One could probably argue that, if interpreted in a certain way, most of these laws/rules could be good. Even the god praising could be seen positively if one subtly transforms "god" into something like "that which is good," as many secular philosophers have done.
However, this rule cannot be shown to be universally good, regardless of interpretation:
"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.'"
It’s just not logical or empirically coherent. We could deconstruct this stupidity extensively, but it would not fit within the margin of this thread.
I believe it's adapted from the Rule of Saint Benedict[0] so regardless of your own objections to its practicality, communities of monks have been living by more-or-less these rules for centuries.
“No one is required to follow The Rule, to know The Rule, or even to think that The Rule is a good idea. The Founder of SQLite believes that anyone who follows The Rule will live a happier and more productive life, but individuals are free to dispute or ignore that advice if they wish.”
My favorite bit about this is that it was adopted because the corporations buying sqlite insisted on having a code of conduct/ethics... And it's amazing that they'll check the box with this!
Regardless of my own view on these ethics, the quality of SQLite is for me a testament to the usefulness of truthfully adhering to a (sub)set of noble precepts.
52. Guard your tongue against evil and depraved speech.
53. Do not love much talking.
54. Speak no useless words or words that move to laughter.
55. Do not love much or boisterous laughter.
The people with commit bits to SQLite are a known, fixed, small set of individuals, all Christians. They decided to dispense with the usual Contributor Covenant derived code of conduct and adopt their own based on their shared value system. Unfortunately it doesn't actually meet the requirements for an open source code of conduct.
I would have thought its up to each project to decide on their requirements. There is no central authority that decides how to run an open source project.
Corporate requirements, apparently. Some of SQLite's corporate users insisted on a CoC that met certain requirements, which the Code of Ethics did not meet.
Every now and then someone in software communities brings this up and while I hate christians but use sqlite regardless because it's not that big of a deal that it's maintainers are christians, I do find it weird how this rarely gets brought up when conversations about politics in software development are had.
Just weird to me that nobody seems to care about that one when people complain about other less political but more politicized identities fairly often
This gives me weird, cultish vibes. It has an uncomfortable US-American "forced-smileness" to it that I honestly find off-putting. But maybe I have been too much in a secular and non religious bubble the last few years and that made me hope that religion is finally leaving the science and IT space for good.
As the first section notes, the only reason they posted this is to fulfill a checklist requirement for certain commercial users. The external requirement for a code of conduct, which requesters never read and don’t actually care about, is the actual nonsense here.
Hardly. It may be annoying for commercial users to require a checkboxy code of conduct from the software they choose to use, but taking that opportunity to shove religion down people's throats is very strange behaviour. It also makes me suspicious of SQLite: if they're that brazen, do I need to look out for potential implementations of these rules within the code? Will certain words, like "gay", cause queries to fail? I don't think so and I hope it never will. But this is a SQL database engine and they chose to publicly affiliate it with religion. That's concerning.
I've been considering switching to H2 for a while now to avoid depending on a fat-jar full of binaries. This nonsense has persuaded me to make that switch.
However, this rule cannot be shown to be universally good, regardless of interpretation:
"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.'"
It’s just not logical or empirically coherent. We could deconstruct this stupidity extensively, but it would not fit within the margin of this thread.