site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   26563 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 3, 2024

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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Always thought it was wild that Biden is only the 2nd Catholic president.

I find the disappearance of the Episcopalian (and in turn the White-Anglo-Saxon Protestant) from the hallowed halls they used to populate fascinating. There hasn't been an Episcopalian president since George Bush Sr, but it seems to me that he consciously eschewed all the WASP trappings and presented himself as a Southerner good ol' boy; Bush went so far as to adopt the culture war causes of evangelicals, such as school prayer and abortion, which don't have as much resonance to mainline protestants. More presidents have been Episcopalian than any other religion but they seem to be going the way of Unitarians and deists in terms of being a politically influential group that has all but become irrelevant.

The EC has been shrinking and getting older for a while, so it makes sense that Catholics have supplanted them on the Supreme Court for demographic reasons as well (Amy Coney Barrett has 7 kids). Perhaps the fact that every big ticket university that was religiously affiliated with mainline protestantism has become secular while the Catholic institutions have remained Catholic has something to do with them having an outsized influence in politics and law.

Why? Catholics have always been a minority in the US and its not like we just shake the American globe and pick someone. They are also largely new arrivals (comparatively). I think its true that, aside from Obama, every US president has traceable American lineage from before the civil war. You typically need time in America, generations of time, to actually understand the country and its politics.

Obama does have US lineage from before the civil war- amusingly, from a plantation owner.

Through which parent?

His mother. His father actually literally is from Kenya.

I did not know that. I was under the impression his mother's family were mostly Ellis Island era immigrants. But I am interested who is the outlier.

His mother I believe. I can't remember if it's the ancestor he shares with his wife or not (that would be a little too pat)

I did include the weirdness of a Jew in this discussion because I think it’s interesting.

The lack of Catholics in the U.S. is not weird at all. Catholics have to maintain loyalty with Rome on certain matters. That’s a problem in a non majority Catholic country. But makes them very appealing for Supreme Court Justices.

It’s questionable whether Joe is Catholic at this point as he’s not in communion with Rome.

Uh huh. And no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

You’re quoting a very popular historical excuse to keep the Catholics down and/or out. I hear JFK was controversial for the same reason. But if you’ve got to split hairs to figure out why it doesn’t apply to this particular guy, perhaps it’s not actually a reasonable stereotype?

When was the last time you saw one betray the U.S. for Rome, anyway?

I am Catholic. It’s not some popular historical excuse. It’s legitimate.

And yes if you publically declare yourself against fundamental Catholic doctrine you are in fact not Catholic. You are ethnic Catholic.

The reason Catholics could not be POTUS is because we had an oath to the Pope. If your not doing that then I don’t know what to say. You are just an ethnic Catholic.

I would betray the US for Rome. Though in reality I would not be betraying the US for Rome I would be leading the US on the correct path.

Though in reality I would not be betraying the US for Rome I would be leading the US on the correct path.

That seems more like a rationalization. The papacy has been corrupted by politics any number of times in history. What makes you sure Rome would actually have America's best interests at heart?

Also the Pope himself seems to somewhat disagree with you in that Biden has not been excommunicated, has taken Communion in Rome and is the President. So potentially you are wrong and Rome is right, or you are right and Rome is making decisions based on political considerations (that excommunicating a Catholic US President would be a bad idea) and if that is true then you also can't be sure that other choices are actually made for the right reasons?

Either way your surety upon this subject seems like it is built on shaky ground.

The reason Catholics could not be POTUS is because we had an oath to the Pope.

What's this called?

Papal Primacy.

There are some complications in theology but basically that.

And yes I think there is a fundamental difference between a sinner out of commune with the Church for their personal behavior and someone who promotes others to sin.

Right, but what's the Oath itself called and when do Catholics make it?

Nicene Creed

I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

Amen.

Look, that’s nice(ne) and all, but it doesn’t actually make you to do anything. One can “believe” all the correct things, but when pressed, choose the wrong action. Such is sin.

More comments

As another practicing Catholic, there's no formal oath of allegiance unless you're assuming a clerical office.

I think you were just trying to get @sliders1234 to admit this point, but for other readers who may be unclear -- the allegation that Catholics have divided loyalties stem from the obedience Catholics have to obey the body of church teaching along with any refinements or developments of doctrine provided by the Magisterium (Pope's and bishops). So if I were to become president, I could not properly represent a constituency that favored something that ran counter to church teaching, since my loyalty to God and Church trumps my loyalty to the American state.

I think this has fallen out of favor since the majority of people now probably have an allegiance that trumps their allegiance to America (Evangelical Christianity, Progressivism, Global Socialism, etc).

For other Christians I think/hope they would likewise say loyalty to God and his teachings would have always trumped State. In the past they had less conflict because the State was more explicitly their form of Christianity. And their teachings were not explicitly bound by a rule maker in another country but were more like a conscience or Holy Spirit type thing.

Nicene Creed also gets close to being an oath.

It’s questionable whether Joe is Catholic at this point as he’s not in communion with Rome.

Biden seems to have taken communion in Rome as recently as 2021. At least formally, that would seem to imply that Rome considers his opinions to be within the range of acceptable views of Catholic orthodoxy. I'm sure he has a few heretical beliefs (his pro-choice legal stance most notably), but I doubt most people would consider him "non-Catholic" by most definitions. By that standard, most American Catholics are "non-Catholic" since it is common to deviate in opinion and practice on things like birth control, sex outside of marriage, etc.

By that standard, most American Catholics are "non-Catholic" since it is common to deviate in opinion and practice on things like birth control, sex outside of marriage, etc.

nervous laughter

Yeah, um, about that ..... we're talking it over.

More seriously; there's a growing division in the church over just these issues. And American Catholics are definitely near the center of it. And while Pope Francis might not care so much about the opinions of Yanqui Capitalists, the realities of the needs to convert within the developing world means that he'll bend a knee to the African bishops as necessary

Catholics have to maintain loyalty with Rome on certain matters.

Not to look at U.S. catholic opinion surveys, which routinely show significant support for changing major aspects of church doctrine regarding sexuality and gender, among other things.

Then those people aren’t in communion with Rome either. Being Catholic shouldn’t be easy. Going to the gym isn’t easy.

This is like saying a 500 lb man is attractive because he thinks he’s attractive.

I mean, yes. But they're still generally recognized as "Catholic" by the broader American populace, which doesn't really pay attention to internal doctrinal niceties. Nancy Pelosi still counts as "catholic" for general U.S. purposes, despite having views on abortion and gender wildly out of step with official church doctrine (though I'm not so sure the German catholics would disagree with her...)

Nancy Pelosi is, quite literally, under church discipline for her stance on abortion.

By one archbishop, but given Communion by another. Part of the Catholic Church counts her as Catholic at the very least.

Archbishop Cordileone is the figure in the Catholic Church with the authority to impose discipline on Nancy Pelosi; unless and until he’s overruled by the Vatican, other bishops who give her communion are breaking the rules even if they’re probably not going to get in trouble for it.

And what percentage of the populace knows that, or cares? If she were elected President she'd be counted as a "Catholic" just as a non-practicing Jew would be counted as "Jewish."

I think it's more like Jews that don't keep the sabbath or eat kosher, it's part of your ancestral identity rather than representing any belief in divine revelation.

Even Sunday mass itself is obligatory, along with a smattering of holy days of obligation. So if you're not giving any weight to that rule, you're unlikely to give any weight to the others. The non-weekly attenders that happen to align with the church are doing so on accident, the church isn't the source of their opinion.

They might go to church for Christmas and Easter. Very few priests would use those as a platform to catechize the cultural Catholics. The most I've seen is gentle nudging, like "Look how hard it was to find parking today, people had to park in the neighhborhood. A lot of you must not be coming every week, and you really should!"

Still Catholics have been a fairly large chunk of the population for the majority of the USA's history and include quite a few successful European ethnic groups that have not experienced significant censure. The Supreme Court is 6/9 Catholic (according to Wikipedia I have no idea who's practicing/adherent)

ACB, Thomas, and Alito are devout practicing Catholics. Kavanaugh is probably a bit less so. Roberts I have no idea.

It’s questionable whether Joe is Catholic at this point as he’s not in communion with Rome.

I don't believe Joe has been formally excommunicated by anyone. There was a discussion not too long ago about Biden being told he could not receive communion by a bishop, but that's not a formal excommunication just a pastoral decision. Otherwise any sinner who hadn't gone to the confessional would be "excommunicated."

Perhaps he's done something that merits automatic excommunication, but that would have to be adjudicated. And I don't see how he could, unless you count "officially endorsing abortion" as "being an accomplice to people procuring completed abortions" which I don't see how that would make sense.

Technically, the figure responsible for excommunicating Joe Biden would be Wilton Cardinal Gregory, who was probably appointed archbishop of DC in part because he wouldn’t do something like that.

Wilton Cardinal Gregory

Is that a formal style of name?

Yes. Cardinals are referred to in the third person as ‘Christian name cardinal family name’, except for a few eastern rite figures like the Maronite patriarch. It would also be fairly normal to call him ‘Cardinal Gregory, archbishop of Washington’.

Yes, but not a universal one.

There’s no way the Pope would excommunicate arguably the world’s most powerful Catholic (other than or perhaps even including himself) even if he had done something to warrant it.

This is a recent pussification of the Church. The last Head of State to be excommunicated was Tito in 1946 (for ordering the show trial of a Catholic bishop) and the previous one was King Victor Emmanuel II of Italy in 1870 for invading Rome.

The last time "arguably the world's most powerful Catholic" was excommunicated was Napoleon in 1809 (also for invading Italy).

In the Middle Ages royal excommunications were commonplace, but if the criterion of "arguably the world's most powerful Catholic" is used then we have Holy Roman Emperors Otto IV in 1210 (invading Italy again), Frederick II (three times: for promising to go on Crusade and not doing so, for invading Italy, and for obstructing the Pope's attempt to lead Christian Europe's response to the Mongols), and Henry IV and Henry V (multiple times over the Investiture Controversy - in effect for claiming the authority to appoint bishops in the Holy Roman Empire in place of the Pope).

So basically what you're saying is that as long as Biden doesn't invade Italy or try to appoint bishops, he's going to be fine.

Were Donald Trump Catholic, I suspect he would be more likely to be excommunicated for promising to launch a crusade and not doing so. My understanding of the precedents is that "Congress wouldn't support it" is not an excuse and "You should have taken by calls for war against the infidel seriously but not literally" certainly isn't.

The Papacy couldn't even crush SSPX in 1988.

swole_doge_vs_cheems.jpg

But they did excommunicate the SSPX leadership after the Econe consecrations - schismatic consecrations are still one of the reliable ways of getting excommunicated - or technically given the law around latae sententiae, of excommunicating yourself in a way the Vatican will wish to publicise.

You will notice that most of the historical exommunications I mentioned didn't succeed in crushing anyone - the practice of unrepentant excommunicants thumbing their nose at the Papacy is as old as the practice of excommunicating people.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats