Christians are now complaining that "turning the other cheek" is nothing more than liberal talking points...

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.

  • mwguy@infosec.pub
    1·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      1·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • mwguy@infosec.pubEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        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.