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 -
Last night I wrote a follow up post to my Inferential Distance post from a month ago However in the hopes that it will get a bit more engagement I've decided to put on lay-away till the new thread is posted on Monday. That said, today is also Easter Sunday, and I feel that is worth commenting on in itself.
While admittedly there is some disagreement between calendars as well as much quibbling over precise historical dates, for the vast majority of people in the english-speaking world today marks the two-thousandth and twenty-third anniversary of the founding of Christianity. Regardless of whether you consider yourself a Christian or even consider yourself religious, the simple fact is that Christianity is one of the foundational pillars of Western Civilization. It is perhapse even the central one without which there would be no concept of "Western Civilization", as it is arguably the spread of Christianity from it's birthplace in modern day Isreal to Greece, Rome and beyond, coupled with the debates between Europe and Asia that rocked the early church that ultimately set "The West" apart as "Western".
Unless one has spent a lot of time immersed in a foreign culture or really dug into pre-Christian texts, I think it's hard for modern thinkers to truly appreciate just how radical Christianity was at the time of it's introduction and just how thoroughly it's concepts and parables underpin what we now think we know.
A classic example of this is the concept of there being a delineation between worldly questions of wealth and power and the more divine questions of morality and truth. (Rendering unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's) The exchange described in Mark 12:13-17 is a brilliant bit of verbal and philosophical Jujitsu that is difficult to appreciate if you're coming from a mind-space where some sort of separation between the "church" and "the state" or "clergyman" and "politician" is assumed to be the default. Something that was emphatically not the case in the ancient world.
Likewise, the idea that a man might be wealthy or powerful for reasons other than being favored by Fortune/God (or gods as required) was borderline seditious back in the day. Wealth and Power were supposed to be a manifestation of one's inherent superiority and right to rule. The idea that it might be attained through intelligence, diligence, guile, or luck, was seen by many as a genuine threat to social order.
These ideas and others carried with them whole rafts of social and cultural implications with them.
For all the talk of Christianity's waning influence, something people seem to forget or otherwise ignore is the effects of path dependance. Even if you identify as an Antinatilist Marxist Post-Human Gay Trans Furry Neo-Pagan Atheist, the fact remains that if English is your mother-tongue the social and cultural implications of Christianity are the water you've been swimming in your whole life.
You're welcome.
As He has risen so may we.
Happy Easter all.
Edit to add: For those interested the follow up to my inferential distance postes referenced above has since been posted. See...
https://www.themotte.org/post/440/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/85475
Notably, the distinction between "church" and "state," "clergyman" and "politician" was not really a thing in most of the Christian world for a long time, either. Technically still isn't in places like England. And, insofar as you take the Yarvinite position that modern progressivism is a protestant heresy, the tendency is back towards the combination of secular and ideological authority.
The distinction is absolutely a thing. The American idea of a "wall of separation" between Church and State doesn't exist until the United States (and even then it evolves gradually - at the time the Constitution was written, the point of the 1st amendment was to protect State-level established Churches such as Massachusetts puritanism from federal interference, not to abolish them).
But the idea that spiritual and temporal power are different and that a separation between them is logically possible is Christian. The concurrent jurisdiction of Kings and Popes in Catholic Europe is a real thing with real negotiations between Church and Crown a constant of European politics over about 1200 years. Even in England (which is unusual in the degree to which the Church is subordinate to the State - it definitely isn't the typical pre-1st amendment case), Charles III is not a priest, and it would be unthinkable for him to celebrate a sacrament on behalf of the nation. This is very different to the role of a Roman or Persian emperor, or a Caliph.
More options
Context Copy link
I was under the impression that religious tests to hold public office or serve in the government/military had gone out of style some time in in the late 17th century but if you have a citation for non-Anglicans currently being barred from participating in English politics please provide it.
I was thinking more along the lines of Anglican bishops having seats in the House of Lords and the monarch being the head of the national church. I was also thinking of things like the spending of public tax money on religious institutions as in Germany
I feel like the fact that you're taking it for granted that any tax money at all would not be spent on religious institutions is kind of illustrating my point for me.
It's one thing for religion and politics to be intertwined and entirely another to deny the existence of any distinction between the two in the first place. I can see how someone could argue that "England is a religious state" but in the end all that argument really tells me is that this person has never been to (or really sat down and talk to someone from) a place like Saudi Arabia. That over the last 800 years or so theocracy has gone from being the default form of government to the exception is largely a product of western dominance.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
He's probably just referring to the fact that King Charles is technically both the head of state and Supreme governor of the Church of England. Even if that sort of a relic at this point.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
America is still a Christian nationalist state and hope it will be forever. Even CRT and woke have Christian roots and are arguably atheist Christian religions.
Christianity is at its core a slave religion. States eventually formed and modified it to project power.
Judaism at its core and why I’ve become a little anti-Semitic lately in real ways is an ethnic tribal religion. They don’t for the most part invite others to be Jews.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link