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.
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.
This is real? This isn’t the Onion?
This is “conservative” USA, yes.
This is real? This isn’t the Onion?
Striving for peace and equality is reserved for liberal, commie pinkos.
Evangelicals have been a lost cause since the mid-80s. They store everything on earth, not in heaven.
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
federalmoney 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.
I like your Christ, you Christians are nothing like your Christ
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.
deleted by creator
It is because, like pretty much all religions, it is used as a tool to get people to act a certain way. It is why we had the crusades hundreds and hundreds of years ago, and why we have the jihad situation now.
If you have to be a good person from the threat of eternal damnation, you’re not a good person, you’re just evil on a leash.
Christians talk about “thought crimes”. My grandfather who was a minister for 30 years legitimately believes that if he sees written profanity, he will go to hell. He even believes that partaking in alcohol consumption will send you straight to hell (completely ignoring the fact that Jesus provided wine for a party).
I remember in jr high relgion class and learning about how jesus was fighting against corupt religious authority. In a Catholic school
Christianity was a grassroots religion for roughly 300 years, but then emperor Constantine “helped” to “standartize” it. Ever since then Christianity is more about making you more manageable by the state than it is about saving your soul.
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.
They would be putting him back on the cross
There’s an old Margaret Cho joke about how if Jesus were to return today, he’d be screaming, “THAT’S NOT WHAT I MEANT!”
deleted by creator
Well the author doesn’t say that any of them said that, he’s just assuming some people think like that.
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?”
“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,‘” Moore recounted. “The response would be, ‘Yes, but that doesn’t work anymore. That’s weak.’” For him, that shows that Christianity is in a state of crisis.
Literally from the article. Not sure how much closer to the horse’s mouth you need it to be. I’m in a pretty conservative area and this also rings true to sentiments I’ve heard from supposed Christians.
deleted by creator
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."
“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.
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.
You are 100% right, here is a study from 2016 which shows being atheist hurts worse than being muslim.
Yes, but in the US we don’t make our leader the head of a state religion when they take office.
That is what the Brits do. And, quite frankly, when Henry VIII made that move to get out from under papal control, I’d say it was a pretty progressive act.
But my comment was about how important the religiosity of political candidates is in an electoral correct. I have little insight into the importance of religious status of candidates in Britain, but I don’t think the British electorate really cares is someone is Catholic.
I don’t know if a king starting his own religion to avoid following the rules of a different religion is that progressive.
Much debate can be had. It is obviously self-serving and not ideological.
However for the time denouncing the pope was kind of radical. I kind of forgot that the refomation was going on in the mean time, so that he was probably using that as example and excuse. So that makes it a bit less progressive still…
Well I’ll retract my statement, though a bold move it was.
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.”
That single sentence in a body of work you acknowledge agrees with me isn’t a very good smoking gun.
Jefferson was the ideological head of a conspiracy to steal land and autonomy from a theocratic state. I also believe some of the first laws enacted by the warring colonies was that Anglican churches were no longer allowed to swear allegiance to the king.
I don’t know why its 2023 and there is still this active fight to reframe the creation of the US itself as a Christian act.
I’d say that the separation is a little bit of both. It protects government from religion, but it can also protect religion from government. Back in England, the head of the church was the king of England. If the king decided that everyone needed to pray while balancing on their right foot, that’s what would be done. So how you prayed was dependent on the government (the king).
Now, the people pushing Christian theocracy are fine with tearing down the wall between Church and State because they all assume that THEIR religion will be the one in charge. But imagine how much they’d howl if a Select Congressional Committee On Prayer determined that all prayer books needed to be rewritten to add in some new prayers and remove old ones.
They’d go berserk over the government interfering in their religious practices. The separation prevents the government from mucking about in religion unless there’s a major issue. (Sorry, no human sacrifices.)
The Christian right doesn’t consider this at all and they could seriously regret it if they ever reach their goal. (We’d definitely regret it more, of course.)
At the time of the Constitution there were several states with official state religions (Pennslyvania, Maryland, RI etc…) Separation of Church and state was more of making sure that the Federal Governent didn’t impose a religion upon the states themselves.
Odd because Madison who wrote the establishment clause formed it specifically to stop his state from having government funded religious schools.
The founding fathers had a significantly more progressive, more secular view of what the American society and government could and should be than the general population or even the general upper class.
Additionally I believe Madison ended up using a Virginia state religious freedom law to oppose religious school in the state.
While the language of the first Amendment should have banned state religion based solely on it’s text. It didn’t based on it’s interpretation.
Your argument is changing.
Separation of Church and state was more of making sure that the Federal Governent didn’t impose a religion upon the states themselves
I pointed out that it was specifically designed on the state level.
That’s not a changing argument. The 1st Amendment didn’t outlaw religion in state government. It’s goal was to prevent a Federal government from being able to impose a religious mandate upon a state that didn’t want it.
Pennsylvania and Rhode Island never had established churches; both were founded in part as havens for religious dissenters.
Were any of those States allowed to keep their state religions after the ratification of the constution or did they immediately start following the law and separated their recognition of a church being the state religion?
But yes, the constitution outright was outlawing the formation of theocratic arms of the state.
All of them kept them. For example Mass had a state religion until 1833. Most kept them until the mid to late 1800s when the amount of Irish Catholic and German/Lutheran immigrants made it clear that if they kept a state religion that it wasn’t going to remain theirs.
Most of the state churches were disestablished before the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791; Connecticut and Massachusetts being the exceptions.
These are the same people who are protesting at libraries while their children are literally raped by clergy.
They’re the kind of evil that is unaware of the fact that they are evil.
“They hated Jesus, because he told them the truth”
There is nobody more pretentious and judgemental than an evangelical.
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.
protip: evangelicalizing was always smokescreen for racists, baptists same, catholics same. christianity is racism, always has been, always will be.
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.
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.
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.
You’re not cynical enough yet. Humanity itself is the bunch.
actually I am but I am open to being wrong and therefore Pleasantly surprised.
🤔 You know, extraterrestrials could be too. If they naturally evolved, it’s almost guaranteed. Life selects for evil behavior.
Look at me, the naive optimist again.
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.
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.
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.
The enemy of your enemy is by no means necessarily your friend. They may be useful to you, but don’t take your eyes off your valuables or your kids around a preacher.
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.”
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.
deleted by creator
That’s just how it’s interpreted nowadays. In no way is Christianity absolutely pacificist. Jesus himself whipped the lenders at the temple.
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!
Someone said that to you and you believed them?
This was a methodist pastor summarizing a speech given by Gandhi on Jesus’s sermon on the mount which in of itself was a reinterpretation ancient Jewish law - so someone down the line might have got something wrong.
deleted by creator
So what the hell would stop them from simply punching you in the face? Or nutshotting you?
I hate evangerlicals becuase they sound like con artists and grifters
I hate them because they’re committing genocide against me and people like me.
Wait til you find out they are con artists and grifters.
You mean that they started to actually read the bible?
I’d like to see a real study on this, because this “news” is a few layers of hearsay, and I’m not sure it would hold up to a real investigation.
It certainly matches what their behavior is, but I don’t know how much you’d really see evangelicals actually saying what is being claimed. Honestly, I don’t even know anymore, which is why I think a real poll/survey/study is needed.
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."
Who said it, what church, what pastor, when did it happen?
I don’t want hearsay off hearsay told by a man who has made his career lying to people about skydaddy existing.
