https://nitter.click/Eminem/status/2111311830572552546#m

Not about choosing sides, just choosing to make music with my old friend. Praying for all of us. #HealMyFaith @KidRock

https://archive.is/ZVuV3 (stereogum)

Eminem Defends New Kid Rock Collaboration

Kid Rock and Eminem's new collaboration has been turning heads. Though the pair have been friends for decades, their political views are famously opposed, as Kid Rock is an avid MAGA supporter and Eminem is a vocal critic of Trump. In a new post, Eminem defended his decision to work with the controversial figure.

"Not about choosing sides, just choosing to make music with my old friend. Praying for all of us," Eminem wrote about "Heal My Faith," which comes from Kid Rock's new Christian album Halfway 2 Jesus. In his verse, Eminem raps, "From shock rap to the rock rap, my homie and me/ He is my brother, not my political enemy."

In an interview with Billboard, Kid Rock said about Eminem, "We've been friends for, like, 40 years. I really didn't want to drag him into my political world…. We talk about [politics] a little bit, not a ton. There's a lot of stuff we agree on, and we can have a laugh about what [we don't]. That's why I asked him to write a verse for me."

Last month, Kid Rock was supposed to perform at a MAGA festival in Kentucky but it was canceled because only six people bought VIP tickets.

This is the lyrics to the Kid Rock song featuring Eminem. The song was released yesterday. Lil Wayne is also featured on a different track of the album.
https://genius.com/Kid-rock-heal-my-faith-lyrics

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 14 hours ago (9 children)

No, I'd say that's a fair assessment of christianity in general.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 13 hours ago* (8 children)

    do you actually have any knowledge of christian history over the past 2000 years? do you know anything at all about the various beautiful forms christian thought and culture have existed over the centuries in the middle east, africa, india, eastern europe, or central asia? no! you simply judge from whatever deeply basteredised form of evangelicalism you have some surface-level familiarity with and are too arrogant to engage with anything beyond your horizon.

    all you ignorant westerners ever do is smell your own dung and judge the world based on its odour.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 12 hours ago* (3 children)

    do you actually have any knowledge of christian history over the past 2000 years?

    Knowing Christian history just makes Christianity look worse. For example:

    CW: Colonialism, CSA

    • The embracing of Christianity by the Roman Empire as a tool of Imperial propaganda and conquest
    • The Russian Orthodox Church acting as a major legitimizer of Tsar Nicholas' massacres of Jews and Communists
    • Britain's violent imposition of Christianity on its African colonies including sodomy laws that are still being used to persecute LGBT people today
    • The Spanish Church's collaboration with Franco's regime in the violent suppression and later mass murder of communists during and after the Spanish Civil War
    • The Catholic Church's decades-long systemic protection of pedophile priests
    • Medieval Crusaders massacring tens of thousands of noncombatants and children in Béziers because "God knows his own"
    • The Catholic Church being a massive landlord and tightly-knit collaborator with the monarchy in pre-Revolution France
  • It was Gabrielle, a woman during the French Revolution, who famously said "we must shoot the priests."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago* (1 child)

    there is a difference between knowing history and cherry-picking it to argue for a pre-conceived notion. i could use the exact same "methodology" and argue for the exact opposite point, bringing up how the holy synod's role in tsarist repression was opposed by other sects (dukhobors, molokans and others), as well as even dissident orthodox clergy. i could mention how european colonisers repressed indigenous african, indian and middle eastern forms of christianity. i could point out how the cathars you mentioned, being massacred during the albigensian crusade, viewed themselves as a christian sect as well. i could also mention how liberation theology provided invaluable help to liberation movements in latin america, talk about hilarion capucci and vlada zečević, etc., etc…

    also, would it in your eyes be just to condemn all of islam due to daesh? would you go so far as to denounce all of buddhism because of the rohingya genocide? how about declaring all of judaism to be equal with religious zionism, or using modi and the bjp as a reason to smear all 1.2 billion hindus as an irredeemable evil? so let',s not argue against caricatures.

    you mentioned the bourgeois french revolutionaries trying to abolish religion. did they succeed? condemning ordinary religious people is a needless own-goal. it's a great way to make enemies of a sizeable majority of the global working class for no benefit.

    (also, as a side note, do you have a source for that gabrielle quote? i'd like to read it in context.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 32 minutes ago*

    No. You can't actually argue the opposite. The Dukhobors, Molokans, Old Believers, and whatever else have not done "The opposite" of what is claimed, they did not oppose colonialism, they didn't stand against pogroms, they retreated from broader concerns and when they do get involved in broader politics it isn't as a progressive force or to stand against reaction. Name dropping the orthodox equivalent of Amish or LARPers isn't going to win you this argument.

    so let',s not argue against caricatures.

    It isn't a caricature to point out that the organised hierarchy of a centralised organisation has engaged in systemic action that should colour our perception of it. It is frankly absurd to argue otherwise.

    The only things you can point to in defence of Christianity is any point where it has not held institutional power, and then you transpose that to defending the institutional power wielded for reaction.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 12 hours ago*

    The Russian orthodox church within living memory (As in, within the last 10 years) ran an open political campaign to legalise domestic violence.

    But sure. It's just "Smelling our own dung" to find that bad.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

    Your counter example to christianity being rotten is christianity in eastern europe amd central asia?

    Maybe you should not be so quick to lambast others for their ignorance.

    Like which part of the Russian orthodox church do you find laudable in particular? The icons? The pogroms? The outfits? The collaboration with fascists and celebration of anti communist mass murderers? The architecture? The explicit misogyny?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

    There's nothing beautiful about religion lol. You made a lot of assumptions about my ignorance, but my distaste for religion came from learning and trying to understand.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 hours ago (1 child)

    i'm sorry, but i'll have to call into question whatever you call "learning and trying to understand"

    your argument relies on moral outrage and abstract ethics rather than material analysis. marx’s critique of religion is often misused by superficial atheists. when he called religion "the opium of the people", he was not simply condemning faith, but identifying it as a response to suffering in a world devoid of meaning and justice. religion, in this sense, is both a symptom of oppression and a coping mechanism for those experiencing it. misunderstand this reality and you end up with ethical idealism, ultimately undermining revolutionary efforts by alienating the masses.

    from a materialist standpoint, religion persists because it fulfills real social and emotional needs under capitalism, just as it did under previous socio-economic systems. the task of revolutionaries is not to mock or suppress these beliefs, but to transform the conditions that give rise to them.

    and if you would try to even once get out and actually look at the historical precedence of socialist projects, you would learn a lot:

    in its early years, the ussr launched aggressive anti-religious campaigns, shuttering churches (and destroying century-old architectural monuments in the process), ridiculing faith, and persecuting religious leaders. these efforts, spearheaded by organizations like the league of the militant godless (sry for wikipecia-link, but i can't really find good english-language sources rn), were driven by ideological zeal rather than mass-line engagement. they confused state atheism with revolutionary strategy and alienated millions of religious workers and peasants whose faith was deeply embedded in their communities and daily lives.

    rather than focusing drawing believers into the socialist project through improvements in their material conditions and political education, the early state attempted to impose atheism from above. this approach was idealist, disconnected from the real consciousness of the masses, and politically self-defeating.

    they thus unwillingly played into the hands of the reaction, since religious believers, especially in rural areas, came to view the new socialist state as an enemy of tradition, community, and morality. reactionary forces capitalized on this resentment, painting themselves as defenders of the common people. lenin-dont-laugh

    recognizing this, the government later went on to ease anti-religious policies during the great patriotic war, in order to build unity, effectively admitting that earlier methods had been divisive and counter-productive.

    leftists should understand that atheism, like any belief system, must be approached strategically. the goal is not to impose a worldview, but to unite the working class in the struggle against capitalism. religious people are not the enemy, capitalism is. mockery and cultural arrogance only serve to fracture potential alliances.

    instead, one must engage religious workers respectfully, meet their material needs, and build class consciousness through shared struggle. religion will fade not through coercion, but as alienation and exploitation are overcome.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 24 minutes ago*

    and if you would try to even once get out and actually look at the historical precedence of socialist projects, you would learn a lot:

    Sure. Let's.

    The Soviets let up on the Russian Orthodox Church which continued to engage in organised anti communist activities, a tradition it maintains to this day. At no point did ending state repression of the orthodox church benefit the soviets in any material way.

    The Chinese state didn't let up on its repression until their religious hierarchies were crushed on an institutional level, and haven't let any church in that doesn't agree to the terms of the state and it is the single most stable AES system in the world.

    The Iranian communists tried to ally with the religious authorities and they were murdered about it.

    The argument that communists who don't pay deference to religion will alienate the common people is an intuitive one, but one that has never born out in reality, whereas the christian religious hierarchy siding with fascists against communists has happened oh about every fucking time.

  • source
  • parent