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 -
Something I noted when I first read Coming Apart in undergrad for an assignment, and have only continued to see grow over time: it's not just economics, we're Coming Apart everywhere in America. In almost every way, our society is less equal than it was in 1962. Across domains that don't seem like they should be related:
Fitness Hobbyist athletes of today would largely stomp on the professionals of 1962 in fitness metrics. Nobody in 1962 ran marathons as a hobby, now it is common, no PMC office lacks a marathon guy. Lifting weights was weird, and maybe kinda gay. Now it is common. The lifts and PR times of your average Crossfit box would be jaw-dropping at any of the few existing gyms in 1962. The fitness obsessed are stronger, faster, better than their 1962 equivalents. And yet in 1962 the average person was in better shape than the average person in 2024. They weren't overweight or obese, they could walk ten miles if asked to do so. A randomly selected man of 1962 could join a touch football game or help you move furniture in a way that your randomly selected man of 2024 often cannot.
Sex 1962 society was more monogamous, and because of the drive to achieve pair bonding, most people could get one long term partner and marry them and stay together. More men had sex with one woman in the past year compared to today, but more men had sex with anyone. In 2024, it is vastly easier for some men to get laid, your top percentage of men can get vastly more sex with vastly more partners. But there are also vast numbers of men who never have sex, have no long term partners, and few prospects of getting them.
Cooking Imagine I took 100 mothers from my local high school today, and 100 mothers from my local high school in 1962, and Iron-Chef'd them with scratch ingredients and told them to bake me a cake. I posit that the 1962 mothers would all make more or less the same mediocre American cakes, with some ethnic-white flourishes or particular talents, but mostly pretty similar stuff. But virtually all would know how to make a cake given flour, butter, eggs, sugar. The 2024 mothers, a large percentage would simply have no idea how to make a cake from scratch without premade ingredients, only a vague concept of what to do with the ingredients, and we'd get some truly sad attempts. But among the 2024 mothers, there are also some percentage of hobbyists, Great British Baking Show and youtube obsessives, who will make a ridiculously good cake, vastly better than anything that the 1962 mothers would even know how to attempt. All one has to do to figure this out is look at old cookbooks and new cookbooks.
Physical appearance Paul Newman vs Chris Evans. Or just compare Superman to Superman, or even Hugh Jackman in different Wolverine roles. The earlier physiques are easy for a man with good genetics if they don't screw it up or attainable for most men with a bit of effort, the current physiques are impossible without at least two of good genetics, extreme effort, and pharmaceuticals.
Education More Americans than ever have completed college degrees, the value and difficulty of which we can debate but there is no question that completing years of education highly correlates with intelligence. Fewer books are read every year in America. Authors lack the popular celebrity impact they once had. Literary prizes lack the credibility and punch they once did. PhD Theses of 1962 and earlier are often pretty readable, covering a basic or normal topic. PhD theses of 2024 are often whacko, out there, unreadable to anyone without a master's in the topic already, citing obscure theories unknown to anyone outside deep academia.
Gun Ownership Gun ownership has declined from a narrow majority of households in the 70s to a third as of 2014. At the same time, many gun owners today have an absolute arsenal compared to the men of the 60s and 70s. A lot of Old Timer Fudds at my small town gun club think it's insane that the young guys want to own anything other than a shotgun, a deer rifle, a .22, and a revolver. A small percentage of gun owners in America own a vast number of firearms. This simply wasn't a normal middle-class pursuit in the 1960s.
There are other places it feels like there's something there, but I don't know how to parse them with any rigor. Religiosity, racial tolerance, "handyman" skills, foreign travel, military service, automobile driving. It feels intuitive that in the past, a base level of each was expected in every middle class man and variation was rare; and today extremes at both ends are more common while the middle is shrinking.
We live in the age of the Barbell Shaped distribution. There's something deeper there.
With gun ownership, I think the discrepancy can be traced more to the proliferation of hobbies that began in the late 1960s. For my grandfather's generation, if you were an outdoorsy person and wanted a hobby you were pretty much limited to hunting and fishing, as well as day hikes. These days we also have backpacking, mountain biking, whitewater paddling, rock climbing, xc skiing, and other stuff to choose from, which all require a significant investment in time and money. I'd hunt if I had unlimited time, but since I have to work for a living every day I spend hunting would be a day not spent hiking or on the bike, and when you add normal social obligations and chores into the mix that's not a lot of days to begin with.
In the meantime, gun ownership has turned into a hobby of its own. My grandfather owned a lot of guns, but they were all for hunting. I don't even think he owned any pistols. Hell, prior to the 1990s it was difficult to impossible to concealed carry in most places. Now I have friends who own a lot of guns, and whose participation in the hobby seems to end there—they don't hunt and I never hear them talk about going to the range or anything like that. So diversification takes away a large part of the traditional base from gun ownership but adds a new base for whom acquisition is more important than having a specific use. If I'm a hunter in 1965 I probably only need a 12 gauge and a deer rifle and maybe a .22. Now it's de rigeur to own an AR even if the real-world applications are limited.
More options
Context Copy link
I think this has a lot to do with the widespread availability of information on the internet and much more efficient markets than people realize. We think about this in the context of trading and arbitrage, but it increasingly applies to everything.
A few hundred years ago, basic information about the market in the next village was enough for a profitable career as a middleman. Today, when I can look up week-over-week sales estimates for Chipotle outlets nationwide derived from a cross validated combination of bluetooth beacon and credit card data on Bloomberg in 20 seconds, a few large hedge funds go to extreme lengths for tiny slivers of additional data to drive alpha.
The same thing happened in employment markets, and is responsible for a lot of the extreme neuroticism of the upper-middle class. 50 years ago, third-world strivers and domestic peasants wouldn’t even have any idea how to guide their children to become doctors and investment bankers, wouldn’t even know how you apply (many barely knew many PMC jobs even existed). Today they can Google it in 5 minutes, which is why medical school and Goldman Sachs application numbers keep going up even as the number of places remain the same, making it ever harder for the established PMC to guarantee their children the same quality of life.
Online dating kind of did the same thing, opened markets, made things more efficient. Instead of being limited to their own circle, people were now in competition with everyone for everyone. A more efficient market creates more losers, not more winners. Inefficiency is what creates a large middle class - in sex, in income, perhaps even in fitness. This was Marx’s big mistake, there is no tendency for the rate of profit to fall toward zero, just for all the profit to become increasingly concentrated among the very most intelligent, as market friction evaporates.
"For freedom and equality are sworn and everlasting enemies, and when one prevails the other dies. Leave men free, and their natural inequalities will multiply almost geometrically"
-Will Durant
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Don't forget the bimodal distribution of lawyer starting salaries.
As recently as 1991, the median for those was $40k (a bit over $90k in 2024 dollars) and the shape of the distribution was the usual vaguely-lognormal looking thing where the modal lawyer made about 10% less but a fat tail made more to make up for it, with the tail steadily decreasing and then basically vanishing around $90k ($210k inflation-adjusted).
Over the next decade, BigLaw firms had decided to really start bidding up their offers for the top lawyers, and the results look like no distribution you'll find in a stat textbook. The median salary was at $50k, basically the same as it had been in 2024 dollars, but was now the balance of a lower (inflation-adjusted) mode and a big spike at $120k (around $225k adjusted), with fewer salaries in between.
In the two decades since, the median has remained a bit over $90k, and the distribution seems to also have basically fixated when controlled for inflation: there's a wide swath of new lawyers making $75K +/- $25K, and then there's a big narrow spike of the new lawyers who "made it" to $220K +/- $10K, and from $105K to $205K there's relatively nobody.
The gap is even more extreme for experienced lawyers where some of the biglaw partners are pulling in $10+ million a year, while a lot of solos are grinding away still only pocketing that $75k with 10 years of experience, a lot of people stuck in document review seemingly for life, etc. For experienced people there is a middle class usually composed of people who work in government compliance or as in house counsel. From time to time some ex-states attorneys (or similar) will go and form a firm in search of more compensation. Sometimes this is a success, but more often they return to government work because criminal clients dont often make good payors.
What befuddles me is why clients ever agreed to this trend in biglaw. This increased compensation is reflected in increased fees basically at a 1:1 ratio, and I'm not really aware of much data that says biglaw firms are all that good at actually, you know, winning. In most cases I've ever been a part of the lawyers make little difference in the outcome of the case. I can't really think of one civil suit where if side A had John Roberts in his prime, and the other had a 50th percentile graduate from an okay state school like Indiana or Samford. Big lititgation is BIG in that it requires a lot of man-hours. But the expensive firms outsource that anyways!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
All of your examples have this pattern: $[skill] used to be not only desirable but also broadly necessary; as $[skill] became generally unnecessary, a large portion of the population has mostly abandoned it, while those who remained devoted to maintaining $[skill] became much more proficient.
E.g.: back in 1962 every home-maker was expected to bake, and a large proportion of women were home-makers. Now, fewer women are home-makers, social norms about desirability of cakes and cookies have largely changed, and there are lots of options for buying baked goods. Thus, most women have mostly abandoned baking (or never developed the skill), while the few that do have vastly improved that skill.
E.g.: back in 1962, the alternatives to books (for entertainment or information) were either expensive (movies or plays in the theater), or inferior in quality or quantity (newspapers), or were on a schedule (TV and radio). Now, the alternatives to books are superior, cheap, and instantly available. So most people mostly abandoned reading books, while a smaller proportion still reads for pleasure. (Though for this example, I don't know of any metrics by which those that read books have become more proficient, except maybe a brief increase in popularity of speed-reading a decade ago in my circle.)
Let's call these the coming-apart pattern examples, and let's consider whether there are any examples with a flipped coming-together pattern: $[skill] used to be desirable but broadly unnecessary; as $[skill] became generally necessary, a large portion of the population has developed at least some competency in it. As a result, if we compare the $[skill]-ed populations now and back-in-the-day, the back-in-the-day group was much more $[skill]-ed.
E.g.: typing. Back in 1962, most professionals didn't type much themselves because they could hire a typist for a fairly low wage (mostly because that was one of the careers for young women that was generally acceptable for decades by then). That is, a professional could, instead of learning the skill himself, use some reasonable portion of his income to outsource the typing tasks. Now, every white-collar worker and many blue-collar workers are expected to do their own typing, and the typing tasks have only increased. As a result, at least 2/3rd of the population has some typing skill, and if we compare the group whose job included typing in 1962 to similar group now, the average 1962 typist would be much faster and make fewer spelling errors.
(The skill of spelling is another coming-apart pattern example, mostly courtesy of ubiquitous spell-checkers.)
Another coming-together pattern example: figuring out how to make a new electronic device work. Back in 1962, besides the small number of professionals who needed to work with bespoke electronic devices--and hobbyists who chose to do so--most people would only need to figure out how to make their TV and their radio work, and those were fairly straightforward. Now, most people regularly get electronic gadgets that either didn't exist a decade ago or whose user interface changed substantially, and they keep having to figure out how they work. (The joke among us olds is that the instructions are so complicated that only a child can do it.) So a broader proportion of the population has acquired the skill of figuring out how to make new electronic device work, but the professionals and hobbyists of yore were much better on average, because they had to understand quite a bit about the underlying electronics. (My husband salvaged many a cheap Chinese-import doo-dad with a multimeter and a soldering iron.)
To summarize:
When a desirable skill becomes more broadly necessary, more people acquire some level of proficiency in it, and the average level of the skill (among those that have some proficiency in the skill) drops.
When a desirable skill becomes less broadly necessary, fewer people acquire some level of proficiency in it, and the average level of the skill (among those that have some proficiency in the skill) rises.
So dictation fell out of habit completely since then?
More options
Context Copy link
Eh, I think the electronics skill example is a wash: yes, the vast majority of people today will have to get to grips with how to work their smartphones and smart watches and smart TVs and Fitbits and so on and so forth, but the actual knowledge of how computers, operating systems, and actual physical electronics in general work has arguably declined. This is because companies like Apple have put in Herculean amounts of effort into dumbing down tech and sanding off as many rough edges as possible, while hiding as much of the working bits as they can. User-servicability declined once consumers didn't really need it as much.
That fits the coming-together pattern, but with an extra feature: because many more people need to grapple with the situation that requires some of the skill, the market responded by making such situations easier to accomplish.
This is similar to the pattern in education credentialism: because many more people are playing the education credentialism game (e.g., getting a Bachelors degree), the market responded by making it easier to accomplish.
I gotta say though, sometimes it's not just the market. Take set theory. Reading Cantor's original work is challenging for a professional mathematician. But take about a century iterations of people communicating the essentials to ever-broader audience. By the 60's we have "New Math" books for elementary-school kids, which confuse the crap out of most math teachers but which the top 10% grok and love. And a few decades later Venn diagrams become essential components of memes.
And that's the coming-apart pattern.
There is a scene in Star Trek IV where Scotty tries to operate an 80's computer by talking into the mouse. After realizing his mistake, he looks at the keyboard, says "How quaint!", and then proceeds to speed-type. It's a funny scene, but it has always rubbed me the wrong way: why would anyone who never needs to type pick up that skill? Or, for that matter, the skill of operating whatever chemistry-model software that company was using? Not even the assumption that Scotty is the-best-of-the-best geeks can patch this hole.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think the absurd level of skill in a lot of those things do tend to serve as effective barriers to entry as well. I’ll use youth sports as an example. We have a system in youth sports that’s absolutely insane. If you want to play sports, you have to put in an insane amount of time, energy and effort to make the team — and select teams often begin at 8 years old. If you make it to the place where you can expect to play high school sports, you’ve likely been playing on select and traveling teams from second grade onward. And aside from the games, tournaments, and team practices, you’ve likely been taking lessons as well. Which means that you have to have the time and money to put 20 hours a week into that one sport.
But suppose you’re a kid of middling talent. Well, basically, 99% of team sports are closed off to you. Sorry champ, too bad you’re not super talented. And the predictable result of this is… either you’re a stand out superstar player of your chosen sport, or you might as well quit. Did they stop desiring to play baseball, or is it so insanely difficult for kids to make the team that they end up playing baseball on their Xbox One instead of with friends outdoors. And then you end up with the twin crises of obesity (because only the top 10% of kids actually get to play any team sports) and loneliness (because team sports turns out to be an easy way for boys to make friends) and can’t quite understand why.
I think even for other things, participation goes down when people are led to believe that they need to be good at something or do it seriously if you want to participate. You feel pressure to find deeper meanings for the books you read, or the shows you watch. You have to read tge stuff on booktok or some other curated list. If you happen to like a nerd-coded show or movie series, you have to learn the lore and follow fan theories and there are often things to collect or whatever. I think for me I almost don’t want to get into those kinds of series because of the absurd competition to know all the stuff to feel comfortable talking to other fans because they’ll have learned all the lore. It’s almost like all hobbies have become competitive in a sense, you can’t just do the thing you have to do it to a social media friendly level.
I think honestly that the standards of 1962 were better for the country because at some point, good enough is good enough and you gain more social health by letting average people participate in those kinds of activities instead of limiting those social opportunities t9 just the hyper competitive people.
I read this paragraph, and immediately the analogy to online dating (which, AIUI, has increasingly taken over dating as a whole) comes to mind.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That explains cooking and perhaps fitness but I think it obviously falls short on physical appearance, sex, and gun ownership. Education I think it also falls short on, education is much more generally necessary today now that you almost need a bachelor's degree to stock shelves at Walmart.
For Guns: To own a gun in modern America, you also have to defend your reasoning for having one to friends. You have to go to FFLs, which are staffed exclusively by assholes instead of by mail. Only people who are really into it will deal with the trouble.
Uh, what are you talking about? Is your filter bubble entirely composed of NYT journalists?
More options
Context Copy link
Let me second @FiveHourMarathon's "WTF" here. It might just be the local culture, but I've never known anyone* who had to "defend their reasoning for having a gun," to a friend, or anyone else. And I know plenty of gun owners. My dad and middle brother pretty much have an arsenal between them. Until about a year ago, the bulk of said brother's job was selling guns (as the manager of the hunting department at the local outlet of a "big box" sporting goods store chain) — I suppose that makes him an "asshole" in your view?
Though, again, I live in Alaska. We've got grizzlies, we've got moose, and we've got a rather more gun-friendly culture than the more urban, populous states. Anyone who would make a friend justify their reasoning for gun ownership almost certainly doesn't have any Alaskan friends, and would probably be quite unhappy living here.
I've been a gun owner for 15 years and lived in purple areas. It's not everyone, but I get plenty of "you don't seem like the type" and incredulity.
I'm not referring to any sort of legally required reasoning defense. I suppose if you preferred being a closeted gun owner, you could avoid it entirely.
And I'm saying I've never seen this, ever.
I didn't think you were. I'm saying that in my experience, there's absolutely no reason you'd ever need to even socially defend your gun ownership to anyone, and there's no need to ever be "a closeted gun owner," because here in Alaska, nobody is going to give you shit for owning a gun.
Yeah man, I'd agree Alaska (and the deep south/Texas) are different from where I live now.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In New Jersey, one must obtain a voucher of one's worthiness to own a gun from 2 unrelated adult citizens before obtaining a permit to purchase a firearm, and again for each handgun one might wish to buy. And 3 such persons for a carry permit, though a carry permit barely allows you to carry (if you try you're almost certain to trip over a forbidden zone and become a felon). I'm not sure if any other states have this onerous requirement which would be unconstitutional if the Supreme Court took the 2nd Amendment seriously instead of just a debating point, but New Jersey does.
Ok, can you seriously think that any functional adult doesn't have three friends? When I got my ccw permit in PA, I had too many friends who wanted to be the reference. And I have trouble thinking of a person who doesn't have three friends who should have a gun.
This is the typical communitarian answer. But even people who aren't socially adept are supposed to have constitutional rights.
But we aren't talking about socially adept. We're talking about three unrelated people vouching for you. Coworkers. Landlord. The waitress at your favorite diner. Your pastor.
It's not that hard.
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
This is more New Jersey and maybe Illinois than anywhere else. Most places you don't need people to vouch for you to buy a gun, and you can buy from private sellers.
More options
Context Copy link
Bro what are you talking about.
I've bought a gun once in my life. Outside of my range buddies and the seller three people know about it. The seller was friendly and helpful and frankly cut me a better deal than I expected.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I respectfully disagree.
Physical appearance in the post I responded to refers specifically to physical fitness. Half-a-century ago, general physical fitness was broadly necessary (e.g., many people had to walk or do physical labor), and now is much less so (e.g., much smaller proportion of people have to walk or do physical labor, and for the latter OSHA mandates all kinds of supportive equipment).
Sex in the post I responded to refers primarily to marriage and its dissolution, so "how-to-get-and-stay-married" is the relevant skill here.
Finally, playing-the-game-of-credentialism (a.k.a. "education") is without a doubt a more widely practiced skill now than it was fifty years ago. About 90% graduate high-school; of those, half go to college; of those, about half graduate with a degree. Fifty years ago, much higher percentage of people dropped out of high-school, and less than 10% of those who graduated went on to college. (There stats are approximate but broadly correct.)
The credentialism game has changed to accommodate the large influx of people seeking credentials.
I think your story makes sense for marriage but not for sex (for which as we all know marriage is neither necessary nor sufficient).
I don't really understand your point here. you seem to be agreeing with me that education is not something generally unnecessary, so it doesn't explain the bimodal distribution mentioned by OP.
I think I see: OP conflated (or rather, placed in extreme proximity) education as getting-credentials and education as reading books. The getting-credentials has a coming-together pattern (more people are going for education credentials, so there is more of a continuum of the type of credentials and their quality), but the reading-books has a coming-apart pattern (majority read practically no books, a small minority read lots and lots of books).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Fat shaming was once a way of life in America. Guns usually have some combination of military service, hunting, or ruralness to justify them- all three exhibit the same pattern.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I have noticed this pattern as well and I'm going to apply it to two further areas to explain social phenomena of interest.
Religion. In the past Christianity was one of these "broadly necessary" $[skill]s. To get on in life, form social connections, get jobs and generally be regarded as a trustworthy, upstanding member of society it was necessary to be seen at church every week and be vaguely conversant in Christian concepts, terminology and so forth. I think of it kind of like a general education requirement at University, everybody has to take a math class to graduate. As a result a number of "math classes for humanities majors" arise to fulfill demand from students that hate math but are obligated to take math courses, things like "Mathematics of Shakespearean Sonnets" that sort of thing. If the university were to drop the requirement a lot of the attendance at these classes would crater overnight.
I see a similar phenomenon with religion. In essence our society dropped the "general education requirement" of Christianity, and we discovered that many Christian denominations more or less only existed to fulfill the requirement for people that really were not religion enthusiasts and would drop out given the choice. To bring it back to your point above, now the only people attending church (at least those below a certain age) are those that are essentially the Christianity hobbyists or enthusiasts who do it for the sheer love of the thing and are therefore attracted to more 'intense' denominations like Pentecostalism while the more moderate and boring Protestant denominations like Anglicans die off. We have the phenomenon you described here:
Another example of the phenomenon I've noticed would be what I've observed with General Trivia Knowledge. Every other week I play trivia games with my coworkers who are all decently well educated people, but many of them 5 years younger than me or so. I'm continuously been surprised by how little general knowledge they have despite being quite intelligent. I mean general trivia knowledge like "What is the Hindenburg Disaster?" "Can you recognize the major European languages when written?" "What was Watergate?" "Who wrote the Canterbury Tales?" "Who said the line 'Dr. Livingston I presume?' and why?", things of that nature.
Of course there are many reasons for this, but I've come to attribute a lot of this to youtube and the internet giving people too much control over what they watch. I feel like I learned a lot of the random trivia I know I learned when flipping through random TV channels as a kid and watching something on PBS or the History Channel or an old movie (often with a historical subject like Lawrence of Arabia or Zulu) on TCM with my dad. Now people have much more freedom to become enthusiasts on any subject they choose. If they want to watch League of Legends content, there is enough of that on YT/Twitch/etc to keep them occupied for their entire lives without ever needing to branch out from sheer boredom and lack of alternatives.
My coworkers are intelligent but their knowledge is silo'd and inaccessible, all spent on some random hobby that I will never talk to them about while the cultural common ground of references, trivia and anecdotes has been completely destroyed and it honestly makes them seem completely retarded when we are doing trivia.
I especially like your Christianity-as-skill idea, because it fits but I haven't thought of it that way before.
Recently, I [an atheist who grew up Eastern Orthodox] came to the conclusion that, if ever shit hit the fan in my life and my personal social network wasn't up for the task, I would head to Church--of whichever denomination is closest to Eastern Orthodox and physically proximal to me. Church first, then check what safety net the government has to offer. Because the Church tends to respond faster to any crucial need and doesn't require paperwork.
(US governments offer a pretty good safety net to anyone who is willing and capable of (a) accurately filling lots of forms, (b) letting go of all of one's earthly possessions, and (c) waiting up to several years if necessary.)
My atheism in particular, and my non-belonging-to-a-church in general, are luxuries indicative of a life lacking in severe shocks. I recognize this. How fortunate for me, then, that so many Christian denominations share the idea of repentance and return-of-the-prodigal.
This is tangential. But I'm Eastern Orthodox, my husband is open to it, and we have not managed to get past the standing quietly for two hours part of being to church with young children. I want the children to have godparents! I keep aspiring to take them. St Nicholas day was last weekend! But I still haven't managed to make it work. I suppose I should embrace church-as family-social-project, vs church as opportunity to sing and pray, as I experienced it before (I was the Christian hobbiest type before, going to vespers and akathists and studies and everything).
I would still go to my church acquaintances first if I needed help, though. Despite failing to attend, they still found me a place to live, free furniture, and let me borrow a car for a week.
Huh, the Sunday service is only two hours now! I remember it being three. (I love being old enough to say "back in my day...")
Fortunately church people are very understanding of kid's limitations. I remember the parents taking their toddlers outside (and, discreetly, their tweens as well) once their progeny started fidgeting.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As someone on said safety net, can confirm.
Perhaps, but you are also "fortunate" here in having a church to "return" to. Imagine growing up irreligious, with parents who don't attend a church of any kind. Would "church first, then government safety net" still be your ordering in seeking help?
If I imagine that I didn't know that a church is more responsive than the government, then indeed I wouldn't have that mental ordering. Then again, I am probably missing ideas about other resources that are more responsive than the government, because I don't have prior experience in them.
It would be more responsive for you, as someone returning to a childhood faith. But if you were an atheist who'd grown up atheist, would it still be "more responsive"?
Oh I see. Yes, I think so. Many of the congregations around where I live are very welcoming of newcomers, and seem even more so with people who were never religious. The devout protestants I know seem especially susceptible to simple redemption narratives ("I grew up an atheist, but now..."), and would have fewer questions for someone like that who wants to join their congregation. With someone like me, they'd want to know how I came to grok that the denomination of my youth isn't the right Christian faith while theirs is.
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
I think part of this is a sign of affluence and disposable income. But it's also worth noting that in 1962 most everyone had either served in the military or had a dad who did. I think World War Two was immensely unifying for the States, both because it saw us struggling against a common foe and also because it involved putting a lot of people through the military, which can also be a pretty unifying experience.
More options
Context Copy link
Tyler Cowen would say that Average is Over.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link