Does "progressive Christianity" lead to conservative policy?

[Infected Mushroom]

If our country could actually produce candidates that weren't a choice between worse and worse maybe our political culture would be healthier, but it's not. It's divisive and forces people to make choices they wouldn't make under any other circumstance. Our system is not representative, and there should be greater, valid choices for the candidacy.

If you actually look into Hillary Clinton's life she's a pretty remarkable person, if it wasn't for the gut vilification by a religion that has whacked out ideas of a women's place in life given traditional 'family values', if one could assess her with a rational mind, she was way less an evil than Trump if not the great majority of people by far.

Jesus was a progressive, his approach compared to that of the OT God is massively progressive, his approach was about compassion and forgiveness over severe retribution, he wasn't about 'build that wall'.

Look at who the attack dogs go after, Clinton, Pelosi, Ocasio-Cortez and the squad..

Religion's long history of suppressing women alone.. that's essentially where issues such as abortion stem from, gay marriage.

As i said earlier, I have no problems with Christianity as long as they stick to the point, your relationship with God is personal, between you and Him, it's about not judging as opposed to judging the fuck out of anyone who doesn't fit in with a view that has been made up for you by those who want to cling to power in this world, on this earth.

Christians should be about the most progressive people on the planet, in large part they're very much not and that leads to utterly sinful people, across all 7 of them, such as Trump taking advantage of it.

I really wish, for once, there was just one Christian who was like.. 'yeah, my beliefs belong to me and my God, and don't affect other people', even Jesus said 'render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar' because the affairs of humans on earth are a choice given to them by God.

Churches should be a holy place where you go and have a conversation with God in peace and quiet, not hear the mad rantings of someone extracting a vast fortune out of those who attend.

And same for any religion, it really wouldn't be a problem and you wouldn't feel under attack if you kept your religious beliefs out of the public sphere, certainly not to use them to carry out some vendetta against progressive values.

If Christianity got back to what it should be it would, indeed, be a good thing.

I guess it's getting better though.. just that in the US specifically, capitalism has got a hold of it and the madder and more 'entertain-y' you are, the more money you make.

Progressive Christianity isn't leading to conservative policy, the vast riches you can earn from exploiting Christians is.

Describing Jesus/God whether NT or OT as a “progressive” of any kind is stretching the word well beyond max capability.

Christianity, when looked at closely and taken to a serious level, is literally incompatible with the liberal-leaning political tenants of the mainstream 21st century.

If people can condone eternal torment in the afterlife, punishment for thought crimes against God, acts of mass execution by individuals obeying God in the OT, promote total and absolute submission to a higher power and carve out such a massive exception for rights… how do you expect this to be compatible with progressivism?

You’d have to perform lots of mental gymnastics.

…

And you’re disregarding the history of the religion which has always been one of expansionism and absolute control, tying massively into a European colonial history.

[Bombadil]

If you actually look into Hillary Clinton's life she's a pretty remarkable person, if it wasn't for the gut vilification by a religion that has whacked out ideas of a women's place in life given traditional 'family values', if one could assess her with a rational mind, she was way less an evil than Trump if not the great majority of people by far.

Jesus was a progressive, his approach compared to that of the OT God is massively progressive, his approach was about compassion and forgiveness over severe retribution, he wasn't about 'build that wall'.

Look at who the attack dogs go after, Clinton, Pelosi, Ocasio-Cortez and the squad..

Religion's long history of suppressing women alone.. that's essentially where issues such as abortion stem from, gay marriage.

As i said earlier, I have no problems with Christianity as long as they stick to the point, your relationship with God is personal, between you and Him, it's about not judging as opposed to judging the fuck out of anyone who doesn't fit in with a view that has been made up for you by those who want to cling to power in this world, on this earth.

Christians should be about the most progressive people on the planet, in large part they're very much not and that leads to utterly sinful people, across all 7 of them, such as Trump taking advantage of it.

I really wish, for once, there was just one Christian who was like.. 'yeah, my beliefs belong to me and my God, and don't affect other people', even Jesus said 'render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar' because the affairs of humans on earth are a choice given to them by God.

Churches should be a holy place where you go and have a conversation with God in peace and quiet, not hear the mad rantings of someone extracting a vast fortune out of those who attend.

And same for any religion, it really wouldn't be a problem and you wouldn't feel under attack if you kept your religious beliefs out of the public sphere, certainly not to use them to carry out some vendetta against progressive values.

If Christianity got back to what it should be it would, indeed, be a good thing.

I guess it's getting better though.. just that in the US specifically, capitalism has got a hold of it and the madder and more 'entertain-y' you are, the more money you make.

Progressive Christianity isn't leading to conservative policy, the vast riches you can earn from exploiting Christians is.

Describing Jesus/God whether NT or OT as a “progressive” of any kind is stretching the word well beyond max capability.

Christianity, when looked at closely and taken to a serious level, is literally incompatible with the liberal-leaning political tenants of the mainstream 21st century.

If people can condone eternal torment in the afterlife, punishment for thought crimes against God, acts of mass execution by individuals obeying God in the OT, promote total and absolute submission to a higher power and carve out such a massive exception for rights… how do you expect this to be compatible with progressivism?

You’d have to perform lots of mental gymnastics.

…

And you’re disregarding the history of the religion which has always been one of expansionism and absolute control, tying massively into a European colonial history.

It amazes me you teach English.

[Salus Maior]

It amazes me you teach English.

It doesn't to me.

[Waldenes]

Going off the thread title, I suppose it depends. In my case, however, I think I can safely say “no” considering I used to be a conservative Christian and now I am quite progressive.

[Czechostan]

For a thread with the name "Does 'progressive Christianity' lead to conservative policy?" there's been very little talk of that. I guess that's not surprising for NSG. No concrete examples or case studies pitched by the OP, just the vacuous Trump story.

I will admit, I find the points about the fluctuation of conservatism relative; the word "conservatism" fools us into thinking it's something immutable, but conservatism changes as much as the status quo changes. Like the OP says that conservatives used to fawn over capitalism, but they could go even farther and point out that before, it was conservatives who opposed capitalism and embraced feudalism or plantation economies.

And incidentally, I think this trend makes for an excellent counter point against the OP's premise. Since conservatism changes, is it really difficult to imagine conservatives eventually incorporating more progressive policies into their ideology and defending them? Let's take LGBT issues for instance. Trump's claimed he's taken unprecedented steps to protect the LGBT community. I think reality shows the opposite, but the fact that he's saying this is a huge symbolic gesture. And even with younger conservatives and a lot of conservatives on NSG, you'll see a great deal of them find nothing wrong with being LGBT, even if they still support the enforcement of other gender/sexual norms.

OP also brings up:

So in other, semi-related threads the alternative people are touting is that it's better to "reform" Christianity than try to abolish it; that you're more likely to see people embrace progressive Christianity, and even sustain it without it falling into the hands of demagogues like Trump, than see people willingly abandon it altogether. I'd be curious as to what more specific reasoning points in either direction.

Firstly, I'd like to say, let's face it, people adopting conservative values as they grow older isn't unique to Christianity. So if you're concern is that a progressive Christian might turn into a conservative Christian, you can just drop "Christian" out of the equation, unless you're specifically aiming for some progressive Christian society.

Secondly, I can't speak much for this phenomenon, but in my case, I can say it's because I've generally prioritized my politics over my religion. I changed my political positions, then worked backwards to justify it theologically. So it should be of little surprise that I eventually abandoned my faith altogether. For someone who values religion over politics, I'm sure their political views are much more intransigent, and that goes for both evangelicals and new age hippies with high religiosity.

I'm fairly pragmatic, so I see no problem with people adopting more progressive and left-y views at the behest of their religion. Nor do I see these people as especially prone to slipping into conservative, or their presence as somehow leading to a conservative shift. Most importantly, I'm not an antitheist, so I don't see religion as something toxic or detrimental to society; if you want to be a good practitioner of religion, it often involves transcending politics and moving beyond such labels as "progressive" or "conservative," since you become more concerned with serving God than getting bogged down in petty political squabbles.

[Esternial]

I really wish, for once, there was just one Christian who was like.. 'yeah, my beliefs belong to me and my God, and don't affect other people', even Jesus said 'render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar' because the affairs of humans on earth are a choice given to them by God.

If it makes you feel any better: my mother (Catholic) is like this, and she's a catechist. All she ever taught me and others is compassion and love.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

I will admit, I find the points about the fluctuation of conservatism relative; the word "conservatism" fools us into thinking it's something immutable, but conservatism changes as much as the status quo changes.

But Trump didn't just stick to the status quo either. At least not on all issues.

Which leaves the question of whether conservatism and liberalism are definable at all.

Firstly, I'd like to say, let's face it, people adopting conservative values as they grow older isn't unique to Christianity.

What's your reasoning for this happening at all? I wasn't referring to individuals becoming more conservative with age, I was referring to religion that lured people in with progressive-sounding messaging getting hijacked by the right. If individuals became more conservative with age, you'd think decreasing birthrates would ensure Republican victories...

So if you're concern is that a progressive Christian might turn into a conservative Christian, you can just drop "Christian" out of the equation, unless you're specifically aiming for some progressive Christian society.

Nah. I'm aiming for a more progressive one, especially on economic issues and stem cells. I'm not sure how much I'd care if it were also Christian if not for the risk of "ignoring the Bible's internal contradictions" being a slippery slope to ignoring those of some future demagoguing politician's speeches.

It amazes me you teach English.

How so?

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Christian conservatives created the first welfare state in Imperial Germany, for one,

Yeah, because Bismarck wanted to undermine popular support behind liberal or socialist revolutionaries.

Christian pacifists opposed the First World War, the Tsar of Russia organized the world's first conference to protect civilians and prisoners of war under international law on humanitarian, faith-based grounds,

Which... well, fair enough. That early in the 20th Century, I can’t really deny that internationalism and human dignity were still deeply Christian ideas. I’ll concede that one.

As for the rest of your examples, though, I’d be more inclined to class them as the Christianisation of liberal developments rather than inherently Christian developments. That Christians championed a movement by using Christianity to justify it does not make the movement a Christian innovation. The innovation must, rather, be an immediate consequence of an independent development in Christian thought.

After all, Christians championed the first wave of European colonisation using Christianity as a moral justification but it would be a little unfair for me to claim that the slavery and brutality of the Conquest of the Americas is the fault of Christianity. The Catholic missions of the Sonora were a Christian adaptation of imperialism, not a Christian innovation.

[The Singaporean Straits]

but so long as the Bible contradicts itself, it leaves room for interpretation that scum like Trump can fit through.

While it is understandable that the nuances between meanings of certain words are lost when the Bible was translated into various languages, the message remains simple: All have fallen short due to the strictness of divine law (emphasised in the Old Testament) and only Jesus Christ's sacrifice may absolve all of every sin, leaving no room for an individual to cast judgement over another. The issue, however, is not misinterpretation but misguidance: certain segments of the Bible are placed greater emphasis on to serve a political agenda, and in Trump (and most of the religious right)'s case, it would be on the legalistic manner of divine law from which American 'conservative values' currently take inspiration from (which, ironically, makes people like Trump hypocrites as Trump himself has committed adultery a few times).

The mainstream religious right remains an obstacle to certain pragmatic policies NOT because of an inherent inconsistency of the intended message delivered by the Bible itself, but a conservative political agenda by and large to manipulate the messages of Christianity to fit what they intend to lobby for in government (restricting illegal immigration, unjust wars in the Middle East, and, weirdly, the continuation of laissez-faire gun ownership laws).

Even a proposed elimination of religion in society altogether may enable SOME progress, but you won't be eliminating demagogues who capitalize on the emotions of huge crowds for political power, which I believe IS the chief (emphasis on chief) cause of the religious problem and NOT the nature of religion itself.

[Punished UMN]

Christian conservatives created the first welfare state in Imperial Germany, for one,

Yeah, because Bismarck wanted to undermine popular support behind liberal or socialist revolutionaries.

Christian pacifists opposed the First World War, the Tsar of Russia organized the world's first conference to protect civilians and prisoners of war under international law on humanitarian, faith-based grounds,

Which... well, fair enough. That early in the 20th Century, I can’t really deny that internationalism and human dignity were still deeply Christian ideas. I’ll concede that one.

As for the rest of your examples, though, I’d be more inclined to class them as the Christianisation of liberal developments rather than inherently Christian developments. That Christians championed a movement by using Christianity to justify it does not make the movement a Christian innovation. The innovation must, rather, be an immediate consequence of an independent development in Christian thought.

After all, Christians championed the first wave of European colonisation using Christianity as a moral justification but it would be a little unfair for me to claim that the slavery and brutality of the Conquest of the Americas is the fault of Christianity. The Catholic missions of the Sonora were a Christian adaptation of imperialism, not a Christian innovation.

They can't be Christianization of liberal developments because liberals at the time largely opposed the regulation of markets. Liberalism at the time was simply not associated with the things it is today. Things like child labor laws, government-supported housing for the homeless and mentally ill, and public schooling were pretty much entirely the brainchildren of the Lord Shaftesbury, a Christian social reformer and British MP who devoted his life's work to social and economic reform (and who is canonized in the Anglican Communion for it), as early as 1823, decades before these were issues for liberals. In the US, civil rights reform had begun as a social movement in black churches, and black churches at the time were the center of Black political life. As for the internment of Japanese-Americans and the use of the atomic bomb, very conservative Christians were, as I mentioned, the only social group to consistently oppose them both, and both policies were put into place by liberal, progressive Presidents. Prison reform was also almost entirely a Christian movement, that's why prisons are usually called "penitentiaries", because they were originally supposed to be places of religious penance.

And as for the charitable aspect I mentioned, like I said, the Catholic Church provides so much charity in some countries that entire economies would simply collapse if it were to somehow stop, it's the largest charity organization in the world by-far.

As for the rest of your post, I am in broad agreement, but I think that it is a little too forgiving for the involvement of some of our churches in imperialist ventures, sometimes our institutions made the way imperialism happened worse (such as the use of baptismal status to condone slavery in the Americas), though admittedly sometimes it could temper the worst excesses (the Russian Orthodox Church's lobbying against race-based slavery of Yakuts and Inuits in Siberia and Alaska led to it being outlawed under Catherine the Great, in large part because the head of the Church at the time had been a Yakut slave).

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Right, yes. I shouldn’t have said liberal developments.

But my point is that it’s a little hard to say that some of the things mentioned really represented significant developments in the Christian ideal.

I suppose the question I am trying to ask is, what really changed in the way Christianity views civilisation and society? If Christianity didn’t independently develop new social theories, then whatever changes that Christians spearheaded must have been the result of external stimuli (e.g. secularised ideologies or the material conditions of the Industrial Revolution) and thus cannot really be considered a Christian social innovation of this time period.

As for the rest of your post, I am in broad agreement, but I think that it is a little too forgiving for the involvement of some of our churches in imperialist ventures, sometimes our institutions made the way imperialism happened worse (such as the use of baptismal status to condone slavery in the Americas), though admittedly sometimes it could temper the worst excesses (the Russian Orthodox Church's lobbying against race-based slavery of Yakuts and Inuits in Siberia and Alaska led to it being outlawed under Catherine the Great, in large part because the head of the Church at the time had been a Yakut slave).

Oh, I certainly do hold the churches involved responsible for those things. I just don’t hold Christianity responsible for them.

When an organisation that promotes some ideal do reprehensible things in the name of that ideal, it’s always questionable whether that organisation did so because of or despite that ideal and, consequently, how responsible that ideal is for the actions taken. But regardless of how responsible the ideal is for those actions, it doesn’t change the fact that the organisation is culpable for it.

Responsibility is an interesting concept and if someone were to say throw up a thread discussing it I can probably cough up a fairly long post just talking about what I think about the concept of duty, responsibility, crime, and punishment. :p

[GuessTheAltAccount]

While it is understandable that the nuances between meanings of certain words are lost when the Bible was translated into various languages, the message remains simple: All have fallen short due to the strictness of divine law (emphasised in the Old Testament) and only Jesus Christ's sacrifice may absolve all of every sin, leaving no room for an individual to cast judgement over another. The issue, however, is not misinterpretation but misguidance: certain segments of the Bible are placed greater emphasis on to serve a political agenda, and in Trump (and most of the religious right)'s case, it would be on the legalistic manner of divine law from which American 'conservative values' currently take inspiration from (which, ironically, makes people like Trump hypocrites as Trump himself has committed adultery a few times).

Lot wasn't married to his daughters when he had sex with them. The Bible isn't necessarily as pro-monogamy as it's made out to be.

The mainstream religious right remains an obstacle to certain pragmatic policies NOT because of an inherent inconsistency of the intended message delivered by the Bible itself, but a conservative political agenda by and large to manipulate the messages of Christianity to fit what they intend to lobby for in government (restricting illegal immigration, unjust wars in the Middle East, and, weirdly, the continuation of laissez-faire gun ownership laws).

And yet, you wouldn't see them try to "hijack" the words of Ralph Nader or Noam Chomsky for their agenda. Almost as if they don't leave quite as much room for interpretation as the Bible.

Even a proposed elimination of religion in society altogether may enable SOME progress, but you won't be eliminating demagogues who capitalize on the emotions of huge crowds for political power, which I believe IS the chief (emphasis on chief) cause of the religious problem and NOT the nature of religion itself.

Eh, every little bit helps. There is no reason to believe mass abandonment of religion would do more harm than good.

[The Singaporean Straits]

While it is understandable that the nuances between meanings of certain words are lost when the Bible was translated into various languages, the message remains simple: All have fallen short due to the strictness of divine law (emphasised in the Old Testament) and only Jesus Christ's sacrifice may absolve all of every sin, leaving no room for an individual to cast judgement over another. The issue, however, is not misinterpretation but misguidance: certain segments of the Bible are placed greater emphasis on to serve a political agenda, and in Trump (and most of the religious right)'s case, it would be on the legalistic manner of divine law from which American 'conservative values' currently take inspiration from (which, ironically, makes people like Trump hypocrites as Trump himself has committed adultery a few times).

Lot wasn't married to his daughters when he had sex with them. The Bible isn't necessarily as pro-monogamy as it's made out to be.

The mainstream religious right remains an obstacle to certain pragmatic policies NOT because of an inherent inconsistency of the intended message delivered by the Bible itself, but a conservative political agenda by and large to manipulate the messages of Christianity to fit what they intend to lobby for in government (restricting illegal immigration, unjust wars in the Middle East, and, weirdly, the continuation of laissez-faire gun ownership laws).

And yet, you wouldn't see them try to "hijack" the words of Ralph Nader or Noam Chomsky for their agenda. Almost as if they don't leave quite as much room for interpretation as the Bible.

Even a proposed elimination of religion in society altogether may enable SOME progress, but you won't be eliminating demagogues who capitalize on the emotions of huge crowds for political power, which I believe IS the chief (emphasis on chief) cause of the religious problem and NOT the nature of religion itself.

Eh, every little bit helps. There is no reason to believe mass abandonment of religion would do more harm than good.

1) Many stories of polygamy in the Bible, often in the Old Testament, don't end in a high note - look at Solomon, Abraham etc, their polygynous practices were said to lead to familial discord. Lot's daughters practiced non-consensual incest, plain and simple (Lot was intoxicated before his daughters laid with him) and descendants of Lot's daughters did not find favour with God at all later on in the story. Additionally, the New Testament explicitly criticizes polygamy, further strengthening the point that the Bible is pro-monogamy.

That aside, the issue with Trump's hypocrisy would be that of adultery (voluntary sexual intercourse between a man and his wife) INSTEAD of polygamy (the act of being married to multiple spouses at once). Please understand the differences in definition.

2) Put yourself in the shoes of these politicians devising a strategy to win votes among the common people. Would you a) appropriate the words of certain politicians that the common American MAY not know about (in spite of their achievements), or b) appropriate what is closer to the common man's heart, i.e. Christianity, to sway their emotions to voting for you?

3) We cannot say for sure as there are no historical examples to point to where societies have abandoned religious practices en masse and produced either a net benefit or a net loss (with whatever objective yardsticks available). However, a reasonable person would understand to target the chief cause of an issue in order to solve it.

Who's to say that in nations like Sweden where religion may not be as influential in politics as America, demagogues may not pose as much of a threat to democratic norms?

I stand corrected to say that the chief issue remains to simply be the successful politicking by conservatives to push mainstream politics rightward. Yes, appropriating religion is one of their strategies. But even if we take religion out of the picture, it remains a good possibility that they may employ other strategies to keep mainstream politics on the right (including but not limited to culture, race, and economics). Now how do we go about solving these issues?

[GuessTheAltAccount]

1) Many stories of polygamy in the Bible, often in the Old Testament, don't end in a high note - look at Solomon, Abraham etc, their polygynous practices were said to lead to familial discord. Lot's daughters practiced non-consensual incest, plain and simple (Lot was intoxicated before his daughters laid with him) and descendants of Lot's daughters did not find favour with God at all later on in the story. Additionally, the New Testament explicitly criticizes polygamy, further strengthening the point that the Bible is pro-monogamy.

That aside, the issue with Trump's hypocrisy would be that of adultery (voluntary sexual intercourse between a man and his wife) INSTEAD of polygamy (the act of being married to multiple spouses at once). Please understand the differences in definition.

2) Put yourself in the shoes of these politicians devising a strategy to win votes among the common people. Would you a) appropriate the words of certain politicians that the common American MAY not know about (in spite of their achievements), or b) appropriate what is closer to the common man's heart, i.e. Christianity, to sway their emotions to voting for you?

3) We cannot say for sure as there are no historical examples to point to where societies have abandoned religious practices en masse and produced either a net benefit or a net loss (with whatever objective yardsticks available). However, a reasonable person would understand to target the chief cause of an issue in order to solve it.

Who's to say that in nations like Sweden where religion may not be as influential in politics as America, demagogues may not pose as much of a threat to democratic norms?

I stand corrected to say that the chief issue remains to simply be the successful politicking by conservatives to push mainstream politics rightward. Yes, appropriating religion is one of their strategies. But even if we take religion out of the picture, it remains a good possibility that they may employ other strategies to keep mainstream politics on the right (including but not limited to culture, race, and economics). Now how do we go about solving these issues?

Emphasis mine. You repeatedly claim to know what the "chief issue" is, even though there is nothing to distinguish this from all of the other arbitrary factors in Trump's rise to power. What, if anything, would abandoning religion do to make people complacent about confronting these supposed "chief issues"?

Sweden might one day fall to demagoguery in the future, but for now, I'd say its track record is non-trivially better than the USA's.

[Salus Maior]

1) Many stories of polygamy in the Bible, often in the Old Testament, don't end in a high note - look at Solomon, Abraham etc, their polygynous practices were said to lead to familial discord. Lot's daughters practiced non-consensual incest, plain and simple (Lot was intoxicated before his daughters laid with him) and descendants of Lot's daughters did not find favour with God at all later on in the story. Additionally, the New Testament explicitly criticizes polygamy, further strengthening the point that the Bible is pro-monogamy.

That aside, the issue with Trump's hypocrisy would be that of adultery (voluntary sexual intercourse between a man and his wife) INSTEAD of polygamy (the act of being married to multiple spouses at once). Please understand the differences in definition.

2) Put yourself in the shoes of these politicians devising a strategy to win votes among the common people. Would you a) appropriate the words of certain politicians that the common American MAY not know about (in spite of their achievements), or b) appropriate what is closer to the common man's heart, i.e. Christianity, to sway their emotions to voting for you?

3) We cannot say for sure as there are no historical examples to point to where societies have abandoned religious practices en masse and produced either a net benefit or a net loss (with whatever objective yardsticks available). However, a reasonable person would understand to target the chief cause of an issue in order to solve it.

Who's to say that in nations like Sweden where religion may not be as influential in politics as America, demagogues may not pose as much of a threat to democratic norms?

I stand corrected to say that the chief issue remains to simply be the successful politicking by conservatives to push mainstream politics rightward. Yes, appropriating religion is one of their strategies. But even if we take religion out of the picture, it remains a good possibility that they may employ other strategies to keep mainstream politics on the right (including but not limited to culture, race, and economics). Now how do we go about solving these issues?

Emphasis mine. You repeatedly claim to know what the "chief issue" is, even though there is nothing to distinguish this from all of the other arbitrary factors in Trump's rise to power. What, if anything, would abandoning religion do to make people complacent about confronting these supposed "chief issues"?

Sweden might one day fall to demagoguery in the future, but for now, I'd say its track record is non-trivially better than the USA's.

If you want a comprehensive and non-biased look at the factors that led to Trump's rise to power and popularity I'm pretty sure Kowani did a well-sourced effort post on that.

But in short, it's not simply "Christianity bad".

[The Singaporean Straits]

Emphasis mine. You repeatedly claim to know what the "chief issue" is, even though there is nothing to distinguish this from all of the other arbitrary factors in Trump's rise to power. What, if anything, would abandoning religion do to make people complacent about confronting these supposed "chief issues"?

Sweden might one day fall to demagoguery in the future, but for now, I'd say its track record is non-trivially better than the USA's.

Any reasonable person would be mindful to observe and notice how these various factors that have arguably led to Trump's rise to power.

The state of religion in America (however twisted by various bad faith actors in leadership positions in both church and state) is contributory to his rise. But if we take out religion altogether in America, we are treating religion as if it is the main cause to state at which American conservatism is at right now. The factors given are also NOT arbitrary - any reasonable individual would be able to observe that there are certain foundational, catalytic and trigger events that have caused Trump's rise (in essence, basing his judgement on a principled analysis rather than personal whim).

In short, treating religion ON ITS OWN as a chief issue (which I assume is and remains your argument) only serves to distract people away from the any other sources that directly or more severely worsen the problem. To put it all the more concisely:

But in short, it's not simply "Christianity bad".

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Emphasis mine. You repeatedly claim to know what the "chief issue" is, even though there is nothing to distinguish this from all of the other arbitrary factors in Trump's rise to power. What, if anything, would abandoning religion do to make people complacent about confronting these supposed "chief issues"?

Sweden might one day fall to demagoguery in the future, but for now, I'd say its track record is non-trivially better than the USA's.

Any reasonable person would be mindful to observe and notice how these various factors that have arguably led to Trump's rise to power.

The state of religion in America (however twisted by various bad faith actors in leadership positions in both church and state) is contributory to his rise. But if we take out religion altogether in America, we are treating religion as if it is the main cause to state at which American conservatism is at right now. The factors given are also NOT arbitrary - any reasonable individual would be able to observe that there are certain foundational, catalytic and trigger events that have caused Trump's rise (in essence, basing his judgement on a principled analysis rather than personal whim).

In short, treating religion ON ITS OWN as a chief issue (which I assume is and remains your argument) only serves to distract people away from the any other sources that directly or more severely worsen the problem. To put it all the more concisely:

But in short, it's not simply "Christianity bad".

I'm not claiming religion is the "main cause" and I'm not sure what even would make any contributing factor a "main cause" can be objectively defined. It's how they combine that's the problem, and all else held constant, there is no reason to believe abandoning religion; presuming people are convinced to do so willingly (I do not remotely condone artificially stifling it, before anyone points to China); would be anything short of, at the very least, a step in the right direction.

[Kowani]

Emphasis mine. You repeatedly claim to know what the "chief issue" is, even though there is nothing to distinguish this from all of the other arbitrary factors in Trump's rise to power. What, if anything, would abandoning religion do to make people complacent about confronting these supposed "chief issues"?

Sweden might one day fall to demagoguery in the future, but for now, I'd say its track record is non-trivially better than the USA's.

If you want a comprehensive and non-biased look at the factors that led to Trump's rise to power and popularity I'm pretty sure Kowani did a well-sourced effort post on that.

But in short, it's not simply "Christianity bad".

i actually want to do an update to that to consider the role of religion but i do want to be emphatic that it is indeed not just "christianity bad" (tl;dr: it is mostly the intersection with specific sects of racialized christianity with prototypicality and political/cultural power)

[Bombadil]

If you want a comprehensive and non-biased look at the factors that led to Trump's rise to power and popularity I'm pretty sure Kowani did a well-sourced effort post on that.

But in short, it's not simply "Christianity bad".

i actually want to do an update to that to consider the role of religion but i do want to be emphatic that it is indeed not just "christianity bad" (tl;dr: it is mostly the intersection with specific sects of racialized christianity with prototypicality and political/cultural power)

And the original point made was not so much any contribution, it's that in any effort to defeat media-hyped progressive policies, they happily put their vote behind a truly sinful person by any Christian measure.

Religion, abortion, gay rights, immigration.. all these are political wedge issues exploited to drive emotions over rational thought in voting, that policy to exploit these issues led to irrational support for Trump, against values that, if you look at them, very much chime with how Jesus himself acted.

Trump runs the gamut of the 7 sins.. concocted anger against progressive values has led the Christian conservative Right to the bottom of the hypocrisy well.

[Kowani]

i actually want to do an update to that to consider the role of religion but i do want to be emphatic that it is indeed not just "christianity bad" (tl;dr: it is mostly the intersection with specific sects of racialized christianity with prototypicality and political/cultural power)

And the original point made was not so much any contribution, it's that in any effort to defeat media-hyped progressive policies, they happily put their vote behind a truly sinful person by any Christian measure.

Religion, abortion, gay rights, immigration.. all these are political wedge issues exploited to drive emotions over rational thought in voting, that policy to exploit these issues led to irrational support for Trump, against values that, if you look at them, very much chime with how Jesus himself acted.

Trump runs the gamut of the 7 sins.. concocted anger against progressive values has led the Christian conservative Right to the bottom of the hypocrisy well.

okay this is slightly inaccurate and atemporal but i will fit that into a...second effortpost later ig

i now have 3 to d ;-;

[Salus Maior]

i actually want to do an update to that to consider the role of religion but i do want to be emphatic that it is indeed not just "christianity bad" (tl;dr: it is mostly the intersection with specific sects of racialized christianity with prototypicality and political/cultural power)

And the original point made was not so much any contribution, it's that in any effort to defeat media-hyped progressive policies, they happily put their vote behind a truly sinful person by any Christian measure.

Religion, abortion, gay rights, immigration.. all these are political wedge issues exploited to drive emotions over rational thought in voting, that policy to exploit these issues led to irrational support for Trump, against values that, if you look at them, very much chime with how Jesus himself acted.

Trump runs the gamut of the 7 sins.. concocted anger against progressive values has led the Christian conservative Right to the bottom of the hypocrisy well.

The Democrats aren't any more in-sync with Christ's values than the Republicans are. Which of course is because Democrats and Republicans are both liberal bourgeois parties (and I mean "liberal" broadly speaking, yes Republicans have an ideological foundation in liberalism).

That being said, sure, Dems have some policies I'd say are things Christians should support, like welfare. But there's also plenty that can't be supported in good conscience. And the same is true for Republicans but a different set of things.

[Thyrgga]

This unreasonableness is caused by rabid partisanship and tribalism. This whole mentality of "my side, right or wrong, truth be damned," neither originated with religion nor will it disappear if religion magically vanished off of the face of the Earth.

It should speak for itself that much of the right wing has begun to abandon Christianity in favor of Paganism.

One may as well define the right proper as being ethnocentrist politics. All that has happened is the old Republican party coalition of libertarians, war-profiteers, and religious ethnocentrists has fallen apart. The former two groups were mostly small and composed of wealthy people, but the last group is the largest by population and reflects the natural attitudes of the peasantry that the elite and wealthy Progressive so despises. Progressive Christianity did not spawn ethnocentrism; ethnocentrism is the natural attitude of almost every single peasantry everywhere.

Why being highly ethnocentrist and being highly capitalistic are both considered "right" is a just an artefact of American English.

[Myrensis]

When you look at the election of Donald Trump, it was a jarring contrast with prior variants of conservatism.

Conservatism used to be known for "Putin, you need to get out of Ukraine." Now it's known for "Putin, you can stay in Ukraine as long as you dig up dirt on our opponents while you're there."

Conservatism used to be known for worshipping capitalism. Now it carves out an exception for international trade.

Conservatism used to be known for fawning over the military. Now it fawns over people who call soldiers suckers and losers.

For an ideology whose supposed namesake is tradition, it sure doesn't seem to hold onto it. (Not that tradition was ever definable in the first place; what if the traditions of our medieval ancestors are at odds with our evolutionary ones?)

But if there is one thing modern conservatism has in common with old-timey conservatism, it's religion. When Trump forced those protesters out of the way, it was to make way for a photo op at a church across the street. He repeatedly invoked "God" in his speeches. People can try to No True Scotsman their way out of this all they like, but so long as the Bible contradicts itself, it leaves room for interpretation that scum like Trump can fit through. And with voters primed by religion for unreason, they won't care if his ideas don't stand up to scrutiny. Religion didn't either, and disregarding that set a precedent. Trump will never live down getting half a million Americans killed with his coronavirus policies. But who knows how many people religion killed with its opposition to stem cell research?

By comparison, you don't need religion to defend their polar opposite in the kinds of Nordic policies Sanders-types advocate. We know this because Nordic countries are less religious than the USA.

So when you hear of people trying to reconcile said Nordic policies with religion, emotionally I can't help but find it endearing, but intellectually I wonder if that may be doing progressive causes more harm than good. Would that not buy religion undue goodwill, delaying the day society casts aside religion altogether, prolonging religion's toxic continued existence and allowing religion to continue to put Trump-types in office?

Specifically regarding US policy, conservative Christianity in America has always been a right-wing political tribe wearing an ill-fitting religious skin suit, they've just become increasingly unhinged and panicked as they see their influence declining, and their desperation to stop that decline has made it harder to keep up the facade of 'faith' and 'values'.

Obama was really when they had their psychotic break, because he represented a perfect storm of reality kicking their faces in. A black President. A black Democratic President. A black Democratic President who ushered in the legalization of gay marriage barely a decade after Evangelicals had delivered Bush a second term on fearmongering about the evils of gay marriage. All topped off by the realization that their much gloated about growth during the 90's/early 2000's when other denominations were shrinking was a mirage driven by conservative refugees from those churches, and once that levelled off their numbers started shrinking because they're aging and dying and their children are abandoning the church.

It was just their bad luck that Trump came along, promising them that he would turn back the clock but also being the living antithesis of the faith and 'moral values' they spend so much time telling themselves and others are important to them, and thus leaving them no choice but to shamelessly prostitute their religion on his behalf and make a public spectacle of their rank hypocrisy on the basis of the insane troll logic that once the government forces everyone else to live by the values they brazenly consider negotiable for political favors, they'll realize how pure and righteous the conservatives were all along!

So no, 'progressive Christianity' doesn't lead to conservative policy, 'conservative Christianity' selling it's supposed soul to hold on to power does.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Specifically regarding US policy, conservative Christianity in America has always been a right-wing political tribe wearing an ill-fitting religious skin suit, they've just become increasingly unhinged and panicked as they see their influence declining, and their desperation to stop that decline has made it harder to keep up the facade of 'faith' and 'values'.

What are they trying to protect, then?

If capitalism, why not pass the torch to libertarianism?

If imperialism, why not pass the torch to the Christopher Hitchens fandom?

Obama was really when they had their psychotic break, because he represented a perfect storm of reality kicking their faces in. A black President. A black Democratic President. A black Democratic President who ushered in the legalization of gay marriage barely a decade after Evangelicals had delivered Bush a second term on fearmongering about the evils of gay marriage. All topped off by the realization that their much gloated about growth during the 90's/early 2000's when other denominations were shrinking was a mirage driven by conservative refugees from those churches, and once that levelled off their numbers started shrinking because they're aging and dying and their children are abandoning the church.

So why do they settle for a candidate who; at least in theory; opposes the mass influx of Hispanic migrants who tend to be Christian?

It was just their bad luck that Trump came along, promising them that he would turn back the clock but also being the living antithesis of the faith and 'moral values' they spend so much time telling themselves and others are important to them, and thus leaving them no choice but to shamelessly prostitute their religion on his behalf and make a public spectacle of their rank hypocrisy on the basis of the insane troll logic that once the government forces everyone else to live by the values they brazenly consider negotiable for political favors, they'll realize how pure and righteous the conservatives were all along!

Even though it makes their hypocrisy more obvious instead of less?

So no, 'progressive Christianity' doesn't lead to conservative policy, 'conservative Christianity' selling it's supposed soul to hold on to power does.

Doesn't reflect well on Christianity as a whole, then, when you see how easily it can get supposedly co-opted, does it?

[Just-An-Illusion]

Wow... Another thread that blames religious people just because Trump won the election.

Even though most Christians like myself didn't even vote for him.