[O2F2]

Yes, it's meant as a joking stab at those who seemingly cannot live without having a CoC everywhere. Especially in projects they do not actually participate in. Now watch as this gets blown out of proportion, because this will make some people really, really angry. Id be very surprised if this stays up actually.

[caiocaiocaio]

I don't think so. The CoC prohibits joking in clause 54.

[joshberkus]

It's not a joke. Dr. Hipp is a genuinely religious person, and he means this seriously.

[drb91]

As an atheist, how could this possibly make someone mad?

[whorleater]

Because if you take it as a satirization of the adoption of CoC's, it's saying "we don't think CoC's address real problems and we'll do it with a general set of ideals that do nothing to solve problems".

Which ignores the very real problem of harassment in tech.

[TheAceOfHearts]

According to others, the creator is actually a highly religious person. Why are you assuming that it's satire?

[rleigh]

Given the context, I don't think they are mutually exclusive. It could be both a religious text and satirising other CoCs which are essentially religious in their own right.

[whorleater]

Because half the comments in this thread are saying it's satire?

[drb91]

This does not seem like satire in the least. The rules seem more like common sense than anything humorous.

[loktarogar]

Unless there's enforcement, it's useless as a code of conduct.

[rleigh]

Why? Why are people so concerned with "enforcement", which is basically "punishment"?

A code of conduct should be nothing more than a set of guidelines which contributors should aspire to meet. It's not a legal text, and it's not a religious text. We are free participants in projects, not unwilling subjects to be disciplined.

We've gone from projects where one was expected to behave properly, and if not would be politely admonished, and maybe kicked out if this continued over a long period, to this, where the CoC is to be used as a blunt instrument to punish transgressors. It's not an improvement, and I dislike the assumptions of bad faith and requirement for punishment. It's unnecessary, and sets the wrong tone.

[gonvaled]

I have a non-enforceable CoC for you:

"To participate in this community, you need to kill three people by Sunday"

Simple. Also, I hope you have nothing against it, since it is not enforceable.

[Redoubts]

Seems like all the contributors are on board. What more enforcement do you need?

[roguecoder]

People who hold religious beliefs that people following this code spent hundreds of years trying to stamp out with violence probably have a different context that people to whom it is merely irrelevant.

[drb91]

The CoC does not require religious belief in the least. They are secular rules.

By this same logic, we should reject all scientific research that predates nation state funding.

[gonvaled]

You might have missed these:

> First of all, love the Lord God with your whole heart, your whole soul, and your whole strength.

> Deny oneself in order to follow Christ.

> Prefer nothing more than the love of Christ.

> Put your hope in God.

> Attribute to God, and not to self, whatever good you see in yourself.

> Fear the Day of Judgment.

> Be in dread of hell.

> Know for certain that God sees you everywhere.

> When wrongful thoughts come into your heart, dash them against Christ immediately.

> Devote yourself frequently to prayer.

> Daily in your prayers, with tears and sighs, confess your past sins to God, and amend them for the future.

> Obey in all things the commands of those whom God has placed in authority over you even though they (which God forbid) should act otherwise, mindful of the Lord's precept, "Do what they say, but not what they do." (!!!)

> Do not wish to be called holy before one is holy; but first to be holy, that you may be truly so called.

> Fulfill God's commandments daily in your deeds.

> Pray for your enemies in the love of Christ.

> Never despair of God's mercy.

[mikeash]

Religious discrimination isn’t ok and being annoyed by it isn’t blowing things out of proportion.

[O2F2]

I see the religious part of this CoC as purely incidental to the source material (it being 15 centuries old and aimed at christian monks). It's clearly not meat to be taken serious, even though I'd agree with a lot of the common sense points listed. Now, being a bit annoyed at the religious implications is not being really angry and blowing things out of proportion. Being annoyed still leaves room for discussion. What I meant is the major poop flinging through major publications that will undoubtedly follow over the next few days, activating large swaths of those people I mentioned. Those who thrive on nonconstructive anger. In general I'd agree with you, just leave religion out of it, even when it's (or especially?) in a joking manner. Edit: Typo

[mikeash]

I see the religious part as being the entire point, since it comes from a religious order. The very first rule is about loving a particular deity. If we were to go back in time and find these people, what do you think would offend them more, “I hold grudges” or “there is no god”?

[anbro]

I daresay that a difference in opinion like that would probably not trigger most people back in that age in the same manner it seems to do so now (on both sides - I'm not picking on one side here).

[loktarogar]

People went to war over not believing in the same particular flavour of god.

[anbro]

While there have been people who have done things like this in all ages (and also over believing there is NO God, as opposed to just the wrong one), your statement is not as accurate as it could be in most cases if you take into account the context of those wars.

That said, Benedictine monks would not be at or near the top of my list for people who would get all triggered, angry, and go to war over you disagreeing that God exists.

Yes, people fiercely defend what they love and believe. But it's possible to do so graciously and firmly without being angry or freaking out that someone disagrees with you (I am not referring to you specifically, but you, myself, our readers, mankind, etc).

[stephenr]

Given that the lead of the SQLite project's personal website has references to an organisation that translates religious Scripture, I'm not sure it really is a "joking stab".

> this will make some people really, really angry

Suggesting that a text written by Christians is a good basis for an OSS project's CoC, when Christianity has a pretty fucking horrific track record when it comes to most of the people who, without Codes of Conduct are pushed out of or never welcome in OSS projects, and you're surprised that people might be angry?