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 -
Is the State a "Civic Church" in terms of jurisdictional power, or am I overreading this?
Guys, I'm new here, so I'm not sure if this fits, but I've been wrestling with the relationship between the State and religion, and I want to run a thought by you.
We all know this Western ideal: separation of church and state. But after years of living it, watching the news and trying to understand the friction, it seems to me that you don’t get constant, systemic conflict unless two powers are fighting over the exact same piece of "real estate." And that "real estate" is moral authority.
Here is the nuance I want to add, because I know the counter-argument: "The State doesn't care what you believe in your heart; it only cares about public compliance." I grant that completely.
But here is where the jurisdictional land-grab happens: The State doesn't just say, "We have a separate rule for public conduct." It says, "Your religious rule is invalid inside your own institutions, and you must comply with our civic moral code—even when operating your own schools, charities, and hospitals." That isn't two sovereigns coexisting; that is the State asserting ultimate supremacy over religious bodies.
Now, I agree that politicians and judges likely aren't malicious. They genuinely believe they are defending "progress," "equality," or "women's rights." They see themselves as liberators from "archaic dogma."
But functionally, aren't they establishing a new civic orthodoxy? The medieval Church defined orthodoxy and punished heterodoxy. The modern State does the same—except the "sin" isn't heresy; it's "discrimination," and the "punishment" is fines, loss of tax-exempt status, or closure.
Let me give a concrete example, carefully: In Europe, it is generally legal to teach your child at home, in private, that homosexuality is a sin according to your faith. However, if you run a state-funded religious school, the State will intervene to compel the curriculum to reflect civic values over religious ones. The State is not policing belief, but it is policing the public expression and institutional enforcement of that belief.
To me, that sounds less like "neutral arbitration" and more like a rival institutional power asserting its dominance over the moral code. I've read that conflict over legal jurisdiction is the academic gold standard for proving institutional rivalry.
So my ultimate question isn't "Is the State a religion?"—because clearly, it lacks the supernatural elements. Rather, my questions are:
"If the State claims ultimate jurisdiction over moral conduct even within religious institutions, does that make it functionally equivalent to an established 'civic church' in terms of political sovereignty? If so, how can religious groups negotiate this without capitulating entirely?
And isn't the State constantly changing its beliefs? By doing so, isn't it effectively admitting that it was wrong before—and that it will likely be wrong again? That makes me doubt whether it even cares about being objectively right at all, or whether it is just running social experiments on us. And if it is just experimenting, then isn't it essentially messing with society however it wants, without caring enough about the long-term consequences—even if its leaders have 'good intentions'? I mean, the society is pretty polrized in many things.
Okay, the root of this is that the State and Church have long been intertwined. Since we're talking about Western society here, we're talking about Christianity. And for a long time, the values of the state and society were Christian values, so there was no or not much dissonance. The ruler, be he king or emperor or whomever, expects to exercise some degree of authority over the church but that's as much or more about politics and governance rather than religious doctrine. The king wants to be able to appoint his own bishops or cardinals because those are important and powerful positions that involve wealth and influence in the secular sphere, not because he wants a particular view on the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin to be taught as doctrine. The Church has a parallel system of canon law which it insists applies to the clergy so secular courts have no authority over them, and there are tussles over that.
Come on up to the Reformation and the Wars of Religion, and in the exhausted peace after that, we have a division between the generally Protestant of some stripe states, where the State exercises authority over the Church (see Henry VIII taking the title of Supreme Head of the English Church) or the Catholic states where the church is independent but still subject in some fashion to the authority of the king or emperor.
But broadly speaking, the values of society are still Christian values, and this holds even during the Enlightenment, post-Enlightenment, and into the 19th century. However, society is becoming more secular. People are breaking away from established religion (the Dissenters, etc. and the American state of continuing splits of denominations into their own denominations) or leaving religion altogether (the Free Thinkers etc.) This is more marked where there isn't one established State Church, as with the Anglican Church, but it's happening all over. Jews, Catholics, and others disadvantaged by a Protestant State Church want equal rights within civil society and to have public offices open to them without the confessional requirements.
And in countries with State Churches, where the civil Parliament or similar authority did have the final say on matters, that increasing secularisation meant "okay you can decide on your own private beliefs but when it comes to wider society and civic law, we get to say what happens". Similarly, in Catholic countries, the power of the Church was challenged over the years and much the same kind of views were taken (we're still fighting today in Ireland over the Church's involvement with schools).
So, increasingly as more states become multi-cultural, with a mix of Protestant (state or majority denomination), culturally but never darken the door of a church Protestant, Protestant but not the state church version, not Protestant, not Christian, not religious at all, there are no longer common shared assumptions because common shared values and so we get to "there has to be one rule for everybody, and that is the state and secular values" and "we're not going to tell you what to believe, but if you're taking state money then the state has the last say".
Thanks for the historical context—that actually helps frame how we got here. But I think you answered 'how did the State become supreme?' whereas I was asking 'now that it is supreme, doesn't it functionally act like an established church over moral conduct? How far will it actually end up replacing parts of faith like moral understanding?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link