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.

  • Akasazh
    6·
    11 months ago

    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.

    • Bramble Dog@infosec.pub
      11·
      11 months ago

      Yes, but in the US we don’t make our leader the head of a state religion when they take office.

      • Akasazh
        2·
        11 months ago

        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.

        • Bramble Dog@infosec.pub
          1·
          11 months ago

          I don’t know if a king starting his own religion to avoid following the rules of a different religion is that progressive.

          • Akasazh
            1·
            11 months ago

            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.