6 ms·

The comment is not fitting to the article, but I wanted to respond to it anyways because I found it interesting and it's not something talked about here much, f

The comment is not fitting to the article, but I wanted to respond to it anyways because I found it interesting and it's not something talked about here much, for obvious reasons. The problem is going to escape many on the left, including most people here as well, as many people here are mostly agnostic/atheistic/anti-faith and believe having faith is somehow anti-intellectual. The reality of the situation is the US was founded, both socially and politically on Judeo-Christian principles of morality, and the nuclear family and it is undeniable the evidence to support this in our laws and constitution. We have seen more upheaval and social change in the last 10-15 years than the previous 50 all in the name of "progress" (never mind it is those very people who subscribe to that "progress" that are leading the way in unhappiness, depression, low marriage rate, low birth rate, and suicide). There are positions now being held by major political frontrunners that are simply not compatible with any person of faith, or any sort of compromise with the opposite political party. There is simply no compromise to be had. The biggest elephant in the room is abortion. My two favorite writers on this subject are Caitlin Flanagan for a left-side perspective, and Alexandra Descantis for a right-side perspective. Both write very thoughtfully on this issue: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/how-democrats-purged-safe-legal-rare-from-the-party/2019/11/15/369af73c-01a4-11ea-8bab-0fc209e065a8_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/how-democrats-purged-... https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2019/11/16/an_honest_abortion_debate_response_to_caitlin_flanagan_492615.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2019/11/16/an_honest_abort... Many people call America a Christian nation. I know this will get downvoted to hell here. I consider myself a well traveled man, and I will quote one famous professor I had the pleasure of listening to a lecture of that rings especially true to me: "The only country in the world that doesn't know America is a Christian nation is America."

crooked-v 7y ago
> suicide Actually, suicide rates in the US are concentrated overwhelmingly in rural areas [1], which corresponds strongly to conservativism, while some of the lowest suicide rates in the country are in ultra-progressive bastions like New York City and San Francisco. [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/05/24/mapping-the-rising-tide-of-suicide-deaths-across-the-united-states/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/05/24/mappi...
omegaworks 7y ago
>the US was founded, both socially and politically on Judeo-Christian principles of morality What principles of morality excuse and justify native genocide and chattel slavery: practices that formed the actual economic and political foundation of the United States? "Judeo-Christian" is a white-evangelical term that erases Jewish culture and folds it into a narrative of supremacy. >There are positions now being held by major political frontrunners that are simply not compatible with any person of faith Your presumption is false. Not all people follow your faith or the narrow view you have of the faithful. Of all the founding narratives, the one grounded most in the historical political reality was the need for American to encompass the varied faiths of the early country. Among the colonists were Quakers, Catholics, Lutherans, Jews, Baptists, Anglicans and many others. They attempted to write a constitution that would ensure they couldn't create a State that would allow one to impose their beliefs on another. It follows that this same constitution would not allow the State to impose the beliefs of a minority[1] on choices a woman makes with her own body. 1. https://www.people-press.org/2019/08/29/u-s-public-continues-to-favor-legal-abortion-oppose-overturning-roe-v-wade/ https://www.people-press.org/2019/08/29/u-s-public-continues...
- bendbro 7y ago
  > What principles of morality excuse and justify... That a system is hypocritical or irrational is not criticism of it existing, only criticism that it should exist. The culture very obviously exists, otherwise there wouldn't be a heteronormative, patriarchal, workaholic, individualist, capitalist, suburban culture for far-left types to fight. > Your presumption is false. Not all people follow your faith or the narrow view you have of the faithful... You are attacking a strawman. Obviously not all faithful hold traditional views, but a large group of faithful obviously do hold traditional views. > Among the colonists were Quakers, Catholics, Lutherans, Jews, Baptists, Anglicans and many others. All of whom were Judeo-Christian and grossly compatible with the traditional culture I described above. The core point of the article linked and the grand-parent comment is that the US used to have a single, "traditional" base culture. We now have two, competing cultures. I don't think your comment addresses that point, rather it only addresses the inconsistencies within the traditional culture. Debating first-level politics doesn't ascend to the level of something that is "interesting to hackers," which is why political debates are softly banned on hackernews.
orf 7y ago
The backbone of the USA in its formative years was slavery and outright slaughter of native Americans. By people who went to church. This dark legacy stretches into today - the last lynching was in 1981, and white Christian America still worships a vision of a nice, pearly white European looking Jesus, presented by millionaire preachers in mega churches who say “just give me some money and you too can be redeemed”. And not to mention their pseudo worship of a man who is so laughably espouses the exact opposite of the Christian teachings. A man who had sex with a pornstar while his second (or third?) wife was pregnant at home and has never read the Bible. I’d appreciate knowing how you can reconcile thinking what you commented with what actually happened, and how you can view a system of oppression, control and political propaganda (USA’s brand of “Christianity”) as anything but that.
- emmelaich 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Abolitionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Abolitionism 'backbone?' The south was poorer than the north and it's really the slave owners, plantation owners who benefited from slavery. The rest not so much. You're right though that many (most?) were at least nominally Christian and supported or at least ignored the morality of slavery.
- waterheater 7y ago
  > The backbone of the USA in its formative years was slavery and outright slaughter of native Americans. Actually, most founding states sought to abolish slavery when the Constitution was being drafted. The Southern States were vehemently opposed to such action to the point that they would not ratify the Constitution. As a compromise, slavery was allowed, and no law could be made restricting the importation of slaves until 1808. Consider, though, that the importation of slaves was banned on the first day which was legally allowed. I think your problem is that what you refer to as "the USA" is really "the South." The South fought hard for slavery because of economics; slaves were cheap, and plantation owners were powerful. My view is that the powerful Southerners who benefited from slavery created a cult which poisoned the minds of other Southerners into believing that slaves were necessary. It takes a long time to erase all that. > the last lynching was in 1981 And a school district in Alabama was ordered to desegregate less than ten years ago. What's your point? These are outliers. They don't represent the majority view. You're cherrypicking to make things seem worse, which is exactly what the post discusses. > white Christian America still worships a vision of a nice, pearly white European looking Jesus Consider that the book (and movie) "The Shack" portrays the three parts of God as an African-American woman, a Middle-Eastern carpenter, and an Asian woman as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, respectively. "White Christian America" still ate it up. But, according to your logic, they never could have because Jesus wasn't presented as white. Perhaps your viewpoint isn't actually correct here. > And not to mention their pseudo worship of a man who is so laughably espouses the exact opposite of the Christian teachings. A man who had sex with a pornstar while his second (or third?) wife was pregnant at home and has never read the Bible. Should a Muslim hate Trump? Should a Jew? Should he only be loved by athiests? What are you saying? People are far more than their religions. I am close to someone who does things I could and will not do in my regular course of life. I see their lifestyle as degenerative and a coping mechanism, and that's my damn right. Yet, I still bought them a book on their least-harmful hobby. People can still care and want to see others do well for themselves while recognizing the limits of their ability to affect change. Should we hope that Trump is a failure? That's like hoping for the bus driver you hate to crash into a tree; if that happens, you're gonna get hurt as well. Maybe those people just see the world from a different perspective than you. It sounds like you're pretty "woke," but have you ever had a kind, thoughtful conversation to genuinely understand their point of view? By mocking them in this way, you're invalidating their opinion. But wait, isn't the left tolerant...
AcerbicZero 7y ago
I have no more interest in religious authoritarianism than I do with "progressive" authoritarianism. Fundamentally, its the same problem from a different direction. If your faith (religious, political, vim/emacs, whatever) requires me to do something, things aren't off to a great start. Authoritarianism leads to tyranny, and it doesn't particularly matter who's boot is on your neck in the end.
ew6082 7y ago
It doesn't have to be Christianity, but a nation needs moral fiber to prosper, and not just economically. The decline of faith in America with no underlying moral philosophy to replace it has led to normalization of far too much injustice, monopoly, and downright selfishness. Democracy is on shaky ground these days.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > The decline of faith in America with no underlying moral philosophy to replace it has led to normalization of far too much injustice, I'm a Christian, but I disagree. Far too much injustice has been, both throughout history and recently, normalized because of faith, including variations of Christianity. While there is certainly injustice that comes from other avenues (including certain highly unjust atheistic belief systems), there is simply no substance to the claim that declining religious faith is driving some general increase in injistice, or decrease in strength of moral principles. It certainly involves a shift in moral principles (for instance, away from the dominance of the view that the outward forms of the forms of Protestant Christianity historically dominant in the US are obligatory or at least morally preferred), but that's often (including the cited example) a shift away from principles that have justified gross injustice. I'd also disagree that the decline in faith in America hasn't involved a replacement by alternative moral philosophy; sure, not one single alternative, but while that might frustrate forging a singular tribal identity, it doesn't indicate a lack of principles in the populace.
artimaeis 7y ago
> There are positions now being held by major political front-runners that are simply not compatible with any person of faith, or any sort of compromise with the opposite political party. And the political front-runners on the conservative front have given up on having a position that's compatible with those who live outside of faith. Those who reject the idea that an abortion should _ever_ be performed, those who advocate or even demand for re-implantation of ectopic pregnancies, despite doing so would kill the patient. How, as a moderate, am I supposed to take those with such outlandish views as anything other than a rallying cry for further radicalization? As for the rhetoric about what faith our nation should have or was founded on, I think if you're going to advocate our nation have a single faith you might want to further consider the founding father's original intentions, and the intentions of those in the 50s who chose (in fear) to try radicalizing us by adding "under God" or "in God we trust" to our official notes and pledges.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> The reality of the situation is the US was founded, both socially and politically on Judeo-Christian principles of morality, and the nuclear family The truth is it absolutely wasn't. It's true that various forms of Christianity (with more virulent anti-Semitism than any “Judeo” component) were broadly popular with the general population at the time of founding, the intellectual elite who were the thought leaders shaping our model of government were largely members of the Enlightenment faction that started the whole idea of anti-religious secular liberalism. The nuclear family also played little role in America’s foundation, only becoming dominant in the US sometime early in the latter half of the 20th Century, quite late in US history. Though both the nuclear family and “Judeo-Christian” values being essential to the foundation of the American nation is one of the (fact-free) defining myths of American social conservatism of the late-20th Century to the modern day.
- tyri_kai_psomi 7y ago
  If you really think this, then all I have to say to you is you must read the Federalist Papers, Declaration of Independence and Constitution with quite the set of blinders on my friend. For example, consider this quotation from John Jay in Federalist No 2: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1329146-it-has-often-given-my-pleasure-to-observe-that-independent https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1329146-it-has-often-given-... > the intellectual elite who were the thought leaders shaping our model of government were largely members of the Enlightenment faction that started the whole idea of anti-religious secular liberalism. Really going to need a citation on this. Besides that point, the Enlightenment being anti-religious is a myth in of itself as well. Most standard taught US history on the events that took place basically from the split of the One Catholic Church, through the dark ages, and up to just before the founding of this country is woefully inaccurate. We are pretty good at documenting things that occurred on this continent roughly mid 1700s on.
  - ryacko 7y ago
    The Anti-Masonic Party was a thing for a time. There are certainly mood and history defining events for various historical periods that are under reported. The earliest secularists were all freemasons.

crooked-v 7y ago

> suicide Actually, suicide rates in the US are concentrated overwhelmingly in rural areas [1], which corresponds strongly to conservativism, while some of the lowest suicide rates in the country are in ultra-progressive bastions like New York City and San Francisco. [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/05/24/mapping-the-rising-tide-of-suicide-deaths-across-the-united-states/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/05/24/mappi...

omegaworks 7y ago

>the US was founded, both socially and politically on Judeo-Christian principles of morality What principles of morality excuse and justify native genocide and chattel slavery: practices that formed the actual economic and political foundation of the United States? "Judeo-Christian" is a white-evangelical term that erases Jewish culture and folds it into a narrative of supremacy. >There are positions now being held by major political frontrunners that are simply not compatible with any person of faith Your presumption is false. Not all people follow your faith or the narrow view you have of the faithful. Of all the founding narratives, the one grounded most in the historical political reality was the need for American to encompass the varied faiths of the early country. Among the colonists were Quakers, Catholics, Lutherans, Jews, Baptists, Anglicans and many others. They attempted to write a constitution that would ensure they couldn't create a State that would allow one to impose their beliefs on another. It follows that this same constitution would not allow the State to impose the beliefs of a minority[1] on choices a woman makes with her own body. 1. https://www.people-press.org/2019/08/29/u-s-public-continues-to-favor-legal-abortion-oppose-overturning-roe-v-wade/ https://www.people-press.org/2019/08/29/u-s-public-continues...

bendbro 7y ago
> What principles of morality excuse and justify... That a system is hypocritical or irrational is not criticism of it existing, only criticism that it should exist. The culture very obviously exists, otherwise there wouldn't be a heteronormative, patriarchal, workaholic, individualist, capitalist, suburban culture for far-left types to fight. > Your presumption is false. Not all people follow your faith or the narrow view you have of the faithful... You are attacking a strawman. Obviously not all faithful hold traditional views, but a large group of faithful obviously do hold traditional views. > Among the colonists were Quakers, Catholics, Lutherans, Jews, Baptists, Anglicans and many others. All of whom were Judeo-Christian and grossly compatible with the traditional culture I described above. The core point of the article linked and the grand-parent comment is that the US used to have a single, "traditional" base culture. We now have two, competing cultures. I don't think your comment addresses that point, rather it only addresses the inconsistencies within the traditional culture. Debating first-level politics doesn't ascend to the level of something that is "interesting to hackers," which is why political debates are softly banned on hackernews.

orf 7y ago

The backbone of the USA in its formative years was slavery and outright slaughter of native Americans. By people who went to church. This dark legacy stretches into today - the last lynching was in 1981, and white Christian America still worships a vision of a nice, pearly white European looking Jesus, presented by millionaire preachers in mega churches who say “just give me some money and you too can be redeemed”. And not to mention their pseudo worship of a man who is so laughably espouses the exact opposite of the Christian teachings. A man who had sex with a pornstar while his second (or third?) wife was pregnant at home and has never read the Bible. I’d appreciate knowing how you can reconcile thinking what you commented with what actually happened, and how you can view a system of oppression, control and political propaganda (USA’s brand of “Christianity”) as anything but that.

emmelaich 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Abolitionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Abolitionism 'backbone?' The south was poorer than the north and it's really the slave owners, plantation owners who benefited from slavery. The rest not so much. You're right though that many (most?) were at least nominally Christian and supported or at least ignored the morality of slavery.
waterheater 7y ago
> The backbone of the USA in its formative years was slavery and outright slaughter of native Americans. Actually, most founding states sought to abolish slavery when the Constitution was being drafted. The Southern States were vehemently opposed to such action to the point that they would not ratify the Constitution. As a compromise, slavery was allowed, and no law could be made restricting the importation of slaves until 1808. Consider, though, that the importation of slaves was banned on the first day which was legally allowed. I think your problem is that what you refer to as "the USA" is really "the South." The South fought hard for slavery because of economics; slaves were cheap, and plantation owners were powerful. My view is that the powerful Southerners who benefited from slavery created a cult which poisoned the minds of other Southerners into believing that slaves were necessary. It takes a long time to erase all that. > the last lynching was in 1981 And a school district in Alabama was ordered to desegregate less than ten years ago. What's your point? These are outliers. They don't represent the majority view. You're cherrypicking to make things seem worse, which is exactly what the post discusses. > white Christian America still worships a vision of a nice, pearly white European looking Jesus Consider that the book (and movie) "The Shack" portrays the three parts of God as an African-American woman, a Middle-Eastern carpenter, and an Asian woman as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, respectively. "White Christian America" still ate it up. But, according to your logic, they never could have because Jesus wasn't presented as white. Perhaps your viewpoint isn't actually correct here. > And not to mention their pseudo worship of a man who is so laughably espouses the exact opposite of the Christian teachings. A man who had sex with a pornstar while his second (or third?) wife was pregnant at home and has never read the Bible. Should a Muslim hate Trump? Should a Jew? Should he only be loved by athiests? What are you saying? People are far more than their religions. I am close to someone who does things I could and will not do in my regular course of life. I see their lifestyle as degenerative and a coping mechanism, and that's my damn right. Yet, I still bought them a book on their least-harmful hobby. People can still care and want to see others do well for themselves while recognizing the limits of their ability to affect change. Should we hope that Trump is a failure? That's like hoping for the bus driver you hate to crash into a tree; if that happens, you're gonna get hurt as well. Maybe those people just see the world from a different perspective than you. It sounds like you're pretty "woke," but have you ever had a kind, thoughtful conversation to genuinely understand their point of view? By mocking them in this way, you're invalidating their opinion. But wait, isn't the left tolerant...

AcerbicZero 7y ago

I have no more interest in religious authoritarianism than I do with "progressive" authoritarianism. Fundamentally, its the same problem from a different direction. If your faith (religious, political, vim/emacs, whatever) requires me to do something, things aren't off to a great start. Authoritarianism leads to tyranny, and it doesn't particularly matter who's boot is on your neck in the end.

ew6082 7y ago

It doesn't have to be Christianity, but a nation needs moral fiber to prosper, and not just economically. The decline of faith in America with no underlying moral philosophy to replace it has led to normalization of far too much injustice, monopoly, and downright selfishness. Democracy is on shaky ground these days.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> The decline of faith in America with no underlying moral philosophy to replace it has led to normalization of far too much injustice, I'm a Christian, but I disagree. Far too much injustice has been, both throughout history and recently, normalized because of faith, including variations of Christianity. While there is certainly injustice that comes from other avenues (including certain highly unjust atheistic belief systems), there is simply no substance to the claim that declining religious faith is driving some general increase in injistice, or decrease in strength of moral principles. It certainly involves a shift in moral principles (for instance, away from the dominance of the view that the outward forms of the forms of Protestant Christianity historically dominant in the US are obligatory or at least morally preferred), but that's often (including the cited example) a shift away from principles that have justified gross injustice. I'd also disagree that the decline in faith in America hasn't involved a replacement by alternative moral philosophy; sure, not one single alternative, but while that might frustrate forging a singular tribal identity, it doesn't indicate a lack of principles in the populace.

artimaeis 7y ago

> There are positions now being held by major political front-runners that are simply not compatible with any person of faith, or any sort of compromise with the opposite political party. And the political front-runners on the conservative front have given up on having a position that's compatible with those who live outside of faith. Those who reject the idea that an abortion should _ever_ be performed, those who advocate or even demand for re-implantation of ectopic pregnancies, despite doing so would kill the patient. How, as a moderate, am I supposed to take those with such outlandish views as anything other than a rallying cry for further radicalization? As for the rhetoric about what faith our nation should have or was founded on, I think if you're going to advocate our nation have a single faith you might want to further consider the founding father's original intentions, and the intentions of those in the 50s who chose (in fear) to try radicalizing us by adding "under God" or "in God we trust" to our official notes and pledges.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> The reality of the situation is the US was founded, both socially and politically on Judeo-Christian principles of morality, and the nuclear family The truth is it absolutely wasn't. It's true that various forms of Christianity (with more virulent anti-Semitism than any “Judeo” component) were broadly popular with the general population at the time of founding, the intellectual elite who were the thought leaders shaping our model of government were largely members of the Enlightenment faction that started the whole idea of anti-religious secular liberalism. The nuclear family also played little role in America’s foundation, only becoming dominant in the US sometime early in the latter half of the 20th Century, quite late in US history. Though both the nuclear family and “Judeo-Christian” values being essential to the foundation of the American nation is one of the (fact-free) defining myths of American social conservatism of the late-20th Century to the modern day.

tyri_kai_psomi 7y ago
If you really think this, then all I have to say to you is you must read the Federalist Papers, Declaration of Independence and Constitution with quite the set of blinders on my friend. For example, consider this quotation from John Jay in Federalist No 2: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1329146-it-has-often-given-my-pleasure-to-observe-that-independent https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1329146-it-has-often-given-... > the intellectual elite who were the thought leaders shaping our model of government were largely members of the Enlightenment faction that started the whole idea of anti-religious secular liberalism. Really going to need a citation on this. Besides that point, the Enlightenment being anti-religious is a myth in of itself as well. Most standard taught US history on the events that took place basically from the split of the One Catholic Church, through the dark ages, and up to just before the founding of this country is woefully inaccurate. We are pretty good at documenting things that occurred on this continent roughly mid 1700s on.
- ryacko 7y ago
  The Anti-Masonic Party was a thing for a time. There are certainly mood and history defining events for various historical periods that are under reported. The earliest secularists were all freemasons.