@OliveTapenade's banner p

OliveTapenade


				

				

				

					0 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					

					
joined 2022 October 24 22:33:41 UTC
				

				

				

				

				

				

					
				

				

				
				
				

				
User ID: 1729


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
OliveTapenade


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				

				
				
				

				

					0 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 October 24 22:33:41 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 1729


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					
					Month
					Year
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I certainly don't think it's an absence of imagination on my part - I was an atheist as a younger man, after all. I don't mean to generalise that all atheists feel the same, nor was I suggesting that atheists have no intellectual knowledge of Christianity.


Nonetheless I do think it's fair to say that ideological or religious alignment/difference with a text affects the way one receives it, and therefore that atheists and Christians will respond to authors like Lewis or Tolkien differently. In the same way I'm conscious that my own reaction to Pratchett is different and conditioned by my own background. I am speculating a bit about atheist responses to him, with what I hope is empathy born of my own experience of atheism, but nonetheless I am in a different position now. To the extent that I appreciate Pratchett today (and I'm not actually a huge fan), there is a level of imagination involved, putting myself in the position of someone for whom the world seems very different to the way it seems to me. The same thing, mutatis mutandis, for ex-Christian appreciators of the Christian authors.


There's probably another effortpost to be written one day about the atheist appreciators of Tolkien specifically. That is for another day, though.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
One of the things I think Pratchett has in common with the earlier Christian fantasists is a genuine affection for the parochial, and a corresponding opposition to the impersonal, enlightened, or rationalist.


I mentioned Death. The Auditors might be more efficient, but Death is a small farmer. We want to be collected by the sympathetic local. "What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?"


But we see the same pattern over and over. The Unseen University faculty are a bunch of self-important short-sighted buffoons, but Pratchett has a real affection for them, and their dumb feuds. You can imagine a story about an enlightened, politically engaged busybody coming in, determined to mobilise the university for the cause of social justice, or even just making the wizards do their damn jobs, and you know that Pratchett would be one hundred percent on the side of the wizards. The witches likewise. Pratchett likes the local. In the post below this I cite Carpe Jugulum and the pay-off to that story was that the locals like the 'traditional' vampire lord, the one who kidnaps the bosomy young maiden and always gets staked by the strapping young hero, whereas the modernist who wants to rationalise vampiric predation is the villain. In Ankh-Morpork, all Pratchett's sympathies are with the beat cops, not grand visionaries.


That's something he has in common with the earlier writers. Tolkien loves the Shire, and hates Saruman's mind of metal and wheels. Lewis praises tradition - the bit in Prince Caspian where the children are liberated from the Telmarine schools is a moment of pure, unbridled joy. Chesterton's hatred for regimentation hardly needs to be recapitulated. Pratchett lacks their religious conviction, but something of a stubborn English spirit persists in him, as it did in his literary forebears.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Certainly for me, as a Christian, one of the things that made Pratchett not-intolerable was his sense of genuine sympathy for those who want to make sense of the world and do right. If you sincerely and humanely asks those questions, Pratchett is on your side.




'I feel I should thank you,' said Oats, when they reached the spiral staircase.


'For helping you across the mountains, you mean?'


'The world is... different.' Oats's gaze went out across the haze, and the forests, and the purple mountains. 'Everywhere I look I see something holy.'


For the first time since he'd met her he saw Granny Weatherwax smile properly. Normally her mouth went up at the corners just before something unpleasant was going to happen to someone who deserved it, but this time she appeared to be pleased with what she'd heard.


'That's a start, then,' she said.




Pratchett himself is not a believer, but his worldview allows for believers who are genuinely good people, whom he regards as friends and allies.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'll take this as an opportunity for a longer effort post, so pardon me if I go a bit beyond the brief.


I think Terry Pratchett is the atheist version of C. S. Lewis or J. R. R. Tolkien.


Lewis and Tolkien are authors that young, nerdy, or fantasy-inclined Christians, especially those from an English cultural background, read while growing up. They often make a very strong impression on us. I know that I was moved and a lot of my worldview, as an adult, was shaped by these two seminal authors.


Sometimes atheists read and appreciate them as well, and with all appropriate grace and charity, while I'm glad that others read them too, I don't think they make as much sense for atheists. The Christianity is too foundational - too much of Lewis and Tolkien's writing is impregnated with faith - for them to make sense otherwise.


Pratchett, however, was an atheist, and I think his work is, just as much as Lewis' is with Christianity and Tolkien's is with Catholicism, impregnated with atheism and skepticism. Pratchett is in his own way a very cynical author. Yes, there are gods in Discworld, but they are not particularly worth worshipping, and the religion he is most sympathetic to, the Omnians, are portrayed as nice but nonetheless engaging in a kind of sympathetic self-delusion.


Pratchett's real heroes are existentialists, like Sam Vimes, or Granny Weatherwax, or Death. Death admits openly: "There is no justice. There's just me." Vimes is a man who is fully aware that the society he lives in is corrupt, unjust, and miserable, and yet, grumbling all the while, refuses to submit to nihilism, and makes the world a bit better. Weatherwax is a woman who dismisses religion and faith with, "I've already got a hot water bottle", and yet nonetheless spends her life trying, in her own irascible way, to make the world a little better for the people who live in it.


Often I find, when I read a lot by an author, that author has a kind of general tone or mood. Lewis has an erudite yet common-sensical decency to him. Tolkien is wistful, and lost in memory. Chesterton is delighted by paradox. Adams is wrily amused at the absurdity of the world. The mood I get from Pratchett is, surprisingly for a comedian, anger. Pratchett writes with this white-hot anger at injustice, at unfairness, at a world where stupid bullies tread all over ordinary people just trying to enjoy the good things this world offers. More than that, I think Pratchett has a kind of moral outrage at God. God refuses to even do us the decency of existing so that he can be properly accused of neglect!


Lewis or Tolkien look at the world and they see something there, a divine wellspring to creation, a loving creator who fashioned us, in whom we live and love and have our being, and to whom we will return. Pratchett looks at the world and sees none of that. It's not there. The world may be full of powerful beings separate from us, but they don't really care, and they can't give meaning to life. So what do you do?


I think Pratchett's Discword books are, in their core, about how to be moral in a godless, meaningless universe.


Yes, he writes comedy. That's the other big difference between him and Lewis/Tolkien. The Christian authors are funny sometimes, but they're saying something sincerely. Pratchett is trying to make you laugh, but he's always, I think, got this really sharp bite aimed at all the absurdities and injustices of the world. Pratchett thus has sympathy for the idealists - consider Sergeant Carrot, or the good Omnians like Brutha or Mightily Oats - but ultimately he's closer to Vimes or Weatherwax or Susan Sto Helit. The world is frequently garbage and disappointing. There is no avoiding that. But this is the one you've got and it's up to you to do your best anyway.


There is no justice other than what we make happen ourselves. So we had best get to work.


Put charitably, this is what I think the "atom of justice" speech is trying to say. Justice isn't a metaphysical constant; it's not out there, it's not written into the fabric of the universe, and there isn't a god coming to make it happen for us. We have to do it ourselves. If stories about gods or spirits or hogfathers have any virtue, it's that they train us to believe the impossible, to go on seeking justice, despite the emptiness of the universe we're in.


Suppose you were a young, teenage atheist, and a fantasy fan. You like people like Lewis or Tolkien, or even their lesser imitators like Robert Jordan, or Weis and Hickman. However, you cannot share their faith, or make that connection. What can you do? Pratchett comes along and writes equally entertaining stories, in an equally expansive mythos, that addresses this question for you. Here's what you do if you share these values, but can't believe in their metaphysical commitments. You acknowledge this godless universe and then set out to make justice happen anyway. More than even that, Pratchett's theory of "the little lies" actually helps contextualise the Christian authors - perhaps Narnia or Middle-earth are lies, but they are lies that help prepare you to believe, and fight for, the big ones.


(Compare Lewis' Puddleglum: "...I'm going to stand by the play-world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia.")


So, all that said, why do I hate the "atom of justice" speech?


Well, mainly just for the reason I said. I think it doesn't work because it's a straw-man. Nobody believes that justice comes in atoms, or mercy in molecules. Things that aren't elemental particles are not lies, or any less worthy of being valued or loved. Death's rebuttal of people who believe in justice does not land, and because I know Pratchett was a brilliant author and extremely capable fantasist, I believe that Pratchett could have come up with a metaphor that worked. It is not beyond his imagination to make the same point in a more artful way. After all, most of his other books make the same point, often more successfully.


Maybe I am just an intolerable pedant. But I hope it comes through that I'm saying this from a place of appreciation for Pratchett.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The Avignon papacy was from the 14th century. That's all it means.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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 aspirational! It's stupid! It's very, very stupid!"


But I might be a little unfair.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Dangit, now I'm embarrassed that you got to the Pratchett comparison before me.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Not if you want to be re-elected.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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'.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 30, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 30, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
...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.