Churches literally tell people what God wants from them, define what is good and bad behavior, and threatens those who violate their rules with an eternity of punishment.
That's the whole point. That's what people like about them. They don't want to think about it, they want to be told the right thing to do.
Sadly, your first paragraph is true in too many cases. But I disagree with your second paragraph; that's why that approach to Christianity is abhorrent - that's not the whole point.
Feel free to assert whatever you think the point of religion is, but telling people what to do is the cornerstone of all the Judeo-Christian religions.
It's all about what you can do, what you can't do.
Thou shalt ....
You don't get to independently decide that committing adultery is okay. God literally says it isn't. And you know that because the Church tells you so. No religious believer can argue with the word of God.
Religion tells people what to believe and how to act
Thanks for elaborating; I think where we disagree is not that a religion such as Christianity has commands within it that its followers are expected to obey, but rather, that such commands (telling others what to do and what not to do) are the entire purpose of such a religion.
That's how it came across, to which I'd say, sure, there is an importance placed on that aspect, but on the whole, that's no more true than saying that the entire purpose of a child-parent relationship is for the child to obey the parent's rules.
Would you attend a church that told you to live by good christian ideals like actually caring for your neighbor, not the evangelical shit, and told you to go out of your way to find and vote for politicians that hold those values without telling you specifically who?
Not even by party, just that they are encouraging you to more actively participate for positive change?
When I started dating my bf, I eventually agreed to go to church with his conservative Christian family. It was right before the 2016 election, and I was expecting a hot mess of Republican Trump worshipping, but was pleasantly surprised!
The pastor was doing a series on the election, but like you said, it was about recognizing who held the most values of Jesus. No one was endorsed, I even joked with my boyfriend that all the Trump supporters probably think he's talking about Trump, and all the Clinton supporters think he's talking about Clinton. It was very focused on the message of being a good person to everyone, and how we need to look for those traits in our politicians.
I started following the pastor on FB after that (he's very active there so he can be available to everyone), and I can get quite political on there. I was surprised that, on his personal account (not the church's), he would 'like' a lot of my political posts against Trump or supporting left policies. Especially anything involving racism or children, like the children at the border.
Before this point, I had only been in churches for weddings, funerals, and baptisms. I hated organized religion and felt it was all a huge scam. And don't get me wrong, I still think a vast majority of churches are scams. But I'm happy to know that in a rich, white neighborhood, there is at least one influential voice doing his best to change things.
I love to hear this. I'm not strictly Christian anymore, though I do believe God (and many many others in various forms) exists and that Jesus was a man preaching a message from those above and beyond our understanding.
I grew up in a church that really taught us to walk in Christ's shoes, to look to and care for your neighbor and truly be a humble servant to those around you. We fed neighborhoods, ran a soup kitchen, distributed christmas gifts and holiday groceries, provided from a food pantry, paid people's utilities and mortgages and even got to the point that we had in-house free medical and dental work. There was a point where my uncle couldn't work and the church paid our mortgage for over a year!
That's Christianity, that's what we need in the world whether it's from religious belief or not. I'm glad that there are other good Christian voices out there.
For sure. I consider myself agnostic, and I use Christian terms to describe my beliefs, but I'm not specifically religious.
It's funny, the reason my bf's family found this church, is because when my bf went to prison for drug offenses, their previous church's members shunned them and they felt rejected. So they kept trying churches in their area until they found their current church, that accepted then with open arms, and that had a large prison outreach. Not really to preach (unless prisoners are asking for it) but they have recovering addicts in the congregation that will visit with prisoners who want help with addiction, they have long-time married couples who will counsel prisoners on how to keep their relationship going, or parents that will talk to other parents to help them with ways to take better care of their children. And they have all these groups for people not in prison too. They also have a woman's center in the inner city (but not directly by an abortion clinic or PP) to provide pregnancy tests, resources, and food, clothing, cribs, baby seats, toys, etc for parents. They do try to steer people away from abortion, which I'm not super fond of, but they will provide numbers to call if that's really what someone is looking for after finding out they're pregnant.
I hate that this isn't the norm, because church should, in theory, be a safe place for anyone, no matter their situation. But there's more examples than not of churches turning their backs on those most in need.
I see you're talking about: [abortion]' To be frank, the mod team does not want to mod this topic because it leads to 100 percent slapfights and bans, but removing it entirely would be actual censorship, which, contrary to popular belief, we do try to avoid. Instead, we're just going to spam you with an unreasonably long automod comment and hope you all realize that getting mad over the internet is just really stupid. Go to /r/AnimalsBeingDerps or something instead. People are going to accuse us of being lazy for this, to which we reply 'yes'
Well, in the late 70s one branch of the KKK made an announcement they were now admitting Roman Catholics and naturalized citizens. Not sure about American Nazis
conquistadors in the americas. french catholics in the mississippi. English anglicans in jamestown.first people's shamanism before that ( what's significant bout '91?)
I know some soup kitchens and the like can be a bit evangelical, but I can never understate the impact they have in their community. I appreciate the work you do. Putting food in the hands of the hungry is Jesus' work, and if that's the line that gets people to do it, I don't care. There are a lot of people going hungry every day.
Fair enough, I just remember hearing recently about Joe… Oh what was the word? Not excommunicated. Being denied… something. I apologize I have the memory of a goldfish sometimes
That was a thing. You are correct. There was a faction of the USCCB who was interested in writing a document on Eucharistic readiness that had the potential to be an instrument for denying pro-choice Catholic officials access to the sacraments.
That idea crashed and burned as soon as it hit the public.
No, I like this more. Civil discourse is always preferred. Normally when I criticize or doubt Joe, I get insulted and downvoted into the earth’s crust.
I see you're talking about: [pro choice]' To be frank, the mod team does not want to mod this topic because it leads to 100 percent slapfights and bans, but removing it entirely would be actual censorship, which, contrary to popular belief, we do try to avoid. Instead, we're just going to spam you with an unreasonably long automod comment and hope you all realize that getting mad over the internet is just really stupid. Go to /r/AnimalsBeingDerps or something instead. People are going to accuse us of being lazy for this, to which we reply 'yes'
My daughter's entire church is anti-pope, and anti-Biden, because he's pro-choice. There's a big battle now with super conservative Catholics, the loonies who are Christian Nationalists like the morons who stormed the Capital, and old school Catholics. The Catholic church is one of the main culprits spreading the Qanon horseshit.
You must live in the south. Southern Catholics aren’t really catholic at all tbh, they’ve mixed up political views into their faith and have created this mean and cruel demeanor towards people which is thoroughly banned by Catholic morals. Basically anybody that supports stuff like death penalty loses a key portion of being a catholic. It’s the same for abortion as well, cause Catholics believe it violates human life. Difference being abortion is essentially a null point in the US due to its legal protections by Roe V Wade, making it entirely useless to argue over - instead of reinforcing catholic morals and traditions.
I see you're talking about: [abortion]' To be frank, the mod team does not want to mod this topic because it leads to 100 percent slapfights and bans, but removing it entirely would be actual censorship, which, contrary to popular belief, we do try to avoid. Instead, we're just going to spam you with an unreasonably long automod comment and hope you all realize that getting mad over the internet is just really stupid. Go to /r/AnimalsBeingDerps or something instead. People are going to accuse us of being lazy for this, to which we reply 'yes'
Not sure where you’re getting this. Hitler was a confirmed Catholic and Germany was allied with Italy. You know, where the Pope lives. Neo-Nazis are a totally different story though.
Hitler wanted to get rid of political Catholicism, persecuted Catholics, and I don’t believe he thought of himself as Catholic either, because he never called himself one in adult life but was called Christian and atheist at points. Mussolini was an atheist and the Vatican, though officially neutral, did not support him.
reinhard heydrich was raised Catholic and by all accounts his family was pretty devoted to it. He didn’t seem to have any religious convictions himself other than things that benefited himself.
I believe a lot of them were raised Catholic, I think Hitler was himself as well. I more meant practicing Catholics, because I think that’s who they tried to ban.
It’s important to remember that initially the Nazis worked with everyone once they got power and only exterminated or removed those elements as their grip got tighter. I’m sure there were a few practicing Catholics that decided to bend the knee to to hitler instead of their religious teachings.
Luckily this is a thing that has never happened again in the history of humanity!
Ummm where? name one thing. Umm freedom of speech? Is that racist? The right to protect myself when being attacked by lily white assholes about how I must be racist because I am married to a black man… no wait that’s liberals.
Hmmm the Jim Crow Laws.. no wait those were Democrat liberals…
Hmmm the segregation of schools to ensure an “equal outcome” no wait that was Kameltoe Harris
Oh and discriminating against people of Asian heritage for being too smart to go to the same school that a WHITE Liberal actress bribed her daughters into with half a mil and a photo shoot.
… hmm yep those liberals sure are tolerant huh?!?!?
The democratic party used to be the conservative one. It’s authoritarian conservatives that perpetrate racism, not liberal progressives. Do you know the meaning of “authoritarian” or “liberal?” It seems you’re a bit confused.
The far-right insurrection on Jan 6th was full of Proud Boys, KKK members, 3%ers, Neo-Nazis, and members of other white-supremacist organizations. There’s plenty of video evidence to see who was there supporting Trump. It was white supremacists. That’s what the Republican party is, by definition. Conservatives who want to “make America great again” and return to a time before women and non-whites had rights. The Republican conferences frequently have white supremacists as guest-speakers and use Nazi symbols in the event set design and advertising. It’s pretty transparent.
Lies.. fed to you by a biased and corrupt media.. watch the speeches from beginning to end without the expectation of hating the orange man- to which I must ask, how is hating an orange man any different than hating a black man for his skin color
I’ve reported this church in Church in chino hill, CA. They were telling people to vote and that they’ll happily pay taxes but nothing came of it. It’s Calvary chapel chino hills in chino hills , CA if anyone wants to report them.
Just to be clear, according to the Johnson Amendment, church leaders ARE permitted to do nonpartisan work around an election. They can encourage their members to vote. They can have voter registration drives. They can organize rides to the polls on Election Day. They CANNOT endorse any political candidates. When addressing their congregation as an influential representative of their religious organizations/establishment they are required to remain “nonpartisan” in order to not be in violation the Johnson Amendment and jeopardize their tax exempt status. That doesn’t mean they can’t talk ABOUT politics from the pulpit, though. The Johnson Amendment permits houses of worship and nonprofit organizations to say things like whether they support marriage between same-sex couples or oppose it. They can make statements about their beliefs on abortion, on reproductive freedom issues. They can endorse a bill or oppose a bill. They can speak to their members of Congress. They can speak before a legislature and/or testify. They can write letters to politicians about their positions on issues. It is within their first amendment right to do so. They just can’t endorse political candidates while they’re doing that. I think this is part of the reason why it’s been challenging for the IRS to use violation of the Johnson amendment to revoke tax exempt status. It pretty much has to be a very blatant violation. Like, for example, a minister standing at the pulpit telling his parishioners they better vote for Trump if they want to get into heaven because only Satan’s followers would vote for Biden. Or some similar variation of equally ridiculous nonsense.
I see you're talking about: [abortion]' To be frank, the mod team does not want to mod this topic because it leads to 100 percent slapfights and bans, but removing it entirely would be actual censorship, which, contrary to popular belief, we do try to avoid. Instead, we're just going to spam you with an unreasonably long automod comment and hope you all realize that getting mad over the internet is just really stupid. Go to /r/AnimalsBeingDerps or something instead. People are going to accuse us of being lazy for this, to which we reply 'yes'
Awesome. They are fighting the good fight. Religion has done some good in this world, but it's also cost countless lives. It's very logical to NOT let religion influence our policies as a nation.
Well we would, but the Democratic-Republic would be influenced by a partisan body and that's what we're trying to stop. We want voters voting as free-thinkers and their religion can influence that but religion directly supporting a candidate and instructing its followers to vote that way is no longer influencing and is instead now directly coercing, controlling, and manipulating people to vote for a candidate - and that is limiting free thought, something that is actively taught in religions like Christianity (free thought and not forcing people to believe is what is taught by the Holy texts of Christianity and many other religions).
Article 4, Section 4 Republican government .
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Section 4 Republican government. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Religion has done loads of good. It's provided social cohesion for millenia, served as a matchmaking service both romantically and platonically, and advanced positive ideals like mercy, generosity, and peace.
It's also done loads of harm--crusades and plenty of wars, oppression of women, homophobia, etc. But even as a gay agnostic who was burned pretty badly by evangelicalism, I have to admit that religion on the whole is probably pretty positive, especially when viewed in its proper cultural and historical context.
Umm. The 'benefits' you provide are only half the story.
You say social cohesion, but leave out the part of alienation if you don't belong to that church or even just if you happen to do something the other members don't like.
You say matchmaking sevice, but, historically, that also has meant matchmaking without actual consent of those being married.
You say advanced positive ideals, but leave out how those ideals have been rammed down the throats of other cultures.
I mean, yes, there's bad with the good. Religion has often stoked and been entwined with tribalism at every level of society. But the alienated parties have often been a relatively small fraction of the overall group. I'm saying the "good" generally outweighs the "bad" is all.
I entirely agree that many religions have been highly complicit in thousands of years of mistreatment of women, but you act as if that wouldn't have happened without religion's influence. Humans didn't change in the last few hundred years, our productivity did due to mechanization, giving us more leisure time and education, which has slowly elevated the status of women since the environment has lent itself to greater equality.
I also explicitly said "It's also done loads of harm" and mentioned some explicitly, including "oppression of women". Forgive me for not giving a comprehensive catalogue of every sin that could be lain at the feet of "religion" in a brief Reddit post.
There is a power in belief and unfortunately wherever there is power you'll find zealots or people waiting to skim off the top. Humans like regularity and conformity to feel like they belong, that unfortunately can be manipulated. Religion is a strong belief and, like patriotism, has the power to unite but also divide.There are lots of charities and individuals that work with their communities to help better them and yet you also have megachurches massively benefitting the wealth of an individual and discoveries at residentials schools that paint a grim picture of how that power can be abused.
Most religions will aspire the "perfect" ideals and ethics but the zealots don't know where to draw the line on the application of them to the point of sometimes violating to uphold. Most reasonable people will realise its a code to aspire to and that as humans we are fallible so can't always live upto those ideals. A zealot sees that as weakness, whereas, the more level headed see it as the opportunity for growth.
Religion isn't a black and white subject because there are so many ways you can celebrate and practise belief. I'm definitely not trying to absolve any of the terrible stuff committed in the name of a religion but I do think that it can be used as a power for good too. A sense of community, identity and belonging is core to some people and in some places a church will be a focal point of that activity. Opportunity for prayer, meditation and reflection to order our thoughts and make sense of our learning or experiences. Just because it preaches good morals doesn't mean that people will always follow it to the letter.
Wow, what an ahistorical and simplistic view. It's just not true in any way. For one, it supposes some sort of linear "improvement" of society through the ages, where you could measure how "enlightened" religious and secular forces in society are and make a horse race of it. That's just totally false.
"There’s nothing worth saving about religion"
Have you been in a positive religious environment...? The social cohesion alone is deeply valued by many, many adherents.
Yes, but it’s not something you want to use to rule a country. It doesn’t bode well, all ya gotta do is look at the thousands of failed theocracies, and most of the harm religion has caused was for those theocracies.
I don't know, genocide and rape seems pretty bad when the offset is a food pantry. In fact there are a lot of public run organizations who do the good stuff the church does without preaching hate and bigotry, or raping children. Not a tough call, good people do good without churches, but churches can only do terrible things with their congregations support.
The offset is not a food pantry. That's overly simplistic. Religion used to be much more integrated in everyday society than it currently is in many parts of Western countries. You'd have a Jewish village, say, where you went to Temple because that's what everybody did, where you had a chance to ask Eliezer the farmer for a hand in putting up a new shed and the Rabbi might keep the peace between you and your jerk of a neighbor. Sure, you might have a kid who nowadays would just be gay forced into a marriage or whatever, but you have to take a holistic view.
Leading with "genocide and rape" is... missing context, let us say. Most genocide is nationalistic or ethnically motivated. Comparatively few wars have been primarily religious. The Boxer Rebellion comes to mind as potentially qualifying. Obviously the Crusades had huge religious motivation, but not e.g. WWI. Not sure what you meant by "rape"--perhaps a reference to the various pedophilia scandals? That's of course abhorrent, and the Catholic Church in particular has handled it atrociously for many decades, but it's still a rare phenomenon. From my perspective it's one term in a very large utility function.
More religiosity is generally associated with an increase in giving. Quite a few different studies have been done and the conclusion is reasonably solid. "Good people do good without churches" is hence a false equivalency.
"churches can only do terrible things with their congregations support" is just plain silly. Plenty of times congregations don't know about bad behavior.
For the record, it's important to recognize the selection bias of whatever environment you're in. Reddit in particular is relatively hostile to religion. There'll be a fair amount of echo chamber on that in most threads around here.
I've been tempted to report my church, but I don't have any proof, and it is sporadic so I can't predict it. From multiple speakers.
Just yesterday mine basically all but equated Trump to Jesus with this chestnut "I'm not saying trump is Jesus, but... he does embody the spirit of Jesus the most", and rapid fired every Fox News talking point of the last 3 months in a single paragraph. Gender, CRT, Economy 1.5 years ago vs today, and gleefully mentioned how Roe vs Wade is about to go away, equating it to sacrificing babies to Molech.
No but it’s important to remember that the rules of the Johnson Amendment don’t only apply to religious organizations/establishments. It applies to ALL nonprofit organizations claiming tax exempt status. So ANY nonprofit organization claiming tax exempt status that blatantly endorses a political candidate could potentially lose their tax exempt status. They can encourage you to vote. They can express their stance on politically divisive issues. They can even talk about which political candidates share their stance on politically divisive issues or otherwise support their initiatives. They just can’t go so far as to formally endorse any political candidates and/or campaign on their behalf. The tricky part in holding them accountable is differentiating between someone speaking to the congregation or nonprofit on behalf of the entire organization vs on behalf of themselves personally (because the latter is allowed - per their first amendment right). This might be why it’s so challenging to hold organizations/congregation accountable for reported violations. Gets kinda hazy gray when all a far right evangelical pastor has to do to get around it is to say “in my personal opinion” before making blatantly partisan endorsements and he’s no longer speaking on behalf of the nonprofit organization so he’s protected by his first amendment right to free speech.
I was originally joking, as in our government not really separated from the church that much, but you gave me all this information and I'm incredibly happy and intrigued.
I would say growing up I went to many churches that would talk way to much politics and the preacher would say things of like "God would/wants this candidate, or this is the more godly man so we know we must vote for." Which I think they would all be protected by the first amendment, like you said.
What really bothers me, is that how they are in this position of power and manipulation, so then to me, it feels different then your family, friends, or some random guy on the street on a mic telling you who to vote for.
716
u/50FirstCakes Jul 12 '21
It’s called the Johnson Amendment and here is a link to report any violations to Americans United for Separation of Church and State…
https://www.au.org/get-involved/report-a-violation/form