call themselves Christian but seemingly don't follow any of Jesus' message. That describes most Christians, honestly. Trump identifies as a "non-denominational" Christian (as opposed to atheist or any other religion), employs Christian symbols in his politics (likely not in good faith, but again that isn't unusual) and has strong support within the Evangelical Christian community, who clearly find something within him that resonates with their faith.
    - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 5y ago
      > That describes most Christians, honestly. In your experience, perhaps, but it's exceptionally dishonest, and frankly hateful, to say that describes "most Christians." I know more Christians than non-Christians and the behavior discussed here describes maybe 4 of them (out of about a thousand). That'd be like someone saying "most LGBTQ are pedophiles." I'm sure it's true in some cases, but is highly unlikely to be true for "most". Honestly, I get tired of everyone using hyperbole so flippantly. It gives your opponents easy targets to completely discredit the point you were making. So, just...stop.
      - krapp 5y ago
        >In your experience, perhaps, but it's exceptionally dishonest, and frankly hateful, to say that describes "most Christians." It isn't hate, it is experience, and it's something a lot of Christians would admit about themselves. Even the Bible says most followers of God are hypocrites who fall short of their own principles. I'm not getting into a religious argument here, but you shouldn't talk about giving your opponents an easy target. Christianity is one hell of a glass house to live in. Maybe instead of attacking me, you should consider why so many Christians believe so deeply and fervently in a man of such excremental moral character like Donald Trump. You can't simply dismiss the question by claiming none of them are real Christians. Take the plank out of your own eye before pointing out the speck in someone else's, as the man said.
adventured 5y ago
> The US is a "light theocracy". That's not remotely close to being true. The US has among the strongest separation of church and state laws of any nations and they're well protected decade after decade. If the US were actually a light theocracy, the conservative majority Supreme Court would wreck the US promptly with crazy theocratic changes that would make Iran blush. It was the first nation in history to explicitly codify such a strict separation in its constitution as well. Those separation lines have, on average, been made stronger over time. You can dislike the Christian culture that exists in the US, certainly. It hasn't made any consequential inroads into state in two centuries, in fact the opposite is the case: Christianity (and religion more broadly) has been pushed back out of US life in numerous significant ways (and properly so; eg: gay marriage, abortion rights, making it illegal to discriminate based on religion, acceptance and ease of divorce, sunday alcohol sales & business activity, drug legalization laws, press dominance and positioning (the press is ~95% left-leaning now and very much not religious in nature)). That there have been occasional set-backs in things such as abortion rights, doesn't nullify the overall point. Religion has been losing political and cultural ground in the US for a long time and that's likely to continue. Religion used to dominate US life and heavily factor into US politics, as recently as the post war 1950s-1980s era, and that is no longer the case (the left for example is drastically less religious than it was just 40-50 years ago).
- rat9988 5y ago
  I'm not sure you disproved his point. You disproved it was a theocracy which no one has argued.
- KyeRussell 5y ago
  The fact that religion is losing ground doesn’t make the point any less true. I do not live in the US. Looking in from outside, it’s obvious that religion plays a material part in lawmaking, including maintaining a status quo that is increasingly untenable. Of course, you need to read between the lines. Even though it is becoming increasingly hard to do so, the US obviously relies on historical prestige to get away with saying one thing (“separation of church and state!” being drilled in to all kids as part of their Freedom Class) and doing another.
- 5y ago
refurb 5y ago
Theocracy tells me you don’t know what that word means.

UberFly 5y ago

Exactly. The whole goal originally was to counter online sex trafficking which is easy to be for, not for religious zealots to "censor nipples" as some here who probably didn't read the wired article think. It's just that like everything there are unintended consequences.

loeg 5y ago
The goal was to shut down online prostitution; trafficking is just a performative excuse.
- UberFly 5y ago
  Don't pretend trafficking wasn't/isn't a major problem made even bigger and easier by the internet. Here's one example: https://abcnews.go.com/US/woman-allegedly-trafficked-backpage-legislation-brings-closure/story?id=54390501 https://abcnews.go.com/US/woman-allegedly-trafficked-backpag...
  - loeg 5y ago
    This is not responsive to my comment.
  - Bandeau 5y ago
    it was never clear that FOSTA / SESTA was the solution. Law enforcement came out against the law because the law makes their job harder. Before Craigslist and Backpage cooperated with them in turning over data and traffickers. Now the traffickers are using other methods or working with less LEO friendly operators.
dbspin 5y ago
You have cause and effect backwards. Historically 'trafficking' meant human trafficking for the purposes of prostitution. The terminology creep to extend that to any kind of organised prostitution (for example brothels), is absolutely the result of the Christian right, as is the war on porn. Here's one piece Wired ran in 2015 exploring that - https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/03/christians-and-sex-trafficking-how-evangelicals-made-it-a-cause-celebre.html https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/03/christians-and-sex-... Here's a deeper journal article exploring the same territory from 2014 - https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5305/amerjintelaw.108.4.0609?seq=1 https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5305/amerjintelaw.108.4.0609...