753
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2023
753 points (99.1% liked)
News
23282 readers
3809 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
yeah, it seems what they meant is freedom to be a christian without the pope and absolutely nothing else. no nonbelievers, no non-abrahamics, hell, not even any abrahamic believers who believe in other religions. protestant, mormon, or cringe catholic, take your pick or go to literal hell.
and the best part is when they use the excuse of religious freedom as a shield for their bigotry. like i'm sorry, if your holy book literally calls for gays to be stoned to death that's a call to violence, it doesn't deserve to be protected or tolerated.
Didn't people make a big deal over jfk running for president because he was Catholic?
I feel like this is inaccurate. What other religions were on hand in the late 1700s? The native religions, of course, but the white guys did not care about that.
Of course there was an emphasis on avoiding dependence on any one organized religion. That was one way of keeping power in the right hands.
And in the 1970s and 1980s, it depends where in the US, but in many places or was and is very common to be Christian. If there is an strong majority, there's no need to explicitly weaponize because society itself is already pushing your agenda. But that doesn't mean harm wasn't caused.
I hope you get up on the other side of the bed tomorrow. It sounds like you're going through a rough time in life, but with luck perhaps it's only a one day phenomenon.
Also, if you want to troll, try to do a better job than that. I got kind of bored reading it.
Honestly can someone even provide me with an excerpt from the bible that actively cites the hatred of homosexuals
here you go: https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/processlong.php?cid=15&pub=1
There is the story of Sodom, two times in Leviticus, the obvious coverup of Johnathan, the reference in Ezekiel (which according to modern prot studies of the bible is a big freaken deal), two times in Paul's letters, and a derived part of Matthew.
Homosexuality is attacked more times than all of the diet rules combined.
If by "they" you're referring to the folks who wrote the Constitution (many of whom were Deists, not Christians), that's very much historical revisionism. The religious right certainly thinks that's what they thought, but it isn't true.
i did think that but i stand corrected by @Jase@lemmy.world. seems like the founding fathers were actually based (at least on this topic) and it's just the people who like to speak for them who are corrupting this message.
that said though, there are a lot of calls for religious freedom nowadays that shape up like this: basically, "i should be able to practice my religion and i guess i'll endure yours because you're in power, but we're gonna do something about those unbelievers, right? ...right?"
This reminds me of one of my favorites quotes, which is about the 2020 US presidential election, and I'm not even from the USA, but it's suitable in so much scenarios in life: "It shouldn't be this close."
Even as a Christian myself, I agree with you. Separation of Church and State. Politics mixing with religion has been terrible for both.
No it hasn't. Religions benefit almost immeasurably from infiltrating politics in so many ways, ranging from exemption from all discrimination laws, to having their private schools funded by tax money, to controlling the majority of hospitals in the country, to being allowed to rape and marry children consequence free.
Eh, that's the church as an institution. I mean religion in the more abstract sense. Political leanings becoming tied to a religious stance has become ridiculous, and has watered down Christianity quite a lot, to the point where even Trump gets to go pray once a year and call himself the Christian vote. It's also been remarkably divisive, as naturally, a lot of Christians aren't that, and hot political debates somehow become religious debates.
Tying religion to politics has allowed politics to slowly pull that horse further and further, to the point where "Christianity" now means southern fundamentalism to a lot, maybe even most, people. I think without political influence, we'd be a lot closer today to how Christianity started, and is meant to look.
Not that I disagree with the sentiment that things would be better for all of us if thr GOP hadn't courted the religious right, but I did want to mention that Christianity in the 1st century looked a lot different than it has in the 20th or now.
The religion has changed dramatically over the years. And it was usually a collection of disparate sects. The new testament canon as we know it wasn't agreed upon until around 400, and the standardization of mainstream belief, the Nicene Creed, had only been adopted a generation before.
And of course the split during the Reformation in the 1500s changed white a bit. Even decade by decade you see different movements, changed in interpretation (slavery being ok vs not), and such.
We don't have any of the original biblical sources, and none of them are believed to be writings directly from Jesus or his disciples themselves. What we have is filtered through other parties and further filtered through the canonization processes (OT and NT both).
So it's a bit tough to really pin down what Christianity was "meant to be". But I wished it wasn't what it is in many parts of the US.
Well it is, look at Malaysia for example
Edit. Ok you're being sarcastic lol
No sarcasm. These are all reality in the US right now. Feel free to fact check.
Lmao I guess that's the same for us either
Let me try a different argument:
The separation of church and state has forced American denominations to compete in a marketplace for souls/money, and they have become ruthlessly efficient corporatized entities, using marketing and business-process management, and exploiting tax advantages and high switching costs.
Meanwhile, in Europe, you have official state Catholicism or Protestantism-flavors, which are moribund, inspire little passion, and most everyone is either atheist, agnostic, or un-passioned.
This is not a product of separation of church and state, but of the atrocious combination of hyper-capitalism and tax exemption for religious organizations.
Such an interesting statement. I can kind of see what you mean. Would you happen to have more reading material on this topic? It would be very appreciated.
lmao, so the church and state shouldn't be separated because the government is inefficient and its inefficiencies should remain to be inflicted upon the church?
that's... actually kinda based, lol. i do appreciate the objective and the unconventional method to achieve it. however, i think there's a difference between being a government entity and having control over governance. the latter should never be given to the church, because that's one hella fast way to surpass all the damage they have managed to do under the american system. for example, while your statements seem accurate for western europe and the nordics (emphasis on "seem", i don't live there) but over here in hungary the "christian democratic party" is literally the only party our government is in a coalition with, and they get to pass discriminatory laws basically as fast as they can come up with them. the closest analogy i can give is imagine if all the shit that's going on in those red states was going on country-wide with no one left to oppose it.
that's also what europe looked like before the "age of enlightenment", which is separation of church and state is so important in public consciousness, even if not technically implemented.
still, i do like your idea, and yes, inflicting bureaucracy upon the church would be helpful. maybe it's not a separation of church and state that we need, but protection of the state from the church's influence.
Yeah it is one of the unexpected results. It is an imperfect analogy but Europe Christianity has become a domesticated animal that knows not to cause trouble. American Christianity is a mean badass sewer rat that not only fends for itself but can't be killed. I really doubt anyone could have predicted this before it happened.
This statement presupposes that religion hasn't always been inherently political. Religion is nothing if not a tool for control.
Absolutely. It's hard to conceive of something that has been more damaging to society than Abrahamic religion.
I think the concept of money was the most detrimental, but Abrahamic mythologies are a close second.
Money is just a vehicle for trade, which is essential for any society.
The country was founded of freedom of religion by the fanatics who were too fanatical for England.
No certain colonies were founded by zealots too fanatical for England and the Netherlands, the country was founded by slave owning wealthy people
When will this myth die
The Founders were steeped in the Age of Enlightenment. Modern Americans wouldn't even recognize it as Christianity. Like The Jefferson Bible
You could label their morality puritanical but I think cynicism would also equally apply. If you view humans as naturally greedy and selfish, society needs to codify expected behavior to keep it in check.
Jefferson raped other people's children and sold his own. Washington was not only a slaver but used his victims' flesh as a cosmetic. (Washington's famous "wooden" teeth were actually harvested from enslaved humans)
Secular government is a good idea on it's own, not because 18th century R. Kelly and Leatherface said so.
Nope. This country was founded on the idea that weathly people shouldn't have to pay their fair share of taxes.
I assume you have detailed statistics go back up this claim.
Don’t conflate a religion with the religious extremists.
All religion is extremist.
Don't criminalize abortion and I won't.
One man's extremist is another man's hero.