The Religious Void

[The Grand Nudger]

OH..idk, it seems like the above is a more apt description of the faithful than of atheists. It is the faithful christian that believes that religion is a blanket of error thrown over the world - except for their own, ofc. They've gone to great lengths to demonstrate their conviction and the depths to which they'll lower themselves in service of that belief.

Philosophy, sociology, anthropology...all positively chocked with atheists doing brilliant work.

That people have conflated "religion" with the fundies that we're all familiar with is unfortunate - but wholly the responsibility of those fundies themselves. Do we believe that there is something which is sacred. Not in jest or sacred-like. Sacred. Inviolable - not practically, deontologically. Something that is true because we will make it so (sustainable or not). That the christian religion has attempted to confiscate and trademark such fundamental aspects of human nature and utterly poisoned that well, again, wholly the responsibility of the religious.

The crisis for christian belief in america today has little to do with any disagreement over an informal religion of americana. Theres no difference there, it's literally the same thing. It's of whether they, as people who follow more than one religion, will side with ceasar and mammon or the salvific message of christ. Christians are the first and most pernicious doubters of the latter.

[downbeatplumb]

A brief thought for discussion:

It's not difficult to find religious behavior in nonreligious places. The US elections is a recent example of how easily cult-like and religious undertones begin to emerge in politics and otherwise secular groups. We are fundamentally religious creatures, and seem to default towards this mode of thinking when gathered too strongly into groups.

My question is this:

Is it better to have a well defined religious structure in which religious activities can exist rather than no structure at all; and does that successfully deminish religious behavior elsewhere?

In my own experience, being raised Christian does seem to stop me from having religious affiliation with other groups like politics. And I generally find it odd when I meet a Christian that is religiously political.

I would argue that people who are used to religious structures keep making them. Trumps cultists are overwhelmingly religious christians. Political christians are the super arseholes of america, applying the same blind obedience to their political leader as they do to their religious faith.

[The Grand Nudger]

Super assholes who believe that their rule is the only legitimate rule even though the majority of americans do not want them in power. It's true, and they're making it true, regardless of whether it's sustainable.

Turns out Trump delivers where jesus failed - and we've got John here to ping this off of, but insomuch as one christian might still believe that jesus has provided and another believes that providence flows through trump.....the one might seem strange to the other. The one may be more politically rabid than the other. The one may have more difficulty separating trump and christ than the other.

[John 6IX Breezy]

People turn to gods like yours when secular authorities fail to provide...and people turn away from gods like yours when secular authorities succeed.

Hmm if people ran to the church when the state fails, and to the state when the church fails, the separation of the two would occur naturally. But it doesn't.

To amend my initial premise: People may have varying degrees of religious tendencies which tends to only be allocated towards a singule group rather than diffused across many groups. However, given this all-or-nothing tendency, the only way for a person to be religious towards Christianity and religious towards Politics, is if they combine Christianity and Politics into a single entity.

[The Grand Nudger]

People turn to gods like yours when secular authorities fail to provide...and people turn away from gods like yours when secular authorities succeed.

Hmm if people ran to the church when the state fails, and to the state when the church fails, the separation of the two would occur naturally. But it doesn't.

I'm not sure what the aim is here, to object to an observation about societal trends with a non sequitur?  It's just how we've seen it happening, and when you look into how our religions proceed and what benefits they offer it becomes almost a deepity.  OFC we ask for help when we're frustrated, and ofc we forget about the intercessory agent in good times.  Ask your witchdoctor.

These have been good political times for christians, so they've been out there doing alot of politicking and not a whole lot of what you or I might consider jesusing.

To amend my initial premise: People may have varying degrees of religious tendencies which tends to only be allocated towards a singule group rather than diffused across many groups. However, given this all-or-nothing tendency, the only way for a person to be religious towards Christianity and religious towards Politics, is if they combine Christianity and Politics into a single entity.

Christianity is an inherently political belief system. Some ideologies have incidental political consequences - but christianity lays explicit claim to authority and the right life. That this will invariably put it at odds with a secular authority and their claims of a right life, will be an issue of competing internal imperatives for any given believer. As far as contemporary christians and syncretic beliefs - again, par. It's generally the case that people who believe that two things are true seek to explain this in a way that the one is compatible with the other.

Do you believe that your faith and your politics are compatible? That they agree with reality and are concordant with each other? Do you believe that laws which protect the inviolable are good laws, and should be the laws of our land? Do your actions reflect the agreement between your beliefs and reasons for them? Do you believe that only one thing is sacred, or is there more than one representative in the set of inviolable articles or objects?

[John 6IX Breezy]

I would need to see the data on such societal tends. Did Democrats flock to Christianity when Trump became president? Did Republicans stop going to church when Trump won?

[The Grand Nudger]

The aim is to object to trends with non seqs, I guess. I can't help you there - but you can read all sorts of wonderful literature about the relationship between the religious and secular aspects of our lives and how our material circumstances compel a large number of us to predictable behaviors that influence the nature of our civic convictions and religious engagements. Not just in the present, ofc, but throughout all of history.

Let wonder lead you to knowledge.

-but a short answer to your question is this. Trumpism was flat out born in obama era churches, yes.

If you'd like to continue to explore religiosity in formal and political contexts, as you suggested, some clarity as to the items I asked you about would be enormously helpful. A formally or politically religious person can answer in the affirmative to every item - and would be expected to - because that's just the long form description of what it means to hold a political belief as a matter of religion.

I can kick it off to get you started. I have pseudo religious beliefs (the sacred-alike) that are disparate in content but identical in effect in the context of political positions and action.

I believe that life is pseudo-sacred, for example. Is my psuedo-faith compatible with my politics? Redundant, they're one in the same. Does my pseudo-faith agree with reality and with my politics..well, duh, easy one, we all believe this whether we're right or not, lol. Do I believe that laws which protect life are good laws and should be the law of the land? Why yes, yes I do. Howsabout my actions, do they reflect my beliefs and my reasons for them? Well..I'm a professional advocate for alt ag, so..imma go with yes.

I only break at the end, as noted in the beginning. I don't believe in the sacred. The pseudo sacred being an effective agent in my life is the only thing that makes the comparison valid. Other people are more or less invested in the inviolability of this or that, and more or less willing to make exceptions. How about you?

[John 6IX Breezy]

-but a short answer to your question is this. Trumpism was flat out born in obama era churches, yes.

I would need to see the data on that too. But if it's true it's unclear how it fits your model. Did the church's failings turn them to Trump, or did the Obama era politics?

[The Grand Nudger]

It's no secret that the christian right saw obama as a disaster, and our country as headed down an ungodly path, and that the past few decades have been one crisis after another. That turned their churches into fertile incubators for trumpism - which, to a great extent, they were already well positioned to be. Two terms full of thoughts and prayers and pleading. None of it worked.

Mind you, there's a split here that we have to consider - as neither of us believes that the religiously political christians are firmly tied to reality. That things are or were as they described them - but that's not what counts. Their perception is the motivator.

[John 6IX Breezy]

By your criteria, if they felt the Obama administration was a disaster they would turn to God not Trump. Only if God fails them would they turn to Trump.

That is how you described the societal trends. It seems like you're mixing the two while trying to claim they are separate.