In the case of gay adoption sentimentalism would get the right answer if you went by what would feel right for the child rather than what would feel right for the prospective parents. Why should adoption be focused on affirming the parents and ignore the welfare of the child? Because Christians think it is wrong so it must be right.
You are shifting the subject here. The original question is, "is the church actively engaging in activities designed to use state pressure to make the lives of gay people worse." You were previously denying that they were engaging in these activities, you are now arguing they were engaging in these activities but they are justified in doing so due to their beliefs that they are advancing child welfare. Why they are doing it, is mostly irrelevant to whether they are doing it.
It all depends on the definition of "worse." You last comment indicates it does not depend on intention but on doing bad in some absolute sense. Definition that is different from what Catholics would call bad in an absolute sense. So if you want to make that clear I agree with you. That Catholics are doing what they consider good but the government is declaring it to be bad. You are saying that the government can punish Catholics in that case and not be violating freedom of religion. I would disagree.
I don't think I've ever discussed with you what I think the law should be. My fantasy world is that the church flips on this teaching like the Protestant churches did on miscegenation. And 100 years from now Catholic conservatives are arguing that the church was always approving of gay rights, sure there were some theologians in times past that disagreed but it was never a teaching of the magisterium and no the church didn't actually order the burning of gays in the 16th century....The flip is a fantasy. The Catholic church can't flip teaching like Protestant churches can. What I see as possible100 years from now. Guys like you will look at the late 20th century and find "proof" that the Catholic church was pro-sodomy and pedophilia. With all the reaction to the scandals it should not be too hard to find quotes to support this. Then the point will be made that the Catholic opposition to homosexuality was a novel idea invented in the late 20th century for some unknown reason. That the real Catholic tradition was pro-gay and pro-pedophilia and these backward Catholic bishops should just admit they are wrong.
Another possibility that I'd be very happy with is that this teaching becomes so widely disputed by so many agencies in society that it is just ignored by the Catholic population. Masturbation is still technically a mortal sin, but the societal approval for masturbation has grown so strong that churches are unable to make headway against the societal trend on these issues.
I think this has already happened. The rest of the story is that the church maintains its opposition and society eventually either repents or collapses. The problem comes when society tells the church it may not teach that something is wrong. Then he American experiment in human rights ends in failure. Religious persecution comes back in the west and things get really ugly.
The situation you are describing where the Catholic church and other churches still preach actively against homosexuals and their teachings are widely followed by religious society, while secular society is left having to defend homosexuals via. the law is not my fantasy world at all. That's very close to the situation we've been living through with abortion for the last two generations. Or the situation we've been living with with regard to alcohol since the 1750s.Again these are not good parallels. Teaching that abortion is wrong is not illegal. It is getting there. The denial of government funding to Catholic relief agencies because they oppose abortion is a very large and very stupid move in that direction by Obama. For someone with an expertise in constitutional law Obama is amazingly clueless about religious freedom. Harvard Law really should give him his money back. He just does not get it.
That being said even if this were the situation, there is no insurmountable conflict between gay rights and freedom of religion. There is nothing unique about a church wanting to engage in activities that are disapproved of or criminal and there is an already existing body of law that covers this. The same laws that made it possible for Catholic churches to get communion wine during prohibition would cover them with regard to the gay rights situation.
You are assuming the courts have not gotten dumber. They have. The courts are more interested in inventing new rights than in defending what is actually in the text of the constitution. They are very caught up in the trend towards ditching traditional thinking. When you do that you don't become a free thinker. You become a fashionable thinker. Being pro-gay is fashionable. Being pro-religion is not. The courts in all western countries have done very little to protect religious freedom.
Assume that homosexuality became a protected class under civil rights law, in precisely the same way race or religion are; which is actually a bit stronger than most homosexuals are even asking for BTW. At that point discrimination solely on the basis of sexual orientation would be illegal for commercial for profit private entities it would still be perfectly legal for churches and religious institutions. So Our Sister of Mercy Orphanage (from here on OSMO) can continue to only give children to heterosexual couples with full protection of law. The state has no ability what-so-ever to challenge the teachings of OSMO . For the state to require OSMO to change their practices or shut down the state would have to have a compelling interest in having every adoption agency provide children to homosexual couples which is a bar they are unlikely to meet. So no, there isn't going to be any persecution.This has already happened in Illinois and I believe Massachusetts as well. Catholic adoption agencies have been closed down over this issue. So I am confused as to why you still think this could never happen. The one constant is that assurances like you are giving here almost never hold true.
Not being awarded a municipal contract is failure to get an award it is not religious persecution. In other areas like hospitals this sort of thing is happening more as churches are appealing to narrowing segments of the population and alienating others they are losing their positions of privilege given to them as institutions that are seen as benefitting the common good.
Normally that would be true but in some businesses that is the way almost all the contracts are awarded. Governments control things and to be black listed by a government amounts to being locked out of that line of work. So certain career choices would be unavailable to Catholics. That list would grow over time as everyone who hires Catholics would be labeled a homophobe, a bully, or whatever else they invent.
They would in effect being demoted to the role of niche public interest institutions like PETA. No question that would be bad, which is why people like Sister Keehan who actually understand the law work to prevent that sort of thing from happening; while people like Cardinal Dolan in effect does his best to make sure it happens. This is a choice for the Catholic church does it want the freedom to do whatever it wants that comes with being a niche institution, or the power and privileges of being an institution that works in the broad public interest. Right now the church is divided essentially arguing it should have the autonomy of a niche and the privileges of a broad institution; and denying that is not denying freedom of religion in any sense.They just want the freedom to be Catholic. What good are power and privilege when you can't use them to do what you know is right? You can only use them to do what society lets you do. That is you may only have this position if you accept a secular definition of right and wrong. Cardinal Dolan understands that this means giving up the very essence of Catholicism.The world is full of people who gained power by making so many compromises that in the end they fail to make a difference. Our society has produced so many of those they are confused by people who actually believe something.
Finally there is "firing" issue you mentioned. Catholic workers at a secular institution being fired for refusing to place gay adoptions. Right now the effective law in the US in non governmental jobs is "right to work", employees can be fired for any reason or no reason at all. I've been fired for refusing to engage in a conspiracy to defraud vendors (i.e. refusing to commit a felony). Religion is however a protected class. The employer would have to show that they couldn't get around the employee's objections that placing gay adoptions that it couldn't be accommodated. Again, likely a fairly high bar. So, no what you are describing wouldn't happen. This is a situation where not only is there loss of religious freedom but it would be fully extended to Catholic workers.Again, this is already happening. People who have been issuing marriage licenses for years suddenly lose their job because they can't in good conscience process gay marriages. It is not huge yet but in principle it could grow huge. Can a doctor get fired for refusing to perform abortions? Can a pharmacist be fired for refusing to fill birth control prescriptions? Obama has shown a willingness to abuse his power. Narrowing the definition of a religious institution. Targeting the Catholic church. He is scary. He is the first president with the power to execute US citizens without due process. If the worst that happens is Catholics lose their job that would be very good news. I expect it to get a lot uglier than that.
How many gay couples actually want to adopt children? Almost zero.
ReplyDeleteFirst off when the miscegenation laws were pulled there weren't that many inter racial couples.
Despite that, the the data. In 26 states gays face substantial barriers in 2 more they face outright bans. In the remaining states, because they are often umarried or least not long time married they often only get low desirable children older, retarded.... Despite that they already account for 4% of all adoptions from agencies (65k), making them 30% more likely than the population as a whole. So this is not theoretical this is genuine on the ground attack with real victims. See for example NYTimes article.
So why has the liberal establishment become consumed with sympathy for this almost non-existent group of people? I think it shows their hatred of conservative Christianity more than it shows any compassion for anyone.
I think you might want to consider your own rhetoric here. I can understand you being mistaken about the numbers but jumping to anti-Christian bias strikes me as a bit paranoid. Now that you know that this is not a non existent problem but a real one, think about the people who told you it was non existent.
In the case of gay adoption sentimentalism would get the right answer if you went by what would feel right for the child rather than what would feel right for the prospective parents. Why should adoption be focused on affirming the parents and ignore the welfare of the child?
Absolutely lets consider the children. And what we find is that the children of homosexuals do better or about the same on just about every measure we have than the children of heterosexuals or about the same.
In particular the big conservative bugaboo, no differences in gender identification.
Or school achievements 2.9 GPA for homosexual raised children vs. 2.65 for hetro (boys)
Both groups involved in petty crime 18% during teen years.
etc...
Because Christians think it is wrong so it must be right.
No because secularists look at the data.
The denial of government funding to Catholic relief agencies because they oppose abortion is a very large and very stupid move in that direction by Obama.
No one has been denied funding for teaching opposition to abortion.
You are assuming the courts have not gotten dumber. They have. The courts are more interested in inventing new rights than in defending what is actually in the text of the constitution.
Then 2 generations ago? During the Warren court? No. We have strictist courts we've had since Roosevelt's first term, when the original intent pro business court had to cave.
The courts in all western countries have done very little to protect religious freedom.
Lets stick to America. I agree with you most western countries there is a real threat to religious freedoms to a great extent. The notion of "freedom of religion" seems to vary quite a bit by country, and there are genuine differences in what is allowed.
This has already happened in Illinois and I believe Massachusetts as well. Catholic adoption agencies have been closed down over this issue. So I am confused as to why you still think this could never happen.
ReplyDeleteFirst off neither Chicago nor Boston adoption agencies were closed down by the state. So no it didn't happen.
In Massachusetts Archbishop Sean O'Malley had asked for an exemption and had gotten a strong "no" from the vatican. The board of Boston Catholic Charities voted however to continue with gay adoptions. The Bishops wanted to challenge the Massachusetts law in court, but they don't have standing if the Boston Catholic Charities wanted to comply. I'm not seeing how the state forced this situation. You just had a Catholic agency that wanted to tell the Pope to go pound sand and their bishop (who was on the way to become their cardinal) responded by shutting them down. This was a fight inside the church that everyone just agreed to blame Romney / Massachusetts for rather than admit how divided they actually are.
The other big thing I see is that non-governmental charities like United Way were pulling their funding from Catholic Charities adoption at the time over these issues. Regardless the Diocese of Worcester didn't take drastic action and nothing has happened which I think proves that Boston at the very least was premature.
___
In Illinois nothing 7 adoption agencies received requests for information from the state DAs office and shut down immediately. Here the issue was policy regarding cohabitating couples, which included homosexuals but would have also applied unmarried heterosexuals. The direct target here wasn't even a Catholic agency it was Lutheran Child and Family Services, and it was a over a specific incident. In this case there was a complaint of discrimination filed by a 15 year old homosexual homeless kid who wanted foster services and was denied. Details are withheld but I fail to see any evidence how this wasn't the state following up on a complaint of criminal misconduct by asking initial questions to see if the practice is widespread. The worst I've heard accusations of was intimidation, not a shutdown.
So certain career choices would be unavailable to Catholics. That list would grow over time as everyone who hires Catholics would be labeled a homophobe, a bully, or whatever else they invent.
ReplyDeleteWhat you are describing is something like McCarthyism, and
a) The society is not unified enough today for that
b) Even if it were McCarthyism worked because it picked on a very small minority not a group with about a 1/4 of the population.
They just want the freedom to be Catholic. What good are power and privilege when you can't use them to do what you know is right?
The good they do is the ability to influence public opinion to create a broad consensus for your views. Bill Gates doesn't get the public transportation system he wants. The oil companies have lots of power but haven't yet repealed the state environmental agencies. Protestants were not able (for long) to teach Catholic children the errors of the Catholic church in the public schools despite their power. Freedom doesn't mean the right to do whatever you want to whomever you want.
Again, this is already happening. People who have been issuing marriage licenses for years suddenly lose their job because they can't in good conscience process gay marriages.
That actually hasn't happened. The only case that has even been discussed is Barbara MacEwen and the only person who has suggested she is going to get fired is the ADF (a right wing group). So far New York is just ignoring her, and assigning her other duties at the clerk's office. Much as she would like to be a martyr it doesn't appear NY is interested in taking the bait.
Now if you want a similar example. 2 years ago Keith Bardwell had his license pulled from the Governor for refusing to marry an interracial couple in Louisiana. Keith Bardwell doesn't like to be considered a racist but he is concerned about the children of intermarried couples.... Was Bardwell's religious freedom violated?
Obama has shown a willingness to abuse his power. Narrowing the definition of a religious institution.
What! Obama has nothing to do with that. IANAL but I believe the US code 501 status were written in 1954, Obama wasn't even born. The religious organizations that are effected by the HHS mandate derive a substantial percentage of their income from UBIT and well over the $5000 minimum. Which means separate incorporation and separate FEIN. Obama didn't change anything. Catholic hospitals that employee secular staff, treat secular patients and derive most of their income from secular sources like medicare, medicaid and private insurance in exchange for services aren't remotely close to qualifying as for the full exemptions of churches. This wasn't remotely a judgement call.
Can a pharmacist be fired for refusing to fill birth control prescriptions
ReplyDeleteTo be clear, pharmacists who oppose giving out birth control pills refuse to do so because they also act as abortifacients. Birth control pills do not simply prevent ovulation.
Peter
Same for the "emergency contraception."
ReplyDeletePeter
I think you might want to consider your own rhetoric here. I can understand you being mistaken about the numbers but jumping to anti-Christian bias strikes me as a bit paranoid. Now that you know that this is not a non existent problem but a real one, think about the people who told you it was non existent.
ReplyDeleteI was likely a little strong. I don't think I am mistaken about the numbers. Gays are a small minority to start with. Then homosexual couples are less likely than heterosexual couples to get married or into any sort of civil-union-equivalent where available, and more likely to get divorced if they are. (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/299944/gay-divorcees-charles-c-w-cooke# ). Then the ones that do form these unions are less interested in children. So you have a minority of a minority of a minority. Still not zero but it is fair to point out you are focusing on the black swans and ignoring the white ones.
You can count on the NYT to scour the world trying to find pro-gay data. Sure the numbers are changing because the legal climate is changing. The National Review numbers are for Europe after the numbers had settled down.
Am I paranoid to think it is anti-Christian? I know you think Democrats are purely logical and only Republicans can have their thinking influenced by party politics. I tend to see both sides as being irrational. But then I don't live there.
Liberals do see it as a badge of honor when they go against traditional Christianity. The zeal with which they have embraced this cause is quite remarkable. The strong language they use to describe their opponents. They have always been very comfortable demonizing Christians and now it has gone to a new level. It is very disturbing.
Now if you want a similar example. 2 years ago Keith Bardwell had his license pulled from the Governor for refusing to marry an interracial couple in Louisiana. Keith Bardwell doesn't like to be considered a racist but he is concerned about the children of intermarried couples.... Was Bardwell's religious freedom violated?
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting point. I have said before that the western concept of human rights requires some basic consensus about human dignity and right and wrong. Once that consensus disappears then democracy dies. Basically we have had an underlying Christian world and life view in the vast majority of the population and that has made things work. But we are losing that. So we can't even agree on what should be the bounds of basic freedoms. Muslim countries take it as a given that freedom of speech does not include the right to blaspheme the prophet. That seems strange to us.
Anyway, you asked whether gay marriage and freedom of religions were incompatible? It is not particularly gay marriage. But freedom must include some basis for agreement on what should be tolerated and what should not. When further the west gets from Christianity the less of a foundation there is for a free society. Gay marriage is just the most heated issue of the day. If we resolved it there would be others.
I think the more interesting stuff is the material on the tradition thread and the authority thread regarding morality. The gay issue should be quick to wrap up.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I am mistaken about the numbers. Gays are a small minority to start with. Then homosexual couples are less likely than heterosexual couples to get married or into any sort of civil-union-equivalent where available, and more likely to get divorced if they are.
First off we can't distinguish at this point:
1) What are functions of legal prohibitions on those numbers? Most of the country is still under fairly strong legal prohibitions and all of the country is under federal discrimination in terms of homosexual partnerships.
2) What are the cultural effects being worked through? Homosexual culture has changed a lot in the United States in the last 40 years. Pederasty has gone from normative to absolutely forbidden behavior among homosexuals. Male homosexuals are establishing stable relationships, especially in middle age. Lesbians have moved from primarily butch/femme relationships to exploring a whole range of alternatives (lipstick lesbians).
3) What are the long term differences caused by the fact these couples can't biologically reproduce? We know that reproduction is one of the primary reasons heterosexuals marry so it isn't unlikely that being non reproductive would pull down the marriage numbers.
I agree the Northern European numbers are evidence, but Northern Europe differs from the United States rather substantially on heterosexual marriage so we can't just blindly use them. However, if we are talking gay adoption and not gay marriage, we have a compensating factor. Homosexuals stable couples are much much more likely than heterosexual couples to adopt. They aren't a minority they are a super majority. And this is happening in the face of substantial legal discrimination and anti-gay policies.
Am I paranoid to think it is anti-Christian? I know you think Democrats are purely logical and only Republicans can have their thinking influenced by party politics.
ReplyDeleteThese are three different things you are conflating with this:
1) The degrees to which parties shape opinion. I agree that parties in the extended sense, i.e. including semi-political agencies like MSNBC for Democrats or FoxNews for Republicans shape opinion.
2) The Republican party is essentially the white evangelical party. 4/5ths of committed Republicans are white evangelicals, and 4/5ths of white evangelicals vote Republican. (NB: I'm not saying 4/5th of Republican are social issues voters). Conversely Liberal Protestants are mostly Democrats. Catholics are mostly Democrats though regular church going Catholics are mostly Republicans.
You want to define Christian to exclude Liberal Christians (Protestant and Catholic) and uncommitted Christians which are the overwhelming majority of the American population. If you define Christianity in a way that only leaves behind Republican subgroups, then yes the Democratic party is hostile to the social agenda of "Christian". However if you define Christianity in some sort of politically neutral way like: have they been baptized (i.e. the Catholic definition), claimed affiliation, what religious body they attend most often... you don't find nearly the same split.
3) Even if one were to accept your definition of Christian, the motivation of Democrats in opposing the Christian social agenda is not anti-Christianity. Democrats really and truly do believe in civil rights for all and oppose legal discrimination. They do not see a distinction between their fight for voting rights for Florida's black and hispanics and their fight for marriage rights for Florida's gays. And even though the groups of blacks being knocked off the voters roles vote far less often than the nation norm (a minority of a minority of a minority want to vote) they don't consider that particularly relevant in determining whether the state should deprive them of right to vote.
Liberals are opposed to the secular racist social conservatism of Florida. Liberals are just as opposed to Jewish, Hindu and Muslim social conservatives as they are Christian social conservatives. I think it is far more reasonable to say that Liberals oppose social conservatism not Christianity. At this point about 1/2 of all regular Democratic voters, and about 80+% of all donors are social liberal. So Democrats are anti-Christian only if you first exclude the vast majority of American Christians from consideration.
They have always been very comfortable demonizing Christians and now it has gone to a new level. It is very disturbing.
ReplyDeleteUp until 1964 the Democratic party was the socially conservative party in the United States and the Republicans the socially liberal party. That's when the shift started to happen. In the North East where I live there are still quite a few Republicans who are from the old socially liberal Republican ideology though far far less than a generation ago. What has happened in 2010 is that a huge percentage of the socially conservative Democrats lost their seats (the Blue Dogs for example went from 54 house seats to 26). What's happened is that North Eastern Republicans are now Democrats and have brought to the party their antipathy for Southern Evangelicals (who used to be Democrats and are now Republicans).
That is Liberals on the other hand have always opposed Conservative Christianity. That's not new. The last Republican governor of my state, Bush's EPA , is Christine Todd Whitman. She represents the extreme right for Liberals. As governor and before she used to openly mock the Christian Coalition. When she left office she wrote a book about how the real Republican party, the party of Eisenhower was "hijacked" by religious zealots.
There was a period in the 1980s and 1990s when social conservatives were divided and both parties were fighting for them. There is no demonization they are just aren't a swing constituency anymore. Think about the language you have used in these threads towards liberals in terms of demonization.
This is an interesting point. I have said before that the western concept of human rights requires some basic consensus about human dignity and right and wrong. Once that consensus disappears then democracy dies. Basically we have had an underlying Christian world and life view in the vast majority of the population and that has made things work. But we are losing that. So we can't even agree on what should be the bounds of basic freedoms.
ReplyDeleteSure we can agree and we can come to consensus including one in opposition to what had been the Christian teaching a few generations back. We've had a major shift on pornography for example in the last 40 years and an entirely new morality emerge, which is stricter in some respects and looser in others. We've had a major shift on contraception and a new morality of contraception has emerged. Opinions are rapidly shifting on cohabitation. And getting to the topic, opinions are rapidly shifting on gay rights. On the other hand the rules regarding teen / adult sexuality are much much stricter than they were two generations ago.
There isn't a failure of consensus. Rather what's happening is that a social consensus has been forming for about 2 generations just substantially to the left of where the Catholic church is. There are a group of about 40% of the population that are deeply opposed to some of these social changes, while still (if you look at the data) supporting most social changes. For example you are opposed to the sexual changes but seem to see the ethnic and racial social changes as positive.
The problem for the church then is that they are shifting from preaching a strict morality to preaching an alien morality. One of things I comment on is that America is deeply Protestant. Even the American forms of Catholicism and Judaism are Protestant. American Catholics are Cafeteria Catholics not secularists, because they are going to want their religion to preach a strict but not an alien morality they are going to create a Catholicism consistent with their theology. That's what is happening to Catholics.
What's likely going to happen is over a few generations gay marriage isn't going to be a big debate. It wouldn't be today if only 15-30 year olds could vote and that's with huge pressure being applied to keep people in line on this issue. Everywhere in the United States: gay bars, gay bookstores, gay newspapers exist openly. The most conservative cities are as tolerant towards homosexuals as San Francisco was during the 1960s. No one talks about the need for the police to close those places down. Sure it might be until 2070 that there is a city funded gay parade in Dallas or Little Rock but by 2100 there won't be an active debate on these issues.
The United States is not going to be able to maintain an active an open gay culture while practicing widespread discrimination. Heck just as homosexuals are following the path laid out by blacks, other sexual minorities like BDSM practitioners and swingers are following in the footsteps of homosexuals. Christians are going to have a whole other subgroup to worry about that is going to offended them much more. They are going to start to see homosexuals who, are willing as biologically possible, to fit into the 2 parent long term stable legal monogamous relationship as reinforcing not attacking Christian values.
Frankly I'd argue that the outlines of the social consensus was reached in the early 1980s. Gays can have equal rights and the end of legal persecution providing they drop pederasty and bath house culture (semi-public reoccurring orgies). That has mostly happened all throughout the United States, now. The second phase is cleaning up the laws to reflect the new on the ground reality.
And if you want an example in the church where this has fully played out. Look at church teachings on usury today vs. 500 years ago.
I think the more interesting stuff is the material on the tradition thread and the authority thread regarding morality. The gay issue should be quick to wrap up.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure we are good at wrapping up anything. I agree the morality discussion was better than the gay issue. But that is what people are talking about so it is hard not to react.
I disagree on where this is going long term. I think it will destroy Western civilization. We are losing our morals slowly. There are some short term moves in the other direction that you latch on to. I don't think they will stick. Pederasty and bath houses will come back. I don't know what you are referring to with "rules regarding teen / adult sexuality" but I expect that to get worse as well.
It is not just sexual morality although that is the center. Business ethics are worse. Political discourse is awful. People expect to be lied to by companies and politicians. Somehow the concept of "all men have been endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights" is going to survive? It has shown no signs of it. The courts are no longer a refuge from tyranny. More often they lead charge.
I expect Christians to end up being attacked by the state. By Christian I mean those that continue to believe something close to what the Catholic church teaches today. Not sure how many that will be. You are right that many have and many more will ditch Christianity in all but name to jump on the sinking ship of Western society.
What will happen then? We might get anarchy. We might get a Muslim takeover (more likely in Europe). We might get a resurgence of real Christianity. Christianity tends to come back after it has been killed. It is a lot like its founder that way. But there are no guarantees. It is a bit like an addict. The question is how far will he fall before he gets serious about recovery. Some get help quite early. Some die first. Some wait many miserable years and eventually turn it around. I think the answer will be different in different countries.
It is not just sexual morality although that is the center. Business ethics are worse. Political discourse is awful. People expect to be lied to by companies and politicians. Somehow the concept of "all men have been endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights" is going to survive? It has shown no signs of it. The courts are no longer a refuge from tyranny. More often they lead charge.
ReplyDeleteIts odd I have a very pessimistic streak, but I don't hold a candle. No question business ethics are worse on financial issues than they were 30 or 50 years ago. I see that as more cyclical, we are in a period of time when loose regulation is fashionable in financial areas. That being said business corruption of government is getting much harder. On the other hand on treatment of women issues, sexism and sexual harassment they are better. On racism far better, especially tolerance of ethnic minorities and accents, Things go up and down there isn't some general fall off.
Political discourse, in some sense is worse and in some sense better. Certainly the parties have less in common. We now have 2 political parties presenting two rather clearly differentiated positions about what kind of society we want, more or less accurately describing their views to the voters. That was never true in my life. I've mostly lived in a world of muddled parties with coalitions that were too fragile for clear idealogical battles. `We now have elections that are "about ideas not personalities".
To throw something that's gotten a lot better in the last decade, the news. 11 years ago I stopped reading any US media when it came to international news. Today the news is the most accurate, the most insightful and expects the most of its audience in my entire life.
I expect Christians to end up being attacked by the state. By Christian I mean those that continue to believe something close to what the Catholic church teaches today. Not sure how many that will be. You are right that many have and many more will ditch Christianity in all but name to jump on the sinking ship of Western society.
If it isn't very many... if we are talking something like the Amish, Hasidic Jews or the FLDS why would the state bother? Far better to let them live in isolated little communes and prove the state is tolerant. Christians only get attacked if they pose a threat, to pose a threat they either have to be uncontrollably violent or have huge numbers. And then you have a "Christianity in all but name" which is compatible with the state which does well.
Two corrections:
ReplyDeleteAnd then you have a "Christianity in all but name" which is compatible with the state which does well.
Should have been "Christianity in name only".
Christians only get attacked
Should have been Sects only get attacked.
I do see some positive things in the way we deal with race and with the opportunities made available to women. Not every change is bad. But what we have lost is the ability to tell good changes from bad changes. We have supreme faith that we know what is good. We just don't actually know. So we think we are competent to redesign important institutions like marriage. We just aren't. We could not be more clueless.
ReplyDeleteTo throw something that's gotten a lot better in the last decade, the news. 11 years ago I stopped reading any US media when it came to international news. Today the news is the most accurate, the most insightful and expects the most of its audience in my entire life.
I would not say this at all. I know when it comes to Catholicism they get almost every story completely wrong. I can find the real story when it comes to the church because I know what blogs to check and where to find the relevant documents. So whenever I am able to check their accuracy I find they fail and fail big. On most stories I have no idea if they go it right. They are my only source of information. But I tend to distrust them.
It could be that you trust the news because it makes the same philosophical assumptions you do. Basically a secular liberal mindset. I used to be a liberal. I still am on many issues. but over the last few decades the liberals lost their moral center and I found mine. Now I see huge problems in both parties but the Democratic problems are bigger.
It could be that you trust the news because it makes the same philosophical assumptions you do. Basically a secular liberal mindset.
ReplyDeleteNope they were equally secular / liberal (I'd disagree with both but I understand its a question of perspective) 11 years ago. What's happened is they hit bottom and bounced back. Once research budgets were cut the way the best mainstream players got information was access to powerful people. Access was sold in exchange for editorial support.
That combination though killed their credibility with more than just me. So alternative news sources started doing research. Very much like the blogs you mention. And now the media can vet independent research on topics it cares about, which is terrific. The research quality of blogs with mainstream vetting.
I agree with you that the media doesn't care about religious topics. They play in unpredictable ways with regard to advertising for example. So coverage is just punching in the basics.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete