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 -
Isn't that cutting your own nose off to spite your face? Your opponents finally come around to your position, to the extent they are now willing to violently oppose the Islamic people/world you also dislike and wanted to keep out, which was one of the key disputes you had with them...
And you switch sides to side with the people you were against in the first place?
Why would you expect to be taken seriously? I hate that you won't go along with my position so much, that I would side with the people that we had opposing views on? That seems like simple spite. At which point despite being correct you can't be taken seriously in any kind of political coalition. If you don't get your own way, you side with the people you were against?
Setting aside any moral issues, pragmatically there is no reason for your opponents to ever consider your ideas. If you hate them when they disagree, and hate them when they agree, then you aren't leaving much space for change, even when you are actually right.
For one, they haven't actually come around, they're still importing them wholesale.
Right back at you. I don't believe the only reason we have all this promotion of "diversity" is to foment conflict in society. The fact that the progressive elites are siding with the Muslims (for example) right up until the point I decide I won't fight them in progressives' name, is proof positive I was being taken for a ride. It's your fight now, have fun.
Sure, if they don't change their mind then that makes sense. But this is predicated on them doing so.
That said I understand now I think. I'd suggest the elites wouldn't be changing their minds BECAUSE you decided you won't fight the Muslims. In fact, given I have worked with what might be called the elite in the UK, I can almost guarantee they aren't thinking about you (and your peers) at all, or that they are trying to take you for a ride at all, because they don't think about people like you or me much at all. (Which to be clear is a big problem, hence why I quit politics, its just not the same problem you think there is).
As for me, I don't think it will come to a fight at all. At least due to internal Muslims. I have extensive experience with Pakistani communities in the UK and they are being "corrupted" by western secular values quite substantially.
To be clear Islam is in my opinion a terrible religion and globally a much bigger problem than Christianity. But I expect it to lose power as its main countries advance and modernize. Reducing birth rates even in Islamic countries show it is not immune. To me the West is clearly the strong horse here. You can bribe native Pakistani and Afghani muslims with Man Utd strips. We've won so hard a tiny Westernised nation can essentially hold off the whole of the Middle East on its own.
Islam is dying. Just as Christianity is. Sunnis and Shi'ites in fight, Pakistan has problems with the Taliban. They are not united.
I don’t have an opinion on the future of Islam, but the end of this paragraph seems to contradict the beginning. Islam is disunited precisely because it isn’t dead. The Shiites and Sunnis, and ISIS and the Taliban, all care so deeply about their religion and about the proper interpretation of it, that they are willing to physically fight and die for it. Citing that as evidence that Islam is dying is like citing the Thirty Years’ War as evidence that Christianity was dying 400 years ago.
And is Christianity as strong now as it was 400 years ago? Would it have been stronger or weaker without schisming?
Schisming that is not quickly and decisively dealt with is an ongoing fracture point.
In the past 400 years, Christianity became practically the universal religion in two new continents and made massive gains in a third. If by “Islam is dying,” you mean that it will thrive as a major force for the next half millennium before eventually weakening, it seems to me that your claim is pretty much meaningless. On a long enough time scale, every religion, ideology, and nation could be said to be dying, since none will survive the eventual heat death of the universe.
Now, I don’t think you mean that Islam will thrive, grow, and eventually decline, but instead that it’s already on its way out. If my understanding of your claim is correct, it seems to me that Islam’s divisions are actually a clear point of strength. For comparison, look at all the mainline Protestant churches in the US. Almost all are in fellowship with each other despite their doctrinal differences, and almost all are in absolute free fall in terms of membership and attendance, much more so than their more cantankerous theological cousins, who take their confessional distinctives seriously.
My viewpoint is probably a minority one, but I actually think it was a strength, sociologically-speaking, as the divisions fostered a competitive zeal among the different church bodies. This is most obvious in America, where Christianity is, despite its decline, still doing undeniably better than in Europe.
But the split happened in Europe. If that made Christianity stronger why would the effect be more pronounced in the US?
Hell my own country had so much zeal we are still murdering each other even now (though much less frequently thankfully). And the percentage of non-religious is almost identical between the US and Northern Ireland (27 or 28%) which is also similar to the EU (25-26%).
So it doesn't seem to be much better at keeping adherents anywhere. Just in the US selection effects means it is more geographically concentrated.
A Christianity that did not have ruinous wars and splits I would argue would be stronger. Because it showed to adherents that whatever lofty claims were made Christians were willing to kill Christians over doctrinal differences. A united Christianity that stretches from Moscow to Constantinople to Jerusalem to Rome to London to Rio de Janeiro to Washington would be a much stronger world force than it is now.
A schism that is resolved quickly might increase strength and fervor, one that rumbles on for centuries and then schisms again and again over smaller and smaller differences is hard to portray as a stronger, I would say.
To be clear though I am not saying either Christianity or Islam will fall entirely tomorrow, we are talking decades to centuries. To paraphrase the old saying. There is a great deal of ruin in an organized religion.
As aardvark2 pointed out, Europe has traditionally operated on the principle of cuius regio, eius religio, which eliminates the competitive spirit that proved to be an advantage in America. Aardvark2 is also correct in saying that attendance rates differ dramatically between Europe and the United States, even if nominal church membership is similar.
I hate to dip my toe in the pool of “lived experiences,” but I do think that might be at the root of our disagreement here. Your country recently (within living memory) witnessed decades-long violent strife over a tangled knot of politics and religion. In that context, I can see why sectarian divisions would seem like a definite weakness. From my American perspective, however, things look differently. Calls for “church unity” in this country have historically led to the creation of groups like the United Methodist Church or the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, denominations whose founding mergers were accomplished by ignoring the real doctrinal differences between their predecessor church bodies. In other words, unity has become synonymous with laxity and indifference. I don’t think true unity of doctrine was possible in 16th century Europe, which means the only other options were superficial unity (a la mainstream Protestantism in the US) or forced unity (hence the wars of religion).
As I see it, the zeal that drove armies to kill each other over the existence of purgatory is the same zeal that led thousands of missionaries to convert the populations of North and South America, and Africa, and East Asia, and India, and so forth (some with greater success than others). Today, few Christians have that zeal, but many Muslims do. The very fact that Muslims aren’t willing to paper over their differences for the sake of a superficial unity is proof that Islam is still a force to be reckoned with.
No I think my experiences are part of my world view for sure, so no need to feel bad for bringing that up.
We had a thread about Christian nationalism in the US a few weeks back and as i mentioned there, I think the differences between Christian sects are currently mostly moot in the US right now. But I think that is more fragile than people think. An explicitly Protestant Nationalism or some other fracture point can split that apart. Possibly a liberalizing Catholic church coming up against more conservative Evangelicals.
I agree church attendance is higher in the US but my point is that zeal hasn't really halted the decline in religiosity at a population level. That is roughly steady between say France, Northern Ireland and the US. Germany is even worse. Even Italy is just behind at about 25%.
And for the younger age groups its even worse still.
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