Hahah cuckold. Get in the fucking game. Start letting people die by the metaphorical sword they use on you, stop crying and arguing in defense for JK Rowling, Bill Maher or even fucking Chapo Trap House when they will NEVER do it for you.
Literally all this does is give woke leftists an excuse to become as woke as possible, you dumbasses and boomer right wingers with goldfish memory will be there to say “UMMM WAIT A SECOND I THINK THIS IS NOT ACTUALLY PRECISELY ACCURATE! I hate this communist terrorist that wants me dead, but he technically didn’t RAPE that chick, dude!”
Seriously, it makes me realize I should just become a massive woke asshole, what’s the worst that will happen? They’ll always have the retard boomer squad to defend them :)
Not only yes, but it did in direct opposition to both.
This is one of the reasons the 1st amendment is so important, and why it was pushed in the first place. Remember that New England was founded by many veterans of the English Civil War and had fought against Catholicism, and then watched the Anglican Church betray them, and then watched Parliament betray them years later. It's no wonder we ended up being as rebellious as we were.
It seems very much that a lot of American Christians focus more on trying to replicate early Christendom, rather than the structured stuff that came before. Even Protestantism itself is a rebellion against the Catholic Church that it felt became more decadent and institutional, rather than focusing on individual piety.
America seems to have heavily focused on de-institutionalizing Christianity from the state, and individuating it among the people. The fact that the 1st amendment effectively prevents government action in the marketplace of religion is what caused the 2nd Great Awakening movement to explode in growth as American Folkway religions grew and expanded into the Ohio frontier.
The lack of religious institutionalization through the state allowed people to adopt it freely and let it be culturally institutionalized. However, as you push to institutionalize it through the state, you guarantee rebellion against it.
The moral authoritarianism of the United States from the mid 19th century onward (along with the final era of the industrial revolution and the propagation of Mass Society) guaranteed that the US was going to be ripe for Leftism... but so were most countries on earth. However, Americans Liberal foundation still heavily focuses on individualism (despite the latest efforts), and it's underlying cultural institutions still heavily reflect that. That's why Evangelicals focus on you "your personal relationship with God". That is a uniquely individualist, Christian, Anglo-Protestant perspective.
I'd say that America exists despite the forces of institutional Christianity. Or even to spite them.
I think many American Christians have always had an "away with this popish idolatry" streak.
Gotta disagree here. The 1A was to allow people to continue establishing their own little local theocracies in the Protestant tradition, free of central government mandates. Remember, the constitution is a limit on government authority(well, the first 10A, at least), not on people. They weren't trying to get away from theocratic rule. They just wanted freedom to have their own version.
I don't think individualizing is the correct word, but it's the right track. It was about decentralizing theocracy. Either way, you can't pretend moral authoritarianism wasn't a mainstay of Colonial America. It was just limited in scope. The church was the center of the community, and the line between local government and the church was often blurry. It just didn't have a centrally mandated denomination.
I don't agree with that. Theocracy is the convergence of religion and the state. I think there were plenty of people who wanted strong religious authoritarian cultures and societies, but didn't want it enforced by the state.
With the advent of Liberalism, this turned into an explicit denial of theocracy in all forms. Religious social authoritarianism still existed, but people started to agree you shouldn't be facing legal consequences for it mandated by the state.
I'm not, I think we're basically saying the same thing.
I agree, but I think that was the result of the religious homogeneity and authoritarianism one the people that influenced the state. You could get hauled in front of a magistrate for singing on the wrong day of the week... but that was because everyone agreed that it was violation of the social morals of the community, which the government then reflected. It was not that the pastor was the government, nor could he make laws as such.
Colonial Americans, particularly of some New England Protestants were quite religiously authoritarian. There is no argument about that. But it wasn't theocratic. And there's still a lot to be said about religion on the frontier.