Sprign

I'm pretty sure that many monks individuals did the best they could with what they were given. That is very different from it being true for the whole order of the Benedictine.

At the same time I do believe that the spirit of Christianity, Islam and most other religions is inherently good, positive and inclusive and there are definitely people that use that as a guide to improve themselves and their lives.

BUT, even if the spirit is good, the actual history says that these organisation shouldn't be held on a moral high ground for anything because they don't deserve it.

Moreover, even today, chances are that if you are a non-conforming individual in a very religious community you are subject to isolation, bullying and shaming.

And that's why I find it of very bad taste to use this as a CoC that should guide integration: if I have been bullied from my ultra-religious community, for example because I am bisexual, then I'll not find that a very welcoming sign.

This is a bit of a logical fallacy: the fact that you are not able (maybe even because of your own limited self) to do good in every possible context it doesn't mean that you shouldn't do good in the contexts whee you can!

Here the discussion was a bit broader and the point was about the religious context rather than the Benedictine themselves.

To be fair the Benedictine order wasn't one of the worst orders with respct to whole witch/heresy craze but that kinda furthers the irony of the whole situation: watching to the other side while someone is being persecuted (or bullied) puts you closer to the oppressor than to the oppresed.

I don't think that the problem is adopting in bad or good faith; personally I am saddened because the CoCs are meant to be there to protect people that are usually in a weaker position and in our development communities that usually identifies with a few categories: women, LGBT+, disabled people etc.

Now if you look at it from this point of view I think that you can at least see the irony of using a religious text in this context; to be more clear, quoting their webpage:

> This code of conduct has proven its mettle in thousands of diverse communities for over 1,500 years

Those "thousands of diverse communities" include the ones who were using their religion as a pretext to burn heretics/witches, torture homosexuals and in general oppress the weak and the diverse as well as the ones that today are still trying to infuse young people with their toxic shame when they are non-conforming.

This is what really grinds my gears: some people would do anything to NOT take responsibility and hide themselves behind nice words with little to no real content.

I never found a company which would judge OSS contributions negatively and I've seen quite a few of them (I tend to change job very often and I've 10+ years of working experience).

I am wondering whether the author of the blogpost considered the option that what they were telling him was just an excuse. Maybe the problem is not his OSS but the fact that the author behaviour in the community is not exactly as brilliant as he may think and that made him a controversial figure?

Of course, being anonymous means you can start any flame you like, treat people as you want and get away with it; not sure that that's the best way to achieve less toxic communities anyway.