The Moral Wars

[Rachel20]

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

Some Christians have though. There are even some who welcome it as a refiner.

 

[zippy2006]

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

This topic seems to elicit a lot of enmity from you, and you seem to be relying on emotional, strawman-esque argumentation rather than a charitable steelman approach. Some of the caricatures you have given include:

• The idea that religious morality is merely a result of "Divine Command Theory" and has no rational basis.
• The claim that all laws are basically just and that Paidiske's idea that there could be laws which unjustly target religious institutions is a non-starter.
• The idea that Christianity is nothing more than a privileged institution which basically needs to be punished for that status.

This appears to be a case of historical ignorance and a failure to engage the legitimate positions of the opposing side. The ironic thing is that the principles you have laid out favor a kind of secular totalitarianism. What history tells us is that no matter how bad the religious totalitarian states got, the atheistic totalitarian states were much, much worse. It is curious to find seculars transposing the divine right of kings into the divine right of the state while at the same time eschewing the divine, but you see it all the time.

 

[Speedwell]

This topic seems to elicit a lot of enmity from you, and you seem to be relying on emotional, strawman-esque argumentation rather than a charitable steelman approach. Some of the caricatures you have given include:

• The idea that religious morality is merely a result of "Divine Command Theory" and has no rational basis.

• We are discussing the situation with some of those particular aspects of Christian morality which have little or no rational basis. Some have no more basis than a sectarian interpretation of scripture.

  [*]The claim that all laws are basically just and that Paidiske's idea that there could be laws which unjustly target religious institutions is a non-starter.

  Piffle. There are in fact and have been laws which unjustly target religious institutions.

  [*]The idea that Christianity is nothing more than a privileged institution...

  Which is exactly what it is from the standpoint of the rest of society.

  which basically needs to be punished for that status.

  No, just reminded that its privileged position is unwarranted.

This appears to be a case of historical ignorance and a failure to engage the legitimate positions of the opposing side. The ironic thing is that the principles you have laid out favor a kind of secular totalitarianism. What history tells us is that no matter how bad the religious totalitarian states got, the atheistic totalitarian states were much, much worse. It is curious to find seculars transposing the divine right of kings into the divine right of the state while at the same time eschewing the divine, but you see it all the time.

I wasn't aware that we were discussing the situation in totalitarian states.

 

[jayem]

God is real
our nation being a Christian nation

We’re a nation of Christians. And also of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and almost every religious belief (and non-belief) under the sun. What’s much more important is that our government is secular. And can show no preference or favoritism to any one lawful religious belief or variety of worship over another.

And for the record, the percentage of Americans identifying as Christian has been rather steadily declining over the years. While the percentage of those indentifying as Other or None has been increasing. Here’s survey data from the Statista site:

Self-described religious identification of Americans 2020 | Statista

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

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).

I would just point out that one of the essential points of the idea of Freedom has always been the Liberty of the Church. That was in fact, the first clause of the Magna Carta.

 

[zippy2006]

I wasn't aware that we were discussing the situation in totalitarian states.

Regarding his exchange with Paidiske, what is the difference between the Inquisition and OB's approach, apart from the color of the jersey? In both cases you have a powerful entity deciding that they are the only game in town and that rival factions must be rooted out. It is the selfsame model that is unable to tolerate a difference of opinion. So you have the common case of someone falling into the very thing they claim to oppose. Instead of a religious despot we get a secular despot.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

This topic seems to elicit a lot of enmity from you, and you seem to be relying on emotional, strawman-esque argumentation rather than a charitable steelman approach. Some of the caricatures you have given include:

• The idea that religious morality is merely a result of "Divine Command Theory" and has no rational basis.
• The claim that all laws are basically just and that Paidiske's idea that there could be laws which unjustly target religious institutions is a non-starter.
• The idea that Christianity is nothing more than a privileged institution which basically needs to be punished for that status.

This appears to be a case of historical ignorance and a failure to engage the legitimate positions of the opposing side. The ironic thing is that the principles you have laid out favor a kind of secular totalitarianism. What history tells us is that no matter how bad the religious totalitarian states got, the atheistic totalitarian states were much, much worse. It is curious to find seculars transposing the divine right of kings into the divine right of the state while at the same time eschewing the divine, but you see it all the time.

GK Chesterton famously said that once man no longer worships God, he worships the world - as man naturally worships. In so doing, he will worship whatever seems strongest to him in it, which is usually the State or whatever the current fad is.

 

[Speedwell]

Regarding his exchange with Paidiske, what is the difference between the Inquisition and OB's approach, apart from the color of the jersey? In both cases you have a powerful entity deciding that they are the only game in town and that rival factions must be rooted out. It is the selfsame model that is unable to tolerate a difference of opinion. So you have the common case of someone falling into the very thing they claim to oppose. Instead of a religious despot we get a secular despot.

I'm not sure I can follow you quite there. What is your opinion about how much political power (beyond that of the individual votes of its followers) a religious institution should wield in a secular state? You seem to imply that they are competing power centers.

 

[zippy2006]

In so doing, he will worship whatever seems strongest to him in it, which is usually the State or whatever the current fad is.

Interesting! I am familiar with Chesterton's quote but I had never drawn it out to determine exactly what man is most likely to worship in the world. I suppose in the past pleasure, power, glory, and honor were all fair candidates. Nowadays the obscene power of the modern nation-state is probably a clear favorite. Politics and public policy has certainly become front-and-center for many people.

 

[zippy2006]

I'm not sure I can follow you quite there. What is your opinion about how much political power (beyond that of the individual votes of its followers) a religious institution should wield in a secular state? You seem to imply that they are competing power centers.

My point is that it is the same people who are most resentful of the despotic religious institutions of the past who are most likely to be attempting to impose similar, despotic secular institutions in the present. It logically leads them to the conclusion that religion qua religion is the problem and secularism qua secularism is the solution, but that is a very difficult conclusion to sustain.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I don't really understand the premise. The idea being what conflicts there are between Christian morality and the Secular one? Well, those two things are really not comparable anymore, as the latter has gone off-kilter into the vague, or the absolutely relative (as you yourself intimate).

It makes one think of the young cadres raised in the Soviet Union say, that would consider the forceful liquidisation of the Kulaks as a moral good, or the Nazis killing the Jews. These are not moral actions I would think, but are the prevailing societal model there. In similar vein, slavery prior to its abolition by Christendom, or Infanticide in ancient Sparta or Carthage, or human sacrifice in Meso-America. Either we judge these dispassionately as evil actions, or we accept them as good to those societies in the relative model - which renders moral precepts merely my Jingoism above yours, and thus negates any value the concept holds. Even if wectake some Social Darwinist approach, you would still essentially just assume your side more right to continue and live on account of being yours.

Either things are intrinsically Good or moral, or the concept actually doesn't exist and anything is as good as anything else. As far as I am concerned, you either have to assume that something is axiomatically good, that feeding a child better than killing it, and that immediately implies a standard to which you can reach. If you try and ascertain that standard, whether it is by Natural Law or Revelation matters not, you are still assuming a Rational base for morality that is not just a relative hodgepodge.

I don't think Christianity, or anyone, has really budged at all. History is long, and we are still in that phase that follows the start of the decline of great civilisations, where much is turned on its head. No one is okay with getting divorced, most young girls don't want to sleep around (bit different for the boys, of course), and even things like homosexuality or abortion or euthanasia we see the erection of euphemism. If you can't mention the thing in plain terms, you are erecting smoke and mirrors to deflect. I don't think there is a clear idea of any morality in the secular world, only the detritus of a decaying Christian fabric. The Christians that still cling to this have forgotten that we are in the world, but not of it. Christianity will move a bit counter-culturally, but time is long. Aberrant societies, with weird ideas as I mentioned earlier, existed before and we are just creating another one like it - the correction will come, either by human hands or by the Divine. I mean, the optimum functioning of humans by the evidence, cold hard data, shows monogamous male-female family units with close family ties are by far the most succesful and commonplace human model - by simple Darwinism, a correction can be expected. I wouldn't put too much stock in just our moment of time as somehow special.

 

[Speedwell]

My point is that it is the same people who are most resentful of the despotic religious institutions of the past who are most likely to be attempting to impose similar, despotic secular institutions in the present.

What is despotic about laws passed in a Constitutional democracy? Can you think of any despotic institutions that OB would like to impose?

It logically leads them to the conclusion that religion qua religion is the problem and secularism qua secularism is the solution, but that is a very difficult conclusion to sustain.

Does it? You're the only one who seems to be drawing it.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't really understand the premise. The idea being what conflicts there are between Christian morality and the Secular one? Well, those two things are really not comparable anymore, as the latter has gone off-kilter into the vague, or the absolutely relative (as you yourself intimate).

It makes one think of the young cadres raised in the Soviet Union say, that would consider the forceful liquidisation of the Kulaks as a moral good, or the Nazis killing the Jews. These are not moral actions I would think, but are the prevailing societal model there. In similar vein, slavery prior to its abolition by Christendom, or Infanticide in ancient Sparta or Carthage, or human sacrifice in Meso-America. Either we judge these dispassionately as evil actions, or we accept them as good to those societies in the relative model - which renders moral precepts merely my Jingoism above yours, and thus negates any value the concept holds. Even if wectake some Social Darwinist approach, you would still essentially just assume your side more right to continue and live on account of being yours.

Either things are intrinsically Good or moral, or the concept actually doesn't exist and anything is as good as anything else. As far as I am concerned, you either have to assume that something is axiomatically good, that feeding a child better than killing it, and that immediately implies a standard to which you can reach. If you try and ascertain that standard, whether it is by Natural Law or Revelation matters not, you are still assuming a Rational base for morality that is not just a relative hodgepodge.

I don't think Christianity, or anyone, has really budged at all. History is long, and we are still in that phase that follows the start of the decline of great civilisations, where much is turned on its head. No one is okay with getting divorced, most young girls don't want to sleep around (bit different for the boys, of course), and even things like homosexuality or abortion or euthanasia we see the erection of euphemism. If you can't mention the thing in plain terms, you are erecting smoke and mirrors to deflect. I don't think there is a clear idea of any morality in the secular world, only the detritus of a decaying Christian fabric. The Christians that still cling to this have forgotten that we are in the world, but not of it. Christianity will move a bit counter-culturally, but time is long. Aberrant societies, with weird ideas as I mentioned earlier, existed before and we are just creating another one like it - the correction will come, either by human hands or by the Divine. I mean, the optimum functioning of humans by the evidence, cold hard data, shows monogamous male-female family units with close family ties are by far the most succesful and commonplace human model - by simple Darwinism, a correction can be expected. I wouldn't put too much stock in just our moment of time as somehow special.

And we're all on this slippery slope because an immoral secular state is requiring Christians to do awful things like acknowledging the civil rights of gays?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

And we're all on this slippery slope because an immoral secular state is requiring Christians to do awful things like acknowledging the civil rights of gays?

I seem to have missed where I said anything about a slippery slope, or gay civil rights?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Interesting! I am familiar with Chesterton's quote but I had never drawn it out to determine exactly what man is most likely to worship in the world. I suppose in the past pleasure, power, glory, and honor were all fair candidates. Nowadays the obscene power of the modern nation-state is probably a clear favorite. Politics and public policy has certainly become front-and-center for many people.

It is in his Christendom in Dublin. He actually directly references Lenin, so that man will worship the State is lifted straight from GK himself.

 

[Speedwell]

I seem to have missed where I said anything about a slippery slope, or gay civil rights?

But I didn't miss the part where you asserted that the only morality is Christian morality. and that without it civilization is doomed. That sounds like a "slippery slope" to me.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

But I didn't miss the part where you asserted that the only morality is Christian morality. and that without it civilization is doomed. That sounds like a "slippery slope" to me.

I certainly missed that. No, I said our civilisation is in decline, as in the West. We are certainly in that analogous period of say the third century crisis in Rome or the terminal fifth. Never said we are doomed without Cristian morality - I think we are probably more or less doomed anyway - but Christianity has always been a defining feature of Western Civilisation and I don't think its concepts can hold without it.

The only Morality is an absolute form. I don't think Christians always know what that is exactly, as we see through a glass darkly, but it remains Absolute. In more Augustinian terms, we look to God.

 

[Speedwell]

I certainly missed that. No, I said our civilisation is in decline, as in the West. We are certainly in that analogous period of say the third century crisis in Rome or the terminal fifth. Never said we are doomed without Cristian morality - I think we are probably more or less doomed anyway - but Christianity has always been a defining feature of Western Civilisation and I don't think its concepts can hold without it.

The only Morality is an absolute form. I don't think Christians always know what that is exactly, as we see through a glass darkly, but it remains Absolute. In more Augustinian terms, we look to God.

And we are called to evangelize those who do not--rather than force obedience to Christian moral principles by secular law. And even as a Christian I don't buy your accusation that secular morality must be entirely relative because it is not based on Christian doctrine. The main beef about secular morality really seems to be that it doesn't regulate human sexuality and other personal pleasurable behavior in the detailed way that Christians seem to want.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

And we are called to evangelize those who do not--rather than force obedience to Christian moral principles by secular law. And even as a Christian I don't buy your accusation that secular morality must be entirely relative because it is not based on Christian doctrine. The main beef about secular morality really seems to be that it doesn't regulate human sexuality and other personal pleasurable behavior in the detailed way that Christians seem to want.

Everything you keep saying sounds as if you are arguing with someone else entirely. Where did I say it is relative "because it is not based on Christian doctrine"? I said any morality that is merely based on the prevailing culture is, which a 'secular morality' placed in opposition to the traditional one is per definitionem. As I said, mere Jingoism if we are not measuring to a standard somewhere that we are either approaching or failing. The relativity is its lack of roots in something metaphysical; or even an evolutionary one (which however, would suggest that we could discard it, as it is merely established by expedience).

 

[Speedwell]

Everything you keep saying sounds as if you are arguing with someone else entirely. Where did I say it is relative "because it is not based on Christian doctrine"? I said any morality that is merely based on the prevailing culture is, which a 'secular morality' placed in opposition to the traditional one is per definitionem. As I said, mere Jingoism if we are not measuring to a standard somewhere that we are either approaching or failing. The relativity is its lack of roots in something metaphysical; or even an evolutionary one (which however, would suggest that we could discard it, as it is merely established by expedience).

The reason I'm needling you is that this is not the thread to engage in a debate about morality as such. It is well understood what your opinions are about Christian vs. secular morality. But the different question before us is why and how much anybody else should care? And if there are other groups in society with somewhat different moral standards, how is a secular state to deal with conflicts?