OliveTapenade
No bio...
User ID: 1729
OliveTapenade
24d ago
Dangit, now I'm embarrassed that you got to the Pratchett comparison before me.
OliveTapenade
24d ago
It's conceivably possible that Colby overreached, or used heated rhetoric that others in the administration would not have signed off on.
I'm skeptical that the administration would have explicitly decided to try to threaten or bully the Vatican, but it would be pretty believable than Colby was told to be as persuasive and forceful as possible, and that in line with the generally bullying, thuggish culture of the Trump White House, that turned into a threat. Someone like Vance could discover that and sincerely feel appalled.
OliveTapenade
24d ago
Human rights are fiction created by the state and existing only trough the state.
This is very much not consensus.
There are, I think, broadly two schools of thought on human rights.
The first is what I'll call rights realism, and it's the older, more traditional one. Rooted in natural law, it is objectively the case that different beings carry with them different moral duties and obligations. Understanding what something is implies certain normative principles about what can or must be done concerning that thing. In this specific case, humans, simply by virtue of being human, possess certain moral rights and imply certain duties. This is the theory implied by documents like the US declaration of independence ("...the laws of nature and of nature's God..."), and the Abrahamic religions tend to be quite keen on this. 'Human rights' are thus an attempt to recognise and codify these rights and duties. Any given legal regime is almost certainly flawed, even more so in the implementation, but is nonetheless commendable to recognise and try to protect the natural rights of every human being.
The second is what I'll call the constructivist view, and it says that, though rights don't necessarily exist in nature in a direct way, rights language represents a communal decision. It an aspiration - the universal declaration of human rights, say, is a declaration that we as a community have decided that human beings must be treated in this way. Human rights in this sense are a social fact, but no less important or binding for that. Note that the constructivists do not require the state. Social realities can exist outside of and prior to the state.
I note that your rebuttal fails to move both of these schools:
And it is easy to prove - take any human, do the thoroughest possible vivisection on them and you won't be able to find a single right.
This is like Death's 'atom of justice' speech, and it's wrong for the same reason. Neither school is saying that human rights are physical things. The realists believe that moral rights and duties exist objectively despite being non-physical. They are not materialists. And the rights constructivists fully understand that they're talking about a social reality.
Even a determined materialist isn't going to be moved by your argument, or by Death's. Materialists do not believe that nothing that isn't a physical object exists. Things can be properties of states of affairs. Death is wrong because justice or mercy are attributes of states of affairs, not elementary particles, and no less real for that. Some configurations of molecules are just and other configurations are not, the same way that some configurations correspond to living things and some configurations do not, and Death's entire existence is premised on that distinction. Likewise some arrangements of human beings are humans-rights-respecting, and some are humans-rights-violating. It is coherent to say that a torturer vivisecting someone to look for the 'rights' organ is violating a human right, even though he will never find such an organ.
OliveTapenade
25d ago
Not if you want to be re-elected.
OliveTapenade
25d ago
That's my first impression, at least. If this is roughly the shape of a status quo that holds, Iran pretty much won.
But at this point I know better than to assume that an agreement that Trump agreed to is worth very much. We will see if anything holds.
OliveTapenade
25d ago
To be unnecessarily nitpicky, it's inter regnum, and regnum means 'kingdom', 'reign', or 'authority'. As Etymonline notes, the term was used in the Roman republic, to mean a time between consuls. As such, though it is etymologically related to rex, 'king', I think both the Romans and ourselves validly use the term to mean any interruption in political authority.
Constitutionally, the American system is designed to never have an interregnum. If the president dies, the next person in the line of succession instantly becomes president - the office is never vacant. Western monarchies often work the same way - "the king is dead, long live the king". The throne is never empty. The presidency is the monarchal element of the American constitution (America being a Polybian mixed constitution), and it too is never empty.
That said asdasdasdasd is clearly using the term more informally, to just mean something like 'interruption'.
OliveTapenade
25d ago
And progressives haven't progressed anything, what's your point? :P
More seriously, I think it depends on the time-scale you look at and who you think counts as a 'conservative', and I'm also inclined to think that it's unfair to judge a movement for not necessarily succeeding overall. Movements tend to name themselves for their goals - we understand that it's not really that fair to criticise American libertarians or communists for not having restored liberty or brought communism, because those are small parties. How small is 'conservatism' as a movement? Over the last decade or so there's been plenty of writing trying to distinguish 'conservatives' from 'the right', with the understanding that actual conservatives might be a significantly smaller tribe than was realised.
Anyway, if I look at the last two hundred years so, I think that conservatives, in a broad sense, have achieved plenty of things. Not everything they wanted, certainly, but I wouldn't say their efforts were wasted. Eugenics and communism stand out as probably the two biggest issues that conservatives were on the winning side of.
OliveTapenade
25d ago
Well, no, that's why I didn't mention Godfrey originally.
I give Philip II pretty good marks as King of France, I think. I just don't think he's synonymous with crusading the same way that Richard is. He went on a crusade to the Holy Land when it was politically convenient, abandoned it opportunistically when it was advantageous to him, and also dragged his feet and avoided participating in the Albigensian Crusade. I consider him a successful king overall, probably more so than Richard, but certainly his commitment to crusading was, at best, tactical.
Though now I'm wondering who I would consider the most Trumpian figures of the Middle Ages... it's an interesting question. Richard II sprang to my mind, but I may just be unduly influenced by Shakespeare there, in the portrayal of an erratic, absolutist king who struggles against his own government and advisors.
OliveTapenade
26d ago
For what it's worth, I was describing a position, not advocating one myself.
Personally I agree entirely with the conclusion that marriage was destroyed or degraded long before this particular issue emerged. I am not therefore sympathetic to same-sex marriage, though I note in that linked post that it's probably 'good policy', but I do think that the argument about SSM specifically is missing the deeper point.
OliveTapenade
26d ago
My understanding is that in Greece the church is not particularly mobilised, politically. There is a vague, general sort of sense that it leans right, but pretty much every major party in Greek politics at least puts on a show of being pious, prays publicly, respects priests, and so on.
In Russia, it's obviously a complicated mess, partly due to the communist legacy, partly due to Patriarch Kirill's ties to Putin, and more. Certainly today the Russian Orthodox Church is in alliance with Putin and the larger 'right', but there are significant contingent factors there.
In general it is absolutely correct to say that Christianity, as a whole, has a strong environmentalist message.
Going back to the Pew Religious Landscape Study, one of the questions it asks is whether people agree with the statement "God gave humans a duty to protect and care for the Earth, including the plants and animals". 97% of Evangelical Protestants either completely, mostly, or somewhat agree with that, compared to 90% of Mainline Protestants, 90% of Catholics, 89% of Muslims, 84% of Orthodox, 75% of Hindus, 56% of Jews, 56% of Buddhists, 24% of agnostics, and 3% of atheists.
Obviously the lower numbers are modified heavily by the number who don't believe in God at all - the Jewish number is only so low, I'd guess, because 28% of Jews don't believe in God. Likewise the Orthodox number looks worse than the other Christians, but I'd guess that's because 9% of Orthodox either don't believe in God or did not answer a question about believing in God.
(This is probably because Orthodoxy is an 'ethnic faith' in many cases? There are people who say "I'm Orthodox" but all that means is "I'm Greek" or "I'm Russian". Like the professor or grandfather in this story - "You can't convert from being Greek!")
(I am also comfortable saying that the lower numbers are just because of atheism because Pew also asks people if they support government regulation to protect the environment - Jews support that at 72%, Buddhists at 68%, agnostics at 83%, and atheists at 87%. This is not a perfect measure, because it's possible to believe that humans must protect the environment but that government regulation is not the right way to do it - presumably this is what's going on with evangelicals, who only 44% support environmental regulation laws - but it is nonetheless indicative.)
Anyway, I would be comfortable asserting that among Christians who believe in God, it is overwhelmingly consensus, at 90+% agreement, that God gave humans a duty to protect and care for the Earth. We must kindly steward this marvellous creation.
OliveTapenade
26d ago
The criterion was 'Crusader Kings'.
Of your three, Bohemond was not a king of any sort, Baldwin became a king only after the crusade's success, and I think Frederick II is not particularly known for being a crusader. Frederick II's 'crusade' was mostly a diplomatic coup, and I think pretty far from most people's mental picture of a crusader.
I would comfortably assert that the most famous 'Crusader Kings', by which I mean kings (or European monarchs of similar standing) who set out on a crusade, i.e. a military expedition to secure the Holy Land, are Richard the Lionheart and St. Louis.
OliveTapenade
26d ago
For what it's worth, "death to Israel" is about as uncontroversial a sentiment in the Arab world as "chocolate is nice" is in the Western world. There is room for discussion about how literally it should be taken, because most of the time what "death to Israel" means is "Israel is bad" without any specific policy action attached to it, but it is completely universal that Israel is a bad thing that we hate. Even when Arab countries try to normalise relations with Israel, that usually provokes significant popular outcry.
So I wouldn't read that much into any specific person saying that. If you're with a group of Arab Muslims and people say "death to Israel" and you disagree, you are the one being anti-social. It's the equivalent of, say, being a Westerner who is vocally pro-North-Korea. If I were having a conversation with a bunch of Westerners, someone casually said that such-and-such is a horror show like North Korea, and I interrupted to say that actually North Korea is a victim of Western propaganda and it's actually a workers' paradise, everyone would stare at me like I'm a crazy person. That is what would happen if you were hanging out with a bunch of Arab Muslims, they said death to Israel, and you interrupted to disagree.
Anecdotally, all my experiences with Muslims in the West have been positive - Egyptian, Afghan, Syrian, Indonesian, Turkish, they've all been lovely. They have in my experience been patient, polite, and happy to respectfully talk about the differences and the common ground between our traditions. I just carefully steer away from anything involving Israel or Palestine. The ones living in Western countries do not say "death to Israel", but they are all passionately pro-Palestinian. Compare how pretty much all my experiences with religious Jews in the West have been positive, and they also have been lovely, polite, generous, and willing to have wonderful conversations; but they are all passionately pro-Israel (even the super-liberal ones), and it is not worth trying to engage on that. At this point my position is just that I like the Muslims, I like the Jews, and I never talk about Israel/Palestine with them because that makes brains switch off and people get angry.
OliveTapenade
26d ago
Surely it hasn't been that long since "kids need a mother and a father" was a mainstream, common-sense point of view on the right?
Obviously the conservative position is that gay couples, whether male or female, cannot have children. It is physically impossible for such a couple to have biological children, obviously. One partner might be the biological parent, but there must necessarily be a mother or father who is being excluded somewhere, and this exclusion is firstly an injustice, and secondly itself a mere pretense, an attempt to ignore the biological fact of parentage while fantasising a similar role for the same-sex partner. And sociologically, sure, the same-sex couple can adopt a child, but it is normatively bad for a child to be raised by a same-sex couple. Children need both their parents, and if for some reason that is not possible (there are divorces, separations, maybe a biological parent dies, etc.), they still need parental figures of both sexes.
It's barely been a decade since Obergefell. Has everyone forgotten the gay marriage debate so quickly? Gay adoption? It is very common for conservatives to just bite the bullet here and say, "Gay couples can't have a biological child, and shouldn't parent children at all. That's the whole point."
OliveTapenade
26d ago
I don't think Trump acts remotely like a crusader king.
Granted, my model of an idealised crusader king is probably Louis IX of France, or the other obvious candidates are Richard I of England, Philip II of France, or Frederick Barbarossa. I do not imagine any of them acting like Trump. I'm curious where you see the similarity?
Unless your capitalisation is meant to imply that you think Trump acts like a Crusader Kings (the video game) character, in which case... um, sure, but those are video games that are substantially treachery-and-murder-and-adultery-and-corruption simulators, so, okay, that sure sounds like Trump, but that's not exactly a defence of him.
...this seems confused, to me?
Firstly, almost no American right-wingers are Orthodox, because almost no Americans are Orthodox full stop. It is entirely to be expected that Eastern Orthodoxy plays practically zero role in the formation of beliefs on the American right. Most American right-wingers do not feel that Orthodoxy is part of their heritage and therefore pay no attention to it. Orthodoxy is simply not a relevant part of the American political or cultural landscape.
Secondly, Orthodox Christians are not a particularly right-wing demographic. Per Pew there, in 2023-24, 50% of Orthodox identified as Republican or leaning Republican, versus 6% in the middle, and 44% for Democrats. By comparison, Evangelicals are 70-6-24, Mainline Protestants are 52-8-41, Catholics are 49-8-44, and Mormons are 73-4-23. Mainline Protestants are more right-wing than Orthodox!
Thirdly, if I search Amazon for 'Religion X and ecology', I will find a huge number regardless. Just doing it now, Catholicism gets me 108 results, Protestantism gets 63, Evangelicalism 27, and Orthodoxy 22. Orthodoxy, at least on the metric you gave, does not seem particularly impressive.
Fourthly, I'd argue that citing authoritative works from a person's religious tradition is often ineffective in changing a person's mind, especially if the citation seems to be made aggressively or in bad faith. The obvious case study would be Laudato si', hailed with great enthusiasm by liberal Christians of all varieties, ignored by most others, and yet used by the former to try to pull conservative Catholics in their direction. Did this work? Not really. I think when one tries to cite a religious tradition, it's more important to be closely embedded in that group's actual practice.
On a final note, I do not for a second disagree with the idea that Christian doctrine, regardless of denomination, tells us to take care of the Earth and its resources. It very clearly does.
However, I think that Orthodoxy is not especially unique or more active in proposing care for the world than other traditions, I think most American right-wingers do not perceive Orthodoxy to be part of their tradition at all, and I'm not sure Orthodoxy should be seen as particularly right-wing at all.
It is probably my least favourite Pratchett passage - it may not be objectively the worst, but I think it's a terrible argument, and people citing it as inspirational drive me crazy. I want to yell, "It's not inspirational! It's stupid! It's very, very stupid!"
But I might be a little unfair.
More options
Context Copy link