This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Apologies if this is too culture war-y
If I told you that public servants in a Western country were forced (by social pressure) to pray at the beginning of meetings, what kind of prayers do you think they were and what side of the political spectrum would the social pressure come from?
In the US context, one would assume I was referring to right-wing Christianity, but here in New Zealand it is becoming more and more expected to pray in Maori before meetings. Many of these prayers refer to Jesus or the Christian god, or the pre-contact Maori deities.
The stranger part to US ears (perhaps) is that this is mainly pushed by the more left/woke type of people. While I know that other Anglo countries do like to integrate indigenous spirituality into land acknowledgements etc, I believe only the NZ public service has gone out to this extent.
Since land acknowledgements have already spread around the Anglo world, I wonder if this forced spirituality will also spread. Certainly Australians I have spoken to (at least liberal Australians) talk about the integration of indigenous spirituality as a desirable outcome.
The US had this fight over prayer in schools, etc. It was thoroughly resolved in favor of separating church and state.
I'd be truly shocked to see it happen again on a larger-than-county scale. Both teams are hypersensitive to the topic, or were 20 years ago.
But then again, I have yet to witness a land acknowledgment in person, despite attending school in Oklahoma. So perhaps I don't have any perspective for what people are willing to do.
This is, by the way, one of those decisions that would seem completely absurd to the founders of the country. They very much did not believe that US constitution demanded separation of church and state (even if they personally believed it would be desirable). For example, when the US Constitution was passed, Massachusetts literally had state religion. From Massachusetts constitution of 1780:
Not only requiring prayer in school was allowed in Massachusetts, in fact in 1791 Massachusetts passed a law that literally required Sunday church attendance (to be fair, this was never enforced). There was really no question about the constitutionality of this: at the time, the bill of rights was understood to apply mostly to federal, not state governments. The current jurisprudence is very much dependent on 14th amendment, and the incorporation doctrine.
Well, yeah. Add it to the long list of reasons why I'm not an originalist.
The decision would only seem absurd to the founders because they didn't have the 14th. Given that we added it, incorporation is legally sound. I'm sure some founders would object to it as federal overreach, but that's a values disagreement, not a sign of incoherence.
Yes, I did not mean to imply that the current doctrine is incoherent or is standing on the shaky basis (as did, for example, Roe v Wade decision, or still does most of the federal regulatory apparatus based on the unintended interpretation of interstate commerce clause). My point was simply that separation of church and state, contrary to what many people seem to believe, has not been one of the founding principle of this country, and in many states, quite the contrary.
I'd say current Establishment Clause doctrine is approximately as foundationless as RvW and other misadventures, though at least Lemon is now actually dead rather than zombie-doctrine. Properly speaking, the Establishment Clause ought to be a dead letter in practical terms, though technically existing in a legal sense. It's also one of the clauses that makes no coherent sense to apply to the states via 14th Amendment incorporation (unlike much of the rest of the Bill of Rights).
Per the original sense of the phrase and, you know, its actual words, the Establishment Clause stood for two things: first, the federal government was specifically barred from recognizing an established national church; and second, the federal government was barred from interfering--pro or con--in the decision of any state to recognize an established state church, or de-recognizing an established state church. Everything else hung on the Establishment Clause is without a legitimate foundation. Yes, the Supreme Court disagrees with me; it is wrong.
It's practically speaking a dead letter now because the state practice of recognizing a state church--though widespread at the Founding--fell out of favor over the next few decades. No state has had an established church for about 200 years, and the practice is well well outside the Overton Window everywhere in America (and properly so, sorry British people).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link