Hacker News Reader

Comment by iammisc | Hacker News Reader

Once the current regime let us go back to church, I deleted my Facebook. It's much better at church. Firstly, they feed me. Secondly, I can say what I think without being censored.

It's not even that people all agree with me at church. It's that they treat you like a human being. Those who are unvaxxed are just some guy down the street, not someone who we are supposed to target in our hour of hate and wish death upon as the more uncivilized amongst the internet regularly do.

I feel sorry for those who have to substitute something so vile for something so wholesome.

View on HN

If this weren't HN, I'd assume this comment is satire. Churches certainly aren't immune to censorship, hours of hate, death wishes (explicit or otherwise), or dehumanization.

Social spaces are all vulnerable to the weaknesses of humanity. While I do think the mechanics of the medium play a role in how those weaknesses surface, the source is and will always be us.

Absolutely, but the difference is that no one church is dominant in the United States. Even if we were to claim that Catholicism (the largest faction, although not a majority by any means) were the dominant one, within that church there is also a lot of diversity of thought. As an adult, you can realistically pick and choose with whom to associate at these churches, unlike say Twitter or Facebook where are beholden to whatever religion they follow.

As the western world secularizes, we need a replacement for the community fulfillment role that organized religion used to take. As someone who was raised religious, but no longer identifies as such, I find my self missing the wonderful sense of community that my church facilitated by bringing broad spectrums of different people together to achieve a higher purpose. I know people's mileage will vary depending on their specific church, and I don't intend to whitewash the toxic actions, or the rejection of certain groups in some churches. But many elements of my church were positive. The sense of community, the volunteering, the people genuinely caring for each other, and even just as a place for people to hangout. I consider being raised in that environment to be a net good, despite later being turned off the actual theology. Is there away we can move to a secular alternative that has the same level of social penetration as the church once did?

I think the "cosmic purpose and stakes" component of religion is really tough to beat, hence the enduring power of churches. Transposing that element into other spaces creates a lot of the same issues. Subtracting it eliminates the secret sauce that makes a church sticky.

I've considered this question at length (for similar reasons as you), experimented once or twice, and haven't cracked it yet.

Agreed, I liked the community and bonding aspects as well. And I'm saying this as a first-generation immigrant who isn't even Christian - even though I know the church's overall mandate is to 'convert' people or whatever, I got a sense that the youth ministers at the church didn't really care - we all just wanted to share some good times.

I was raised by fundamentalists, and that was not my experience. Wrong kind of opinions got me surrounded by elders who would attempt to brow beat me in to submission. Towards my late teens I'd spend the entire hour and a half of every Sunday hiding out in the kitchen/dining hall in the back of the building, tending to the pot of coffee, until I was old enough to leave and strike out on my own. I still get panic attacks at the idea of stepping foot in to a religious building. Basically, your experience is far from universal, in my experience.

The nice thing about being an adult and going to church is that if you don't like it... you don't have to be there? There are many competing churches in the United States. The same cannot be said realistically of social media.

Meanwhile, here you are using words like "regime" in your post here.

What other word should I use to describe a de facto government of America that blatantly, and loudly, refuses to follow the American constitution? This is not my opinion. The courts have agreed with me that religious service is an essential activity, despite many governor's and the federal government's attempts to ban it. Moreover, the current federal regime has unequivocally said that although the Supreme Court itself has ruled its eviction moratoria illegal, it would enforce them anyway (despite the SC ruling unequivocally that this constituted a violation of the takings clause). That is a constitutonal crisis, that was only glossed over because the media decided it didn't exist.

My use of the word regime befits the current US government.

The American heritage dictionary says that regime means:

A usually heavy-handed administration or group in charge of an organization.

That is exactly what the current federal government and many state governments (including my own) are by the admissions of our own courts.

I was mostly pointing out the hypocrisy of what you were saying.

> I feel sorry for those who have to substitute something so vile for something so wholesome.

Here you are trying to proclaim how your church is so wholesome, while you yourself are being an unwholesome person. You're continuing to divide people with your rhetoric. So wholesome.

If you're a representation of your church, I am glad I am not part of your church, or any church for that matter. I've found that this type of behavior you're spewing is quite common and a reason why I hope organized religion finds its deathbed sooner rather than later.

This has nothing to do with my church in particular but has to do with the idea of a church. Honestly society benefits if people were members of churches other than my own as well. Even a church not my own would foster community and hopefully want people to become better. And provide a community where people can have true connection

And yes, social media is vile. I'm sorry you don't see that. There is nothing dismissive about calling a piece of software vile. Do you see how confused you've become under it's influence? I literally called a software service vile, after decades of published studies and news reports indicating it's I'll effects, and I've been accused of fostering division among people.

This is the great problem with social media. It confuses fake for real, virtual for physical, and computer programs for human beings.

No, I agree social media is awful. I was talking about your rhetoric being divisive. Notably with use of words like "regime" which is often used to describe authoritarian governments. No matter what you think of our particular government in the US, it is not authoritarian and I suspect if you ever actually lived in a location where that was the case you'd still realize there's far more good about the US government than there is bad.

But hey, you can keep blaming me for your shortcomings, that's what religious people like to do.

Our government is a regime, and has been for a very long time. Presidents today rule almost exclusively by executive order. Each administration takes yet more drastic action, completely obliterates past precedent, etc. Why can't we say this really? Is the US as bad as Iran? No of course not. But that's like a the bare minimum here. I'd rather we not get there.

> But hey, you can keep blaming me for your shortcomings, that's what religious people like to do.

You're the one worshipping at the feet of Uncle Sam.

>You're the one worshipping at the feet of Uncle Sam.

Far from it. But I'm not stupid enough to not grasp that we have it a lot better here in the US than others do. It may not be perfect, but it is far from authoritarian or a regime.

You're the one using the incorrect words trying to stir shit up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com