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 -
The three hearts are an interesting model. I’m not sure I buy that it was considered by the founders. They seemed pretty sincere about the sort of deism that underpinned “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” ten years before. That’s a universalist heart, not a secular one, and speaks to the fundamentally Christian context of the founders—who drew up a secular Constitution anyway. The second heart was never separated from the third.
I have some nitpicks about the main argument. Denominations were not keeping kayfabe in schools, both because America was wildly Protestant and because public schooling wasn’t remotely compulsory until the 20th century. Federalism in general suggested that the Constitution wasn’t going to touch local practice. The concept of a “successor ideology” is cribbing off Nietschze’s “slave morality,” except applied to things that reactionaries don’t like, which makes for a lousy category. Tarring atheism as a tool of the enemy easily predates wokism.
But the main problem is that you fail to justify why the Constitution ought to be crumpled to defend classic religion. Given that the line has always been drawn between the first and second hearts, intentionally strengthening the second is a terrible way to fight an ideology grounded in the first. Any gains are guaranteed to come with an erosion of that barrier. Is it any wonder that conservative justices are wary?
Christians and atheists alike are perfectly allowed to stand in the public square. They are not allowed to monopolize it, nor to wield public power against their competitors. (Yes, this means science teachers should not be evangelizing atheism. It does not mean the Satanic temple needs to be reined in.) A finger on the scale for generic Christianity is not closing a loophole. It is making it easier for victories in the first heart to dominate the others.
More options
Context Copy link