How do you interpret the above graphic? This is not an innocuous ‘treat others as you’d like to be treated’ message. As I see it, there are some rather bold claims about the world.
Comments
Trackbacks
-
[…] over at Sifting Reality posted this up, I felt like it would be more accurate with a small […]
Sifting Reality 
In some aspects it’s almost biblical: we’re all made in God’s image, and in that aspect we’re all the same. But it also trivialises many of the differences too. I’d like it if the last one said “sinner” instead of “human” ;)
Josh, do you think the maker of the graphic was trying to imply we are all made in God’s image?
I see a message of naturalisitic atheism. One where God doesn’t exist and we are all ‘merely’ human beings. I see a message that says there is no moral component sexuality. And I see a message that there is no moral grounds on which we can judge the moral short comings of others.
What do you think?
That’s why I think it’s only *almost* biblical, because I had the feeling it was coming from an atheistic view. It trivialises the morality of our behaviours and our sins, which is problematic. God doesn’t trivialise or ignore our sin. If he did there would be no need for Jesus!
It could be coming from a Christian perspective, but it could also be coming from an atheistic perspective, which is what I suspect it is. A Christian perspective would be implying that we’re all inherently bad regardless of our skin colour, gender, sexual orientation or what not (sin doesn’t discriminate!) An atheist perspective would be implying that we’re all fundamentally morally neutral.
As you mentioned, it’s looking like it’s trying to say there’s no moral component to sexuality. One would question why the original author didn’t include “murder,” “rapist,” “paedophile” or any other “bad” person. If we are going by the view of everyone underneath is the same, then we can’t exclude anyone!
This is a spot on observation. I wish I had thought of it!
Agnostic perspective here: The graph is saying we should all coexist. All get along. Stop the hatred because we self-identify a certain way.
There’s no need to ruin a positive message by over examination or reading into it too much.
Atticus,
I have to say, I don’t see that at all. It doesn’t even seem to suggest that we should get along, only that we are all the same.
I think pointing out that we’re all the same implies that we shouldn’t focus on our differences. We are all human.
could be.
It seems like a “do unto others” message, which is good. But then, “do unto others” is itself a message that suggests that simply being human is not all that is required to be good. You have to act in a certain way to fulfill the purpose of the message.