4 ms·

I'd definitely not agree with the "protects the most vulnerable against marginalization and oppression" Perhaps if you are a member of the church, but definite

by dagmx 7y ago

I'd definitely not agree with the "protects the most vulnerable against marginalization and oppression" Perhaps if you are a member of the church, but definitely not if you don't abide by the exact, often conservative , rules of a given church. Look at slavery, equal rights for lgbtq and people of color, abortion etc. Not only do people in power use the churches to hide their personal beliefs behind, many churches use their power to oppress others. I mean the crusades were a thing... I'll agree churches provide social cohesion but often at the cost of tribalism against people outside that given churches norms.

zozbot234 7y ago
Conservative churches are a subset of all religious organizations, and most of the time they're just a mirror of overall society, or a sizeable portion of it anyway. And that portion often draws some very real benefits even from an outwardly "conservative" or "fundamentalist" church. Not everyone starts out being radically open-minded and averse to tribalism, some people have to be eased into that kind of stance and churches can help provide good role-models. The crusades were a thing, but there's a reason why few or no religious organizations go on literal "crusades" nowadays.
- dagmx 7y ago
  And I never said this applied to all churches but it does then go back to the central question of this thread: why do churches automatically receive tax exemptions? When it's not provable they're necessarily acting charitably? The crusades are no longer a thing, but lobbying has arguable replaced it with churches able to do much the same with the vast amounts of money that some of them have earned. Similarly missions and other forms of preying on vulnerable people is still a thing. Conversion therapy and forced compliance to church norms are still a thing. Just because it's not a literal war, doesn't mean it's not achieving the same things. Besides the point of mentioning the crusades was to point out that oppression powered by the churches is nothing new. It's been a staple of competing views since time eternal, whether in churches or not, but because churches get a free pass, they can greatly amplify oppression as much as they could mitigate it. It's just that you historically and today see much more in the form of oppression than fighting oppression. And that goes back to churches being able to amass unchecked power and financials by which they can fight anything they perceive as a threat to their model. Just like any other political entity.
tasogare 7y ago
> Look at slavery, equal rights for lgbtq and people of color, abortion etc. What are your talking about? I know no church that possess any slaves. Also, most christians around the world aren't white... > I mean the crusades were a thing... Yes, a defence after centuries of aggressions from a people and religion that stole huge territories. The invader showed no pity against non-believers and this attitude persists until now with thousands of killing every year worldwide while crusades are long gone.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  > Yes, a defence after centuries of aggressions from a people and religion that stole huge territories. That might prove grandparent's point, actually. But it's a fact that tribalism was a big force in the ancient world, and that likely provides the best explanation. The religious group that the crusaders fought against "stole huge territories", but so did the Romans before them. Who knows how relevant the religious motivation really was to them.
- dagmx 7y ago
  I never mentioned ethnicity or "race" in my post. That was your own take. Slavery existed around the world. Per the former, you'd have to be ignoring the argument that many slave owners made during the slave era up to today with many pro Confederates, who claim slavery was a God given right. This was not fought by many southern churches to my knowledge. The point of mentioning the crusades was to point out that church powered oppression is a thing that's gone on through history. I don't really understand your argument here. The point I was making, and others, was that the churches have no historical or current consistent fight against oppression, and have often been the oppressors themselves. Nothing you said refutes that. It just says you don't care. Which are two different things

by dagmx 7y ago

zozbot234 7y ago

Conservative churches are a subset of all religious organizations, and most of the time they're just a mirror of overall society, or a sizeable portion of it anyway. And that portion often draws some very real benefits even from an outwardly "conservative" or "fundamentalist" church. Not everyone starts out being radically open-minded and averse to tribalism, some people have to be eased into that kind of stance and churches can help provide good role-models. The crusades were a thing, but there's a reason why few or no religious organizations go on literal "crusades" nowadays.

dagmx 7y ago
And I never said this applied to all churches but it does then go back to the central question of this thread: why do churches automatically receive tax exemptions? When it's not provable they're necessarily acting charitably? The crusades are no longer a thing, but lobbying has arguable replaced it with churches able to do much the same with the vast amounts of money that some of them have earned. Similarly missions and other forms of preying on vulnerable people is still a thing. Conversion therapy and forced compliance to church norms are still a thing. Just because it's not a literal war, doesn't mean it's not achieving the same things. Besides the point of mentioning the crusades was to point out that oppression powered by the churches is nothing new. It's been a staple of competing views since time eternal, whether in churches or not, but because churches get a free pass, they can greatly amplify oppression as much as they could mitigate it. It's just that you historically and today see much more in the form of oppression than fighting oppression. And that goes back to churches being able to amass unchecked power and financials by which they can fight anything they perceive as a threat to their model. Just like any other political entity.

tasogare 7y ago

> Look at slavery, equal rights for lgbtq and people of color, abortion etc. What are your talking about? I know no church that possess any slaves. Also, most christians around the world aren't white... > I mean the crusades were a thing... Yes, a defence after centuries of aggressions from a people and religion that stole huge territories. The invader showed no pity against non-believers and this attitude persists until now with thousands of killing every year worldwide while crusades are long gone.

zozbot234 7y ago
> Yes, a defence after centuries of aggressions from a people and religion that stole huge territories. That might prove grandparent's point, actually. But it's a fact that tribalism was a big force in the ancient world, and that likely provides the best explanation. The religious group that the crusaders fought against "stole huge territories", but so did the Romans before them. Who knows how relevant the religious motivation really was to them.
dagmx 7y ago
I never mentioned ethnicity or "race" in my post. That was your own take. Slavery existed around the world. Per the former, you'd have to be ignoring the argument that many slave owners made during the slave era up to today with many pro Confederates, who claim slavery was a God given right. This was not fought by many southern churches to my knowledge. The point of mentioning the crusades was to point out that church powered oppression is a thing that's gone on through history. I don't really understand your argument here. The point I was making, and others, was that the churches have no historical or current consistent fight against oppression, and have often been the oppressors themselves. Nothing you said refutes that. It just says you don't care. Which are two different things