this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2023
208 points (87.1% liked)

politics

19073 readers
4817 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] wozomo 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yup. It’s too easy to be “Christian” these days, which breeds complacency and corruption in a hierarchical religious system (which, by dint of its hierarchical structure and opportunity for abuse of religious ideals, already breeds complacency and corruption).

When you legislate (bastardizations of) your religious precepts into law, at no point do you have to consciously “choose” to be Christian, at no point do you have to make the hard choice between, say, holding to your faith or having an abortion because you’re really, really not ready for a kid. It’s just not an option, and you’re forced to do what your Church says, which seems…un-Christian.

Idk. I’ve been trying to workshop this thought—that living in a religious society results in half-baked, hypocritically-“religious” abominations that end up in office—rather than thoughtful, intentional participants in a diverse and thriving society that understand why they choose to live in one way and listen to their neighbors explain why they choose to live in another.

The goal would be to use that approach to get Christians voting for legitimate freedom of choice, but idk if it’s even worth it at this point, it seems pretty impossible to sway them at times.

Looking back at the early days of persecuted Christianity (Roman times) it seems like people were legitimately drawn to these communities because they looked out for each other in a way that others didn’t. Christians have come a long way from that, in a bad sense, and I wonder if the lack of (actual) persecution plays a part in that.