• breakingcups@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    ·
    4 days ago

    Do you think this is about people disagreeing with their contents? That seems like a strawman. People disagree with one specific religion’s doctrine being forced onto students.

    But, since you asked, I could definitely do without these:

    • I am the Lord thy God. Thou shall not have strange gods before Me.
    • Thou shall not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
    • Remember to keep holy the Lord’s day.
    • Thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s wife. (seems a bit male-focused)
      • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        4 days ago

        I wouldn’t say so. If it said instead “the spouse of your neighbor” it wouldn’t consider the spouse a property of the other spouse. X of Y doesn’t mean X is the property of Y. “Of” is just not a precise word.

        • Railcar8095@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 days ago

          Yes, if it said something different I would understand something different. I don’t know how to day this without sounding like an ass, but that’s what reading comprehension is for.

    • YappyMonotheist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      39
      ·
      4 days ago

      Oh, I just meant to talk about the TC by themselves, I’m sorry if I came across as if I were arguing about something else sneakily. Trust me, I wasn’t. And I mean, you don’t disagree with the last one, you just think it should be expanded, which is a reasonable suggestion. That’s nice.