There are many, many people who are not happy with the status quo, and they are looking for others who share their opinion. And since the media and the social networks are actively working on deciding who's opinion gets amplified, and who gets memory-holed, the people disagreeing with the mainstream agenda will have no choice but to join existing opposing organizations and adopt some of their views, even if they don't fully agree with them.
That's polarization of the society happening in front of our eyes.
Climate change is something else and there is zero reason for itself to try to overtake actual quality engineering, physics etc programs that existed for years.
This confuses me a bit. For convenience, can we refer to the "mainstream" climate-change-as-religion group as M, the dissenters as D, and the opposition as O.
If we're taking the single issue of how climate change is presented, why would D go and side with O despite not fully agreeing with them, instead of M who they don't fully agree with?
Concretely, it seems to me that O are likely to not prioritise climate change in any way. Are D willing to give up climate change action for other principles? Why should D not join M and push for change, or be the faction that is more welcoming of other "heretics"?
He describes how Christian + Jewish morality came about, and what might happen as religion fades away. I think you're hitting the nail on the head. Same same but different.
But climate change is largely a social problem at this stage, not a technical problem. We can't even begin to solve the technical issues surrounding it until we get stakeholders on board with the plan to solve it. That isn't possible because people deny that it exists and/or actively fund denial in others.
However, many of them are unpopular outside that demographic, because they enforce quite serious restrictions on students. You can be kicked out for having sex, drinking, for cloth you wear and quite a few other infractions that don't exists elsewhere. Teacher can't be divorced or omg single parent either.
As bonus, all discussions about free speech of students in what you call progressive school are quite funny, if you compare it to large speech restrictions students in Christian school have to follow.
I attended a Christian liberal arts college in the early 80s. I didn't belong to the same sect as the college, and wasn't particularly religious. The college had strong science programs, which is why I was there.
It was kind of an interesting time, with "fundamentalism" coming into broader public visibility, the Moral Majority, and so forth. This seemed to matter more to the students than to the college. I remember listening to late night debates in the dorm about whether the college's sect was "fundamentalist," and what they should be teaching about evolution, rock music, and so forth.
Naturally there was a religion department, and the college also contained the seminary for the sect's ministers. Officially, I had to take two religion courses, one of which was pretty much an outline of the sect's doctrines (which I've forgotten), but it was a required course, so it had to be easy enough for everybody to pass. And my Econ 101 professor taught about "Christian economics," which turned out to be Reaganomics, including the Laffer Curve.
Almost all of the region's small colleges were sectarian in some form or fashion, but varied widely in terms of how visibly religious they were. My experience was decades ago, and the alumni magazine that I get from the college suggests that they haven't changed much with the times. I'm not sure I'd choose a religious college today, or recommend one to my kids.
Nobody would mistake Georgetown, BC, Villanova, Fordham, or Notre Dame for somewhere like Liberty University. Indeed, the campuses would be ghost towns if some of those rules were strictly enforced.
Recall, most of the eugenics movement was started in the US in the 1910s - 1920s
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_State...
It was wide spread and taught in colleges in the 20s
https://fee.org/articles/the-progressive-ideas-that-fueled-a...
Arguably since 1900, there’s been a steady decline in religion in the United States (slower than elsewhere). It marched through the institutions and now even religious universities are supporting outright sins stated in the Bible (see the split in the Methodist church)
Unless you think progressives controlled all the votes in these 30 states: https://eugenicsarchive.ca/discover/tree/535d39a37095aa00000...
Christians were all over it, with all their own rationalizations.
>In 1967, two Catholic social services agencies and eleven bishops in the states that still had laws prohibiting interracial marriage used a “friend-of-the-court” brief in Loving v. Virginia to urge the United States Supreme Court to strike down the laws in Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.
>The cause [eugenics] became increasingly promoted by intellectuals of the Progressive Era.[5][6]
https://academic.oup.com/jah/article-abstract/103/2/498/1750...
Whether opposing eugenics is progressive or anti-progressive seems like a confusing topic to me.
There’s a few of the accounts of the Scopes trial from a more wholistic understanding:
A more academic one:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0950543080206288...
> Using Bryan's unread closing remarks as a key to his views, this revisionist historical work argues that Bryan opposed evolution primarily for political and ethical reasons—reasons that have been lost to historical memory. Bryan's overarching concern was the threat to society posed by extrapolations of evolutionary doctrine—namely, Social Darwinism and eugenics. His commitment to the Social Gospel put him at odds with the concept of natural selection being applied to humans.
A more biased one but which highlights the emotional aspects better:
https://unherd.com/2019/11/americas-great-victory-for-scienc...
> The relevant statute, known as the Butler Act, was not a fusty old one. In fact the Governor had signed it into law only two months previously. The Tennessee House of Representatives had passed the bill by 71 votes to 5; the state Senate endorsed it 24 votes to 6. …
> At this time almost everyone who considered themselves ‘progressive’, including everyone who considered themselves a ‘Darwinist’, strongly supported the-then rampant eugenics movement. In rural Tennessee, folks may not have had a sophisticated grasp of Darwin’s theory of evolution, nor of his cousin, Francis Galton’s related, but pseudo-scientific theory of eugenics; but they knew the progressives who preached Darwinism in the cities despised country people, called them “imbeciles” and “defectives” and would sterilise them if they got half a chance.
> More than 60,000 Americans were forcibly sterilised under eugenics laws passed by 33 states. It wasn’t just low IQ that established someone as likely to have a dysgenic effect: a history of heavy drinking, or conceiving a child out of wedlock, were enough to mark someone down as a “moral imbecile”.
The beliefs are being much more than represented, they’re being mandated and legislated and protected unfairly.
Nobody has opposed the existence of churches or religious institutions in any major political setting for a long time. That’s what representation means, that their right to exist and operate is protected. It’s not being attacked.
I’m a devout follower of Neaus Christ, but calling myself a Christian in modern America makes me absolutely sick to my stomach these days. I’m nearly ashamed of what that means for this country.
This is actually the opposite of reality. Roe was the mandate of one belief over the entire country, legislated from the bench no less. Overturning it is a return to federalism, and allows each state to decide which beliefs it wants to uphold.
Yes, you're probably right. It's not likely to be productive.
> ... but perhaps they were talking about the state legislation released by the court, which is applied equally to the people who want or don't want it and is not a result of a popular vote.
Perhaps, but it doesn't read that way. Even if it were, that would just be lamenting representative democracy. Maybe a better point than the one that actually seems to have been made, but also probably not a particularly productive conversation.
In modern parlance Federalism generally means the opposite: being strongly in favor of states rights. You'll also see this called "new federalism". The explanation for this is that Federalism is about balance of power, and the phrase is generally used to indicate policy that would return a stronger balance. Currently (since the Civil War in particular) the federal government is extremely strong, whereas historically, in the time of the Federalist Papers, it was extremely weak.
Federalism just works! (tm)
The states can and do regulate food safety. The states, not the federal government, govern motor vehicle licensing. And finally the states do collect taxes. In fact the constitution even permits the federal government to levy an apportioned tax on the states and leave it up to them on how to come up with the money.
That is what we do.
For many foods, we still do. It's why you sometimes see "Registered with the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture" printed on packages. (Usually abbreviated to something like "Reg. Penna. Dept. Agr.")
Sometimes particular states set standards that all the other states, or an entire industry, follows.
When they (used to?) give away cars on TV game shows, the announcer always lists "California emissions" in the description of the car.
You seem to be working with a definition of "devout" that I'm unfamiliar with.
Devout is about dedication, not visibility. My journey has nothing to do with how I portray myself and behave in social settings. Very few of my coworkers even know I attend church and do mission work. I don’t have to wave a flag out of my ass to worship the Living God, unlike the majority of phony half-believers keeping pews warm Sunday mornings. They leave church filled with impatience and anger, and treat those less fortunate as a filth and a burden despite being commanded by God to serve THEM!
All that said, I’m not at all shocked you don’t understand. Good luck.
Nobody stated that you have to "wave a flag out of [your] ass." I merely pointed out that "devout" has a particular meaning that seems to be in conflict with the notion of being "sick" to admit that you're Christian.
In my (Roman Catholic) theology classes, and many decades of religious study, I was always taught that part of being Christian is to not be afraid of what other people think of you being a Christian. That accepting persecution for your faith is a very basic act of faith.
I merely suggest you use a word other than "devout" to describe your relationship with your faith. "Adherent" might work. But as there are many different types of Christianity, perhaps your line requires less devotion, or a different type of devotion than mine.
I'm not sure what a "journey" is, but I wish you well with your life and your interest in improving your relationship with God.
He is not ashamed ofnthe God part. He is ashamed of Kavanaugh.
nobody forces you to pick this particular establishment, nor is it the only one you can choose. in fact, it costs money to attend, and they won't care if you choose not to.