An amusing thought I had ~ Why how right you think you are is irrelevant.

[KingsGambit]

It's a pretty fascinating thing to consider though, isn't it?

Regarding the blue laws, I suspect that the primary reason why the debate is framed in terms of economics is because the Republican party's two large wings don't really agree on much so to garner support from the Fiscal half of the party the Social half allows the debate to be framed in terms of economics. A corollary to that is that there might be an assumption (justified, imho) that as soon as people start trying to argue in favor of blue laws from a morality perspective then the fight for blue laws is, effectively lost. What do you think?

I'm not sure; we're assuming now that people largely find such arguments unpersuasive when this wasn't always the case. Look at Prohibition; not all of the arguments advanced for it were moral but there was a strong moral undercurrent that temporarily swept the nation.

[KingsGambit]

With the loss of the Christian worldview comes the loss of most commonly-held moral restraints. It'll be every man for himself.

Western Europe can serve as an effective test case for whether this comes to pass.

[Jaecp]

I'm not sure; we're assuming now that people largely find such arguments unpersuasive when this wasn't always the case. Look at Prohibition; not all of the arguments advanced for it were moral but there was a strong moral undercurrent that temporarily swept the nation.

For sure, although I think this largely plays into the Demographics. Prohibition passed in 1920, back with a much smaller population of much more centralized religious belief. I think its the exact kind of moral argument for restrictive policy that wouldn't work very well in modern America where the opposite of prohibition is currently happening relating to pot

[Jaecp]

No,

Progressive politics encouraged the legalization of, among other things, no fault divorces to allow people to leave what is not a sustainable relationship. Particularly when situations like spousal abuse (a situation my mother grew up with) and other domestic terrors.

Now, people are not trapped in something unhealthy and are free to try to find happiness and companionship with others. Why stay with someone who isnt right for you?

[Darth Executor]

It may be helpful if you pointed out specifically what was wrong with my post, DE.

It completely ignores the impact this Brave New World has on your progeny (and that of Christians in general). 1st century Christians found themselves in circumstances beyond their control. Future generations will find themselves in circumstances that were within Christians' control but their Christian predecessors threw it away. Just because Christians were once in a similar position through no fault of their own does not mean people will view it the same way once we end up in the same position after relinquishing control. It's far more likely that future generations will (legitimately) view it as utter betrayal and act accordingly.

Another lesser issue is this:

Anybody who would push Christian morality citing "might makes right" rather than actually engaging the issues has missed the point.

Might makes right is the only thing that decides which morality gets pushed. I think you're the one missing the point. A lot of people think they just need to argue the truth and people will come to see it that way but it's just not the way the world works, nor was it even how early Christians operated since they didn't just preach the truth, they also acted to counter the loss of honor inherent in worshiping an executed "criminal" by playing social status games better than the pagans (an excellent way to apply a form of might from a disadvantaged position).

[Darth Executor]

I'm not sure; we're assuming now that people largely find such arguments unpersuasive when this wasn't always the case. Look at Prohibition; not all of the arguments advanced for it were moral but there was a strong moral undercurrent that temporarily swept the nation.

Society's moral center has been moved from Christian principles to progressive principles. It's still possible to create and maintain laws based on moral principles (the Civil Rights Act, an unconstitutional piece of legislation that will nevertheless not be repealed anytime soon on account of equality being a pillar of progressivism), you just have to cite a progressive belief rather than a uniquely Christian one. It's why you see even conservatives talk and brag about diversity, for example.

[Paprika]

No,

Progressive politics encouraged the legalization of, among other things, no fault divorces to allow people to leave what is not a sustainable relationship.

That's the lie the progressive feed their useful idiots, just like how legalising gay marriage is merely to ensure 'equal rights'.

No-fault divorce has legally allowed people to destroy their marriages without due cause so that they become free to pursue (and marry) another person than turns them on more.

Now, people are not trapped in something unhealthy and are free to try to find happiness and companionship with others. Why stay with someone who isnt right for you?

Marriage becomes self-focused instead of focused primarily on the good of the children and secondarily the good of the spouse. With destruction of the stability of the family comes the slow death of the society.

[Darth Executor]

No,

Progressive politics encouraged the legalization of, among other things, no fault divorces to allow people to leave what is not a sustainable relationship. Particularly when situations like spousal abuse (a situation my mother grew up with) and other domestic terrors.

Now, people are not trapped in something unhealthy and are free to try to find happiness and companionship with others. Why stay with someone who isnt right for you?

You don't need no fault divorces to leave an abusive marriage.

[KingsGambit]

Might makes right is the only thing that decides which morality gets pushed. I think you're the one missing the point. A lot of people think they just need to argue the truth and people will come to see it that way but it's just not the way the world works, nor was it even how early Christians operated since they didn't just preach the truth, they also acted to counter the loss of honor inherent in worshiping an executed "criminal" by playing social status games better than the pagans (an excellent way to apply a form of might from a disadvantaged position).

How was this a brute force technique? Said exploitation of social conventions seems clearly to be persuasive in intent, even if the goal is to persuade one that one's loss of honor can be mitigated.

[MaxVel]

Western Europe can serve as an effective test case for whether this comes to pass.

Anders Breivik. Anti-Immigration political parties and activist groups. Muslim ghettoes, police no-go areas. Immigrant rape gangs in Britain. People smuggling. Illegal immigrants dying by the boatload.

When the restraints are removed, how will the ethnic majority respond to bad behavior - or even just refusal to assimilate - by immigrants?

[KingsGambit]

Anders Breivik. Anti-Immigration political parties and activist groups. Muslim ghettoes, police no-go areas. Immigrant rape gangs in Britain. People smuggling. Illegal immigrants dying by the boatload.

When the restraints are removed, how will the ethnic majority respond to bad behavior - or even just refusal to assimilate - by immigrants?

Some of these could be seen in the history of the US. (The Know Nothing Party and other bouts of anti-immigration fervor). And people smuggling is even more obvious.

(I'd argue this just is evidence the US never was a Christian nation.)

[Jaecp]

Assuming your thesis is correct, and Christianity is on it's way out as a centralizing influence in America (and by and large, I think it probably is), then what replaces it as a common, overarching, cultural 'glue'? Nothing?

From the outside I see a lot of fragmentation in American society, and not just in the 'religious sphere'. And I wonder how things will be if there is no moderating voice, no common framework of moral values that most people can agree on as being objectively good. What will restrain various interest groups from doing whatever it takes to achieve power and get their goals? Americans are being taught to react emotionally to everything, to stand on 'my rights', to read every event through the lenses of their particular minority being oppressed. What would the Civil Rights movement, say, have been like if it wasn't moderated by the peaceful methods of the Christian groups?

How much of a jump in that kind of (future?) society is it from phoning in a bomb threat to disrupt a Gamergate meeting to actually setting off a bomb? Why should the silent majority restrain themselves at all when they're being put upon and harassed by narrow-minded special interest activists?

With the loss of the Christian worldview comes the loss of most commonly-held moral restraints. It'll be every man for himself.




Have fun, Jaecp. I suspect your military experience might be very useful to you.

As to what replaces it? We have the law which is not completely analogous.

I'm not sure whether we can have an overarching cultural glue if there isn't an overarching culture. It's not as though we could continue to use Christianity when we have almost no people who identify as strongly Christian, somewhere down along the road. Like KG said though, seeing how Western Europe operates is as good a test as any for post-religious culture and governance.

I think appeals to morals can be made without needing a religion. Principles of harm, fairness, equity. Small children, in a psych paper I read in college, reacted negatively at very young ages to what was effectively a puppet show where various shapes would do some variety of mean things to each other, stealing, hitting, etc. We could look at the existence of various ethical rules that are shared widely across religions to be likewise evidence that there are things that most people simply intuit about morality. The golden rule is also in buddhism, for example.

The civil rights movement could have just as easily copied that Hindu guys tactics against the british no matter what religion, or lack thereof, united them.

I dunno, Max, building bombs is hard and you have to leave your couch. Bomb threats can be called in from anywhere.

As a final thing,

Ethics and morals are cultural constructs. There are plenty of things, today, right now, that people can see were allowed or condoned in the bible that is simply not cool. Ethics and morality, while occasionally bumpy, has overall improved over time even as Christianity hasn't recieved a firmware update in a couple thousand years. The decline of Christianity as a centralizing influence is going to be a long, slow process and there is plenty of time for morality systems to evolve alongside that decline.

Who knows, maybe one day stories from the bible will be told alongside the stories of Icarus and Aesop for their moral lessons, even as no one today needs Icarus or Aesops fables to be real to impart a sense of morality.

Hell, I've met people whose ideals about helping people in need come from Spiderman comics. It feels good to be the hero.

[Darth Executor]

How was this a brute force technique? Said exploitation of social conventions seems clearly to be persuasive in intent, even if the goal is to persuade one that one's loss of honor can be mitigated.

I didn't say anything about brute force, nor is might makes right limited to PHYSICAL might. And the goal wasn't just to persuade that one's loss of honor can be mitigated, it was to actually mitigate the loss of honor, often by making the pagans who just followed normal social conventions look dishonorable (IE: walk two miles).

[Jaecp]

That's the lie the progressive feed their useful idiots, just like how legalising gay marriage is merely to ensure 'equal rights'.

No-fault divorce has legally allowed people to destroy their marriages without due cause so that they become free to pursue (and marry) another person than turns them on more.

I don't know where your from, but my grandmother was beaten half to death on a regular basis living a part of the US where she had no legal standing to leave her abuser while also being completely economically dependent on him.

Think what you will about people over using the damn things, but don't think for a minute that you can speak so broadly without making you look like an ass in front of those who've seen photos of women beaten black and blue.

Legalizing gay marriage is largely because they want to do it and there are no good legal arguments why they shouldn't. 38 states and counting

[KingsGambit]

I didn't say anything about brute force, nor is might makes right limited to PHYSICAL might. And the goal wasn't just to persuade that one's loss of honor can be mitigated, it was to actually mitigate the loss of honor, often by making the pagans who just followed normal social conventions look dishonorable (IE: walk two miles).

What definition of "might makes right" are you operating under, and how might it apply to honor-shame shadowboxing? I view it as imposing one's will due to one's ability to do so unfettered, which doesn't seem to fit these examples at all. Consider 1 Peter's oft-debated-on-here "be nice" injunctions. They seem like clear instructions to the letter's recipients for how to be most persuasive when one had limited agency.