Religious Right hypocrites cheer Trump at summit

[JA]

Evangelical Christianity is the mouthpiece of and ideological medium for the transmission of elitist controlled values and beliefs. It primarily serves to assuage natural human negative reactions to inhumane social conditions and organize people behind a policy agenda that serves particular interests. Critical thought is discouraged, while human capital and energy is directed towards bigotry, nationalism, rallying around capitalism, and directing your frustrations towards non-constructive actions, such as prayer. Meanwhile, megachurch pastors get filthy rich and right-wing special interests are promoted while also cultivating a uniform voting base that works against their own self-interest and focuses on distraction issues.

That Trump received such a large percentage of the Evangelical vote and such a warm welcome should be absolutely unsurprising.

[JA]

I have to take Fuzzy Bear's side in this argument. Not because I support making America a more Christian country or changing our laws to be more reflective of Christian values because I just don't. But there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the traditional Christian position on the role of government, the way in which Christianity can or should be used to shape policy, and the way Christians are obliged to interact with their body politic.

Secular folks often can't see the forest for the trees. They focus on particular policies piece by piece, treating them as separate entities rather than as part of a whole. Secularists believe that their approach to government, which results in either a libertarian "hands-off" approach or a progressive social reform approach, means that individuals are free to do X or Y. A Christian, if they object to abortion, for example, is free not to have an abortion. So, what's the problem? The traditional Christian perspective, however, doesn't accept the worldview that the laws of society should be free of morality - or that they ever can be. Secularism is a unique worldview that shapes policy in its image just like Christianity. If secularism dominates policy, then it's at the expense of Christianity. For them, separation of church and states means that the state cannot establish a church, mandate attendance, require faith in any particular creed, or anything like that. However, Christianity is a worldview that can and should (in their eyes) shape the government since Christians should strive to propagate their faith and cultivate a more Christian, pious, and holy society whereby Christians may more easily live by their faith.

Telling a traditional Christian to restrict their faith to their homes, churches, and personal lives is expecting them to violate their faith by not spreading the gospel and to submit to an alternative worldview in the societal realm. Just as a secular person would say, "you're free to not use birth control or watch pornography," they'd say, "you're free to not attend church or believe in Jesus." The point is: both are complex worldviews that seek to apply their values to society and shape policies in accordance with their beliefs. They are, also, largely incompatible and have proven to ignite cultural conflict.

[JA]

I have to take Fuzzy Bear's side in this argument. Not because I support making America a more Christian country or changing our laws to be more reflective of Christian values because I just don't. But there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the traditional Christian position on the role of government, the way in which Christianity can or should be used to shape policy, and the way Christians are obliged to interact with their body politic.

Secular folks often can't see the forest for the trees. They focus on particular policies piece by piece, treating them as separate entities rather than as part of a whole. Secularists believe that their approach to government, which results in either a libertarian "hands-off" approach or a progressive social reform approach, means that individuals are free to do X or Y. A Christian, if they object to abortion, for example, is free not to have an abortion. So, what's the problem? The traditional Christian perspective, however, doesn't accept the worldview that the laws of society should be free of morality - or that they ever can be. Secularism is a unique worldview that shapes policy in its image just like Christianity. If secularism dominates policy, then it's at the expense of Christianity. For them, separation of church and states means that the state cannot establish a church, mandate attendance, require faith in any particular creed, or anything like that. However, Christianity is a worldview that can and should (in their eyes) shape the government since Christians should strive to propagate their faith and cultivate a more Christian, pious, and holy society whereby Christians may more easily live by their faith.

Telling a traditional Christian to restrict their faith to their homes, churches, and personal lives is expecting them to violate their faith by not spreading the gospel and to submit to an alternative worldview in the societal realm. Just as a secular person would say, "you're free to not use birth control or watch pornography," they'd say, "you're free to not attend church or believe in Jesus." The point is: both are complex worldviews that seek to apply their values to society and shape policies in accordance with their beliefs. They are, also, largely incompatible and have proven to ignite cultural conflict.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in saying this is how the religious right feels but then FB, Trump, and this summit turns around and freaks out over "sharia law"?

A traditional Christian would want to be governed by Shariah* about as much as a standard secular American would want to be governed by former Soviet Atheist laws. Just because they're both religious worldviews that inform their sense of community and shape their approach to society doesn't mean they're interchangeable. The Christian and Islamic worldviews are wholly distinct, just as Western Secular Humanism is distinct from Chinese Atheism. They only appear hypocritical to you because to you they're more similar than different; they're both, essentially, theocratic in nature. Whereas, to them, they're as different as the secular and Christian worldviews. Rather than seeing Secularism as on its own, you must see it as one among many worldviews that may shape the body politic and society, rather than limit it to secular versus religious.

*Shariah only applies to Muslims anyway. You can't apply Shariah to non-Muslims, so any fears of "encroaching Shariah" is absurd.

[JA]

I have to take Fuzzy Bear's side in this argument. Not because I support making America a more Christian country or changing our laws to be more reflective of Christian values because I just don't. But there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the traditional Christian position on the role of government, the way in which Christianity can or should be used to shape policy, and the way Christians are obliged to interact with their body politic.

Secular folks often can't see the forest for the trees. They focus on particular policies piece by piece, treating them as separate entities rather than as part of a whole. Secularists believe that their approach to government, which results in either a libertarian "hands-off" approach or a progressive social reform approach, means that individuals are free to do X or Y. A Christian, if they object to abortion, for example, is free not to have an abortion. So, what's the problem? The traditional Christian perspective, however, doesn't accept the worldview that the laws of society should be free of morality - or that they ever can be. Secularism is a unique worldview that shapes policy in its image just like Christianity. If secularism dominates policy, then it's at the expense of Christianity. For them, separation of church and states means that the state cannot establish a church, mandate attendance, require faith in any particular creed, or anything like that. However, Christianity is a worldview that can and should (in their eyes) shape the government since Christians should strive to propagate their faith and cultivate a more Christian, pious, and holy society whereby Christians may more easily live by their faith.

Telling a traditional Christian to restrict their faith to their homes, churches, and personal lives is expecting them to violate their faith by not spreading the gospel and to submit to an alternative worldview in the societal realm. Just as a secular person would say, "you're free to not use birth control or watch pornography," they'd say, "you're free to not attend church or believe in Jesus." The point is: both are complex worldviews that seek to apply their values to society and shape policies in accordance with their beliefs. They are, also, largely incompatible and have proven to ignite cultural conflict.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in saying this is how the religious right feels but then FB, Trump, and this summit turns around and freaks out over "sharia law"?

The logical conclusion of a Christian living out their beliefs is a very different thing than a Muslim advocating Sharia Law living out their beliefs. Sharia Law is more than being influenced by one's belief's it's the advocacy of a theocracy that seeks to establish a Caliphate, and is in opposition to both the Bill of Rights and the Guaranty Clause of the Constitution.

There are some Christians who advocate a Christian theocracy.  They are NOT the "Religious Right", and even most of the Religious Right folks that people here find smarmy aren't down with that. 

Except that Sharia pertains exclusively to Muslims and, to the extent that it applies to non-Muslims, it defines what relationships Muslims may have with them and how to treat them. Sharia is a set of rules by which Muslims are expected to live and govern themselves as individuals and a community. In legal jurisdictions where Islam is the historically dominant religion, yes, it shapes the laws, just as Christianity has done in the West. But there is nothing dictating that X or Y must be the form of government or that Sharia cannot be a voluntary individual or community system of self-governance. That is the approach typically adopted by devout Muslims in non-Muslim majority countries.