this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
629 points (94.9% liked)

politics

20426 readers
3303 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/3377375

I read an essay by a christian a while ago that pointed out that the separation of church and state wasn’t about protecting the state from religion - it was about protecting religion from the state.

The gist of the argument was that religion should be concentrating on the eternal, and politics, by necessity, concentrates on the immediate. The author was concerned that welding religion and politics together would make religion itself political, meaning it would have to conform to the secular moment rather than looking to saving souls or whatever.

The mind meld of evangelical christianity and right wing politics happened in the mid to late 70s when the US was trying to racially integrate christian universities, which had been severely limiting or excluding black students. Since then, republicans and christians have been in bed together. The southern baptist convention, in fact, originally endorsed the Roe decision because it helped the cause of women. It was only after they decided to go all in on social conservatism that it became a sin.

Christians today are growing concerned about a falloff in attendance and membership. This article concentrates on how conservatism has become a call for people to publicly identify as evangelical while not actually being religious, because it’s an our team thing.

Evangelicals made an ironically Faustian bargain and are starting to realize it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LanternEverywhere@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

Sorry but no, that's way too broad of a brush. There definitely ARE sects of christianity that are good, kind, and loving. They might be the minority (or at least seem to be the minority) but they do exist, and there are millions of those congregants.

While no one is perfect, Jesuits are a good example.

Jesuits formally declared that a commitment to justice was essential to their order’s work. This development brought many Jesuits to take progressive stances in religion and politics alike. Jesuits in Latin America, for example, adopted aspects of liberation theology, which emphasized concern for the poor and oppressed: providing for people not only spiritually, but materially. Today, in the minds of many, Jesuits continue to be associated with more progressive and liberal viewpoints.

[–] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 years ago

Quakers, Episcopalians, UUs generally seemed on the decent side, at least with what they claim to believe and based on my personal anecdata.

And what's their reward? A dying denomination.

The only growing Christian populations are the hateful ones. I have to deal with the Christians that actually exist.

[–] GreenMario@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Not once have they spoke out of denounced their radical brethren.

By the logic of ACAB, it's not just bad apples it's the whole damn bunch.

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

You're not cynical enough yet. Humanity itself is the bunch.

[–] GreenMario@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago

actually I am but I am open to being wrong and therefore Pleasantly surprised.

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

🤔 You know, extraterrestrials could be too. If they naturally evolved, it's almost guaranteed. Life selects for evil behavior.

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Look at me, the naive optimist again.

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 years ago

Don't say that. It's good to be optimistic. We just have to be willing to accept reality if it violates our expectations.

Like say aliens turn out to be benevolent (or at least very good at pretending they are). That would violate my expectations, and I would honestly welcome it. It's good to be wrong sometimes.

[–] Jerkface@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I always try to keep in mind that when talking about groups to which I am not a member, they are likely more diverse than their representation would suggest. Examples like this really help clear things up. These are people to whom I would be proud to be an ally.

[–] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Now look at what the Jesuits were up to 3/400 years ago and see whether you still want to be associated with them.

[–] Jerkface@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

Only 40 years ago, my best friend was pissing and shitting his pants. He's an alright bloke, these days.

[–] LanternEverywhere@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I don't care what they did hundreds of years ago. I judge people on who they are, not on who their grand parents were.

[–] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago

Joining a club is different from who your parents were, one is a deliberate choice.

But yay child-abuse-enabling religion I guess.