It is. It's literally a group that's been used for performative Christian nationalism before. Look up Doug Wilson and his views on women, slavery, and education.
Slavery produced in the South a genuine affection between the races that we believe we can say has never existed in any nation before the War or since.
I dislike when people try to bring religion to government buildings. There are many other places to sing worship songs and this shouldn't be one of them.
Yeah, like why not choose a place where you can uplift people with your singing and give them hope like in a hospital for children, cancer patients, older people in hospice. This is performative.
Doxology is always lit. One of the best aspects of Protestant worship (mainline) is their continued weekly recitation of the doxology. Do Catholics use this at Mass typically? As someone struggling between denominations, I’m always interested to see what each includes.
This is a hymn written by an Anglican Bishop to a tun from a Reformed Psalter created by people working for John Calvin. It is perhaps one of the least likely songs to be sung in a Catholic parish.
Catholic here. We don’t typically sing this specific version of the Doxology at Mass each week. However, Catholic worship is full of doxology, just in forms that look a little different. Every time we make the Sign of the Cross, we’re invoking the name of the Triune God, which is itself a doxological act. The “Glory Be…” is another example, a short Trinitarian prayer that shows up constantly in Catholic devotional life. When we say the Creed/Profession of Faith, as well as in the heart of the Mass, during the Eucharistic Prayer, the priest proclaims the "Great Doxology" (Through him, and with him, and in him…) which is one of the most important moments of the entire liturgy. The Gloria on Sundays and solemnities is also a doxological hymn of praise.
So while we don’t use that particular Protestant hymn, the Mass is saturated with praise of the Trinity from beginning to end. And speaking personally, I agree with you: I kind of wish we did sing that one more often. It’s beautiful, simple, and theologically rich. And honestly? Protestants usually do music better than we do!
Yea I’ve kind of noticed this! Especially in older mainline Protestant churches. They are full of hymns from the 16th-19th century. Often with nearly professional choirs and accompanying piano/organ. This varies by church of course. While I deeply respect Catholicism, I was actually surprised at how…corny?…a lot of the music was in comparison. Kind of 20th century modern stuff that I wasn’t a fan of. Could just be the parish I went to.
I mean that's really not a double standard. If you don't understand why those two things are not equal I really don't want to have a conversation with you.
If you don’t want to have a conversation why are you in this subreddit? This is for adults who want to have adult conversations. If you can’t do that or feel uncomfortable doing so you shouldn’t be here
“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. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
That’s exactly what I was doing. Both religious and secular people have their own versions of trying to limit religious expression. It’s bad in both instances.
It's a private Christian school in a conservative state with conservative donors. It's not illogical to say it's because of Christian nationalism and wanting to push the idea that America is a Christian nation
I’d agree with this, if it ever worked out that way on paper. Occasionally it does (see some of TST’s on going’s), but most of the time it just results in Christian favoritism or no one being allowed to do the thing.
So, personally, I’m in favor of us being realistic and just not allowing for religious activities on government grounds.
Well, firstly, TST did successfully erect a religious statue in what I believe was a city hall, which is why I mentioned them. It's an example that, yes, sometimes it does work out for everyone, which is what the law supposedly allows for- if one, then all.
More often, though, it results in inappropriate pushback and harassment, or the contextual governing body comes to the decision to deny all religions expression in order to avoid granting expression to non-Christian entities and the fallout that tends to happen when they do.
And, in my mind, that's just further evidence that it should just be none, not all, as religion does not need to be celebrated or displayed on government property in accordance with the juridical principle of the separation of church and state. However, public property abounds, and so does church friendly private property, so there is no shortage of spaces for people to pray, sing or rejoice, regardless of their religion.
Here are some examples of how we in America, in practice (regardless of what is on paper) react when non-Christians attempt to exercise their rights to be heard and seen:
I know that it is a problem in general, but it is a problem here?
You can't point to an issue in Iowa and say that, because of that issue, Idaho is likely to act improperly.
You can't point to citizens being angry at a religious group doing there thing to declare that no religious group should be allowed to do their thing.
These citizens have a right to peacefully express their religious views in a public area as long as they are not in violation of some rule or regulation of that area.
Saying "they should have this right taken away because of bad actions of others in the past in different places" is something I could never get behind.
You are conflating things here. People being shit to non-Christian religious adherents expressing themselves is not primarily why I think religion should not be celebrated in government spaces. It is, however, more proof to me that religion doesn't belong in governmental spaces.
I'll try and break this down better:
Those links are there to show you that non-Christian religious groups are absolutely not extended, in practice, the same permission to take up space via practice or prayer in the same manner that Christians are. Not in spaces of legislation, not in educational spaces, and not even in public. In your first response to me, it seemed as if you think that they are afforded that, when they are not.
We shouldn't, regardless of whether people can be inclusive or not, be allowing religious practice or prayer inside government buildings. The state should be a secular institution, and we also have set precedent that it was intended to be. My opinion can be summed up at this: All allowing state and church to visibly mingle does is give "the state religion" (because there will \always* be one, even if it's informal) more validity and therefore more influence in governmental spaces.*
Religion, as a whole, across the board, should be de-emphasized in governmental spaces.
---
Your right to be protected from the government stopping you from freely exercising your religion is not the same as the government being obligated to sponsor that exercise- which what is happening when the government allows for it within tax-payer funded and legislative spaces.
The government is not removing your personal, individual liberty by not hosting religious choirs, by no longer opening a session with prayer, or by not permitting the 10 commandments in the classroom, etc, etc, etc... Your right to free exercise as an individual is not compromised by any of these things.
Whether or not that's the case, the US government is forbidden, by the Constitution, to hold that position or make laws based on that religious conviction. If it could be proven true beyond reasonable doubt, it wouldn't be a religion.
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Islam does not call for the murder of Christians, nor does it call for the abolition of the United States. If a Muslim desires these things, and acts to make them happen, they are prosecuted according to the law. Murder is illegal, and so they will be prosecuted as murderers if they do it.
The government is not allowed to discriminate based on religious beliefs, but absolutely can and is required to prosecute when religious beliefs lead to illegal action. If a Christian kills an adulterer with rocks, they will be prosecuted for murder. Same for a Muslim.
The idea that Islam calls for the abolition of the United States is silly on its face. Muhammad died in 632 AD, as the last source of divine doctrine in Islam. He couldn't have known about the Americas, and it is the doctrinal position of Islam to tolerate other religions while acknowledging them as incomplete or false. This is the same doctrinal position many Christians espouse, albeit with Christianity being the complete one in their view.
I don’t think that’s quite how it works. If you allow any religious group to perform in a government building, then you’re obligated to allow all religious groups the same access. That’s the core of separation of church and state. The government can’t show preference for one belief system over another.
So if Christians are permitted to sing in the Capitol, then by that same principle, anyone else can sing to any deity, spirit, or religious figure of their own tradition. Because only then does the government can remain neutral to any religion.
And if you dislike the idea of people singing to Satan or any other figure you personally disapprove of, then the consistent position is to oppose all religious performances in government spaces. Because the moment you allow one religion to praise its chosen being in an official setting, you’ve opened the door for every other group, including "satanists" to do the same.
What’s even more ironic is that even singing to Satan would still be a Christian display or praise, because Satan is a figure defined entirely by Christian theology. He only “exists” as part of Christianity.
If you believe in God and you believe worshiping anything else is akin to worshiping an idol/demon or something. I think it's pretty reasonable to get a little bit upset about it. It just depends on what you do with those emotions.
I also think there's a distinction to be had between "I am not happy someone is professing a belief I believe to be false" and "I am not happy someone is allowed to publicly profess a belief I believe to be false."
Of course you don’t need the Bible to tell you to be a decent human being. You need the Bible to tell you that you’re an awful human being who does evil and needs to repent.
Romans 3:10-12
10 As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”[a]
Come to believe the good news of Christ and repent so that you do not perish.
I don't know that anyone expects a heavenly reward for singing a hymn out loud. But let's check if they've actually violated a commandment.
And obviously that passage isn't a blanket prohibition against all public prayer or singing. If so, Jesus immediately violates it by praying the Lord's prayer following giving that teaching.
We can trace the ideological motives of this act easily by looking at which group is doing it. Doug Wilson's school, Doug Wilson has openly started he sees it as a moral obligation for Christians to push a Christian worldview and dominate politics and the public sphere. He is explicitly a Christian nationalist.
It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so out of love... The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely... But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice.
I didn't say you believed in your God. I'm pulling a scripture that relates my perspective, which is why I posted it, not you. I'm also not in the video - I'm posting a scripture that talks about why I don't really care what their motivation is.
Christ wants pure motives for the sake of the people who have the motives. Paul is saying that regardless of someone's motivations, God can still use it for good. These are not contradictory ideas.
Yes. There is a problem with the decision to sing a song explicitly from a specific religion in a government building. Especially when the group that is singing it has ties to Christian nationalists, betraying the fact that this is about a display of power, not worship.
The best version of the doxology I’ve ever heard was A Capella in the Torrey Gray before a Sunday night chapel. The Torrey gray has such epic acoustics.
And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets so that they might be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have received their reward.
These students have received their reward. Just like the Pharisees.
They may be the worst in education, healthcare, maternal mortality, infant mortality, and job outlook, but at least they can cajole their politicians into pretending to care about Jesus.
The Doxology is a favorite. They sound beautiful, especially with those acoustics!! The setting looks beautiful, I’m just not sure it is an appropriate place to use, though.
I see people kind of saying this is all performative, and like yeah practicing singing to perform is literally performative, but you can practice and perform, and it be related to God.
I practice violin at school, and perform concerts very often and such, sure I practice and perform, but thats not always the reason why, you can play for Christ, I just wanted to say that.
(Yes we don't have enough evidence that I am aware of to prove that they are in the first place singing for God, anyone can look like they are praying, so it can apply to worship can it not?)
People are focusing on separation issues, which may be a giant nothing because all that has to be true for that to be nothing is for Idaho to just let anyone sing in their dome.
This may be about the church behind the school wanting to mark its territory but singing washes off and I don't really care.
The real issue is that the pastor behind the church behind the school behind the choir is some sort of dominionist and some sort of white supremecist.
For all of you complaining about Christianity being spread in this way, are you more interested in the things of this world are God being more present in our life?
Not just performative Christianity, but performative Christian Nationalism.
Yup.
Matthew 6:5 comes to mind. It's just singing instead of praying this time.
Yep.
bro couldn’t sing a song without getting called a nationalist 😒
So you’re against the Bible?
where did that come from
How is it nationalism to sing?
I love the Doxology.
It always moves me as well
What's that?
This
Doxology is the prayer that starts "Praise God from whom all blessings flow"
“Praise God from Whom all blessings flow Praise Him all creatures here below Praise Him above ye heavenly host Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”
This screams performative christian nationalism
It is. It's literally a group that's been used for performative Christian nationalism before. Look up Doug Wilson and his views on women, slavery, and education.
These students are from his school.
for some reason, people who think and say these things never want themselves to be the slaves... wonder why that is?
Because that isn't the role that Jesus cast them in.
Yes it does
y can they not sing in the big ahh circle 🙏🥺
This sings Christian
How so?
I dislike when people try to bring religion to government buildings. There are many other places to sing worship songs and this shouldn't be one of them.
thank you for saying this. i thought the same! it's a beautiful song, but the setting seems "off".
Yeah, like why not choose a place where you can uplift people with your singing and give them hope like in a hospital for children, cancer patients, older people in hospice. This is performative.
Go to a cathedral. That’s what they’re designed for.
Mmm beautiful and incredible acoustics
Beautiful architecture 🤝 beautiful music
Another example of the persecution of American Christians. /s
Insanity of God is a great read to see how Americans truly view persecution vs the rest of the world
Thank you. I am an avid reader and this looks like a good one!
It’s brought me to tears a few times actually
Doxology is always lit. One of the best aspects of Protestant worship (mainline) is their continued weekly recitation of the doxology. Do Catholics use this at Mass typically? As someone struggling between denominations, I’m always interested to see what each includes.
This is a hymn written by an Anglican Bishop to a tun from a Reformed Psalter created by people working for John Calvin. It is perhaps one of the least likely songs to be sung in a Catholic parish.
How unfortunate :/
Catholic here. We don’t typically sing this specific version of the Doxology at Mass each week. However, Catholic worship is full of doxology, just in forms that look a little different. Every time we make the Sign of the Cross, we’re invoking the name of the Triune God, which is itself a doxological act. The “Glory Be…” is another example, a short Trinitarian prayer that shows up constantly in Catholic devotional life. When we say the Creed/Profession of Faith, as well as in the heart of the Mass, during the Eucharistic Prayer, the priest proclaims the "Great Doxology" (Through him, and with him, and in him…) which is one of the most important moments of the entire liturgy. The Gloria on Sundays and solemnities is also a doxological hymn of praise.
So while we don’t use that particular Protestant hymn, the Mass is saturated with praise of the Trinity from beginning to end. And speaking personally, I agree with you: I kind of wish we did sing that one more often. It’s beautiful, simple, and theologically rich. And honestly? Protestants usually do music better than we do!
Yea I’ve kind of noticed this! Especially in older mainline Protestant churches. They are full of hymns from the 16th-19th century. Often with nearly professional choirs and accompanying piano/organ. This varies by church of course. While I deeply respect Catholicism, I was actually surprised at how…corny?…a lot of the music was in comparison. Kind of 20th century modern stuff that I wasn’t a fan of. Could just be the parish I went to.
I’ve always loved it since Sunday School!
And I thought Americans were into the seperation of Church and State...
If this is truly student-led, that qualifies.
ETA: Given that it's Doug Wilson's school though, I'm extremely skeptical
If those were Muslims, Fox News would eat this right up. Double standards in Conservative states.
I mean that's really not a double standard. If you don't understand why those two things are not equal I really don't want to have a conversation with you.
It is a double standard, you're just biased against one of those groups.
I guarantee you can’t articulate it for me. But, please do try.
If you don’t want to have a conversation why are you in this subreddit? This is for adults who want to have adult conversations. If you can’t do that or feel uncomfortable doing so you shouldn’t be here
This should be the top comment.
Yeah I’m sure this sub would yell that if there were mass Muslim prayer there
It's also f'n Idaho.
No they're into the idea of separation but only when it doesn't benefit their favorite Christian denomination.
One of the Big Lies Americans like to tell.
The only thing separated from the State is somebody else’s religion (or even a version of their religion they don’t agree with).
This literally is separation on display. It’s amazing that religious people have freedom of expression anywhere. Not every country has that.
Come back to me when someone sings the Adhan or the Quaddish in the same place, then we can talk.
They ought to. Just because some don’t uphold the principle of freedom of religious expression universally does not mean that the principle is bad.
Tell that to the people refusing to uphold the principle of freedom of religious expression universally.
That’s exactly what I was doing. Both religious and secular people have their own versions of trying to limit religious expression. It’s bad in both instances.
Absolutely
Considering it’s not led by the government and rather students using their first amendment…
Students from a specific denomination with a loudly and frequently voiced set of views on the place of God in government.
I was in the church choir for many, many years. I am too old to sing now. This brought back so many beautiful, warm memories. Thank you!
Me, too, but in college, not church. I was a worship team leader, tho
Why in a capitol?? What does politics have to do with religion..
The acoustics are pretty great in there. In college we would go sing there every year
You are fortunate to be able to! What incredible acoustics!
Just white people things.
That Doxology is being sung by students of Moscow, ID's Logos School, founded by Reformed pastor Douglas Wilson.
Thx. Isn’t that where the Idaho 4 massacre happened? 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
It's also where the University of Idaho is sited; quite a lot going on on Moscow.
That's our church's doxology.
Why in Capitol though?
The cynic in me would say "because their school is funded in part by Christian Nationalists"
And the logical person would say because of the acoustics.
Damn, I didn't realize that the separation of church and state had an exception for reverb
Congress shall make no law favoring one religion or denomination above the others, unless it sounds totally epic!
It's a private Christian school in a conservative state with conservative donors. It's not illogical to say it's because of Christian nationalism and wanting to push the idea that America is a Christian nation
Bro a choir hitting “God rest ye merry gentlemen” in that place would go crazy
Probably stealing another pagan tradition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos_School
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_Church_(Moscow,_Idaho)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Wilson_(theologian)
TL;DR:
That video of people chasing cheese down a hill, but at the bottom of the hill is Nazis.
One of the best little bits of music ever written. It shouldn't be sung in the capitol building, though.
Nothing wrong with it being in a Capitol building as long as other groups are allowed to do their thing as well.
Have you any examples of other groups doing it?
No.
So you have an examples of another group being denied?
I’d agree with this, if it ever worked out that way on paper. Occasionally it does (see some of TST’s on going’s), but most of the time it just results in Christian favoritism or no one being allowed to do the thing.
So, personally, I’m in favor of us being realistic and just not allowing for religious activities on government grounds.
Unless you can show an example of another group being denied, I cannot see how this can be condemned.
Well, firstly, TST did successfully erect a religious statue in what I believe was a city hall, which is why I mentioned them. It's an example that, yes, sometimes it does work out for everyone, which is what the law supposedly allows for- if one, then all.
More often, though, it results in inappropriate pushback and harassment, or the contextual governing body comes to the decision to deny all religions expression in order to avoid granting expression to non-Christian entities and the fallout that tends to happen when they do.
And, in my mind, that's just further evidence that it should just be none, not all, as religion does not need to be celebrated or displayed on government property in accordance with the juridical principle of the separation of church and state. However, public property abounds, and so does church friendly private property, so there is no shortage of spaces for people to pray, sing or rejoice, regardless of their religion.
Here are some examples of how we in America, in practice (regardless of what is on paper) react when non-Christians attempt to exercise their rights to be heard and seen:
Outrage after Republican representative disparages Sikh prayer in the US House | Republicans | The Guardian
Three charged after approaching praying Muslim students, waving bacon | New York Post
Man accused of harassing UH students faces criminal charges in Florida
UH investigates harassment claim after Quran burned at campus event
A Pagan delivered an invocation before a government meeting in Tulsa. These officials can’t deal with it. - Americans United
https://www.publicradiotulsa.org/local-regional/2024-11-25/councilor-responds-to-accusations-of-satanism-in-meeting-prayer (follow up to the above incident)
Tulsa City Council Eliminates Opening Prayers After Pagan Priestess Delivers Invocation | CBN News (another follow up to the tulsa incident- opening prayers were voted to be eliminated altogether)
Venkatachalapathi Samuldrala prayer controversy - Wikipedia
Hindu prayer in Senate draws religious protesters | Reuters
Rajan Zed prayer protest - Wikipedia
Here is a big picture look at how often this happens:
ACLU Defense of Religious Practice and Expression | American Civil Liberties Union
Do you need any further evidence that this is a widespread problem?
I know that it is a problem in general, but it is a problem here?
You can't point to an issue in Iowa and say that, because of that issue, Idaho is likely to act improperly.
You can't point to citizens being angry at a religious group doing there thing to declare that no religious group should be allowed to do their thing.
These citizens have a right to peacefully express their religious views in a public area as long as they are not in violation of some rule or regulation of that area.
Saying "they should have this right taken away because of bad actions of others in the past in different places" is something I could never get behind.
You are conflating things here. People being shit to non-Christian religious adherents expressing themselves is not primarily why I think religion should not be celebrated in government spaces. It is, however, more proof to me that religion doesn't belong in governmental spaces.
I'll try and break this down better:
Those links are there to show you that non-Christian religious groups are absolutely not extended, in practice, the same permission to take up space via practice or prayer in the same manner that Christians are. Not in spaces of legislation, not in educational spaces, and not even in public. In your first response to me, it seemed as if you think that they are afforded that, when they are not.
We shouldn't, regardless of whether people can be inclusive or not, be allowing religious practice or prayer inside government buildings. The state should be a secular institution, and we also have set precedent that it was intended to be. My opinion can be summed up at this: All allowing state and church to visibly mingle does is give "the state religion" (because there will \always* be one, even if it's informal) more validity and therefore more influence in governmental spaces.*
Religion, as a whole, across the board, should be de-emphasized in governmental spaces.
---
Your right to be protected from the government stopping you from freely exercising your religion is not the same as the government being obligated to sponsor that exercise- which what is happening when the government allows for it within tax-payer funded and legislative spaces.
The government is not removing your personal, individual liberty by not hosting religious choirs, by no longer opening a session with prayer, or by not permitting the 10 commandments in the classroom, etc, etc, etc... Your right to free exercise as an individual is not compromised by any of these things.
You say that like songs from other religions are ever sung at any other state capitol.
Something happening and something being allowed are two different things.
This.
Wrong. It is a sin to let false gods enter our way of life.
Other religions could say that about you too though and you both have equal amounts of evidence.
I didn’t know there are physical limits within God’s green earth as to where the Most Blessed Trinity can be praised with song.
Just don't get upset if other religious groups go and do the same. It's okay as long as everyone can do it.
Obviously?
[removed]
Whether or not that's the case, the US government is forbidden, by the Constitution, to hold that position or make laws based on that religious conviction. If it could be proven true beyond reasonable doubt, it wouldn't be a religion.
Where does it say you cannot make laws based on religious convictions?
Literally in the first amendments establishment clause. Practically word for word.
[removed]
1800 Treaty of Tripoli
Islam does not call for the murder of Christians, nor does it call for the abolition of the United States. If a Muslim desires these things, and acts to make them happen, they are prosecuted according to the law. Murder is illegal, and so they will be prosecuted as murderers if they do it.
The government is not allowed to discriminate based on religious beliefs, but absolutely can and is required to prosecute when religious beliefs lead to illegal action. If a Christian kills an adulterer with rocks, they will be prosecuted for murder. Same for a Muslim.
The idea that Islam calls for the abolition of the United States is silly on its face. Muhammad died in 632 AD, as the last source of divine doctrine in Islam. He couldn't have known about the Americas, and it is the doctrinal position of Islam to tolerate other religions while acknowledging them as incomplete or false. This is the same doctrinal position many Christians espouse, albeit with Christianity being the complete one in their view.
Removed for 1.3 - Bigotry.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Irellevant. If you let one religion take space in a place like this, then other religions should be able to as well.
Not if they are from Satan. Satan has no right to praise like the living God does.
I don’t think that’s quite how it works. If you allow any religious group to perform in a government building, then you’re obligated to allow all religious groups the same access. That’s the core of separation of church and state. The government can’t show preference for one belief system over another.
So if Christians are permitted to sing in the Capitol, then by that same principle, anyone else can sing to any deity, spirit, or religious figure of their own tradition. Because only then does the government can remain neutral to any religion.
And if you dislike the idea of people singing to Satan or any other figure you personally disapprove of, then the consistent position is to oppose all religious performances in government spaces. Because the moment you allow one religion to praise its chosen being in an official setting, you’ve opened the door for every other group, including "satanists" to do the same.
What’s even more ironic is that even singing to Satan would still be a Christian display or praise, because Satan is a figure defined entirely by Christian theology. He only “exists” as part of Christianity.
Satan exists in Islam.
I mean, yeah, but then also Judaism. However if memory servers right, they are not depicting Satan with horns and a pitchfork.
Either way, the Baptis Churcher called Muslims "Satan worshippers" and they also worship the same god, so kind of irrelevant.
Or yours is false
It doesn’t.
Removed for 1.5 - Two-cents.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
If you believe in God and you believe worshiping anything else is akin to worshiping an idol/demon or something. I think it's pretty reasonable to get a little bit upset about it. It just depends on what you do with those emotions.
I also think there's a distinction to be had between "I am not happy someone is professing a belief I believe to be false" and "I am not happy someone is allowed to publicly profess a belief I believe to be false."
Would you like have an issue if muslims started singing the call to prayer in there or Hindus sang Ram Shiva Ram?
It shouldn’t be an issue as Muslims are some of the most peaceful people on Earth
[removed]
Way to perpetuate the southern Baptists are racists stereotypes.
Your religion is not and should not be privileged above any other in America. End of.
[removed]
What on earth possesses you to think i would do anything you say just like that?
I have nothing to repent of.
I don't need a Bible to tell me to be a decent human being
I've been a christian. I've studied in seminary. I'm not going back.
Least of all to your small minded petty version of faith.
Of course you don’t need the Bible to tell you to be a decent human being. You need the Bible to tell you that you’re an awful human being who does evil and needs to repent.
Romans 3:10-12
10 As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one; 11 there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. 12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”[a]
Come to believe the good news of Christ and repent so that you do not perish.
Gee wow. Youre soooooo right.
I truly see it now.
You repeating it twice really clinched it for me
God bless you, I’m happy to hear it.
Removed for 2.3 - WWJD.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
They don't
Satanists should also be able to sing Slayer songs a capella in the capitol
Lmao
Removed for 1.3 - Bigotry.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Amen
Lol. Performative nonsense. It's funny watching this and then hearing about the awful persecution of Christianity in this country too.
It is literally a performance
It is also literally nonsense
It's a nice song, sung well, in a place with nice acoustics
Great. Then they've received their earthly reward and shall not receive a reward in heaven.
Be not like the hypocrites. They have failed this command.
I don't know that anyone expects a heavenly reward for singing a hymn out loud. But let's check if they've actually violated a commandment.
And obviously that passage isn't a blanket prohibition against all public prayer or singing. If so, Jesus immediately violates it by praying the Lord's prayer following giving that teaching.
We can trace the ideological motives of this act easily by looking at which group is doing it. Doug Wilson's school, Doug Wilson has openly started he sees it as a moral obligation for Christians to push a Christian worldview and dominate politics and the public sphere. He is explicitly a Christian nationalist.
It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so out of love... The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely... But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice.
I didn't say you believed in your God. I'm pulling a scripture that relates my perspective, which is why I posted it, not you. I'm also not in the video - I'm posting a scripture that talks about why I don't really care what their motivation is.
This is the literal opposite of what Christ taught. He was pretty clear about wanting pure motives.
"Yeah, it's a tomb. But look at how whitewashed it is!"
Christ wants pure motives for the sake of the people who have the motives. Paul is saying that regardless of someone's motivations, God can still use it for good. These are not contradictory ideas.
Performative nonsense.
"He's a mean one, Me. Grinch..."
That woulda been a better song at least
So you’re mad at the song choice?
Yes. There is a problem with the decision to sing a song explicitly from a specific religion in a government building. Especially when the group that is singing it has ties to Christian nationalists, betraying the fact that this is about a display of power, not worship.
A government building being open to the public.
Nope. It's just performative nonsense
It’s definitely a performance and a great one. Nothing nonsensical about it. Good sounding voices amplified by good architecture
Aren't you just a bundle of joy. Take your negative nancy attitude somewhere else, please.
Lol
The best version of the doxology I’ve ever heard was A Capella in the Torrey Gray before a Sunday night chapel. The Torrey gray has such epic acoustics.
Thank you for blessing my ears today
This is why people think Christians are weird.
Hey negativity nancy, gotta ask something...
How is this weird? All I see are students gathering around, singing a beautiful song with one another.
I'd bet if this was any other song that wasn't religious, people wouldn't bat an eye. People are so judgemental. I think it's a beautiful video.
Its performative and unfortunately the group has ties to Christian Nationalism
If this was a group from any other religion, most Christians would be having a fit.
I always get the chills!!!
Same 🫶🙏
Who put the event on?
The Logos School. Which receives donations from GOP members.
Ah, nothing like using kids for virtue signaling then.
I’d take their money too just so they couldn’t have it
Is it an E.O. school by chance?
Shedding a tear to this. Beautiful n nostalgic to when I'd attend church as a kid w my mom every weekend
This place is so cynical sometimes. Everyone has the right to perform the same with their own religion too. Just appreciate a nice thing
Thank you
Thomas Ken (the bishop who composed this hymn) would be proud
These students have received their reward. Just like the Pharisees.
Does the legislation coming out of that rival religion’s worship space honor that sentiment?
Angelic 😍
They may be the worst in education, healthcare, maternal mortality, infant mortality, and job outlook, but at least they can cajole their politicians into pretending to care about Jesus.
Beautiful. Acoustics are great. Why are they doing that?
I’m a Christian, but this freaks me the fuck out. Religion does NOT belong in government. Full stop. It’s actually scary
Separate church and state Gp pray in a church
This doesn't sit right with me. I would not go that far.
This is beautiful! I love seeing God brought into public settings. This country sure needs Him more than ever.
The Doxology is a favorite. They sound beautiful, especially with those acoustics!! The setting looks beautiful, I’m just not sure it is an appropriate place to use, though.
I see people kind of saying this is all performative, and like yeah practicing singing to perform is literally performative, but you can practice and perform, and it be related to God.
I practice violin at school, and perform concerts very often and such, sure I practice and perform, but thats not always the reason why, you can play for Christ, I just wanted to say that.
(Yes we don't have enough evidence that I am aware of to prove that they are in the first place singing for God, anyone can look like they are praying, so it can apply to worship can it not?)
The comments proved that this sub read is not Christian
the building looks familiar
they're nazis fyi
Woooow that’s amazingly angelic!
amen
Amen 🙏
Wow. Beautiful. Had to listen to that three times!
Le dot.
Everyone getting mad and calling this performative is insane.
People are focusing on separation issues, which may be a giant nothing because all that has to be true for that to be nothing is for Idaho to just let anyone sing in their dome.
This may be about the church behind the school wanting to mark its territory but singing washes off and I don't really care.
The real issue is that the pastor behind the church behind the school behind the choir is some sort of dominionist and some sort of white supremecist.
How so?
Amen!
Wow. That's going to do a lot of good. Thanks guys.
For all of you complaining about Christianity being spread in this way, are you more interested in the things of this world are God being more present in our life?
[removed]
Lol. "Christian founded" in what way?
I mean can't we also say slavery founded? It built this country. Doesn't mean we should be proud of it.
It's also explicitly false. The founders explicitly rejected that in the treaty of tripoli
Founded by people escaping religious persecution. Perhaps you are unaware of this, and therefore of your resulting hypocrisy?
Removed for 1.5 - Two-cents.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity