EXCLUSIVE: Florida educators trained to teach students Christian nationalism
EXCLUSIVE: Florida educators trained to teach students Christian nationalism
Training materials produced by the Florida Department of Education direct middle and high school teachers to indoctrinate students in the tenets of Christian nationalism, a right-wing effort to merge Christian and American identities. Thousands of Florida teachers, lured by
You're viewing a single thread.
One Joyce at the top of the comments left a very poignant message; one I share.
And the response to her?
What would Jesus have said was the definition of Christian
There is no way that is a good-faith question. As if there aren’t several meaty books dedicated Jesus teaching things like…
- Share everything you have with the less fortunate.
- Welcome and embrace strangers/foreigners.
- Never judge others. Focus on your own shortcomings and BE the change by living it.
- Pay your taxes.
- Feed, clothe, and shelter the poor and needy.
- Help those with medical needs.
- Call out civil/religious leaders when they exhibit hypocrisy or bad doctrine.
Need I go on?
the jesus you're talking about is no longer a thing to them. white republican jesus hates poor people, loves guns, and never tips the waitress (because they see NO contradiction in bleating 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps' while simultaneously preventing anyone from pulling themselves up by their bootstraps).
"but how can they just change what jesus is all about?" you might be asking
the more important question is: when is everyone going to stop assuming that christofascists need anything to make any sense?
edit: forgot to post the link https://www.rawstory.com/trump-evangelicals-2663078391/
Al Faranken's Supply Side Jesus comes to mind
Thanks for sharing that. This jumped out at me…
Moore, who has been an outspoken critic of many evangelicals' embrace of Trump, argues that this has led him to conclude that American evangelical Christianity is now in crisis.
I’m a millennial who raised in an evangelical home. This isn’t something that is happening “just now” it was this way for decades, if not centuries, before I was ever born.
I have more than a few memories of pointing out to adults that their politics, speech, and behavior were at odds with scripture, only to be called a heretic to my face, as a kid. They are literally the scribes and pharisees that Jesus rants about for the entirety of Matthew 23.
I think it’s safe to say that the vast majority of people who call themselves “Christian” are not remotely followers of Jesus, his teaching, or his philosophy. They’ve just stolen his brand for personal gain.
Now look at the signs of the antichrist and compare them to their orange calf.
The twats even put his mark directly on their foreheads!
But also this isn’t a sudden change in doctrine, it’s like a century in the making in its current form, but the groundwork is as old as it being a state religion. Nothing is incapable of being corrupted by the powerful
Just as an aside, the entire "bootstraps" thing was originally meant sarcastically as something that is impossible.
While he had some bangers he also had some pretty bad takes too: slaves obey your masters/not changing the Exodus rules for slavery, faith healer bs, substitutionary atonement, etc.
Yeah, but the christofascists love to pick and choose what they believe out of the Bible, so that must mean we can too!
/s
Not to undermine the ickiness of the slavery thing - because it is still very much fucked up - but it was a very different paradigm than chattel slavery. Slaves were considered a member of a household rather than property*, and were not generally born into slavery or trapped in slavery. So “slaves obey your masters” is almost literally meant the same way as “children obey your parents”… that is, “be loyal to the head of the household.”
And the “substitutionary atonement” thing is totally not scriptural at all. That’s one of those things that Catholics just added because they felt like it… along with the heaven/hell afterlife and a whole slew of other stuff. Jesus was very clear about how people are expected to behave and the consequences/rewards of being shitty or righteous, respectively.
* Except when buying a wife or concubine. They were absolutely property… albeit it property with special rights and privileges.
Exodus 21 20-21: 20 "Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."
Sounds like property you can beat as long as they don't die within a day or two, nobody should treat anyone that way that's horrific.
Substitutionary atonement is the whole gospel story. Jesus sacrifices his life to atone for Adam's original sin of eating the apple from the tree of knowledge of good and evil that somehow infected the rest of humanity. Even if you believed it were true you shouldn't place the punishment for crimes of ancestors or parents on their children, that's fucked up.
The problem here is that the words you see in english translations of scripture are frequently connotatively incorrect… often on purpose (see: the word “hell”, a word and concept that does not exist whatsoever anywhere in scripture).
In this case, the word property is problematic, because it carries certain connotations for us, as modern, english-speaking readers. The root word is keseph, which literally means “money” or “monetary value”. So a more accurate translation to english is “…because the slave is valuable.” But even that is somewhat misleading because there is an overt implication of a household relationship, and this same rule would hold true for a head-of-household’s own children.
Again, I am not trying to diminish the many horrific acts portrayed in scripture, but in many (if not most) cases, the context is radically different than what our universally horrible english translations infer. Now, WHY they are all so bad a whole ‘nother can of worms.
Nobody should treat a household member or child the way the bible describes slaves should be kept, whether they use the actual word slave in the original translation they are describing how to own people you can beat as long as they don't die within a couple days. They are talking about the allowed treatment for when you keep non-hebrew slaves, you don't have to excuse it saying they were treated well because this is describing how they should be and were treated.
Edit: Of course I'm looking through it with a lens of modern ethics, but one of the selling points of religion is a dogma that never has to change because they know absolute morality from prophetic futures and can tell what is going to happen except apparently when it doesn't