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 -
As I just said, that is a meaningless distinction.
That would be a violation of a very specific prohibition regarding freedom of religion. Which is why, although schools cannot teach that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible prohibits it, they are free to teach that it is wrong because it undermines the family, or for 1000 other reasons. And if your school district is teaching that, you are free to lobby it to teach instead that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, or that people should be tolerant of homosexuality.
If it was a meaningless distinction, then mandating that religion not be taught in schools would be indistinguishable from mandating that it be taught in schools.
Yeah, that's what I just said. Why are you not questioning why this prohibition is in place?
This is tiresome. As noted, the First Amendment's provisions re freedom of religion creates special rules for teaching religion in public schools.
Because it is irrelevant. The Bill of Rights puts certain decisions outside the purview of normal democratic processes. That is of course the whole point of establishing rights. One of those decisions happens to be teaching religious views. Whether that is a good thing or not is irrelevant to the issue of whether advocating for a certain view of the LGBTQ rights movement is illegitimate. If you want to argue for amending the First Amendment, have at it. But that is not the topic of the current conversation.
Yes, that was my argument from the start.
Your argument was that the very distinction between mandating something be taught, and mandating something not be taught is meaningless. This would mean the First Amendment is in contradiction with itself.
No it's not. You asked "Why should there be a special rule re influencing the perception of children towards the LGBT movement" - it's the exact same reason why someone decided to write the First Amendment.
???
As difficult as it may be, I was under the impression that amending the constitution is very much within the purview of a normal democratic processes. It's not even that hard in countries that are not the US.
The topic of the current conversation is "why should there be a special rule...", we are arguing about the why, yes? It's the fact that a similar rule is there in another context that's not relevant to the conversation.
Huh? This has nothing to do with the ability to amend the Constitution. Freedom of religion is in the Constitution now. Therefore, by definition, it removes certain decisions from the purview of the normal democratic process now. But, if the Constitution is amended, then certain decisions will be back within the purview of the normal democratic process. Just as, today, the democratic process cannot pass a law that prevents women from voting, but if the 19th Amendment were repealed, that decision would indeed be within the purview of the ordinary democratic process. Similarly, passing a federal income tax was not within the purview of the ordinary democratic process in 1895, but now is, because the Constitution was subsequently amended.
I answered that question. There is a special rule in the Constitution re teaching religious beliefs. I am happy to concede for the sake of argument that that is a terrible idea. But you are advocating for a special rule that applies to a particular political idea, and which does not apply to any other political idea. Why? Why should there be a special rule?
I guess you're just defining the process if amending the constitution as "not normal", so that part of the conversation is semantics, so I can let you have that one.
On the other can you please answer how the First Amendment is not in contradiction with itself if mandating something be taught and it be not taught are indistinguishable?
You haven't. The First Amendment isn't why there is a rule, it is the rule.
No, it isn't semantics. The First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law" doing certain things. It literally takes those matters outside of the process by which laws are made. I.e., as I said, it takes them outside the normal democratic process; that is what lawmaking is. It does not, however, exempt those exact same things being done through amending the Constitution. That is the difference; amending the Constitution is not how laws are normally made.
First, I did not say that they are indistinguishable. I said that the there is no distinction between the legitimacy of efforts to mandate teaching something and the legitimacy of efforts to forbid teaching something.
Second, even assuming I said that, the First Amendment has several parts. It includes "freedom of speech" and it includes "the establishment clause." Freedom of speech, gives people the right to advocate both for and against things, and it permits schools to decide to teach some things and to refuse to teach other things. However, the Establishment Clause puts an additional limit, very specific limit on public schools: It forbids teaching religious doctrine because that constitutes the establishment of religion.
I am not an expert on why the founders included freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights. Probably a response to historical repression, and perhaps being convinced by Locke.
But, why does it matter? I already said that I am happy to concede that the rule re religious teaching is a terrible idea. I note, however, that I have asked several times why you think there should be a special rule that permits everyone except LGBTQ people to advocate re what should or should not be taught. I don't know why you are so reluctant to defend your position, but until you do, I don't see any point in further discussion.
Well, if you find substance in the question, I'm happy for you. I don't.
Ok, thank you for elaborating, I wish you done it sooner.
I disagree. Not imposing a view is more legitimate than imposing a view, because if you don't impose a view you're still leaving people room to explore. Like we discussed, there are cases where I think imposing a view is legitimate, but generally this works as a pretty good rule of thumb.
It's a lot less interesting to continue this line of argument since you said this isn't what you meant, but the issue is that if prohibiting teaching religion, and teaching a religion is indistinguishable, then that would mean the very specific limit on public schools teaching religious doctrine would itself violate the Establishment Clause.
Because that was literally the topic of the conversation! In your own words: "Why should there be a special rule re "influencing the perception of children towards the LGBT movement?"
For one - why should I defend a position you just invented, and I never advocated for? LGBTQ+++ people can advocate as much as they want for what should not be taught. They should not be allowed to advocate for what should be taught any more than Christians or Muslims are.
The fact that you portrayed my views the way you did, puts into doubt your earlier statement that you only think these two things are indistinguishable only for the purposes of legitimacy.
To clarify, nothing prevents Christians or Muslims from advocating that things be taught. There are limits placed by the Establishment Clause on how successful they can be. But as I said, there is no right to be successful in their advocacy. And, the limits on their success is quite narrow. Schools can teach about Muslim doctrine, for example, as long as they do not proselytize. They can also teach tolerance, and that anti-Muslim bias is bad, and can teach about how Muslims have contributed to society. OP, however, says that LGBTQ people asking to teach similar things about them is illegitimate.
More importantly, you are indeed setting up a special rule for LGBTQ people, because you are taking a rule that applies only to religion and expanding it to cover a single nonreligious group. Your rule covers them, but not Nazis, not Communists, not free market advocates, and not people who want to teach hostility to homosexuality. So, again, you are evading the question: Why a special rule for them?
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link