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 -
In the 1800s, this really was the case. Unitarianism was historically signified by its view that the Trinity was an irrational and nonsensical doctrine — hence “Unitarian” rather than “Trinitarian.” It applied that same rationalism to most elements of its doctrine, and believed in putting rational analysis above traditional or doctrinal fidelity. Hence, the reputation you referenced.
Unitarianism had that reputation about up until the point where public atheism became acceptable for intellectuals, at which point both it and deism collapsed in numbers and the Unitarians began to align themselves more with religious humanism to survive.
I’m just echoing other posters here, but any church more conservative than the Methodists is going to be very insistent on the literal resurrection of Christ. If that’s not something you’re comfortable with, well, I wonder seriously what would even compel you to find Christianity interesting.
If what you’re looking for is a vague sense of belief in a higher power that doesn’t ask you to sign on to any specific dogma, well, I agree that the Unitarians say that’s what they’re offering… but obviously they’ve found a different set of dogmas to promote. There’s no such thing as a church without dogma.
The reality is that most churchgoers are moral busybodies, and either you agree with the things they’re busybodying about (whatever they are) or you don’t. Churches with any sort of vitality, whatever side of the culture war they’re on, are anything but vague.
People often talk about church as a place to find “a sense of community”, but I couldn’t disagree more: if you want community qua community, you’d be much better off going for a walk, reconnecting with friends, talking to family members, or joining a hobby club. Depending on your local culture, you’ll still face some level of moral policing. But if religious convictions aren’t your thing, maybe you’re better off finding a place where the topic of conversation is your thing.
I like to think of church as a hobby club, where the hobby is “having particular moral and supernatural beliefs.” If you have strong convictions on those, it’s great. If not, it’s like joining a DnD group when you don’t like imaginative play.
More options
Context Copy link