A newly unveiled statue of the rightwing activist Charlie Kirk was vandalized at the Turning Point USA headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona.

The statue was found with red spray-paint. A nearby poster memorial in front of the statue was vandalized with red paint as well.

  • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    19 days ago

    https://x.com/patriottakes/status/1800678317030564306

    I know, a twitter link. Throw it into yt-dlp.

    Also, the line that Kirk counters Ms Rachel with may have been a mistranslation and the original text may have said something more along the lines of “Man shall not lay with a boy the same as they lay with a woman”, which is a very contentious idea among Christians. Whether that’s because it means they’re not being told to hate gay people or because they’re being to hate statutory rapists is up to you.

    • Pegajace@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      20 days ago

      It is not a mistranslation, it’s very clearly talking about same-sex intercourse. The “mistranslation” angle is being invented out of whole cloth to retcon the Bible.

      I appreciate the Christians who are trying to be accepting of LGBTQ+, but IMO they should just acknowledge the Biblical authors were wrong about this instead of pretending they didn’t say what they said.

      • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        20 days ago

        If it was just about same sex intercourse, they would have included a line about women lying with women. This was very likely more about not denigrating another man by forcing them into the role of a woman. Also, given this spent generations as oral tradition before being written down and translated several times, trying to say your particular personal interpretation is the only possible correct one is asinine at best.

        • redkid1324@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          19 days ago

          I’ll have to push back there and maybe you have an argument if this was the only time it was talked about in scripture but it is not and it matches the threads of other biblical narratives.

          A common thread through the Bible is that families are God’s plan for humans on this side of death. They are good to His kingdom and to promote the values of His love. Now homosexuality would directly go against that narrative so I don’t think the “man to a woman role” is a valid argument anymore. Romans 1 goes through the “homosexuality is bad” too.

          Someone else said we are to say the writers of the Bible are wrong and that is a fundamental difference in ideals that we cannot overcome. I believe the Bible is the word of God and it is complete, authoritative and not up for change based on societal influences where that may not be the case for others so we would be arguing from literal difference in fundamental values. And that’s ok to do but no resolution could possibly come out of that.

      • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        19 days ago

        A) They can’t acknowledge the Bible was wrong about anything. The whole point of their religion is that the Bible is God’s words written down by man. Even when you know about the conclave that decided which of the hundreds of “biblical” stories were apocryphal and which were true, hundreds of years after the events of those stories supposedly happened, they will still say that God was guiding that conclave. Bringing up a bad translation also doesn’t help, since King James was guided by God to create his translation. The Bible CANNOT be wrong (according to Christians), since it is the word of God.

        B) Historical context is important if you want to try interpreting God’s words instead of taking them literally. Romans had a very different lifestyle and view of sex and the role of men and women. It could be that God’s word was that the TYPE of male relationships the Romans had was not what God wanted, but just two dudes banging was fine.