At one time there was supposedly separation of church and state but suddenly churches have expanded to include: gay issues, prolife, women leaders, music in church, spiritual gifts (speaking in tongues), baptism-differences between churches, Politics (endorsing a party), alcohol.
Why can't they stay on their side of the line? The venture into everyday life of parishioners is invasive and unrelenting. Only about 7% are against abortion but the churches are taking a hard conservative line against it. (Eventually ) hopefully they have nothing to offer their flocks but some stupid prayers that are basically of no use whatsoever.
So do they intentionally try to alienate their flocks? or do they have no idea how offensive what they're doing is to their people?
Once I was in a church where others claimed that some of the things they believed are "a good idea." The buybull is not concerned with good ideas and putting politics in the church is a reflection of who would support the mixing of church and state rather than separation. I feel this is because of "Merica" being founded as a "Christian Nation." So many believe that and I find it very often. Believers want to include everyone who came here in that worn out line.
Another big problem I have is the "abortion clinic." Women's healthcare is not done at an abortion clinic with abortion doctors, etc. It is "Planned Parenthood" and not an abortion clinic. Abortion can be performed there but we have all allowed the names of the clinics and doctors to be hijacked. This gives the religious and politicians who use them all the ammo they need. Now even the media speaks of abortion clinics and abortion doctors. Someone should be working to overturn this idiocy and not Roe v. Wade.
Good question. I think that what happens is that the extremists want power, and they can't get it by honestly winning elections, or getting people to read their nonsense. So they go to the one place where they can say anything, and claim it has the authority of god/Jesus/scripture/tradition to back them up. Then they drive away the moderates who can't stand it, so they go to other churches, or leave religion altogether, which then leaves the extremists even more in charge, which drives away more moderates. And so on.
The one great benefit that religion always had, was that it always gave an alternate voice and platform for those excluded by the state. Which is why, in the middle ages, when the state was just armed thuggery, the church did very well by pedaling welfare and human rights. But now that welfare and human rights are the main preoccupations of most states, who needs an alternate voice and platform, except those who are opposed to welfare and human rights ?