Are the culture wars getting too weird? Too confusing? Are you not sure where you stand on Doctor Seuss or Potato Head gender? Do you have mixed feelings about cancel culture, or the future direction of identity politics? Don't just trust to your gut, a la Donald Trump. I would like to propose a reliable guide to the culture wars.

I believe your attitude toward each culture war issue will be determined by your position on a single question: the total depravity of human nature. This is a theological concept of course, and a bedrock principle of Christianity, both the orthodox Roman Catholicism  variety and the Calvinist Protestant derivation. Although we are not as theologically literate as we used to be, I think it is a good idea to review this concept, because it still exerts a profound influence in the very secular United States of America, whether we are conscious of it or not.

 I am sure we all remember the Garden of Eden story and the Original Sin of Adam and Eve, whether we are believers or not. We tend to think of that story today as being quaint and a bit silly. It is anything but. It is the basis of the concept of the total depravity (hereafter abbreviated “TD”) of human nature, and the foundation of everything that is harsh, vindictive, and punitive in Christianity.

The TD of human nature means not just that human beings are prone to sin and error. It means that they are incapable of anything BUT sin and error. It means that, left to our own devices, we will always do the wrong thing, think the wrong thoughts, and make the wrong decisions. We are utterly incapable of doing anything good on our own. Only with divine intervention (salvation or redemption) can we walk on the right path, which is not normal and does not come naturally to us.

So how do we get saved or redeemed? That question is the origin of endless other culture wars, but let us leave the mechanics of salvation for now and go on to the more important question: WHO will be redeemed? Everyone? Or only special people? Almost all Christians would answer the latter. The implications of this are profound.

If some but not all are redeemed, then the redeemed will be living amongst the totally depraved. How should society be organized then? Who should make and enforce the rules, the saints (the redeemed) or the sinners (the totally depraved)?

Modern representative democracy will inevitably be ruled by the sinners, since they will most likely constitute the majority. To the saints, this state of affairs is agony. The totally depraved must be restrained until they can be redeemed, not empowered. Of course, the saints should rule. If you are a TD adherent you are going to want a theocratic police state, not a secular representative democracy. And if you are a Christian soldier you are going to fight for that kind of society, issue by issue, culture battle by culture battle. And if you do not rule, you know you will be oppressed and humiliated by the totally depraved unredeemed sinners.

But what if you are not aTD adherent? I think there are several possibilities. There are those who think that human beings are inherently good, in spite of massive evidence to the contrary. There are those who believe that, while not perfect, humans have the gift of reason, and therefore capable of continual improvement. And there are those who believe that human beings are neither good nor evil, but are capable of both, as well as a good deal of action which has nothing to do with good or evil. (I wake up, take my medications and make my coffee. What is the moral content of those actions)?

There are those who believe that human beings are basically economic creatures pursuing profit in the marketplace, and moral and ethical concerns will be sorted out in the course of those pursuits.

If you are not a TD adherent, your position on particular culture war issues is not predetermined, but it is likely to be very different from the positions of those who do believe in the total depravity of human nature.

So bearing in mind the position of the TD adherents, we can reliably see what we disagree with, even if it is not always clear where we stand ourselves. And since the culture wars are consistently initiated and fought byTD adherents, I think this is a reliable guide as we wander in the endless wilderness of the American culture wars.

__________________________________________________

 

Robert Wilfong reporting for The Humanist Advocate

April 4, 2021

 

 

Probably no better quote can be found about fundamentalist religion’s theological stance towards intellectualism, the need for reason, the progressive nature of human knowledge, the inevitable rise of specialization and expertise in a complex world, and the institutions that promote and sustain them, and the folly of superstition and dogma, than this from Bill Donahue writing for the radically theocratic Catholic League: “Susan Jacoby.... is not ready for the asylum, but she is ready to find a home in the asylum’s first cousin—the academy. Indeed, there are few colleges or universities that wouldn’t be proud to hire her. And that is because she entertains a radical secular world-view, one in total harmony with the elites on campus.”                                                                                                                                      

Ms. Jacoby is a historian, journalist, astute cultural and sociological analyst, and leading figure in the secular movement in the United States today. Donahue was reviewing her first major book publication Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism (Metropolitan, 2004) and wrote the aforementioned quote in reference to Jacoby’s observation of the Bush presidency’s continued assault on the the First Amendment’s separation clause: “It is no secret that the Bush administration is engaged in the most radical assault on the separation of church and state in American history.” Mr. Bush, we remember, wasn’t able to keep very much secret, especially a remarkable lack of interest in history and his persistent abasement of the English language.

 

Four years later, Jacoby would publish what would be a more focused recent history detailing the  trend in the cultural and psychological make-up of the American population, and her conclusions were not optimistic. The events of the past four years should inspire anyone interested in the origins of the strain of mass insanity racing through the American citizenry as fast as COVID-19 to check out The Age of American Unreason (Pantheon, 2008). She introduces the book with a tribute to Richard Hofstadter’s Anti-Intellectualism in American Life as a work that “provides the foundation for insights that may lie decades or centuries in the future. She explores the thesis that the most recent version of American anti-intellectualism “can  best be understood as a complex of symptoms with multiple causes, and ...over time possesses the potential to turn a treatable, livable condition into a morbid disease affecting the entire body politic..” She  narrows the vectors of anti-intellectualism to the two she considers as foundational: mass media, and secondly—in an indirect rebuke to Donahue’s nonsense–the recent resurgence of fundamentalist religion.

 

In the chapter “The New Old-Time Religion”, Ms. Jacoby recounts a time within the past 75 years that, for a vast majority of the American public, religion seemed to assume its logical place as a guide for living and a way of looking at life’s big questions that accommodate such direction: its place as a private belief and understanding, and not as a force in legislating its tenants as  matters of public policy in a secular government. After the sensational Scopes “Monkey Trial”, fundamentalist political meddling seemed to go into hibernation. But we learned that hibernation is a time to rest, refresh, and re-group. As early as the mid-1950s we witnessed the beginning of its return to the public sphere with large revivals, now televised on America’s new favorite pastime, the television execs apparently inspired by the popularity of The Greater Los Angeles Billy Graham Crusade, a literal old-time tent revival in 1949 in the heart of LA that drew over 350,000 in eight weeks. “As we now know, the conclusion that American fundamentalists were a dying breed was a misjudgment of historic (dare one call it biblical?) proportions. The growth of fundamentalist denominations at the expense of mainstream and liberal Protestantism, which began in the fifties, accelerated throughout the sixties, seventies, and eighties and gave birth to the Christian right.”

 

Borrowing the name from previous religious revivals in the country, one could think of the current spiritual fervor as a “Third” Great Awakening, after the first in the mid-18th century and the second in the early 19th, as a “cyclical manifestation” and “course-correction in an unsettled society. But today’s revival is more troubling for a couple of  reasons, a double-edge sword swung by archangel St. Michael that promises to make the current trend an indefatigable and cunning foe in the culture wars. The first is what she calls the “disjunction of the fundamentalist faith and the sum of human knowledge.” Today we simply know much more about how the world works than we did in recent centuries past, and we have it all accessible at our fingertips for those able or interested in discovering it. Failing public education–and private, in a different way–are certainly to blame. But this choice between learning or fantasizing about the world may be involved a feedback loop with the second edge of that sword. That problem was never  more obvious than in the last presidential cycle: “the political engagement of modern fundamentalists on the side of one party and their belief that it is both a right and religious duty to institutionalize their moral values” (italics mine). 

___________________________________________________

 I’ve left out of this one-chapter snapshot of Jacoby’s magnum opus  examples making her points, and some of those examples could easily be updated with fresher ones. And thumbnail peeks into other chapters titled “Social Pseudoscience in the Morning of America's Culture Wars,” “Junk Thought,” “The Culture of Distraction,” and “Public Life: Defining Dumbness Downward” have been left as possible motivations for the reader; but all suggest the cause for Jacoby’s admission of the book’s pessimistic outlook. She concludes that in America’s new age of unreason, the inescapable theme of our time is the erosion of memory and knowledge. She does not conclude without at least suggesting  several conditions that could offer some hope out of a modern day Dark Age, all primarily concerning recapturing the those two eroding qualities that separates humans from real progress. It should go without saying that Bill Donahue and his Protestant, Jewish, and Muslim counterparts are not a part of the solution and therefore a part of the problem.

 

Reporting for The Humanist Advocate

Marty Bankson

March 3, 2021

 

 

 

 

The trend of the changing religious landscape in the United States began in the 1980s. The country is the Christian hub of the West with an unprecedented influence of church into politics. In 1990,  88 percent of Americans identified as Christians but since, that percentage has been been in decline. By 2007, it was 77 percent and by 2016 it reached a historic low of 69 percent with only 62 percent belonging to church congregations.

 

This shift is heavily linked to the dissociation of religiosity and national identity to Americanism. Additionally, increasing waves of multi-ethnic immigrants from all over the world has heightened the need for secularism with neutral laws that are inclusive of all residents. According to the website www.religioninpublic.com , the unaffiliated Americans increased from 22.2 percent in 2008 to 29.5 percent in 2018. The study indicated that states like Hawaii and Wisconsin witnessed the biggest increased for the nones by 22.9 percent and 19.5 percent simultaneously. Alaska, Wyoming and South Dakota are the only states that experienced a very slow net growth of Evangelicals primarily due to internal migration of the younger population and the rapid increase in the number of the elderly who have the tendency to lean more religious. 

 

The increasing tendency to intertwine religion and social conservatism with politics is the lost hope of restoring the wrong-headed dogma-based policy which was once normal for the public to accept.Numerous reasons led to this escalating change in the religious landscape across the United States. 

 

First, the desegregation which transformed homogeneous populations in urban America to invent a new set of norms that embraced inclusiveness; the Martin Luther King era eliminated racial and religious superiority and made religion less of a priority to a significant percentage of the population that had started to experience the modernization within suburban America. 

 

Second, the irreversible changing definition of women’s role in society. It all began by gaining the right to vote in 1919 when the 19th amendment was ratified, to the right of abortion in 1970s with Roe v. Wade. When the U.S. experienced an economic boom in the 1950s, there were far fewer concerns about the explicit role of women that the Bible dictates. Tens of millions of American women joined the labor force making them comparable, though not equal to men as breadwinners.   Women now comprise 48 percent of the U.S. labor force. Such incremental changes made the role of women in America irreversible and will likely be even more progressive in the future. 

 

Third, and this is perhaps the most important element, is immigration. With over 55 million foreign-born citizens, Americans became heavily influenced in adjusting their beliefs to become more accommodating to an increasingly diverse society. It has been noticeable that religiosity among the younger wave of immigrants is significantly less in comparison to first generation immigrants. 

 

 

With two-thirds of the country’s population residing in cities, it will only be a matter of time for America to unleash its true identity as a secular, multiracial and multilingual country which will make it more desirable than its current motto suggests as  a “nation founded on Judaeo-Christian” principles.

 

 

Reporting for The Humanist Advocate

FIDEL AZAZI 

 

August 5, 2019