I recently read a Tweet that posed a rhetorical question: “Is the cruelty of Republicanism a result of their Christianity?”
First, the question requires agreeing that Republicans are a cruel party. I assume by this the one posing the question is referring to some of the very dramatically cruel gestures conservative politicians have made, often to cheers from their adoring throng of voters, things like:
- Trump’s insults of women and boasting of sexual assault; also his racist comments, his mocking of a disabled reporter, and so forth.
- Separating the children of asylum seekers from their parents with no tracking mechanism to return them to them
- Deceiving asylum seekers and sending them to Martha’s Vineyard
- Kari Lake making a joke about Paul Pelosi, the 82 year old non-politician who was assaulted with a hammer by a right-wing conspiracy theorist who wanted to maim Nancy Pelosi.
- Don Trump, Jr making a joke about a Paul Pelosi Halloween costume while Mr. Pelosi was still in the ICU.
Aside from political stunts like these, perhaps the “cruel” remark was more about the comfort within Republican voters for things like racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia, seeing “wokeism” as a far worse threat to society. This is an opinion apparently shared by BYU’s own Clark Gilbert as previously discussed on other posts by different bloggers.
I recently read a book called The Cruelty is the Point by Adam Serwer, explaining why conservatives resist social change that improves lives for traditionally marginalized people. The more cruel the dialogue, often the more successful the politician.
But is all this inflammatory cruel talk based in Christianity? And does conservative Christianity make people more cruel or less cruel?
The crux of this question is whether Christianity really says what some claim it does. Most of the political analysis reveals that often Republican voters who claim Christianity are not actively involved with any denomination. Their Christianity is more theoretical than practical. They see it as a way to justify their beliefs, to add heft to their existing opinions, and to bolster their own standing. In these cases, religion is a post hoc justification for things they already believe and want.
To determine whether Christianity makes people more cruel or less cruel, we would have to know how cruel they would be without it. If the cruelty is linked to Christianity (the Tweet’s claim), then there are various theories why this might be so:
- Their personal cruelty was attracted to a cruel strain in Christianity. Cruel people join cruel sects. Birds of a feather.
- They weren’t cruel naturally, but Christian teachings in conservative congregations made them more cruel. (Perhaps a link to grievance narratives or persecution complex / a literal demonization of enemies).
- They were cruel, but Christianity made them temper their naturally cruel impulses; it improved them, but they are still more cruel than others, just less cruel than they would be.
- Everyone’s cruel, and it manifests differently depending on which tribe you choose.
- They see the world as fallen and to survive, cruelty and toughness are required. They see God as vengeful against a world of sinners. They see themselves as fighting “sinners” like God does. (This is of course another justification narrative).
- If you say the word cruel a lot of times it sounds really weird. Cruel. Cruel. Cru-el.
Personally, I don’t see any connection between my own Christian views and cruelty, but with or without Christianity, I’m mostly a pacifist–live and let live. I believe more in comfort and acceptance of others, not marginalization, even of my rhetorical foes. Any way you slice it, though, I am not a conservative Christian. There are plenty of Christian sects out there that are not conservative. The cruelty discussed in the aforementioned Tweet thread is more strongly linked to Republican voters than Christians who vote Democrat or for other parties. Christianity can’t really be said to be the source of cruelty (or its justification) when it doesn’t function that way universally across all sects.
But, and this is an important distiction, I utterly reject the notion that loving God and loving one’s neighbors is in conflict or requires a prioritization of God over neighbors. To me that is antithetical to what Jesus taught, despite the fact that some of our conversative leadership are suddenly preaching this idea. I see no evidence for this viewpoint in the New Testament, and no real precedent within the Church for this new focus. This feels like that post hoc justification for cruelty that I mentioned above, particularly for homophobic and transphobic cruelty, victim blaming of women, and blaming the poor for their plight. It’s a traditional cruelty with a long-standing history, but that doesn’t mean it’s really what Jesus wants or preached. It’s the status quo cruelty of a pre-1990s world, similar to pre-civil rights views on race and women. When social movements and progress educate us, we learn to do better. If religions oppose gaining empathy for our fellow humans, then yes, they are the source of additional cruelty in society. And apparently outlawing education on racism is also in the playbook. Of course.
So, back to the original question (is the cruelty of the Republican party the result of Christianity?) my own view is that the Republican party uses Christianity as a weapon to add heft to its own aims and values, not that these values originated in Christianity which can be seemingly twisted to mean whatever someone wants it to mean, with or without any textual support or precedent.
But to the bigger question I asked, whether Church makes people better or worse, my answer is both and neither. Maybe it’s like alcohol that just exaggerates the person you already are. If you have a cruel streak, it can be used to justify that and make you even more cruel because you think it’s the “right” thing or you are surrounded by others who agree. If you are not cruel, there’s plenty of opportunity to serve others that funnels through Church. As Victor Frankl observed in Man’s Search for Meaning, after being liberated from concentration camps, some people were more empathetic and others were more hardened and self-centered in their behavior.
Consider the attitudes that might crop up in any given Ward Council, discussing the needs of a ward member who needs help. How long do we need to help them? Why isn’t the family doing more? What’s the minimum we can do so we don’t wear out our resources? Why isn’t he more self-reliant? Is she taking advantage of the church? Has she paid tithing? Is he being grateful enough to warrant more help? Do they come to church? Have they contributed in the past? Is her illness a byproduct of her own bad choices? Why doesn’t he have a support network? What’s our liability? Are we supporting luxuries or needs? Are they being at all demanding or are they happy with whatever we give them?
Of course, resources are not infinite, and many of these questions are relevant to the scope of help. But some of these questions have mixed motives. It’s easier to limit help to someone we can blame for their predicament or someone who isn’t grateful enough or who didn’t plan ahead well enough or who expects too much, etc. etc. Some people are wired to serve others; some are wired to judge them. Religions are fantastic at accommodating both types of people, and the judgmental ones often rise in the ranks because they are seen as tough-minded decision makers, not bleeding heart squishes. I’m certainly wired to be more judgmental than service-oriented, but in my case, the Church pressures me to serve others. I take Jesus’ words seriously to put myself in another’s place and act accordingly. It would be so much easier to be an a-hole.
At core, I’m mostly just selfish and lazy when it comes to service. I’d much rather just live my own little life and not have to bother. I don’t really have the cruel streak I see in others sometimes whether at Church, on Twitter, or in politics. It takes my breath away sometimes how awful people can be. I may not always help, but I try not to hurt other people. Did I get that from Christianity or is that just my temperament? That’s the same old nature / nurture question that seems to be at the core. The Church hasn’t made me more cruel, or I don’t think it has, even though I’ve encountered some alarming cruelty from my fellow congregants. Would they be more unfettered in their cruelty without the Church? Or is the Church helping them justify and normalize their cruelty? I suspect the latter, but if it wasn’t the Church, they would find some other justification.
What do you think?
- Does Church bring out the best in people or the worst? Defend your answer with examples.
- Do you think the current political discourse on the right has led to more cruelty or revealed what was there but hidden? Why or why not?
- Does Christianity create more cruelty or is it just used as a justification? Why do you think as you do?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Great post. I had a conversation a while back with a friend about life and church and at one point he said in frustration (I’m paraphrasing): “I’ve known people for years now in the church, and they are all just the same now as when I first knew them. Why isn’t the church/gospel making anyone better?” I felt his pain.
I’ve seen similar from my own experiences. It seems to me that the good, Christlike people are still good/Christlike and the bigots are still bigots, although they happily and faithfully do all the church box-ticking. In the middle there are some who have had the harder edges knocked off over the years (but maybe age and experience would have done this anyway). And just very occasionally someone comes along who has had a Damascene conversion and been transformed by the gospel.
These are huge generalisations, to be sure. And we never know really what is going on inside people’s heads and hearts, and the true extent of their personal change (or lack thereof). Maybe church has simply stopped some people from getting even worse, their character frozen in time 🙂 Who knows?! It seems that the gospel will change you if you want to be changed; but if not, as you say, it can be used as a justification and/or false sense of security in all sorts of things.
I am a democrat church member. My feelings is the church and the gospel does make me a better person. I came from a hard scrambled background. So when I was younger my behavior was less then admirable. Met my wife who was a member, we got married and i joined the church. Most of member I am in contact with at church are the best people I have ever known. But I agree when we put politics ahead of Jesus’s teaching is when cruelty comes into play.
On the plus side, LDS church units at the local level do create service opportunities for groups of LDS and encourage compassionate visiting of those who need a visit (or more). Also on the plus side is the Helping Hands (the yellow shirt people) program or initiative.
On the minus side, it sure seems like our theology promotes some bad thinking and bad attitudes. Our doctrine of works righteousness easily slides in works judgment. As I sometimes put it, the first commandments of Mormonism is: Judge your neighbor. LDS doctrine is almost orthogonal to the political/moral push for equal civil rights that has defined progressive politics for the last few decades, since the 1950s. The worst part maybe is that Mormons are oblivious to how antagonistic traditional LDS thinking (the kind of thinking still largely embraced by LDS leaders) is to the civil rights agenda. They think they deserve a pat on the back. People outside the Church think just the opposite. We’re not fooling anyone but ourselves.
The fact that so many LDS are big Trump supporters shows how surprisingly amoral most active Mormons have become. As I sometimes put it, if the Antichrist were on the ballot, most Mormons would vote for him. Local LDS leaders would host fundraisers. LDS newspapers would publish supportive editorials. Some LDS leaders might secretly object to the Antichrist, but won’t publicly object and the Church will not denounce him. Let’s face it: the average active Mormon has no moral compass.
Some really fascinating questions here, lots to chew on, thanks for your post.
Does Church bring out the best in people or the worst? I tend to agree with Angela’s proposition that the church — as with nearly any influence or entity — largely enhances what you already have in you. If you are a selfish, domineering, or secretive sort of person, the church gives opportunities, unfortunately, to exercise those traits. If you are a charitable, outward looking, or slow to judge others person, the church will also provide opportunities to display those traits. I am speaking at the ward level, not the senior, SLC HQS level, where I unfortunately feel more of the former (secretive!) rather than the latter.
Do you think the current political discourse on the right has led to more cruelty or revealed what was there but hidden? I hate to say it, but I was naive and ignorant to the instincts of the GOP before 2016. I was a life-long Republican, nearly always voted that way, and thought the GOP stood for good values and policies that made our country great. But the rise of Trump and the gusto with which so many Republicans were willing to support him shattered that mindset. I realized the GOP and, in large part, much of America was not what I thought it was. Therefore, I would say the cruelty was there but more hidden until he came along.
That said, I feel like the cruelty virus, as it were, has triggered antibodies, and our country may eventually emerge from these years with a greater appreciation decency, facts, and democracy itself. We have already seen rising rates of voter participation which is a good thing Yes, I am an optimist.
Does Christianity create more cruelty or is it just used as a justification? In many cases (definitely not universal), if you are a hard core evangelical Christian or, unfortunately, an orthodox Mormon, you are more likely to consider LBGQT people, racial activists, socialists, Joe Biden, whoever else you may put on the list, as a threat to your beliefs and worldview. These sorts of people must be defeated and since that is what God wants, then some cruelty, maybe even violence, is permissable, since you are carrying out God’s work.
Unfortunately, this is not just Christianity, this is other religions as well. The attitude of “this is what God wants, so it is okay to do this otherwise cruel thing” is poison. Violence, shattering of families, secretly marrying other men’s wives, all manner of suffering has been justified by religion. The amount of cruelty inflicted in the name of God is uncalcuable and, I fear, vastly outweighs the good done in the name of God. Maybe in 100 years, 1000?, this attitude will have largely been flushed out of humanity, the way slavery, torture, and other evils have slowly become unacceptable to the majority of humanity. And “if it is cruel, God would not want you to do it” will have replaced it.
In 2009 a fourth element was added to the mission of the Church to make it a four fold mission, which is: To care for the poor and needy. If we were doing such a great job of helping other, why was this added? If you talk about bearing one anothers’ burden, you can get some strange excuses.
I think of the Fruits of the Spirit Galatians 5:22-23, King James Version: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.” I don’t often hear these concepts being talked about.
Civil Rights is a good example, I’m glad Dave B. mentioned that. The Church wants to point out the persecution it had in it’s first few decades, yet, the Church was silent about events of persecution that befell others, like the 1963 Birmingham Church bombing that killed 4 girls. Somethings are so ingrained that I saw a comment on one blog that Pres. Nelson caved into Marxists threats, by his saying Black Lives Matter.
Interesting. I also read The Cruelty is the Point, and the main takeaway I absorbed is that for many politicians and leaders, cruelty equals power, or at least cruelty is the quickest path to power, so many are quick to discard their human decency to climb the ladder. It’s essentially grown-up bullying, and we all know bullies are who they are because they are masking deep insecurities, which causes them to override their humanity. Religion, especially in the form of right-wing Christian Nationalism, tends to make it worse, as it implies that cruelty is often sanctioned by God.
There are certain personalities who take visceral pleasure in exerting power and domination over other people. Such people have no business running for public office, but that seems to be where we find many of them. And no amount of religion will fix them, but in some cases religion does enable them.
Holland’s “musket fire” talk, perhaps one of the lowest points of his apostolic career, is an example of such religious cruelty. Here, a man who claims authority as a special witness of Christ used his public platform to deliver an uncharacteristically un-Christlike speech. He also mentioned that he would gladly sacrifice BYUs accreditation and academic reputation in order to defend the school’s (and by extension, the Church’s) supposed right to continue to enforce cruel policies. When the values of cruelty and compassion are directly competing, cruelty tends to win.
So no, I’m no longer convinced that membership in the Church is effective at turning a cruel person into a kind one, but it seems to be pretty good at taking decent people and making them nasty. I’m also reminded that most people I know who have parted ways with the Church, whatever the reason, are still decent people, and often better people since leaving.
Thank goodness Democrats are never cruel
Trump is not Christian. Cruelty is a human trait. In fact, most primates are capable of great cruelty. It has nothing to do with religion, other than some people use religion as an excuse to be cruel to people not of that religion. Without religion, they’d find some other excuse.
Because I am in a ward that contains several refugees, I have had opportunities to get to know them and serve them. Absent the church, I am quite sure I wouldn’t have spent much time helping people like this in a personal way. Many of the experiences I had on my mission were similar. So I believe at least in this aspect, I am a more compassionate person because of the church.
But you have to beware of “unbridled compassion”/s
Democrats are only marginally less cruel than republicans. Or rather they have a better PR game than the republicans wrt to cruelty, but they’re indeed quite cruel, everyone within reach of the levers of power in the USA is cruel, because if they weren’t cruel, they wouldn’t have access to the levers of power in the first place.
The rhetorical question posed by the tweet doesn’t quite grasp the full picture here. The system was designed to be cruel regardless of which party happens to in charge in any given moment.
Christianity gets involved in this by association, throughout the last 1000 years or so, it’s been intertwined with cruel power structures (feudalism, mercantilism, capitalism) to the point of being almost inseparable.
I can only speak for myself. Perhaps cruelty isn’t the right word, but during my active, believing days, the Church fueled my inherent ability to judge harshly. I was that horrible guy constantly noticing who isn’t wearing their garments, who didn’t take the sacrament, who never shows up to clean the church building, who can’t seem to keep their kids quiet at church. It was awful. I was awful. And I won’t accept all of the blame. The church chooses to report on such things. As missionaries, it’s all about getting your stats instead of being about engaging kindly with those we serve. In our stake conference a few weeks ago, the SP read us a list of “stats” about our ward that included active TR holders, temple marriages, returned missionaries, but didn’t talk at all about kindness, or service, or anything of that nature. The reporting needs to change.
And I wasn’t that way to be a jerk (though I was a jerk). I was that way because I thought that all those things would make people happy and I wanted them to be happy. I now realize that list of things has really nothing to do with people being happy. My experience with organized religion is that I completely missed the mark.
I’m now in my fourth year of faith transition. It’s taken this long for me finally stop caring about any of it. I still attend church about once a month. And now when I attend, I don’t see stats, or garment lines, or rowdy kids. I see people. It’s refreshing. I wish I could have gotten there without the faith transition, but I’m not sure that was possible.
I’m still not perfect. And many faithful members see the people without a faith transition. But for me, taking two huge steps back from organized religion has made me better. It was exhausting being that judgmental; it’s so much better for me to let people find their own happiness without imposing my old value system on them.
Everyone’s cruel, and it manifests differently depending on which tribe you choose.
And you’re a liar if you pretend it is any different.
To paraphrase a 16th century assessment of the conquistadors: Religion is the pretext, wealth and power are the motives.
I firmly believe that political neutrality would help protect church teachings from being appropriated by political minds for nefarious purposes. But we are not remotely neutral as a church.
I can’t speak for the best and worst in people because I don’t know people in my ward that well. I have noticed that people who are in general predisposed to be kind become kinder as they get older and people who are predisposed to be cruel/unkind/unloving become even more so as they age. A lot of this is really down to personality traits and a commitment (or not) to growth and improvement. Religion can certainly help with this, but my experience at least with Mormonism is that people are more concerned about fitting in somewhere and belonging to some sort of tribe or group in order to feel more secure rather than really committing themselves to a Christian life. Since I’ve always been a loner, it’s not a proclivity I’ve understood, but I think there is some link between cruelty and the desire to belong. Maybe religion doesn’t make people cruel (or kind, for that matter) so much as it permits certain behavioral and social norms and discourages others. We’d like to think that Mormonism encourages only upright, loving, kind and moral behavior, but of course, it doesn’t. That’s partly because Mormon doctrine itself is cruel and exclusionary in certain cases (LGBTQ identity, women and authority, white supremacy in the B of M, etc.) and also because in Mormonism, cruelty is often disguised as kindness and care. E.g.: “We love our LGBTQ brothers and sisters, but God says we can’t sanction their relationships” or “I feel so bad for single people. Maybe someday they’ll be able to be fully realized people once they get married in this life or the next.” There’s a lot of that backhanded kind of crap. There’s also a lot of condescension, which can lead to exclusion or cruelty. E.g.: “Well, we have the truth, so it’s really too bad that my Catholic neighbor, who is such a nice guy, will never really know true happiness because he won’t become a Mormon.”
It’s this kind of groupthink and mistaking a kind of performative self-righteousness for actual righteousness that I see. Are there outright cruel people in the church? Sure. But most folks I know are almost accidentally cruel rather than deliberately so. Of course, that in itself is a problem, particularly since the church is more likely to double down on its cruel institutional stances than to err on the side of kindness and love, which I would assume any church with Christ’s name in it ought to be more likely to do. And that means that accidentally cruel people will keep right on being accidentally cruel. That makes change even more difficult. Deliberate and over the top cruelty is more easily identified (and contained) than the more widespread cruelty that is the result of subtle but pervasive indoctrination.
Recently I asked myself the question, “Would the world be better if everyone was Mormon?” The answer I came up with was, “Maybe?… Probably not?..” Then I asked myself, “Would the world be better if everyone lived true to their personal values and just tried to be their BEST selves?” And the answer I came up with was “YES.”
One of the big complaints I hear about members of the church is that they have given their moral authority to others. Honestly, that isn’t bad in and of itself for a certain period of life. Part of normal development is looking to adults, leaders, and others to tell you what is right and wrong and internalizing those values. Everyone does that as they grow up, whether they are members of the church or not. I believe that learning the teachings of Jesus during this developmental stage helps people become better than they would be otherwise be.
The problem comes when people don’t grow out of the stage of looking to others to know what is right and wrong. Another part of healthy development is questioning what the adults and leaders in your life have told you and determining for yourself what your values are.
Church can make people worse when they get trapped in the earlier stages of development and hold to the idea that we should always look to others for moral authority and just be obedient, rather than developing our own morality. Church also makes people worse when people think they have the one and only truth and all others should think and behave like them. (Unfortunately, the church promotes both of these ideas, so it is up to individual members to break free of these ideas).
A quote I think about a lot (even though I don’t have a citation for it) comes from Richard Rohr. He is quoted as saying something like, “Mormon’s do first-half of life spirituality better than anybody else. But they have almost no second half of life.”
I think when individuals are taught the gospel during their “first half of life” and then develop their own moral authority and live it during their “second half of life”, the church and gospel help people to be better.
From a sociological standpoint, the values of conservatives are purity, loyalty, and something I forget. Liberal values are fairness, care, and probably something else I forget. When it comes to political cruelty, fairness and care tend to vote against laws that are cruel or unfair to one group of people. While putting higher value on purity, and loyalty are conductive to judging others, and allowing unfair laws to exist. So, just from the standpoint of the sociological underpinnings of liberalism and conservatism, it will be the conservatives supporting more unfair and cruel laws.
So, unfortunately for bothsiders, there really will be more cruelty coming from the right. But it is political cruelty, not personal cruelty. It does not mean that all conservatives are cruel, these are tendencies, not absolutes. I live in an area of Trump lovers, but they are some real sweet and loving people, as long as I keep quiet about my politics. So on average, we can’t say that people who support Trump are mean nasty people, because they can be some of the most loving people around—to those like them. They tend to fear those unlike them. Liberals tend to have a higher value for caring for others and being fair to all, but they are no more likely to stop for someone with a flat tire. Wanting to be fair doesn’t lead to more giving or kindness. Active helping and loving others are about equal between groups, but politically, conservatives are more likely to vote for cruel laws and overlook unfairness.
Does religion make people more cruel? I don’t think it does. But conservative people tend to pick conservative religions, so there are some religions that support cruel legislation more than others. Evangelicals, Catholics, and Mormons are more conservative religions and are more likely to vote for and support conservative candidates, which are more likely to support cruel and unfair legislation. Unitarians and Methodists, and atheists are more liberal, and more likely to vote Democratic and support legislation that is socialist, bleeding heart, kind of stuff designed to help the poor and minorities.
So, while Democrats can be individually cruel or power hungry, they are less likely to be, and less likely to support legislation that is unfair or cruel to minorities. But we all tend to assume that everybody is pretty much like us, so conservatives will see liberals as just as cruel as they themselves are, and just judge on different things, like student loan forgiveness is cruel to those who worked hard and paid off student loans, or giving the disabled a living income is cruel to those struggling to survive on minimum wage. And I am sure my bias is showing, so feel free to point out how Democrats are just as cruel as Republicans.
Religion is typically used as a post-hoc justification for political actions because it is an appeal to an authority that people can’t disagree with in a provable way. If God wants something or doesn’t want something, you delve into a realm of Bible bashing and speculation that can’t be resolved. Religion and its fruits always become corrupt when intertwined with politics. As others have said, greed for power, wealth, etc wins out over practicing religion when politics and religion combine.
But to be fair, religion often disagrees with itself. While Jesus simplified the law, he unfortunately didn’t explicitly condemn all the incorrect teachings and beliefs that came before him. And of course politics and religion combined after he left to muddy the waters further. Christianity can make any person better if they truly try to love their neighbor as themselves. But some people don’t know how to love themselves. Some people love their neighbor but see how God’s word treats their neighbor (e.g., Adam is to rule over Eve, hence patriarchy is a divinely ordained social structure). If God is always just and loving, then how can they love their neighbor better than God by going against His teachings? (e.g., a male employer offering no maternity leave because he believes women should be at home, which will bring them true happiness according to God’s word).
While religion certainly amplifies parts of people’s personality, I do think there is a large segment of good people who want to do what’s right, but feel bound by conflicting gospel messages. Of course church leaders, pastors, and politicians don’t try to objectively analyze the gospel and live it. They cherrypick what suits their political agenda and scare the masses.
Christ was right to condemn the shepherds of the flock while extending compassion to the sheep. This is why everyone should wrestle with what is true and seriously engage with scriptures, history, God, their conscience, etc.
I should clarify my previous comment that I’m talking about elected officials, not voters per se.
I’m sorry but if you’re an elected official and you do not support/voted against universal healthcare and supported/voted for/perpetuated the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and others), then you’re a cruel person, regardless of how often you put a rainbow flag overlay on your profile photo.
All Church members are cafeteria Mormons. Core beliefs about God, Christ, BoM, temple work, LGBTQ community, etc. are all over the map. The Church leadership tries to force all it’s members into the same mold. This is not a productive model for human growth, given our differences.
Instead of the Q15 dictating our goals, why couldn’t the Church help members meet their individual personal spiritual goals? This may sound a bit chaotic, but with modern technology this is doable. But the Q15 would have to give up their egos, and empower members. Become more leaderless.
My thoughts about my own personal cruelty/kindness are right in line with what Chadwick and Brother Sky said. Church helped me be even more judgmental than I would have been (I think). But I was trying to encourage people to be their best selves! Even at my worst, I never wanted to make someone hurt. I never saw someone suffering and informed them it was their own fault, for example. It was well-intentioned judgmentalism, and I just needed a wakeup about how that hurts too. My good intentions made it easier/quicker for me to realize that my judgmentalism was wrong.
Anna’s comment was right on, I thought.
Also agree that cruel people will find a way to be cruel no matter where they are. It took me many years to accept that my father would have been a domineering and unkind person whether he was Mormon, Catholic or atheist. Mormonism enabled some of the ways he abused his authority, but there’s no religion that would have turned him into a kind and humble man.
Church is good for providing a way to meet and help people. When ministering really works, it’s when it makes reaching out for help easier. I’ve asked ministering bros and sisters for help and gotten it. Those were good experiences. I’ve also been quicker to offer help because I was a visiting teacher and that’s just part of the job, so no need to feel awkward about offering. I like that about Church.
I think historically, religion has been a tool for good and bad.
Individually,
I don’t how much religion can deter cruel people from doing cruel things—Mountain Meadows Massacre, clergy abuse of minors, crusades etc etc etc.
Conservatives have long linked religiosity and politics. In the 60’s there was Apostle Ezra Taft Benson lobbying for the John Birch Society, opposed to civil rights and labeling Martin Luther King and Eisenhower communist hoped that enablers/sympathizers.
In the late 70’s Rev Jerry Falwell; also critical of MLK, co-founded the politically active Moral Majority.
When religion is mixed with politics, it corrupts both.
Sometimes organized religion attracts Authoritarians and their followers.
(Frankly I don’t understand how/why religious folk can condemn and expel someone like Liz Cheney from office while continuing to support a narcissistic serial adulterer, serial liar, con man, insurrectionist).
Correction:
Conservatives have long linked religiosity and politics. In the 60’s there was Apostle Ezra Taft Benson lobbying for the John Birch Society, opposed to civil rights and labeling Martin Luther King and Eisenhower communist enablers/sympathizers.
I had hoped that religion could serve as a positive moderating force.
The answer is in the Book of Mormon. Moroni speaks of our day and says, “…and your churches, yea, even every one, have become polluted because of the pride of your hearts.” (Moroni 8:35)
“Every one” means our church too. We have known for 200 years that compassion and charity would dwindle and our own cherished light would dim. It’s not and “if/then” prophesy. It’s an absolute.
When Mike Lee visited a stinking and inhumane border detention camp, his mission experience to the country most refugees fled from uniquely enabled him to understand every word, every cry, every plea the refugees spoke. Did he leverage his connections, experience, and elite education to creatively propose solutions to the urgent problem? No. He supported the bombastic, racist, most vengeful policies and literally turned his back on human suffering. Let them rot. They broke the law. No mercy. Fleeing from civil war? Your problem. This is a son of Provo, the epitome of 200 years of spiritual inheritance, sacrifice and privilege. Did we miss the mark? Sadly, is this negative evidence of Galatians “fruit” test? Absolutely. Would others have chosen differently, yes. But, the majority of saints voted last night to retain him and support his actions.
I know there are times when we are better because of the gospel, the Holy Ghost, the light of Christ, and our own inner selves. But, sadly, we are failing more often and in disturbing ways. Our journey is an epic one as we individually and communally learn- a painful process. To the extent that we lack compassion and an urgency to end poverty, illness, suffering, ignorance, etc., we fail ourselves, each other, our faith and our God. And the converse is true too.
Mormon 8:35-41
35 Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing.
36 And I know that ye do walk in the pride of your hearts; and there are none save a few only who do not lift themselves up in the pride of their hearts, unto the wearing of very fine apparel, unto envying, and strifes, and malice, and persecutions, and all manner of iniquities; and your churches, yea, even every one, have become polluted because of the pride of your hearts.
37 For behold, ye do love money, and your substance, and your fine apparel, and the adorning of your churches, more than ye love the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted.
38 O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker, why have ye polluted the holy church of God? Why are ye ashamed to take upon you the name of Christ? Why do ye not think that greater is the value of an endless happiness than that misery which never dies—because of the praise of the world?
39 Why do ye adorn yourselves with that which hath no life, and yet suffer the hungry, and the needy, and the naked, and the sick and the afflicted to pass by you, and notice them not?
40 Yea, why do ye build up your secret abominations to get gain, and cause that widows should mourn before the Lord, and also orphans to mourn before the Lord, and also the blood of their fathers and their husbands to cry unto the Lord from the ground, for vengeance upon your heads?
41 Behold, the sword of vengeance hangeth over you; and the time soon cometh that he avengeth the blood of the saints upon you, for he will not suffer their cries any longer.
When you read the Gospel accounts (in particular, say, the Beatitudes and the parable of Last Judgment in Matthew 25), it’s basically all about how Jesus wants us to act. By the time the creeds were developed four centuries later, it became all about how the church wants us to believe. It shouldn’t be surprising that the message understood by adherents is that it doesn’t really matter what you do as long as you believe in the “right” way. The history of Christianity is chock full of examples of True Believers doing unconscionably awful things, typically in the name of Jesus Christ and his church.
“Does the Church Make People Better or Worse?”
YES. Church defines what better and worse IS.
” Does the Church make people better or worse?”
It’s totally up to the individual. One can choose to live the gospel, focusing on trying to follow Christ . Or get distracted by everything else.
One aspect of cruelty is when we (as a culture) lionize wealth acquisition, but won’t look at harm done in the process.
One example, Shanty Towns were a thing on college campuses when I attended. I regret that their message didn’t get through to me at that time, and I am grateful that their efforts paid off.
We still have a long way to go.
I appreciate the understanding I got from Anna’s comment:
“From a sociological standpoint, the values of conservatives are purity, loyalty, and something I forget. Liberal values are fairness, care, and probably something else I forget. When it comes to political cruelty, fairness and care tend to vote against laws that are cruel or unfair to one group of people. While putting higher value on purity, and loyalty are conductive to judging others, and allowing unfair laws to exist. So, just from the standpoint of the sociological underpinnings of liberalism and conservatism, it will be the conservatives supporting more unfair and cruel laws.”
p.s. if you remember the other things, I’m interested in hearing them.
Sasso, I think Anna is citing “The Righteous Mind” by Jonathan Haidt. There are supposedly 6 moral “tastebuds” of the brain, which light up differently for different people. Care, fairness, loyalty, liberty, authority, and sanctity. More specifically, each has a negative trigger as well: care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation. The book explores the differences between conservative and liberal minds and the political rhetoric that triggers some minds more than others. An underlying message is that these triggers or moral gravitational centers are biologically wired and reflexive. So, spewing data at people rarely changes their minds, especially if they perceive that a moral value has been breached. Essentially, during the 2016-2020 period, the right was much more masterful in utilizing this latest neuroscience (either because they knew about it or because they stumbled into it).
Thanks a lot, Mortimer. That adds a lot to look into.
I’m late to the party, but there’s been a meme going around on my Facebook that makes me think of this post: “Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent”, attributed to Adam Smith. Is this what some religious conservatives believe? I can understand the sentiment, but I strongly disagree with it. I also can’t understand how this idea could be compatible with Jesus’ teachings.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/548339-mercy-to-the-guilty-is-cruelty-to-the-innocent