5 ms·

It makes for an excellent litmus test to ask, sometimes literally out loud, whether someone who advocates for the legislation of a specific religion's rules wou

It makes for an excellent litmus test to ask, sometimes literally out loud, whether someone who advocates for the legislation of a specific religion's rules would be OK with being forced to comply with a different religion's rules and tenets. A secondary litmus test is whether a person can even understand the reasoning behind the idea of the separation of church and state. Unfortunately, there are too many people who are either so willfully ignorant or just incredibly dim that they can't understand that it's hypocritical to want to do to others what they would not want done to themselves. Sigh. At least these people are showing us exactly who they are.

locopati 2y ago
they have been for quite some time now
codechicago277 2y ago
Many of the people pushing for these new rules are Christian Nationalists, and explicitly reject the separation of church and state. Some pastors are getting in trouble with their congregation if they try to remove an American flag from the podium, for example. It also fits in neatly with the Trump Bible that he released recently, which included a copy of the constitution, pretty explicitly rejecting the Christian belief of not adding or removing anything to the Word of God. But this hypocrisy has been a core part of American culture since its founding, check out the book Money Cult to trace the origins and see more about how church is essentially big business in many of these states. [1] The Money Cult: Capitalism, Christianity, and the Unmaking of the American Dream [2] https://www.threads.net/@revjsreeder/post/C8W9cR8O1sg/?xmt=AQGzQvoize-S0OmnuMFxwk8Vw1n4qNDYNxacLmS4y3DH8w https://www.threads.net/@revjsreeder/post/C8W9cR8O1sg/?xmt=A...
- rayiner 2y ago
  What is a “Christian nationalist?” How is it different from a Christian Democrat (a common political orientation in Europe)?
  - saagarjha 2y ago
    Well, we’re talking about the US for one.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      The U.S. was founded by Christians and remains an overwhelming Christian majority country. So the question remains: what’s the functional difference between “Christian nationalism” (as it’s used here) and Christian democracy as is widespread in Europe? To use an example: Germany’s dominant party has long been the Christian Democratic Union. Its policies are motivated by Christian theology. Is that Christian nationalism?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - _fs 2y ago
        A Christian nationalist is a person who believes that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and should maintain a strong Christian identity in its laws, government, and culture. [1][2] Christian nationalists typically seek to promote Christian values and influence in the political sphere, often with the goal of shaping the country's laws and policies to align with their interpretation of Christian doctrine.[1][2] In contrast, a Christian Democrat is a political orientation common in Europe that emphasizes social justice, subsidiarity, and the role of the church in society, but does not necessarily seek to establish a Christian state or impose Christian doctrine through the government.[3] Christian Democrats generally believe in the separation of church and state and advocate for policies that support the common good and the dignity of the human person, rather than explicitly promoting a Christian nationalist agenda.[3] The key difference is that Christian nationalism is a political ideology focused on establishing a Christian identity for the nation, while Christian Democracy is more focused on applying Christian social teachings to the political realm without necessarily seeking to create a Christian state.[3] https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/17u7r9r/what_are_the_key_differences_between_christian/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/17u7r9r/what_are_... https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2021/february-web-only/what-is-christian-nationalism.html https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2021/february-web-only/... https://christoverall.com/article/longform/what-is-the-spectrum-of-major-views-on-political-theology-a-proposed-taxonomy-of-seven-views-on-religion-and-government/ https://christoverall.com/article/longform/what-is-the-spect...
- CodeWriter23 2y ago
  [flagged]
- LightHugger 2y ago
  This is a bit of a tangent, but you mentioned removing an american flag from the podium in a church. This makes me think, we care about removing religion from government, but do we care about removing government from religion and places of worship? Protecting government from religious influence is an obvious win but does it matter if patriotism is in churches? I'm interested if anyone has any more formed thoughts to share on this, because my initial reaction is that separating church out of state is what's very necessary and desirable, but separating state out of church probably doesn't really matter, does it?
  - carlob 2y ago
    It doesn't matter as long you don't (or are allowed not to) participate in church.
  - codechicago277 2y ago
    On a legal basis I’m not sure, but on a theological basis many people find it very important to separate patriotism and allegiance to a particular government from theological beliefs, which is why many saw Trump’s Bible as heretical. It’s also worth pointing out that rejecting state influence over religion is the original reason for the concept of separation of church and state, at least in America. It was was far from the norm at the time. [1] https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state/ https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/establishment-clause... [2] https://goodfaithmedia.org/heresy-of-the-trump-bible/ https://goodfaithmedia.org/heresy-of-the-trump-bible/
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    It's an ongoing conversation in the eastern orthodox church you might find something interesting there. Historically it was the state church of the byzantines, later (and still officially) greece and russia. There are liturgical gestures and phrasing that indicate an entanglement with the state that is not really true in most places today. There are factions that openly consider this the "ideal" form of the church and think we should return to it. Others think that was an embarrassing political necessity and are happy to be free of it. There was a lot of meddling in church affairs by the soviets that showed people the downsides. But the allure of power is still there I suppose. You also run into interesting stuff about like, what is the state from the church's point of view. In liturgy we pray for "the president, armed forces, and all civil authorities." So for example during the russo-japanese war, was a russian orthodox mission in japan praying for russia's enemies? The canonical answer is yes and this makes almost everyone uncomfortable one way or another.
CodeWriter23 2y ago
[flagged]
rayiner 2y ago
> It makes for an excellent litmus test to ask, sometimes literally out loud, whether someone who advocates for the legislation of a specific religion's rules would be OK with being forced to comply with a different religion's rules and tenets. This overlooks the difference between majority religions and minority religions. If the majority want to legislate a rule, it shouldn’t matter what is the rationale behind that rule. Everyone relies on moral frameworks based on non-falsifiable axioms to formulate political opinions. In the German state of Bavaria, all public buildings are required to display Christian crosses: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43892329 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43892329. This is a reasonable exercise of democratic will in a Christian-majority place. A better question is to ask the same person how they feel about legislation motivated by religious principles in a country where the majority follow that religion. I expect you’d find that most American Christians don’t care if India wants to legislate based on Hindu principles. > A secondary litmus test is whether a person can even understand the reasoning behind the idea of the separation of church and state A better litmus test is whether someone can identify where in the Constitution it says anything about “separation of church and state.”
- saagarjha 2y ago
  American Christians don’t care what India does for a large part because they don’t live there. But they do care when it leads to rights abuses of minorities.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    > American Christians don’t care what India does for a large part because they don’t live there But that’s the critical distinction. Democracy means that people who live in a place get to decide what kind of place they want to live in. Complaining about what Hindus are doing in India is hypocritical and none of American Christians’ business.
    - saagarjha 2y ago
      That's not actually how the world works. You can be sovereign all you want but when you are doing human rights abuses people are well within their rights to call you out on that.

locopati 2y ago

they have been for quite some time now

codechicago277 2y ago

Many of the people pushing for these new rules are Christian Nationalists, and explicitly reject the separation of church and state. Some pastors are getting in trouble with their congregation if they try to remove an American flag from the podium, for example. It also fits in neatly with the Trump Bible that he released recently, which included a copy of the constitution, pretty explicitly rejecting the Christian belief of not adding or removing anything to the Word of God. But this hypocrisy has been a core part of American culture since its founding, check out the book Money Cult to trace the origins and see more about how church is essentially big business in many of these states. [1] The Money Cult: Capitalism, Christianity, and the Unmaking of the American Dream [2] https://www.threads.net/@revjsreeder/post/C8W9cR8O1sg/?xmt=AQGzQvoize-S0OmnuMFxwk8Vw1n4qNDYNxacLmS4y3DH8w https://www.threads.net/@revjsreeder/post/C8W9cR8O1sg/?xmt=A...

rayiner 2y ago
What is a “Christian nationalist?” How is it different from a Christian Democrat (a common political orientation in Europe)?
- saagarjha 2y ago
  Well, we’re talking about the US for one.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    The U.S. was founded by Christians and remains an overwhelming Christian majority country. So the question remains: what’s the functional difference between “Christian nationalism” (as it’s used here) and Christian democracy as is widespread in Europe? To use an example: Germany’s dominant party has long been the Christian Democratic Union. Its policies are motivated by Christian theology. Is that Christian nationalism?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - _fs 2y ago
      A Christian nationalist is a person who believes that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and should maintain a strong Christian identity in its laws, government, and culture. [1][2] Christian nationalists typically seek to promote Christian values and influence in the political sphere, often with the goal of shaping the country's laws and policies to align with their interpretation of Christian doctrine.[1][2] In contrast, a Christian Democrat is a political orientation common in Europe that emphasizes social justice, subsidiarity, and the role of the church in society, but does not necessarily seek to establish a Christian state or impose Christian doctrine through the government.[3] Christian Democrats generally believe in the separation of church and state and advocate for policies that support the common good and the dignity of the human person, rather than explicitly promoting a Christian nationalist agenda.[3] The key difference is that Christian nationalism is a political ideology focused on establishing a Christian identity for the nation, while Christian Democracy is more focused on applying Christian social teachings to the political realm without necessarily seeking to create a Christian state.[3] https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/17u7r9r/what_are_the_key_differences_between_christian/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/17u7r9r/what_are_... https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2021/february-web-only/what-is-christian-nationalism.html https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2021/february-web-only/... https://christoverall.com/article/longform/what-is-the-spectrum-of-major-views-on-political-theology-a-proposed-taxonomy-of-seven-views-on-religion-and-government/ https://christoverall.com/article/longform/what-is-the-spect...
CodeWriter23 2y ago
[flagged]
LightHugger 2y ago
This is a bit of a tangent, but you mentioned removing an american flag from the podium in a church. This makes me think, we care about removing religion from government, but do we care about removing government from religion and places of worship? Protecting government from religious influence is an obvious win but does it matter if patriotism is in churches? I'm interested if anyone has any more formed thoughts to share on this, because my initial reaction is that separating church out of state is what's very necessary and desirable, but separating state out of church probably doesn't really matter, does it?
- carlob 2y ago
  It doesn't matter as long you don't (or are allowed not to) participate in church.
- codechicago277 2y ago
  On a legal basis I’m not sure, but on a theological basis many people find it very important to separate patriotism and allegiance to a particular government from theological beliefs, which is why many saw Trump’s Bible as heretical. It’s also worth pointing out that rejecting state influence over religion is the original reason for the concept of separation of church and state, at least in America. It was was far from the norm at the time. [1] https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state/ https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/establishment-clause... [2] https://goodfaithmedia.org/heresy-of-the-trump-bible/ https://goodfaithmedia.org/heresy-of-the-trump-bible/
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  It's an ongoing conversation in the eastern orthodox church you might find something interesting there. Historically it was the state church of the byzantines, later (and still officially) greece and russia. There are liturgical gestures and phrasing that indicate an entanglement with the state that is not really true in most places today. There are factions that openly consider this the "ideal" form of the church and think we should return to it. Others think that was an embarrassing political necessity and are happy to be free of it. There was a lot of meddling in church affairs by the soviets that showed people the downsides. But the allure of power is still there I suppose. You also run into interesting stuff about like, what is the state from the church's point of view. In liturgy we pray for "the president, armed forces, and all civil authorities." So for example during the russo-japanese war, was a russian orthodox mission in japan praying for russia's enemies? The canonical answer is yes and this makes almost everyone uncomfortable one way or another.

CodeWriter23 2y ago

[flagged]

rayiner 2y ago

> It makes for an excellent litmus test to ask, sometimes literally out loud, whether someone who advocates for the legislation of a specific religion's rules would be OK with being forced to comply with a different religion's rules and tenets. This overlooks the difference between majority religions and minority religions. If the majority want to legislate a rule, it shouldn’t matter what is the rationale behind that rule. Everyone relies on moral frameworks based on non-falsifiable axioms to formulate political opinions. In the German state of Bavaria, all public buildings are required to display Christian crosses: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43892329 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43892329. This is a reasonable exercise of democratic will in a Christian-majority place. A better question is to ask the same person how they feel about legislation motivated by religious principles in a country where the majority follow that religion. I expect you’d find that most American Christians don’t care if India wants to legislate based on Hindu principles. > A secondary litmus test is whether a person can even understand the reasoning behind the idea of the separation of church and state A better litmus test is whether someone can identify where in the Constitution it says anything about “separation of church and state.”

saagarjha 2y ago
American Christians don’t care what India does for a large part because they don’t live there. But they do care when it leads to rights abuses of minorities.
- rayiner 2y ago
  > American Christians don’t care what India does for a large part because they don’t live there But that’s the critical distinction. Democracy means that people who live in a place get to decide what kind of place they want to live in. Complaining about what Hindus are doing in India is hypocritical and none of American Christians’ business.
  - saagarjha 2y ago
    That's not actually how the world works. You can be sovereign all you want but when you are doing human rights abuses people are well within their rights to call you out on that.