It’s more about an opportunist taking advantage of an ideological movement. The same thing happened with blm.

Well in any event, the government did not in fact hold people down and vaccinate them like shepherds do with their sheep. They also don’t shear us and make clothing from our hair, or butcher us for food. So the shepherd analogy isn’t meant to be literal in every sense.

My view states specifically that the government is not the same as God.

I’m saying that the government is not the same as the Shepherd and that your analogy is flawed.

I’m still not seeing how that justifies forced vaccinations.

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?

I guess it comes down to whether the laws are just or unjust, if the state that makes the laws is good or bad. When you have a clash of cultures that are not compatible with each other, or different states with incompatible ideas, there will be a winner and a loser, where the winner makes the laws and therefore determines what constitutes “terrorism”. But just because one culture won, doesn’t mean that it is just or good. It could be the good guys in charge, or just as easily the bad guys. It depends not so much on good or bad, but on military power. So how do you know when it’s the good guys in charge? If the “bad guys” of today, the “terrorists”, were in charge instead and you and I were on the other end of the power dynamic, would it be a better world? Would we be resorting to violence against citizens and against the state in order to further our political cause? Hard to say. Most of us would probably assimilate into their culture, but certainly some of us would be the new resistance, the new terrorists, killing innocents because we believed that strongly in our cause.

But this is all based on the assumption that laws and power dynamics will always exist, that they are in fact necessary. Someone will always be in charge, and others will wish they were, and will be willing to resort to violence to get the power or to break the laws. Do you envision a world where power dynamics and laws don’t exist? I can’t see it.

Yeah maybe they were contacted, I don’t recall. And yes the organizers should be available for interviews, and should also be given a chance to clarify what they stand for, what their message is and who the big backers are. That way you can get an idea of what they ACTUALLY stand for and not just what the leader says.

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.

With these kind of articles, it’s a safe bet that almost nobody at all, Republicans or otherwise, cares or even knows about raw milk. It’s a non story.

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.

The problem with politics on lemmy is that it isn’t a discussion at all, but a one-sided circle jerk. Almost every post is some flavor of Right Wing Bad, and any attempt at nuance or calling out hypocrisy results in a sea of downvotes and what appears to be shadow bans. There are no dissenting opinions allowed. If you spend your time consuming heavily moderated and filters content, it’s going to produce anxiety. But more importantly, it isn’t even reality.

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.