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.

  • downpunxx@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    • LanternEverywhere@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

              • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

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

          • LanternEverywhere@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

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

              But yay child-abuse-enabling religion I guess.