• Cosmoooooooo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      The white people lynching black people are ALL christians. All of the KKK are christians, that’s a christian only organization. MAGA is christian. Yes, real christians. German nazis were christians. Italian nazis were catholic. It’s not new.

      Stop supporting religion. All of it. Immediately. Religion is the cause of all of this hate, and always will be.

      Fuck fictional angels and the people that lie to children about them.

      • dandelion (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        2 days ago

        you can be right about religion’s connection to right-wing politics and bigotry, but referring to someone as an angel because they do something wonderful doesn’t even imply you believe angels exist or that you are religious at all (let alone devout or dedicated to religion). This makes your reaction feel out of place given the context, both in how extreme it is, and in how it responds to a casual reference to someone being an angel as if they had just sworn loyalty to the Bible.

        • ObtuseDoorFrame@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          An entirely different person called him an angel. Maybe check usernames before typing out a whole ass paragraph?

          • dandelion (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            hm? I’m confused … how would checking usernames change anything?

            EDIT: just to make it explicit:

            /u/ganksy@lemmy.world refers to Kaepernick as an “angel” for donating for an independent autopsy of a Black man found hanging from a tree. It is clear from context gansky did not mean a literal religious meaning of “angel”, but meant it in the generic way people mean someone is kind or good (like how “angelic” might mean beautiful, sweet, etc.) - it loses the theological meaning and is being applied in a secular way.

            Then /u/DreamAccountant@lemmy.world (display name: Cosmoooooooo) responds to that use of “angel” with righteous anger about the connection between religion and bigotry, implying that describing someone as an “angel” for doing good is tantamount to “supporting religion” and thus supporting bigotry.

            I respond to /u/DreamAccountant@lemmy.world explaining how this seems like an overreaction, and that it doesn’t seem reasonable to think someone referring to a nice person as an “angel” is any kind of endorsement of religion, let alone religious bigotry.

            What I don’t see is where I responded to the wrong person … what am I missing here?

      • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        It’s a bit of a stretch to assume that just because someone calls a good person an “angel” that the person is religious.

        Religion is the cause of all of this hate

        Absolutely not. Religion is a pretext for the violence that people with power already want to commit. Religion is neither necessary nor sufficient for domination of others.

        and always will be.

        I’m not even remotely religious or even open to religion, but there are decent religious people out there. Frankly, some Christians are comrades, much more so than some atheists. Here’s an example:

        https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexandre-christoyannopoulos-an-introduction-to-christian-anarchism

        And for a less radical example, see Liberation Theology.

      • frostedtrailblazer@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        23 hours ago

        I wouldn’t call them real Christians if they don’t follow the teachings of Jesus, they’re Christians in Name Only (CINOs). Jesus calls on people to do good works and have faith. These people think they are justified to do whatever they want in life and then pat themselves on the back saying “it’s all good!” when they’re knocking on death’s door.

        They’re patently ignoring the teachings of the Jesus, they’re not even reading their Bibles. They think what they do here on earth doesn’t matter at all, but what Jesus talks about is the exact opposite.

        Things like loving your enemy as you love yourself, feeding the hungry, giving clothes to those without, shelter to those who need it, showing forgiveness to those who wrong you, and knowing that you are loved.

        Edit: If you disagree I would appreciate a dialogue on the subject.

      • snek_boi@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Do you know about Cynefin? Would you disagree if I say that religion is a complex Cynefin system and therefore can’t be entirely predictable? Would you say Lutheranism and the Theology of Liberation are equally as problematic as the KKK and Nazis?

        • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Would you say Lutheranism and the Theology of Liberation are equally as problematic as the KKK and Nazis?

          Not as bad, but for example Sweden is and Prussia was lutheran, it’s also religion of majority of Germany so majority of nazis were also lutheran, Bismarck and his kulturkampf too. Liberation thology is also better than mainstream catholicism but it’s still toothless class collaboration ideology that deradicalizes people, a kind of religious socialdemocracy.