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

politics

20426 readers
3219 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bappity@lemmy.world 67 points 2 years ago (2 children)

can we start calling these "evangelicals" for what they are? cultist recruiters

[–] helixdaunting@lemm.ee 40 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Nationalist-christians, or "Nat-Cs" for short.

[–] kescusay@lemmy.world 43 points 2 years ago

Hmmm, let's see...

  • Denigration of homosexuals
  • Disregard for democracy or anything resembling the will of the majority
  • The desire to install a dictator-for-life
  • The worshipful adulation of that dictator
  • Willingness to commit acts of violence for both political and social reasons
  • The absolute certainty that God is with them (it sounds better in German)

Yeah, that checks out.

[–] cnirrad@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Can't really be a Christian if you reject Christ.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Reptorian@lemmy.zip 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Christian Taliban would do.

[–] rustyfish@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

I like the term: Y'all Qaeda.

[–] Octavio@lemmy.world 56 points 2 years ago (2 children)

In an interview with NPR, Russell Moore, who is editor-in-chief of Christianity Today, said that he hears from pastors who tell him about congregants who take umbrage at Jesus telling his followers to turn the other cheek. Moore said that someone invariably comes up to the pastor afterwards and says, “Where did you get those liberal talking points?”

This is real? This isn’t the Onion?

Figures after taking 50 years to finally realize that conservatism is incompatible with the teachings of Jesus, they’d pick conservatism. Should have seen that coming, honestly.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

This is real? This isn’t the Onion?

This is "conservative" USA, yes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] style99@kbin.social 47 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Evangelicals have been a lost cause since the mid-80s. They store everything on earth, not in heaven.

[–] bufordt@sh.itjust.works 40 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

They were already lost by the late 60s, early 70s. The proliferation of evangelical schools was in direct response to integration. They didn't want their precious little children to have to go to school with black kids so they pulled them out of public schools and put them in segregation academies. Now they want to pull all the ~~federal~~ money from the public schools they abandoned out of racism and divert it into their segregation academy system.

They also shut down a lot of public pools because they didn't want to swim with black people.

Once I heard about this I looked at the founding dates of all the private schools in my area. Everything was founded in the mid 70's.

[–] joel_feila@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I like your Christ, you Christians are nothing like your Christ

[–] thecodemonk@programming.dev 19 points 2 years ago (4 children)

The closer I got to Christ, the less republican I became. I had to actually stop going to church because my views changed so drastically, the other church members were attacking me. It's certainly crazy to discover that mainstream Christianity today is anything but.

[–] bemenaker@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

Christianity today is anything but.

It has pretty much always been that way. This isn't new. Your eyes have just been opened to it. Conservatives especially, but most Christians cherry pick passages from the Bible to justify their actions, which is easy to do, since every passage has a contradicting one. Conservatives have now focused on only the old testament, which is mostly Judaism, and they ignore the new testament, you know, the part of Jesus. They like the fire, retribution, punishment, ect. Screw all that hippy bullshit love thy neighbor. Feed the hungry and poor.

[–] joel_feila@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

I remember in jr high relgion class and learning about how jesus was fighting against corupt religious authority. In a Catholic school

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Just imagine Christ coming back, a middle east person with a beard and a darker skin tone, no machine gun, no MAGA hat, not "Vote Trump Or Die" pin on his tunic, and a message of peace and understanding. Most US "Christians" would be seriously disappointed. Or at least confused.

[–] Dangeresque@infosec.pub 10 points 2 years ago

They would be putting him back on the cross

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] brambledog@infosec.pub 28 points 2 years ago (14 children)

"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."

Without knowing the author or their reasons for saying that, I would say that they have it wrong entirely. The majority of governments before the US almost always had some level of theocracy attached to it. We took our independence from a man who quite literally was pretending to be God's representative on earth.

Within that context, its very hard to see the constitution as intending anything other than a full divorce between politics and religion.

[–] Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmynsfw.com 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's more that it was about protecting both from each other. If you read Thomas Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, most of it is about how it's wrong to use state power to enforce religion, but he does throw in this section as well:

"[Mixing religion and politics] tends to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Akasazh 6 points 2 years ago (5 children)

As a European, even though I know of the separation of church and state in the US, I feel that religion in politics still is very important in the states.

I mean that most candidates are very publicly religious and I have the idea that religious affiliation is still very important in the electoral vote, more so than where I live.

Correct me if I'm wrong, by the way, but I don't know what religion most of our politicians abide by, except those in a religious party. Where I would think that in America, if a candidate were non religious it would affect electability.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] sndmn@lemmy.ca 26 points 2 years ago (1 children)

These are the same people who are protesting at libraries while their children are literally raped by clergy.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 24 points 2 years ago

Wow! This is literally a case of Poe's Law in action!

I was ready to discount this as satire, especially when they ran the quote from Russell Moore speaking to NPR, but failing to quote the source...

So I ran it down, sure enough!

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/08/1192663920/southern-baptist-convention-donald-trump-christianity

"On why he thinks Christianity is in crisis:

It was the result of having multiple pastors tell me, essentially, the same story about quoting the Sermon on the Mount, parenthetically, in their preaching — "turn the other cheek" — [and] to have someone come up after to say, "Where did you get those liberal talking points?" And what was alarming to me is that in most of these scenarios, when the pastor would say, "I'm literally quoting Jesus Christ," the response would not be, "I apologize." The response would be, "Yes, but that doesn't work anymore. That's weak." And when we get to the point where the teachings of Jesus himself are seen as subversive to us, then we're in a crisis."

[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago

Mans was a brown-skinned socialist Jew. They’d lynch him if they could.

[–] havokdj@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago

"They hated Jesus, because he told them the truth"

There is nobody more pretentious and judgemental than an evangelical.

[–] downpunxx@kbin.social 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

protip: evangelicalizing was always smokescreen for racists, baptists same, catholics same. christianity is racism, always has been, always will be.

[–] LanternEverywhere@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (12 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.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] InLikeClint@kbin.social 12 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That means Jesus and I are now cool with each other, even though his whole story is sus AF.

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

Did you ever watch Black Jesus? Everybody thought he was loony as fuck but they appreciated the spirit in which he went about things, so instead of revering him they just help him out like they would any other friend. I'd chill with Jesus.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Did they want to only hear the part about the fig tree? Jesus has wrath unimaginable. He whipped people for selling merchandise in a church.

“It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves” (verse 22, KJV). Jesus was a bad ass, and he would have whipped the entire GOP and ran them from his house had he been alive now.

[–] Tigbitties@kbin.social 11 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I hate evangerlicals becuase they sound like con artists and grifters

[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 12 points 2 years ago (7 children)

I hate them because they're committing genocide against me and people like me.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] randon31415@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Technically, it is turn the 'left' cheek. The way I remember it being explained to me is that Jewish law was clear: you strike your slave, you have to let them go. Now many slave owners still wanted to beat up their slaves, so they found a loophole. If you backhanded a slave, it wasn't considered striking. How could someone tell it was backhanding? If the mark was on the 'right' cheek, since everyone was right-handed. Bunch of slaves asked Jesus what to do about it and he said

"When he goes to hit you, hold out your left cheek. If he hits you, you are free, and if he doesn't, well, problem solved."

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (14 children)

This is not where this comes from. It comes from Christianity being a pacifist religion, not some weird pretend loophole about hitting your slave properly.

It's a really simple concept - absolute nonviolence. There's nothing "secret" about it at all. Whoever "explained" this to you was just perverting the religion, which is exactly what this article is about.

In general, if an explanation sounds like "slave masters hate this one neat trick" or an email forward from 1996, you should probably not buy into it.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Leviathan@lemmynsfw.com 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Someone said that to you and you believed them?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Slave in the back: Umm... Jesus? Isn't...isn't God against slavery? Can't you just tell these assholes slavery is immoral and free us, instead of this gotchya cheek slapping shit?

Jesus: 🤣 stfu and obey your masters, even the cruel ones!

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] moog@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

We'll make our own Jesus! With violence and racism!

[–] northendtrooper@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 years ago

You mean that they started to actually read the bible?

load more comments
view more: next ›