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.
The key word in your example is "state-funded". That isn't rival institutional power, that is basic capital command-flow. Very few taxpayers are happy with carte-blanche funding of anything, and few legislators would risk their reputation in such a way. There are some basic parameters of public-interest (I understand that such a term can be twisted, but it remains there in a functional system) that require enforcement (very disrespectful to my imagined Fraud-punk religion where committing fraud is cool).
Much of the contention that morphs the state into a civic church is the morphing of the word "public-interest" to become anything you can imagine, so long as it is dressed in anti-discrimination language (see below for why).
Neoreactionaries have identified the modern civic-religion in the US as having been conceived with the Civil Rights Act which goes far-beyond state-funded entities:
State-sanctioned Racial-districting, private businesses can't freely associate if that includes turning away members of a specific race from their business, neighborhoods cannot limit who purchases homes in an area.
Basically it's the point at which the constitution morphs away from being a limiter on state-power. Now the state can enter and enforce its religion anywhere where a civil-rights grievance can be claimed.
In Europe, the encroachment is a bit more baked-in: For instance, Germany simply outlaws home-schooling outright. This is fairly insane from the perspective of an American: nobody is free to educate their child outside of the state.
Arguably the ability to educate your children away from state-propaganda is a God-given right.
In fact there is the case of a German homeschooling family (The Romeike family) obtaining deferred-status to stay in the US due to state-persecution in Germany. They were initially granted Asylum and then revoked by the Obama administration (An administration emblematic of upholding civic-religion).
The contrast between the traditional limited-government american legal view to grant asylum to such a family vs the civic-religion upholding Obama administration clarifies much: From the traditional american perspective, A victim of state-persecution is offered a lifeline by the US. From the perspective of the Obama administration, offering this family asylum validates apostasy from the German civic-religion which is disrespectful, being a fellow civic-religion.
Thanks, I hadn't seen the mechanics clearly. I think I understand from what you are saying that the State doesn't need to claim moral authority directly. It just attaches moral conditions to money. That's how the State enforces its orthodoxy without ever saying "this is a religion." The anti-discrimination framework is a legal chassis that the ideology rides on.
The Romeike family example may show that Obama's civic religion could not tolerate validating someone who rejected the German civic religion—it would set a precedent that civic religions are optional. This looks more like a totalitarian impulse hiding inside "neutral" secularism.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link