Citing Charlie Kirk murder, Tennessee pastor demands removal of 'Hate Has No Home' signs

[FireDragon76]

People who say that often mean they support that advocacy, but in the context of the church it seems more likely they're saying "all are welcome here" or at worst "hate the sin, love the sinner." Because, as a reminder, not hating people (even people who aren't living according to the Bible) is what the gold standard is.

Yes, that's usually that it means in the context of a church. It may be more likely to involve some accompanying cultural coding (use of inclusive language hymnals or worship) but it doesn't necessarily have partisan political coding, not unless you view gay people as inherently a political threat.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm not so morally nihilistic to equate LGBT rights with MAGA.

Has nothing to do with nihilism...

My prior example was pointing out that the way language is contemporarily used sends certain signals and messages that goes beyond the scope of the pure semantic definition.

Hence my example, there's nothing offensive about "make America great", but because of who's coopted those words, and the ideas that have become synonymous with it, you probably have certain emotions that are conjured up when you see someone stroll by wearing a red hat with those words printed on the front.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yes, that's usually that it means in the context of a church. It may be more likely to involve some accompanying cultural coding (use of inclusive language hymnals or worship) but it doesn't necessarily have partisan political coding, not unless you view gay people as inherently a political threat.

When certain slogans become synonymous with certain ideas an political narratives ...there's not going to be much of a chance of another entity "reclaiming" the slogan for an isolated one-off purpose (especially when the the mainstream usage of the slogan is still in full swing)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

People who say that often mean they support that advocacy, but in the context of the church it seems more likely they're saying "all are welcome here" or at worst "hate the sin, love the sinner." Because, as a reminder, not hating people (even people who aren't living according to the Bible) is what the gold standard is.

As I mentioned to the other poster:
When certain slogans become synonymous with certain ideas an political narratives ...there's not going to be much of a chance of another entity "reclaiming" the slogan for an isolated one-off purpose (especially when the the mainstream usage of the slogan is still in full swing)


It's the same reason why another entity isn't going to be able to do an ad-hoc repurposing of "make America great" circa 2025. That phrase is solidly cemented with a specific set of politics at the current juncture.

 

[FireDragon76]

When certain slogans become synonymous with certain ideas an political narratives ...there's not going to be much of a chance of another entity "reclaiming" the slogan for an isolated one-off purpose (especially when the the mainstream usage of the slogan is still in full swing)

"Love is love" is primarily an expression of values, not political policy.

 

[DaisyDay]

No, it's just a dishonest marketing ploy.

I disagree.

If the sign said "Conservative views have no place in this home", then I would applaud them for saying what they mean, and meaning what they say.

Are "Asian hate", "science is wrong", "opposition to human rights", etc. representative of conservative views? Seems more reactionary than conservative.

A person's view on climate change isn't even linked to "hate". That's a policy disagreement.

I disagree that conservatives are necessarily ignorant or science-denying. Whether or not science is real - seriously? - is more than mere policy.

"Opposing the BLM organization" doesn't equal "hating black people"

Black lives do matter to many conservatives.

"Opposing abortion" doesn't equal "hating women"

Sometimes it does when it puts women's lives at risk. Women's rights are human rights.

"I don't agree all of the things the trans community is advocating for" doesn't equal "hating trans people"

"Trans people are sick, twisted lunatics" does equal "hating trans people".

It is you twisting the sentiments into something hateful.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

With regards to the signage aspect I was touching on before...

If you drove by someone's yard and saw this sign

(disclaimer: Yes, I realize that AI didn't necessarily do fantastic job generating this)


A reasonable person would take that to mean that that the sign's owner was implying that the evidence of a person's rejection of authoritarianism is determined by the degree to which someone embraces conservative policy initiatives, correct?

And the sign's owner suggesting "I don't see what the issue is... what's so bad about rejecting authoritarianism? Don't YOU reject authoritarianism???" would be rightfully seen as a very disingenuous, transparent defense mechanism.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Are "Asian hate", "science is wrong", "opposition to human rights", etc. representative of conservative views? Seems more reactionary than conservative.

I disagree that conservatives are necessarily ignorant or science-denying. Whether or not science is real - seriously? - is more than mere policy.

Black lives do matter to many conservatives.

I touched on these in an earlier post...

Semantic overload is a very real thing in US political discourse, slogans/groups/movements will use framing and naming conventions that, in a purely semantic sense, mean something noble that almost universally agreed upon, but then it comes bundled with a bunch of things that are contentious. That's not an accident.

Certainly you know that when a conservative uses phrases like "Make America great" or "Religious freedom" or "Parental rights"... that's linked to a bunch of other baggage right?

If a GOP congressmen proposed a bill called "Preserving religious freedom and protecting parental rights Act"... while I'm sure you have no opposition to concepts like freedom of religion or parents having rights with regards to their children, in a more generalized sense, you'd know exactly what that bill was actually about, and it'd be an unfair label to accuse you of being "against religious freedom" if you opposed the bill.


Black lives do matter, but "Black Live Matter ™" comes joined at the hip with policy proposals for defund the police and advancing ideas like reparations.

Science is great, many appreciate science, but "Trust the Science ™" means being on board with every climate bill the democrats propose

There are many conservatives who aren't absolutists on abortion, polling suggests that legal in the 3 exception cases + elective being allowed in the first trimester supported by like 80% of Americans, but "Pro-Choice/Pro-Women ™" became synonymous with "no restrictions" "get the rare out of safe legal and rare, and repeal the hyde amendment"


We can't pretend that advocacy movements/orgs (even ones associated with causes we generally agree with) aren't using some creative word games and shrewd marketing approaches to frame any opposition as immoral.

I'll pick on the NRA for this one.

Most of the liberal people I know are not "anti-gun" in the true definitional sense of the words. They just want some guardrails and limiting principles with regards to gun ownership. However, groups like the NRA (and conservative pundits) will use language that that portrays it as if their furthest-right interpretation of the concept is the benchmark, and everything outside of that is "anti-gun" and "freedom hating". That's how you end up with people who are actually gun owners themselves getting labelled as "anti-gunners"

 

[Maria Billingsley]

That's not what I said, clearly you're not understanding the tone of my post.


I'm saying that people who prop those signs up are suggesting that "Hate" = "Not going along with the political advocacy attached to these causes", and then disingenuously acting all aloof "gee, I'm just saying I'm against hate, what's wrong with that???"

May I derail this for a moment and point out that " hate" really means just that!

AI Generated:

At a memorial for Charlie Kirk, Donald Trump stated, "That's where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponents, and I don't want the best for them, I'm sorry." This was a break from his prepared remarks, which included a statement that Kirk "did not hate his opponents."

 

[essentialsaltes]

My I derail this for a moment and point out that " hate" really means just that!

AI Generated:

At a memorial for Charlie Kirk, Donald Trump stated, "That's where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponents, and I don't want the best for them, I'm sorry." This was a break from his prepared remarks, which included a statement that Kirk "did not hate his opponents."

Just wanted to confirm this was not some AI hallucination.

“He did not hate his opponents, he wanted the best for them,” Trump said, before breaking from his prepared remarks to add: “That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponents, and I don’t want the best for them, I’m sorry.”

Trump’s speech was an awkward mix of eulogy and campaign speech, during which he frequently veered away from reading somber remarks about Kirk’s life and violent death to make offhand comments and jokes.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

My I derail this for a moment and point out that " hate" really means just that!

Not in the realm of semantic overload (which would apply to the signage I was referring to). I'm not going to try to defend specific Trump comments...I didn't vote for the guy, so what he says is on him.



People get accused of hate even for the slightest deviation from the absolutist position.

If someone made the statement of
"I support marriage rights, legal protection against housing and employment discrimination, and feel that adults can get whatever sort of medical intervention they want, but there needs to be a bigger conversation about the athletics aspect of this conversation, and some of the speech policing that happens on campuses surrounding the subject"

That would get labelled as "anti-Trans hate" by the activists.


I'll go back to one of my previous examples.

When a GOP rep/senator says "Religious Freedom"... does it mean just that? Or does everyone pretty much understand that it's loaded language to incorporate something more than just the simple definition, operating under the cover of a general concept that most purportedly claim to agree with, and would be afraid to be labelled as disagreeing with?

 

[Hans Blaster]

It only took 6 posts to make it about about the evils of LGBTQA+ and minorities. Impressive.

"Centrism" is quite the mind bender.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I

Not in the realm of semantic overload (which would apply to the signage I was referring to). I'm not going to try to defend specific Trump comments...I didn't vote for the guy, so what he says is on him.



People get accused of hate even for the slightest deviation from the absolutist position.

If someone made the statement of
"I support marriage rights, legal protection against housing and employment discrimination, and feel that adults can get whatever sort of medical intervention they want, but there needs to be a bigger conversation about the athletics aspect of this conversation, and some of the speech policing that happens on campuses surrounding the subject"

That would get labelled as "anti-Trans hate" by the activists.


I'll go back to one of my previous examples.

When a GOP rep/senator says "Religious Freedom"... does it mean just that? Or does everyone pretty much understand that it's loaded language to incorporate something more than just the simple definition, operating under the cover of a general concept that most purportedly claim to agree with, and would be afraid to be labelled as disagreeing with?

It does not matter if you voted for him or not, the fact remains that some Christians are giving him a free pass for his unfathomable hypocrisy. Calling all " leftists" haters then making a public proclamation on how much he "hates" the left. When will this free pass end!
Thanks for engaging.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

As I mentioned to the other poster:
When certain slogans become synonymous with certain ideas an political narratives ...there's not going to be much of a chance of another entity "reclaiming" the slogan for an isolated one-off purpose (especially when the the mainstream usage of the slogan is still in full swing)

So then should we abandon the section of the Bible that calls upon us to not hate because it could conflate with LGBTQA+ acceptance?

It's the same reason why another entity isn't going to be able to do an ad-hoc repurposing of "make America great" circa 2025. That phrase is solidly cemented with a specific set of politics at the current juncture.

Which is one you're not likely to see in a church or supported by Biblical justification, nor is it foundational to church doctrine.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm going to just drop this off here.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

O

I'm going to just drop this off here.

Oh boy! Did it ever occur to the creator of this content that if you hate Jesus Christ of Nazareth you are by definition, not a Christian.
No, I have not watched the video. Feels like click bait. Thanks for sharing.
Be blessed.

 

[Larniavc]

is honest and not trying to use semantic overload in an attempt to redefine terms.

Are you blind? It’s clearly trying to redefine President to King.

 

[DaisyDay]

I touched on these in an earlier post...

Semantic overload is a very real thing in US political discourse, slogans/groups/movements will use framing and naming conventions that, in a purely semantic sense, mean something noble that almost universally agreed upon, but then it comes bundled with a bunch of things that are contentious. That's not an accident.

Certainly you know that when a conservative uses phrases like "Make America great" or "Religious freedom" or "Parental rights"... that's linked to a bunch of other baggage right?

If a GOP congressmen proposed a bill called "Preserving religious freedom and protecting parental rights Act"... while I'm sure you have no opposition to concepts like freedom of religion or parents having rights with regards to their children, in a more generalized sense, you'd know exactly what that bill was actually about, and it'd be an unfair label to accuse you of being "against religious freedom" if you opposed the bill.


Black lives do matter, but "Black Live Matter ™" comes joined at the hip with policy proposals for defund the police and advancing ideas like reparations.

Science is great, many appreciate science, but "Trust the Science ™" means being on board with every climate bill the democrats propose

There are many conservatives who aren't absolutists on abortion, polling suggests that legal in the 3 exception cases + elective being allowed in the first trimester supported by like 80% of Americans, but "Pro-Choice/Pro-Women ™" became synonymous with "no restrictions" "get the rare out of safe legal and rare, and repeal the hyde amendment"


We can't pretend that advocacy movements/orgs (even ones associated with causes we generally agree with) aren't using some creative word games and shrewd marketing approaches to frame any opposition as immoral.

I'll pick on the NRA for this one.

Most of the liberal people I know are not "anti-gun" in the true definitional sense of the words. They just want some guardrails and limiting principles with regards to gun ownership. However, groups like the NRA (and conservative pundits) will use language that that portrays it as if their furthest-right interpretation of the concept is the benchmark, and everything outside of that is "anti-gun" and "freedom hating". That's how you end up with people who are actually gun owners themselves getting labelled as "anti-gunners"

You're claiming that the signs don't mean what they say but what you say they mean. I disagree.

Most conservatives I know are not ignorant, racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic or misogynistic; to paint them as such does them a grave disservice, imo.

 

[Larniavc]

View attachment 370425

Which point am I missing?

The opposite of hate is love, and according to the sign, love means supporting the policy initiatives of

LGBTQ+ advocacy
"Defend Democracy" (which is more coded semantic overload in contemporary usage "Doesn't question any aspects of the 2020 election results")
Abortion advocacy
BLM
The green movement
"Stop Asian Hate" (more coded language that originated during covid in response to Trump calling it "The China Virus")


I would say at least the Coexist symbolism/slogan...
View attachment 370426

...had the foresight to not try to link a noble sounding concept to the prerequisite of holding a specific (contentious) political viewpoint

I'm guessing it was replaced either due to the fact that it was perceived as "not confrontational enough", or perhaps because one or two of those symbols may have fallen out of favor with a particular subset of people.

Is see the first thing you do is not simple go with the word hate but to examine its antonym.

To put it simply: the message is that there is no hate here. Unless one brings it in with them.

So imagine a homophonic bigot who goes and spends a few hours with an LGBTQ+ group of folks and never once mentions anything about LGBTQ+ but is in fact warm and engaging.

From whence could any hate arrive?

 

[Larniavc]

Purely semantically speaking, there should be nothing inherently polarizing or offensive about about the phrase "Make America Great Again". After all, just from a purely definitional standpoint, there's nothing wrong with someone suggesting "this country has some problems, and I'd like us to be great again"

Yeah words don’t have meaning beyond simply semantics.

It’s only possible to understand the meaning of the above sentence if you can appreciate words have more meaning than simple semantics.

Quite clever of me.