It is about interconnectedness over “us” vs “them” thinking. Only when we realize that we were conned into believing we are playing a zero-sum game can we all win.
1 Like
It is ironic when we say separation of church and state when Manifest destiny has been the principle by which USA has expanded all over the world for decades.
Also, this doesn’t address complexities around certain issues. For example, right to seek abortion is viscerally important for women. However, this infringes upon Religious beliefs of the Christians. or how Gay rights are important to people. However the Church doesn’t bless “people living in sin” and will therefore not allow gay marriages to happen in churches or for them to receive blessing. So you cant have “separation of church and state” and “religious freedom” go hand in hand the way we have it here.
To understand why Christian nationalism has the views it does, we need to look at a bit of history of the Church itself. I am not an expert at this but I have garnered some info with my research. And I will make it clear, I don’t mean to malign any belief here, just sharing what I honestly understood from my research.
1 Like
Back in the day the Roman Catholic Church presided over “Christendom” aka all countries that followed Christianity as their national religion. THe Church mainly health with spiritual issues. And cases regarding these issues would be dealt with in courts appointed by Church. So issues regarding marriages, Anullments, witches etc were dealt with in church appointed courts.
It also sent bishops as advisers to various Kings. They were supposed to advise them on what is ethical. But eventually ended up pushing vatican’s political interests instead. Promoting policies, marriages and courtiers that were pro vatican, increasing grants to Rome and supporting countries in war who had pro vatican leaders. Sort of like an ancient AIPAC for the CHURCH in every country if you will.
It also served as an international peacemaking Body. When there were wars, the Church would often act as mediators and resolve the conflict. But again, they would try and get resolutions that served their interests.
But they also did quite a bit of good in community. The local churches that is. They were the ones that provided all the education to people, provided food when people didn’t have enough, provided shelter etc. The tended for the sick and the poor. Provided shelter in storms and raised people’s concerns with feudal lords etc.
Then came the secular movement with the reformists. here the word secular meant of the world. As in instead of all the money going to the church in the name of god, it should be used for the people…They gained ground by accusing the Church of corruption. But as they gained ground, they started destroying all these local churches that were the backbone of the society. Think of it as people pointing out excessive spending for economic problems but instead of cutting military budget they cut social programs.
They also cut off the Church interference from the state affairs (separation of Church and state) but that led to total power in the hands of the ruler. Back then the rulers didn’t have a constitution. The only laws above them were those of the church. When that was removed, well, they became tyrants. This is why separation of powers had to later be developed to control this madness. The reformists ousted the catholic bishops advising kings and installed their own clergymen.
Later in France the principle of laïcité (secularism) was enshrined in law. This principle specifically worked to reduce the involvement of Church in governmental institutions. While it also discouraged government interference in religious affairs.
1 Like
But when it was adopted in USA, they broke it into two separate parts - Separation of church and state and religious freedom. Which constantly undercut each other. This allows those in power to pick and choose when religion matters and when it doesn’t and when state interference in religion is justified and when it isn’t. Its again discrimination masquerading behind equality. So they can surveil mosques after 9/11 but not churches after mass shootings. just as an example.
So you can see where a lot of the ideology of fearing secularism comes from and why this entire concept of two laws is flawed.
1 Like
@drea_m_r_76 , thank you for sharing!
Thank you, @wrongturn , your historical view adds key context by highlighting how the Church’s changing role complicates church-state separation. Your points on secularization, conflicts, and balancing religious beliefs with individual rights raise important questions. While my article focuses on current issues and solutions, your emphasis on historical context enriches the discussion and has broadened my perspective.
You mentioned secularization harmed local churches, “the backbone of society.” How can modern societies rebuild communities hurt by secularization without repeating past mistakes?
2 Likes
Thank you. I believe that instead of trying to break down the institutions we should work with them. breaking down destroys good with the bad. For every specific community, we have to identity what makes it tick. Whatever it is, understand what people in that community like and dislike about it and then see what aligns with our perspectives and work on that. So for example, lets say people in a community don’t alow Gay people into the church or don’t let them marry in the church. They don’t like the exclusion but they believe being gay is living in sin and it cannot be blessed by god. So maybe try and see if they would allow them on church picnics or volunteer in soup kitchens. Or participate otherwise without having them take the blessing. And try and allow them to mingle. The more they get to know each other, the more they will themselves find ways to fix things that work for everyone. Its kind of when siblings fight and mom says you both ain’t coming out until you make up kind of thing.
I don’t fundamentally believe that people want to hate each other. I think it is people who want to stay in power who divide and coalesce people under certain labels that is the problem. Once that hurdle of talking to the other side is over, people will find ways to get along. We just have to make sure the divisions don’t crop up again and keep them focused on achieving a goal. I think labels do most damage to being able to reform anything because it makes it impossible to find common ground. " i hate corruption but I would never join hands with a right winger to fight corruption". Even though right wing hates corruption as much as we do. Probably more, same with anti war.
I honestly think that if someone meant someone at a Trump rally wearing a MAGA hat, people would automatically go into combat mode. But if you met a sweet lady on the bus making a crochet square and you just talked to her, you could find common ground if you didn’t know she attended Trump rallies sometimes. And maybe find ways to fix things the right way. It was kind of the approach used by Flat earth movement. They wouldn’t combat and prove anyone wrong. They would have these gatherings and invite people with all sorts of stances and many times not even have a debate or a speech. It was just people who disagreed on the topic having a picnic. And they were able to find followers because people just liked to hang out.
BTW it is also the approach Repubs are using. Hey just come and hang out with and see what its like. I think always attacking people all the time is great on debate platforms. But to do it as a purely intellectual exercise and not hold grudges or get egos involved is very difficult. So it doesn’t work in everyday life. Best rule of advice for dates also works in society - attentively listen. And engage in a conversation. And just IDK hang out?
1 Like
I know it sounds dumb but A great example of this is something like Rock music. It evolved during the civil rights movement by the cross over from black culture and white culture music coming together and then became a culture of its own. It represented authenticity, discovering other culture’s music (from around the world) and yet making a unique sound. Wearing clothes that were counterculture and challenging authority and stuff. At its peak it really helped unify people across the racial divide. Same with pop when it started.
when people come together and identify a problem then they can join forces to fight that. Like I don’t have to agree with someone’s stance on 2nd amendment, or immigration or something else if I am there to get support for say regulating drug prices. Stop trying to look for people to 100% agree with us on ALL topics. Work on just the ones we can. I guess just learn to tell yourself, that is not what I am here for today, I am here for X and I will focus on X and keep them focused on it. And take a win?
because fundamentally, Institutions are supposed to work for ALL people. So we have to understand what different factions want to make that happen. That would be the first step.
IDk that’s just what I think. I am no expert.
1 Like
Thank you for your last two posts. I’m wrapping stuff up and getting ready to get ready to get ready for bed (I’m a procrastinating night owl who moves at a leisurely pace) and these are nice thoughts to end the night on. 
1 Like
You are very kind. Thank you. have a nice night!
1 Like