221

[Disclaimer] - I am not an American and I consider myself atheist, I am Caucasian and born in a pre-dominantly Christian country.

Based on my limited knowledge of Christianity, it is all about social justice, compassion and peace.

And I was always wondering how come Republicans are perceiving themselves as devout Christians while the political party they support is openly opposing those virtues and if this doesn't make them hypocrites?

For them the mortal enemy are the lefties who are all about social justice, helping the vulnerable and the not so fortunate and peace.

Christianity sounds to me a lot more like socialist utopia.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Because moral values don’t come from religious texts. They are transmitted socially and economically. The texts are then used to justify whatever belief system the believer subscribes to.

The real origin of these right-wing beliefs is an interesting question. They arise from a complex cultural and historical process that stems from the material conditions of both ancestral and present-day cultural groupings. My suspicion is that they arose because in these societies, the most successful reproductive and political strategies center around dominance hierarchies. Materially successful people are able to out-compete, out-reproduce, kill, or otherwise coerce people in their societies to adopt values and norms that justify and protect their social dominance and oppression. Even those on the bottom of these hierarchies, like women or the poor must adopt such values or be excluded or attacked.

There are also competing groups that either oppose such hierarchies or have adopted them to a lesser extent. It is from these groups that many Christian ideas originated. In general they tend to originate in urban areas—I suspect this is because there are more opportunities for people to escape from others who wish to dominate them as compared to agrarian societies where access to land or livestock can be monopolized by the powerful. Anonymity and cultural diversity in cities also allow the weak to more easily inflict violence on their dominators without suffering social consequences.

But over time, Christianity spread widely enough that people with different values adopted them. In other cases, the descendants of these anti-hierarchical Christians adopted hierarchical values for various reasons listed above. As the economic and political conditions of society change, people must adapt or die. Unfortunately, some of these adaptations can be harmful to society as a whole even as they benefit their adopters.

[-] TruthAintEasy@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago
[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 years ago

I got a lot of these ideas from the What is Politics podcast/YouTube series. If you’d like to hear more like this, I highly recommend it. Kind of an odd presentation style, and I don’t agree with all of the takes but overall it’s very well researched and thought provoking. It’s not specifically about Christianity but the same forces are at play.

[-] TruthAintEasy@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago

Well well, a new thing for me! Hopefully we can trade: have you heard of 'some more news' also of youtube? I really like the cody showdy

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago

Conservatives/Republicans support power structures external to government for guidance on morality and charity. This gives religions power. Democrats/liberals support using the government directly for everything. This reduces the power of religion.

[-] Jimmycakes@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

It's just a trick to get votes they are as heathen as they come. Since Christians believe in made up bullshit they are easy to trick out of money and votes. It's really not any deeper than that.

[-] TheBananaKing@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

Christianity is not about compassion and peace.

Forget utilitarian ethics altogether. Think of a twisted version of virtue ethics, where the only virtue is power.

Narcissism and sociopathy flows downwards from the top, submission and people-pleasing flows upwards from the bottom.

From the top down, having power makes you virtuous, and exercising power reflects that virtue.

If you are in a position of privilege and power, if you can kill people and take their stuff and get away with it, that marks you as powerful and to-be-feared, and therefore admirable.

If you are some kind of peasant, the opposite applies: you must be a submissive people-pleaser or face severe punishment.

If you're somewhere inbetween, you do both: oppress those below you, and grovel to those above you. This is virtue on both fronts.

That's conservative morality in a nutshell.

Christianity endorses this structure wholesale. It pats the peasants on the head and tells them they'll be rewarded (one day, not today) for being good little people-pleasers, and puts a final boss at the very top of the org chart so that the powerful can do some token groveling-upwards, and so the peasants have someone else to grovel to when nobody's around. It fits hand-in-glove with everything conservatives love.

Compassion-mercy-and-peace is just marketing spin clipped from the instructions for people-pleasing. Go along to get along, be helpful, don't rock the boat.

You'll notice that the core concept of christianity is earning tolerance from the powerful despite complete degradation. You are utterly worthless garbage and deserve to be tortured with fire forever; only via the sacrifice of an actual god can you can be promoted to salvage - though of course this status remains a completely undeserved gift that you should be overwhelmed with gratitude for.

Like a cop deciding not to murder you this time round: you are so blessed, now pick up that can.

Of course they love it.

[-] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

That's a very simple and incorrect view of Christianity. Has the overwhelming majority of Christian history been an example of all the antisocial behavior you described? Yes.

That said, whoever the historical Jesus was, the early followers of his movement were radicals who were opposed to the existing power structure and who said you should love your neighbor as yourself. That if someone strikes you on one cheek you should turn and let them strike the other. That might sound trite now, but that's because it's been a very successful idea. And I'm not saying that it's original to Christianity or whoever Jesus was. But Christianity certainly did a lot to popularize it.

That strain of radical pro-social behavior has been woven all throughout Christian history, but at the same time every type of atrocity and abuse of power has been done in the name of Christianity because it was very quickly adopted and co-opted by the powerful.

Even if we grant that Christianity had a powerful message of love, it was inevitable it wouldn't be sustainable, because having an incorrect model of the world ("there is an all powerful creator of the world who is personally interested in my day to day life") will result in counterproductive behavior ("I should follow directions from this guy who says he's in direct communication with the creator"). But I wrote all this because the idea of loving other people and offering them grace is valuable, it's one thing we can think of as positive from Christianity, and it can thrive in other ecosystems of ideas besides theism.

[-] TheBananaKing@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

"Slaves, obey your masters" is not radically opposing the existing power structure. Nowhere will you find a single instruction to disobey the powerful, or hold them to account.

Like I say, people-pleasing behaviour is definitely in there; Matthew 5 is all about not having any boundaries. But you'll notice it's not aimed at powers or principalities, nowhere does it suggest that masters should not beat their slaves or that kings should not retaliate to acts of war - and they're certainly not for god himself, who absolutely would not forgive anyone for their ancestors' disobedience without a major blood sacrifice, thus that whole crucifixion thing you might be vaguely aware of (though admittedly it's pretty niche, hidden deep in the lore somewhere). Those instructions are for the little people, to keep them in their lane.

Which is not, to be extremely clear, to suggest that I'm some kind of randroid fuck who considers altruism to be a weakness; very much the opposite. We could have a much better world if more people would be nicer to each other even when they didn't have to be.

It's just that one-way altruism imposed in the context of a rigidly-endorsed social hierarchy just ain't it. If the poor have to do all the heavy nice-peopling while a bunch of rich untouchable assholes work them to death and torture them for lulz, that would fit more into your whole late-stage-capitalism kind of bullshit - and christianity does not one fucking thing to combat that, while actively propping it up round the edges.

[-] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

To be clear, I'm an atheist now, and don't endorse Christianity.

You're right that Jesus was not calling for violent resistance. Neither was Gandhi or MLK, but that wasn't an endorsement of those in power.

Christian teachings were radical in their time because they rejected eye for an eye and taught that it wasn't enough to love someone who loves you, but to love your enemies.

"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, 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.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“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.’"

Of course then he goes on to talk about people who didn't help those in need being punished in the afterlife.

As I commented and you're well aware, Christianity does not result in an overall sustainable world view. And if you want someone who says "we should forcefully overthrow those in power" then no, Jesus didn't say that. But his ideas (or whoever they really came from) are transformational, and the OP is justified in asking, "hey why is Christianity like this now?" My argument is that it's because the set of ideas was flawed from the start, rather than that it's a set of ideas made with the intention to dominate and exploit from the beginning.

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

Control and conformity. Pseudo-morality.

The control is pretty standard stuff that goes with the authoritarian nature of religion. They place a person in charge who, like the deity, has all the answers and solves all the problems, so long as you believe and support them unquestioningly. If you’re not smart enough to sort out the system that you’ve been told is deliberately complicated and “rigged” you just listen to the Big Man and he’ll sort it all out for you.

Conformity is making the in-group and out-groups. The in-group demands loyalty and support. The out-groups are anyone else you want them to be. Immigrants. Minorities. Other religious groups. Political opponents. It’s ridiculously blatant in US republicans where even if their wives or themselves are personally insulted by their leader they still support and vote for the group. You must conform. If you’re not with us, you’re against us. Very binary thought.

Religion offers the moral angle as well. Despite American Christians, particularly evangelicals, claiming to support Christian ideals they objectively and subjectively do not. The list is too long to process here, but basic greed, hatred, violence, and all the rest of what most of us would consider anti-Christian values are at the forefront of the more outspoken religious Right. Yet they’ve been raised and told that the “godless Left” have no morals, if you’re not religious you can’t have morals, and whatever other tripe that allows them to accomplish the mental gymnastics they go through to claim moral superiority while doing things like making sure migrants drown in rivers trying to cross illegally into the US.

The hypocrisy and mental gymnastics engaged in by the American Right in many facets of their workings, not just their feigned religion, is mind-boggling. They’ve gone so far past the available superlatives describing their hypocrisy and greed that you just have to throw up your hands in disgust and walk away before it drives you crazy.

[-] LopensLeftArm@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago

They're the most fervent Protestant Christians certainly. I'd say the Catholic demographic probably leans more heavily toward the Democratic party, and the Orthodox will vary by jurisdiction.

[-] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

As a Christian (albeit not American), no clue. I think it's mainly on single issue problems such as abortion or sexual immorality, to be honest.

Although it could also be a loud minority problem, where the actual Christians are less outspoken. Who knows.

[-] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

Personally I think the single issue stuff is just a bonus to the actual connection. My opinion is that it's entirely performative at the top, and the people at the bottom have been fooled.

[-] watson387@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 years ago

The bible is full of so many contradictions and so much vague bs. They use it with their pretzel logic to justify whatever atrocity they're into at the time. A lot of them are also narcissists. They're self-important because they're trying to do "god's will."

[-] unmagical@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago

Every week they gather and listen to a man telling them what to believe, unquestionably, and without evidence.

Then a politician comes along and tells them more things to believe, unquestionably, and without evidence.

[-] 31337@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago

This isn't really true. A lot of Democrat voters are also Christian. If by "fervent," you mean "hateful," this may be more true. A large percentage of Democrat voters are also Christian, but not as hard-line about LGBT issues, and perhaps not as hard-line about abortion.

The type of Christians that Republicans court are easy to persuade and control. Religion has historically been used to create in-groups and out-groups, and as a form of control.

If one were to take the Christian bible at face-value, they would oppose things like sexual freedom. Most leftists/socialists think about intersectionality, so they would be opposed to people who have the "morals" of many Christians.

[-] crispy_kilt@feddit.de 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I am Caucasian

Are you actually from the Caucasus, like Georgia, Armenia, etc, or do you use the word to mean "European or descendent of Europeans"? Because the USA likes to use the word to mean European-like, which is incorrect, as the caucasus is a very specific region in the border of Europe and Asia.

[-] xor 4 points 2 years ago

You're right about where the Caucasus is, but the generally accepted meaning - both in the US and Europe - is white European ancestry, not just those from the Caucasus.

[-] crispy_kilt@feddit.de 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I am from Europe, and fluent in several European languages. In all of those Caucasian means person from the Caucasus. The usage to mean European is exclusively an USA thing.

[-] xor 2 points 2 years ago

Thank you for your assumption that I am not, in fact, European.

However, given I'm from one of the few European countries that speak English as their primary language, I can categorically say you're wrong.

[-] crispy_kilt@feddit.de 2 points 2 years ago

Alright, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Link me to a dictionary of your country's version of English that lists "caucasian" with the exclusive meaning of "European or descendent of Europeans", or something to that effect.

[-] xor 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=caucasian+meaning

Oh wow, that first result sure does say exactly that

Edit: interestingly, lmgtfy actually gets a different response to googling it directly in the UK for me 🤔

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/caucasian#:~:text=Caucasian%20in%20British%20English&text=adjective-,1.,noun

[-] crispy_kilt@feddit.de 2 points 2 years ago

Not a dictionary, thus not a credible source.

Let me help you out:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race

"The Caucasian race is an obsolete racial classification of humans based on a now-disproven theory of biological race. [...] In the United States, the root term Caucasian is still in use as a synonym for white or of European, Middle Eastern, or North African ancestry, a usage that has been criticized."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race

I understand why you might think Caucasian to mean something else despite person from the Caucasus despite being European: the US version of English is influential, due to the size of the country and the popularity of their media. Some British people have started saying "TV series" instead of "programme", for example, due to the influence of the US. You probably heard and read the adjective almost always in the incorrect US usage, because a) other nations don't obsess over ethnicity and b) the actual Caucasus not exactly being a common topic in the media. Hence, when you do hear the word, it is used the way the USA does, incorrectly.

[-] xor 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I additionally linked to the specifically British edition of Collins as well for your benefit, which is, in fact, a dictionary. Seriously, trust me, if you go up to 5 Brits and ask them what Caucasian means, they will almost certainly all answer "white".

Wikipedia, also, is not a dictionary.

It's also pretty damn rude to classify the American usage as "incorrect", you're not the arbiter of what "real" English is.

[-] crispy_kilt@feddit.de 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Well, they're wrong. The Caucasus is where Georgia, Armenia and other countries are. Caucasians are people from the Caucasus.

Another academic source: "White, European, Western, Caucasian, or what? Inappropriate labeling in research on race, ethnicity, and health." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1509085

There is more: "Though discredited as an anthropological term and not recommended in most editorial guidelines, it is still heard and used, for example, as a category on forms asking for ethnic identification. It is also still used for police blotters (the abbreviated Cauc may be heard among police) and appears elsewhere as a euphemism. Its synonym, Caucasoid, also once used in anthropology but now dated and considered pejorative, is disappearing."

https://books.google.com/books?id=_hZHAAAAMAAJ

The United States National Library of Medicine discontinued usage in favor of the more narrow geographical term European, which traditionally only applied to a subset of Caucasoids. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/techbull/nd03/nd03_med_data_changes.html

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] FunkyMonk@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
221 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

35985 readers
1555 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS