5 ms·

> > liberals are insensitive to the fact that safety net social programs may displace support provided by charities and family. > I think that's true. I'd actu

> > liberals are insensitive to the fact that safety net social programs may displace support provided by charities and family. > I think that's true. I'd actually say most partisan liberals are reflexively hostile to the idea. This is a fascinating thread! You and rayiner are having a laudably introspective and low-charge discussion of this stuff, so I’ll try to throw in my (hyper-progressive) take on this: I’m certainly not insensitive to the fact that government social support tends to be a substitute for faith-based social support (and the presence of substitutes inevitably weakens any marketable good). From my perspective, religious traditions that have offered social support, but only with strings attached, resorting to shunning when those expectations weren’t met, have caused so much trauma to people I love that I am, at least in unguarded moments, quite happy to acknowledge that I want to break down the economic foundations of those groups. On the other hand, my wife is an immigrant whose family was sponsored by a church. I am immensely grateful to religious communities offering love and support to the neediest without any strings attached. The Unitarian congregations I’m familiar with have consistently impressed me with their wise, worldly social support without any hint of shunning. So while I don’t think I’m hostile to people of faith offering support, there’s no doubt I want robust well funded alternatives. It’s definitely true that there is a culture war at play for progressives, and I agree it’s disingenuous to pretend weakening religious institutions isn’t at least a foreseeable, if not actively pursued, effect of many social policies I support.

rayiner 7y ago
> From my perspective, religious traditions that have offered social support, but only with strings attached, resorting to shunning when those expectations weren’t met, have caused so much trauma to people I love that I am, at least in unguarded moments, quite happy to acknowledge that I want to break down the economic foundations of those groups. I think this often is true, and its unfortunate. At the same time, I think people overlook the effect on other people. What about the people who fit into church culture and weren't excluded in the past? Are they doing better or worse under a culture that embraces permissiveness? Put differently, in an effort to minimize the harm that a religious society imposed on one group of people, are we disregarding the benefits it provided to other people, and to social stability and cohesion generally?

rayiner 7y ago

> From my perspective, religious traditions that have offered social support, but only with strings attached, resorting to shunning when those expectations weren’t met, have caused so much trauma to people I love that I am, at least in unguarded moments, quite happy to acknowledge that I want to break down the economic foundations of those groups. I think this often is true, and its unfortunate. At the same time, I think people overlook the effect on other people. What about the people who fit into church culture and weren't excluded in the past? Are they doing better or worse under a culture that embraces permissiveness? Put differently, in an effort to minimize the harm that a religious society imposed on one group of people, are we disregarding the benefits it provided to other people, and to social stability and cohesion generally?