There are all types of Christian. Some are 'more Christian' than others.
Throughout history there have been types who will damn you to hell for all eternity with their fire and brimstone. Its part of the reason that many have lost faith because of the hypocrisy this promotes.
I very much take the 'well I'm a Christian line with a pinch of salt'. Its is too often used as a justification for being an arsehole.
I'm much more into people who call themselves humanitarians as a way to describe themselves as this covers all faiths (or no faiths) and actually tends to show a better measure of compassion and understanding for others as a duty and responsibility. Or put simply 'thinking of others' and 'empathy'.
This 'pseudo morality' should be called out for what it is. A mask for being a nasty peace of work which seeks to abuse, control or otherwise treat other people with contempt or beneath them.
Religion has a got a bad image in this country, particularly amongst the young. There is a reason for this. Its to do with education and its to do with a dislike for authoritarianism which exploits religion and provides a structure for religion. Religion in Europe has suffered particularly for this uncompromising rigidity.
There is plenty to admire with faith. People need faith. It provides support and comfort, particularly at times of need. Without it people feel more isolated and struggle more to cope. It provides a source of mental health support.
For that reason I really do believe that people would like more faith in their lives. Its the politics of faith and the structure of the institutions of faith that many dislike and are the problem, just as they dislike actual politics. In other words the establishment that does not recognise their problems and needs, offers them no stake in their lives and instead judges and condemns and blames them for things rather than listening to them and helping them get back on track. (Also note 'religions' or should I say cults, who do recognise this and use it against people, as an exploit for power rather than actually getting people back on track.)
As a rule politics and religion are not a good mix because its too often about this unquestioning 'I believe' imposed from above against continued reasoned argument and debate within a democracy which involves all.
At its very heart of the hard line religion v thinking democracy is the principle that the people who don't question and don't like to be questioned and challenged, when they have the means and ability to do so, are the people for whom the rules work for best. In other words 'the establishment'.
Rees-Mogg being the perfect example.
Its easier to silence others by hiding behind religion to maintain status than to have a proper debate on morality and social responsibility within society as a whole. Where religion becomes the instrument of the political establishment, this is where it dies and fails. It no longer is about any God.
Religion should promote and encourage thinking, as this is good for society as a whole. Thinking and questioning IS the very essence of empathy. Religion does do this in many quarters. Ages of enlightenment have occurred in conjunction with religion, for the advancement and benefit of society. Afterall, what is religion without empathy? The two are not totally incompatible though the marriage is a difficult one. In doing so it needs to recognise its need to be inclusive and have certain freedoms of the very thought it encourages which can be tricky.
My point is that Mogg is not a religious man. He uses religion as an instrument of his privilege to maintain his privilege by promoting the idea that we should not think or question his 'moral authority' which he only has through position and not through invoking God as his defence. It is purely a political action and not a pious one. He wants to promote an image of piety. This is nothing more than a smoke screen for political gain. You need to do more than simply invoke your religion to have any real sense of moral authority within a democracy.
Easy to see why he dislike democracy and accountability.
In short: Rees-Mogg is nothing but a bigoted zealot not at all pious and worthy of the respect he seems to think he is owed or wants to demand. He can whine all he likes to the contrary but it doesn't change the fact, he's an ungodly nasty piece of work.
That's a philosophical as I'm going to get.