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 -
Right. I agree with you here. I'd argue for religious requirements for political participation, much in the same way you can't be a member of the Communist Party in China without being an avowed atheist. There's actually not much disagreement I have with either the politics or theology of the twin paradigm that ruled the European continent back when it was the church/monarchy power duopoly that ran the show. The only real problem with it that I see is that it came at a bad point in history. You take a look at high tech feudal societies today like Saudi Arabia that are religiously very cohesive and absent the consanguinity in the population, what's your problem? Not that there aren't any of course but they're problems I'd gladly trade for the ones we have in the west. Or take an elective monarchy like Malaysia. Much the same thing can be said for a lot of the ways they benefit from their style of governance. Church and monarchy is better than democracy and capitalism IMO. (Come at me bros, I'm feeling bold today). You could perhaps argue industrialization wouldn't have happened under the former, but I see no reason to think that.
It is as you say the secularists have definitely succeeded in muddying the waters that don't even blur but rather draw up a distinction that religion has no place in politics. Laws against murder specifically can be morally justified without recourse to divine commandments. You can justify them by natural law. You can justify them by moral sentiment. You can justify them by social consensus. You can justify them almost any way you want to. I suppose if you tried to anchor that law through religious justification that's where you'd piss off the non-religious segment of the population. Then again our mere existence is enough to piss them off in the first place. I'm all for disregarding their opinion. If they want to argue in basis of facts and evidence then let us come to the table. Until then, "butthurt," is not a defense. I'm passing legislation whether they like it or not. They have no problem requiring me to tolerate degenerate influences, they in turn can tolerate the 'horror' of Christian hospitality and charity and the Stalinist demand that they observe common decency in the community.
The only "religious requirement" should be "the voters won't vote for you if they don't like your religion (or lack thereof)" and even that can be a big problem.
And anything you hope to accomplish by this requirement could be worked around by sufficiently dishonest politicians simply by choosing a Unitarian Universalist or some other mostly secular, politically liberal, religion.
This is happening all the time anyway. People vote for their identities not the abstract contents of the legislative policies of their representatives.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link