I have a hypothesis that almost all of the US's current cultural problems would be solved if once a month we all cooked and shared a meal with another randomly chosen family.
This is also the case with social clubs and sports leagues. Membership of these things has been in decline for decades and is now at an all-time low. Being in a bowling league or the rotary club with random members of your community did a ton to increase basic trust in society. Which in turn, makes everything else work better.
Source: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/trust-me/
This is why consuming video content, specifically streaming services with all-you-can-stream crap is so damaging. People no longer have time for shared dinners, clubs, or adult sports leagues because they'd rather binge watch a new series every week.
In my experience it’s not that people would rather watch videos than see their friends or do their hobbies, it’s that they’re working jobs which consume their lives to the point that watching Netflix is pretty much all they have the energy for. And before you know it, you don’t have any hobbies anymore so you watch more Netflix and the circle continues.
IMO, access is one of the biggest hidden issues. Everything is designed to require a car, which increases the cost/time/stress of doing anything, and decreases the number of available people to interact with. Neighborhoods built before WW2 are much more interactive and walkable, but we keep pumping out convoluted suburban layouts instead.
Over time, peoples' dopamine system starts weighing the hassle as greater than the potential reward, and they become less socially active. If more people lived within a 5-10 minute walk of these activities, membership would go back up.
It takes a few bad exposures to ruin your mental model of strangers. And I am not convinced it is entirely a bad thing.
The concept of being surrounded by strangers is a 20-21st century urban phenomenon. In an environment where people are not strangers to each other 2 things happen; 1) they can build a more accurate model of each other and most of the time this leads to deeper reciprocal trust 2) they know their behavior is kept track by others and that changes individual behavior (I know, not always for the better. I am not trying to romanticize small town conformity). To expect the same dynamics in a city is a romanticism of different sort. Not trusting strangers because you don’t know them is rational. At least not to over-extrapolate your trust to every stranger you see.
All you can stream crap is there because there is demand, because we are going crazy in our loneliness created with truncated interpersonal reciprocity of the urban life. If you removed Netflix today, it wouldn’t automatically improve our social lives, because the structure and organization of it heavily depends on the economic demands that shaped the living arrangements in the first place.
See how even tech is capriciously resisting remote work and thus an alternative, less lonely arrangement for the workers.
Either way, it is irrelevant. The gravity of "work here"ism is much higher than the agency of the workers.
> If anything, tech's resistance of remote work is the struggle to preserve America's last community: the workplace.
That's overly charitable on several accounts. Tech, or any mega corp, can't have such an intention while being a machine that merely responds to a single ultimate parameter that is profit, in some shape or form. The fact that people could have a simulation of a community in the workplace is an externality they will tolerate, as long as HR is happy.
> Friendships born in the workplace are a staple of urban life, it's one of the few places left where you can regularly and guaranteedly meet with people.
How many of your workplace friends do you think would let you stay over for months should you find yourself homeless? Lend you $20K if need hits? Take care of you while sick? Be at your funeral? And vice versa?
Most of those folks we can make at a workplace are affiliates, acquaintances, not friends.
> Tech, or any mega corp, can't have such an intention
I don't care what corporations' intentions are, I think the reality is that this is America's last community that remote work will destroy and the tech industry is struggling against it.
> Most of those folks we can make at a workplace are affiliates, acquaintances, not friends.
Most of everyone I meet won't be such close friends. The workplace is one of the few guaranteed places left for adults to consistently meet people who they didn't just grow up with. If the worst indictment of workplace friends is that most of them won't lend me $20k, well, I'll just have to live with that. I'll have to remove our social interactions from the record because they don't meet the required level of friendship.
That would be an example of not being surrounded by strangers. Mind you a good chunk of tech is made of immigrants from countries where a neighborhood wouldn’t be reduced to high school buddies; would include (extended) family, neighborhood with its other constituents. The default choice of not leaving the locale one is raised up in, especially if one could make the same salary remotely, wouldn’t be a stretch.
> I don't care what corporations' intentions are, I think the reality is that this is America's last community that remote work will destroy and the tech industry is struggling against it.
I do because it is an ersatz community born out of luck constrained by its makers. It is almost an in-flesh version of all-you-can-watch crap, in the sense of giving false satisfaction to real needs.
> Most of everyone I meet won't be such close friends.
It would be absurd if you did. You’d only need a few, but unlikely to make any in a city of strangers.
> If the worst indictment of workplace friends is that most of them won't lend me $20k, well, I'll just have to live with that.
Worst indictment is to make you think the sense of social interaction with those people can make up for a complete absence of real friends, an absence brought upon by the necessity of being near that workplace.
> I'll have to remove our social interactions from the record because they don't meet the required level of friendship
Again this is an absurd strawman. No one is telling you to only interact with friends. I am merely saying if you think your workplace acquaintances make real friends, you’re more likely to be deceiving yourself than not.
Wonderful, instead of having to go to a city where people of all kinds mix together with ambition and purpose, it's so much better for people to just stay where they grew up and stick to people who just happen to be born near them. That's a great slogan for lonely people: don't reach out of your comfort zone for people you'll love, just never move and you won't have to deal with unfamiliar people. I apologize for being so sarcastic, I thought it'd be slightly funnier than drily expressing how ridiculously dystopian I think that is.
> it is an ersatz community born out of luck
No more luck-based than randomly being born in a geographical area. At least there's a non-zero amount of choice and purpose involved in travelling to a city.
> a complete absence of real friends, an absence brought upon by the necessity of being near that workplace.
It's been necessary to be near your workplace for a very long time, even before the industrial revolution. Such a causal link doesn't match up with any history I'm aware of.
> I am merely saying if you think your workplace acquaintances make real friends, you’re more likely to be deceiving yourself than not.
I didn't say that workplace acquaintances make real friends. I did say that workplaces are reliable communities that you can discover new people and make real friends in. Also, workplace acquaintances are good sources of socialization on their own when it comes to loneliness. I don't have to deceive myself to find great social value in such a professional and ambitious melting pot of people from all over the world. Should I be happy to be relieved of that opportunity? For what, the opportunity to never leave my birthplace (assuming I'm "second gen")?
> especially if one could make the same salary remotely
Okay you were the one telling me that corporations are solely focused on profits.
I think it is more dystopic, nay, tragic, when people are made to believe where mixture of ambitious strangers will somehow lead to love too. I don't blame you for such beliefs in an era of romantic comedies or other romanticizations of "single strong individual" where they feel entitled to such outcomes and it magically happens. But this combined with your other remark about "socializing needs" makes me believe you don't discern between different types of love.
Seems like you're focused on consummatory (eros in its wider philosophical sense) love if you formulate people as fulfilling your needs, or love as something you can stumble upon. Philia (brotherly) and agapic love are completely different than eros, and among other things arise from either reciprocal investment on each other's growth or selfless giving. They are built out of investment, not happenstance. That is the love of parents that make most of us into human beings out of nothing. Or the nice people in our non-stranger neighborhood that interacted with us and thought us manners etc. Think of many Mr. Rogers' in real life. I am not saying such neighborhoods is the norm anymore, and therefore don't blame you for your relational nihilism, but I am lucky enough to come from a place where traces of such love was still immanent.
> No more luck-based than randomly being born in a geographical area.
Randomness is irrelevant, that place is what grows you into a human being and once you're at the age to move on, it is no longer random. This again implicitly contains the notion that the universe owes us the optimal configuration of a birthplace, because we are special.
> I did say that workplaces are reliable communities that you can discover new people and make real friends in.
You've admitted that people you meet in such places hardly make into friends that can fulfill the criteria I laid out. Also again notice the "eros" language, you think you "discover" such people, no investment or transformation is required from you, you just stumble upon them like mushrooms in a forest.
> workplace acquaintances are good sources of socialization on their own when it comes to loneliness.
Just like internet can be a "good" outlet for sexual frustration, but also a hindrance to actual needs of intimacy. That is precisely what I am talking about when I say eros. You don't just have "socialization needs", you don't even just have needs for "having friends", you also have deep needs for being a real friend for people.
> Okay you were the one telling me that corporations are solely focused on profits.
Yes, and that is different than flesh-and-bone people being focused on making a living, especially with depressed wages since 70s. I am not saying there aren't people who are entirely driven by money, but that is not the majority. All the while profit is a definitional property of a for-profit-corporation.
The bottom line of our dialogue is that, we are internet strangers that are somewhat talking through each other because we don't have reciprocal models of each other (other than a minimal, "HN denizen" one), we don't have an established reciprocity on helping each other grow. I think you're not arguing in best faith because you're lonely and the secondary benefits of someone responding back to you might be alleviating some of your admitted loneliness, and "fulfilling your social needs".
What if I’m in a crew am a nice talker and get to scope things out for my crew as we chit chat?
It’s the same thing that did in the lonely hearts clubs. Swindlers came in to the rescue and take advantage of a lonely set of people. In this case people who are open and inviting and trusting of random strangers.
It does assume most people are good, but that is something I believe deeply in my bones. (A simple logical argument is this: if people were on average harmful, we would all choose to be hermits. Since we don't, it implies that in aggregate our human interactions are a net benefit to us personally.)
It does assumes that people can choose whether or not to get along and that most people will choose to do that when placed in an interaction with strangers. I think that's a safe assumption for probably like 90% of groups of people.
It does not assume high trust. You only need to trust your dinner companions enough to not poison you or attack you, which is not a very high bar.
> It’s the same thing that did in the lonely hearts clubs. Swindlers came in to the rescue and take advantage of a lonely set of people.
I think the stakes a low enough to not make the situation much of a honeypot for bad actors. There's little to gain beyond a meal and my hypothetical "game" would require all participants to sometimes be the cooks.
“We just need an alien invasion to unite humanity.”
I do too (although I'd say "fundamentally decent" rather than "good", because "good" is a spectrum. Nobody is 100% bad or 100% good.)
I'm reminded of something I taught my children: most people are good, only a small percentage aren't. The trouble is that you can't tell which is which by looking -- so be both cautious and open with people.
Although I hope you are ready to meet lots of Christians and a few alcoholics every year. Just remember that the 90% doesn't like talking about their jobs. Hope you know the latest sportsball news...
That being said, there's usually other commonalities to discuss.
Always good to lump the Christians in with the alcoholics.
I would wager good money that most modern conservative US Christian families have a male alcoholic relative not too far removed.
The alcoholics and Christians go together.
I think that has more to do with the pervasiveness of Christianity and alcoholism independent of each other.
I just thought a little rough organizing might be nice.
My town has a general discussion Facebook page. I don't know that any of the people would recognize me on the street, but there are quite a few names I recognize now. This has been really handy since I didn't grow up here, and in small town America that often means people just won't get to know you because you "don't belong".
Also my wife is involved in several interest based groups. Mainly related to sewing and thrifting and such.
I don't know that it makes the world a better place, but it certainly can expose you to people you wouldn't otherwise ever have interacted with.
However large political factions have made church membership out to be undesirable.
We are reaping the rewards.
I realized yesterday reading about cornel west, that even though I disagree with his politics, I see from his Christianity we have the same concerns, and values. I can't honestly say that about other people
To me, church attendance is about making the in/out group very clear. You may feel close to different political views based on your single church or flavor of Christianity, but that's still a pretty limited group.
I think church membership has become undesirable because 1) fewer people believe in the supernatural and 2) the stated positions of many major religions on issues of abortion and inclusion.
It's like going to a supermarket makes you see people more varied than your family circle and your chosen TV show characters. (It does not nudge you to talk to these people, though.)
It's more diverse than sitting at home, but I think exposure to a few TV shows has more diversity of thought, ethnicity, sexuality, etc., compared to going to church.
I'm not saying its bad for people to get together and talk. I see that church was an important mechanism for this in the past. However, I can't get past the negatives (supernatural belief, child abuse, kowtowing to authority, shame, ostracism) to believe it will continue to be a net positive.
What we need is more of what I think the Unitarians are after - non denominational community.
https://www.pewforum.org/2013/02/13/the-global-catholic-popu...
Sources:
[1] https://www.jbhe.com/2018/07/americas-churches-are-becoming-...
[2] http://blogs.thearda.com/trend/featured/the-ties-that-may-no...
> The only exceptions were Catholics. Catholics were almost twice as likely to be in an intermarriage and Catholics who attended services more frequently were slightly more likely to be in an intermarriage, the researchers found.
It's more than just your local parish though. When I visited Hungary, it was amazing to go to a church where I didn't speak the language, but still be able to feel totally 'at home', because it was a church, and they were saying mass. Even though it was in Hungarian, I understood exactly what was going on. Then when I visited India, which couldn't be further from Hungary, I had the same experience.
> Despite progress in church integration, congregations remain far more segregated than the society in general. Dr. Dougherty, an associate professor of sociology at Baylor University, states that “congregations are looking more like their neighborhoods racially and ethnically, but they still lag behind. The average congregation was eight times less diverse racially than its neighborhood in 1998 and four times less diverse in 2012.”
The context here is whether churches are a good way for people of diverse backgrounds to engage and interact. I contend that they have unnecessary elements that make them worse than a non-religious community event (supernatural beliefs, explicit conformity of dress and thought, protecting predators, etc.)
Later as I grew up I realized just how unusual that sort of integration was among any congregation, not just Christian or Islamic. When I read Vivek Bald’s book Bengali Harlem: The Lost Histories of South Asian America, I realized that actually this was the norm in the 20s-60s for South Asian immigrants of all backgrounds.
This has led to some befuddlement amongst others. A black City Councilperson in New Orleans egged a crowd on to call my cousin from Islamabad names based on his origin for trying to set up a tiny house village for homeless people in a residential neighborhood in Eastern New Orleans. I roared back at him that it pained me to see someone that looked like my grandmother beating up on my cousin, mentioned that my congregation met in a formerly AME church and kept the pews for years and shame on him for assuming we are all carpetbaggers. He turned to me and said “You are presumed to be what you look like.” I’ve never been happier to see someone lose an election.
I agree any given local church in the US is unlikely to have a ton of ethnic diversity. And, for obvious reasons, it will have almost no religious diversity.
They do tend to have a decent amount of professional and socioeconomic diversity, though, which is also valuable.
It's not really though. I mean, being Catholic (and honestly, I know so little about Protestantism that I don't really feel qualified to speak to it), there are a lot of politics in the church.
In 'the Big Sort', the author Bill Bishop talks about how Americans are dividing themselves up by geography, religion (or lack thereof), jobs, education, etc. It's like we're splitting in to two different worlds.
I've noticed it at church too. Frankly, the left-leaning Catholics have all left. We chock it up to things like abortion and sexual ethics but I don't buy it. Many right-leaning Catholics have severe disagreements with church preaching, especially on the topics of aid to foreigners, the responsibility of society with regards to health care, views on death penalty's usefulness, etc. The only difference to me, is that conservatives tend to value authority and order more, and thus remain catholic even when the church preaches things they don't like.
> 2) the stated positions of many major religions on issues of abortion and inclusion.
I guess, but man you should see my conservative friends after the priest gives a homily on immigration. If they left the church because of this, I'd accuse them of idolatry -- placing their views on immigration as more important than God. I accuse my leftist friends who leave because of abortion of the same. Independent of the religious and spiritual aspects, it seems to me to be abandoning your community, that has supported you for many years, simply because of one issue we disagree on. That's like leaving your wife because you can't agree on which style of house to buy -- at some point you need to compromise.
It's weird because my left-leaning friend's parents are often still Catholic and have the same view as my family does on remaining part of the church even if what they preach is hard. Whereas my younger friends all left.
The sad thing though is that I feel there is a lot of missed out opportunities for shared understanding. Despite classifying these parents as 'left-leaning' and myself being more 'right-leaning', I'd consider these people to be intelligent, thoughtful, and friends. Whereas with my own generation, if you label yourself a leftist, all of a sudden right-wingers are supposed to hate you, and vice versa. It just seems dehumanizing.
I'd rather chat about politics in a friendly manner with a shared set of concerns over a doughnut on Sunday morning, than in an angry social media screed. But it seems like my generation prefers the latter. And frankly, from my perspective, it feels like my left-leaning friends simply left while we stayed behind to talk.
This is coming from an areligious atheist, so I must acknowledge my lack of experience with this even though I've read about it and given it some thought.
If every conservative that rejected the church's authority decided to stay at home from church, the church would be empty.
I get you don't like the church... like I really understand this viewpoint. But why reject the church goers? The pope, the bishops, the priests, sure I can see not liking them. But if you show up and talk to the church members, the ones who you grew up with, etc, what exactly is wrong with that?
Man I can't tell you how annoyed we've been with our priest, our bishops, and yes the pope. I've gone through periods of extreme doubt. I still show up for the community. Always have, and likely always will. Just stick around.
Why would I choose to do this somewhere that the leadership rejects me and tells me I will burn in hell? I know that many individuals within the church may not agree, but plenty will, and culture is set from the top. It's not like there aren't more social/community options than I could possibly find the time to participate in that _don't_ have religious ties.
Because of the people in the church? Because of the fact that 'the leadership' is just the guy preaching, whereas the actual community is run by everyday people (well in my experience it is).
> It's not like there aren't more social/community options than I could possibly find the time to participate in that _don't_ have religious ties.
Well that's exactly it. People say there are myriad options and then don't participate, because they don't have time. Whereas in a church, you have to go. It's an obligation. Which makes it easier for people of all backgrounds to show up.
If you're not religiously inclined, then you can treat the church as a social club and ignore the religious trappings. It would behoove you to keep your atheism to yourself though, because the church is better than just any social club because of the religious nature. While some number of public doubters can be tolerated without negatively impacting the group, if it gets to be too large a number then the main benefit of community and fellowship would go away.
I am making a position without reference to the truth value of the religious claims because I'm not going to get into a debate on HN over whether Christanity / theism is right or wrong. I personally think that even if you are a committed atheist, church probably is a good idea anyway. If you're a western committed atheist, some denomination of Christianity is probably best
Either you build a friendship on lies, or you spend most of your bonding time unengaged.
I think it's certainly possible to build a substantial relationship with a religious person when you aren't religious yourself, but I'd imagine that in such a scenario, each of you would at least respect each other enough to be honest about your core beliefs.
I can appreciate that if you still believe in their god, there's still a lot of faith and "religious trappings" you can earnestly share. For atheists and the nonreligious, IMHO this seems like terrible advice.
I think atheists are just people who refuse to accept the natural conclusions.
So I don't see any need to hide your atheism really. We're all prone to folly, pride and irrationality and inconclusive thinking.
Honestly, if an atheist came to my Church and was open about it, that's fine with me. I confess doubt all the time too... It's not like I'm perfect. If the number of times my atheist friends have sincerely prayed before a big exam are any indication, I'd think most atheists have periods of extreme fervor.
But, when I've been more of an atheist, I've still found amazing value in religion, so I guess I'm probably just weird.
Unless you have some unknown faith by which 'progress' is good, I fail to see how you can come to that conclusion. Especially when various secular lines of reasonings reject 'progress' as a useful metric, or even a desirable thing at all.
> it is when we are fearful that we reach out into the void looking for someone to help us.
That is not true. A benevolent God is a requirement of Christianity being true. It is not a requirement of deism, which is simply the belief that there is a divine. You're conflating two things. IMO, that there is a divine is incredibly obvious. Christianity requires more of a stretch.
There is absolutely no evidence of such a thing, in fact, all major religions require that lack of evidence, it's a fundamental feature of them.
It's not like I go around thinking "there is no God", it's just not part of how I find meaning and make sense of the world.
This is not a moment of folly, just like your belief in God is not a moment of folly. It's just part of how I, and you, make sense of this confusing situation of coming into being on Earth for a little while, knowing that we won't be here for very long.
The biblical Jesus (he’s the Christ in Christian) hung out with sailors, prostitutes and a tax collector. The fact that xtians tell people they’re going to hell in that person’s name is a disgrace. It’s not the biblical antichrist but it’s sure anti everything Jesus said and did.
If anyone reads these words and feels pain, feel free to reach out. You’re incredibly loved, at least by me and I’ll have your back no matter what.
John 12:47-49: "If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day. For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak."
What did Christ say about sin and repentance?
Matthew 11:20-24: Then He began to denounce the cities in which most of His miracles were done, because they did not repent. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you.”
> The biblical Jesus (he’s the Christ in Christian) hung out with sailors, prostitutes and a tax collector. The fact that xtians tell people they’re going to hell in that person’s name is a disgrace. It’s not the biblical antichrist but it’s sure anti everything Jesus said and did.
What did Christ say about about his role in judgement?
John 12:47-49: If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day. For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.
> If anyone reads these words and feels pain, feel free to reach out. You’re incredibly loved, at least by me and I’ll have your back no matter what.
What did Paul say about pain?
2 Corinthians 7:10: For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death.
Make sure the gospel you're preaching is of the Word and not of man. Many churches misrepresent the truth, but many others aren't willing to speak it.
> for a lot of people there is no truth
> I don't believe in your religion or any other
> The bible is written by people, translated by people, and interpreted by people...the fidelity of the text is poor at best.
Briefly:
> for a lot of people there is no truth
A lot of people don't think clearly and have been misled. Do you and I exist in some form? Are we having a conversation? There: two truths. Dismissing truth as unknowable is a kind of, shall we say, cognitive off-ramp one may use when uninterested in working harder to find it. It's also a rhetorical trick used by some to shut down conversations they don't want others to have.
> I don't believe in your religion or any other
Framing philosophy as a matter of religion is a common way to dismiss a line of inquiry before it begins. It's also a rhetorical trick, a form of tribalism, a way to "other" those whom one disagrees with.
The modern distinction between religious and irreligious matters is ultimately a contrivance. The question of the nature of reality knows no such distinction.
What matters is not what label we apply to a philosophy; what matters is whether it is true. In this sense, everyone has a religion, whether or not they label it so. In modern terms, one may call it a worldview.
> The bible is written by people, translated by people, and interpreted by people...the fidelity of the text is poor at best.
That is your subjective evaluation: "poor at best." How do you know this? What research have you done into the texts available? Have you studied the original languages and ancient texts? How do these texts compare with other ancient documents, ones whose authenticity is not commonly questioned in the field? Is it legitimate to boil down an entire field of research, practiced over thousands of years, to three dismissive words?
The church has gone out of its way to be unwelcoming to many people, and I just don't want to be part of it. I've been to one church service where the preacher spent a large fraction of the sermon vitriolically condemning atheists. I'm not going to argue with him, but I'm also not going back for more.
I'm not trying to mess up anyone else's tradition, but if churches are shrinking and losing power I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing.
> We chock it up to things like abortion and sexual ethics but I don't buy it.
Homophobia != sexual ethics.
After my goodbye confession with a good priest I'm still friends with, I never thought I'd have to say these words again. But here we go. Outright homophobia is not about sexual ethics, it's about hatred and closed mindedness. Can you point out a section a single section in the gospels that indicates that this is okay? Can you point out a single statement that Jesus made that implies there is anything wrong with being gay?? I can't, yet mother church won't cut the homophobia.
Or take the church's silly little pro life movement. Do you notice that it's directed against women? Pro lifers never take out billboards that say 'Men, don't have sex with women when they're drunk. That is called rape.' But they sure like to harass scared, pregnant women and/or people who have had abortions with their shitty propaganda. Can you show me one thing in the gospels that suggest that is okay??
You can't because it's not. None of this is okay. Jesus would not have approved of much of anything. Crap, you don't even have to read too far into Matthew to realize that Jesus would not have been accepting of any of this.
Catholics are supposed to worship a dude who stopped a woman from being stoned with the words 'let he without sin cast the first stone.' And here we are, stoning the gay, stoning the activists and stoning reproductive rights without so much as a thought about it. Has the church sinned?? Hundreds of thousands of abused children point to the fact that yeah, the church has sinned.
Who is the Catholic church to cast stones, particularly when the dude we're supposed to follow was really against casting stones? And why should I stick around something so actively disrespectful? Frankly, I'd rather find a community of people who think love is the solution rather than find a community who preaches love unless you fall into one of about 15,000 boxes.....
Edit - Here's another example that really gets my goat. My own archdiocese excommunicated a woman who was ordained as a priest. I know her, in fact, my Mom used to work with her. I even went out on a couple of dates with one of her daughters and she is an absolutely wonderful person. But mother church excommunicated her because she was ordained as a priest? Why can't she be part of the community that she helped build? She worked within Catholic churches for decades, hence her work with my Mom. She was removed from the community and the priest in her own parish read the most disgusting letter about her. Do you know why???
Her calling is not legitimate. Only a man's calling can be legitimate.
Let's assume that God in God's wisdom subscribes to the Harvard Business Review. If God had an organization with a really serious sexual abuse crisis and if God read the HBR, God might decide it makes sense to bring some women into leadership positions. But oh no, the Catholics know God. They had a direct line to God when they were abusing all those kids or ethnically cleansing Canada of its indigenous population.
I'm sorry but I can't even write this shit with a straight face. How is a woman's calling totally irrelevant to a point of excommunication when men can fuck children and just get moved to a new parish (for the 17th time)?
Serious question.
Matthew 19:5: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?".
As you yourself said, Christ was certainly not afraid of breaking social norms of his day. Heterosexuality was a major norm at the time. Don't you think Christ would have said 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? Oh yeah, and sometimes a man will leave his father and dad and be united to his husband, because that's the same thing'. The lack of teaching on that speaks volumes, as does Christ's strictifying of existing Jewish sexual ethics, rather than loosening (in his ban on divorce).
The second thing that I see is a lack of understanding of repentance. Christ preventing the prostitute's punishment was because she had repented of her sin, not because sin is irrelevant. The same is true of the female priest. Should she repent, I'm sure she'd be welcomed back (otherwise your Gospel passage would be quite relevant). The priests who corrupted children... well this is a very long story and I know of no lay Catholics who really support the church's handling on this. But the existence of sinners doesn't take away from the utility of church. However I'll point out that the reason that happened was that the church bought too much into the mercy rhetoric that you seem to want it to buy into further. A lot of justification for moving priests was based on the assumption that (1) they had repented, (2) the church should be merciful, and (3) based on psychological understandings of sex in the 60s and 70s which were more radical than today, pedophilia was a condition that could be cured.
Anyway, I'm guessing this will fall on deaf ears and that there is an impenetrable barrier that will keep either of us from convincing the other. So to end, I'll just wish you the best. I mean that. Thanks for the response.
Inaccurate - the Greeks, for example, had institutionalized pederasty disguised as building bonds between generations. The Romans had... problematic beliefs about heterosexual sex as well.
> The lack of teaching on that speaks volumes
It speaks volumes about how incomplete the historical record is, but very little else. Did the person who wrote this passage ever even meet Christ? I'm under the impression that Chris-as-singular-historical-figure is accepted based on lighter evidence than we require for other historical figures. And that the Bible was mostly written hundreds of years after Jesus supposedly existed. That's not much of a basis for strict interpretation based on what isn't present, nearly 2000 years later.
You're under a false impression, and are spreading a myth [0][1]. In fact, your claim is exactly backwards: Certain laypeople (you seem to be among them) demand more evidence for the historicity of Jesus than for other famous people of antiquity.
> And that the Bible was mostly written hundreds of years after Jesus supposedly existed.
First, this is complete nonsense, given that ~77% of the Bible is the Old Testament, whose books have been dated to centuries BCE [1].
Second, if we charitably reinterpret your comment as referring to the New Testament, it is also false. The Book of Revelation is generally accepted by traditional scholarship to have been written during the reign of Domitian (81–96 CE) [1]. A handful (3-4) of other books are dated to 110 CE at most.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
I'm not purporting to be a biblical scholar, but it's clear to me that the evidence for Jesus is not as strong as, say, the evidence for Julius Caesar.
The fact that there is no direct evidence points to at least some haziness about the character. The same could be said for a number of other historical figures. It's pretty clear there are limitations to the evidence, from Wikipedia:
"The historical Jesus scholarship is bound by the following limitations:
- There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus; all existing sources are documentary.
- The sources for the historical Jesus are mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles.
- All extant sources that mention Jesus were written after his death.
- The New Testament represents sources that have become canonical for Christianity, and there are many apocryphal texts that are examples of the wide variety of writings in the first centuries AD that are related to Jesus.[33] The authenticity and reliability of these sources have been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.[34]"
So it seems that no writings about him survive from his life, by or about him. There is no physical evidence of his existence. Most of the evidence was written by early Christians, and few of the events they write about are universally accepted. And given the propensity of religious followers to exaggerate, I don't personally put a lot of stock in much of the motivated reasoning exhibited.
His is a resume with some holes in it. Smarter and better informed people disagree with me, but I'm just processing the evidence as I see it.
The reality is that we don’t have archaeological records for virtually anyone who lived in Jesus’s time and place.
Who was the most important Jewish figure in Palestine for the entire first century (who wasn’t, say, the actual king)? There’s no doubt. Flavius Josephus. Highly placed aristocrat, military leader, political figure, eventually made a court historian by the Roman emperor himself, and our principal source of information for the Jewish people and history at the time. And how much archaeological evidence do we have of his existence? None.
So too, who is (by far) the best known Jewish cultural figure outside of Palestine in the first century? Again, not much competition: Philo of Alexandria, brilliant philosopher, massively prolific author, political activist, known even at the highest levels of government in Rome itself. How much archaeological evidence do we have of his existence? Again, none. The lack of evidence does not mean a person at the time didn’t exist. It means that she or he, like 99.99% of the rest of the world at the time, made no impact on the archaeological record.
The most detailed record of the life and death of Jesus comes from the four Gospels and other New Testament writings. "These are all Christian and are obviously and understandably biased in what they report, and have to be evaluated very critically indeed to establish any historically reliable information," Ehrman says. "But their central claims about Jesus as a historical figure—a Jew, with followers, executed on orders of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius—are borne out by later sources with a completely different set of biases."
Within a few decades of his lifetime, Jesus was mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians in passages that corroborate portions of the New Testament that describe the life and death of Jesus.
Regarding the apocryphal texts, they're called apocryphal for a reason, and do not form part of the Biblical canon.
I’m not going to reply to anything this disrespectful. Fake people aren’t worth my time.
Edit - A great Jesuit priest and mentor once said to be very careful with people who start with an insult, move on to a bible quote and end with good wishes. I understand his position. Frankly, it’s a shame you couldn’t be more respectful - we could have learned from each other’s theology.
> Or take the church's silly little pro life movement. Do you notice that it's directed against women? Pro lifers never take out billboards that say 'Men, don't have sex with women when they're drunk. That is called rape.'
> And here we are, stoning the gay, stoning the activists and stoning reproductive rights without so much as a thought about it.
> Only a man's calling can be legitimate.
> If God had an organization with a really serious sexual abuse crisis and if God read the HBR, God might decide it makes sense to bring some women into leadership positions.
> They had a direct line to God when they were abusing all those kids or ethnically cleansing Canada of its indigenous population.
This comment appears to be a dog whistle, so please do correct me if I'm totally wrong here. But this reads like "Democrats / the left have demonized belonging to a church / Christianity," which is a common right wing talking point. Is that what you're saying here?
But yes, you're right in that I perceive the left as having demonized belonging to a church. This explains the growing disconnect between the democratic party and minorities, and why the GOP has started to make gains with them. The democratic party ignores religion at its own peril.
It's especially weird since the democratic party used to be really into religion.
This is hardly a 'right wing talking point'. My own parents left the democratic party because of this, well before they had ever tuned in to Fox, Limbaugh, or whatever. Labeling something as a 'right wing talking point' is just a democratic dog whistle to ignore real phenomena.
You're just picking and choosing. In reality, religious organizations, like the Catholic church for example, were fighting the opposite fight. Perez v Sharp in California was orchestrated by the church: http://ccgaction.org/node/1011
Of course, if we encourage community involvement, there will be good organizations and bad ones. For example, we provide 501(c)3 status to both Planned Parenthood as well as a pro-life organization.
The SBC was and remains the largest christian organization in the US, and it was founded for the express purpose of defending slavery.
The Catholic church is by far the largest christian organization in the united states.
SBC is a distant second:
https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/top-10-largest...
The SBC was and remains the largest protestant organization in the US, and it was founded for the express purpose of defending slavery.
If you dismiss such things as mere "picking and choosing", you're unlikely to to be able to understand viewpoints to which you're inclined to disagree.
You said the SBC was the largest Christian denomination. Then, when that was false, you changed it to 'largest Protestant organization'.
I mean, you can restrict things down to anything to prove a point. Did you know my McDonalds down the block has the highest sales revenue of any McDonalds in inner NE portland between the hours of 5 and 7PM? It's just crazy that we're blessed with such a prestigious example of fine business in my area.
If your argument mainly focuses on whether the SBC is the first or second largest American religious organization, then I guess you win. Congratulations!
It pains me to point out something so obvious, but the SBC was only one of the large mainstream Christian denominations to actively support slavery, and to later actively oppose civil rights for non-whites. But if you're able to dismiss the entire tortured and complicated historical relationship between American Christianity and racial oppression with a handy comparison to a neighborhood restaurant, then I guess you win again.
And my point was that it's a mixed bag. While a lot of support for slavery was nominally Christian, so was a lot of opposition.
For example, the Battle Hymn of the Republic is just that -- a hymn -- and its words on slavery are absolutely brutal. You can say 'christianity was a force for slavery' but you can't say that while not also acknowledging christianity was behind abolition as well.
:)
> my point was that it's a mixed bag. While a lot of support for slavery was nominally Christian, so was a lot of opposition.
Ok, but that's not what you said. You objected, without qualification, to the notion that large mainstream christian denominations supported white supremacy. IIRC, you said such talk was "picking and choosing".
Now, if the new location of your goalposts is their true permanent home, I'm happy to report that we agree with each other!
And I mean, this even comletely ignores blacks who form their own groups definitely not united all that much with above.
The mere act of belonging to any given religion pre-selected certain ideas about how the world works and should work. Hardly "all political stripes".
The truth is that despite decades of trying, the secular regular get-together groups for people without any unifying interests or socioeconomic status have utterly failed.
For most people, church is the only place they're going to be exposed to others that may share absolutely no interests with them and be of widely different socioeconomic status and yet still be acquaintances.
Our neighborhoods are segregated by socioeconomic class and increasingly, by profession. Our 'clubs' are non-existent, and where they do exist, cater to special interests and hobbies.
We need something that works, not something that is perfect. I still maintain that church, temple, mosque, etc is the best thing.
The olden days where "everybody" went to church every week still had tons of social problems.
Unfortunately, I don't think what you are describing ever existed. Every "get-together-group" I can think of has some kind of common interest, even if its something as simple as drinking coffee or reading books. I think your attachment to the church has a lot more to do with your emotions than thinking rationally. The way I see it, the cat is out of the bag with regards to organized religion. It is well known that there have been many corrupt religious organizations and heinous acts committed in the name of religion. To make the argument "The economy was shut down last year and there is a massive issue in our society with depression and loneliness as a result, but it's what those liberals deserve for leaving the church!" is asinine.
>Church is the only place they're going to be exposed to others that may share absolutely no interests with them
Are the bible, history of the church, the nature of reality, and developing a community not shared interests? Also, was the point of the article to only talk to people without shared interests? Isn't one of the first things you do when you get to know someone is try to find a common interest?
What? I never made that argument. You're putting words in my mouth and calling me asinine. Please actually respond to what I wrote.
> Are the bible, history of the church, the nature of reality, and developing a community not shared interests?
Nature of reality is more than an interest in my view. If you can't agree on reality, then no amount of shared interests can cover that gap.
As for the bible, history of the church, and community development... I guess those could be shared interests. But if you've ever met many Catholics, few are interested in the bible, even fewer in church history. We do like drinking and eating together though, so we got that! But other than super uppity social clubs, I've never really seen a dinner group achieve the success of the church, so i'm forced to conclude the religious aspect has something to do with it.
Regardless of the details of your argument, or whether my paraphrase of your original comment was accurate, it is an infeasible solution to suggest that everyone needs to go to church in order to address the loneliness, social anxiety, and tribalism. Your comments all have a condescending, passive aggressive tone and you are trying all kinds of dirty tactics to manipulate the debate to your favor. I doubt you have any real interest in more people going to church. Based on your comments, your goal is to argue and put blame on others. I'm not sure if anyone in this thread has really learned from this discussion (flamewar) and I regret engaging in it.
To see a Catholic espouse church and faith as a social solution in the US is some next level irony.
I do think that the segregation of social life is at the heart of much of this country's ills. However, perhaps that has more to do with things like, say, Bill and Sally's frankly hysterical fear of sharing a street with the Freemans. How to reduce social division in America in the long-term: ban private schools, fund public schools at the national level, and do it quickly, utterly, and irrevocably. I don't know if you would end up with a single, continental American nation, but the part left still known as "The United States of America" would be profoundly united.
Even if you disagree, you must understand that the notion that everyone must attend church for America to achieve some measure of unity is about as radical. The focus must be on the bringing together of disparate communities, secularly.
We tried this to tame the savages [1], and I don't think people really look back kindly or positively on that choice.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_American_Indian_sch...
Except the 'United' states of America has never been about that kind of community. That's more of the fraternite of the French revolution than the spirit of America.
American unity has been due to the result of multiple different organizations and factions all participating in a common undertaking, rather than one centralized organization doing the planning and execution (as would be the case if we 'nationalized' education and did away with private schooling).
My view of America as one in which everyone can belong to different organizations, but still work together is the historical norm.
In de Tocqueville's 'Democracy in America', written at the founding of the USA, de Tocqueville (an outside french observer) writes:
> Americans of all ages, all stations in life, and all types of dispositions are forever forming associations. There are not only commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but others of a thousand different types—religious, moral, serious, futile, very general and very limited, immensely large and very minute. > > Americans combine to give fetes, found seminaries, build churches, distribute books, and send missionaries to the antipodes. Hospitals, prisons, and schools take shape in that way... In every case, at the head of any new undertaking, where in France you would find the government or in England some territorial magnate, in the United States you are sure to find an association.
By asking the government to 'fund public schools at the national level' you are making America like France or England rather than what it historically has been, which is highly decentralized and disjointed, but still unified.
This in my opinion is the great disconnect between 'progressives' and 'conservatives' (for lack of better terms). There's a certain type of person that, when they see a problem, immediately asks how government can be leveraged to solve it. Whereas, for me, personally, and others I know, my response would be ... how could I get my local church men's club to help out. Because I can't control the government, and by the time I lobby and campaign, the problem will still have affected a bunch of other people. Whereas it's pretty easy to gather a group of guys to fix it.
One obvious example of this is -- as you mentioned -- schools. Before public schools were a thing, catholic communities all across the country pooled together parish money to start affordable schools, with great academic results. In response, the government started the public school system so people wouldn't have to deal with the church. That's fine and dandy, but we need to accept the fact that private organizations worked better than the government to immediately provide the service of education.
The same is true of hospitals. Go to any US city of any import, and you'll be sure to find a Catholic hospital. Where is the government if it's so useful. Even in Europe, where the healthcare systems are nationalized, half the hospitals used to be ones run by the Church. It remains to be seen how these nationalized healthcare systems will play out over the long-term (thousands of years), but we know how it works when the Church runs them... they stay around for a long time.
There's much wrong with what you have posted here and elsewhere, but I'll just focus on this one. There are numerous studies looking at private vs public schools, and public schools are just as good as private if you get rid of confounding factors (private school students tend to come from wealthier families, for instance).
There are many, many sources for this, here's a good start:
https://www.upworthy.com/public-versus-private-school-a-stud...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherrim/2019/07/03/why-w...
https://www.hepg.org/hel-home/issues/31_1/helarticle/turning...
I am not arguing for superiority of one over the other.
I'm just pointing out that decentralized, distributed decision making led to people's educational needs being met before government got with the program.
Also, your articles are on public v generic private. Catholic schools are outliers in the private school space. They tend to be significantly cheaper, have a different set of outcomes, and tend to be more socioeconomically representative of society at large.
Not clear at all. Catholics for example are the most likely group to marry interracially.
Religiously, I don't see the christian sects as very divided, despite their many differences. There seems to be a large set of common ground.
Even amongst religions, there is a lot of good will. I can't think of any widespread religious riot in the US (I could totally be wrong though).
Catholicism is an outlier here:
About half of people who attend church once a year or never said they had dated interracially; just 27 percent of respondents who attend weekly or more reported dating a person of another race, according to a study using data from the 2007 Baylor Religion Survey.
http://blogs.thearda.com/trend/featured/the-ties-that-may-no...
> Religiously, I don't see the christian sects as very divided, despite their many differences.
It matters less how you personally see this than it does how church-goers in aggregate feel and behave. Certainly, growing up in the South, it was abundantly clear that there were black churches and white churches and that the two very rarely mixed.
The KKK is an explicitly anti-Black, anti-Catholic, anti-Jew, pro-Protestant Christianity organization. Its self-stated reason for existence is to push down members of other religions and races. You can argue that these members aren't "real Christians", but they are sure as hell going to church and their fellow church-goers think they are.
*> I can't think of any widespread religious riot in the US (I could totally be wrong though).
It has a Wikipedia category:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Religiously_motivated...
I will be the first to admit I have zero understanding of protestantism other than that most seem nice. They're like Muslims to me except they believe in Jesus which seems nice.
I'm not so convinced as you that the religious aspect is required to make it work. Shared purpose maybe, but there are lots of ways of creating that. In another comment you mentioned "might as well be a community centre", which I think is interesting because community centres are one of the other places I've this sense of well... community.
One thing that churches have other than religion which I think often gets overlooked is money (in particular they generally own the building they use). I've seen more than one excellent community centre closed down because they ran out of funding and couldn't afford to keep paying the rent. I would love to see a concerted effort at government funded secular churches designed to serve a parish-sized community.
In my experience, when secular people start this, it ends up being a club for other secular people 'like them'. In America the starkest examples of this are when these community clubs founded by whites end up being essentially white only, or black-only if founded by a black. Not due to any racism on part of the founder but simply that, without an explicit shared value system, no one quite knows what to believe except those 'already in the know'.
I notice this with my own in-laws, who are white WASPy types. I am a Catholic obviously, and not white. Sometimes, they'll talk in ways that make me feel out of place and that I can't relate to. On the other hand, when white Catholics talk about Catholicism, I feel we're on the same wave length.
> I would love to see a concerted effort at government funded secular churches designed to serve a parish-sized community.
I think it's sad we have to replace grassroots decentralized community efforts with centralized government funded ones in this day and age. It's like we've regressed.
That's my observation. I'd be interested in seeing this thing come around, and i'll continue to watch from the sidelines with interest. Maybe I'll even show up after church.
The fundamental premise of the United States is that a body of people can have shared values without shared religion.
A supernatural deity is not required to believe that all people are created equal and deserve the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I sincerely doubt most hn readers are seeking active companionship with someone from rural Alabama.
Of course I have shared values with almost every american. That small set of values is just not enough for deep friendship even if it's enough for civic patriotism.
"If you stay Catholic you're going to hell" was a memorable thing one of my teachers told one of my classmates...
They really didn't like me much when I started asking questions they didn't have answers for other than "you just have to have faith," either.
You need to create a fiction that is believed in more than any individual differences but it doesn't work if we know it is fiction. The group will not be able to put aside differences for very long without it.
There is very clever aspect to what the church has done that is very hard to replicate.
I really think team sports are the closest you can get. This guy putting the ball over the goal line is the most important thing in the world and you can gel 90,000 drunk people to watch it without it becoming complete chaos. It is the same process at work.
Elementary school was the same. Military service with enforced conscription is also similar.
I personally stopped going to church because of the politics coming from the pulpit. The last sermon I heard was the preacher saying Barack Obama was “demonic” because his weak foreign policy made it harder to spread Christianity throughout the world, therefore forestalling the end times. Of course it wasn’t just that one sermon: the homophobia, the sexism, the anti-science attitudes had all been bothering me for years before I finally quit.
"It is appalling that the most segregated hour of Christian America is eleven o’clock on Sunday morning" -MLK
But the vast majority of folks aren’t going to get into a flame war over diner while staring into someone’s face. They might say crude things but they’ll probably also learn something.
I think the only thing that makes this idea really questionable is the proliferation of firearms in American culture
99% of my problems in the world are related to the random public, not my family.
If you search for "red heads" on YouTube you'll end up thinking everyone is a ginger.
Like families, societies need shared values. If a third of the population is religious extremist, another third believes in freedom and liberalism and the rest in Communism, fascism, or something even different, there is no common ground. I'm a tolerant person but I can't sit with people who preach that we should be treated differently depending on what race or gender we are. Or that gays shouldn't be able to get married. Diversity is good, but under a common denominator. Unchecked multiculturalism breaks nations apart. Smart people get divorces when they realize their partner is a disgusting swine who abuses them. Free societies need to do the same with groups promoting ideologies incompatible to their core values.
The problem is that these shared values have been obscured by disagreement on how to attain them, and by focusing on group identities that mark us all as "Other" to someone else.
I met plenty of different strangers from around the world through Hospitality Club (the concept later copied by CouchSurfing) and never had a bad experience. Many of my friends and family thought it was dangerous inviting strangers into your home. And maybe today it is, I'm not sure. But back then practically everyone signed up there had the same open-minded spirit, they wanted to learn about people in other countries and further intercultural understanding and friendship. I've met lots of people from very different walks of life, people I might have never otherwise talked to. This is positive diversity, when there's a shared value and people can unite around it and trust each other.
To give a negative example many people in Western societies, in their strive to not be racist, have bought into the false belief that all cultures are equal, that you're assigned one by birth and that you're not allowed to criticize the culture of "other" people. Which ironically in itself is a racist idea. This in turn has lead to political movements that consider it taboo discussing certain problems connected with topics like religion, culture and ethnicity. And it's given birth to the kind of laissez-faire multiculturalism where problems never get addressed and crime, mistrust and conflict are rampant. Because people either get divided among identity lines like you mention, or unchecked immigration gives these societies the death blow (the Western European model).
Yet in Australia and the United States today, the zeitgeist is that we’ve “always been multicultural”. This is clearly only superficially true: multiculturalism was only recently redefined to mean the integration of non-white europeans into predominantly white european societies. In the documentary, they explain following World War II, it was feared that Australia would grow weaker than its Asian competitors oweing to Australia’s low population, which many in government thought made them susceptible to capture by aggressor nations. This, AFAICT, was the real impetus for the Australian government becoming increasingly accepting of Asian immigrants.
And more recently, during the pandemic, the Australian housing sector has been calling for more immigration. Apparently, immigration powers much of the Australian housing sector [1]:
> A fall in migrants during the pandemic is causing a sharp drop in housing demand, with the sector urging the government to create a migration plan and extend HomeBuilder incentives.
Modern multiculturalism seems to be primarily based on economic and militaristic concerns, and is in no way based on a desire for social cohesion. See also: One Billion Americans [2]. Some say the US should strive to increase its population size to one billion for more or less the exact same reasons modern day multiculturalism came about. These people were never concerned with social cohesion: they’re entirely concerned with militaristic and economic might.
[1]: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/lack-of-incoming-migrants-during...
I think you are either an unusual outlier or are very much underestimating how well you can get along with people different from you when sharing a meal with them in person.
People are not who they appear to be online.
You can get along with them easily. But then it ends and you are happy it ended and never want to be there again.
Because getting along with them requires you swallowing all above, pretending it is ok. Acvepting situation in which they talk and you are silent or submissive.
Oh, sure.
I've probably also inadvertently been the one who was condescending or insulting before too. People are fallible and some fraction of them are pretty shitty.
But my experience is that the fraction is low enough that it's worth rolling the dice to find new connections with the larger fraction of people that are generally pretty good. I can take an insult or a boring conversation.
> Acvepting situation in which they talk and you are silent or submissive.
I think human interaction is a lot more varied than a binary choice between arguing or rolling over.
I’m not sure that anyone involved in this is making utopian assumptions. Rather, we’re all different and just know ourselves. I’m likely as ‘correct’ as you are - we’ve both figured out how we’re happiest around others! That’s a net win for us.
As to your point itself, I would say I find most people painfully uninteresting. I once read that humans are generally interested in people or objects, and I'm much more interested in objects. This has naturally developed into life choices that minimize my interaction with people (besides loved ones) like working in software and having interests I can pursue by myself (rock climbing, studying languages, lifting weights). My mid-term life goal is to buy a remote-ish house in a low-population density state with multiple acres and work remotely so I can ideally go days without seeing another human. My dream would be to own and live in the middle of a forest or on a mountain so I could go weeks or months without seeing another human (again, besides my loved ones). If you're the opposite, then I agree we're just different and I hope you're able to achieve your version of an ideal lifestyle.
They were profiled on NPR a while ago I recall.
No, I don't think forcing sociality is the right solution, though I am on board with encouraging community events generally.