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 -
I had a typo; I meant that both "can have" both meanings. See my original post, where I said, " The argument was not so much that a menorah per se is a secular symbol, but rather only that that particular menorah was." Similarly, Xmas symbols can be used as purely religious symbols, or as symbols of more secular values ("Peace on Earth and goodwill to Men"), or as both.
The point is not whether the decisions are correct. It is that they happened. OP claimed that the courts have treated creches and menorahs differently. That certainly appears to be incorrect, at least according to Justice Gorsuch's interpretation of the case law, cited above. When I said "as courts have repeatedly recognized" I did not mean that that made it true, but rather that, when applying the law to these issues, the courts have treated both symbols as sometimes having both meanings.
Please read more carefully.
First, I said that, historically, the PURPOSE of govt putting up the symbols or permitting the symbols to be displayed on public grounds was to communicate the idea that people of all faiths are members of the polity. I did NOT say that anyone should, or even does, interpret it that way, so your reference to "correct thinking people" and to how people respond when seeing such menorah is irrelevant.
Second, you seem to think that I meant that it symbolizes that everyone is part of the Jewish community, but I didn't: These are symbols placed in public space, and I said that placing such symbols in public places symbolizes that all groups are members of the polity -- I said that it is a message by the govt to non-Christians. It is not a message from Jewish people to non-Jewish people.
Finally, I don't know where you get "united in a common goal." In Dred Scott, the Court answered "no" to the question, "can a negro whose ancestors were imported into this country and sold as slaves become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States[?]" The Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause was intended to reject that conclusion, but it certainly says noting about "uniting in a common goal." They are too different things; obviously, members of a community often work on their own independent, frequently opposing goals, particularly in a liberal democracy, given that the right of each person to determine their own "conception of the good" is a foundation of liberalism.* Yet they are all members of the community nonetheless.
*I hope I don't have to explain which meaning of "liberalism" I refer to here
More options
Context Copy link