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 -
Just saw this bit of news:
https://religionnews.com/2025/05/12/episcopal-church-ends-refugee-resettlement-citing-moral-opposition-to-resettling-white-afrikaners/]https://religionnews.com/2025/05/12/episcopal-church-ends-refugee-resettlement-citing-moral-opposition-to-resettling-white-afrikaners/
with the title of "Episcopal Church refuses to resettle white Afrikaners, ends partnership with US government". Thinking that it was a case of sensationalizing the tittle to attract clicks to a more moderate news article I opened the page. Oh boy was I disappointed.
While the majority of the article was more as a moralizing plea for the resumption of resettlement programs, the beginning at least was what it said in the title. The episcopal church will end its partnership with the US government due to being asked to benefit white south africans.
Why are they doing that?, in their words, because they are pro racial justice:
Maybe the next step in the Trump Administrations should be to show that welfare programs benefit a majority of white people or something like that?
Link to the letter from the Church - https://www.episcopalchurch.org/publicaffairs/letter-from-presiding-bishop-sean-rowe-on-episcopal-migration-ministries/
Reading the letter, I'm struck by the notion that the way they talk about their operations is not so different than what an international corporation does. Bits like
Just substitute refugees by clients and then it makes sense why they are so gung ho about adding more bodies through this kind of partnerships. They win twice, once by getting money from the federal gevernment and once more with some of those resetled contributing to the church itself, be it through economic donations or voluntary work.
in reference to their winding down of their resettlement services makes me think Corpo. And it's logical if one thinks about it for a moment, but for some reason it never occurred to me that churches aren't that diferent from other NGO's.
Finally, this last bit is maybe the real reason why they are finishing their services and not just out right anti-white racism, but it is curious that it is buried in the body of the letter and the woke justification is front and center in the opening paragraphs. But one salient point against this theory of mine is that it looks like they are ending services due to the white Afrikaneers, not because the pause in the resetlement programs. This is further reinforced when the original news article mentions that
so it sounds to me, like these NGO's were hopping to lawfare their way into opening the money faucet at the through again, but at least for the Episcopal church dealing with whites with "preferential treatment" is too much.
This is so viscerally disgusting to me, it's almost amazing the way the Trump administration has managed to expose the hypocrisy at the heart of the refugee resettlement NGOs and cause them to undermine their entire raison d'etre, it's beyond brilliant:
-- It's blatantly obvious to any liberal paying attention that politically rejecting refugee groups on ethnic grounds will go in bad directions. If you're rejecting Afrikaners, why are you accepting Palestinians? Who can you accept from Rwanda and the Congo? Almost every ethnic group has done bad things en route to refugee status, the myth of the innocent victim is an absurdity. This undermines all future refugee resettlement projects, and exposes them to future lobbying against other refugee groups.
-- It's going into the nativist frame by admitting that some refugees and immigrants are bad for the country and don't deserve to be here. The pro immigration argument must be universal if it is to exist at all, once you admit of some exceptions you enter the restrictionist frame of argument, and you start losing.
-- It's not clear how accepting white south africans who want to leave South Africa into the United States can possibly be a bad thing for South Africa. It's creating a frame of imprisonment, of anti-emigration: the country of South Africa has a right to say that white people can't leave in the name of "racial justice." Which is clearly insane and disqualifies their whole argument: absent an actual crime a country being unwilling to let their people leave is obvious tyranny. If South Africa wants to keep its white population in the country, it should treat them better. Full stop. Freedom to leave is the most basic freedom imaginable.
Not only is all this disgusting to me, it blows my mind that they are saying all this out loud. That no one at the organization seems to see what they are saying, is bright enough to pick up on subtext.
This is the best way yet to permanently torpedo the refugee program.
More options
Context Copy link
I could be wrong about their motivations, but the impression I get from the Episcopal Church's decision is something along the lines of "The administration is aiding white people who are or might be in danger of their lives, while telling people of colour in similar danger that they are obligated to stay in their own countries and die. This suggests that the administration believes that the life of a white person matters more than that of a person of colour. This belief is a grave sin, and we refuse to be complicit in it."
The UN convention on refugees makes salient a select list specific traits, including race:
If Afrikaaners are in danger because of their race, and the black South Africans are in equal danger because of gang warfare or general lawlessness, then the UN convention covers the Afrikaaners, but not the black South Africans, as refugees.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm no theologician, but I'm fairly certain that the New Testament espouses the sentiment that helping some people is still better than helping no people, even if those people are not the most deserving. My memory on this is fairly vague though; I hope someone better-read can correct me here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not surprised that this is couched in NGO language. I'm a little surprised they mention denying white South Africans resettlement on political grounds. I see three reasons:
Racial Justice. “In light of our church’s steadfast commitment to racial justice and reconciliation and our historic ties with the Anglican Church...” Which I guess is a hat tip to Desmond Tutu? At least that connection is made by AP reporting.
Other refugees exist that are/were more worthy of resettlement. Surely white South Africans could potentially be worthy of the same good deeds the church has afforded so many others?
The faucet was closed. The program is no longer feasible to run.
The last one seems like a winner. Were I the Episcopal church I would have protested the faucet being closed. I might even point at many other refugees in dire need of resettlement. I would have made those two statements after agreeing to resettle these people.
AP does report that another refugee agency will take the 49 South Africans:
This is a more appropriate protest response. I am curious about the the 49 South Africans. Hopefully somebody finds and interviews one.
They are protesting the faucet being closed, by doing the only thing that they can do to hurt this administration: talk about it, and refuse to provide services the admin actually wants.
More options
Context Copy link
So far, what I have seen on X of them are just photos by lefties mocking their fatness and how they couldn't have been suffering too much if they were that fat.
EDIT.- Found the tweet in question:
https://x.com/Sargon_of_Akkad/status/1921909455429439569
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A lot of people wonder why Curtis Yarvin is taken seriously. There’s been a lot of drama lately about whether Moldbug Sold Out, or whether there is any reason to take him seriously. A lot of this comes from an overfocusing on his monarchy prescriptions, but this really misses a lot of the deeper intellectual content. Social justice came from American Mainline Protestantism. They are the same thing.
I think phrasing it as "Progressivism is atheistic puritanical christianity" captures some nuance that "it came from protestantism" doesn't.
Actually, I think the nuance is lost. Social justice warriors weren’t simply inspired by Christianity. They don’t have similarities by coincidence. They are a direct evolutionary branch of mainline Protestantism. There is path dependency.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
While my first impulse is to deny and defend the church, with examples like these and seeing lady bishops and whatnot in some denominations, I can't really deny the reality that there is truth to that statement. Always a disappointment to see the religion of the Crusades being so limp wristed with statements like
The episcopal church has always been more or less defined as the liberal branch of the Christian communion least defined by doctrinal concerns.
Was this true 350 years ago?
Ok, you activated an "urquan has too many theological opinions for his own good" moment, but I remember a research project I did for my historiography class in college on Anglicanism in America that gave me a decent answer to this question.
My original question was asking about how American Anglicans on the eve of the Revolution dealt with the idea of rebelling against the Supreme Governor of their Church: the British Monarch. Perhaps this was a silly question to ask, but I seriously wondered how you could deal with the cognitive dissonance of belonging to a church whose governor -- not "head", that's what Henry VIII called himself before someone told Elizabeth that calling yourself "head of the Church" sounds like usurping Jesus Christ -- was the very King you were calling a tyrant. I was aware that many of the Founding Fathers were Anglicans, so this seemed like a fruitful area of study.
I focused my research on Anglicans in Virginia (where several of the Anglican Founders were from) in the 1700s, to narrow in on that question.
And I found that, not only was the exact question "how did the Anglican Founders deal with the cognitive dissonance of rebelling against the Supreme Governor of the Church of England" had never been posed in the historical community, but that actually the subject of intense debate among scholars was the much more alarming question, Did Anglicans in Virginia actually care about their religion at all?
I recall one researcher, who wrote an entire monograph about a specific Anglican lady who had a Bible and a journal where she wrote devotional texts about God. And the researcher treated this like she'd found the Holy Grail -- look, everyone, I found an Anglican woman who seems like she had a heartfelt faith in God! It was a revelation. Stop the presses! We have to rewrite the textbooks! Maybe at least one Anglican in Virginia actually did believe in God!
That underscored to me how serious the rot was in the Anglican Church in America, even back then; it really did seem like Anglicans saw the church as a social club, and took or left portions of their faith as it served their other interests. Actually taking religion seriously just wasn't something in the vocabulary of most Anglicans at the time. That was something for those weird revivalists or those Wesleyans with their method.
Having met some Episcopalians, I really do feel like I can take their approach to faith and just push it back a few hundred years, and get a good sense of the scorn or bewilderment with which their WASP ancestors would have viewed intense religious devotion. Or worse,
expelledbasing your morals on an unchanging read of the Scriptures instead of just doing what's high-status.Relevant to the subject of morals, and to the larger topic at hand -- about racism -- many American Anglicans at the time were slaveholders and it was very common for churches to be racially segregated, or for blacks not to be allowed in the church at all. So there's a bit to the Episcopal Church's posture that really is a "we know we were the epicenter of this, we're really sorry."
As far as I was able to discern, in this very limited research project (that included little to no primary source work), the only effect that the American Revolution had on the American Anglican Church was that they changed their name to "The Episcopal Church," to get rid of the whole "Anglo" thing. ("We promise we're good patriots!") Or wait, was it the Protestant Episcopal Church at that time? I think the "Protestant" got nixed at one point because it sounded too much like having a solid theological opinion.
It's also true that a huge number of Loyalists were Anglicans, and so I'm sure if I devoted myself to a more serious investigation of the time period I could find evidence of Anglicans' religious affiliation influencing their views on the American Revolution. Many of these people fled to Canada as it became clear the patriots were winning, so a true telling of the story of Anglicanism in North America (not to be confused with the "Anglican Church in North America", a modern body, that split from Canterbury over gay marriage and is essentially a missionary project of African Anglicans, because as much as Episcopalians like to talk about their tight links to Africa, the Africans think they're apostate for their strong support of SSM) would have to talk about Canada too.
I'm pretty mean to Episcopalians, but really, I guess I'm just as bewildered about them as they would be about me, God bless them.
If you really want to get me started on things that are interesting about Anglicanism, ask me about the Oxford Movement or the "Anglican Continuum." That's where the story becomes fascinating, in both the way that a plane crash and a mathematical equation are fascinating. But you have to find the Anglicans who barely want to be Anglicans before I start getting really interested. (The ACNA people I mentioned above are continuing Anglicans, they're trying to be more Anglican than the Anglicans, and some of them ordain women. Confessional Protestantism in America has had two big waves of schism, once in the 60s-70s over women's ordination and now in the past 10-15 years over gay marriage, and I'm sure at this point all the Catholics and Orthodox in the audience are going "man am I glad we have The Tradition.")
All that to say -- I think Anglicans ~300 years ago had all the seeds of their present situation already planted, in British America more than in Britain. Anglicanism to me has always seemed like the Church of the Compromise rather than a church with a strong set of beliefs, and the American Anglican Church was so eager to compromise with the prevailing winds that they changed their name to obscure their origins. There's an old quip of Oscar Wilde that seems apropos: "The Catholic Church is for saints and sinners alone – for respectable people, the Anglican Church will do."
In that sense I don't see their collapse into social liberalism as particularly surprising, in the way that I find the descent of mainstream Presbyterianism and Methodism (which, to be sure, was an Anglican revival movement at first, though it's always had a more independent nature in America) surprising, given the history of those churches in firm confession and rigorous devotion. But I'm sure that's another story for another time, one that you're no doubt more well-equipped to tell than I am.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How are Christians being "limp wristed" because they're taking a stance about helping the poor? Jesus's teachings are very often about helping the poor and dispossessed: e.g. the parable of the good samaritan, Matthew 19:21:
No, it's totally on-brand and correct for anyone that follows the teachings of Jesus to care about the poor.
Here the Episcopal church is taking a stand against the refugee resettlement program (resources allocated for the poor) being perverted to help those that are actually not in need (Afrikaners are generally not very poor); to the detriment of refugees actually in need:
You're just using "based Crusade Christianity" as a political tool to bash your enemies with, without any regard for the teachings of Jesus.
In fairness, this comment is itself arguing against my political opponents with Christianity, but at least I actually respect its teachings.
a refugee is someone in danger in their home country, not someone that is poor, isn't he? where are you taking this conflation of refugee with poor from?
Isn't that referring to your neighbors and people like you?. And that tidbit about "resources allocated for the poor" should be "to the persecuted". I think, your whole line of argumentation falls apart when we take that into consideration.
2 Corinthians 6:14 "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?"
Most refugees are poor, because countries with armed conflicts and political persecution are largely dysfunctional and poor. Afrikaners are very much an exception to this.
Definitely not just people of your same ethnicity.
Wealthy people fleeing persecution can take care of themselves, the money is largely useful for the poor (and persecuted yes).
I don't understand the point you're trying to make with your last verse.
yes, but that doesn't mean that being poor is a requeriment to be a refugee, again, where are you getting your definition on this?
I would assume the love your neighbor bit refers to if not same etnicity, at least the near group.
I don't think money will save you from a government that wants you death or destitute.
just to show that not everything is passive resistance with Christianity.
The South African government is a coalition between the ANC and (effectively) the white party, with many white ministers including the minister of agriculture (most directly relevant to Afrikaner farmers). The main party that displays intense racial animus toward Boers is a small minority party whose appeal is limited for a variety of reasons.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link