Atheism

Worth noting also WHY racially integrating universities was such a big deal to Southern Baptists.

The sect was founded as a splinter group from the Triennial Convention in 1845 because the group that would become the Southern Baptist Church opposed the abolition of slavery. The largest sect of protestant Christianity in the US is literally founded upon the idea that chattel slavery was a right and just thing. And they are doomsday cultists.

It's not like they ever followed his teachings anyway...

It's a sad irony that christians are rejecting one of the few tolerable parts of christianity (namely, the teachings of compassion, brotherly love, and peace promoted by jesus).

It's as if they aren't capable of the basic logic needed to comprehend where the word "christianity" comes from.

They love the supply side Jesus who says fuck the poor.

The community nature that religious communities create also means to disagree with them is to be removed from the community. Politics is so intertwined in religion now that the religion isn't a religion anymore.

Fuck these hypocritical motherfuckers. This is why I work on cars now and not people.

I've been trying to tell people Jesus would be socialist for years but no one listened

Christianity as preached by Jesus is the LEAST warlike Abrahamic religion. If you want wars, agression, revenge, authoritanism, choose Judaisim or Islam. Christianity is the hippy dippy pacifist religion.

I was a Christian for 20 years. The problem with this argument is that it's ignorant of what the Bible actually says. Sure, Jesus was less of a dick than his dad but there's still plenty of instances where Jesus was also a dick. Even on his death bed (cross?) he condemned 2 people next to him to hell for being mean to him! And he spent a lot of his time on earth not being very friendly to any other religion or any other interpretation of his own religion.

And the other issue is that the Bible is INTENTIONALLY vague so that the people who wrote it to have power over others can make their followers do whatever they please at that moment. Some denominations believe the old testament is completely moot now, while others think only certain things still apply, while some think only the dietary restrictions were overrode by Jesus. ALL of those are biblically supported because the Bible is vague as fuck.

The problem with this argument is that it assumes there is only one correct interpretation of the Bible, and anyone who disagrees is intentionally ignoring parts or hasn't actually read it. That's not how any of this works. The Bible is intentionally vague, full of contradictions, and has a lot of fucked up shit people who haven't read it fully don't know about. There has been a huge push of "the Bible actually says you should be super nice to everyone" when that's not true at all.

There's a reason people who read the Bible on their own end up giving up Christianity, and it isn't because it's about how Jesus was a chill dude that loved everyone.

When cultural appropriation goes wrong…

So… in the US? Not so much.

But it started quite a while ago, and was first talked about by Saint Augustine (edit: looked it up was wrong.) in late Rome, explicitly because people were starting to question god’s power after rome got sacked by the visigoths.

The argument then was basically “kingdom of god is separate, deal with your own shit” but more specifically, that the physical world needed to function so their sky daddy kingdom can… wank off?

Then in the 18’s, it was a reaction to monarchs using Divine Right (to rule) to start appropriation of their authority/influence (by saying they were the head of the church. See Anglican vs Catholic.)

By the time the US got around to adding it to the constitution… it was added because the US colonies were a LOT of puritans. Who… got the shit persecuted out of them until they left. Ironically, because they were imposing their extremely rigid morality laws on everyone around them and their neighbors wanted them.

The puritans wanted the law because they were being told they can’t be assholes.

..Is that not the Aunty Donna guy? What's he doing in a clipart?

That sounds more like a modern reinterpretation of "protecting religion from the state." The context of the origin of the separation of church and state from the late 18th century was more about religious adherence being closely tied to political power, so you could deal your political opponents harm by branding them a participant of a socially outcast religion, or you could use political power to (legally) persecute the followers of a non-state religion. Yes, it was about protecting religion from the state, but it was in more concrete terms of protecting the followers of non-state-backed religions, rather than preventing some kind of philosophical corruption of the moral foundations of the religion.