Why? Seems to me more likely a sincere attempt to communicate the author's own code of conduct, and the spirit in which he has offered sqlite to his neighbors.
The religious ones, in special, are hard to follow for an Atheist like me. I suppose members of non-Christian religions will find it difficult too. This shortcoming is so salient it's hard to imagine it never came up in discussions.
Didn't we all encounter bosses who would call endless meetings and who would laugh at points that they could not understand? This one is important, even if the fellow from the Name of the Rose had a strange take on it.
Well this is surely extraordinary among codes of conduct, with its direct mention of God. It's bound to ruffle a lot of feathers, and act as a beacon for culture war.
Yes, it's meant as a joking stab at those who seemingly cannot live without having a CoC everywhere. Especially in projects they do not actually participate in. Now watch as this gets blown out of proportion, because this will make some people really, really angry.
Id be very surprised if this stays up actually.
I see the religious part of this CoC as purely incidental to the source material (it being 15 centuries old and aimed at christian monks). It's clearly not meat to be taken serious, even though I'd agree with a lot of the common sense points listed. Now, being a bit annoyed at the religious implications is not being really angry and blowing things out of proportion. Being annoyed still leaves room for discussion. What I meant is the major poop flinging through major publications that will undoubtedly follow over the next few days, activating large swaths of those people I mentioned. Those who thrive on nonconstructive anger. In general I'd agree with you, just leave religion out of it, even when it's (or especially?) in a joking manner. Edit: Typo
I see the religious part as being the entire point, since it comes from a religious order. The very first rule is about loving a particular deity. If we were to go back in time and find these people, what do you think would offend them more, “I hold grudges” or “there is no god”?
I daresay that a difference in opinion like that would probably not trigger most people back in that age in the same manner it seems to do so now (on both sides - I'm not picking on one side here).
While there have been people who have done things like this in all ages (and also over believing there is NO God, as opposed to just the wrong one), your statement is not as accurate as it could be in most cases if you take into account the context of those wars.
That said, Benedictine monks would not be at or near the top of my list for people who would get all triggered, angry, and go to war over you disagreeing that God exists.
Yes, people fiercely defend what they love and believe. But it's possible to do so graciously and firmly without being angry or freaking out that someone disagrees with you (I am not referring to you specifically, but you, myself, our readers, mankind, etc).
Given that the lead of the SQLite project's personal website has references to an organisation that translates religious Scripture, I'm not sure it really is a "joking stab".
> this will make some people really, really angry
Suggesting that a text written by Christians is a good basis for an OSS project's CoC, when Christianity has a pretty fucking horrific track record when it comes to most of the people who, without Codes of Conduct are pushed out of or never welcome in OSS projects, and you're surprised that people might be angry?
People who hold religious beliefs that people following this code spent hundreds of years trying to stamp out with violence probably have a different context that people to whom it is merely irrelevant.
> First of all, love the Lord God with your whole heart, your whole soul, and your whole strength.
> Deny oneself in order to follow Christ.
> Prefer nothing more than the love of Christ.
> Put your hope in God.
> Attribute to God, and not to self, whatever good you see in yourself.
> Fear the Day of Judgment.
> Be in dread of hell.
> Know for certain that God sees you everywhere.
> When wrongful thoughts come into your heart, dash them against Christ immediately.
> Devote yourself frequently to prayer.
> Daily in your prayers, with tears and sighs, confess your past sins to God, and amend them for the future.
> Obey in all things the commands of those whom God has placed in authority over you even though they (which God forbid) should act otherwise, mindful of the Lord's precept, "Do what they say, but not what they do." (!!!)
> Do not wish to be called holy before one is holy; but first to be holy, that you may be truly so called.
Because if you take it as a satirization of the adoption of CoC's, it's saying "we don't think CoC's address real problems and we'll do it with a general set of ideals that do nothing to solve problems".
Which ignores the very real problem of harassment in tech.
Given the context, I don't think they are mutually exclusive. It could be both a religious text and satirising other CoCs which are essentially religious in their own right.
Why? Why are people so concerned with "enforcement", which is basically "punishment"?
A code of conduct should be nothing more than a set of guidelines which contributors should aspire to meet. It's not a legal text, and it's not a religious text. We are free participants in projects, not unwilling subjects to be disciplined.
We've gone from projects where one was expected to behave properly, and if not would be politely admonished, and maybe kicked out if this continued over a long period, to this, where the CoC is to be used as a blunt instrument to punish transgressors. It's not an improvement, and I dislike the assumptions of bad faith and requirement for punishment. It's unnecessary, and sets the wrong tone.
"Yes. Clients were encouraging me to have a code of conduct.
(Having a CoC seems to be a trendy thing nowadays.) So I looked around and came up with what you found, submitted the idea to the whole staff, and everybody approved."
I don't care much for CoCs but the tone of the README makes me think that the author is the type of people CoCs are written for (or against). A page long strawman rant.
If you don't care about CoC then don't have one. Don't use this passive aggressive "let me write a thousand word essay to let you know how much I don't care about or have time to deal with CoCs".
>However, if someone tells you you are stupid, or wrong. Stop. Think. Does this have anything to do with your race, region, religion, or anything else not related to this project? This is a tricky one. Have you considered, that they are either having a bad day, are a bad listener, or possibly, you are wrong? If you feel you're not wrong, please, by all means, reply.
If I call somebody stupid in the context of a technical contribution to a project then I'm being unprofessional and out of line. Doesn't mean that I should automatically be executed publicly but I don't see why it should be the person being insulted who should introspect to figure out what I meant exactly.
Oh and if I contribute to your project and you call me stupid I can assure you that I won't reply, I'll get out of here as fast as I can and never return.
Leaving aside the religious aspect of the CoC which are probably going to be controversial the other rules are actually fairly common sense. A few that caught my eye:
> Do not give way to anger.
> Do not nurse a grudge.
> Do not entertain deceit in your heart.
> Do not give a false peace.
> Do not swear, for fear of perjuring yourself.
> Utter only truth from heart and mouth.
> Do not return evil for evil.
> Be not a grumbler.
> Be not a detractor.
> Hate no one.
> Be not jealous, nor harbor envy.
> Do not love quarreling.
> Shun arrogance.
> Respect your seniors.
> Love your juniors.
> Make peace with your adversary before the sun sets.
I've literally seen how "respect your seniors" plays out in reality: any idea from new/junior team members is effectively ignored, because they're not 'senior' enough.
Seriously? The next point is “love your juniors” so what you are saying shouldn’t happen. But then again... I think loving your juniors usually ends up with HR.
I love my brother, but I don't respect him (most of the time), since he's a bit of dork. I still love him, because of our relationship, the shared experiences and the knowledge he'd be here when I need him.
I respect my boss, because she's my senior, she is a good leader and a competent dev in her own right. But I don't love her.
Ah, but it doesn't state you should love those of equal age or standing - depending on how you interpret 'junior' and 'senior' so there is still some room for complaints here.
Not serious, of course, if any 'CoC' is needed I'd say "just behave" or "do not do unto others what you wouldn't have done upon yourself" should suffice. Rule #9 in the Rule of St. Benedict already states something similar, now just get rid of the rest and you're done.
Ah, but the original Latin has iuniores diligere, that's means "esteem highly", "regard with affection" & so on. Instead you have these age and gender silos in American society, and the silly sex jokes and the Pence Rule, it's worrisome for anyone who has to navigate through it.
Iuniores diligere can mean 'love the juniors' but I suspect St. Benedict used the verb 'diligo' in one of its other meanings:
diligo: love, distinguish by choosing, regard above others, esteem highly, value, prize. Romantic love is 'amo' in latin (and Italian), St. Benedict is not telling you to get into problems with HR when loving anyone.
Iuniores means just what it says, 'the younger' so 'iuniores diligere' does mean 'love the younger' and as such fits perfectly in whatever 'age silo' doctrine you want Americans to accuse of professing. There is no mention of gender at all, nor do Pence or sex jokes come into play here.
I agree. Giving someone undue respect just because they're old is ageism. Some old people never really grew up and are still jerks (I plan on being one of them; getting my grumpy on).
While you are correct that “respect people” is a better general purpose rule, you are throwing out the baby with the bath water: experience is valuable.
Pretty much any dictionary on the planet will disagree with you.
But then, so does basic logic. But I mean, we're debating an open source project that has adopted a Code of Conduct, with point one demanding that contributors believe in a superstitious all powerful being.
A very tall order, but if you could meet all of those rules you would certainly be the exact kind of person I would hope to run into when contributing to an open-source community <3
> This rule is strict, and none are able to comply perfectly. Grace is readily granted for minor transgressions.
I'm an atheist. And yet, despite the explicit religious tone, I think this is one of the best codes of conduct I've ever seen. I'd love to see someone write the equivalent document using something less religious, like Aurelius's Meditations as the base.
yes, good rules, but as a CoC it’s a bit much, and very preachy. The phrase, “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” springs readily to mind. I hope the author is a saint.
I don't understand the purpose of this. I hope it's an elaborate joke, but it is surprisingly unprofessional.
A few years ago I spent some time in their dev mailing list and proposed a patch. I doubt I'd still do this in this context. This code of conduct that requires members to honor th Christ, even as a joke, would make me reluctant to interact with SQLite.
When people started having both standards and options. I can choose between a college frathouse and a productive guild hall: why would I live in a frathouse?
The overarching spirit of the rule is worship of a particular deity. “First of all, love the Lord God with your whole heart, your whole soul, and your whole strength.”
Only if you are looking for it. I imagine most adults can translate through time and culture without much issue. Literalists tend to be evangelical christians, who probably wouldn’t mind.
"Having a CoC seems to be a trendy thing nowadays."
Here, then, is an example of how society falls. Never has any good come out of such things, and for as long as one seeks to dominate, oppress and limit another in any such way, no matter how sweet the words, their meaning will forever remain imprisonment of another.
The CoC has been used in Linux by an Intel-hired transsexual movement to make character assassinations of developers who were not too keen on implementing Intel backdoors.
Those who oppose? Get called transphobic and targeted with made-up rape allegations.
Best CoC I have ever seen! I do not think that it is joke. From sqlite's source code:
The author disclaims copyright to this source code. In place of
a legal notice, here is a blessing:
May you do good and not evil.
May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others.
May you share freely, never taking more than you give.
People seem to be upset about the religious parts of the code of conduct, just read the overview, it's in no way intended to force religion onto people.
If the religious bits was to be deleted, it would be hard for anyone to disagree.
I see it as no less good or bad than any other code of conduct I've seen. Most of them could be used to throw anyone out of any project, if you chose to do so. The code of conducts for a lot of projects are so selectively enforced that is ridiculous.
Although, religious aspects aside, there are many valuable tenets to be found in there, which will be directly opposed by those who want to get angry about it.
I don't think it will put an end to this as many people are simply too afraid to refuse (heck, even Linus gave in!), but if other projects react in a similar way, it will be a breath of fresh air and make it more difficult to enforce SoC for all open source projects.
I am surprised at how dismissive and intolerant the comments here are of this code of conduct. And I say this as an atheist that still harbors a lot of resentment against my family's religion.
Do you have so little empathy that you can't possibly image someone adopting The Rule of St. Benedict in good faith (no pun intended)?
Sure, why not? Group codes of conduct are a form of mutually-enforced morality. Why not pick up a template that seems to have worked in the past and reuse parts of it?
It all won't fit, of course, but why re-invent the wheel? I'm really much more interested in the track record of how various of these items worked out (or not) than I am in impeaching the source. Who cares about that stuff?
Most Codes of Conduct prescribe to ideas of patriarchy or intersectionality - if you don't believe in these, then you are generally reeducated or expelled.
I have seen equal evidence for the existence of a God as I have the existence of a Patriarchy.
If you don't believe in (or criticise) the faith of Intersectionality, then you are subject to persecution and expulsion. There's a very disturbing parallel with the beliefs and aims of militant SJWs and the some of the worst aspects of religious intolerance. CoCs such as the "contributor covenant" are a way of enforcing these beliefs as some kind of religious document, in effect. This makes the SQLite CoC a humourous parody of this type of CoC, being an actual religious document; this is one reason for the "outrage": religion doesn't like fun being poked at it.
I think he can't possibly do that as SQLite doesn't accept contributions. There are literally zero people impacted by this CoC that weren't in on it from the beginning.
I don't think that the problem is adopting in bad or good faith; personally I am saddened because the CoCs are meant to be there to protect people that are usually in a weaker position and in our development communities that usually identifies with a few categories: women, LGBT+, disabled people etc.
Now if you look at it from this point of view I think that you can at least see the irony of using a religious text in this context; to be more clear, quoting their webpage:
> This code of conduct has proven its mettle in thousands of diverse communities for over 1,500 years
Those "thousands of diverse communities" include the ones who were using their religion as a pretext to burn heretics/witches, torture homosexuals and in general oppress the weak and the diverse as well as the ones that today are still trying to infuse young people with their toxic shame when they are non-conforming.
This is what really grinds my gears: some people would do anything to NOT take responsibility and hide themselves behind nice words with little to no real content.
> Those "thousands of diverse communities" include the ones who were using their religion as a pretext to burn heretics/witches, torture homosexuals and in general oppress the weak and the diverse as well as the ones that today are still trying to infuse young people with their toxic shame when they are non-conforming.
Wow, those Benedictine monks have really been up to some heavy shit.
Here the discussion was a bit broader and the point was about the religious context rather than the Benedictine themselves.
To be fair the Benedictine order wasn't one of the worst orders with respct to whole witch/heresy craze but that kinda furthers the irony of the whole situation: watching to the other side while someone is being persecuted (or bullied) puts you closer to the oppressor than to the oppresed.
This is a bit of a logical fallacy: the fact that you are not able (maybe even because of your own limited self) to do good in every possible context it doesn't mean that you shouldn't do good in the contexts whee you can!
I'm pretty sure that many monks individuals did the best they could with what they were given. That is very different from it being true for the whole order of the Benedictine.
At the same time I do believe that the spirit of Christianity, Islam and most other religions is inherently good, positive and inclusive and there are definitely people that use that as a guide to improve themselves and their lives.
BUT, even if the spirit is good, the actual history says that these organisation shouldn't be held on a moral high ground for anything because they don't deserve it.
Moreover, even today, chances are that if you are a non-conforming individual in a very religious community you are subject to isolation, bullying and shaming.
And that's why I find it of very bad taste to use this as a CoC that should guide integration: if I have been bullied from my ultra-religious community, for example because I am bisexual, then I'll not find that a very welcoming sign.
We don't often talk about the thousands of years of human rights abuses by monastic orders, but they are pretty horrific. Even in America in living memory, it includes the torture and murder of children and the coverup of those crimes: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/christinekenneally/orph...
However, to reject the Rule of St Benedict because some Benedictines lived in egregious violation of it is like rejecting the United States Bill of Rights because the United States has often acted in direct violation of it.
The Rule is, on the whole, a wonderful document, and there are today and have been through history a great many good people who live it day in and day out fairly faithfully. I'm privileged to call some such people my friends.
Traditionaly, burning heretics was a State matter, guilt was decided by a special group, the Inquisition. Heretics were burned (or had other punishment against them, like fines, emprisonment, prayers or house arrests) because it was a state matter, following the principle of Religion of the King = Religion of the People.
> Those "thousands of diverse communities" include the ones who were using their religion as a pretext to burn heretics/witches, torture homosexuals and in general oppress the weak and the diverse as well as the ones that today are still trying to infuse young people with their toxic shame when they are non-conforming.
> who were using their religion as a pretext to burn heretics/witches, torture homosexuals and in general oppress the weak and the diverse as well as the ones that today are still trying to infuse young people with their toxic shame when they are non-conforming.
While I cannot and will not defend everything that has been done in the name of my religion it's kind of disingenuous to discuss this without simultaneously acknowledging that more people have been murdered and tortured with a pretext of reason and lack of religion.
Stop right there. You have no authority over what a person chooses to adopt as a "code of conduct". They can be for whatever purpose they choose. It is up to others to accept them or not.
What rules in St. Benedict are comparable to "no coloreds" in your mind? Or do you find them unacceptable due to the context, i.e. that they are part of a larger religious text?
Yes, I believe that. I don’t take it on faith, I take the “we” part from the fact that religious and racial discrimination tend to be found in the same lists in the laws that outlaw discrimination against certain classes.
299 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 181 ms ] threadhttps://github.com/domgetter/NCoC
Second 69. Love your juniors. Really? Won't HR get involved?
I will also remind you of three important words: Filos, Eros and Agape.
Aww here goes my entire social coping strategy.
That being said: this is a stab at Linux CoC? I can see the humour in it but... Seems unprofessonal for a project as SQLite?
That said, Benedictine monks would not be at or near the top of my list for people who would get all triggered, angry, and go to war over you disagreeing that God exists.
Yes, people fiercely defend what they love and believe. But it's possible to do so graciously and firmly without being angry or freaking out that someone disagrees with you (I am not referring to you specifically, but you, myself, our readers, mankind, etc).
> this will make some people really, really angry
Suggesting that a text written by Christians is a good basis for an OSS project's CoC, when Christianity has a pretty fucking horrific track record when it comes to most of the people who, without Codes of Conduct are pushed out of or never welcome in OSS projects, and you're surprised that people might be angry?
By this same logic, we should reject all scientific research that predates nation state funding.
> First of all, love the Lord God with your whole heart, your whole soul, and your whole strength.
> Deny oneself in order to follow Christ.
> Prefer nothing more than the love of Christ.
> Put your hope in God.
> Attribute to God, and not to self, whatever good you see in yourself.
> Fear the Day of Judgment.
> Be in dread of hell.
> Know for certain that God sees you everywhere.
> When wrongful thoughts come into your heart, dash them against Christ immediately.
> Devote yourself frequently to prayer.
> Daily in your prayers, with tears and sighs, confess your past sins to God, and amend them for the future.
> Obey in all things the commands of those whom God has placed in authority over you even though they (which God forbid) should act otherwise, mindful of the Lord's precept, "Do what they say, but not what they do." (!!!)
> Do not wish to be called holy before one is holy; but first to be holy, that you may be truly so called.
> Fulfill God's commandments daily in your deeds.
> Pray for your enemies in the love of Christ.
> Never despair of God's mercy.
Which ignores the very real problem of harassment in tech.
A code of conduct should be nothing more than a set of guidelines which contributors should aspire to meet. It's not a legal text, and it's not a religious text. We are free participants in projects, not unwilling subjects to be disciplined.
We've gone from projects where one was expected to behave properly, and if not would be politely admonished, and maybe kicked out if this continued over a long period, to this, where the CoC is to be used as a blunt instrument to punish transgressors. It's not an improvement, and I dislike the assumptions of bad faith and requirement for punishment. It's unnecessary, and sets the wrong tone.
"To participate in this community, you need to kill three people by Sunday"
Simple. Also, I hope you have nothing against it, since it is not enforceable.
http://sqlite.1065341.n5.nabble.com/Regarding-CoC-td104277.h...
From Richard:
"Yes. Clients were encouraging me to have a code of conduct. (Having a CoC seems to be a trendy thing nowadays.) So I looked around and came up with what you found, submitted the idea to the whole staff, and everybody approved."
https://github.com/domgetter/NCoC
If you don't care about CoC then don't have one. Don't use this passive aggressive "let me write a thousand word essay to let you know how much I don't care about or have time to deal with CoCs".
>However, if someone tells you you are stupid, or wrong. Stop. Think. Does this have anything to do with your race, region, religion, or anything else not related to this project? This is a tricky one. Have you considered, that they are either having a bad day, are a bad listener, or possibly, you are wrong? If you feel you're not wrong, please, by all means, reply.
If I call somebody stupid in the context of a technical contribution to a project then I'm being unprofessional and out of line. Doesn't mean that I should automatically be executed publicly but I don't see why it should be the person being insulted who should introspect to figure out what I meant exactly.
Oh and if I contribute to your project and you call me stupid I can assure you that I won't reply, I'll get out of here as fast as I can and never return.
> Do not give way to anger.
> Do not nurse a grudge.
> Do not entertain deceit in your heart.
> Do not give a false peace.
> Do not swear, for fear of perjuring yourself.
> Utter only truth from heart and mouth.
> Do not return evil for evil.
> Be not a grumbler.
> Be not a detractor.
> Hate no one.
> Be not jealous, nor harbor envy.
> Do not love quarreling.
> Shun arrogance.
> Respect your seniors.
> Love your juniors.
> Make peace with your adversary before the sun sets.
Good rules to live by IMO.
How about just "respect people".
I've literally seen how "respect your seniors" plays out in reality: any idea from new/junior team members is effectively ignored, because they're not 'senior' enough.
I respect my boss, because she's my senior, she is a good leader and a competent dev in her own right. But I don't love her.
Not serious, of course, if any 'CoC' is needed I'd say "just behave" or "do not do unto others what you wouldn't have done upon yourself" should suffice. Rule #9 in the Rule of St. Benedict already states something similar, now just get rid of the rest and you're done.
diligo: love, distinguish by choosing, regard above others, esteem highly, value, prize. Romantic love is 'amo' in latin (and Italian), St. Benedict is not telling you to get into problems with HR when loving anyone.
Iuniores means just what it says, 'the younger' so 'iuniores diligere' does mean 'love the younger' and as such fits perfectly in whatever 'age silo' doctrine you want Americans to accuse of professing. There is no mention of gender at all, nor do Pence or sex jokes come into play here.
Respect everyone.
But then, so does basic logic. But I mean, we're debating an open source project that has adopted a Code of Conduct, with point one demanding that contributors believe in a superstitious all powerful being.
We're way past fucking logic here aren't we.
> This rule is strict, and none are able to comply perfectly. Grace is readily granted for minor transgressions.
I'm an atheist. And yet, despite the explicit religious tone, I think this is one of the best codes of conduct I've ever seen. I'd love to see someone write the equivalent document using something less religious, like Aurelius's Meditations as the base.
I applaud your good taste in literature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enchiridion_of_Epictetus
Although it's not as compact as Sqlite's CoC.
Saint Benedict is a saint, last I checked.
http://sqlite.1065341.n5.nabble.com/Regarding-CoC-td104277.h...
> Yeah, that's gonna magically appear on Hacker News within the month. For those curious ...
A few years ago I spent some time in their dev mailing list and proposed a patch. I doubt I'd still do this in this context. This code of conduct that requires members to honor th Christ, even as a joke, would make me reluctant to interact with SQLite.
About the point where a third developer joined a project.
One person can slag himself all day long and it's just crazy muttering.
Two people can slag each other all day long and it's he said/she said or some combination thereof.
Three people ... dammit, there's a witness.
The text does not permit this interpretation.
> conduct themselves in a manner that honors the overarching spirit of the rule
which is hot air.
Does it? It says that it requires developers to conduct themselves in a manner that honors the overarching spirit of the rule.
> This code of conduct that requires members to honor Christ
was not true.
Here, then, is an example of how society falls. Never has any good come out of such things, and for as long as one seeks to dominate, oppress and limit another in any such way, no matter how sweet the words, their meaning will forever remain imprisonment of another.
Those who oppose? Get called transphobic and targeted with made-up rape allegations.
Further reading:
https://twitter.com/nickmon1112
Oh dear. That's basically all of us.
The author disclaims copyright to this source code. In place of a legal notice, here is a blessing: May you do good and not evil. May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others. May you share freely, never taking more than you give.
If the religious bits was to be deleted, it would be hard for anyone to disagree.
I see it as no less good or bad than any other code of conduct I've seen. Most of them could be used to throw anyone out of any project, if you chose to do so. The code of conducts for a lot of projects are so selectively enforced that is ridiculous.
Although, religious aspects aside, there are many valuable tenets to be found in there, which will be directly opposed by those who want to get angry about it.
But the comments would be waaay different.
Edit: in all seriousness (in accordance with The Rule), I think open mockery from a serious project is extrodinarily important
Do you have so little empathy that you can't possibly image someone adopting The Rule of St. Benedict in good faith (no pun intended)?
Sure, why not? Group codes of conduct are a form of mutually-enforced morality. Why not pick up a template that seems to have worked in the past and reuse parts of it?
It all won't fit, of course, but why re-invent the wheel? I'm really much more interested in the track record of how various of these items worked out (or not) than I am in impeaching the source. Who cares about that stuff?
I think it's more that the wording suggests the author pushing his own faith onto others.
I have seen equal evidence for the existence of a God as I have the existence of a Patriarchy.
Suppose the authors fancied themselves a modern monastic order, is this necessarily bad?
Now if you look at it from this point of view I think that you can at least see the irony of using a religious text in this context; to be more clear, quoting their webpage:
> This code of conduct has proven its mettle in thousands of diverse communities for over 1,500 years
Those "thousands of diverse communities" include the ones who were using their religion as a pretext to burn heretics/witches, torture homosexuals and in general oppress the weak and the diverse as well as the ones that today are still trying to infuse young people with their toxic shame when they are non-conforming.
This is what really grinds my gears: some people would do anything to NOT take responsibility and hide themselves behind nice words with little to no real content.
Wow, those Benedictine monks have really been up to some heavy shit.
To be fair the Benedictine order wasn't one of the worst orders with respct to whole witch/heresy craze but that kinda furthers the irony of the whole situation: watching to the other side while someone is being persecuted (or bullied) puts you closer to the oppressor than to the oppresed.
This would then dismiss every CoC-related effort, because most enforcers do little regarding humans being persecuted in other countries...
Apply your comment to the monks then.
At the same time I do believe that the spirit of Christianity, Islam and most other religions is inherently good, positive and inclusive and there are definitely people that use that as a guide to improve themselves and their lives.
BUT, even if the spirit is good, the actual history says that these organisation shouldn't be held on a moral high ground for anything because they don't deserve it.
Moreover, even today, chances are that if you are a non-conforming individual in a very religious community you are subject to isolation, bullying and shaming.
And that's why I find it of very bad taste to use this as a CoC that should guide integration: if I have been bullied from my ultra-religious community, for example because I am bisexual, then I'll not find that a very welcoming sign.
We don't often talk about the thousands of years of human rights abuses by monastic orders, but they are pretty horrific. Even in America in living memory, it includes the torture and murder of children and the coverup of those crimes: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/christinekenneally/orph...
However, to reject the Rule of St Benedict because some Benedictines lived in egregious violation of it is like rejecting the United States Bill of Rights because the United States has often acted in direct violation of it.
The Rule is, on the whole, a wonderful document, and there are today and have been through history a great many good people who live it day in and day out fairly faithfully. I'm privileged to call some such people my friends.
Religion and Church are not to be blame, since as soon as there is any blame going around, the State, and not religion / church, is responsible!
Sleak!
Citation needed. When did the OSB do any of this?
While I cannot and will not defend everything that has been done in the name of my religion it's kind of disingenuous to discuss this without simultaneously acknowledging that more people have been murdered and tortured with a pretext of reason and lack of religion.
Stop right there. You have no authority over what a person chooses to adopt as a "code of conduct". They can be for whatever purpose they choose. It is up to others to accept them or not.
I can imagine someone adopting in good faith a code of conduct that says “no colored people.” That doesn’t mean I’ll be happy about it.