4 ms·

No. Family values are much more universally accepted than Christianity. Also, Christianity isn't a taboo, so no one needs to "dog whistle" anything about it.

throw__away7391 4y ago
"Family Values" is most certainly a dog whistle for Christianity, particularly when Christians are attempting to smuggle religiously motivated ideas into public policy and especially during the George W Bush era. Variations on this phrase are incorporated into the names of many, many evangelical political organizations and publications.
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  It is true that almost all Christians are proponents of family values. But it's in no way exclusive to them. For example, a Muslim would probably support very similar ideas.
  - throw__away7391 4y ago
    No, that's wrong. The phrase "family values" is very strongly tied to Evangelical Conservative politics, and particularly to the neocons who waged a literal war on Muslims soon after coming to power. You've got a bible verse as your bio so I think I can hazard a guess as to your position. The Google Ngram graph on this phrase is interesting: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=family+values&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cfamily%20values%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=family+values&...
    - cato_the_elder 4y ago
      > particularly to the neocons who waged a literal war on Muslims soon after coming to power. I don't have a lot of sympathy with neocons, but I'm pretty sure their attacks on Muslims weren't because they thought Muslims were destroying family values or something. > You've got a bible verse as your bio so I think I can hazard a guess as to your position. :-) Yes, but I'm not a Christian. The Google Ngram is certainly interesting. But my counter argument is that before the 60s, family values were so ingrained in society that they weren't subject to much debate.
Dylan16807 4y ago
> Also, Christianity isn't a taboo, so no one needs to "dog whistle" anything about it. As a direct justification for US laws, religion is taboo. Family values are dog whistled all the time in that context, and in other contexts where someone wants to pretend that their particular interpretation is just common sense regardless of big religious factors.
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  > As a direct justification for US laws, religion is taboo. Not really, unless something half the population believes can be a taboo. [1] (It might be a taboo in some subsets of the population though) [1]: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/13/half-of-americans-say-bible-should-influence-u-s-laws-including-28-who-favor-it-over-the-will-of-the-people/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/13/half-of-ame...
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    "some influence" is different from a direct justification for a law.
    - cato_the_elder 4y ago
      > including 28% who favor it over the will of the people

throw__away7391 4y ago

"Family Values" is most certainly a dog whistle for Christianity, particularly when Christians are attempting to smuggle religiously motivated ideas into public policy and especially during the George W Bush era. Variations on this phrase are incorporated into the names of many, many evangelical political organizations and publications.

cato_the_elder 4y ago
It is true that almost all Christians are proponents of family values. But it's in no way exclusive to them. For example, a Muslim would probably support very similar ideas.
- throw__away7391 4y ago
  No, that's wrong. The phrase "family values" is very strongly tied to Evangelical Conservative politics, and particularly to the neocons who waged a literal war on Muslims soon after coming to power. You've got a bible verse as your bio so I think I can hazard a guess as to your position. The Google Ngram graph on this phrase is interesting: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=family+values&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cfamily%20values%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=family+values&...
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
    > particularly to the neocons who waged a literal war on Muslims soon after coming to power. I don't have a lot of sympathy with neocons, but I'm pretty sure their attacks on Muslims weren't because they thought Muslims were destroying family values or something. > You've got a bible verse as your bio so I think I can hazard a guess as to your position. :-) Yes, but I'm not a Christian. The Google Ngram is certainly interesting. But my counter argument is that before the 60s, family values were so ingrained in society that they weren't subject to much debate.

Dylan16807 4y ago

> Also, Christianity isn't a taboo, so no one needs to "dog whistle" anything about it. As a direct justification for US laws, religion is taboo. Family values are dog whistled all the time in that context, and in other contexts where someone wants to pretend that their particular interpretation is just common sense regardless of big religious factors.

cato_the_elder 4y ago
> As a direct justification for US laws, religion is taboo. Not really, unless something half the population believes can be a taboo. [1] (It might be a taboo in some subsets of the population though) [1]: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/13/half-of-americans-say-bible-should-influence-u-s-laws-including-28-who-favor-it-over-the-will-of-the-people/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/13/half-of-ame...
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  "some influence" is different from a direct justification for a law.
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
    > including 28% who favor it over the will of the people