All these church regular attendees are constantly being told what to do with their lives. “No abortion, no lgbt”, etc. I would say, even if they were not told who to vote for explicitly, they are still being told who to vote for implicitly.
(Not saying what they doing is right, just saying how this whole religion thing works)
Yep. That’s 100% the bigger issue. The church may or may not officially say to vote for a specific person or party, but they sure as shit will manipulate their entire group to think and vote a certain way.
And even more insidious is most of the people will deny they are being manipulated. They will insist that they decide how to vote all by themselves. It’s just years of indoctrination and manipulation to the point most of them don’t even realize they are being controlled and used.
And maybe some truly believe it all too, but most have doubts and realize it’s messed up, but have been gaslit into thinking it’s THEIR shortcomings or flaws or human nature to blame. Not the organization, them personally.
And here we are millennia later still arguing with grifters and con artists so good at the grift they believe it works.
That’s why religion still exists. When it’s still gaining momentum, it’s a threat to existing powers until they can get control of the religion, then they push it on everyone they can because when you can control the religion, you can control massive populations with little threat of rebellion. See: “holy” Roman empire, Church of England
It seems like pushing an ideology that actively mirrors a political candidate’s platform - especially if the ideology is shown to change as a party’s platform has changed - should qualify the preaching as political endorsement even without the candidate named.
Of course the US is primarily Christofascist so that’s not how things go, but as a test of applicability it seems common sense to me.
All these church regular attendees are constantly being told what to do with their lives. “No abortion, no lgbt”, etc. I would say, even if they were not told who to vote for explicitly, they are still being told who to vote for implicitly.
(Not saying what they doing is right, just saying how this whole religion thing works)
Yep. That’s 100% the bigger issue. The church may or may not officially say to vote for a specific person or party, but they sure as shit will manipulate their entire group to think and vote a certain way.
And even more insidious is most of the people will deny they are being manipulated. They will insist that they decide how to vote all by themselves. It’s just years of indoctrination and manipulation to the point most of them don’t even realize they are being controlled and used.
And maybe some truly believe it all too, but most have doubts and realize it’s messed up, but have been gaslit into thinking it’s THEIR shortcomings or flaws or human nature to blame. Not the organization, them personally.
And here we are millennia later still arguing with grifters and con artists so good at the grift they believe it works.
That’s why religion still exists. When it’s still gaining momentum, it’s a threat to existing powers until they can get control of the religion, then they push it on everyone they can because when you can control the religion, you can control massive populations with little threat of rebellion. See: “holy” Roman empire, Church of England
It seems like pushing an ideology that actively mirrors a political candidate’s platform - especially if the ideology is shown to change as a party’s platform has changed - should qualify the preaching as political endorsement even without the candidate named.
Of course the US is primarily Christofascist so that’s not how things go, but as a test of applicability it seems common sense to me.