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 -
Texas's new required school reading list includes stories from the Bible
Texas is the first state to establish such a list, as others generally give wide latitude to school districts and boards to select their own texts.
There are fourteen stories, listed in order of grade level: Jonah and the Whale (Jonah 1:1-5, 10-17, 2:10), David and Goliath (excerpt from The Children's Book of Heroes), Daniel and the Lion's Den (Children's Adapted Version), The Necessity of Humility (Luke 14:7-11), Moses (Exodus 3, 14), Do Not Be Anxious (Matthew 6:25-34), The Shepherd's Psalm (Psalms 23), Beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-12), To Everything There is a Season (Ecclesiastes 3), Lamentations 3, The Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32), Job (Job 1-7, 11, 14, 19, 28, 38-42), Adam and Eve (Genesis 2-3), The Definition of Love (1 Corinthians 13).
They also select a variety of translations: the New International Reader's Version, which is for a third-grade reading level, the English Standard Version, the King James Version, and the Jewish Publication Society. The ESV/KJV have their own history as evangelical texts; this is why there are so many parochial Catholic schools, though it's doubtful whether modern Catholics (who make up ~22% of Texas's population) care as much.
Teaching Biblical stories as cultural or historical texts does not violate the 1st amendment. Certainly the Bible is the most influential book in Western thought and has relevance to any serious study of literature and history. That being said, certain passages err on the side of theology and perhaps should be avoided outside of a comparative religion course. And some atheists will be disappointed that the more controversial passages have been excluded.
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.
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.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link