|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland24310 Posts
On November 14 2024 09:40 KwarK wrote:
It makes more sense if you remember just how much the average American Christian hates Christianity, or at least the kind embodied by Christ. They hate sharing, forgiving, foreigners, people from the Middle East, and pacifism. They love money, judging people, weapons, the death penalty, and deciding who is going to heaven on behalf of God.
It’s easy to see why they love Trump despite him being about as far as you can get from Christ. They’re about as far as you can get from Christianity. It’s all perfectly consistent.
Also that, I was being more kind and holding back
You were evidentially not, although to probably come to a more accurate conclusion
|
On November 14 2024 09:33 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2024 08:49 Billyboy wrote:On November 14 2024 08:08 WombaT wrote:On November 14 2024 07:43 Billyboy wrote:On November 14 2024 05:23 WombaT wrote:
In a hypothetical scenario, with a guy who tbf wasn’t really a guy who realistically wasn’t an electible politicians anyway despite post-hoc sanitisation, you’d honestly discount MLK because he banged around a bit? It would make me question his integrity. It would make me question his faith. I would think a lot less of him if his sermons spoke to the evils of adultery. On the other hand I do know about it and he did great and amazing things, he is human and we all have failings. But I'm also not a fire and brimstone Christian who thinks sinners should go to hell. For me if I found out the leader of the green party was burning all their plastic in a burning bin, I would not vote for them. And I would do everything in my power to have them removed as leader of the party. MAGA seem quick to judge everyone harshly (he was Epstein's best friend for 10 years FFS) but have a million apologies for their dear leader. You make a valid point, it’s a matter of being a flawed human being versus actively hypocritical on a stated platform. For me anyway The MAGA crowd just don’t care about such stuff, remotely. Demonstrably. Over and over again. I’ve personally never really cared all that much unless someone is campaigning on a say, a ‘monogamy will save the nation’ platform. If Bernie Sanders was flinging his cock around as liberally as his frankly centre-left platform by European standards, I don’t really care Nor should you, from what I can tell you are not puritanical. My issue is if faith in Christianity is their biggest and most highly held belief, why the hell would they vote for a hedonist, who provably and repeatedly lies about his very unchristian behavior. They would not, if that was really their biggest and most highly held belief. He gave them Roe versus Wade being repealed. Amongst other things They’re not (generally) voting for Trump on the basis of the belief that he’s personally a great Christian or not, but what he can do for their sensibilities Youve got a cohort of insane people who think he’s a great exemplar of Christian values, but I think more broadly it’s transactional
But Roe versus Wade was not anti Christian. And furthers my point, a erpson might hold taking away choice as their number 1 issue and belief it is the greatest and most important thing that they are willing to ignore that he is about as unchristian as they come and blatantly hypocritical. That to them is more important than having a good Christian run the country.
Edit: or Kwarks version which is more entertaining.
|
Northern Ireland24310 Posts
On November 14 2024 09:48 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2024 09:33 WombaT wrote:On November 14 2024 08:49 Billyboy wrote:On November 14 2024 08:08 WombaT wrote:On November 14 2024 07:43 Billyboy wrote:On November 14 2024 05:23 WombaT wrote:
In a hypothetical scenario, with a guy who tbf wasn’t really a guy who realistically wasn’t an electible politicians anyway despite post-hoc sanitisation, you’d honestly discount MLK because he banged around a bit? It would make me question his integrity. It would make me question his faith. I would think a lot less of him if his sermons spoke to the evils of adultery. On the other hand I do know about it and he did great and amazing things, he is human and we all have failings. But I'm also not a fire and brimstone Christian who thinks sinners should go to hell. For me if I found out the leader of the green party was burning all their plastic in a burning bin, I would not vote for them. And I would do everything in my power to have them removed as leader of the party. MAGA seem quick to judge everyone harshly (he was Epstein's best friend for 10 years FFS) but have a million apologies for their dear leader. You make a valid point, it’s a matter of being a flawed human being versus actively hypocritical on a stated platform. For me anyway The MAGA crowd just don’t care about such stuff, remotely. Demonstrably. Over and over again. I’ve personally never really cared all that much unless someone is campaigning on a say, a ‘monogamy will save the nation’ platform. If Bernie Sanders was flinging his cock around as liberally as his frankly centre-left platform by European standards, I don’t really care Nor should you, from what I can tell you are not puritanical. My issue is if faith in Christianity is their biggest and most highly held belief, why the hell would they vote for a hedonist, who provably and repeatedly lies about his very unchristian behavior. They would not, if that was really their biggest and most highly held belief. He gave them Roe versus Wade being repealed. Amongst other things They’re not (generally) voting for Trump on the basis of the belief that he’s personally a great Christian or not, but what he can do for their sensibilities Youve got a cohort of insane people who think he’s a great exemplar of Christian values, but I think more broadly it’s transactional But Roe versus Wade was not anti Christian. And furthers my point, a erpson might hold taking away choice as their number 1 issue and belief it is the greatest and most important thing that they are willing to ignore that he is about as unchristian as they come and blatantly hypocritical. That to them is more important than having a good Christian run the country. Edit: or Kwarks version which is more entertaining.
Roe versus Wade absolutely was anti-Christian, if we’re looking at US Christians and their views.
There’s a reason they’ve pushed for decades on repeat.
I think there’s plenty of charges of hypocrisy to be found, not really on this issue though
|
Canada11316 Posts
A true rogues gallery of appointees thus far.
Seems pretty transparent that the being a loyal Yesman is the qualifying criteria rather than any relevant experience. Perhaps relevant experience is a detriment.
"That's right. You're an environmental lawyer. How about you go back to your office and we'll call you when there's an oil spill." Donahue on Jeff Clark's attempt to become the AG. But now Anybody who is anybody is being appointed so long as are unfailingly loyal.
Read this observation recently:
Trump is draining the swamp... and is filling it with toxic waste.
|
On November 14 2024 07:43 Mohdoo wrote:
I feel bad forgetting their alias here, but its on the tip of my tongue. Many of you will remember them. Trans woman who worked remotely but lived in Texas. Worked for a tech company that allowed her to move abroad to escape trans persecution in the US.
Lots of people here said they were being a bit extreme by straight up leaving the country. Matt Gaetz as AG is a chilling situation, but it sure did prove them right. They were right to leave when they did. If I was trans or had a kid who is trans, I would be incredibly nervous right now.
We already know Trump is going to combine the red state national guards to force adherence to immigration policy. Its probably gonna apply to other stuff as well. Don't want to provide a full list of trans people in your state? Ok, say goodbye to all federal funding. And after a month the national guard is showing up regardless.
I think this is the point where "actual panic" is justified. The national guard stuff and Matt Gaetz AG is the real deal. Man.
plasmidghost had strong criticism of the general vibes in this thread and she genuinely seemed to be afraid for her life. In her view people here weren't taking her seriously.
Last January Trump gave a fanatical anti-trans speech. I think plasmid left tl.net prior to that, right? Maybe around a year earlier?
|
United States42223 Posts
Well they're not even really hypocritical, it's the bible that is wrong, not the religion. These people didn't especially pick Christianity, it's not like they took an even handed and objective look at every religion and decided that the teachings of Jesus were the ones for them. They've inherited a state religion that ultimately dates back to the Western Roman emperors who pretty much created it for themselves without any reference to preexisting texts. That's their religion, they're not constructing it based on consistency with the original texts, they're receiving it intact from the society around them.
The gotchas don't really work because the whole Jesus thing was never a part of the lineage in their Christianity. Theirs was always a state religion that was used to prop up the rich and powerful, compel obsequiousness and obedience in the poor, and justify violence against anyone threatening the status quo. Their version of Christianity always had divine right of kings, holy war, and purges of heretics.
It's like going to a House of the Dragon tv viewer and trying to disagree with something they're asserting based on your knowledge of the SOIAF books. They're set in the same broad universe and there are some overlapping characters but they have very different canon. Saying "actually you're wrong about what is clearly a part of the tv show you're watching because this is what was referenced in a much older book" just doesn't work. They're different works.
Constantine's Christianity was a clean slate that decanonized all that love your neighbour, forsake violence, forgive your enemies, give away your wealth, seek no recognition for your acts, share freely and without judgment, be humble stuff and replaced it with the substance of preexisting imperial cults. There's no reason to expect any of that Jesus stuff to be in Christianity and anyone using that as a gotcha has fundamentally failed to understand that they're different religions.
American Christians are very certain about what it means to be a Christian and given they're the ones believing it they are by definition right about their own beliefs.
|
Northern Ireland24310 Posts
On November 14 2024 10:06 KwarK wrote:
Well they're not even really hypocritical, it's the bible that is wrong, not the religion. These people didn't especially pick Christianity, it's not like they took an even handed and objective look at every religion and decided that the teachings of Jesus were the ones for them. They've inherited a state religion that ultimately dates back to the Western Roman emperors who pretty much created it for themselves without any reference to preexisting texts. That's their religion, they're not constructing it based on consistency with the original texts, they're receiving it intact from the society around them.
The gotchas don't really work because the whole Jesus thing was never a part of the lineage in their Christianity. Theirs was always a state religion that was used to prop up the rich and powerful, compel obsequiousness and obedience in the poor, and justify violence against anyone threatening the status quo. Their version of Christianity always had divine right of kings, holy war, and purges of heretics.
It's like going to a House of the Dragon tv viewer and trying to disagree with something they're asserting based on your knowledge of the SOIAF books. They're set in the same broad universe and there are some overlapping characters but they have very different canon. Saying "actually you're wrong about what is clearly a part of the tv show you're watching because this is what was referenced in a much older book" just doesn't work. They're different works.
Constantine's Christianity was a clean slate that decanonized all that love your neighbour, forsake violence, forgive your enemies, give away your wealth, seek no recognition for your acts, share freely and without judgment, be humble stuff and replaced it with the substance of preexisting imperial cults. There's no reason to expect any of that Jesus stuff to be in Christianity and anyone using that as a gotcha has fundamentally failed to understand that they're different religions.
American Christians are very certain about what it means to be a Christian and given they're the ones believing it they are by definition right about their own beliefs.
Not that I especially enjoy blowing smoke up your arse but this is very well put
|
Northern Ireland24310 Posts
On November 14 2024 10:06 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2024 07:43 Mohdoo wrote:
I feel bad forgetting their alias here, but its on the tip of my tongue. Many of you will remember them. Trans woman who worked remotely but lived in Texas. Worked for a tech company that allowed her to move abroad to escape trans persecution in the US.
Lots of people here said they were being a bit extreme by straight up leaving the country. Matt Gaetz as AG is a chilling situation, but it sure did prove them right. They were right to leave when they did. If I was trans or had a kid who is trans, I would be incredibly nervous right now.
We already know Trump is going to combine the red state national guards to force adherence to immigration policy. Its probably gonna apply to other stuff as well. Don't want to provide a full list of trans people in your state? Ok, say goodbye to all federal funding. And after a month the national guard is showing up regardless.
I think this is the point where "actual panic" is justified. The national guard stuff and Matt Gaetz AG is the real deal. Man. plasmidghost had strong criticism of the general vibes in this thread and she genuinely seemed to be afraid for her life. In her view people here weren't taking her seriously. Last January Trump gave a fanatical anti-trans speech. I think plasmid left tl.net prior to that, right? Maybe around a year earlier?
Their view of ‘seriously’ was believe anti-trans pogroms were imminent and no other position was acceptable.
Anything else, nah. I think the direction of travel, anti-trans rhetoric growing are shit, need to be fought wholesale. Apparently that level of acknowledgement, not sufficient
Discussing any kind of trans related issue, was evidence of prep for the pogroms to come.
Even if they had legitimate RL reasons to fear for themselves there was really nothing precluding to continue to engage here
|
Canada11316 Posts
Constantine's Christianity is a gross oversimplification. While we do see the beginning of Christianity as a state religion, I don't think Constantine had much influence on the actual content argued in the council... and some of what was decided other emperors immediately went back on. Nor is there a straight line from Constantine until now. Given how many schisms and splits Christianity has seen, how you could ever point to Constantine as directly causative to American Christians, I don't know.
The whole argument stands and falls on is what is in the womb human life? Given a great many American Christians on the conservative evangelical or conservative Catholic side believe that what is the womb is human life there is no great inconsistency. They believe they are taking care of the 'least of these'. They believe it is compassionate to save and adopt rather than kill. It does not require a bellicose and belligerent state religion meant to 'justify violence against anyone threatening the statue quo" to hold that position.
"They've inherited a state religion that ultimately dates back to the Western Roman emperors who pretty much created it for themselves without any reference to preexisting texts."
This became true of the medieval Catholic Church but is an ahistorical characterization since that time period considering the rallying cry in the 1500s on was 'Ad fontes' aka 'to the sources'.
|
Northern Ireland24310 Posts
On November 14 2024 10:21 Falling wrote:Constantine's Christianity is a gross oversimplification. While we do see the beginning of Christianity as a state religion, I don't think Constantine had much influence on the actual content argued in the council... and some of what was decided other emperors immediately went back on. Nor is there a straight line from Constantine until now. Given how many schisms and splits Christianity has seen, how you could ever point to Constantine as directly causative to American Christians, I don't know. The whole argument stands and falls on is what is in the womb human life? Given a great many American Christians on the conservative evangelical or conservative Catholic side believe that what is the womb is human life there is no great inconsistency. They believe they are taking care of the 'least of these'. They believe it is compassionate to save and adopt rather than kill. It does not require a bellicose and belligerent state religion meant to 'justify violence against anyone threatening the statue quo" to hold that position. Show nested quote +"They've inherited a state religion that ultimately dates back to the Western Roman emperors who pretty much created it for themselves without any reference to preexisting texts." This became true of the medieval Catholic Church but is an ahistorical characterization since that time period considering the rallying cry in the 1500s on was 'Ad fontes' aka 'to the sources'.
It’s tricky with religions. I’m a giant heathen but some of the most admirable people in my life are Christians.
More broadly, you’ve got hundreds of years at this point where most Christian institutions and indeed followers have dovetailed with rather conservative sensibilities or structures.
So modern mainstream Christianity, while not being exclusively so, almost invariably leans institutionally conservative
|
Eh, the mainline churches developed different sensibilities, and they used to be quite important. As I've said before most people who criticize Christians for not really knowing who Jesus was or whatever only like the parts they can interpret to say one can do whatever one wants. Everyone likes "let him who has not sinned throw the first stone" no one likes "go and sin no more."
|
United States42223 Posts
On November 14 2024 10:21 Falling wrote:Constantine's Christianity is a gross oversimplification. While we do see the beginning of Christianity as a state religion, I don't think Constantine had much influence on the actual content argued in the council... and some of what was decided other emperors immediately went back on. Nor is there a straight line from Constantine until now. Given how many schisms and splits Christianity has seen, how you could ever point to Constantine as directly causative to American Christians, I don't know. The whole argument stands and falls on is what is in the womb human life? Given a great many American Christians on the conservative evangelical or conservative Catholic side believe that what is the womb is human life there is no great inconsistency. They believe they are taking care of the 'least of these'. They believe it is compassionate to save and adopt rather than kill. It does not require a bellicose and belligerent state religion meant to 'justify violence against anyone threatening the statue quo" to hold that position. Show nested quote +"They've inherited a state religion that ultimately dates back to the Western Roman emperors who pretty much created it for themselves without any reference to preexisting texts." This became true of the medieval Catholic Church but is an ahistorical characterization since that time period considering the rallying cry in the 1500s on was 'Ad fontes' aka 'to the sources'.
I’m not arguing that it didn’t evolve. I’m saying that the religion of the western Roman Empire is in the DNA of American Christianity. The religion of Jesus isn’t.
If you consider how fundamentally revolutionary everything Jesus said was you’d recognize why it couldn’t possibly survive in its original form. Even if you set to one side how difficult it is to survive as a radical pacifist who will allow themselves to be sentenced to death by a corrupt authority and willingly go along with it, it’s just a really unpopular message. Everything Jesus said was shit that is really hard to do and goes against everything we want to do. Judging others is one of the easiest ways to make yourself feel good. That’s out. And given that we all do it naturally you now have to feel bad about it. Having nice stuff is out, give that shit away. Even if you worked for it and deserve it and the other guy is lazy. Especially then because you can’t call him lazy because that’s judging others and also pride. Forgiving your enemies is awful. They’re your enemies. Fuck those guys, they didn’t become your enemies because they were decent people. Oh shit, we’re judging again. But it’d be so much easier to forgive your friends, why did it have to be enemies. And we forgave them once already and then they took advantage of our forgiveness and mistreated us again so can we at least punish them now? Nope, turn the other cheek. Forgive them even harder. And that shit about however you treat the least among us is how you’re assumed to have treated Jesus is an impossible standard.
Jesus was wandering around healing the sick and feeding everyone with unlimited wine and people still all decided that he was a total buzzkill and tortured him to death. His message is insanely challenging and revolutionary. It was never going to survive unchanged, it is unworkable, it is incompatible with the way people are.
It’s possible that every now and then some lunatic read what Jesus was about and decided to try to be Christlike. But none of them are going to leave much behind because you don’t get in power through humility, giving everything away, and loving everyone. The who shaped the religion were the ones selling indulgences, the ones writing polemics against the Jews, the ones who just wanted to bang their mistress without getting shit from the Pope who happened to be controlled by their wife's nephew, and of course, the ones who wanted multiple wives with at least one being underage.
I have a vague admiration for biblical Jesus but he must have been exhausting to be around. The goodest of good guys but at a certain point his followers must have been thinking “how about instead of giving away my money you give away your money seeing as you can just miracle some more into existence and I worked fucking hard for mine” or just the simple “fuck Samaritans, all my homies hate Samaritans”.
Also it really doesn’t matter when a fetus gets a soul because Christians weren’t given responsibility by Jesus to be the morality police. Jesus didn’t say “this prostitute has acted immorally, let’s pass a law against prostitution and use state violence to enforce it”. He said that regardless of the morality or immorality of her choices we should treat her with compassion and kindness. If judgment is to be handed out then let God do it, here on earth our job is not to enforce God’s laws but just to love each other. Abortion can be murder to Christians, it literally doesn’t matter. Christians aren’t the murder police, that’s not what Jesus was about. If it is and that woman really has murdered her unborn child then God can judge her for that, as a Christian your job is very clearly defined, show her love and compassion. That’s it. Once Christians start using state violence to impose their morality on others they’ve gone completely off book. Law enforcement is someone else’s department. If a mother is in front of you and is literally murdering her child then you may have a responsibility as a secular human being to intervene but you do not have a responsibility as a Christian to intervene. Jesus never asked you to do that. The instruction was to forgive and not judge (which is why everyone hates him so much).
|
Northern Ireland24310 Posts
On November 14 2024 10:39 Introvert wrote:
Eh, the mainline churches developed different sensibilities, and they used to be quite important. As I've said before most people who criticize Christians for not really knowing who Jesus was or whatever only like the parts they can interpret to say one can do whatever one wants. Everyone likes "let him who has not sinned throw the first stone" no one likes "go and sin no more."
Some of the best folk I know are big Christians, some of the worst also are.
Why do you think more egalitarian interpretations are by far in the minority, if not on an individual level at least institutionally, and especially in the US?
|
On November 14 2024 10:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2024 10:21 Falling wrote:Constantine's Christianity is a gross oversimplification. While we do see the beginning of Christianity as a state religion, I don't think Constantine had much influence on the actual content argued in the council... and some of what was decided other emperors immediately went back on. Nor is there a straight line from Constantine until now. Given how many schisms and splits Christianity has seen, how you could ever point to Constantine as directly causative to American Christians, I don't know. The whole argument stands and falls on is what is in the womb human life? Given a great many American Christians on the conservative evangelical or conservative Catholic side believe that what is the womb is human life there is no great inconsistency. They believe they are taking care of the 'least of these'. They believe it is compassionate to save and adopt rather than kill. It does not require a bellicose and belligerent state religion meant to 'justify violence against anyone threatening the statue quo" to hold that position. "They've inherited a state religion that ultimately dates back to the Western Roman emperors who pretty much created it for themselves without any reference to preexisting texts." This became true of the medieval Catholic Church but is an ahistorical characterization since that time period considering the rallying cry in the 1500s on was 'Ad fontes' aka 'to the sources'. I’m not arguing that it didn’t evolve. I’m saying that the religion of the western Roman Empire is in the DNA of American Christianity. The religion of Jesus isn’t. If you consider how fundamentally revolutionary everything Jesus said was you’d recognize why it couldn’t possibly survive in its original form. Even if you set to one side how difficult it is to survive as a radical pacifist who will allow themselves to be sentenced to death by a corrupt authority and willingly go along with it, it’s just a really unpopular message. Everything Jesus said was shit that is really hard to do and goes against everything we want to do. Judging others is one of the easiest ways to make yourself feel good. That’s out. And given that we all do it naturally you now have to feel bad about it. Having nice stuff is out, give that shit away. Even if you worked for it and deserve it and the other guy is lazy. Especially then because you can’t call him lazy because that’s judging others and also pride. Forgiving your enemies is awful. They’re your enemies. Fuck those guys, they didn’t become your enemies because they were decent people. Oh shit, we’re judging again. But it’d be so much easier to forgive your friends, why did it have to be enemies. And we forgave them once already and then they took advantage of our forgiveness and mistreated us again so can we at least punish them now? Nope, turn the other cheek. Forgive them even harder. And that shit about however you treat the least among us is how you’re assumed to have treated Jesus is an impossible standard. Jesus was wandering around healing the sick and feeding everyone with unlimited wine and people still all decided that he was a total buzzkill and tortured him to death. His message is insanely challenging and revolutionary. It was never going to survive unchanged, it is unworkable, it is incompatible with the way people are. It’s possible that every now and then some lunatic read what Jesus was about and decided to try to be Christlike. But none of them are going to leave much behind because you don’t get in power through humility, giving everything away, and loving everyone. The who shaped the religion were the ones selling indulgences, the ones writing polemics against the Jews, the ones who just wanted to bang their mistress without getting shit from the Pope who happened to be their wife’s uncle, and of course, the ones who wanted multiple wives with at least one being underage. I have a vague admiration for biblical Jesus but he must have been exhausting to be around. The goodest of good guys but at a certain point his followers must have been thinking “how about instead of giving away my money you give away your money seeing as you can just miracle some more into existence and I worked fucking hard for mine” or just the simple “fuck Samaritans, all my homies hate Samaritans”. Also it really doesn’t matter when a fetus gets a soul because Christians weren’t given responsibility by Jesus to be the morality police. Jesus didn’t say “this prostitute has acted immorally, let’s pass a law against prostitution and use state violence to enforce it”. He said that regardless of the morality or immorality of her choices we should treat her with compassion and kindness. If judgment is to be handed out then let God do it, here on earth our job is not to enforce God’s laws but just to love each other. Abortion can be murder to Christians, it literally doesn’t matter. Christians aren’t the murder police, that’s not what Jesus was about. If it is and that woman really has murdered her unborn child then God can judge her for that, as a Christian your job is very clearly defined, show her love and compassion. That’s it.
This discussion is a good addition to my post in that there is all these people who think very differently and would disagree on some very crucial things and all call themselves Christian. Because of not realizing that many of the people who call themselves Christians actually are very different to the point of often being the opposite, they feel the social pressure to act like them, vote like them, and quite frankly most people are not that politically informed. So if they hear the republicans have the Christian vote, and have always voted Republican , they just assume Trump is the most Christian candidate. And where they "do their own research" is not an unbiased place.
It is going to be interesting because things are going to happen that will force people to realize this. Like on abortion, Trump is either going to veto all out Bans or not. Plenty (within the Republican party who voted for Trump) are going to be mad no matter what he does.
|
On November 14 2024 10:47 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2024 10:39 Introvert wrote:
Eh, the mainline churches developed different sensibilities, and they used to be quite important. As I've said before most people who criticize Christians for not really knowing who Jesus was or whatever only like the parts they can interpret to say one can do whatever one wants. Everyone likes "let him who has not sinned throw the first stone" no one likes "go and sin no more." Some of the best folk I know are big Christians, some of the worst also are. Why do you think more egalitarian interpretations are by far in the minority, if not on an individual level at least institutionally, and especially in the US?
Maybe it's your expectations? Are you sure that the Christians you know are more extreme on either end and that non-believers are generally more milquetoast? Or is it just because when you know someone is a Christian you are looking for it?
I would say this, when America was being founded many people came here A) to make money or B) to live how they wanted, including their faith. And boy howdy did both of those things mature as time went on. Now travelling across the ocean at that time meant the type of people who made that journey were of a particular type. So I would say the more...strict (I guess I will use that word) type of Christianity came here, combine that with revivals and like and you get a Christianity that looks different than its European counterparts (also worth mentioning is that the Catholic Church was never the dominant denomination which made it distinct as well).
I could launch into a long digression here from Alexis de Tocqueville, he spent a lot of time analyzing how the Church he saw in America interacted with society writ large. But perhaps one of his relevant observations was that the vaguely protestant undergirding was deeply ingrained, almost totally unchallenged. When that happens it actually makes room for many different flavors of the faith to arise, because the foundations are all there for everyone to build on. He thought this was bolstered by the individualistic/small community behaviors of the Americans and that clergy were often loath to wade into political matters. It's debatable how true that last one was, but there was certainly more church separation that in England, there were just too many different types.
He thought this was a good btw, primarily for the church. He wasn't so much worried about zealots taking over the government as the church becoming corrupted with political power and losing it' moral authority. Which again, is arguably what happened over on your continent.
I think the nature of the Church in America has also allowed it to stay at a larger size here than in Europe. Although from what I understand the world wars had a big negative impact on the Church over there.
So fundamentally I think it's the people. But in some ways the Christian ethos of the people who founded the American churches lives with us to this day, and not having a state Church like Europe did has changed how it operates and thinks as well.
|
United States42223 Posts
On November 14 2024 11:17 Introvert wrote:
He wasn't so much worried about zealots taking over the government as the church becoming corrupted with political power and losing it' moral authority. Which again, is arguably what happened over on your continent.
You have it backwards, politics didn't corrupt the church, it sanctified it.
The Church of England is explicitly apolitical because it has to be because it is part of the sovereign power of Britain which is by tradition a theocracy in which the monarch is not permitted to rule. If the Church of England started taking stances on political things that would be constitutionally very tricky and would likely necessitate some kind of revolution to remove the status of the government serving the divinely anointed monarch. The constitutional status of the church has essentially neutered it.
Meanwhile American churches hold political rallies and tell their congregations how to vote without getting shit from the IRS about their nonprofit status. They wield enormous political power.
|
On November 14 2024 11:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2024 11:17 Introvert wrote:
He wasn't so much worried about zealots taking over the government as the church becoming corrupted with political power and losing it' moral authority. Which again, is arguably what happened over on your continent. You have it backwards, politics didn't corrupt the church, it sanctified it. The Church of England is explicitly apolitical because it has to be because it is part of the sovereign power of Britain which is by tradition a theocracy in which the monarch is not permitted to rule. If the Church of England started taking stances on political things that would be constitutionally very tricky and would likely necessitate some kind of revolution to remove the status of the government serving the divinely anointed monarch. The constitutional status of the church has essentially neutered it. Meanwhile American churches hold political rallies and tell their congregations how to vote without getting shit from the IRS about their nonprofit status. They wield enormous political power.
I'm not sure we're quite disagreeing? Wombat was asking me why I think the Church here is different and I'm saying that one reason is because it doesn't have to play games with the state. In Europe, as I said, it lost its moral authority because it had to be everything to all people or worry about the monarch. Meanwhile here there was no state Church to begin with (or hasn't been for a long time, and there was never a national church), so if you had a different set of beliefs, including those that manifest themselves politically, you could find what you were looking for. Things have changed since AdT days, that's true, and like I said I'm not even sure that last bit was ever right (or maybe was right relatively).
|
|
|
Northern Ireland24310 Posts
On November 14 2024 11:51 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2024 11:39 KwarK wrote:On November 14 2024 11:17 Introvert wrote:
He wasn't so much worried about zealots taking over the government as the church becoming corrupted with political power and losing it' moral authority. Which again, is arguably what happened over on your continent. You have it backwards, politics didn't corrupt the church, it sanctified it. The Church of England is explicitly apolitical because it has to be because it is part of the sovereign power of Britain which is by tradition a theocracy in which the monarch is not permitted to rule. If the Church of England started taking stances on political things that would be constitutionally very tricky and would likely necessitate some kind of revolution to remove the status of the government serving the divinely anointed monarch. The constitutional status of the church has essentially neutered it. Meanwhile American churches hold political rallies and tell their congregations how to vote without getting shit from the IRS about their nonprofit status. They wield enormous political power. I'm not sure we're quite disagreeing? Wombat was asking me why I think the Church here is different and I'm saying that one reason is because it doesn't have to play games with the state. In Europe, as I said, it lost its moral authority because it had to be everything to all people or worry about the monarch. Meanwhile here there was no state Church to begin with (or hasn't been for a long time, and there was never a national church), so if you had a different set of beliefs, including those that manifest themselves politically, you could find what you were looking for. Things have changed since AdT days, that's true, and like I said I'm not even sure that last bit was ever right.
I think you gave a decent answer to that particularly question. It wasn’t actually my question, so to somewhat rephrase.
If divergent interpretation within the Christian faith is absolutely possible, why does it seem to almost overwhelmingly manifest in one direction? At least as per a legitimate organising political force versus individuals or small, uninfluential congregations. Within the US context
In other countries it may not be a dominant tradition, there are recognisable left wing, or at least somewhat left-leaning Christian traditions that have some political cachet.
Bit of a fucker to even attempt to theorise on, much less answer with any conclusiveness. But that was the intended line of inquiry
|
Due to these recent picks... It appears Project 2025 will be relegated to the background as a checklist rather than a driving engine of the administration. Slightly less doomer than before. Trumps picks show pure sycophancy as the top priority rather than efficient grown ups to burn political and monetary capital to accomplish something really scary.
Basically they will further erode our institutions, but to benefit themselves rather than going full dictatorship. The pull of fascism will no doubt be there, but yeah, good news for undocumented immigrants who will now have to fear less capable politicians who will flounder at carrying out "mass deportations".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
