I just stumbled upon a key stat in an ancient Time magazine:
Religion: More Catholics
Friday, May 12, 1961
U.S. Roman Catholics now form 24% of the population, compared to 19% a decade ago. According to the Official Catholic Directory for 1961, published last week, baptized Catholics number 42,104,899—13,470,021 more than in 1951.
This was a sizable issue at the time, and the resolution of it in the 1960s, as I explained in Taki's article a few months ago, opened up room for much that followed.
If Catholicism allowed priests to marry, a whole bunch of priests could have raised large families, and there would be plenty of future personnel material for the future of the Church.
ReplyDeleteBut no marriage rule drove away lots of men from the becoming priests. And the Church attracted lots of repressed homos and pedophiles.
Catholic Church is pro-life but doesn't allow its priests to marry and have kids. It's like pre-abortion.
Why did the Irish become so prominent in police and fire departments and city machine politics? It wasn't only because of tribal clan networking. It was because Irish cops and firemen had plenty of kids. Smart kids might become doctors and lawyers and professors, but the lesser bright ones could still become firemen and policemen and politicos, just like their old man. So, Irish kept power generation after generation even as other ethnic groups moved in.
ReplyDeleteImagine if Irish had a rule where Irish cops and firemen had to be celibate and couldn't marry and have kids. There would have been no Irish power in the machine politics of many cities. Irish cops and firemen and city workers would have had no kids to take their place.
Catholics should have a had rule where only celibate priests could become elite bishops and pope but married men could become priests or lower bishops.
In this hormone-raging age, it's too much to ask for healthy normal men to give up sex and marriage for life in church.
If the Catholic Church reverses its position on celibacy and attracts many more men to become priests and if these men have lots of kids who are also committed to the Faith, that will be like the Second Coming of Jesus. Not in person but in the form of the resurgence of the original Church.
ReplyDeleteDo Catholics want their religion to be a living faith or a museum faith with empty buildings?
"Catholics should have a had rule where only celibate priests could become elite bishops and pope but married men could become priests or lower bishops."
ReplyDeleteThe Orthodox churches- Russian, Greek, Serbian, Ethiopian etc.- have exactly that rule.
There was a pro-gay puff piece a few years ago titled "Two dads are better than one" for ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corp.) news lionizing two gay dads who adopted a Russian boy. The original article has been scrubbed off the internet, but the Google web cache version is still available, though no doubt that will scrubbed too soon enough:
ReplyDeletehttp://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1cEiDz1vtDYJ:abc.net.au/local/stories/2010/07/14/2953694.htm+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Well it turns out that those two gay dads were actually part of a global pedophile ring and had bought the boy from his mom. The original adoption story had been a ruse:
"Qld boy's horror, raised by global pedophile ring"
http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/local/17800543/qld-boy-caught-in-global-pedophile-ring/
"HE was a child star but all for the wrong reasons.
He made his debut at just 22-months old - not for a toy store advertisement or even a family friendly PG film. This was for hardcore global pornographic syndication.
He would be filmed being sexually abused by his “adoptive parents” and at least eight other pedophiles in Australia, France, Germany and the United States.
His horrific introduction to the insidious world of pedophilia dated back to 2005 when his Russian mother sold him for $8,000 to a member of Boy Lovers – a sophisticated global network of men whose sexual preference are boys aged between six and eight years old.
The boy was “adopted” by American Mark J Newton who lived in Brisbane and Cairns with his Australian boyfriend, Peter Truong.
Such was the extent of the abuse, the boy, who will be called Adam for legal reasons, grew up believing the abuse and exploitation was a natural part of his daily existence.
Newton even coached Adam on how to deny any inappropriate activity if questioned by investigators.
He was so indoctrinated that when interviewed by a queue of US experts, Adam did not reveal the severe sexual abuse he suffered at the hands of his “parents” and the Boy Lovers network.
Queensland Police Taskforce Argos, which targets pedophiles, also fear the same techniques may have been used on several other children who came into contact with the men."
From the original article:
ReplyDeletehttp://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1cEiDz1vtDYJ:abc.net.au/local/stories/2010/07/14/2953694.htm+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
"On arrival in Australia customs quizzed Mark and Pete for hours. Police were also sent around to their house on a Sunday morning to investigate.
"When people see two guys together, you know it's like, 'Where's his mother?' We've had a lot of people ask that," Pete said.
"I think that even if one of us was a woman, we wouldn't have had the same suspicions and problems that we went through."
Thinking back to the police visit, Pete said the police seemed to want reassurance that the situation was 'right'.
They checked if the couple had equipment to raise a child like a bed, clothes and bottles.
Mark said he's sure that they were under suspicion of paedophilia. But despite the difficulties, he said the couple would do it again with no hesitation.
"We're a family just like any other family," he said with pride."
"There was a pro-gay puff piece a few years ago titled "Two dads are better than one" for ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corp.) news lionizing two gay dads who adopted a Russian boy."
ReplyDeleteMaybe pedophile homos should be called pedomos.
@anonymous - "Why did the Irish become so prominent in police and fire departments and city machine politics? It wasn't only because of tribal clan networking."
ReplyDeletethe (native) irish are also pretty darn clannish, too. by nature (probably), i mean. they're one of the most inbred populations in nw europe.
It wasn't so much what the Catholics did or were. Simply for the first time you had a large group (not very cohesive) that in at least some respects was never going to assimilate completely into the majority ethnic group. Politics had to start to try to take this into account.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteSince the post-WWII baby boom White, native-born Catholics have had fewer and fewer children, so my guess is that the overall increase in the Catholic numbers and percentage of total population flows from the admission of hordes of illegal aliens, the majority of whom are at least nominally Catholic.
One reason White Catholics have had fewer children: they've faced the same Affirmative Action "you're not the right color" turn-aways from college admissions & employment. Another reason is that, while they were allowed to, White Catholics rose in the meritocracy owing to their increased admission to and success in higher education, and these graduates fit the usual pattern of increased affluence begetting...less begetting.
Any explanation of reduced Catholic fecundity in the post 1960 era really needs to mention the contraceptive pill.
ReplyDeleteThere was a pro-gay puff piece a few years ago titled "Two dads are better than one" for ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corp.) news lionizing two gay dads who adopted a Russian boy. The original article has been scrubbed off the internet, but the Google web cache version is still available, though no doubt that will scrubbed too soon enough:
ReplyDeleteWhy not use a service like webcite or an alternative to permanently store the information that various elites want to purge down the memory hole?
If Catholicism allowed priests to marry, a whole bunch of priests could have raised large families, and there would be plenty of future personnel material for the future of the Church...
ReplyDelete...If the Catholic Church reverses its position on celibacy...that will be like the Second Coming of Jesus...
If the Catholics choose to allow priests to marry one day, that's fine by me, but please, let's ease up on the hard sell. The Orthodox have married priests, and they have not done much of anything to prevent a population implosion. And anyway, how exactly does one raise a large family on a priest’s salary?
Since they don't have wives and kids, Catholic priests were pretty cheap to maintain, so Catholics didn't tithe.
ReplyDeleteProtestantism tends toward superstar preachers who can form a megachurch, and thus can afford a wife and kids.
The Baby Boom was largely a Catholic phenomenon. In Protestant families, the birth rate didn't increase much in the years 1946-64.
ReplyDeleteThe Baby Boom generation has also been America's worst generation, the most selfish and corrupt. Under Boomer leadership, America has suffered its worst and only decline in its standing among nations and the U.S. Treasury, for the first time, is now in de facto bankruptcy.
Are these two facts related?
Here is some tangentially related commentary from H.L. Mencken: "Nine-tenths of the Italians, for example, who have come to these shores in late years have brought no more of the essential culture of Italy with them than so many horned cattle would have brought."
the (native) irish are also pretty darn clannish, too. by nature (probably), i mean. they're one of the most inbred populations in nw europe.
ReplyDeletehbd-chicks usage of "in-bred" and "out-bred" is non-standard. It's rather like the way the game boys use terms such as "alpha" and "beta".
The mainline Protestants have always had married clergy. Last I checked, they're experiencing a shortage of laity.
ReplyDeleteProgressive Protestants had their reasons for disliking Catholic societies.
ReplyDeleteWell, yeah. Catholics were conservative, and "Progressive Protestants" were ... progressive. This is where Steve goes astray - he ends up siding with progressives over conservatives simply because the former were nominally "Protestant".
As tribalism goes. that's the dumb kind.
@anonymous - "hbd-chicks usage of 'in-bred' and 'out-bred' is non-standard."
ReplyDeleteno, it's pretty standard, actually. except i throw in 'long-term' and 'sustained' ('cause i think those things matter for inclusive fitness and natural selection).
@anonymous - "hbd-chicks usage of 'in-bred' and 'out-bred' is non-standard."
ReplyDeletealso, it's hard to argue with the ... you know... actual (genetic) data. (~_^)
This whole white-Catholic vs white Protestant thing seems to have been an important influence on Steve growing up. He certainly returns to the topic with some regularity. But really, there is no there there.
ReplyDeleteYes, white Catholics tended to vote Democratic and white Protestants tended to vote Republican. But conservative white Protestants tended to vote Democrat.The identities of the two parties were very different from what they became from roughly 1972 onwards. There was more blood-and-soil conservatism in the old Democratic party than in the old GOP.
they're one of the most inbred populations in nw europe.
ReplyDeleteEqualed only by the Protestant Swedes, according to the data you link to. Oops.
Using your definition of "out-bred", modern multi-culti New York, Los Angles and London are some of the most out-bred places which have ever existed. Is this leading to the evolution of "fitter" humans? It really isn't. Meanwhile a notable example of a very in-bred group is .. Jews.
So the in-bred=bad, out-bred=good model you work from needs some refining.
Religion: More Catholics
ReplyDeleteOur Syrian Freedom Fighters Friends take care of this.
Not surprisingly, the NYT has taken the lead in the worldwide condemnation of this revolting attack on Christianity, with a front-page gruesome picture and a scathing op-ed.
ReplyDeleteSyrian catholic priest.
ReplyDeleteAll the churches in Western countries have priest shortage problems. Part of the problem is merely Baumol's Cost Disease. A century ago the Anglican Church could just barely support married priests on the tithe, which was a tax on rural folk (Anglican = England's tax-supported State church for those of you who haven't read up on this stuff). Now? Fuggedaboudit. There aren't any rural tithepayers now and Anglican leaders don't know how to obtain donations.
ReplyDeleteFifty years ago American Methodists could support uncharismatic married ministers church by church, but that doesn't work anymore either, except for a few lesbian ministers.
In Western countries scientific education and socialist ideals destroyed the faith of millions, modern tranquilizers devastated recruiting into convents and monasteries, and women's lib (employment) deprived churches of their educated lay volunteer workers at the same time that the Pill and the demographic transition ensured that few parents could spare any children for the (Catholic) church (if they wanted grandchildren, which they nearly all did).
Western churches now depend on the lower classes for members and leaders because they are less educated (ergo less skeptical), less busy elsewhere, more impulsive and fecund, and more interested today in real, local community than the ethereal community of the Internet.
The American Protestant megachurch answer to the priest funding problem (of which the TV preacher phenomenon is a variant) is quite clever really, and I think the reason it hasn't swept Europe is the fact that European countries are all run by atheist socialists who hate all churches but think it wise to maintain their castrated State churches as excuses for oppressing the others. The eurocrats promote Islam (including supporting the imams, their multiple wives, and many children by government handouts-- something they won't do for Christian priests!) mainly to flail "conservative" eurovoters; to european leftist politicians, Islam is like voodoo-- not a first-class religion like Christianity which must be stamped out (or infiltrated and neutered from within), but a distraction for both adherents (ignorant dirty Arabs, Africans, Turks, etc.) and local opponents of Leftism who deserve to have their women raped and their cars burnt.
As risible as its basic myths may be, I see the LDS Church (Mormons) as the main agent of growth for something like Christianity now. The old big Christian denominations are moribund, the Protestant megachurches are separate personality cults which break up individually when each charismatic leader dies or gets too old,* and the Catholic church seems thoroughly corrupted and demoralized by eurosocialist influences-- it still has energy in Africa but a magnificent edifice like that ruled from St. Peter's See cannot be maintained by low-IQ clods. At this time only the Mormons supply enough community and demand enough discipline, procreation, and tithing to maintain and grow their organization.
*Or gets caught sexually-exploiting parishioners.
Yes, white Catholics tended to vote Democratic and white Protestants tended to vote Republican. But conservative white Protestants tended to vote Democrat.The identities of the two parties were very different from what they became from roughly 1972 onwards. There was more blood-and-soil conservatism in the old Democratic party than in the old GOP.
ReplyDeleteNo, it was mainly regional, rather than ideological. Conservative white Protestants in the north and Midwest tended to be Republican. Conservative Southerners tended to be Democrat.
The Democratic Party coalition until the 60s/70s was between the urban North and the South in general.
hbd-chicks usage of "in-bred" and "out-bred" is non-standard. It's rather like the way the game boys use terms such as "alpha" and "beta".
ReplyDeleteShe also takes terms like "liberal democracy" at face value. Despite the fact that contemporary polities that are claimed to be the most "liberal democratic" are less genuinely democratic and more elitist.
"The Orthodox have married priests, and they have not done much of anything to prevent a population implosion."
ReplyDeleteThey have them beards that make them unsexy.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/GreekOrthodoxPriest.jpg
"The Baby Boom generation has also been America's worst generation, the most selfish and corrupt."
ReplyDeleteGen XYZs are the worst.
"Catholics should have a had rule where only celibate priests could become elite bishops and pope but married men could become priests or lower bishops."
ReplyDeleteThat is how the Orthodox handle the issue.
@anonymous - "She also takes terms like 'liberal democracy' at face value. Despite the fact that contemporary polities that are claimed to be the most 'liberal democratic' are less genuinely democratic and more elitist."
ReplyDeleteno i don't. show me an example of where i've done that.
i dare ya. i double dare ya!
@anonymous - "Equaled only by the Protestant Swedes, according to the data you link to. Oops."
ReplyDeleteno. you just didn't read carefully enough. try again. (hint: last quoted paragraph from article -- and/or this comment.)
@anonymous - "Using your definition of 'out-bred', modern multi-culti New York, Los Angles and London are some of the most out-bred places which have ever existed."
not according to my definitions. i think you need to read them again, too -- more closely this time.
@anonymous - "Meanwhile a notable example of a very in-bred group is .. Jews."
i've never said that they aren't.
"The Baby Boom generation has also been America's worst generation, the most selfish and corrupt."
ReplyDeleteBoomers were geniuses compared to millennials.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWEodn-nQMI
Thomas Ligotti, when asked what religion meant to him, he answered,"Crowd Control." In the age of surveillance cameras and heavy policing (not to mention Internet monitoring), the law no longer needs to be "written on your heart" to keep you behaving when no one is looking - there's always someone looking.
ReplyDeleteCatholicism did a pretty good job for two millennia. I'm not so sure that it being a haven for the alienated and the homosexual was such a bad thing - it gave their lives meaning. What fills the void - gay marriage? What do we resort to now to explain life's sufferings and absurdity? Another religion? Science?
If the Catholic Church reverses its position on celibacy
ReplyDeleteYeah, they should go back to the non-celibacy policy that gave them a huge boost in vocations in the mid-20th century.
Oh wait, those priests were celibate too, as were the priests in previous centuries when there were plenty of them (and plenty of nuns). Guess you're all wet.
There are several reasons for the priest and nun shortage, having to do with changes in society, family size, and heresy in the Church. High expectations is not one of the reasons.
The "Baby Boom" can largely be described as a "Catholic Boom"- Protestant births were up moderately, but Catholic births were up dramatically (I don't have exact numbers off the top of my head, but I think I remember reading them in Thomas E. Woods' "The Church Confronts Modernity">).
ReplyDeleteThis is probably because most Protestant churches had caved on the issue of contraception during the 1930s and 40s. The Catholic Church, and most married Catholics, continued to mostly reject contraception through the early '60s, even for a few years after the invention of "The Pill". The pill's invention, though, kicked of a major theological debate which lasted 10 years, and the Vatican dithered on the subject, giving the impression that the rule against contraception was one of those things that would soon be relaxed in keeping with the other new changes following Vatican II. Eventually, and very reluctantly, Pope Paul VI finally reaffirmed the traditional teaching, but by then a huge percentage of newly-married Catholic couples were using contraception, and most of their priests didn't want to get into a fight over the issue. Pope Paul, rudderless and ineffectual as usual, didn't bother disciplining anybody who openly dissented, and the result was the situation we have today- every few years, the Vatican reminds Catholics that contraception is a big no-no, but most Catholic priests and bishops take care never to mention this teaching to their parishioners, except when intrusive new government mandates give them absolutely no choice.
"And the Church attracted lots of repressed homos and pedophiles."
ReplyDeleteBefore the early '60s, those with homosexual inclinations were routinely expelled from most Catholic seminaries. This practice was eventually allowed to lapse (Partly, this was because "modern" psychologists insisted that they were able to "cure" sexual deviants, but it was also a product of the general craziness of the Vatican II-era zeitgeist). In light of the sex-abuse scandals, Pope Benedict reaffirmed the rule against ordaining homosexuals, but since many dioceses are so strapped for seminarians that they'll consider almost anything with a pulse and a Y chromosome, I suspect this isn't being as strictly enforced as it should (that said, in my admittedly limited experience with seminarians, things seem to be a heck of a lot better than they used to be). Part of the priest shortage is surely a result of contraception- parents who have only one son to pass on the family name are not going to be very encouraging when he says he's interested in a job that requires lifelong celibacy.
As John Zmirak noted in a Vdare article some years ago, Catholic bishops are vehemently pro-immigration largely because they need immigrants to compensate for their utter incompetence at passing on Catholicism to the children of native-born Catholics. If immigration, legal and illegal, were reduced, not only could American Catholics afford to have a few more children, but bishops and priests might actually have an incentive to remind them of Humanae Vitae once in a while.
The mainline Protestants have always had married clergy. Last I checked, they're experiencing a shortage of laity.
ReplyDeleteYep. And most have gone heavily to women pastors. That's a death-knell for a church, but without that temporary stop-gap, the shortage would be much worse.
"The Baby Boom generation has also been America's worst generation, the most selfish and corrupt."
ReplyDeleteBoomers were geniuses compared to millennials.
And you've proven that by suggesting that "genius" is contrary to "selfish and corrupt"?
no i don't. show me an example of where i've done that.
ReplyDeletei dare ya. i double dare ya!
Yes, you do.
La is the Catholic Capital of the US because of Latin American immirgation, I think La County is in the 30's and believe it or not, Catholics also outnumber Evangelicals in Orange and San Diego it was the reverse 20 years ago. This is from the Pew report. Also, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox less than 1 percent of the US population slightly up because of immirgation. Catholics higher in the Southwest and dropped alot in the NOrtheast.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThe American Protestant megachurch answer to the priest funding problem (of which the TV preacher phenomenon is a variant) is quite clever really, and I think the reason it hasn't swept Europe is the fact that European countries are all run by atheist socialists who hate all churches but think it wise to maintain their castrated State churches as excuses for oppressing the others. The eurocrats promote Islam (including supporting the imams, their multiple wives, and many children by government handouts-- something they won't do for Christian priests!) mainly to flail "conservative" eurovoters; to european leftist politicians, Islam is like voodoo-- not a first-class religion like Christianity which must be stamped out (or infiltrated and neutered from within), but a distraction for both adherents (ignorant dirty Arabs, Africans, Turks, etc.) and local opponents of Leftism who deserve to have their women raped and their cars burnt.
Well, the Protestant mega-churches grow in So Ca in the 1960's thru 1980's, most are very similar to Robert Schuller of the drive in church. Rick Warren is the last of the megachurches unless you think of Joel Osteen in Texas where evangelicalism is more popular. Pew pointed out that in San Diego and Orange the birth places of the megachurches that evangelical churches are now behind Roman Catholics mainly because of immirgation of Latins and some Asians like the Vietnamese.
The Baby Boom generation has also been America's worst generation, the most selfish and corrupt."
ReplyDeleteBoomers were geniuses compared to millennials.
That's true, Boomers are more pro-white since they are white. Its their leadership which isn't great same thing can be said of gen-x or the millenials. The millenials are more mutl--cutlureal because they are more black, hispanic and many times in California or Texas children of the illegal immirgants given anmesty for Reagan. In fact , California in 1994, Boomers overwhelming supported prop 187 while gen-x which were more likely to be illegal or children of illegal immirgatns opposed it.
Conservative white Protestants in the north and Midwest tended to be Republican.
ReplyDeleteThey were not actually very "conservative" in the sense most readers of this blog use the term. They tended to be fairly liberal on social issues, and fans of big government. "Rockefeller Republicans", in other words.
not according to my definitions
ReplyDeleteYes, according to your definitions. You are the one assigning a particular value to various sociological/genetic phenomena, a value nowhere to be found in the literature you cite. You are the one who has made the value judgement that southern England = out-bred = good and Scotland/Ireland = in-bred = bad.
I'm not sure if you're realized it yet, but what you are actually saying is "big cities = out-bred = good" and "countryside = in-bred = bad". If you stated it like that you'd be on slightly firmer (if more banal) ground.
@anonymous - "You are the one who has made the value judgement that southern England = out-bred = good and Scotland/Ireland = in-bred = bad."
ReplyDeletei have never, ever said that or anything like that. that is some interpolation of your own, and i'll thank you to not put words in my mouth and misrepresent what i've had to say.
all i have ever said is that long-term, sustained outbreeding appears to be connected for evolutionary reasons to populations that are more individualistic and universalistic, while long-term sustained inbreeding appears to be connected to more clannish, particularistic populations.
there are advantages and disadvantages to both. the main disadvantage of being too universalistic (outbred) is, i think, that you might wind up dissolving your entire society with crazy ideas like multiculturalsim and diversity. personally, i don't think that's "good."
STEVE-- Please remove all the extra whitespace from Anonymous' comment at 10:16AM on 1 July. That comment starts with about a hundred empty lines in the form of HTML "BR" tags.
ReplyDeleteThey were not actually very "conservative" in the sense most readers of this blog use the term. They tended to be fairly liberal on social issues, and fans of big government. "Rockefeller Republicans", in other words.
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm not talking about liberal or moderate "Rockefeller Republicans". I'm talking about conservative New Englanders and Midwesterners.
the main disadvantage of being too universalistic (outbred) is, i think, that you might wind up dissolving your entire society with crazy ideas like multiculturalsim and diversity.
ReplyDeleteThe dominant universal religions of the world, such as the Abrahamic religions, originate from inbred populations in the Middle East. Multicultural, diverse, imperial polities originate in and are driven by clans, royal houses, etc.
Perhaps the reason why Christianity collapsed in the West is simple. If nothing else humans probably evolved religion to promote tribal survival. In effect, truthful eternal life at some level.
ReplyDeleteThe survival and strength of Catholicism during the struggles in Ireland and Poland last century is illustrative. The Catholic clergy in those places was clearly on the side of their adherents.
In many other places Christian churches apparently assumed the modern world had solved their congregants major problems and the Churches existed for reasons such as promoting their congregants to do good works on behalf of others. Good for their souls, if not survival. Christianity had always aspired to become a vehicle for universal survival. That problem proved to big for it in the "flat" modern world.
The churches became a drag on the tribal survival of their traditional Western populations, not a plus. So they lost their reason for being.
Name a Christian denomination that has not lost a focus on survival and has grown really fast throughout the last century? The Amish.
@anonymous - "The dominant universal religions of the world, such as the Abrahamic religions, originate from inbred populations in the Middle East."
ReplyDeletebut they -- or, rather, it, i.e. christianity -- took on its universalistic characteristics after arriving in europe. christianity is not one thing. some branches of judaism are more universalistic than others (reform judaism, for instance), but mostly it's not very universalistic at all. it's very particular: you have to be jewish to be one of god's chosen people.
@anonymous - "Multicultural, diverse, imperial polities originate in and are driven by clans, royal houses, etc."
perhaps some of it is, but these ideas have fallen on fertile soil in western nations, that is the point. try telling the arabs to allow free-for-all immigration to their countries. they will laugh in your face. you or i can't even visit saudi arabia (unless we go on the hajj, in which case we'd have to become muslims, i.e. join their particularistic group).
but they -- or, rather, it, i.e. christianity -- took on its universalistic characteristics after arriving in europe. christianity is not one thing. some branches of judaism are more universalistic than others (reform judaism, for instance), but mostly it's not very universalistic at all. it's very particular: you have to be jewish to be one of god's chosen people.
ReplyDeleteI'm talking about Christianity and Islam, both of which were universalistic religions from the start.
perhaps some of it is, but these ideas have fallen on fertile soil in western nations, that is the point. try telling the arabs to allow free-for-all immigration to their countries. they will laugh in your face. you or i can't even visit saudi arabia (unless we go on the hajj, in which case we'd have to become muslims, i.e. join their particularistic group).
The idea that the dominant universalistic ideas originated from inbred populations, and that multicultural, diverse, imperial polities originate in and are driven by clans, royal houses, ethnic oligarchies, etc., and that Western populations are merely susceptible to such designs, would appear to contradict your original point.
I'm not sure where you heard that people can't visit Saudi Arabia. You must be thinking of holy sites in Saudi Arabia that are restricted to Muslims.
I'm not sure what you mean by "particularistic group". Islam is open to all people for membership. It's a universalistic group. It's easier to become a Muslim than, say, a Catholic.
perhaps some of it is, but these ideas have fallen on fertile soil in western nations, that is the point. try telling the arabs to allow free-for-all immigration to their countries.
ReplyDeleteImmigration into Western nations hasn't been due to popular consent.
@anonymous - "I'm talking about Christianity and Islam, both of which were universalistic religions from the start."
ReplyDeleteno. christianity has become much more universalistic since its foundations. for example, once upon a time you had to be a baptised roman catholic to enter heaven -- now the roman catholic church accepts that all sorts of christians can be, and are, saved. and recently the pope came awfully close to suggesting that even athesits -- if they're good -- might go to heaven (i know he didn't say that, but he came awfully close).
christianity has become more and more universalistic over time. some denominations -- when you get out to the unitarians -- don't even believe in Evil anymore. it's all good.
islam is quite the opposite. it might be easy to become a muslim, but there are a LOT of rules and regulations to abide by.
@anonymous - "The idea that the dominant universalistic ideas originated from inbred populations...."
as i already said, they didn't. the only truly universalistic religion to come out of the middle east was christianity -- and, like i said, most of the universalism developed once it was in place in europe.
@anonymous - "I'm not sure where you heard that people can't visit Saudi Arabia."
i'd read it elsewhere before, but you can read it here: "Saudi Arabia has some of the most restrictive travel policies in the world.... Tourist visas, previously available for groups of at least four on guided tours, were 'suspended' in late 2010...."
@beef supreme - "Immigration into Western nations hasn't been due to popular consent."
ReplyDeleteno. but the people are not rising up in revolt either.
a lot of americans/westerners really do believe that all people everywhere are the same, just that they happen to live in different places under somewhat different circumstances. this idea -- this universalism -- is the achilles' heel of westerners (or one of them, anyway). it's being used against them (us) by psychopathic rulers, etc., etc.
no. christianity has become much more universalistic since its foundations. for example, once upon a time you had to be a baptised roman catholic to enter heaven -- now the roman catholic church accepts that all sorts of christians can be, and are, saved. and recently the pope came awfully close to suggesting that even athesits -- if they're good -- might go to heaven (i know he didn't say that, but he came awfully close).
ReplyDeletechristianity has become more and more universalistic over time. some denominations -- when you get out to the unitarians -- don't even believe in Evil anymore. it's all good.
islam is quite the opposite. it might be easy to become a muslim, but there are a LOT of rules and regulations to abide by.
No, both Christianity and Islam have been universalistic from the start. Universalism is a discrete condition.
Rejecting the trinity or not believing in evil has nothing to do with universalism.
The rules and regulations are irrelevant to the state of being Muslim. A Muslim doesn't cease being a Muslim if he doesn't pray regularly. There are Muslims who never pray, drink alcohol, etc.
as i already said, they didn't. the only truly universalistic religion to come out of the middle east was christianity -- and, like i said, most of the universalism developed once it was in place in europe.
Both Christianity and Islam are universalistic religions. Both originated from "inbred" populations in the Middle East. Both were universalistic from the start. Christianity was originated by Jews and other Middle Easterners in the eastern part of the Roman Empire, and Jewish, Middle Eastern, Greek, Anatolian, etc. proselytes spread the new religion into parts of Europe, then under Roman dominion.
i'd read it elsewhere before, but you can read it here: "Saudi Arabia has some of the most restrictive travel policies in the world.... Tourist visas, previously available for groups of at least four on guided tours, were 'suspended' in late 2010...."
You said that nobody can visit Saudi Arabia.
no. but the people are not rising up in revolt either.
ReplyDeleteyeah but that could be because people are less violent or something.
@anonymous - "Universalism is a discrete condition."
ReplyDeletenope. universalism-to-particularism is a spectrum.
@anonymous - "Rejecting the trinity or not believing in evil has nothing to do with universalism."
i didn't say anything about rejecting the trinity, but sure -- not believing in evil is more universalistic than believing in it. it's an indicator that the group's moral system is more open (see: unitarians) rather than more closed (see: gypsies), i.e. more universalistic.
@anonymous - "Both were universalistic from the start."
no. there is a clear progression in europe of christianity becoming more universalistic over time -- for example (note that this is a *very* rough outline):
- roman catholicism (which has also become more universalistic over time within itself)
- protestant reformation
--- lutheranism
--- calvinism (in actuality more particularistic than lutheranism, so calvinism was a reaction to the more universalistic lutheranism)
--- methodists
--- moderan anglicanism
--- the unitarians
at the end you wind up with humanism. and beyond that, people who want to give human rights to chimps, etc., etc.
europeans/european christianity became more universalistic over time.
@anonymous - "You said that nobody can visit Saudi Arabia."
no. i said that we couldn't visit saudi arabia, like go on vacation there. i did point out that we can go on the hajj there if we're muslims (and get a visa). and you might be able to go on business there, but you need a sponsor.
we can't visit saudi arabia (which has bummed me out for a long time now, 'cause i'd really like to visit saudi arabia!).
@beef supreme - "yeah but that could be because people are less violent or something."
ReplyDeleteheh! well, i was speaking metaphorically. (~_^) what i meant, of course, is that most people in america are not reacting strongly to all this immigration. most people i know really do believe all of our mexican immigrants will become just like white americans once they live here for a while. despite all evidence to the contrary.
nope. universalism-to-particularism is a spectrum.
ReplyDeleteNo. Universalism is a discrete condition. By definition.
i didn't say anything about rejecting the trinity, but sure -- not believing in evil is more universalistic than believing in it. it's an indicator that the group's moral system is more open (see: unitarians) rather than more closed (see: gypsies), i.e. more universalistic.
No. Belief in evil is irrelevant to universalism. The major universal religions such as Islam and Christianity believe in evil. There are nationalists who don't believe in evil.
"Unitiarian" refers to the rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity.
no. there is a clear progression in europe of christianity becoming more universalistic over time -- for example (note that this is a *very* rough outline):
No. Christianty was a universal religion from the start.
There is no "clear progression" within Christianity. If anything, it's exactly backwards. Martin Luther was a proto-German nationalist figure. The Protestant Reformation was critical in the formation of a common German language, literature, and national identity. Lutheranism empowered local nobles and interests in Germany and beyond against the power of the "universal" i.e. Catholic Church and set the stage for national churches. Calvinism and its doctrine of predestination and the elect was a departure from the universalism of Catholicism. Calvinism was extremely influential among the non-German protestants. During the colonization of the New World, it was the Catholic Latins who were more inclined to spread Christianity to the natives and incorporate them. The Protestant colonists were more inclined to push out the natives or kill them and establish their own settlements.