all 52 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 68 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Protestants: "Ahh but that was Catholicism. And Catholicism isn't Christian."

picard-facepalm.gif

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    I totally get the satire in your comment but I just wanna say, the forced Christianization of indigenous Americans was definitely carried out by Protestants.

    edit: I guess Protestants didn't have widespread, overt "accept baptism or we'll execute you on the spot" policies like some Catholic missions in the Americas, but the result of forced relocation and family separation was much the same. When they force people onto a reservation on an inhospitable plot of land half a continent away from their homes, and then withhold aid unless they accept Christ as their savior, they might as well be saying "convert or die." Same goes for using the natives' "heathenry" as part of the justification for wars and war crimes.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I'm basically a secular humanist, and I've heard the statement that Catholics aren't Christians, in person, a few times. The two times that come to mind were from very different people (a Chinese Christian that lives in Beijing, and a Canadian Christian that lives on an apple orchard in southern Ontario). Both of whom were coworkers I spent some time with while travelling for work (different jobs, about 10 years apart).

    I've always shut it down as a wildly offensive thing to say, and not worthy of discussing. So I've never gotten a real explantion for why some Christians believe it. Is it a common opinion?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 10 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Evangelicals sometimes hold to it - basically, there's a whole 'thing' about nuda scriptura amongst certain protestant sects, especially those which gained prominence in the modern US in the 19th century. In the minds of these sects, by nuda scriptura - 'bare scripture' - there's only one authority on theology, and that is the Bible, interpreted literally. To them, then, the entire Old World church hierarchies and traditions are some bizarre Satanist plot to lead Christians astray by NOT following ONLY the Bible and nothing but the Bible.

    Catholics tend to emphasize things like Church tradition, and even reason (gasp), as means of constructing theology, while Old World-originated protestants sects, like Lutherans, tend to view the Bible as the highest but not only source of theology (sola scriptura). To New World sect evangelicals, the latter is misguided but essentially harmless; the former is (though they would never use this term, instead preferring to denigrate their enemies as not Christians at all) heresy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I've heard it coming from hardcore Mormons, which I found hilariously ironic - seeing as how pretty much every other Christian Church/denomination doesn't see them as Christians.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Mormonism rejects the Trinity and you get your own magical planet/become like God when you die. I think most Christians would find that profoundly heretical.

    The church has mostly been doing a propaganda campaign to present themselves as just another denomination of Christianity, but Adam-God and the spirit wives is just gross and weird.

    “Hey ladies! The best afterlife you get is pumping out babies with all of your husbands other wives for all of eternity!”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago*

    Yeah, that pivot they are attempting is wild. They are trying to cozy up to all the evangelicals and think they can pull some Jeff mind truck to make them forget all the crazy shit they taught from bygone years.

    Do they really think the other churches will forget about the golden tablets, Adam-God, moon quakers, sun people, 'elders' becoming gods of their own planet/Galaxy/universe, rocks in hats, weird salamanders, etc etc. Because they won't. (I didn't mention polygamy or the underage girl hoarding because I'm pretty sure that's an objective quite a few evangelical leaders hope to achieve eventually.)

    The other churches are at best using them in the short term and will ditch them as soon as the LDS Church serves no further purpose. But the church leaders are so high on their own farts that they can comprehend that fact.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    My parents' church went at it from a 'the saints are demons' angle. Something about how praying to the saints for intercession was somehow in violation of the 'no gods before me' commandment. But this was the NAR, which is just fuckin weird to begin with.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    I grew up catholic in the Midwest. Yeah it's a thing some protestants believe. They think catholics worship Mary, the saints, and/or the devil. It's the sort of thing you see from the sorts of protestants who are fucking insane.

    My great grandma's funeral was hijacked by the preacher to tell the catholic side of the family that we were all going to hell. She didn't even believe in that sect, my great aunt just abused her into it when she had dementia. It was the sort of sect where there's no drinking or dancing at weddings and women aren't allowed to wear panted garments.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 48 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    He's never heard of it. Because he's oblivious to history.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    My man should watch Sugarcane. I’d bet those poor kids wished the priests were only threatening them with knives.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    You could name any time a Christian came to a new land. Guaranteed they did their best to dismantle the local everything in order to spread Christianity because why would they be peaceful when instead they could indoctrinate people?

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    Knife-point, sword point, gunpoint, gallows, guillotine, poison, several other more gruesome methods, Christianity has done it all.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    No, you wouldn't have heard of it if you're willfully ignorant.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Also, just being the wrong type of Christian in the 14th and 15th centuries was a good way to get burnt at the steak or hung if you weren't willing to convert to whichever was currently in fashion with the monarch.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    Hardcore christians tend to be less educated. Not always. Some of them are highly educated, yet live in a state of delerium. But a lot of them are as stupid as Marjorie Taylor Green, who thought qanon posts about secret satanic cabals were pronounced "cables." We have absolute morons in the seats of power. Making consequential decisions. Forcing society to be worse and worse and worse. I hate the world. I especially hate the USA (my country).

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    It never happened so long as you don't count the past 2000 years of history.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Oh buddy let me tell you about the Magdalene Laundries...

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Christianity is pretty much the main religion to have practiced swordpoint conversion. Heck, even the schisms within the faith loved to burn people to death for not renouncing/embracing the Pope.

    By contrast, Islam often took a carrot rather than stick approach with a two-tier society where conversion bestowed additional rights.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • they always told me that Islam spread by sword killing everyone who didn't convert,

    then casually mention how much jews thrived in Al Andaluz, or how there were Jewish communities in Palestine that thrived there since the Roman empire collapsed. and Jews who were in Yemen for thousands of years. and Marroco....

    Almost like despite a non Muslim tax, Islam was actually tolerant.

    and it is modern Neocolonialism they pushes for theocratic dictatorships in arab countries to secure oil.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 year ago

    Both Islam and Christianity varied wildly in their approach by region. Islam certain has many 'conversion by the sword' incidents, some lasting centuries of brutality, and Christianity, likewise, has plenty of periods of co-existence.

    One of the core issues, I think, is that we generally think of European Christianity, whose history is largely intolerant until the Protestant Reformation, and even after that often quite brutal; whereas Christianity in the East and in Africa very often included institutionalized coexistence with other faiths.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    They're all the same God too which adds a level of "what the fuck?"

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago*
    [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Verden?wprov=sfla1

    The time 4500 saxons were beheaded and thrown in a river during the Frankish forced conversion of the germanic pagans to christianity

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (13 children)

    Or colonisation in Africa or South America, or in Australia and New Zealand, or basically everywhere xtians have gone. Amongst their mandates in the bible is to spread their beliefs to ‘lower’ cultures, after all. Ya know, to ‘save’ them.

    Or the Holocaust – fun fact, Hitler wasn’t atheist, that’s just one more thing xtians lie about to distance themselves from it; the Nazis required prayers in school, included it in their oaths, and steeped their iconography in it.

    It’s insane how many widespread genocides have their roots in this toxic mythology.

    e: there are some extreme recent examples, too, like the guy who tried bringing Jesus to the North Sentinelese, with tragically predictable results. But he believed in the mission, just like the rest of the brainwashed. Unfortunately they’re going to kill us instead of themselves.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (12 children)

    The Hitler thing is complicated. He was in broad terms a Christian early on (though a sect that denied Jesus as divine, and recast him as an aryan), but there is little evidence Hitler believed in anything in his whole life except for Nazism, his mother, and the Opera. This then was largely as a power play - he ultimately saw organised religion as a locus of control and later an existential threat to the authority of the Third Reich. When his proposed Reich Church failed to materialise, he lost interest in the religious angle, and by 1937 was foretelling the ultimate struggle between Nazism and Christianity, ending with the latter’s destruction. 2,700 members of the clergy were imprisoned in a special barracks at Dachau.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    It’s really not complicated. Christians have just tried to make it so for a long time.

    There’s overwhelming evidence that Hitler was a staunch Christian: the man himself said:

    We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity. Our movement is Christian.

    I get annoyed when people denigrate reading or owning Mein Kampf – everyone should read it. The myths of Hitler have overshadowed the truths, and we need to learn from the truths.

    His movement was one of a religious zealot taking those beliefs to extremes, which involved the decimation of another in the Abrahamic triad, as happens with alarming regularity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    That quote comes from a speech in 1928, which is indeed the period in which he was trying to use religion to bring about a rise to power. Relatively soon after this, however, he realised his consolidation of religion wasn’t going to happen, and moved on to other things. By the end of the 1930s, the Reich was pretty anti-religion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

    I’m sorry, but this reads as the many, many coping ‘readings’ that try to downplay his overt Christianity.

    I get it, and I’m not trying to attack you, but this is just wrong.

    He did not convert in the years after this quote, as can be evidenced by his favouring of the church up to the end days, the Catholic Church supporting his efforts due to mutual reciprocity, his integration of christian teachings and outright requirements into the Nazi requirements (including requirements for medals), continued iconography, etc.

    I’m sorry if it hurts, but Hitler was a Christian, and you can’t say his own words don’t matter because a quote is from a few years before he took power.

    By the end of the 1930s, the Reich was pretty anti-religion.

    They objectively weren’t. Can I ask where you’re getting that impression?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] [S] 8 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

    I’m sorry if it hurts, but Hitler was a Christian, and you can’t say his own words don’t matter because a quote is from a few years before he took power.

    Do his words and actions which contradict that after he took power not matter by comparison?

    Hitler was only a Christian insofar as he revered a figure called Jesus Christ to some degree. That he rejected nearly every common theological thread of Christianity, from Biblical authority, to the divinity of Christ, to the authority of any church, to questions of salvation of the soul, to pacifism, to Jesus's very existence as a Jew, should very much cast into question any characterization of Hitler as a Christian in any serious sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    Do his words and actions which contradict that after he took power not matter by comparison?

    Which words and actions? Do you have sources?

    Every time I’ve heard this, nobody can give actual sources. I can, though, for everything from a sanctioned christian state to the individual regulations for official Nazi groups and the delegation of medals. For instance:

    Before 1933, in fact, some bishops prohibited Catholics in their dioceses from joining the Nazi Party. This ban was dropped after Hitler's March 23, 1933, speech to the Reichstag in which he described Christianity as the “foundation” for German values. The Centre Party was dissolved as part of the signing of a 1933 Concordat between the Vatican and Nazi governmental representatives, and several of its leaders were murdered in the Röhm purge in July 1934.

    Do you have sources to refute this?

    E: sorry, I just saw you’re not my original interlocutor. I’m not trying to be adversarial here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] [S] 8 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Which words and actions? Do you have sources?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

    296 citations there.

    That Hitler used Christianity, and that Christians supported Hitler in exchange for preferential treatment and asspats, is not the same as saying that Hitler was a Christian in any realistic sense. Like Mussolini converting to Catholicism and persecuting atheists after a lifetime of personal atheism, fascists will use anything and anyone, and likewise say anything in public, to get their slimy hands on the power to brutalize more people.

    I'm an enemy of Christianity on multiple levels, and Christians, both the protestant conservatives and Zentrum Catholics, were an instrumental part of enabling Hitler, and many became enthusiastic Nazis, but Hitler himself was not, realistically speaking, a Christian.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

    Again, lots of Christians (which have informed the mythology surrounding Hitler and thus his Wikipedia page) really, really don’t want history to think he was Christian. That does not make it not true.

    I am sourcing his actual words and actual actions, throughout his reich. I have many, many direct sources.

    This is very similar to people claiming the fascists currently decimating US democracy aren’t ‘real’ Christians. Yes they are.

    e: and does what was in his heart of hearts really matter? His reich was xtian, just as trump’s is, whether or not he truly believed, whatever that even means.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 4 points 1 year ago

    In 1937, Hanns Kerrl, Hitler's Minister for Church Affairs, explained "positive Christianity" as not "dependent upon the Apostles' Creed", nor in "faith in Christ as the son of God", upon which Christianity relied, but rather, as being represented by the Nazi Party: "The Fuehrer is the herald of a new revelation", he said.[162]

    In 1937, the Nazis banned any member of the Hitler Youth from simultaneously belonging to a religious youth movement. Religious education was not permitted in the Hitler Youth and by 1939, clergymen teachers had been removed from virtually all state schools.[164] Hitler sometimes allowed pressure to be placed on German parents to remove children from religious classes to be given ideological instruction in its place, while in elite Nazi schools, Christian prayers were replaced with Teutonic rituals and sun-worship.[165] By 1939 all Catholic denominational schools had been disbanded or converted to public facilities.[166]

    What nonsense! Here we have at last reached an age that has left all mysticism behind it, and now [Himmler] wants to start that all over again. We might just as well have stayed with the church. At least it had tradition. To think that I may, some day, be turned into an SS saint! Can you imagine it? I would turn over in my grave ...

    I want to differentiate here between the Volk, i.e. the healthy, full-blooded mass of Germany loyal to the Volk, and a decadent, so-called high society, unreliable because only conditionally linked by blood. It is sometimes casually referred to as the 'upper class,' being, however, in reality no more than the scum produced by a societal mutation gone haywire from having had its blood and thinking infected by cosmopolitism. In this period of the most inward orientation, Christian mysticism demanded an approach to the solution of structural problems and hence to an architecture whose design not only ran contrary to the spirit, of the time, but which also helped produce these mysterious dark forces which made the people increasingly willing to submit themselves to cosmopolitism ... This philosophy does not advocate mystic cults, but rather aims to cultivate and lead a Volk determined by its blood. [–] Therefore we do not have halls for cults, but halls for the Volk. Nor do we have places for worship, but places for assembly and squares for marches. We do not have cult sites, but sports arenas and play areas. And it is because of this that our assembly halls are not bathed in the mystical twilight of cult sites but rather are places of brightness and light of a beautiful and practical nature. In these halls, no cult rituals take place, they are exclusively the site of Volk rallies of the type which we conducted in the years of our struggle, which we have become accustomed to, and which we shall preserve in this manner. We will not allow mystically-minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else – in any case, something which has nothing to do with us. At the head of our program there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will – not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord.[170]

    [The Führer] hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity. According to Schopenhauer, Christianity and syphilis have made humanity unhappy and unfree. What a difference between the benevolent, smiling Zeus and the pain-wracked, crucified Christ. ... What a difference between a gloomy cathedral and a light, airy ancient temple. ... The Führer cannot relate to the Gothic mind. He hates gloom and brooding mysticism. He wants clarity, light, beauty. And these are the ideals of life in our time.[171]

    "The Mohammedan religion would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"[215] "Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers – already, you see, the world had fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing was Christianity! – then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism and which opens the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so."

    Hitler's interest was opportunistic: "From Hitler's point of view, a national church was of interest purely from a point of view of control and manipulation", wrote Kershaw.[263] He installed his friend Ludwig Müller as leader of the movement and sought to establish a pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic unified Reich Church.[264] Resistance quickly arose in the form of the Pastors' Emergency League, led by Martin Niemöller, which had 40% of clergy by 1934 and founded the Confessing Church, from which some clergymen opposed the Nazi regime.[265]

    When German Christians called for rejection of the Bible as "Jewish superstition" and of the Christian calling to "love thy neighbour", the movement lost still further support. Hitler's move to have Müller elected Bishop failed – despite intimidation. He then abandoned his efforts to unite the Protestant churches, appointed Hanns Kerrl as Minister for Church Affairs in December 1934, and distanced himself permanently from the so-called "German Christians".[253][266] According to Steigmann-Gall, he regretted that "the churches had failed to back him and his movement as he had hoped".[267] A relative moderate, Kerrl initially had some success but amid continuing protests by the Confessing Church against Nazi policies, he accused dissident churchmen of failing to appreciate the Nazi doctrine of "Race, blood and soil". Kerrl said Nazi positive Christianity rejected the Apostles' Creed and Divinity of Christ as the basis of Christianity, and called Hitler the herald of a new revelation.[162] Hitler had Niemöller sent to the concentration camps in 1938, where he remained until war's end.[268]

    Hitler again told his inner circle that though he "did not want a 'Church struggle' at this juncture", he expected "the great world struggle in a few years' time". Nevertheless, wrote Kershaw, Hitler's impatience with the churches "prompted frequent outbursts of hostility. In early 1937 he was declaring that 'Christianity was ripe for destruction', and that the Churches must yield to the "primacy of the state", railing against any compromise with "the most horrible institution imaginable". Priests were frequently denounced, arrested and sent to concentration camps.[271] At Dachau, the regime established a dedicated Clergy Barracks for church dissidents.[272][273] The Confessing Church seminary was banned. Its leaders, like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, were arrested. Implicated in the 1944 plot to assassinate Hitler, he was later executed.[274]

    Overy wrote that Christianity was ultimately as incompatible with Nazism as it was with Soviet Communism and that "Hitler expected the end of the disease of Christianity to come about by itself once the falsehoods were self-evident. During the war he reflected that in the long run 'National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together'."[268] Other historians have written of a more active intent on the part of Hitler and the Nazi leadership.[29] Kershaw noted that Hitler's scheme for the Germanization of Eastern Europe saw no place for Christian churches and that Goebbels wrote from conversations with Hitler that there was an insoluble opposition between the Christian and a Germanic-heroic world-view which would need settling after the war.[275] Speer noted in his memoir that churches were not to receive building sites in Hitler's new Berlin.[276] Bullock wrote "once the war was over, Hitler promised himself, he would root out and destroy the influence of the Christian Churches".[30] The Nazi plan was to "de-Christianise Germany after the final victory", writes historian of German Resistance Anton Gill.[277] "By the latter part of the decade of the thirties church officials were well aware that the ultimate aim of Hitler and other Nazis was the total elimination of Catholicism and of the Christian religion. Since the overwhelming majority of Germans were either Catholic or Protestant this goal had to be a long-term rather than a short-term Nazi objective", wrote Michael Phayer.[278]

    "Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure... it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic."

    It goes on, in fact, but there's a character limit for comments. Not sure what more you want other than Hitler's own words, accounts of allies and enemies, and actual practical action of the Nazi regime at Hitler's behest.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    His reich was xtian,

    That there were very deep and serious strains of neopaganism and atheism in Nazi Germany that were exceptional by the standards of the time and the region is likewise well-documented. Not even getting into 'positive Christianity'.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    There are serious threads of neopaganism in evangelical Christianity now – just look at ‘crunchy moms’.

    I feel like my original point has been lost. I’m specifically speaking against the ‘no true Scotsman’ thing we’re seeing, and how that thinking is leading many people to accidentally cheerlead for the very forces that are ripping us apart.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    There are serious threads of neopaganism in evangelical Christianity now – just look at ‘crunchy moms’.

    That's... not even close.

    Really, look into the religious practices of Nazi institutions and high-ranking Nazis.

    I feel like my original point has been lost. I’m specifically speaking against the ‘no true Scotsman’ thing we’re seeing, and how that thinking is leading many people to accidentally cheerlead for the very forces that are ripping us apart.

    There’s overwhelming evidence that Hitler was a staunch Christian

    I’m sorry, but this reads as the many, many coping ‘readings’ that try to downplay his overt Christianity.

    I get it, and I’m not trying to attack you, but this is just wrong.

    He did not convert in the years after this quote, as can be evidenced by his favouring of the church up to the end days, the Catholic Church supporting his efforts due to mutual reciprocity, his integration of christian teachings and outright requirements into the Nazi requirements (including requirements for medals), continued iconography, etc.

    I’m sorry if it hurts, but Hitler was a Christian, and you can’t say his own words don’t matter because a quote is from a few years before he took power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago

    I don’t want to argue with you in this comment section, truly. I think we have very different perspectives on the same data, and I’m struggling to see exactly how we’re coming to loggerheads here.

    In everything I’ve studied, including extensive reading of his personal and professional writings (I was obsessed for a while when I was younger), I’ve come to the conclusion that Hitler was a Christian. I am nowhere near alone in this. It’s late and I’m tired, so whatever, I’ll concede this point.

    I don’t get why you want to argue about the rest with me? I’ve seen your name here a lot and you seem like a cool dude. If you want to continue this with me, I guess I’m game, but tomorrow.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Do they mean it isn't said in the Bible that Christians are required to forcibly convert people?

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    question, given that Christianity was forced on enslaved populations, why didn't freed slaves ditch Christianity and try to go back to their African traditions.

    I know some black communities did that. but if expect that the majority of them would ditch Christianity, not a minority

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago*

    Learn about Aretha Franklin. The reason is because black people developed large Christian networks that helped their communities. Back then, if you were black and wanted to travel to another state, not every town was safe and you couldn't stay at hotels. So they'd call their churches and stay with other members of the church, and get advice through their churches on which towns to avoid. To this day many black people stipp network through their churches, which gave them a lot of safety.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Christianity, interestingly enough, was not strongly forced on enslaved populations in the US. In the early Colonies, the concept that keeping Christians, specifically, as slaves was still a subject that was frowned upon, so many slavers actually took steps to prevent their slaves from converting, which directly led to several modern syncretic faiths as slaves attempted to keep their own traditions alive, while gleaning what they could from the religious standards of society around them.

    By the foundation of the US, the Christianization of slaves had become a hot topic, with slavery supporters often coming out against it, either by the creation of a slaver pseudoclerical class which would 'interpret' it for the slaves (ideally in a way that kept them 'in their place') or by the total denial of resources of Christianity to enslaved peoples. By contrast, many abolitionists were strongly Christian, and one of the common illegal activities of abolitionists in the US was teaching slaves how to read, particularly the Bible, and organizing underground churches wherein slaves could operate their own services and lead their own congregations.

    Christianity, as such, was seen by slaves largely as less of the enforced, slaver's faith, and more as simply the faith of the land that slavers denied slaves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Which why is this being limited to one inquisition from one nation?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment