I think the most insidious model is where dictators corrupt religion as a means of power. I’m thinking of how Hitler co-opted the German Lutheran Church, Putin has co-opted the Russian Orthodox Church and how bin Laden capitalized on the corruption of Islam. And, of course, there’s Trump’s attempted capture of the Evangelical churches in the US - a movement with which he has little in common, but he talks a good game.
I’m personally divided on the role that churches should take in society. I think they have much to offer in providing things like food, shelter, disaster relief, and healthcare - You know, the things Jesus did. I’ve often said that the existence of poverty in America is not because the government is not doing its job, it’s because the religious aren’t doing theirs.
But when these organizations become too powerful or political, they run the risk of being used as a tool for those with more insidious motives.
This has to be the stalest chestnut in the apologetic larder. Anyone who still uses it either is an ignoramus or doesn't care about truth.
If the argument were sound, we could, by that same measure, say that every atrocity ever committed by any nominally Christian government is due to Christianity.
I think the most insidious model is where dictators corrupt religion as a means of power. I’m thinking of how Hitler co-opted the German Lutheran Church, Putin has co-opted the Russian Orthodox Church and how bin Laden capitalized on the corruption of Islam. And, of course, there’s Trump’s attempted capture of the Evangelical churches in the US - a movement with which he has little in common, but he talks a good game.
I’m personally divided on the role that churches should take in society. I think they have much to offer in providing things like food, shelter, disaster relief, and healthcare - You know, the things Jesus did. I’ve often said that the existence of poverty in America is not because the government is not doing its job, it’s because the religious aren’t doing theirs.
But when these organizations become too powerful or political, they run the risk of being used as a tool for those with more insidious motives.
"Stalin was an atheist, and so are we; Osama bin Laden was a monotheist, and so was Mister Rogers."
Quite the pantheon, Ed!! That line really made me smile. 😁
Thanks for this explanation. Sharing to Freethinkers.
This has to be the stalest chestnut in the apologetic larder. Anyone who still uses it either is an ignoramus or doesn't care about truth.
If the argument were sound, we could, by that same measure, say that every atrocity ever committed by any nominally Christian government is due to Christianity.