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 it? In 1900, sure.
But in 2026?
Do our politicians read the Bible and actually implement biblical doctrine, socially or economically? Is Christianity a major social movement in the West today? The recent pro-life moves in the US only gave individual states the ability to ban or legalize abortion, that doesn't seem Christian so much as federalist.
Sodomy is very fashionable, there are literal Pride parades. Bigamy has made a comeback with polyamory. The less said about usury, lust, greed, sloth and envy the better.
In media, any major new works of Christian art? Film? TV? Video games?
What about the Pope? Any Crusades recently? His powers to excommunicate, have they been relevant in world affairs much? Or does nobody really care if they're excommunicated, what does that say about the Pope's abilities?
The Church of England? Well the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the King 'protects the space for Faith within the multi-faith nation' per the Palace description of the role of the Head of State. He still holds the role of being 'Defender of the Faith' but it seems fairly clear his heart is not really in it. De facto the King issues milquetoast proclamations that nobody pays much attention to:
No reference to Christ can be found in the whole 150 page document. Only in Russia, in Africa, in Latin America is Christianity taken more seriously. Defacing churches in Russia and LGBT behaviour is treated very seriously indeed.
Christianity's influence is mostly historical, like how mammals in the time of the dinosaurs were mostly tiny mouse creatures. They had tremendous influence in a certain sense. We are descended from tiny mouse creatures. There are still tiny mouse creatures around. But the tiny mouse creatures around today are not really influential and we are not really tiny mice. Even if most of our DNA is mouse there are important distinctions.
Marx is more relevant than the Bible to Western thought today, there are powerful cadres of communists, true believers (still!) Or the Limits to Growth - degrowthers and climatists have significant influence on the left and especially in Europe. They see datacentres, power plants, industry and development but unlike Christians they don't just murmur or complain about things they're against, they reach out and crush them to death. That's not to say that it would be good to teach people Marx or other bad ideologies but they're certainly more relevant.
The Bible’s influence is everywhere in our culture. The year’s biggest game so far is Resident Evil Requiem. The most anticipated launch next month is Halo, about the savior “John 117” and a covenant, flood, and ark. The most popular movie this year is Project Hail Mary. Not to mention that the Bible is essential for understanding Western music and literature before 1900. If we were thinking objectively about what readings to include in public education for the purpose of cultural literacy, easily half the readings would just be the Bible. Probably more like 80% of the readings.
It's Super Mario Galaxy: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/world/
Project Hail Mary doesn't have anything to do with Christianity thematically, it's a sci fi alien story.
Resident Evil Requiem doesn't seem to have anything to do with Christianity in the game. The word itself doesn't carry much weight.
The most anticipated game of 2026 is GTA 6, which is a pretty unchristian game thematically given it's all about shooting police, robbing people and girls in bikinis. GTA is a 5x bigger franchise than Halo too. The Combat Evolved remake isn't even a new game or a new remake (they already remade it in MCC)
The one part I agree with is that the Bible is needed to understand pre-1900 culture.
The cultural power of an iron age desert cult does not extend to a post-industrialized hyperurban internet economy. We are not shepherds, we don't give servants talents of gold to invest. We pick and choose various interpretations of biblical verses to suit our arguments at any given time, you of all people must be sick of the good samaritan being waved around as a leftist sigil. In that case, it's Christian arguments being made for fundamentally secular reasons, objectification of Christianity as a bludgeon, not actual sincere belief which would probably be smeared as fundamentalism. And it is kinda crazy to try to live by these rules in a thoroughly different society.
Ah yes, the story of Ryland Grace, the man whose existence throughout the story constitutes an undeserved favor to others and who ultimately has to decide freely whether or not he must sacrifice himself utterly in order to deliver the entire human race from disaster after they put him to death. The man whose sidekick is a "rock". Yeah nothing Christian to see here, pure coincidence. I guess the characters literally talking about God didn't lay it on thick enough.
You just think it doesn't because you are as a fish asked about water. What water?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
All those examples look like shallow references where a thing was named after a biblical or Catholic thing to sound slightly cooler. Are any of those media Christian beyond that?
What's called a 'Hail Mary pass' in the USA is called a Garryowen over here, or at least that's the nearest thing to it. Upon first encountering the term, I had to look it up as to why it was called that. Do so, and you find out Notre Dame, and then you find out it's a Catholic prayer:
Even on Tumblr, I've seen people making direct connections between the ship name and the name of the main character: Hail Mary, full of Grace.
Learning the origins of common terms is not a bad thing. "Why is this called that?" decreases ignorance, you don't end up going "Dunno" and sounding like you are dumber than a box of rocks.
More options
Context Copy link
Although the Project Hail Mary title is a play on words, the movie itself takes the time for a pretty on the nose and fairly-needless-to-the-plot discussion about belief in God, which I would say is far from a shallow reference.
Mainstream Hollywood films with a fairly overtly Christian message aren't actually all that rare (see Unbroken, Silence, Hacksaw Ridge, etc.) and for every one of those there are two that take Christian ideas seriously, even if it's in more subtle ways. I was recently watching the Fallout show and one of the characters reaches for the Golden Rule, not as part of a come-to-Jesus sideplot, but because it's an important moral principle - obviously not one unique to Christianity, of course.
More options
Context Copy link
The first 5 Halo games are arguably far more "Christian" in both message and tone than many churches these days. Ditto Project Hail Mary though I don't have a effort post I can link for that one.
Specifically the themes of hope in the face of hopelessness, and the idea that the righteous and honest will always find themselves in conflict with the worldly.
More options
Context Copy link
In Halo 3, the Master and Savior of humanity sacrifices himself in the “gravemind”, says “it is finished”, and is then
entombedcryogenically frozen and later “resurrected”, all of which is very Biblical. But this is shallow because most things in our culture are shallow. To Kill a Mockingbird? Lord of the Flies? Not just shallow but actively detrimental to cultivating wisdom. Just worthless slop.What is the complaint against To Kill a Mockingbird? (And no fair bringing up Go Set a Watchman.)
Presumably because it shits on secular morality in the same w as y that the story of Jonah does.
Do you means shits on "non-secular" morality? Jonah can be easily read as a critique of religious righteousness. Personally, I think the critique is fairly trenchant.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The heuristics it teaches about life and history are inaccurate.
[Contains mild spoilers for Lord of the Flies]
Can you expand on this criticism of To Kill a Mockingbird? I consider the novel as offering very powerful lessons about (e.g.) conformity and the nature of the legal system.
Also, what's the criticism of Lord of the Flies? I've always been partial to interpreting it as an anti-war novel - by having the boys rescued by a warship, Golding's emphasizing the parallels between modern and primeval expressions of savagery.
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
That's because these things are perceived as against the state not because they are against Christianity. Homosexuality is mildly suppressed in Russia but so is Evangelical Christianity. Because both are perceived as foreign Western ideologies. And homosexuality is at best mildly repressed not "treated very seriously" There are open Gay bars and clubs in Moscow and St. Petersburg, gay men from all over the former Soviet Union move to Russia for it's tolerance of homosexuality. The whole reason Russia passed those gay propaganda laws is because they have enough organic western liberals they needed to suppress them.
And all of this flows from the state. When Russia was more open in the 90s they were more open to both Protestant missionaries and gay activists and now that the state is stronger both have been curtailed as foreign ideologies. Defacing churches is illegal but so is defacing any state approved religious house of worship Mosques included.
More options
Context Copy link
This one paragraph seems to completely override any point made earlier on in this post. The bible and stories therein aren't the tiny mouse creatures that are still around; the evangelical Christians and Catholics and such of today are the ones that are still around. The parts of our DNA that are mouse DNA (which in this hypothetical is most of our DNA) is the bible. Which means that it has tremendous influence.
More options
Context Copy link
In terms of "books to read to understand modern culture" Marx is less relevant than Harry Potter.
The Bible is still far and away the most important single book you can read to understand modern culture (including Marxism/socialism, which is a post-Christian ideology).
How does reading the Bible help you understand modern culture, exactly? It can teach you about the values some people profess to believe, it doesn't teach you about what actually happens, about real behaviour in the West. Harry Potter is more relevant.
In the England of King James II people really cared about the Bible, interpreting from the Bible about what the church was supposed to be, they were ready to stake their lives for particular interpretations of that book and the meaning of various rituals. That is not happening today! Nobody is waging war for Christianity in a Western country. They are fighting for oil, for national pride, for security interests, for human rights...
The values most people act on, including woke people, Marxists, and a/antitheists, are downstream of Christianity and the Bible. If you came back to the West after being gone for a few millennia, the questions you would ask (besides "what's a cell phone?" and "does anyone have a Latin-English translator?") would be things like "wait, why can't I buy a sex slave at Wal-mart?"
And the answer to that has nothing to do with cell phones.
It's 2026, the weapons of war are a laptop and a Westlaw subscription.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah. How many 'marxists' have any real comprehension of the book itself beyond a vague understanding of 'Marx says we should all share everything equally and stop being mean'?
Which of course is far from unique to Marx!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
People are still using terms like "Good Samaritan" in "Good Samaritan laws", so there's an amount of cultural knowledge still remaining. "Golden Rule", "love your enemies" and the likes. While I might be dubious about required reading of Bible stories, it's no harm to show where such terms came from, since there's a lot of modern ignorance (same with ideas from Greek myths and the likes, the level of assumed cultural knowledge that past generations had has decreased hugely in modern times).
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah but so many random books are part of the canon now. How many books on slavery or Jim crow will be mandated in most states for random bludgeoning with.
More options
Context Copy link
I must note about Russia, from my perspective here it does not look like its trad values such as slightly lower (relatively when compared to both USA and Afghanistan) acceptance of LGBT is in any way connected to greater influence of Christianity.
The penetration of the Orthodox gilding on top of the Russian state into Russian society is dismal. From what I see, being either an adherent Christian or a cultural Christian is a lot more common and "mainstream" among Americans than Russians. Hell, Americans actually prioritize Christmas above New Year's Eve.
I have elaborated on that elsewhere. For now, as per your metaphor the only legacy of mice Russia seems to keep over USA is that we eat more real cheese rather than the synthetic orange stuff.
More options
Context Copy link
I can never understand the trad Christian love for the Russian state as some enabler of Christian virtue - it's really really not the case.
Russia is a larp, pretending to be bits of the Soviet bear and the Imperial eagle whenever it suits, and as such they have made the Russian Orthodox Patriarchy an arm of that project by stuffing their mouths with gold. This is done for state aims, and many Eastern Europeans (including in Ukraine) attend churches regularly - more than Russians incidentally (which is kind of obviously true due to Ukraine's far lower muslim population for a start). The orthodoxy is another state pillar, and part of the legitimizing claims Russia projects, but I don't see much beyond that.
Russia comes down hard on those who damage churches as its popular among a fairly conservative core population that likes tradition and the larp (which I actually understand and respect), and because its a disrespect to a state arm like attacking a police station. It also lets Russia project an image of being against globalhomo too, which is popular for some and where the gay bashing comes in.
But what does being a supposedly trad Christian state actually do for morality and behaviour of the Russian system in general? They have mass muslim migration, onto a population that was already fairly muslim - 10-15% of the population (~ double to triple the poor UK), and a string of terrorist attacks to match. Homosexual rape and general degeneracy is embedded deeply into the Russian military, and the whole anti LGBT thing seems to miss out a lot - Russia is just repressed, not some trad paradise. I'm not sure Jesus would love old King Charles and his mealy mouthed words, Russia however is a few steps away from Sodom by comparison.
To be clear, this is aimed at the Russian state and high leadership of the church - I actually think a good chunk of normal Russians have solid christian convictions that are to their credit. However, that's inherited through time, was failed to be stamped out via the Soviets, and they seem to happily wage war on their very Christian Ukrainian neighbors. The Russian government itself is just very cynically using them, and burning through what it inherited - this isn't going to last long-term. Drug abuse, HIV/AIDS, divorce and spousal abuse are through the roof, that's your Christian paradise?
I'm not a fan of globalhomo, and Ukraine is going to have to navigate a minefield post war to chart its way through the various failure modes of the West, but Russia is just sad. Punching gays as strength and golden watches while the structure rots and now burns, if that's the best of the Christian project then it needs to find Christ too.
It makes sense once you recognize that it's mostly Edge-lords and Astroturf. As a general rule, sincere trad Christians aren't hanging out on "this part of twitter" and the ones who do are weird.
More options
Context Copy link
“Christianity done for political aims” is the traditional form of Christianity. The State has been invested in Christianity and using it for her own influence since Constantine. Remember that America got Pope John Paul II elected as an anti-Soviet measure.
You mean the central Asian migrants that will not receive citizenship? Who cares? The problem has always been political enfranchisement and replacement. Moscow is 90% White while NYC is like 30% White.
Because the North Caucasus was always Muslim, and they took it over. It’s not because of migration. Russia’s cultural capitals are way more Russian than ours are White American.
This is like NAFO propaganda. No, they are not all secretly gay or doing secret mass rape in the military; no, the new ayatollah is not gay either. They do not have 1% of the gay culture that America has, neither do they have gay mafias in their arts scenes or in tech like America. I would prefer that we “bash the gays” than allow them the kind of power they have in the West. I know two straight men in the classical arts who have been prevented from advancing in the industry because they aren’t gay. This is common where homosexuals get into power and I am personally envious of Russia’s ability to throw them back into the closet. I actually want straight men in all influential positions, but perhaps this is a matter of cultural taste, ie I like their cultural products and their conservatism and do not like to see homosexuality celebrated in our major cities.
The Muslim immigrants ruining Europe are mostly white. Mohammad Atta and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were white. And a lot of the white ethnics (both immigrants and indigenous ethnic minorities) in Russia are Muslims in the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev mold. Assimilability has more to do with cultural Christianity than it does with skin colour.
More options
Context Copy link
John Paul II was elected because he was conservative and seen as a diplomat; the Soviets actually assessed him as being relatively weak on communism at the time of the conclave, and the cardinals wanted a conservative who would just stop tinkering given the disaster of Paul VI.
More options
Context Copy link
I am not certain I will be able to change your mind on much to do with chronic Russian hazing and rape, both by their own and by Kadyrov's boys, here. As I recall you thought that the Bucha massacre wasn't Russian discipline immediately collapsing once in an environment where they hold power, as is common, but instead somehow Azov who decided to kill everyone post liberation and then go back and doctor satellite footage of the massacre.
However, I guess it's worth a go:
Christ being misused and twisted by politics certainly is very old, and is a factor that can bring down such states in the past. This is a failure mode, not something to aspire to for a Christian and the states they wish to live in surely?
Your Youtube link doesn't work, but as I understand John Paul II was elected for several reasons, none of which support any relevant thesis that Russia is a model for a Christian state.
Moscow has an official Muslim population in the 1-2 million range, comparable with Paris, and many more unofficial migrants as you point out that will certainly push it much higher. Relations are not great, which boils into open war in the past, and terrorist attacks here and there. You might say the same about the west, but this is the same story, not a solution by the Russians.
Rape is endemic in the Russian military, including as hazing "Dedovshchina" where it is extremely common. All forces struggle with some incidents worldwide, but the Russian structure is famously bad for it since forever. For example: Russian recruits sold for sex, 1500 army sexual assaults reported in 2019 which must be a floor, and that only came to light after a guy snapped and shot those who were raping him.
We also have many incidents in the war, both by and inflicted onto Russians, but possibly the one you'll most be interested in was the Russian soldier raped by Kadyrov's troops who are used as barrier troops and left to run rampant over their Christian charges, who then hung himself. Not sure if you read Russian, but a rough translation is: "Goodbye. love, in the time that I am here I have seen hell. There were not so many deaths in Chechnya or even Afganistan. seas of human meat. but that is not why i depart. We here, Russian people, are nobody, and Chechens rule. They drink, are lawless and rape, they despise everyone and no ones doing anything about it. Kitty, they took all the money you sent and they did a thing to me. This is to let you know that I resisted. Remember that you and me owe nothing to anyone. This is the only way out. See you after death"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
My experience as a European member of a conservative church is that this is mostly an online and political phenomenon and doesn't represent people who actually go to Church. It might be different in the USA, I don't have any info on the ground from over there, but over here in the Netherlands right wing populist politicians will exhibit sometimes the trad love for Russia and they will make some vague remarks about our country being Christian or whatever, but none of those politicians actually go to Church and if you push them all of them will admit they are cultural Christians and don't actually believe any traditional Christian dogmas. Just like you can get more liberal politicians to sometimes dress up progressive politics with vaguely Christian language about love or whatever, the right wing populists will dress up their anti Muslim sentiment with some vague rhetoric about us being a traditionally Christian nation or whatever. In both cases it is just superficial rhetoric trying to appeal to some cultural memes and doesn't really mean anything. In practice, people who vote for those parties mostly don't actually attend Church regularly and people who do attend Church regularly almost never vote for those parties. Maybe in other countries actual trads are more tempted to vote for the right wing populist parties as the lesser evil, but in the Netherlands having no electoral threshold and proportional representation in our parliament, we are spoiled with not just one, but two actual traditional Christian political parties and almost everybody who regularly attends a theologically conservative Church votes for them and both of these parties are not pro Russia.
In America russophiles are a bit more fringey than they are in Europe, because our right traditionally defines itself with strong russophobia, but also the right wing populists get the church attending vote.
More options
Context Copy link
I have always been fascinated by Christian political parties. The idea seems repulsive to me both as an American (due to separation of church and state) and as a Christian (I'm from a tradition that sees even voting as borderline sinful).
Do you think Christians should completely abstain from politics? In the end somebody has to run the country and I cannot imagine a version of Christianity that doesn't at least espouse some values that will inform how Christians think a country ought to be run. If you think Christians should completely abstain from politics, what do you think Constantine or Clovis should have done after converting to Christianity? How should a country be governed when almost all of its citizens profess Christianity, like most Western countries up until quite recently?
Jesus clearly teaches political quietism in the New Testament, and historically most radical Christian "back-to-the-fundamentals" movements are politically quietist (like the Amish). The first modern capital-F Fundamentalists were obviously not politically quietist (the extent of mass government-backed secular education in America c. 1900 made already it a lot harder to be politically quietist if you didn't withdraw completely from the wider society like the Amish do), but there is no discussion of secular politics in The Fundamentals.
Politically active Christianity is, obviously, almost as lindy as politically quietist Christianity. I think this is because Jesus doesn't say why he is preaching political quietism, so it isn't obvious how "don't be a Zealot and render unto Caesar" translates to contexts other than living as a religious minority in a pagan Empire.
The most common view between the time of Constantine and the present was "Christians should not seek political power unless it is explicitly thrust upon them by Divine authority" - the exception is broad enough to cover the political power of the Church, Divine Right kingship and appointed authority under it, religious visionary leadership like Joan of Arc, and even Cromwell and his major-generals.
"Democracy good" is an idea that largely skips from pagan Athens (and, to a lesser extent, the Roman Republic) to the explicitly anti-clerical French Revolution without touching the intervening Christian millennia. The first country to see itself as both Christian and democratic is Jacksonian America. I don't know enough about the political thought of the medieval and early modern Christian republics (like Venice or the United Provinces) to comment, although I note that American republicanism was established by men whose Christianity was somewhat heterodox (especially Jefferson) and looked more to the Roman Republic than any of the usual Christian examples.
Ho ho, let's roll up our sleeves and get stuck into that one! "Democracy good" perhaps, but in pagan Athens it's not democracy as we know it, Jim. Participation confined to free, male, Athenian citizens, and the definition of who was an Athenian became more rigid over time (you had to be born of an Athenian father and an Athenian mother, otherwise out of luck). You could lose your civic rights, and this might even become a heritable disqualification:
"Also excluded from voting were citizens whose rights were under suspension (typically for failure to pay a debt to the city: see atimia); for some Athenians, this amounted to permanent (and in fact inheritable) disqualification."
Some (such as Plato) thought democracy itself was suspect, others considered it could be good and bad forms, "true" democracy was distinguished from "rule by the mob" (which, of course, is always the danger and probably the form of this distinction today is "populism is the bad form of democracy").
Democracy as we think of it, the will of the people, one man one vote, everyone who is a citizen has a voice and there are no racial or gender disqualifications to citizenship, may not have "touch[ed] the intervening Christian millennia" but (a) democracy as we think of it likely would not have been recognisable to the Athenians and (b) some kind of limits, councils, advisors, parliaments, etc. did occur in the Christian era. Take our friend Henry VIII, he had parliaments which had to at least notionally agree with and consent to his desired policies, and he didn't always get his way, even though those would not have been "democracy as we know it".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Groups like the Amish do not have this tension, and I think the ideal Christian behavior is far closer to the Amish than it is to the modal American/European Christian.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
All that is kind of true but how can a country with state sanctioned, state-promoted pride parades even be anything but anti-Christian? Both the medium and the message are pretty explicitly anti-Christian? How can a country with legal gay marriage be considered Christian, never mind divorce rates?
Even if Russia's goal is just vaguely seeming to be against globohomo, that's still way closer to Christianity than the Western countries who are promoting, spreading, directing globohomo.
I don't believe in the 'based trad Russia' meme. But in terms of social vice, it's hardly worse than America or the West generally. Abortions: 13.1 per 1000 vs 14.4 in America, 20 in UK. Russia is number 7 in drug deaths per capita but America is far ahead at number 1 worldwide, 4x Russia.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/abortion-rates-by-country
https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/drug-use/by-country
Trying but mostly failing to be anti-LGBT in the military seems a lot more Christian than promoting LGBT and diversity in the military. However cynically Putin may use Christian rhetoric he's 10x more Christian than the average Western leader who's mentally redefined Christianity to mean 'more leftism but with cross aesthetics'.
Vladimir Putin who swore he was an Atheist to join the KGB for decades and is on record (via hot mike) of hoping tech not Jesus will make him immortal? That Vladimir Putin? He's against western Liberalism and LBGTQ+ sure but that doesn't make someone a Christian. By that standard Joseph Stalin was a Christian.
I will take 50 Stalins before the rule of Big Red and Greta Thunberg or whichever stand in with the politics of Merkel/Jean-Claude Juncker
More options
Context Copy link
He's a Hirsi Ali Christian: i.e. Christian because it's the only thing they see that can push back against liberalism (and, in Hirsi Ali's case, Islam and the alliance it's made with the left) and provide an alternate civilizational narrative.
This is obviously very different from communists, who think they already have said narrative.
He makes the same cultural noises every European leader does. But he's no more Christian then the liberal Western Europeans. Nor are Russians anymore religious then Western Europeans. Putin suppresses quite a bit of Christianity as well, Evangelical missionaries are not welcome in Russia。 America is a far more religious society then Russia.
Making the noises and then doing globohomo stuff seems worse than making the noises and keeping globohomo out/maintaining some semblance of Christian values.
But YMMV I'm not a Christian so maybe I don't value enough the value it places on the spirit rather than the form.
But, if you were a (Orthodox) Christian seeing your faith fade who would you rather support you? A leader like Putin or someone like Talarico that'll come up with some doctrine about how Genesis 1 means transing kids? Or a Stalin who just outright wants you gone?
Better an emperor driven purely by pragmatism than an outright heretic Buffalo Bill-ing your religion or someone hostile to the concept entirely, surely?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Do you consider restricting marriage to be between a man and a woman such a core part of Christianity that it beats all the rest of Christian practices and virtues, or lack thereof? It's hardly even exclusive to Christianity. Any run of the mill jungle tribe faith practices heterogamy.
Yes, marriage is a very important ritual in Christianity and public life generally. Who can marry whom is one of the most fundamental pillars of society! You used to need an act of parliament to divorce. Henry VIII had no end of religious problems with marriage.
The state has basically reduced marriage to a tax strategy and a party.
Furthermore, it's not like everyone is abiding by all the rest of Christian dogma on usury, fasting, work on the sabbath, lust, abortion, licentiousness and only gay marriage slipped through the net.
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