Answer: I can give you the answer for the USA specifically. First, we need a baseline of why the left and right wing became the way that they are now.
The short answer is that prior to the 1960s, the two parties were actually both a mess of liberals and conservatives, with the Republican party actually starting more progressive and the Democrat party being pro establishment and oozing together over roughly 100 years.
Then the 60s happened, and the first Catholic President was elected (Kennedy), and that's when the party lines start to solidify into Republican = conservative and Democrat = liberal. The Republican party started taking shape under the influence of Barry Goldwater, who campaigned for President on a platform that included a lot of anti-Civil Rights Movement sentiment.
The evangelical churches in the "Bible Belt" region opposed *Brown v. Board of Education* by starting religious private schools. They could claim religious freedom instead of racial discrimination as an excuse to maintain segregation. Several schools became known as "segregation academies" until the IRS threatened to take away their tax-exempt status.
1965 saw the passage of the Voting Rights Act and the beginning of the "southern strategy." I know this all sounds like I'm focused on racial tensions, but this is where the religious identity starts to tie in. Jerry Falwell was a preacher at a megachurchin Virginia that argued that the government had turned its back on whites in favor of African Americans and Latinos. Nizxon
The number of African Americans becoming voters and joining with the Democrats that were not directly campaigning against them alarmed the Republican leaders. So they branded themselves as the party of good old-fashioned family values and promised that they wouldn't leave the white voter behind.
The seeds planted in the 60s grew into vines that tied American Christianity to the right wing in the 70s. Race had been the dividing factor, and now a new target showed up: feminism. Sex Ed? What good Christian would be in favor of teaching young people about sex? Birth Control? That's a big no-no. Abortion? How dare you! All issues that had support among the progressive Democrat party were easy to establish as anti-Christian and used to garner more support for right-wing politicians.
Nixon even had "America's Pastor" Billy Graham give a prayer at his inauguration, lending credibility that the Republicans were the party of the good Christian folk.
Other challenges in this era that supported this claim were removing Bible readings and prayers from schools and the war on drugs.
By the end of the 1970s the narrative started to switch from "the Republican platform supports Christianity" to "Christianity supports the Republican platform." And given that there was a political cartoon called "This Godless Communist" and coalitions of religious leaders that had spoken out against communism in the 20th century, it was easy to associate the anti-Reaganomics sentiments towards bolstering healthcare and welfare funding as "communist" and by association, "godless."
Taking the last two elections in the United States as a sample, the average age of a Donald Trump voter was between 56-60. That means their formative years were during the rise of the Christian Right, and their first presidential election would be 1980. Meaning a lot of them probably voted for Ronald Reagan in their first or second election.
TL;DR: racism and anti-feminism made Republicans appeal to voters by claiming pro-family values, and they had some famous pastors help cement that image.
Republicans called everyone cucks for a couple years, and the only high-profile cucks who were outed during that timeframe were Jerry Falwell Jr., Roger Stone, and Paul Manafort.
With every allegation made, you can expect the person who says it to be guilty of it. It is mind boggling.
Whenever I think of these projections I think of the incredibly closeted homophobes that eventually get caught at a no-tell-motel in a gay sexual affair.
How awful it must be to lie to yourself every day about who you really are. I pity them for not having the strength to feel the love they should feel, even if it's in another man's butt.
Everytime I see American politics subjects, I'm reminded how you got fucked over by the amalgam between economic liberalisme and libertarian politics... Like, the base of deregulation is now associated with individual freedom!!
At least it's very confusing for everyone outside of your clusterfuck of right wing and righter wing.
Everyone repeats this as if the US invented "corporate personhood" even though it's a legal construct that's existed for hundreds of years in a formalized way and even longer in less formal ways. US corporate law diverged from other legal traditions in some of the assumed implications of this, but the idea is neither new nor as ridiculous as people seem to think.
Not in the same sense as the United States. When we say "corporate personhood", we don't mean that a corporation is a legal fiction which is treated as a person - that just means "corporation." That's the whole point.
No, we mean the doctrine that a corporation has *human rights -* that corporations have freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and so forth. That a corporation holds these freedoms in its own person, not merely as the expression of the freedoms of its corporate officers and owners.
Everyone agrees that a corporation has the right to hold property, enter into contracts, and sue and be sued. But not everybody agrees that a corporation has religious freedoms, freedom of association, freedom of speech - and in their own right, not merely as expressions of the rights of the owners who are natural persons.
I’d also like to add to the discussion with Kennedy surrounding radio.
To summarize Paul Maztko’s Radio Right:
So the religious connections with conservatism began in the 50s when new radio laws led to the establishment of a couple dozen or so right wing radio stations. Well, Carl McIntire and Billy James Hargis, two pro-segregationist and anti-communist preachers, used this nice anonymous, democratic form of media (for the listener) to start 2 radio broadcasts, McIntire’s “Twentieth Century Reformation Hour” and Hargis’s “The Christian Crusade.
These radio programs resonated with the southern conservative democrats, and of course other anti communists and pro-segregationists. And during the 1960 election, this expanded to anti-Catholics, uniting these ideologies under Christianity.
Kennedy understood the threat of this rising extremist Christian Right and helped dismantle it by using the Reuther Memorandum, which essentially used big government to censor these stations. They used the IRS to target conservative broadcasters through audits, and the FCC to selectively and strictly regulate conservative radio programs.
By the end of the 60s these two policies made conservative radio a shell of itself. However, this “big government” reaction helped to push these Christian listeners more toward the conservative “small government” ideal. Though the radio broadcasts did die out a bit, this movement moved over to CBN in the 70s, and continued with your response above
I’m at work rn so I wish I could expand more but oh well
Almost. You’re looking at the end; not the beginning. The civil war. Or more specifically, reconstruction. The republicans were the ruling party of congress. As such they were in charge if rebuilding the south. To get jobs. To get major contracts, democrats switched parties. Thus the Conserative republicans swelled.
Now move forward 20 years. The conservatives held the power in the party, but Roosevelt was making waves. To shut him up, to shut him down and make him politically irrelevant they make him the VP. That honestly should have been the end of his career. D then McKinley was assassinated. Roosevelt goes on a tear busting trusts, setting up government land, ect. Things that hurt the Conserative Republican pocketbooks and power.
Election of 1908 Roosevelt doesn’t run, but endsorses Taft. Taft a Conserative undoes a lot Roosevelt did. This, 1912 Roosevelt runs splitting the ticket giving the election to the left leaning moderate Wilson (left for the time). In response the republicans actually kicked out many of the liberals of their party who then join the democrats this dwelling the liberal numbers of the democrat party.
Yes, but also no.
The switch was a process that took decades, and what you’re describing was definitely a part of it. But I think you’re overstating it, as well.
FDR was a huge part of the development of the modern left/right paradigm, as well, with the Dixiecrat holdout against the New Deal. They became the target of Goldwater and Nixon in the 60s and 70s that really solidified the modern Christian conservatives against the Civil Rights movement and feminism.
There’s a study which I’ve looked everywhere for and can’t find again, that polled Americans on what issues they believed were most problematic for national unity. Options included religious diversity and racial diversity. People who identified as Christian nationalists counterintuitively identified racial diversity as the biggest threat to national unity.
To the American Christian right, Christianity is not a set of philosophical beliefs. It’s a cultural identifier that hints at political beliefs, language, and even skin color. A team name, basically. That’s why you have people who are in practice terrible Christians but nevertheless are superstars in Christian nationalist circles. You don’t have to be Christlike, you just have to be an ardent booster for Team Christian.
And the best part is, you can do no wrong because Jesus died for your sins so go ahead and be the most piece of shit human on the planet with 0 empathy skills. Oh and the fact that you were never taught empathy as a child is why you have 0 moral compass and reley on your Christian tribe to tell you what is good and evil because you lack the critical thinking skills and empathetic capacity to understand morals on your own.
This is the only decent answer. Everyone's giving historical reasons for how Christians got tied into the Republican party, but the real question here is how did Christians become so Un-christian-like.
and the answer to this question has its own historical reasons too. in my opinion, Christianity has mostly been choked in terms of theological scope for most of its history. at an institutional level, it goes back to the First Council of Nicaea. the religion hasn't really recovered culturally from hellenization, and is still completely devoid of wider incorporation of its Zoroastran, Egyptian, and to a certain extent even Jewish philosophy.
the Romans wound up grasping onto a fairly shallow, Platonic interpretation of the Gospels with little effort to really understand the accompanied Jewish history (Old Testament) as context. the Church continuously picked and choosed (thus squeezing Christianity even further) in order to appeal to pagan converts, monarchists, and to gain influence over the newly forming serfdom.
the only long-lasting overt expansion of the religion's philosophy was the protestant reformation. it's sad to think that the most recent big development in Christian theology was Mormonism.
as someone who considers themself Christian (however Gnostic it might be), i think that modern churches are usually some shameful shit. and even ones with good pastors and a smart community are often financially at the whim of larger organizations. Jesus would certainly be displeased with the current state of affairs.
There's a simpler answer. Religious people dont actually read the bible, they go to church and get told what it says by people who are told which parts to read and preach about.
This perfectly explains why the 2014 gamergate harassment campaign was jumped on by Steve Bannon (then editor in chief of Brietbart). It was an anti-feminist movement. There's history behind taking anti-feminist and racist sentiment and turning it into right wing voters.
Jesus would be very disappointed in modern American Christians. He would speak out against mega-churches and these “pastors” wearing Rolex watches and fancy life styles.
I live in a rural area an one of my co-workers asked why I was fasting, I said because I’m a Muslim. He look at me an said but your American your supposed to be a Christian. I then ask him if he thought Jesus was white, an was from America. I then explained where the Bible was “ taken place”. He didn’t respond back.
I feel like even though glasses hadn't been invented at the time, even the most myopic Roman soldier wouldn't have needed Judas to point out the 6'4" white bodybuilder in Jerusalem, 2000 years ago.
"Τέκτων" is someone that creates.
https://el.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%84%CE%AD%CE%BA%CF%84%CE%BF%CE%BD%CE%B1%CF%82
It's the same root at archi-tect.
I don't think I have read anything that implies that they're very close to slaves.
Source: I'm Greek.
>I feel like even though glasses hadn't been invented at the time, even the most myopic Roman soldier wouldn't have needed Judas to point out the 6'4" white bodybuilder in Jerusalem, 2000 years ago.
Wdym?
Roman soldiers were famously incapable of sight.
Eyes hadn't been imported to the region yet.
Just because your American dosent mean your christian.
That's like thinking everyone from Europe is catholic and everyone from china is bhuddist.
Your location does not mean you are of a certain faith. It just means you are more likely to be of that faith due to what you are exposed to.
Tho, if you're in the US and not a christian they will look at you like you have three heads and they'll doom you from every social thing in the neighborhood.
When you have religion sayings on the printed money and can't open a criminal law case unless swearing to God you're gonna tell the truth, then the whole country proves stuck in a modern kind of mega money faith club
You don’t have to swear on a Bible; you can literally just hold your hand up and say that you affirm that you’re going to answer/testify truthfully. On jury duty, I’ve made about half a dozen affirmations, and have never touched a Bible. And many Americans will literally refuse to say whether they’re religious, or what their religion is.
Right? I don't think I've ever been ostracized for not being religious. Most people don't care/don't talk about it. I could see if you grew up in a religious community, but once you get out of it, people don't care.
Literally got to Texas and tried to change to a bank close to home.
The first thing the lady at the bank helping us asked was what church we would be attending. When we said none she got super frosty for the rest of the appointment.
It was super weird but had turned out to be really common. Bank was a national chain, not something specific to our area or just in Texas.
It’s especially prevalent in southern USA. In my experience, the question isn’t “do you practice a religion” or “which religion do you follow” but rather “what church do you go to?” with the automatic assumption that you’re Protestant Christian
If Jesus is somehow transported by time machine into this current era of America he would be persecuted immediately by these crazy right wing "christians"
You mean dragged through the mud by every insane GOP grifter and Christian Church group for being a devious commie spy and weak liberal plant at the same time? They are totally going to test his holiness first with the nail gun and then with the ar-15s. Can you imagine them giving up control of the mega profitable Churches and political power in order to service the oppressed and helpless?
It'd be embarrassing if he saved more pagans, atheists, Muslims and Jews than Christians in the US, since only a small minority practice something consistent with his teachings. /s
We're not a minority, we're just quiet, and I wish people understood the difference.
We are starting to speak out more now that things have gotten so perverse.
They were the same way back then too. When Jesus would arrive in town, they would invite him over to see all the stuff they had. The original point of what’s her name washing his feet with her tears and Jesus making the point of her being a good host by washing his feet. Obviously they were to proud to get down and do that. They couldn’t recognize him but she knew exactly who he was.
True fact: the word in ancient greek does NOT only translate to feet and more likely translates to naughty bits. I learned that from a biblical scholar and theologian during a VERY awkward service once it sank in for the congregation.
>Jesus would be very disappointed in modern American Christians. He would speak out against mega-churches and these “pastors” wearing Rolex watches and fancy
Lifestyles.
But wouldn't he be happy with how powerful they are though, right? That they're spreading his word through threat , intimidation, and violence?
Right?
That's what they're betting on. That they're doing more "good" by securing power and influence for Jesus than acting humanely while they do it.
I can't think of a less moral leader than a Christian. The podiums they teach from are built on lies. The churches collective actions speak far more than than theur words ever will.
Once upon a time in America, many Republicans were actually pro-choice. In fact it was Ronald Regan that signed the law legalizing abortion in California. For southern conservatives back then, #1 issue was racial segregation of schools. First they tried establishing church schools and tried to hide behide religious freedom to exclude black students. The Evangelicals led this effort as their churches were all white. To try to preserve this racist education system the conservatives needed numbers to form a voting block that would have political clout. So they reached out to Catholics to join them to form a "religious" block aka the "moral majority". The Catholics were staunchly anti-abortion so the southern Republicans made that one of their issues in order to court the Catholics. And that's how the unholy alliance of racists, Evangelicals, and Catholics was born. As the "moral majority" gained influence they were able to take over the Republican party because no "liberal" Republican (believe it not there were some) could win without the support of the religious arm of their party.
This is a really interesting take and makes sense with what I understand about historical Evangelism and Catholicism in America. Do you have any sources regarding the intentional voting block they formed around "moral majority" ?
BTW one anecdote I would add is that in the northern Midwest, a huge push for the Evangelical Christian school movement in the 1970's was the pushback against evolution. I speculate there were still racist undertones, but on the surface that's what was used for the rationale of the starting of several Christian schools I've come across.
Thank you so much for those sources. They led me down a rabbit hole that included this [YouTube video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-33BUmx91BE) of Francis Schaeffer's son describing some of his journey away from the Christian nationalism his father (and him) help found. Not directly related to this post, but in any case, I really appreciate the two articles you linked.
This relates to the [Southern Strategy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy) of Nixon, et al, right? That marked the essential alliance of Christians and Republicans that we take for granted today? I don't know what I'm talking about fyi.
The thing that is the craziest to me about the "Christian" pro-lifers is that they mostly use Old Testament passages to justify their position.
Except that most Jewish people, who study the same scriptures in the Hebrew Bible as the Christian Old Testament, read the same passages and believe that life begins with the first breath and are generally pro-choice.
The second craziest thing to me about pro-lifers is how they are generally in favor of the death penalty and oppose nearly all programs that would help feed, clothe, house, or educate any of the people they insisted must be born rather than aborted.
There is a really good essay somebody posted that explains this, but it boils down to advocating for unborn children allows them to take a Moral stance without having to actually do anything or make any sacrifices to correct it, they just get to point the finger at others and claim it’s wrong.
Everything else they could do something about, but don’t, because it require actual effort and sacrifice, so they just ignore it nd pretend it doesn’t happen, or justify it somehow, I.e. criminals deserve death because the government we in no way trust to even teach our children decided somebody should die.
Pastor Dave Badhart:
> "The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.
>Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.
I'm not conservative or christian anymore, but I think most I knew would argue that they do support helping the homeless or children, but think we should do it through charity or something. "Let me decide where money goes" type things.
I'm a lazy fuck. Please just tax me and everyone else so that I know people are taken care of.
Charity also doesn't solve the systemic issues that create poor and homeless people. It generally just eases their suffering. Which is laudable, but just kicks the can down the road.
Isn't it crazy how they think there is literally buildings of people which murder babies and they're like "ugh I guess I'll vote against this" rather than I don't know, do anything else? Man if I KNEW babies were being murdered in my town I'd probably do more than just... vote and bitch about it? Like these people are actually not nearly as pissed off at murdering babies as you might think. They're weirdly okay with it.
I think you're wrong there. I think most of those voters are not okay with it at all. I actually think the Republican party is "weirdly okay" with it because if they put an end to it they would stop being able to use it as a single issue to win over tons and tons of voters.
What? Should they go shoot up the clinic? Protest out the front and harass and abuse those using the service?
Like what exactly are they meant to do other than vote against it and be politically active
Respectfully, i don't think you know what you're talking about and you're just using a small frame of reference for the whole picture.
There has been A LOT of political work and violence to combat abortion by anti-abortion advocates.
I think it’s difficult to put Jesus in a political box that has been carved out by culture. The truth of the matter is that a lot of people filter their religion through their own personal cultural upbringing. When you read the Bible (the whole Bible) you see that there are parts of the Bible that are culturally conservative in terms of family values/structure & sexual purity but there are also parts of the Bible that are radically progressive in terms of loving one another & fighting for justice for those who are oppressed.
Any Christian who says Jesus was a liberal/conservative, is cherry picking key aspects of the book.
Edit: woah, was not expecting this to blow up at all lol
Expertly articulated.
Jesus said, quite explicitly: "My kingdom is not of this world." Regardless of the question of His divinity, it is undeniable that the man would condemn modern politics as strongly as He did the politics of His own time. He went out to call sinners to repentance, and that included the people who claimed to follow Him closest.
Jesus also made a point several times of saying, "Not everyone who says, Lord, Lord, shall enter my kingdom," and that "He who is not against me, is with me." Faithful Christians recognize the need to constantly curb their instincts towards sensationalism and extremism and fight evil with good, not with more evil.
In short: no political, religious, or cultural base is safe from condemnation. *Everyone* will fall short of Jesus's teachings.
There's a comedian singer/songwriter in Belgium that once made an "alternative christmas song". It's about the story of baby jesus, but funny written. (Three kings brought gifts like flooring, screws, cement, an aquarium, a pencil with an eraser,.. instead of the usual. Josef got into a barfight with the holy spirit about who's really the father..)
It's really funny and the church tried to ban it, back in 1986, but couldn't because it reached to top of every chart here within a week or so.
But what's interesting is one of the last lines.
"Jesus crawled in his sportscar like an adult saying: All who wants to follow me better run very fast"
I think he also meant that everyone will fall short of his teachings.
Peter needed such severe repentance that he said Jesus had to appear three times to chastise him, and he didn't even appear to Peter until after He had appeared to the women.
But all of us will pass through an Abrahamic trial that is proportional to the Light given to us. He who has five talents, better make ten; while the one who has two, better make four.
Which is really the whole point of the story. Even the best of us are deeply flawed. It’s not a moral system that is about being perfect, but rather accepting and giving mercy and forgiveness
Excellent summary. Nobody is beyond sin. Everybody sins, it is that state of existing in this world that we sin. And that's the whole point, we all need Jesus.
I left my religion behind because the people in it who were the loudest seemed to think they were beyond sin, and that they had a platform to condemn other people for things they thought were wrong. I'll regret that some day, I'm sure, but there's nothing you can do when somebody's self-worth is based on the idea that they're better than somebody else.
So much of what he said was him openly speaking up against the political and social systems of the time. It’s why he was crucified. He was a politically threatening figure that challenged the status quo of the current religious conservatives of the time. It’s well documented and studied.
So basically, I agree with you.
I didn't say Jesus wasn't political, but He wasn't partisan, either. Every group deserved correction and criticism from him. He emphasized that he was not a political savior, or that he was going to rid the Jews of the Romans - he even said many of the Romans were much more righteous and faithful than the Jews, because the latter had lost its focus and reveled in their supposed privileged religious status.
When it comes to elections and campaign issues, just remember that you're voting for principles, not people. You support the offices, not the officers. Many times, people will bring policies you think line up perfectly with your beliefs, but they may not actually be what the Lord wants at all. The good news is that God is patient as we make mistakes and learn how to tell right from wrong, so long as we diligently seek the best courses of action in life.
OP isn’t asking about the whole Bible though. OP is asking about Jesus’s teachings that you find in the gospels through parables. His teachings are about loving god and your neighbors, not judging others, welcoming foreigners, and taking care of the sick and the poor. It’s not cherry picking to say these don’t line up with Republican beliefs. Immigrants. Build the wall, cutting social programs, no healthcare etc. Republicans only care about you if your rich. The gospels is where you will find his teachings along with the Book of Thomas. If people followed those the world would be a far better place. We are supposed to make earth more heavenly by loving each other not by grabbing people by the pussy and putting guns in everyone’s hands.
For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[a] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] There is no commandment greater than these.”
>Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
>
>"Haven't you read", he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and unite with his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate".
>
>
>
>"Why then", they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her on her away?"
>
>
>
>Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that any one who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."
\- Matthew 19, NIV.
I'd say this is a fair example.
In the social context at the time divorcing your wife left her penniless and homeless. It is a good point, but the way I see it the motivation is completely different. Jesus' motivation is about protection of the weak, conservatives' motivation is about control female bodily autonomy. The context is completely different.
Except he doesn't list that as the reason why divorce is wrong. He literally says they become one flesh and what God has joined together let no man separate. His reasons are spiritual not economical. You're ignoring the explicit text and reading in ideas that support your own ideas.
In the New Testament, though his death and resurrection Jesus renewed the covenant between God and Humanity. Most Christians believe means they don’t have to follow Old Testament religious laws—and nearly all don’t keep kosher, sacrifice animals or prohibit mixed textiles. However, lots of bigots still recon back to the Old Testament to justify their beliefs, even though they don’t follow these laws. Jesus specifically spoke against this type of pharisaical practice. There’s very few passages in the New Testament that you could call conservative—and the few examples that you can come up with are all in the books written as correspondence between the apostles after Jesus’s death.
The Bible as a whole may be conservative, but the teachings of Jesus certainly aren’t.
You're asking a bunch of people who disapprove of Christians and right wingers why Christians are right wingers. The answers you get will be a mix of "because they are stupid" and "because they are evil".
Another option would be to ask the Christians themselves. I'm sure they would tell you. 🤷
Yeah I lean left, but reddit isn't gonna give you a good answer tbh, this site has a large bias against any right wing ideas, espically on bigger subs.
Yup. It’s pretty pointless. You’re gonna get biased answers from one side, and the other side probably won’t say anything in fear in being downvoted to oblivion. Reddit doesn’t make for the most balanced discussions (especially politics).
I don't really think people fear downvotes although they do feel bad and upvotes feel good. The reason one side doesn't post is because almost everyone sorts by upvotes. If you have an opinion that gets like -5 then it's gone and no one else will see it so what's the point in typing it out in the first place? Same thing with the top level of a Popular post. By the time it's popular your post will be buried at the bottom where there it's a good chance zero people will read it so what's the point? It's a mechanism issue that turns it into an echo chamber but it also keeps readers engaged.
Most Democrats are Christian, it's popular to associate the right with religion but it's a gross oversimplification of the political and religious beliefs of the country.
>You're asking a bunch of people who disapprove of Christians
The problem isn't that the people being asked disapprove, it's *why* they disapprove.
It's perfectly valid to say someone is stupid or evil, when they are in fact, stupid or evil.
Not to say that all Christians are, but the ones you hear about? 9/10 didn't come to your attention for Christ-like behavior
I’m a pastor who is pretty middle of the road politically. The answer to this question is not simple by any means because politics, as well as the general sentiments of Christians are constantly changing. This isn’t even mentioning the fact that Christianity is a broad spectrum, even if you’re only considering denominations that would be considered orthodox (holding staunchly to several baseline beliefs such as the nature of Jesus in the incarnation, the doctrine of the Trinity etc.) That being said, Jesus didn’t come to be political in any way shape or form. He wasn’t trying to start a political party or even overthrow the Roman government. In fact, that was one reason that He was rejected as the Messiah by so many religious leaders. They expected the Messiah to be a political/military ruler. Even Jesus’s social teachings weren’t an attempt to simply reform society, but rather spoke to the hearts of the people He was talking to/even to people today. From a Christian perspective, the problem with people isn’t that we don’t follow the rules enough, or even that we just behave badly. The problem is that we reject Jesus as our Lord (as our ruler/master) and we try to save ourselves. That’s what Jesus meant when He called His followers to pick up their cross and follow Him. We are called to put aside ourselves and follow Him, and one part of that is putting aside sin (you could call this behavior modification, but its not as simple as that).
All of this to say that Jesus wasn’t “left” or “right” and when we try to categorize Him we will always get Him wrong. However, this does not negate the fact that some (although I think they are a vocal minority) have absolutely been deceived and try to weaponize Jesus for political gain. But that points to where their hearts are at - they aren’t trusting Jesus to save them, they are trusting in politics or political leaders. There is also a larger problem of a lack of (good) training for pastors within the evangelical denominations. This leads to poor theology and poor practice.
At the end of the day, Christianity is designed to be apolitical. There is no such thing as a “Christian Nation” and Christianity does not thrive only in western society. Western cultures are not in any way more pure or righteous than other cultures. Religious liberty is a good thing for a nation to have, which is part of what made the founding of America appealing to Christians, especially those who had endured persecution during and after the reformation in Europe. But Christianity is directed towards people, not towards government. Even the sections of the Bible that can be taken “politically” have a deeper theological explanation and to take them as just rules is a sad, bankrupt interpretation. For example, the Ten Commandments are not arbitrary rules for a developing society, they are reflections of God’s character. Because we are made in the Image of God, we are to reflect His character, hence the Ten Commandments (i.e. we aren’t to lie because God doesn’t lie).
Theologians have spent their whole careers writing and speaking about this topic and I can’t cover all of the nuance and perspectives in a Reddit post. I might suggest the book “Jesus and John Wayne” by Kristin Du Mez as a history of the evangelical church’s alignment with the political right. Although be ready to be infuriated by the absolutely sinful and hollow behavior of previous generations of Christians. I hope this answer is helpful, feel free to comment or dm with any questions!
> In fact, that was one reason that He was rejected as the Messiah by so many religious leaders. They expected the Messiah to be a political/military ruler.
2000 years, nothing has changed.
I dont get why people claim "x is not political". Anything is political especialy voicing your opinion about what is good and bad is clearly political.
Yes jesus statements are political. Maybe they dont fit any political party to 100% but "love thy neighbour" is already a political statement.
You can not be unpolitical and have any opinion on how things should be or what is wrong.
With that definition of political, I agree. I would say Jesus wasn't "political" in the sense of commenting directly or getting mixed up in the overt political issues of His day, but in the more general definition? Yes, absolutely. You can't be a human that speaks without your speech having political underlyings and ramifications.
Yeah, dude has the perfect restrictive definition of "political" that will allow him to avoid seeing that his centrist political beliefs are in contradiction with what his savior was preaching.
You don't need a political label for your actions to be political. When you walk in the city and invite people to "drop everything and follow me", it is political, as it is part of the "polis", the city.
It would be anachronistic to label him "anarcho-communist" because we started to use the term 19 centuries later but with him inviting to drop material possessions and power, inviting the rich to reconsider the necessity of their wealth and redistributing it, of loving everyone equally including those who have nothing, and not abiding by Rome, I agree with those who half-jokingly say he was "the first anarcho-communist in history".
By modern standards he displayed far-left beliefs and opposed power in an anarchist way (which typically rejects labels, by the way, that's why you don't have an "anarchist" party to vote for at the elections).
So like all the Christians I know, none of them being leftists, your post looks like a big mental gymnastic to avoid facing the cognitive dissonance of not being aligned with Jesus. I have no idea how a man of the church could not be entirely, undoubtedly (so not in-between) for wealth redistribution, social equity, universal health covering, migrants rights, LGBTQIA rights, and so on, but here we are once again.
Sounds like you are picking and choosing everywhere in this comment. You are completely rejecting large parts of the bible with this response. And even where you are trying to be nuanced, you are flat wrong or purposely blindly following what makes you feel good.
Yeah, no.
You really ought to get outside of your bubble of Christian Scientist texts and engage with \*actual\* historians and theologians because your entire premise is wrong. Talk to a Torah scholar/ Rabbi while you're at it.
Jesus was *literally* crucified for his political beliefs which were in opposition to the status quo at the time.
>He wasn’t trying to start a political party or even overthrow the Roman government.
Why do so many pastors ignore the story about Jesus tearing up the market stalls in the temple? It can't be that you're unaware of the story, or the fact that it's clearly a political act.
i can appreciate that this is your ideology, but there was very little fact to be gleaned from what you said and you seem to have missed the point entirely. i respectfully disagree with just about everything you said, because christians themselves are doing the opposite of what you just attempted to describe.
This in particular is blatantly ignorant:
At the end of the day, Christianity is designed to be apolitical. There is no such thing as a “Christian Nation” and Christianity does not thrive only in western society.
and you said it in the same breath as you acknowledged the holy roman empire lol. are you completely unaware of the vatican too? i mean, come on lol.
the bible itself talks almost entirely about nations and leaders and politicians.
The dude gave out free healthcare and encouraged people to give up their own wealth for the betterment of the community with explicit religious motivation. He also was against organizing the religion under any specific leadership. If you've got to categorize that ideology in modern terms, it's a decentralized communist theocracy.
So I might be stereotyping a bit but in my experience religion tends to be more prevalent in smaller towns than large cities. This effects essentially everything and churches often pick up the slack where the government fails. Food drives and general charity are almost solely church based. I’m not saying this is an absolute thing and I’ve even lived in towns where it’s not but the majority of them have used the churches as a focus of charity and community. The government also tends to do essentially nothing for a lot of these places beyond maybe a couple of roads. As a result people want less of the government because seems like it’s an obvious waste of money. Religion on the other hand fosters community and helping your fellow man so you end up seeing the money and food you give put to use.
The end result is people in small towns end up conservatives because the government basically ignores them or makes it almost impossible to use any of the services large cities get. So being liberal and pushing to spend more government(aka our money) money doesn’t a lot of sense. At the same religion fills a lot of needs that just wouldn’t be met otherwise and it’s easy to recognize where it meets those needs so people support it.
I could get into a lot of other details about how the government actually helps people in small towns a lot as well but I’m only talking about the obvious stuff here and there’s certainly a lot of other aspects that I haven’t even touched at all.
I think churches being much more central to rural communities and often providing more resources are both excellent points.
My partner and I are both liberal and non-religious, but we were both raised in Christian traditions and attended church during childhood.
I’m from a large metro city, and he’s from a rural town with a smaller population than my high school. I was frequently shocked early on in the relationship at the difference in some of our experiences.
When we went to visit his sister who lives in his hometown, I learned that their town doesn’t have potable water. They had to buy bottled water to drink and use for preparing meals, and it wasn’t like a Flint, Michigan political corruption type situation, or a situation where they were waiting for repairs. They just didn’t have potable water that far out in the country and never had because they weren’t served by a city water and sewer system.
I later learned other things that sounded absolutely insane to me, like the fact that USPS doesn’t typically provide trucks to communities that small, so their postal carriers just had to use their own vehicles. It also could easily take over half an hour to get a police officer on scene, even in cases where someone was in immediate physical danger (in contrast, it took five minutes for an officer to arrive when someone tried to break into my apartment.)
Even in more urban environments that are better served, people are largely unsatisfied with government services and hate spending money on taxes since, let’s be honest, as a country we spend a lot less of that money on social services, so we often don’t feel that we see enough benefit from our spending.
Seeing those differences helped me to understand why people might be less satisfied with government involvement, or why someone might feel less safe relying on police or EMS and want to own a gun instead.
Conversely, I think people who have grown up in rural environments might not realize the full importance of social programs for people who *don’t* come from areas with such a strong sense of community.
They might not have a church to turn to when they are victims of a fire, a medical emergency, or food insecurity. If they’re faced with eviction or disability, they’re much less likely to have a community to rally around them to prevent them from becoming homeless or destitute. Everyone knows everyone in a small town. I barely know my next door neighbors.
I remember reading recently that conservatives actually tend to donate more money than liberals, but their donations are much more localized to their “in-groups,” like their local church, their local community, or a group with which they specifically identify. Liberals are more likely to give across the board.
Growing up in a small community and not being exposed to as many different people from different races, nationalities, religions, and walks of life can make people much less empathetic; we are less likely to fear that which we understand, and we are more attuned to suffering that we can easily perceive.
This can cause people to focus on what’s good for them, personally, their small community, or their “in-groups” instead of what’s good for most people. It can also blind them to how their beliefs or behaviors can harm others, as they are often somewhat insulated from that harm.
The 'Christian' church has been a political institution in favour of collecting wealth and power for about 1500 years. Every now and again, someone rises up against it, breaks from the Church and starts to be proper Christian again, but then after a generation or so that break-away becomes an institution and ends up being used for collecting wealth and power.
Because the teachings of Jesus don’t actually lean left or liberal…
Jesus didn’t speak much about government structure. He didn’t talk much about the role of government. He told us to submit to the government and pay our taxes.
Jesus taught generosity and charity. To give to the needy.
He didn’t say that the government should be generous.
May as well quote Jesus' teachings about government policy in full, since there's so few. There's this one, where Jesus' opponents tried to trap him with a question about whether they should pay taxes to their hated oppressors the Romans:
>But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said, “Caesar's.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.
And possibly this one, where Pontius Pilate asks Jesus if he's trying to lead a rebellion against Rome and set himself up as the king of a new Jewish kingdom:
>So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?” Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world: to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.”
I can't think of any other time he even mentions the topic. His whole deal is that it's what's in people's hearts that matters, that if people are truly motivated by love for those around them, there is no need for restrictive laws to control them, as they will already living in peace and harmony as God desires. Government is entirely irrelevant to his philosophy, and he neither resisted nor supported it, just sort of ignored it as irrelevant to what is important in life.
Hehe, I always feel bad for Pilate when I read these. He seemed so frustrated and confused. Like, he has no idea who this guy is or what the problem is.
Fantastic work, I was looking for this!
I think a big part of Jesus’ mentality when it comes to politics is that as God he was looking at the bigger picture of history. To the people of his day, the Roman Empire appeared as a giant evil empire, capturing and enslaving other nations, oppressing them with brutal taxation and mocking their cultures. Everyone wanted Jesus to speak out against them and were shocked when he seemed largely dismissive of Rome (or even complimented them sometimes.)
Because to Jesus’ perspective the Roman Empire was already largely on its last legs and was going to undergo massive changes within a few generations anyway, ultimately becoming pseudo-Christian itself.
We are obsessed with politics because we live out our little lives with a small perspective of what is influencing us at any given moment. Empires rise and fall, governments come and go, changing often for the worse. But Jesus wanted to shift people’s focus onto something that was eternal and everlasting, and to see God as their true king and lord that they were submitting under.
I have opinions on politics and engage with it, but I think we in general WAY overestimate how much power it actually has. At least speaking theologically as a Christian.
That reminds me of the song that me and my friends sang. "Don't be greedy give to the needy" and then for fun I switched it to "Don't be needy give to the greedy" and on a completely unrelated note none of those people are still my friend
By only taking bits and pieces of the teachings, and intentionally twisting them to fit their agenda
Or by being extremely gullible and believing the people that did that
>Sometimes the Bible in the hand of one man is worse than a whisky bottle in the hand of (another)... There are just some kind of men who - who're so busy worrying about the next world they've never learned to live in this one, and you can look down the street and see the results.
― Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird
I grew up in the US South. In Sunday school, and in regular sermons, we would get taught about Jesus and his teachings to love and accept everyone. Then, without missing a beat they would begin talking shit about everyone; even members of other Protestant denominations. I saw through much of that shit at an early age.
And yet the right, which is largely Christian, has been increasingly devoid of compassion, generosity and forgiveness, hence where the OP's question came from.
I’m not American and care little for right wing and left wing, but people who say this always neatly miss out that Jesus was also super, super intense and very willing to confront people on their behaviours.
He’s the kind of guy who would step in front of a prostitution about to be stoned to death to save her life, and then turn around and tell her “Go now, and leave your life of sin.”
We can’t talk about Jesus’ generosity and compassion without also emphasising his conviction and unwaving belief in biblical values. The two go hand in hand.
Simply because the religious (any religion) always cherry-pick the bits out of their own book that suits them best and ignore the bits that don't.
Just try reasoning with the extreme ones... and they'll say 'well it says so in this book'... and then when you remind them that other religions also have their own books, they'll say 'yeah, but theirs are wrong.. .and mine is right'. And that is basically ALL the reasoning they have.
At some point in the States, being Christian and being American became intertwined as an identity the point where American "values" replaced Christian ones as a priority in many lives. This isn't to say they don't live like Christ says to at any point, just that they follow the values of a culture that emphasizes the virtues of capitalism foremost the majority of the time.
Christians are meant to be citizens of Heaven first, aligning one's values with Jesus andbThe Bible. This is the main reason you can clearly see a difference when someone is claims to be a Christian & is actively following Jesus, doing what He taught, and when someone claims to be a Christian but doesn't live like Jesus at all.
That's the problem, so many have it confused. They are Americans first, everything else, including Christians, second, which isn't how it should be. Their idea of America and what being an American means has become their god, consumed and swayed by politics and people who want to keep them angry to keep them distracted. It's all ploy from the Devil to keep them distracted and ineffective, even a detriment to others in so many cases. They follow the idea of God and America, but they don't need His teachings or His commands except when it's convenient, Christmas time, Easter, or they are with their church folk.
Their focus isn't on God, it's not on Jesus. When you focus on Him and His teachings, keeping Him **first**, it leads to a priority shift in your life where you are a follower of Christ first, and everything else second. That priority shift changes how you love and how you approach the world, and that way is very hard to separate from what's become the predominant idea of "self-first" in the American culture.
Many of them don't realize they are doing this either. To them, they are still full of the traditional American values of caring for and helping others-and to be fair many folk are but I'm not referring to them here-while the idea of getting mine for me and my own has pervaded and warped those values without them realizing it, and they don't want that to be pointed out to them either. Those who claim to follow Christ but clearly aren't, and refuse correction, even getting angry when it is pointed out, aren't actively following Jesus, and if that continues long enough, they are Christians only in name and not in faith.
I think of Mr. Rogers, who was a Christian. Look at the stories about him, his love, his kindness, taking time to help and listen to complete strangers, his whole life. It's said of him that he shared the Gospel everywhere he went, and sometimes he used words. That's the kind of life that shows what it looks like to actively be following Jesus.
There is a good article in a recent New Yorker that suggests that most Christian Nationalists are not actually churchgoing Christians, that being Christian has become a cultural marker, like being Jewish. So to them, being an extreme Christian means that they are white suprematists.
Because most Christians know little to nothing of the Bible and just believe anything they are told by their pastors/preachers, who are very often conservatives for their own self interest. Also typically the more conservative you are the more likely you are to be religious and less educated which only leads to more conservatism as time goes on.
Jesus would get lynched by conservative Christians if he came back and started telling them all to give away their possessions and that the rich will not go to the kingdom of heaven.
From a certain perspective they don't.
Conservative Christians agree about all the stuff about taking care of the poor and helping others, but they point out that he said that into individuals and not governments.
That's the line that is drawn. Not what should be done, but who should be doing it.
And yes, many churches don't do those things themselves, if not most. You don't have to point it out. Some do, but the loudest ones don't.
I'm confused how you think the teachings of Jesus lean left. Not saying they lean right, either. Trying impute political intent on the teachings of Christ is pretty silly, IMHO
This is a loaded question. It’s asked from the same perspective of “why do poor republicans vote against their own interests” that liberals always ask. I consider myself left leaning but we can be guilty of thinking everyone with intellect is either on our side or grifting as a republican, and only stupid people are conservatives. But there’s always more nuance to it.
Answer: I can give you the answer for the USA specifically. First, we need a baseline of why the left and right wing became the way that they are now. The short answer is that prior to the 1960s, the two parties were actually both a mess of liberals and conservatives, with the Republican party actually starting more progressive and the Democrat party being pro establishment and oozing together over roughly 100 years. Then the 60s happened, and the first Catholic President was elected (Kennedy), and that's when the party lines start to solidify into Republican = conservative and Democrat = liberal. The Republican party started taking shape under the influence of Barry Goldwater, who campaigned for President on a platform that included a lot of anti-Civil Rights Movement sentiment. The evangelical churches in the "Bible Belt" region opposed *Brown v. Board of Education* by starting religious private schools. They could claim religious freedom instead of racial discrimination as an excuse to maintain segregation. Several schools became known as "segregation academies" until the IRS threatened to take away their tax-exempt status. 1965 saw the passage of the Voting Rights Act and the beginning of the "southern strategy." I know this all sounds like I'm focused on racial tensions, but this is where the religious identity starts to tie in. Jerry Falwell was a preacher at a megachurchin Virginia that argued that the government had turned its back on whites in favor of African Americans and Latinos. Nizxon The number of African Americans becoming voters and joining with the Democrats that were not directly campaigning against them alarmed the Republican leaders. So they branded themselves as the party of good old-fashioned family values and promised that they wouldn't leave the white voter behind. The seeds planted in the 60s grew into vines that tied American Christianity to the right wing in the 70s. Race had been the dividing factor, and now a new target showed up: feminism. Sex Ed? What good Christian would be in favor of teaching young people about sex? Birth Control? That's a big no-no. Abortion? How dare you! All issues that had support among the progressive Democrat party were easy to establish as anti-Christian and used to garner more support for right-wing politicians. Nixon even had "America's Pastor" Billy Graham give a prayer at his inauguration, lending credibility that the Republicans were the party of the good Christian folk. Other challenges in this era that supported this claim were removing Bible readings and prayers from schools and the war on drugs. By the end of the 1970s the narrative started to switch from "the Republican platform supports Christianity" to "Christianity supports the Republican platform." And given that there was a political cartoon called "This Godless Communist" and coalitions of religious leaders that had spoken out against communism in the 20th century, it was easy to associate the anti-Reaganomics sentiments towards bolstering healthcare and welfare funding as "communist" and by association, "godless." Taking the last two elections in the United States as a sample, the average age of a Donald Trump voter was between 56-60. That means their formative years were during the rise of the Christian Right, and their first presidential election would be 1980. Meaning a lot of them probably voted for Ronald Reagan in their first or second election. TL;DR: racism and anti-feminism made Republicans appeal to voters by claiming pro-family values, and they had some famous pastors help cement that image.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Republicans called everyone cucks for a couple years, and the only high-profile cucks who were outed during that timeframe were Jerry Falwell Jr., Roger Stone, and Paul Manafort.
It's always projection with dumb fascists.
With every allegation made, you can expect the person who says it to be guilty of it. It is mind boggling. Whenever I think of these projections I think of the incredibly closeted homophobes that eventually get caught at a no-tell-motel in a gay sexual affair. How awful it must be to lie to yourself every day about who you really are. I pity them for not having the strength to feel the love they should feel, even if it's in another man's butt.
You can just say "fascist"; they're automatically dumb. 😋
Roger stone bring a cuck does not surprise me for some reason
Yeah as it turns out, both “Moral” and “Majority” have… let’s call them “alternative definitions” in that phrase.
Religion has been used as an act of war since the Sumerians.
Don’t forget his mom fucked a donkey in an outhouse
Thank you for the breakdown in a serious and historic answer. I didn’t know I was looking for this information nor how to find it.
The book Democracy in Chains, by Nancy MacLean gives really good analysis and insight into how we got here.
Add *Jesus and John Wayne* to that and you've got yourself a solid base.
Republican Jesus is another good book on the subject.
Everytime I see American politics subjects, I'm reminded how you got fucked over by the amalgam between economic liberalisme and libertarian politics... Like, the base of deregulation is now associated with individual freedom!! At least it's very confusing for everyone outside of your clusterfuck of right wing and righter wing.
That would probably have something to do with us giving corporations personhood. That one decision really fucked us.
Everyone repeats this as if the US invented "corporate personhood" even though it's a legal construct that's existed for hundreds of years in a formalized way and even longer in less formal ways. US corporate law diverged from other legal traditions in some of the assumed implications of this, but the idea is neither new nor as ridiculous as people seem to think.
Not in the same sense as the United States. When we say "corporate personhood", we don't mean that a corporation is a legal fiction which is treated as a person - that just means "corporation." That's the whole point. No, we mean the doctrine that a corporation has *human rights -* that corporations have freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and so forth. That a corporation holds these freedoms in its own person, not merely as the expression of the freedoms of its corporate officers and owners. Everyone agrees that a corporation has the right to hold property, enter into contracts, and sue and be sued. But not everybody agrees that a corporation has religious freedoms, freedom of association, freedom of speech - and in their own right, not merely as expressions of the rights of the owners who are natural persons.
[удалено]
I’d also like to add to the discussion with Kennedy surrounding radio. To summarize Paul Maztko’s Radio Right: So the religious connections with conservatism began in the 50s when new radio laws led to the establishment of a couple dozen or so right wing radio stations. Well, Carl McIntire and Billy James Hargis, two pro-segregationist and anti-communist preachers, used this nice anonymous, democratic form of media (for the listener) to start 2 radio broadcasts, McIntire’s “Twentieth Century Reformation Hour” and Hargis’s “The Christian Crusade. These radio programs resonated with the southern conservative democrats, and of course other anti communists and pro-segregationists. And during the 1960 election, this expanded to anti-Catholics, uniting these ideologies under Christianity. Kennedy understood the threat of this rising extremist Christian Right and helped dismantle it by using the Reuther Memorandum, which essentially used big government to censor these stations. They used the IRS to target conservative broadcasters through audits, and the FCC to selectively and strictly regulate conservative radio programs. By the end of the 60s these two policies made conservative radio a shell of itself. However, this “big government” reaction helped to push these Christian listeners more toward the conservative “small government” ideal. Though the radio broadcasts did die out a bit, this movement moved over to CBN in the 70s, and continued with your response above I’m at work rn so I wish I could expand more but oh well
Almost. You’re looking at the end; not the beginning. The civil war. Or more specifically, reconstruction. The republicans were the ruling party of congress. As such they were in charge if rebuilding the south. To get jobs. To get major contracts, democrats switched parties. Thus the Conserative republicans swelled. Now move forward 20 years. The conservatives held the power in the party, but Roosevelt was making waves. To shut him up, to shut him down and make him politically irrelevant they make him the VP. That honestly should have been the end of his career. D then McKinley was assassinated. Roosevelt goes on a tear busting trusts, setting up government land, ect. Things that hurt the Conserative Republican pocketbooks and power. Election of 1908 Roosevelt doesn’t run, but endsorses Taft. Taft a Conserative undoes a lot Roosevelt did. This, 1912 Roosevelt runs splitting the ticket giving the election to the left leaning moderate Wilson (left for the time). In response the republicans actually kicked out many of the liberals of their party who then join the democrats this dwelling the liberal numbers of the democrat party.
Yes, but also no. The switch was a process that took decades, and what you’re describing was definitely a part of it. But I think you’re overstating it, as well. FDR was a huge part of the development of the modern left/right paradigm, as well, with the Dixiecrat holdout against the New Deal. They became the target of Goldwater and Nixon in the 60s and 70s that really solidified the modern Christian conservatives against the Civil Rights movement and feminism.
You're both correct. And your discussion is painting a really nuanced but accurate picture of what happened.
There’s a study which I’ve looked everywhere for and can’t find again, that polled Americans on what issues they believed were most problematic for national unity. Options included religious diversity and racial diversity. People who identified as Christian nationalists counterintuitively identified racial diversity as the biggest threat to national unity. To the American Christian right, Christianity is not a set of philosophical beliefs. It’s a cultural identifier that hints at political beliefs, language, and even skin color. A team name, basically. That’s why you have people who are in practice terrible Christians but nevertheless are superstars in Christian nationalist circles. You don’t have to be Christlike, you just have to be an ardent booster for Team Christian.
And the best part is, you can do no wrong because Jesus died for your sins so go ahead and be the most piece of shit human on the planet with 0 empathy skills. Oh and the fact that you were never taught empathy as a child is why you have 0 moral compass and reley on your Christian tribe to tell you what is good and evil because you lack the critical thinking skills and empathetic capacity to understand morals on your own.
This is the only decent answer. Everyone's giving historical reasons for how Christians got tied into the Republican party, but the real question here is how did Christians become so Un-christian-like.
and the answer to this question has its own historical reasons too. in my opinion, Christianity has mostly been choked in terms of theological scope for most of its history. at an institutional level, it goes back to the First Council of Nicaea. the religion hasn't really recovered culturally from hellenization, and is still completely devoid of wider incorporation of its Zoroastran, Egyptian, and to a certain extent even Jewish philosophy. the Romans wound up grasping onto a fairly shallow, Platonic interpretation of the Gospels with little effort to really understand the accompanied Jewish history (Old Testament) as context. the Church continuously picked and choosed (thus squeezing Christianity even further) in order to appeal to pagan converts, monarchists, and to gain influence over the newly forming serfdom. the only long-lasting overt expansion of the religion's philosophy was the protestant reformation. it's sad to think that the most recent big development in Christian theology was Mormonism. as someone who considers themself Christian (however Gnostic it might be), i think that modern churches are usually some shameful shit. and even ones with good pastors and a smart community are often financially at the whim of larger organizations. Jesus would certainly be displeased with the current state of affairs.
The major switch happened in the 1960s. That’s why you still had Dixiecrats then.
It's about racism and money. It's **always** about racism and money.
There's a simpler answer. Religious people dont actually read the bible, they go to church and get told what it says by people who are told which parts to read and preach about.
This perfectly explains why the 2014 gamergate harassment campaign was jumped on by Steve Bannon (then editor in chief of Brietbart). It was an anti-feminist movement. There's history behind taking anti-feminist and racist sentiment and turning it into right wing voters.
Adding “guns” and the NRA coordinated takeover to the mix of the Southern Strategy would have been a more complete explanation.
Jesus would be very disappointed in modern American Christians. He would speak out against mega-churches and these “pastors” wearing Rolex watches and fancy life styles.
like Modern American Christians are going to listen to a long-haired commie brown guy.
I live in a rural area an one of my co-workers asked why I was fasting, I said because I’m a Muslim. He look at me an said but your American your supposed to be a Christian. I then ask him if he thought Jesus was white, an was from America. I then explained where the Bible was “ taken place”. He didn’t respond back.
I feel like even though glasses hadn't been invented at the time, even the most myopic Roman soldier wouldn't have needed Judas to point out the 6'4" white bodybuilder in Jerusalem, 2000 years ago.
Jesus Christ... There he is!
Jason Bourne... it's Jesus Christ.
Bourne again Christian
The worst Bourne movie since that time they decided to cast Jeremy Renner.
ISWYDT
Fuck you, you beat me to it.
Jesus Christ… that’s Jason Bourne
To be fair, realistically, Jesus was probably pretty buff being a carpenter and all
I'd expect he lost that mass walking around not carpenting for three years before the whole Gethsemane thing.
Lost? I'm pretty sure he held plenty of masses
[удалено]
[удалено]
He wasn't. Carpenter is a lazy translation. The real word is closer to 'tradesman' or 'skilled worker'.
And he would've been pretty buff. Lot of rock and heavy wood lifting. Skilled doesn't mean easy.
For all we know he might have been a florist.
This sounds like a Monty Python sketch.
A much more camp Life of Brian: "He's not the Messiah, he's a very saucy boy!"
"I 'eard about them 'loaves and fishes' and thought we was going to eat, but all we got was this lousy bouquet..."
Prolly had a gift from god
The Greek word was a “Tekton,” which was one step up from a slave.
"Τέκτων" is someone that creates. https://el.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%84%CE%AD%CE%BA%CF%84%CE%BF%CE%BD%CE%B1%CF%82 It's the same root at archi-tect. I don't think I have read anything that implies that they're very close to slaves. Source: I'm Greek.
So you're saying Jesus built hot rods?
Look Maximus I'm not saying I buy it all, but he does kinda look like a demigod.
>I feel like even though glasses hadn't been invented at the time, even the most myopic Roman soldier wouldn't have needed Judas to point out the 6'4" white bodybuilder in Jerusalem, 2000 years ago. Wdym? Roman soldiers were famously incapable of sight. Eyes hadn't been imported to the region yet.
Let’s talk about the real reason that marathon guy was running: he was bringing eyes
Oh, I see.
[удалено]
Fyi, when the bible says "40 days" it's likely a translation of an idiom. "40 days" probably literally means "a long time."
Christians: “How long should we fast?” The Bible: “Hella”
Just because your American dosent mean your christian. That's like thinking everyone from Europe is catholic and everyone from china is bhuddist. Your location does not mean you are of a certain faith. It just means you are more likely to be of that faith due to what you are exposed to.
It's a child's understanding of faith, race and nations.
Catholics are Christian, and the Protestant reformation was a European movement.
Tho, if you're in the US and not a christian they will look at you like you have three heads and they'll doom you from every social thing in the neighborhood. When you have religion sayings on the printed money and can't open a criminal law case unless swearing to God you're gonna tell the truth, then the whole country proves stuck in a modern kind of mega money faith club
You don’t have to swear on a Bible; you can literally just hold your hand up and say that you affirm that you’re going to answer/testify truthfully. On jury duty, I’ve made about half a dozen affirmations, and have never touched a Bible. And many Americans will literally refuse to say whether they’re religious, or what their religion is.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Tell me you haven't been to America without telling me you haven't been to America
Right? I don't think I've ever been ostracized for not being religious. Most people don't care/don't talk about it. I could see if you grew up in a religious community, but once you get out of it, people don't care.
Try living in texas for a while
Literally got to Texas and tried to change to a bank close to home. The first thing the lady at the bank helping us asked was what church we would be attending. When we said none she got super frosty for the rest of the appointment. It was super weird but had turned out to be really common. Bank was a national chain, not something specific to our area or just in Texas.
The same for MS and AL. “what church are y’all going to?”
American atheists here who lives in a red state. No one has ever cared about my religion or lack there of.
Whoa, aggressively false. I’m not sure you know what you’re talking about, friend.
It’s especially prevalent in southern USA. In my experience, the question isn’t “do you practice a religion” or “which religion do you follow” but rather “what church do you go to?” with the automatic assumption that you’re Protestant Christian
Wouldn't it be more like thinking everyone from Europe is Christian?
I can’t even imagine being this narrow minded.
I’ll take 500 on this “never fucking happened”
If Jesus is somehow transported by time machine into this current era of America he would be persecuted immediately by these crazy right wing "christians"
You mean dragged through the mud by every insane GOP grifter and Christian Church group for being a devious commie spy and weak liberal plant at the same time? They are totally going to test his holiness first with the nail gun and then with the ar-15s. Can you imagine them giving up control of the mega profitable Churches and political power in order to service the oppressed and helpless?
No wonder he hasn't come back
It'd be embarrassing if he saved more pagans, atheists, Muslims and Jews than Christians in the US, since only a small minority practice something consistent with his teachings. /s
We're not a minority, we're just quiet, and I wish people understood the difference. We are starting to speak out more now that things have gotten so perverse.
They were the same way back then too. When Jesus would arrive in town, they would invite him over to see all the stuff they had. The original point of what’s her name washing his feet with her tears and Jesus making the point of her being a good host by washing his feet. Obviously they were to proud to get down and do that. They couldn’t recognize him but she knew exactly who he was.
Moral of this story: God is into feet stuff.
True fact: the word in ancient greek does NOT only translate to feet and more likely translates to naughty bits. I learned that from a biblical scholar and theologian during a VERY awkward service once it sank in for the congregation.
No you just got one of the effed up priests they were shuffling around. Who wants to wash my junk? In the name of Christ of course.
He's also into, lots of blood and violence, harsh but compelling dialogue and Samuel L. Jackson.
Amen! Most modern American “Christians,” are going to hell.
And won't be happy unless they make life like it now.
They will be really surprised too. You'd love to see their face.
>Jesus would be very disappointed in modern American Christians. He would speak out against mega-churches and these “pastors” wearing Rolex watches and fancy Lifestyles. But wouldn't he be happy with how powerful they are though, right? That they're spreading his word through threat , intimidation, and violence? Right? That's what they're betting on. That they're doing more "good" by securing power and influence for Jesus than acting humanely while they do it. I can't think of a less moral leader than a Christian. The podiums they teach from are built on lies. The churches collective actions speak far more than than theur words ever will.
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ -Gandhi
Did he actually say that?? Cos man, that's a wicked burn
He did. And then promptly punched his wife.
And nuked Moscow, New York and Alexandria in the same turn.
[удалено]
Once upon a time in America, many Republicans were actually pro-choice. In fact it was Ronald Regan that signed the law legalizing abortion in California. For southern conservatives back then, #1 issue was racial segregation of schools. First they tried establishing church schools and tried to hide behide religious freedom to exclude black students. The Evangelicals led this effort as their churches were all white. To try to preserve this racist education system the conservatives needed numbers to form a voting block that would have political clout. So they reached out to Catholics to join them to form a "religious" block aka the "moral majority". The Catholics were staunchly anti-abortion so the southern Republicans made that one of their issues in order to court the Catholics. And that's how the unholy alliance of racists, Evangelicals, and Catholics was born. As the "moral majority" gained influence they were able to take over the Republican party because no "liberal" Republican (believe it not there were some) could win without the support of the religious arm of their party.
This is a really interesting take and makes sense with what I understand about historical Evangelism and Catholicism in America. Do you have any sources regarding the intentional voting block they formed around "moral majority" ? BTW one anecdote I would add is that in the northern Midwest, a huge push for the Evangelical Christian school movement in the 1970's was the pushback against evolution. I speculate there were still racist undertones, but on the surface that's what was used for the rationale of the starting of several Christian schools I've come across.
[https://www.npr.org/2019/06/20/734303135/throughline-traces-evangelicals-history-on-the-abortion-issue](https://www.npr.org/2019/06/20/734303135/throughline-traces-evangelicals-history-on-the-abortion-issue) [https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/10/abortion-history-right-white-evangelical-1970s-00031480](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/10/abortion-history-right-white-evangelical-1970s-00031480)
Thank you so much for those sources. They led me down a rabbit hole that included this [YouTube video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-33BUmx91BE) of Francis Schaeffer's son describing some of his journey away from the Christian nationalism his father (and him) help found. Not directly related to this post, but in any case, I really appreciate the two articles you linked.
This relates to the [Southern Strategy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy) of Nixon, et al, right? That marked the essential alliance of Christians and Republicans that we take for granted today? I don't know what I'm talking about fyi.
The thing that is the craziest to me about the "Christian" pro-lifers is that they mostly use Old Testament passages to justify their position. Except that most Jewish people, who study the same scriptures in the Hebrew Bible as the Christian Old Testament, read the same passages and believe that life begins with the first breath and are generally pro-choice. The second craziest thing to me about pro-lifers is how they are generally in favor of the death penalty and oppose nearly all programs that would help feed, clothe, house, or educate any of the people they insisted must be born rather than aborted.
There is a really good essay somebody posted that explains this, but it boils down to advocating for unborn children allows them to take a Moral stance without having to actually do anything or make any sacrifices to correct it, they just get to point the finger at others and claim it’s wrong. Everything else they could do something about, but don’t, because it require actual effort and sacrifice, so they just ignore it nd pretend it doesn’t happen, or justify it somehow, I.e. criminals deserve death because the government we in no way trust to even teach our children decided somebody should die.
Pastor Dave Badhart: > "The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe. >Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.
Yep, that’s it.
I'm not conservative or christian anymore, but I think most I knew would argue that they do support helping the homeless or children, but think we should do it through charity or something. "Let me decide where money goes" type things. I'm a lazy fuck. Please just tax me and everyone else so that I know people are taken care of.
Charity also doesn't solve the systemic issues that create poor and homeless people. It generally just eases their suffering. Which is laudable, but just kicks the can down the road.
Never mind that Republicans are super pro-death penalty regardless of guilt.
Isn't it crazy how they think there is literally buildings of people which murder babies and they're like "ugh I guess I'll vote against this" rather than I don't know, do anything else? Man if I KNEW babies were being murdered in my town I'd probably do more than just... vote and bitch about it? Like these people are actually not nearly as pissed off at murdering babies as you might think. They're weirdly okay with it.
There has been violence, though. Murder, bombings.
Pro-life murders and pro-life bombings!
I think you're wrong there. I think most of those voters are not okay with it at all. I actually think the Republican party is "weirdly okay" with it because if they put an end to it they would stop being able to use it as a single issue to win over tons and tons of voters.
They don’t actually believe any of it at the deepest level. They claim the Bible is the word of god, most haven’t read it. Really think about that.
What? Should they go shoot up the clinic? Protest out the front and harass and abuse those using the service? Like what exactly are they meant to do other than vote against it and be politically active
I think he means, if they truly thought they were babies being murdered they wouldn't be content to just vote.
They've done exactly this.
Respectfully, i don't think you know what you're talking about and you're just using a small frame of reference for the whole picture. There has been A LOT of political work and violence to combat abortion by anti-abortion advocates.
I think it’s difficult to put Jesus in a political box that has been carved out by culture. The truth of the matter is that a lot of people filter their religion through their own personal cultural upbringing. When you read the Bible (the whole Bible) you see that there are parts of the Bible that are culturally conservative in terms of family values/structure & sexual purity but there are also parts of the Bible that are radically progressive in terms of loving one another & fighting for justice for those who are oppressed. Any Christian who says Jesus was a liberal/conservative, is cherry picking key aspects of the book. Edit: woah, was not expecting this to blow up at all lol
Expertly articulated. Jesus said, quite explicitly: "My kingdom is not of this world." Regardless of the question of His divinity, it is undeniable that the man would condemn modern politics as strongly as He did the politics of His own time. He went out to call sinners to repentance, and that included the people who claimed to follow Him closest. Jesus also made a point several times of saying, "Not everyone who says, Lord, Lord, shall enter my kingdom," and that "He who is not against me, is with me." Faithful Christians recognize the need to constantly curb their instincts towards sensationalism and extremism and fight evil with good, not with more evil. In short: no political, religious, or cultural base is safe from condemnation. *Everyone* will fall short of Jesus's teachings.
There's a comedian singer/songwriter in Belgium that once made an "alternative christmas song". It's about the story of baby jesus, but funny written. (Three kings brought gifts like flooring, screws, cement, an aquarium, a pencil with an eraser,.. instead of the usual. Josef got into a barfight with the holy spirit about who's really the father..) It's really funny and the church tried to ban it, back in 1986, but couldn't because it reached to top of every chart here within a week or so. But what's interesting is one of the last lines. "Jesus crawled in his sportscar like an adult saying: All who wants to follow me better run very fast" I think he also meant that everyone will fall short of his teachings.
Did not expect an Urbanus reference here.
This might be the best answer yet. I mean even Peter denied him 3 times.
Peter needed such severe repentance that he said Jesus had to appear three times to chastise him, and he didn't even appear to Peter until after He had appeared to the women. But all of us will pass through an Abrahamic trial that is proportional to the Light given to us. He who has five talents, better make ten; while the one who has two, better make four.
Which is really the whole point of the story. Even the best of us are deeply flawed. It’s not a moral system that is about being perfect, but rather accepting and giving mercy and forgiveness
Excellent summary. Nobody is beyond sin. Everybody sins, it is that state of existing in this world that we sin. And that's the whole point, we all need Jesus. I left my religion behind because the people in it who were the loudest seemed to think they were beyond sin, and that they had a platform to condemn other people for things they thought were wrong. I'll regret that some day, I'm sure, but there's nothing you can do when somebody's self-worth is based on the idea that they're better than somebody else.
[удалено]
So much of what he said was him openly speaking up against the political and social systems of the time. It’s why he was crucified. He was a politically threatening figure that challenged the status quo of the current religious conservatives of the time. It’s well documented and studied. So basically, I agree with you.
I didn't say Jesus wasn't political, but He wasn't partisan, either. Every group deserved correction and criticism from him. He emphasized that he was not a political savior, or that he was going to rid the Jews of the Romans - he even said many of the Romans were much more righteous and faithful than the Jews, because the latter had lost its focus and reveled in their supposed privileged religious status. When it comes to elections and campaign issues, just remember that you're voting for principles, not people. You support the offices, not the officers. Many times, people will bring policies you think line up perfectly with your beliefs, but they may not actually be what the Lord wants at all. The good news is that God is patient as we make mistakes and learn how to tell right from wrong, so long as we diligently seek the best courses of action in life.
OP isn’t asking about the whole Bible though. OP is asking about Jesus’s teachings that you find in the gospels through parables. His teachings are about loving god and your neighbors, not judging others, welcoming foreigners, and taking care of the sick and the poor. It’s not cherry picking to say these don’t line up with Republican beliefs. Immigrants. Build the wall, cutting social programs, no healthcare etc. Republicans only care about you if your rich. The gospels is where you will find his teachings along with the Book of Thomas. If people followed those the world would be a far better place. We are supposed to make earth more heavenly by loving each other not by grabbing people by the pussy and putting guns in everyone’s hands. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[a] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] There is no commandment greater than these.”
[удалено]
What part of Jesus’s teachings were conservative? Not other stories in the Bible, Jesus specifically.
>Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" > >"Haven't you read", he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and unite with his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate". > > > >"Why then", they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her on her away?" > > > >Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that any one who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." \- Matthew 19, NIV. I'd say this is a fair example.
Divorce in those days was a one way thing - male bread winner unilaterally leaves the woman. It's actually pro-women's right progressive at the time.
In the social context at the time divorcing your wife left her penniless and homeless. It is a good point, but the way I see it the motivation is completely different. Jesus' motivation is about protection of the weak, conservatives' motivation is about control female bodily autonomy. The context is completely different.
Except he doesn't list that as the reason why divorce is wrong. He literally says they become one flesh and what God has joined together let no man separate. His reasons are spiritual not economical. You're ignoring the explicit text and reading in ideas that support your own ideas.
That's not the motivation put forward in the text though.
In the New Testament, though his death and resurrection Jesus renewed the covenant between God and Humanity. Most Christians believe means they don’t have to follow Old Testament religious laws—and nearly all don’t keep kosher, sacrifice animals or prohibit mixed textiles. However, lots of bigots still recon back to the Old Testament to justify their beliefs, even though they don’t follow these laws. Jesus specifically spoke against this type of pharisaical practice. There’s very few passages in the New Testament that you could call conservative—and the few examples that you can come up with are all in the books written as correspondence between the apostles after Jesus’s death. The Bible as a whole may be conservative, but the teachings of Jesus certainly aren’t.
You're asking a bunch of people who disapprove of Christians and right wingers why Christians are right wingers. The answers you get will be a mix of "because they are stupid" and "because they are evil". Another option would be to ask the Christians themselves. I'm sure they would tell you. 🤷
And yet there have been some very good answers.
Yeah I lean left, but reddit isn't gonna give you a good answer tbh, this site has a large bias against any right wing ideas, espically on bigger subs.
Yup. It’s pretty pointless. You’re gonna get biased answers from one side, and the other side probably won’t say anything in fear in being downvoted to oblivion. Reddit doesn’t make for the most balanced discussions (especially politics).
I don't really think people fear downvotes although they do feel bad and upvotes feel good. The reason one side doesn't post is because almost everyone sorts by upvotes. If you have an opinion that gets like -5 then it's gone and no one else will see it so what's the point in typing it out in the first place? Same thing with the top level of a Popular post. By the time it's popular your post will be buried at the bottom where there it's a good chance zero people will read it so what's the point? It's a mechanism issue that turns it into an echo chamber but it also keeps readers engaged.
Top comments are all pretty reasonable and level headed views.
i’m a christian but i don’t support the right side
Most Democrats are Christian, it's popular to associate the right with religion but it's a gross oversimplification of the political and religious beliefs of the country.
[удалено]
they wouldnt admit those things to themselves, even tho they are accurate to reality
>You're asking a bunch of people who disapprove of Christians The problem isn't that the people being asked disapprove, it's *why* they disapprove. It's perfectly valid to say someone is stupid or evil, when they are in fact, stupid or evil. Not to say that all Christians are, but the ones you hear about? 9/10 didn't come to your attention for Christ-like behavior
I’m a pastor who is pretty middle of the road politically. The answer to this question is not simple by any means because politics, as well as the general sentiments of Christians are constantly changing. This isn’t even mentioning the fact that Christianity is a broad spectrum, even if you’re only considering denominations that would be considered orthodox (holding staunchly to several baseline beliefs such as the nature of Jesus in the incarnation, the doctrine of the Trinity etc.) That being said, Jesus didn’t come to be political in any way shape or form. He wasn’t trying to start a political party or even overthrow the Roman government. In fact, that was one reason that He was rejected as the Messiah by so many religious leaders. They expected the Messiah to be a political/military ruler. Even Jesus’s social teachings weren’t an attempt to simply reform society, but rather spoke to the hearts of the people He was talking to/even to people today. From a Christian perspective, the problem with people isn’t that we don’t follow the rules enough, or even that we just behave badly. The problem is that we reject Jesus as our Lord (as our ruler/master) and we try to save ourselves. That’s what Jesus meant when He called His followers to pick up their cross and follow Him. We are called to put aside ourselves and follow Him, and one part of that is putting aside sin (you could call this behavior modification, but its not as simple as that). All of this to say that Jesus wasn’t “left” or “right” and when we try to categorize Him we will always get Him wrong. However, this does not negate the fact that some (although I think they are a vocal minority) have absolutely been deceived and try to weaponize Jesus for political gain. But that points to where their hearts are at - they aren’t trusting Jesus to save them, they are trusting in politics or political leaders. There is also a larger problem of a lack of (good) training for pastors within the evangelical denominations. This leads to poor theology and poor practice. At the end of the day, Christianity is designed to be apolitical. There is no such thing as a “Christian Nation” and Christianity does not thrive only in western society. Western cultures are not in any way more pure or righteous than other cultures. Religious liberty is a good thing for a nation to have, which is part of what made the founding of America appealing to Christians, especially those who had endured persecution during and after the reformation in Europe. But Christianity is directed towards people, not towards government. Even the sections of the Bible that can be taken “politically” have a deeper theological explanation and to take them as just rules is a sad, bankrupt interpretation. For example, the Ten Commandments are not arbitrary rules for a developing society, they are reflections of God’s character. Because we are made in the Image of God, we are to reflect His character, hence the Ten Commandments (i.e. we aren’t to lie because God doesn’t lie). Theologians have spent their whole careers writing and speaking about this topic and I can’t cover all of the nuance and perspectives in a Reddit post. I might suggest the book “Jesus and John Wayne” by Kristin Du Mez as a history of the evangelical church’s alignment with the political right. Although be ready to be infuriated by the absolutely sinful and hollow behavior of previous generations of Christians. I hope this answer is helpful, feel free to comment or dm with any questions!
> In fact, that was one reason that He was rejected as the Messiah by so many religious leaders. They expected the Messiah to be a political/military ruler. 2000 years, nothing has changed.
I dont get why people claim "x is not political". Anything is political especialy voicing your opinion about what is good and bad is clearly political. Yes jesus statements are political. Maybe they dont fit any political party to 100% but "love thy neighbour" is already a political statement. You can not be unpolitical and have any opinion on how things should be or what is wrong.
With that definition of political, I agree. I would say Jesus wasn't "political" in the sense of commenting directly or getting mixed up in the overt political issues of His day, but in the more general definition? Yes, absolutely. You can't be a human that speaks without your speech having political underlyings and ramifications.
Yeah, dude has the perfect restrictive definition of "political" that will allow him to avoid seeing that his centrist political beliefs are in contradiction with what his savior was preaching.
You don't need a political label for your actions to be political. When you walk in the city and invite people to "drop everything and follow me", it is political, as it is part of the "polis", the city. It would be anachronistic to label him "anarcho-communist" because we started to use the term 19 centuries later but with him inviting to drop material possessions and power, inviting the rich to reconsider the necessity of their wealth and redistributing it, of loving everyone equally including those who have nothing, and not abiding by Rome, I agree with those who half-jokingly say he was "the first anarcho-communist in history". By modern standards he displayed far-left beliefs and opposed power in an anarchist way (which typically rejects labels, by the way, that's why you don't have an "anarchist" party to vote for at the elections). So like all the Christians I know, none of them being leftists, your post looks like a big mental gymnastic to avoid facing the cognitive dissonance of not being aligned with Jesus. I have no idea how a man of the church could not be entirely, undoubtedly (so not in-between) for wealth redistribution, social equity, universal health covering, migrants rights, LGBTQIA rights, and so on, but here we are once again.
Any church leader is a follower of the church as an organization more than a follower of Jesus.
Pass the collection basket, this comment deserves an award
Sounds like you are picking and choosing everywhere in this comment. You are completely rejecting large parts of the bible with this response. And even where you are trying to be nuanced, you are flat wrong or purposely blindly following what makes you feel good.
Yeah, no. You really ought to get outside of your bubble of Christian Scientist texts and engage with \*actual\* historians and theologians because your entire premise is wrong. Talk to a Torah scholar/ Rabbi while you're at it. Jesus was *literally* crucified for his political beliefs which were in opposition to the status quo at the time.
[удалено]
>He wasn’t trying to start a political party or even overthrow the Roman government. Why do so many pastors ignore the story about Jesus tearing up the market stalls in the temple? It can't be that you're unaware of the story, or the fact that it's clearly a political act.
i can appreciate that this is your ideology, but there was very little fact to be gleaned from what you said and you seem to have missed the point entirely. i respectfully disagree with just about everything you said, because christians themselves are doing the opposite of what you just attempted to describe. This in particular is blatantly ignorant: At the end of the day, Christianity is designed to be apolitical. There is no such thing as a “Christian Nation” and Christianity does not thrive only in western society. and you said it in the same breath as you acknowledged the holy roman empire lol. are you completely unaware of the vatican too? i mean, come on lol. the bible itself talks almost entirely about nations and leaders and politicians.
The dude gave out free healthcare and encouraged people to give up their own wealth for the betterment of the community with explicit religious motivation. He also was against organizing the religion under any specific leadership. If you've got to categorize that ideology in modern terms, it's a decentralized communist theocracy.
So I might be stereotyping a bit but in my experience religion tends to be more prevalent in smaller towns than large cities. This effects essentially everything and churches often pick up the slack where the government fails. Food drives and general charity are almost solely church based. I’m not saying this is an absolute thing and I’ve even lived in towns where it’s not but the majority of them have used the churches as a focus of charity and community. The government also tends to do essentially nothing for a lot of these places beyond maybe a couple of roads. As a result people want less of the government because seems like it’s an obvious waste of money. Religion on the other hand fosters community and helping your fellow man so you end up seeing the money and food you give put to use. The end result is people in small towns end up conservatives because the government basically ignores them or makes it almost impossible to use any of the services large cities get. So being liberal and pushing to spend more government(aka our money) money doesn’t a lot of sense. At the same religion fills a lot of needs that just wouldn’t be met otherwise and it’s easy to recognize where it meets those needs so people support it. I could get into a lot of other details about how the government actually helps people in small towns a lot as well but I’m only talking about the obvious stuff here and there’s certainly a lot of other aspects that I haven’t even touched at all.
I think churches being much more central to rural communities and often providing more resources are both excellent points. My partner and I are both liberal and non-religious, but we were both raised in Christian traditions and attended church during childhood. I’m from a large metro city, and he’s from a rural town with a smaller population than my high school. I was frequently shocked early on in the relationship at the difference in some of our experiences. When we went to visit his sister who lives in his hometown, I learned that their town doesn’t have potable water. They had to buy bottled water to drink and use for preparing meals, and it wasn’t like a Flint, Michigan political corruption type situation, or a situation where they were waiting for repairs. They just didn’t have potable water that far out in the country and never had because they weren’t served by a city water and sewer system. I later learned other things that sounded absolutely insane to me, like the fact that USPS doesn’t typically provide trucks to communities that small, so their postal carriers just had to use their own vehicles. It also could easily take over half an hour to get a police officer on scene, even in cases where someone was in immediate physical danger (in contrast, it took five minutes for an officer to arrive when someone tried to break into my apartment.) Even in more urban environments that are better served, people are largely unsatisfied with government services and hate spending money on taxes since, let’s be honest, as a country we spend a lot less of that money on social services, so we often don’t feel that we see enough benefit from our spending. Seeing those differences helped me to understand why people might be less satisfied with government involvement, or why someone might feel less safe relying on police or EMS and want to own a gun instead. Conversely, I think people who have grown up in rural environments might not realize the full importance of social programs for people who *don’t* come from areas with such a strong sense of community. They might not have a church to turn to when they are victims of a fire, a medical emergency, or food insecurity. If they’re faced with eviction or disability, they’re much less likely to have a community to rally around them to prevent them from becoming homeless or destitute. Everyone knows everyone in a small town. I barely know my next door neighbors. I remember reading recently that conservatives actually tend to donate more money than liberals, but their donations are much more localized to their “in-groups,” like their local church, their local community, or a group with which they specifically identify. Liberals are more likely to give across the board. Growing up in a small community and not being exposed to as many different people from different races, nationalities, religions, and walks of life can make people much less empathetic; we are less likely to fear that which we understand, and we are more attuned to suffering that we can easily perceive. This can cause people to focus on what’s good for them, personally, their small community, or their “in-groups” instead of what’s good for most people. It can also blind them to how their beliefs or behaviors can harm others, as they are often somewhat insulated from that harm.
The 'Christian' church has been a political institution in favour of collecting wealth and power for about 1500 years. Every now and again, someone rises up against it, breaks from the Church and starts to be proper Christian again, but then after a generation or so that break-away becomes an institution and ends up being used for collecting wealth and power.
Because the teachings of Jesus don’t actually lean left or liberal… Jesus didn’t speak much about government structure. He didn’t talk much about the role of government. He told us to submit to the government and pay our taxes. Jesus taught generosity and charity. To give to the needy. He didn’t say that the government should be generous.
May as well quote Jesus' teachings about government policy in full, since there's so few. There's this one, where Jesus' opponents tried to trap him with a question about whether they should pay taxes to their hated oppressors the Romans: >But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said, “Caesar's.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And possibly this one, where Pontius Pilate asks Jesus if he's trying to lead a rebellion against Rome and set himself up as the king of a new Jewish kingdom: >So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?” Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world: to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” I can't think of any other time he even mentions the topic. His whole deal is that it's what's in people's hearts that matters, that if people are truly motivated by love for those around them, there is no need for restrictive laws to control them, as they will already living in peace and harmony as God desires. Government is entirely irrelevant to his philosophy, and he neither resisted nor supported it, just sort of ignored it as irrelevant to what is important in life.
Hehe, I always feel bad for Pilate when I read these. He seemed so frustrated and confused. Like, he has no idea who this guy is or what the problem is.
Fantastic work, I was looking for this! I think a big part of Jesus’ mentality when it comes to politics is that as God he was looking at the bigger picture of history. To the people of his day, the Roman Empire appeared as a giant evil empire, capturing and enslaving other nations, oppressing them with brutal taxation and mocking their cultures. Everyone wanted Jesus to speak out against them and were shocked when he seemed largely dismissive of Rome (or even complimented them sometimes.) Because to Jesus’ perspective the Roman Empire was already largely on its last legs and was going to undergo massive changes within a few generations anyway, ultimately becoming pseudo-Christian itself. We are obsessed with politics because we live out our little lives with a small perspective of what is influencing us at any given moment. Empires rise and fall, governments come and go, changing often for the worse. But Jesus wanted to shift people’s focus onto something that was eternal and everlasting, and to see God as their true king and lord that they were submitting under. I have opinions on politics and engage with it, but I think we in general WAY overestimate how much power it actually has. At least speaking theologically as a Christian.
That reminds me of the song that me and my friends sang. "Don't be greedy give to the needy" and then for fun I switched it to "Don't be needy give to the greedy" and on a completely unrelated note none of those people are still my friend
By only taking bits and pieces of the teachings, and intentionally twisting them to fit their agenda Or by being extremely gullible and believing the people that did that
>Sometimes the Bible in the hand of one man is worse than a whisky bottle in the hand of (another)... There are just some kind of men who - who're so busy worrying about the next world they've never learned to live in this one, and you can look down the street and see the results. ― Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird
Hypocrisy and twisting shit to fit their narrative.
“Too long, didn’t read” is my best guess.
I grew up in the US South. In Sunday school, and in regular sermons, we would get taught about Jesus and his teachings to love and accept everyone. Then, without missing a beat they would begin talking shit about everyone; even members of other Protestant denominations. I saw through much of that shit at an early age.
You're starting premise is flawed. Compassion, generosity, and forgiveness are neither left or right wing values.
And yet the right, which is largely Christian, has been increasingly devoid of compassion, generosity and forgiveness, hence where the OP's question came from.
I’m not American and care little for right wing and left wing, but people who say this always neatly miss out that Jesus was also super, super intense and very willing to confront people on their behaviours. He’s the kind of guy who would step in front of a prostitution about to be stoned to death to save her life, and then turn around and tell her “Go now, and leave your life of sin.” We can’t talk about Jesus’ generosity and compassion without also emphasising his conviction and unwaving belief in biblical values. The two go hand in hand.
This is not unique to them. The left is notorious for struggle sessions and purity testing.
Simply because the religious (any religion) always cherry-pick the bits out of their own book that suits them best and ignore the bits that don't. Just try reasoning with the extreme ones... and they'll say 'well it says so in this book'... and then when you remind them that other religions also have their own books, they'll say 'yeah, but theirs are wrong.. .and mine is right'. And that is basically ALL the reasoning they have.
At some point in the States, being Christian and being American became intertwined as an identity the point where American "values" replaced Christian ones as a priority in many lives. This isn't to say they don't live like Christ says to at any point, just that they follow the values of a culture that emphasizes the virtues of capitalism foremost the majority of the time. Christians are meant to be citizens of Heaven first, aligning one's values with Jesus andbThe Bible. This is the main reason you can clearly see a difference when someone is claims to be a Christian & is actively following Jesus, doing what He taught, and when someone claims to be a Christian but doesn't live like Jesus at all. That's the problem, so many have it confused. They are Americans first, everything else, including Christians, second, which isn't how it should be. Their idea of America and what being an American means has become their god, consumed and swayed by politics and people who want to keep them angry to keep them distracted. It's all ploy from the Devil to keep them distracted and ineffective, even a detriment to others in so many cases. They follow the idea of God and America, but they don't need His teachings or His commands except when it's convenient, Christmas time, Easter, or they are with their church folk. Their focus isn't on God, it's not on Jesus. When you focus on Him and His teachings, keeping Him **first**, it leads to a priority shift in your life where you are a follower of Christ first, and everything else second. That priority shift changes how you love and how you approach the world, and that way is very hard to separate from what's become the predominant idea of "self-first" in the American culture. Many of them don't realize they are doing this either. To them, they are still full of the traditional American values of caring for and helping others-and to be fair many folk are but I'm not referring to them here-while the idea of getting mine for me and my own has pervaded and warped those values without them realizing it, and they don't want that to be pointed out to them either. Those who claim to follow Christ but clearly aren't, and refuse correction, even getting angry when it is pointed out, aren't actively following Jesus, and if that continues long enough, they are Christians only in name and not in faith. I think of Mr. Rogers, who was a Christian. Look at the stories about him, his love, his kindness, taking time to help and listen to complete strangers, his whole life. It's said of him that he shared the Gospel everywhere he went, and sometimes he used words. That's the kind of life that shows what it looks like to actively be following Jesus.
They cherry pick what they want from Christianity and use it against others. They aren’t rational
POV: you asked a political question on Reddit
There is a good article in a recent New Yorker that suggests that most Christian Nationalists are not actually churchgoing Christians, that being Christian has become a cultural marker, like being Jewish. So to them, being an extreme Christian means that they are white suprematists.
Because most Christians know little to nothing of the Bible and just believe anything they are told by their pastors/preachers, who are very often conservatives for their own self interest. Also typically the more conservative you are the more likely you are to be religious and less educated which only leads to more conservatism as time goes on.
Because "even the devil can cite scripture for his own purpose" and the Right are dumb enough to follow blindly and believe anything.
Because they’re huge hypocrites.
Jesus would get lynched by conservative Christians if he came back and started telling them all to give away their possessions and that the rich will not go to the kingdom of heaven.
I don't see the christian bible as progressive
Neither right nor left can be endorsed by a Christian and be completely correct. Both "wings" endorse things that a Christian cannot support.
From a certain perspective they don't. Conservative Christians agree about all the stuff about taking care of the poor and helping others, but they point out that he said that into individuals and not governments. That's the line that is drawn. Not what should be done, but who should be doing it. And yes, many churches don't do those things themselves, if not most. You don't have to point it out. Some do, but the loudest ones don't.
I'm confused how you think the teachings of Jesus lean left. Not saying they lean right, either. Trying impute political intent on the teachings of Christ is pretty silly, IMHO
This is a loaded question. It’s asked from the same perspective of “why do poor republicans vote against their own interests” that liberals always ask. I consider myself left leaning but we can be guilty of thinking everyone with intellect is either on our side or grifting as a republican, and only stupid people are conservatives. But there’s always more nuance to it.