I’m at a new job and working on a Saturday. This place is very “Christian-values blah blah blah” and at the end of our work day one of the supervisors is holding a prayer about “please God let this _ go smoothly and thank you for helping us etc.”
This isn’t the first time I’ve sat at a prayer that’s this selfish and asinine. Pretty sure I’ve been in a prayer thanking Jesus for some hot wings.
This kind of prayer was given today. Y’know, the day where some pretty awful things happened in a South American country but who cares about that /s
I don’t get Christians. They say all this nice stuff about their religion but the worship songs are very individualistic, talking about “Jesus saved me”, “my relationship with god”, “thank you God for x”. Never about other people. And of course none of the prayers today were for IDK the people who fucking bombed and murdered today in our bloody quest for oil?!?
Do these people really think their God gives a fuck if their hot wings taste good or if the printer works in the office today? If you really believed in this Devine being wouldn’t you want it to focus on the important things like IDK making sure everyone has food and shelter and maybe making life less miserable for the homeless people? WTF is wrong with Christians? Is this banal kind of “worship” also common in other religions or is this yet another reason to escape the U.S South 🤔
Religions end up being a reflection of the culture around it. You get a self-absorbed, hyper individualistic culture, it produces people who think of religion as a booster for them and them alone.
That’s a good point
Athletes are my favorite when they’re like I thank God for letting me make that throw when kids are being thrown into a meat grinder
Also you’re asking God to favor you over the opposition, in a sport. Im sure the ruler of Heaven doesnt have strong feelings on the outcome of a football game.
Way better than this are gamblers who pray for luck at gambling. God doesnt want you doing that
I see a lot of that from people who make it in sports and entertainment thanking their relationship to God and it turns into a sort of survivors bias where they go around telling people God was responsible for their success and not their parents driving them around various camps or auditions.
Right and weren’t the thousands people who didn’t make it for every one who did just not pray hard enough or something?
I swear a big part of idol culture is making sure you look good with your midriff exposed. I would hope zombie Jesus would have better things to do.
Turns out God is just another
who just wants to grill and support their favorite sports team while the world burns.
American Evangelical Christian is, at it’s core, a product of settler colonialism and white supremacy. Everything else is downstream from that.
Take the religion of Israeli settlers in the West Bank, let it stew for a couple centuries, and you’d have basically the same thing.
when they say that dogwood is “jesus’s cross wood” I wanna shake em up
I never heard that particular nonsense. What’s the point of someone saying that?
God cursed dogwood to have crooked branches so that it’d never be suitable for crucifixion again, but also, gave it beautiful leaves that would bloom for Easter. I’m not entirely sure why being unsuitable for crucifixion is a curse, I guess they think the tree is humiliated? I’d be pretty happy with my reward of being an ornamental shrub tbh
You know how people get ai psychosis from being told they are right too much? Imagine if it was decades of church
you have a few forces, plus or minus stuff you require non-materialistic understanding to take seriously, with religion.
We should identify what Christianity is, actually.
**Christianity is - **A movement started by the word and actions of a Galilean Jewish man probably named something like Yeshua.
Yeshua is very likely a real historical person, there’s enough documentation to support the idea that he was at the center of some kind of religious/political movement. There are a lot of different speculations on the nature of the Historical “Jesus” - but one I tend to favor is that he was possibly a genuine rebel against Roman occupation and the puppet dynasty ostensibly ruling over Judea at the time. He was killed, his movement dies, his followers are martyred or driven into hiding. At this point the memory of who he was starts becoming fuzzy, and the theology of Christianity starts diverging massively from whatever that Yeshua-driven message was, though a lot of it may actually survive. ** Christianity is a religious and political institution** - It was always intended to be, if you follow the narrative above, and always was in a certain sense. But when Constantine legitimizes it as a state backed religion, it becomes a tool of statecraft and the management of people. Which means that the priorities shift, especially so divorced from origin, from the justification and establishment of a socio-religious polity, to being direct machinery of the state (of the people who killed him no less). Even through the reformation and all the way to the present moment, its prime role has been political and behavioral justification. ** Christianity is the art of reading, interpreting, and applying the message of a handful of books and letters**, and reinterpreting materials made outside of it as an institution and movement.
There is more, but im moving on - what Christianity is, and therefore what Christians are, exist at the confluence of these factors. Because everything from the nature of how it started, to who/what is legitimate, to what it means to be Christian, to how to interpret its holy books and materials, are all points of contention - what a Christian is is actually fairly fluid.
Because of this, it’s not actually helpful to frame this sort of nonsense as indicative of Christians being Christians, or there being some essential nature to a Christian we can dissect from the events in the OP.
In the united states, though, is a kind of protestant Christianity that:
a) has zero interest in unpacking “The Bible” or any other Christian materials. For anyone that isn’t whatever passes for clergy in a given congregation, it’s mostly social, and where thought is concerned, the relationship is receptive. This isn’t a place of learning how to think about things. It’s not a place you learn about the social impact of your behavior, except that Evangelism is Good, and Public, Narcissistic Acts of Prayer Show Piety. Understanding isn’t a priority.
b) finds historical context and philosophical deconstruction of the source materials to be almost like, anathema, to the belief itself. Because this version of Christianity is so, utterly detached and unlike what it claims to be, most folks are not going to be able to understand the words in the book except by their own idiom and “common sense” - that the gospel of John is literally dripping in neoplatonic thought, and that the Apostle Paul is clearly like, an actual fucking mystic talking about esoteric and occult matters is not only lost on this group, it’s heresy. It’s satanic influence. It’s so unlike what it says it is, there’s no reconciling what’s actually in those books with anything they prioritize.
c) is very specifically keyed to the interests of a very specific kind of powerful person. It has to fit into this idea of itself that serves the state, which is about instilling low information, emotionally driven action, and validating these experience through pretty basic psychological manipulations. I got to learn how the sausage is made for Charismatic and Pentecostal groups because I was being courted to join my friends in a school meant to create future pastors and church leaders. It nearly left me an atheist. It’s all about guiding minds, terminating thought, and getting people who have nothing to cough it up so Pastor Fuckboy can buy a ferrari and has the clout to run for local, state, or national office. Or to be in a position to play kingmaker for such positions of power.
d) expects public displays and affirmation of belief, and is increasingly in a siege mindset that means each group prayer at your job is actually a fucking struggle session and loyalty test. To fail to participate sufficiently is to out yourself, and find yourself out of a job.
is this actually Christianity? As a huge fucking religion nerd - No. Absolutely not. Not really. Not in the sense that it has much of anything in common with whatever traces of the Jesus Movement as it really existed survives for us to compare to - in that way it’s damn near a complete inversion of the tenets.
So to answer you finally, “Christians” aren’t necessarily full of themselves, but in a lot of places these days, you will find people professing a christian faith that gleefully feeds narcissism such that “winning the football game” or “making a lot of money” are signs of favor and divine glory, is morally, inexplicably more akin to Norse larping than traditionally Christian views and behaviors, that is increasingly less interested as an entity in being anything more than what it’s supposed to be - a mass manipulation tool.
Christians are like this because they’re either mindfucked real deep. just a gaping hungry butthole in their brains desperate for a rod or to spew shit everywhere; or they’re climbing. they’re using this monstrosity to increase their own corporeal power.
I personally hate it.
Thank you for this fantastic post! I used to be something of a comparative religion nerd myself but fell out of it sometime ago but have been wanting to get back to studying again.
You seem like a good person to ask this question: what books would you recommend that try and uncover what the original Christianity movement started by Jesus was?
The one book I’ve found that investigates what scholars actually believe to be the authentic sayings of Jesus (or as close as they can ascertain based off of comparison of the various Gospels) is a book called “The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus” by a group of biblical scholars that created the Jesus Seminar.
Is there any other books you’d recommend in that same vein?
two suggestions
John of History, Baptist of Faith: The Quest for the Historical Baptizer. James McGrath, 2024. This one isn’t about Jesus specifically. It is a deep investigation of his teacher, John the Baptist. In discussing this topic McGrath explores the political and religion situation in Judea at the time; John and Jesus’s existence and relationship and how they were claimed by two emerging traditions, the Gnostics and the Christians, and reshaped by those groups to suit changing theology.
They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha. Fernando Rubio, 2023. This one takes a look in detail at the Gospels’ stories, arguing 1) Jesus was arrested, tried and executed by the Romans for rebellion, not the Jewish priesthood for blasthemy; 2) the early christians transformed his fellow martyrs, on his right and left, into bandits to dissociate their movement from rebellion; 3) the focus on Jesus and his divinity is a complete departure from his teachings which; 4) replace the actual socioeconomic sufferingsof the period and his parables with focus on the spiritual sufferings (e.g. transformation of “blessed are the poor” to “blessed are the poor in spirit”)
They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha. Fernando Rubio, 2023. This one takes a look in detail at the Gospels’ stories, arguing 1) Jesus was arrested, tried and executed by the Romans for rebellion, not the Jewish priesthood for blasthemy; 2) the early christians transformed his fellow martyrs, on his right and left, into bandits to dissociate their movement from rebellion; 3) the focus on Jesus and his divinity is a complete departure from his teachings which; 4) replace the actual socioeconomic sufferingsof the period and his parables with focus on the spiritual sufferings (e.g. transformation of “blessed are the poor” to “blessed are the poor in spirit”)
I’ve been exposed to this argument before, and it has profoundly changed how I read the Gospels. The cracks that break it all down are two very single observations:
-
The Romans by all objective accounts were the Christkillers, not Jews. It was the Romans who scourged Christ, it was the Romans who drove the nails into his body, and it was the Romans who almost ran a spear through his body in order to hasten his death.
-
Despite the objective fact that the title of Christkiller should be placed upon the collective heads of the Romans, do the received Gospels actively portray the Romans as Christkillers or do they try to obfuscate this objective fact?
A lot of the parables and events also make more sense when you remember that Judea is being occupied by Rome. Jesus chasing out the tax collectors was him decolonizing a temple by throwing out Roman collaborators. Jesus telling the young rich man he’s not going to heaven is basically him telling off some Roman collaborator who got rich out of selling out his fellow Judean. Judas was the ancient equivalent of a Palestinian working with Mossad for money.
-
There’s really nothing off hand I can offer that answers your specific question, unfortunately. I can look through some stuff and see where I got my ideas, but that’ll take more time than I have tonight.
for books on thinking about religion and athropology more generally, i have to recommend Existential Anthropology by Michael Jackson (no relation hee hee) - despite not being specifically about religion, i feel it… really is helpful in creating a useful mindset for approaching religion & human society-centric topics in an academic and scholarly manner - tbqh it gets frustrating that this kind of education isn’t a more important part of marxist studies, because it would radically alter the left’s ability to engage with people for whom religion is often the dividing line between us and them.
i can possibly assemble a few others. I’ll see what I can do - DM me so i don’t forget about this and i’ll throw some stuff your way when i have time.
In the mean time, i can at least point you to educational (non polemical/apologetic and backed up with real data) videos.
I highly recommend Religion For Breakfast and Let’s Talk Religion. The former has a doctorate and is a pretty serious scholar. His videos often invite the view to comport themselves to a more academic understanding of the material before explaining things.
I would be careful to rely overly on materials that are speculative or are kinda… normie facing? the stuff that’s made for sale as something you might readily find at barnes & noble or half-price books - as that stuff will not be trying to teach you how to think about and approach religious topics in a neutral, truth-seeking manner.
This is a Religion For Breakfast video about the parallels between modern fandoms & similar phenomena, and classical religion, and iirc to make sure the distinctions are understood he tries to read the viewer in to a more helpful mindset to think about these things in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU8w4KxoyRk
Let’s Talk Religion is also ace stuff, but is more Islam-focused, and is, imo, really quite valuable in a very similar way.
I do read, but this stuff is a lot better to put in my head than entertainment slop, so i tend to favor it when i’m trying to distract myself. Lets me learn while being lazy.
They post their sources, back up their claims and analysis, and are generally a good starting point for deconstructing religious matters.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
I don’t think there is any consensus about it. There seems to be multiple sources for non-primary texts through the years. As well the accounts we have seem to be a combination of different local legends from diffrent times. I think there is one thread to pull though. Some more modern biblical scholars think the underlying set of works exist. They called it the Q gospel set. I have no idea how valid any of that is though. Plus, it basically seems like a bronze age peasant yearning for the good old days of primitive communism to me.
Incredibly well condensed post! I grew up being groomed to be one of the “flock” myself. Had a room mate that got me in deep in conspiracy theory and prosperity gospel stuff for a while. Glad I’m out.
Wondering if you have any resources on the bit about Paul and mysticism/occult things?
Aside from the status of Christianity in America, and the particular church that these particular behaviours come from, there’s also the problem that the bible is a highly inconsistent book that, alongside some good moral philosophy at times, also advocates great evil. It tells you how much you should get when selling your daughter. It instructs the ancient Jews on what the rules for taking each other into slavery should be (this is the more lenient version, where they should be released in the Jubilee year, although how often the Jubilee is held varies…). It also instructs them to “buy slaves from the nations around you”, and says they should be held as chattel. It says that disobedient children should be executed. It says that if you beat your slave and he survives at least two days, you didn’t do anything wrong in beating him. Jesus at one point instructs that a runaway slave should be returned to his owner, on the basis that the world was ending anyway and it was less trouble for everyone (he was an end times preacher and said in the gospels that he would return to bring the heavenly kingdom within the lifespan of the people present).
CW sexual violence
It says that if a woman isremovedd within city limits and no one hears her cry out for help, that she should be stoned to death as an adulterer because she was supposedly willing. It says that where aremoved is determined to actually beremoved, the victim should be forced to marry theremoved, who should pay her father restitution. There is no restitution or protection for the victim.
The list goes on. This I believe has two effects:
Firstly, any Christian who reads the bible sees the chosen people, who are supposedly holy and superior, being downright evil. They don’t do those things, so they must be even more holy, and unbelievers must be doing even worse! Or they do do those things, but don’t see a problem because, again, they see the holiest men in the bible doing awful things, too.
Secondly, and more obviously, they can use the bible to justify pretty much anything. It’s a contradictory work that’s been translated many times. Some of these donkeys use the famous verse “it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” to justify prosperity gospel. They’re just so used to twisting scripture to suit their ends that it wouldn’t occur to them not to.
Oh wow, I can’t believe the people who worship this guy suck

When you start looking into it it’s incredible how evil the bible is. Christians who aren’t literalists and think that the bible is an imperfect collection of documents gathered by imperfect humans can be perfectly decent people, of course. There’s some really good (if not particularly groundbreaking, it is after all a literally ancient text) moral philosophy in it.
But literalists? To be fair even literalists discard most of the bible at various times to avoid the bits they dislike, but the commitment to taking it literally, however insincere/incomplete, really does push them into some deeply evil beliefs. My mother is and grandmother was a proclaimed literalist and both manage to be mostly decent people… But good god can you not ask questions because when you point out the contradictions they quickly get angry then uncomfortable.
As an added bonus I live with my mother … And have a biology degree. Wheeeeeeeee. She has been listening to the fucking Americans about evolution and it’s both infuriating and deeply stupid.
It’s very frustrating. I went to a Church of Christ when I was young, a literalist sect. They believed that instrumental music in the church, and dancing anywhere was sinful. Even the name, Church of Christ, must be exact because Jesus said make the church in my name. Of course they also held the more harmful beliefs.
I was forced to go from the ages of 9-13. By the time I was 11 I was pretty sure it was bullshit, and I’m thankful I didn’t go younger or I may have been indoctrinated. 11-12 years old I read the King James Bible (they explain away translation etc as being guided by god) just about cover to cover and I was convinced it was bullshit. But there was one moment in particular that sealed the deal.
I asked in bible class before church one Sunday if people who had never heard the word would go to hell. I was told that god makes sure that everyone on earth learns about Jesus and the resurrection at some point, and if they chose not to believe they were damned. I followed up- what about people in an uncontacted tribe in the Amazon? I was told that if they were truly good people, god would have sent someone to teach them, so since that didn’t happen, they deserved hell.
It’s some sick fucking stuff.
I mean, by the letter of the bible, infants go to hell. “No one comes to the father except through me” is an absolute statement. I had a very good friend for years (we lost touch over the last fifteen years or so but she was very important to me for a long time) who is a Christian and iirc a priest’s daughter. She is also bisexual and has many close gay friends. I asked her how she reconciled that with her Christianity, and she said basically that it was easy, because she worshipped a Jesus and a god that wasn’t homophobic etc - if she’s wrong and biblical homophobia actually reflected God’s will, well, she wouldn’t worship that being anyway. Always struck me as an interesting take, if not spectacularly theologically sound. And of course I will take someone being a decent human being over bigotry justified by good theology (not that accepting the supposed proscription of homosexuality in the bible is good theology of course) a thousand times over. I sometimes need to remind myself that people like her exist and are just as Christian as the assholes.
The god they worship is evil. Just point blank evil. I’m more surprised when seemingly good people get swept up in it.
If you really believed in this Divine being wouldn’t you want it to focus on the important things like IDK making sure everyone has food and shelter and maybe making life less miserable for the homeless people?
Good luck getting an answer on this one. Since their god seemingly cannot do anything of course they focus his “power” on things that might actually happen (yes communism I’m talking about in the immediate here and now). They don’t pray for an amputees healing.
The purpose of a system is what it does and the purpose of Christianity is to control women, abuse children, and murder queer people. All large, longstanding christian institutions adapt to serve these goals and must do so in order to survive. The larger and more longstanding the institution the greater the degree of its adaptation. This naturally leads to the cultivation of followers who will support and carry out such things in a mutual feedback loop. (Something something dialectics) Their belief in their own inate superiority is a part of that. One which meshes very well with white supremacy, hence its even greater prevalence in settler colonies.
They’re the Elect. The special, chosen few that get to go to Heaven. Everyone else is destined for Hell.
From that point of view it’s surprising that there are any Christians who aren’t full of themselves.
Of course they also simultaneously believe that:
1 - it’s a very difficult life to lead - being forgiven for all of your sins literally just for asking, rather than having to earn it from the people you wronged, is hard. Having to actually earn forgiveness from the community around you, and the people you hurt, is easy! So they are much stronger than the godless heathens around them.
2 - the knowledge that they are God’s chosen who get to go to heaven - that they are the favoured children of an impossibly powerful deity - makes them humble. Because they believe that a being so much greater than them exists. The godless heathens don’t, so they think they are the best in the universe and are arrogant.
It’s an impressive feat of cognitive dissonance but it does help explain how they’re convinced by neoliberal capitalism.
Personally thanking God for small goofy comforts would be fine on its own, but pietymogging over some nugs is fucking pathetic lmao. It couldn’t be any more obvious this behavior is entirely performative.
Please heavenly father, bless us with our daily bread and 4.0% quarterly profit increase. Blessed is thy revenue, Amen.
To add to what was said before, there’s a bit of a selection effect going on where the most annoying people possible are the ones raising their religion or, worse, denomination as their identity. Case in point, how obnoxious do you have to be to identity as One of the Christians with Real Christian Values in a country that was founded by christians and was 99 percent christian until like 10 minutes ago? I’m convinced ‘Christian’ in the US is like when a Catholic is holier than the Pope.
To be fair, many of the “founding fathers” of the USA were deists rather than christians. Rapist slavemaster Thomas Jefferson even made his own version of the Bible with the supernatural stuff removed.
Pretty sure I’ve been in a prayer thanking Jesus for some hot wings.
:meatwad: Dear Gee-whiz. Please bless thine presence with a sixteen inch, thick crust, meat craver’s special, with the mild sauce, amen.
And please bring a side of wings while we wait.
Please do not lump all Christians in with folks like this. People who call themselves Christians and impose their values on others are not Christians. They’re hypocrites who use the name of Christ to oppress in order to make their lives under capitalism feel more powerful. There are plenty of Christians out there doing great work. Read Paulo Freire.
Icky. I believe you have fine intentions, but you’re trying to “no true Scotsman” your way out of admitting that Christianity is currently a Nazi bar. The Nazis were allowed in, now they won’t leave. I believe good Christians exist, but unfortunately they are either unwilling, or unable to kick the Nazis out.
For any good Christians, the fight isn’t to convince everyone outside the bar that you aren’t a Nazi, the fight is to finally kick all the Nazis out of your bar.
And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
“In truth, there was only one Cristian, and he died on the cross.”
Just like every muslim is ISIS right?
If someone said that “ISIS are not real Muslims” using the same no true Scotsman fallacy that you did, I would find that equally icky, yes.
And comparing Christians to Muslims isn’t exactly apples to apples, either. Christians run the imperial core. Christians create the western propoganda, head the biggest most expensive imperial armies of the world, and hold the majority of the world’s wealth and power.
Ok a global scale, Christians are the oppressors, Muslims are the oppressed.
So while certainly there are Muslims who do bad things in the name of Islam, I prefer to spend the vast majority my time and attention punching up to Christians, than punching down to Muslims.
When you lump people into one category you’re punching into space. That was the whole point of my comment. Most people are good and capable of change as I’m sure you have changed at some point. If you want to critique, totally fine: give specific examples. When you generalize like this you’re turning away people who might otherwise be your comrade.
For the record, I’m a white USian, and when people criticize white USians for being ghouls that ruin everything, I don’t wring my hands and say “don’t lump us all in together, some of us are good, if you say that I won’t be your comrade”, I say “yup fuck those crakkkers, death to America”.
That’s what it takes. You fight from the inside.
I see where you’re coming from but in some communities, the church is the only vessel for organization and is the spark to understand how change happens through material support. I’m not here to defend any particular christian institutions, I’m just saying when you call the entire room Nazi’s you’re negating generations of liberation movements whether here in the US or abroad. Of course, its about fighting from the inside. You’re always fighting from inside any institution for any change you want to make. Again, this is not a defense of charity in favor of a larger mass movement, but damn, it feels like you’re being intentionally alienating.
You might be unfamiliar with the Nazi bar analogy - I’m not saying everyone in the bar is a Nazi, but that it will continue to be a Nazi bar until you kick all the Nazis out.
Step 1 is to stop being offended that people call a Nazi bar a Nazi bar.
Step 2 is to admit you have a Nazi problem.
Step 3 is to make the conscious decision that you don’t want your bar to be a Nazi bar anymore.
Step 4 is to kick all the Nazis out.
you’re negating generations of liberation movements
No, refusing to acknowledge that the room has a bunch of Nazis inside, is what’s negating generations of liberation movements.
I’m not saying that the bar needs to be shut down, just that all the Nazis need to be kicked out. Until the Nazis are kicked out of the bar, it will be referred to as a Nazi bar.
Plenty of specific critiques here that any good Christian would agree with.
To be a good person capable of change means being able to take criticism, especially of being part of a globally oppressive cult. Someone who can’t handle the criticism of being part of a globally oppressive cult, is not a good person, is not capable of change, and was never a potential comrade.
If I can’t say “your Nazi bar is full of Nazis” because that would offend someone so much that they would rather ally with the Nazis instead, they were always a Nazi.
I mean these good people are part of deeply evil and irrational organisations. Good work doesn’t put them above criticism for that.
deleted by creator
Just like any organization with power, Christians are also susceptible to corruption. Mainstream Protestantism (Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodists, etc.) generally have a more democratic structure on a local level which gives each congregation their own center of power. Even in Catholic parishes, this can lead to great things when partnered with a good theology. In some ways, it is good that these institutions don’t have that much influence in the halls of world power anymore. But I think it’s more insidious that these faceless evangelical grifters are speaking into the ears of politicians like evil witches.
I haven’t read Moral Man and Immoral Society but I just added it to my reading list!
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
This sounds like typical nondenominational Christianity, y’know the large concert hall style churches with the coffee shops and the “modern” worship songs you’re taking about, and the people who think prayer is a personal wishlist. Not saying strictly denominational Christianity is better, in many ways it’s worse, but at least you don’t have to put up with a lot of this.
I’m basing this opinion as someone who grew up in a more traditional denominational church, and then my parents went to one of those nondenominational larger churches.
Not trying to dox myself but to clear up assumptions here the place I am working is close to the AME Zion type of churches. These are 99% African Americans.
Plusses: The worship music is better than when I was around Evangelicals. Some of their stuff has more R&B elements and is downright danceable!
Lots of “hug your neighbors” and interactive stuff. Feels like organizing TBH… but for an empty purpose. As an organizer in Socialist circles I look at a room like this and think of how powerful we could be if I could get this room to do food distribution in the surrounding neighborhood which is poor af.
Thanks ya’ll for taking my mainly rant post and teaching me a lot. When I was in my younger “edgy atheist” phase I would look at these people and think “why would you so willingly take up your slaveowners’ religion like this?” I realize that a) was racist, b) was not a good analysis. There’s power in reclaiming what is used to repress you. I’m not trying to make enemies of these people but understand them, mainly for job security but also because I want to believe devout Christians would read what Jesus said and be halfway there to becoming comrades. IDK the old testament is barbaric at points but the Jesus dude sounds like a comrade?
Protestant work ethic and American Christian nationalism.
American evangelicals might be a completely different religion.























