The Moral Wars

[Occams Barber]

Personally, I think the defining major conflict - which, while not always explicit, often underlies many other conflicts - is actually the idea that religious communities (by which I mean churches, synagogues, mosques, temples etc and the people who cluster around them; not just monasteries which is often the more limited sense of the term) have a valid place in society and a right to set their own boundaries, define their own identity and decide their own practice.

Gradually we are seeing that idea - once taken for granted - being increasingly challenged and encroached upon by the state. And although I might find particular encroachments necessary or good or positive individually, I find the trend that the state feels it can encroach in that way concerning.

We might possibly call this conflict: the right to ecclesial self-determination. (With the caveat that that's a very Christianity-centric term).

The state encroaches on all of us. The difference is that the Church has been given something of a free run for way too long. The result is an organisation which collectively sees its privileges as rights. Christian privilege is something I've explored at length in past CF threads.

From my point of view the Church can have all the self determination it wants with one major proviso:

When the Church interacts with the rest of the world it does so based on the same legal, financial, ethical, social, moral rules and constraints as the rest of us. In effect I extend to the Church the right of equal treatment. For too long the Church has demanded equality without accepting an obligation to meet the standards of a broader society - to act equal. What the Church does behind closed doors is it's business providing it breaks no laws and accepts that it has the same rights and obligations as the rest of us.

OB

 

[zippy2006]

You're right that not everything that's a major issue is a major issue because of what I posted about. But I think even many of those major issues which are not inherently related derive a good bit of their emotional investment and energy from the conflict that I pointed out.

When people feel that society is going to hell in a handbasket, and they feel as if the community in which they wish to seek refuge from that is under threat, it creates a fair degree of anxiety, with all that flows from that.

True. In the United States there has been some fringe talk about resuscitating "Integralism," or the union of Church and State. In practical terms it would mean conservatism moving away from the neutrality of classical liberalism and Originalism towards a more ideologically bold political position which more directly counters the ideologically bold agenda of the left.

I find the whole thing curious, but to your point, I think the Western inheritance of classical liberalism ought to be appreciated and renewed, for religious are becoming minorities and it is an excellent system for ensuring the rights and freedoms of minorities. So as with any decadent culture I think there will be threats, but I think classical liberalism and Protestant Church-State separation furnish us with helpful tools. This would be all the more true if Christians were eventually perceived as a non-privileged class.

Edit: I think this is one of the reasons I dislike alarmism and manufacturing unifying threats. I dislike these things in themselves, but they also impede classical liberalism where diverse populations co-exist peacefully. When there is bounty and security it is easy to co-exist with others who differ from you in various ways. When there is an imminent threat or the perception of an imminent threat--such as wars, threatening economic rivals, global warming, a deadly virus, or anything else--diversity and legitimate differences are sacrificed for the good of the whole. For example, when Hitler brings Britain to death's door the pacifists are expected to fight, and there is enormous societal pressure for them to do so. The herd mentality is activated and the minorities are expected to assimilate. If we could use our massive prosperity in the service of avoiding such unifying/homogenizing threats I think classical liberalism, diversity, and minorities would be much obliged.

 

[Paidiske]

What the Church does behind closed doors is it's business providing it breaks no laws and accepts that it has the same rights and obligations as the rest of us.

While I appreciate your point of view, OB, and I think you've seen me argue on CF often in ways broadly in sympathy with the spirit of your post, I think the crux of the issue is in the part of your post I've quoted; "providing it breaks no laws..." But when laws are framed which either do not take into account, or are actively hostile to, the practice of the faith, what then?

That's the conflict I'm highlighting as a major area of concern, wherever one might fall on the particular question of the goodness of any particular law.

 

[Occams Barber]

But when laws are framed which either do not take into account, or are actively hostile to, the practice of the faith, what then?

If the law is framed for the good of society as a whole then I see no reason to exempt the Church. It is entirely possible that a generic law will be 'actively hostile to the faith'. As long as that law is applied even handedly across the board I see no ethical problem. If the law is basically just and justified in a broader society then we could argue that exempting the Church is allowing the Church to be 'actively hostile to society'.

I have trouble imagining a law which is both good for society while at the same time actively hostile to the faith without inventing extreme examples.

• Imagine 'the faith' believes in child marriage but the law forbids them. Is it being actively hostile to the faith to require the Church to conform to the law?

• Should a faith be allowed to discriminate in employment of a particular group because it has a religious objection to the nature of the group?

Where are the boundaries Paidiske? Based on past experience can we simply trust the Church's judgement? How can we justify an exemption for the Church and not apply exemptions to other groups?

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

I do agree that secular morality proselytizes and coerces in a way that our age has never before seen.

If demanding that Christianity plays by the same rules as everyone else amounts to proselyting and coercion, then I'm guilty as charged.

The reason you haven't seen it before is because society is finally seeing the Church in the light of the privilege it demands.

OB

 

[jayem]

Lost Causes?
· Sexual activity outside of marriage
· Acceptance of homosexuality
· Female equality
· Contraception
>Marriage like relationships" (aka 'shacking up')

• Children out of wedlock" (single or partnered)

Is this list a reasonably summary of sacred/secular battle lines? What have I missed?

I'd add divorce to the Lost Cause list. At the very least, the stigma it once had has nearly vanished.

I see the secular view as winning on all fronts. Am I wrong?

I don't see this as a matter of winning or losing. It's cultural evolution. Traditional religious views--particularly regarding personal, private behavior--have tended to be authoritarian. Modern western society has become more libertarian. That's the real change. I suspect it's related to technology and near-instantaneous mass communication. Which has provided a platform whereby values and attitudes that were once considered on the fringe and unspeakable, are now open and accessible. (Some would say celebrated.) But it's inevitable, and necessary, that societies evolve. Just like in biology, whatever can't evolve to thrive a changed environment goes extinct.

 

[Bradskii]

Modern western society has become more libertarian. That's the real change. I suspect it's related to technology and near-instantaneous mass communication.

That crack you heard was a nail being firmly hit on the head with a hammer. The fact that we all have all the information we need literally at our finger tips has changed everything. Not always as well as we might have hoped, but if you have any questions or doubts then you aren't limited to getting your information from your priest/teacher/parent.

There is an old saw that says if you want to make a man an atheist, send him to a seminary. Quite often the more you learn about any given subject results in you having more questions. And questions that aren't answered to your satisfaction leads at best to doubt.

My first steps toward atheism was when I was going through confirmation in the CofE in order to be able to take communion. And I started thinking - really? Am I supposed to actually believe all this? So started my own investigation. And that took a lot of books and quite a long time. I could well imagine having the access to information that we have now and being in a much better position to question what I was being told.

 

[Occams Barber]

I'd add divorce to the Lost Cause list. At the very least, the stigma it once had has nearly vanished.

Thanks - I've added Divorce.

I don't see this as a matter of winning or losing. It's cultural evolution. Traditional religious views--particularly regarding personal, private behavior--have tended to be authoritarian. Modern western society has become more libertarian. That's the real change. I suspect it's related to technology and near-instantaneous mass communication. Which has provided a platform whereby values and attitudes that were once considered on the fringe and unspeakable, are now open and accessible. (Some would say celebrated.) But it's inevitable, and necessary, that societies evolve. Just like in biology, whatever can't evolve to thrive a changed environment goes extinct.

Since I'm a moral relativist I also see morality as a thing which evolves and changes. I suspect that changes in communication have accelerated new thinking which has been slowly gaining pace since WW2. I agree that the breakdown of religious authority has allowed the possibility of questioning religious absolutes.

I think that Christians have yet to come to grips with their change in status from the arbiter of morals to just another opinion.

OB

 

[Paidiske]

If the law is framed for the good of society as a whole then I see no reason to exempt the Church. It is entirely possible that a generic law will be 'actively hostile to the faith'. As long as that law is applied even handedly across the board I see no ethical problem. If the law is basically just and justified in a broader society then we could argue that exempting the Church is allowing the Church to be 'actively hostile to society'.

I'm not sure. I think freedom of religion might mean that generic laws should not be framed in such a way as to compel people of particular beliefs, unless to prevent demonstrable harm. There's a lot of grey area there that is currently being contested in a variety of ways. This is not uniquely a Christian issue, by the way; one example I'm aware of, impacting another faith, is the push in some places to outlaw infant circumcision of boys.

However, my point in posting in this thread was not to argue this one either way, because I think there are particular laws which serve as examples on either side of the argument. But simply to put forward that, to my mind and from what I observe in real life and a variety of online environments, this is an area of major conflict.

I have trouble imagining a law which is both good for society while at the same time actively hostile to the faith without inventing extreme examples.

I'll give you an example; the extension of mandatory reporting to matters disclosed in the confessional. While that was not a particular problem for my tradition, which felt itself able to adapt to that secular requirement, for Catholics it is a significant and ongoing issue.

(Side note: I have other issues with whether or not mandatory reporting is actually helping abuse come to light or pushing it further underground, but that is a bigger-picture issue to do with mandatory reporting as a concept, not the question of whether or not it should apply specifically to confession).

Where are the boundaries Paidiske?

And this is exactly the issue. I do not pretend to have all the answers, although I am usually able to come to a comfortable place in my own mind on a case-by-case basis. But you asked us to name areas of conflict, and I have given you one you did not seem to have thought of.

Based on past experience can we simply trust the Church's judgement?

No indeed, and I had hoped you would know me well enough to realise that wasn't what I was suggesting.

How can we justify an exemption for the Church and not apply exemptions to other groups?

It's interesting that we've immediately framed this as a question of "exemptions." That's the way it's typically been dealt with in Australian law, but it's not the only way to deal with it. I would argue that a more consultative and collaborative approach (which would include a more constructive attitude from faith groups) in the drafting of legislation might make large exemptions unnecessary, but I'm probably being a tad idealistic there...

 

[Bradskii]

I would argue that a more consultative and collaborative approach (which would include a more constructive attitude from faith groups) in the drafting of legislation might make large exemptions unnecessary, but I'm probably being a tad idealistic there...

Unless the legislation directly affects a religion (you must marry gay people/you are excused from marrying gay people) then legislation is formulated on the basis of preventing harm. So you'd need to show what harm might occur for any given legislation.

Is that reasonable?

 

[Paidiske]

Unless the legislation directly affects a religion (you must marry gay people/you are excused from marrying gay people) then legislation is formulated on the basis of preventing harm. So you'd need to show what harm might occur for any given legislation.

Is that reasonable?

It's certainly a start. But it might also be about how we achieve desired outcomes.

For example, I'm on record here on CF vigorously supporting Victoria's recent ban on conversion therapy. But I would argue that the way it was done was clumsy, and working with faith groups in forming the legislation might have both produced better-drafted legislation, and avoided much angst and ill-will.

 

[disciple Clint]

Sacred vs Secular – The Moral Wars

If we go back as little as 100 years, Christianity and secular Western opinion would have, more or less, publicly agreed on a set of moral values or rules.

In my lifetime I’ve seen a gradual separation of sacred and secular opinion on a number of major issues usually - but not always - related to sexual behaviour. This moral rupture appears to be ongoing. In trying to list the various areas of sacred/secular conflict I ended up dividing the list into three groups:

Major Conflicts
Areas where Christian doctrine and the opinions of Christians more or less agree and are in opposition to a secular majority. These are the ongoing hard-fought battles where the split is basically along sacred/secular lines.

Lesser Conflicts
Areas where Christian opinion and doctrine is mixed. While many Christians accept the secular view there is still a significant and vocal Christian opposition based on doctrinal arguments. Outside of the US many of these would qualify as ‘Lost Causes’.

Lost Causes?
The true is/oughts. Concepts which may have Christian doctrinal disagreement but have essentially lost the battle. Quietly accepted by most Westernised Christians.

The list:

Major Conflicts
· Abortion
· Assisted dying
· Same sex marriage
· Gender transition – particularly in younger people

Lesser Conflicts
· Evolution
· Age of the Earth/Universe
· Biblical literalism e.g.

o Genesis
o Noah’s flood
o The Tower of Babel​

· Acceptance of non-stereotypical gender behaviour

Lost Causes?
· Sexual activity outside of marriage
· Acceptance of homosexuality
· Female equality
· Contraception

• Marriage like relationships" (aka 'shacking up')
• Children out of wedlock" (single or partnered)
• Divorce

Is this list a reasonably summary of sacred/secular battle lines? What have I missed?

I see the secular view as winning on all fronts. Am I wrong?

This thread is not about who ‘ought’ to win but who, in real terms, is winning the battle for public acceptance.

OB
Edit: Red text = later additions

God is real
our nation being a Christian nation

 

[Occams Barber]

God is real
our nation being a Christian nation

This thread is not about the reality, or otherwise, of God.

Nor is it about your nation.

OB

 

[disciple Clint]

This thread is not about the reality, or otherwise, of God.

Nor is it about your nation.

OB

are those not values?

 

[Matt5]

Sacred vs Secular – The Moral Wars

If we go back as little as 100 years, Christianity and secular Western opinion would have, more or less, publicly agreed on a set of moral values or rules.

In my lifetime I’ve seen a gradual separation of sacred and secular opinion on a number of major issues usually - but not always - related to sexual behaviour. This moral rupture appears to be ongoing. In trying to list the various areas of sacred/secular conflict I ended up dividing the list into three groups:

Major Conflicts
Areas where Christian doctrine and the opinions of Christians more or less agree and are in opposition to a secular majority. These are the ongoing hard-fought battles where the split is basically along sacred/secular lines.

Lesser Conflicts
Areas where Christian opinion and doctrine is mixed. While many Christians accept the secular view there is still a significant and vocal Christian opposition based on doctrinal arguments. Outside of the US many of these would qualify as ‘Lost Causes’.

Lost Causes?
The true is/oughts. Concepts which may have Christian doctrinal disagreement but have essentially lost the battle. Quietly accepted by most Westernised Christians.

The list:

Major Conflicts
· Abortion
· Assisted dying
· Same sex marriage
· Gender transition – particularly in younger people

Lesser Conflicts
· Evolution
· Age of the Earth/Universe
· Biblical literalism e.g.

o Genesis
o Noah’s flood
o The Tower of Babel​

· Acceptance of non-stereotypical gender behaviour

Lost Causes?
· Sexual activity outside of marriage
· Acceptance of homosexuality
· Female equality
· Contraception

• Marriage like relationships" (aka 'shacking up')
• Children out of wedlock" (single or partnered)
• Divorce

Is this list a reasonably summary of sacred/secular battle lines? What have I missed?

I see the secular view as winning on all fronts. Am I wrong?

This thread is not about who ‘ought’ to win but who, in real terms, is winning the battle for public acceptance.

OB
Edit: Red text = later additions

It's already over but most people don't know it. The (secular) religion of equality wins. Most people don't even understand what equality means, and that is just another reason it wins. Christianity itself is being undermined from within by the ideas of equality.

Let's look at one example of how equality is a destroyer. If men and women are equal, then women should be able to behave sexually like men - by sleeping around. The problem here is that women sleep up and men sleep down. If a 5-gal sleeps with a 9-guy, is she now a 9-gal? In her mind she is, and she becomes unmarriageable because no 9-guy will marry her. She refuses to "settle" for that 6-guy.

I just watched a video where a women is discussing her plight in being unable to find an acceptable mate. It was so sad. But she is plain looking with unrealistic standards for a guy. She will probably never marry and never have kids.

On Tinder the 80/20 rule applies: 80% of the women are going after 20% of the guys. All the other guys are getting scraps. Marriage and kids are going to stay in decline.

From the oral Torah, we get the real reason for the Tower of Babel: equality. They were playing the same equality game as today: the transformation of stones (everybody unequal) into bricks (everybody equal). Does anyone believe that God makes a big intervention without a seriously big reason?

 

[Occams Barber]

I'm not sure. I think freedom of religion might mean that generic laws should not be framed in such a way as to compel people of particular beliefs, unless to prevent demonstrable harm. There's a lot of grey area there that is currently being contested in a variety of ways. This is not uniquely a Christian issue, by the way; one example I'm aware of, impacting another faith, is the push in some places to outlaw infant circumcision of boys.

However, my point in posting in this thread was not to argue this one either way, because I think there are particular laws which serve as examples on either side of the argument. But simply to put forward that, to my mind and from what I observe in real life and a variety of online environments, this is an area of major conflict.

No law should exist unless it can be shown to prevent harm. The problem is that religions seek the right to cause that harm simply because they're religions. Sometimes a bit of conflict is useful in understanding how serious an issue has become.

Circumcision is an almost classic example of what I'm talking about. If it were shown that the risks associated with circumcision outweighed the benefits I would have no problem in outlawing the process. As it is the issue is mixed with potential health issues in 3rd word countries and a resistance (both Jewish and non-Jewish) based on tradition rather than common sense.

I'll give you an example; the extension of mandatory reporting to matters disclosed in the confessional. While that was not a particular problem for my tradition, which felt itself able to adapt to that secular requirement, for Catholics it is a significant and ongoing issue.

(Side note: I have other issues with whether or not mandatory reporting is actually helping abuse come to light or pushing it further underground, but that is a bigger-picture issue to do with mandatory reporting as a concept, not the question of whether or not it should apply specifically to confession).

Your confessional example is one where I have no qualms in mandating reporting. Given that parsons and counsellors and psychiatrists and psvchologists need to report I see absolutely no reason why Catholic priests should be exempted. The argument about pushing things underground applies equally to all potential reporters. In any case it's secondary to the principle of equality.

It's interesting that we've immediately framed this as a question of "exemptions." That's the way it's typically been dealt with in Australian law, but it's not the only way to deal with it. I would argue that a more consultative and collaborative approach (which would include a more constructive attitude from faith groups) in the drafting of legislation might make large exemptions unnecessary, but I'm probably being a tad idealistic there...

By all means consult but consultation and collaboration would simply lead to requests for exemption. Remember that Christianity is a ragtag bunch of competing ideologies and opinions and is seriously in a mess. As long as Christianity continues to see itself as 'special' we will have a problem.

There's no logic to giving Christianity a way out. It's about time that Christianity faced up to its obligation to be a full member of society with all the responsibilities that entails instead of the pariah it has become.


I know you well enough to know that we agree on many more things than we disagree on. I also respect your opinion even if I will sometimes disagree.

OB

 

[Paidiske]

If men and women are equal, then women should be able to behave sexually like men - by sleeping around.

Or here's a radical thought; if men and women are equal, the same high ideals for sexuality and relationships apply to both. There is no reason why equality between men and women should mean holding everyone to the lowest common denominator.

 

[Occams Barber]

It's already over but most people don't know it. The (secular) religion of equality wins. Most people don't even understand what equality means, and that is just another reason it wins. Christianity itself is being undermined from within by the ideas of equality.

Let's look at one example of how equality is a destroyer. If men and women are equal, then women should be able to behave sexually like men - by sleeping around. The problem here is that women sleep up and men sleep down. If a 5-gal sleeps with a 9-guy, is she now a 9-gal? In her mind she is, and she becomes unmarriageable because no 9-guy will marry her. She refuses to "settle" for that 6-guy.

I just watched a video where a women is discussing her plight in being unable to find an acceptable mate. It was so sad. But she is plain looking with unrealistic standards for a guy. She will probably never marry and never have kids.

On Tinder the 80/20 rule applies: 80% of the women are going after 20% of the guys. All the other guys are getting scraps. Marriage and kids are going to stay in decline.

From the oral Torah, we get the real reason for the Tower of Babel: equality. They were playing the same equality game as today: the transformation of stones (everybody unequal) into bricks (everybody equal). Does anyone believe that God makes a big intervention without a seriously big reason?

I'm guessing you don't like equality?

OB

 

[Paidiske]

No law should exist unless it can be shown to prevent harm. The problem is that religions seek the right to cause that harm simply because they're religions. Sometimes a bit of conflict is useful in understanding how serious an issue has become.

While I don't disagree that religions seeking the right to cause harm sometimes happens, I also think that this can lead to a lot of misunderstanding and intolerance.

And in the meantime, lots of laws exist on far less rational bases than what you've suggested here, so we need to deal with that reality, too.

The argument about pushing things underground applies equally to all potential reporters.

Yes, I agree. But my point was, here is an example where a law drafted for the good of society is actively hostile to the Catholic faith. And perhaps unnecessarily so, although I realise that the Catholic church largely backed themselves into that particular sociological corner.

By all means consult but consultation and collaboration would simply lead to requests for exemption.

Not necessarily. The government wants to achieve A; it sets about doing that in a way which would impact faith groups negatively; the faith groups are able to suggest adapting the plan so as to still achieve A without the negative impact. It's not all about exemptions.

As long as Christianity continues to see itself as 'special' we will have a problem.

This, I think, gets close to my sense of the area of major conflict. Freedom of religion is an internationally protected human right. In that sense, any religion is "special." Not that it should be able to harm people - and again, my track record on that point is, I hope, very clear on CF - but that absent that harm, faith groups have a right to exist and function on their own terms.

It's about time that Christianity faced up to its obligation to be a full member of society with all the responsibilities that entails instead of the pariah it has become.

I don't disagree with you. Again, this is a complex matter and, as a locus of major conflict, not one on which I would put myself entirely on an opposing side to you. But I think it would be good if we could simply note that this is a locus of major conflict, and maybe even ask ourselves what resolving that conflict constructively would look like, for both "sides."

 

[GDL]

They are not intrinsically harmful.

Theoretically.

There's no logic to giving Christianity a way out. It's about time that Christianity faced up to its obligation to be a full member of society with all the responsibilities that entails instead of the pariah it has become.

And then, realistically, there's the opposite view as to which is the pariah.

Your points about the cultural wars are well-taken, but do not apply to all Christians who would also simply say that we don't need a way out, but already have it and will maintain it personally and in whatever group numbers there actually are. Also, to do what you suggest here is simply to say there is no Christianity, which, also simply, just gets us back to the sentence immediately preceding.

Interesting thread.