Opinion of the Alawites

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

You know, BRTD, for a lot of people cultural identity is a powerful tool to avoid getting absorbed into a dominant, homogenizing unmarked category from which they will then feel that they can set themselves apart only by devoting themselves to posturing using personal musical taste, fashion sense, and so on.

[Oakvale]

...an identity I chose. I'm thinking of people like oakvale insisting people can't quit being Catholic or choose not to be, even if they don't believe on God. Or some Jewish parents getting pissy about their kids marrying non-Jews. Religuous identity should be EXCLUSIVELY ones own choice.

I... really should make it clear that I wasn't being entirely serious when I said the Catholic Church was like the Hotel California. I don't foist identities on people. You'll no doubt be thrilled to know I didn't tick the "Catholic" box on the census despite the fact that I consider "Irish Catholic" my (sorry) ethno-religious identity - because it is.

Politicus and afleitch are right - the idea that you can freely choose your cultural identity is novel and modern. The perfect example of this, er, not being the case, is Judaism, obviously - there's a whole lot of atheist Jews (up to 50% IIRC), because it's more than just a religion. It's an ethnic and cultural background. So are most religions in most places!

The context in which we had the discussion you're referring to involved me saying that someone converting to another religion would be seen as unusual, which it would. But I think you misunderstood my point - at least among my demographic, the vast, vast majority of people don't care about religion. Mass attendance is probably in the single digits. Converting to another religion would be seen as odd because it would imply a greater commitment to religion than a lot of people have. For most people, you're raised nominally Catholic and maybe go to Mass at Christmas with your elderly mother. You might also get married in a Catholic church - that's about it, honestly.

And that illustrates the point afleitch, politicus and Nathan are making - if you'll excuse the vanity of using myself as an example, I don't believe in Jesus and so on but I'm not going to pretend that my cultural context isn't highly influenced by Catholicism. I mean... I live in Ireland. We just had a national apoplectic fit over abortion legislation that should have been passed in the 1950s. That's one of the malign influences of Catholic cultural permeation, but then it's not like I'm claiming that Catholic identity is necessarily a good thing... I think you see my point.


In summary, the Catholic Church is the one true faith and all Protestants, Jews and Moslems will burn in hell for eternity.

[patrick1]

Come on guys, give BRTD a break.  He is a unique and special snowflake. He couldn't possibly be one of the millions of other white boys who listen to loud, earnest music and loves the Jesus.

Incidentally, afleitch really has you owned here. Despite your protestations of swimming against the larger identity tide, you are in many ways a walking stereotype but you just refuse to recognize it.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

You know, BRTD, for a lot of people cultural identity is a powerful tool to avoid getting absorbed into a dominant, homogenizing unmarked category from which they will then feel that they can set themselves apart only by devoting themselves to posturing using personal musical taste, fashion sense, and so on.

Well I don't think "white Christian" if you want to consider that an ethno-religious identity, would be very effective at that.

...an identity I chose. I'm thinking of people like oakvale insisting people can't quit being Catholic or choose not to be, even if they don't believe on God. Or some Jewish parents getting pissy about their kids marrying non-Jews. Religuous identity should be EXCLUSIVELY ones own choice.

I... really should make it clear that I wasn't being entirely serious when I said the Catholic Church was like the Hotel California. I don't foist identities on people. You'll no doubt be thrilled to know I didn't tick the "Catholic" box on the census despite the fact that I consider "Irish Catholic" my (sorry) ethno-religious identity - because it is.

Politicus and afleitch are right - the idea that you can freely choose your cultural identity is novel and modern. The perfect example of this, er, not being the case, is Judaism, obviously - there's a whole lot of atheist Jews (up to 50% IIRC), because it's more than just a religion. It's an ethnic and cultural background. So are most religions in most places!

The context in which we had the discussion you're referring to involved me saying that someone converting to another religion would be seen as unusual, which it would. But I think you misunderstood my point - at least among my demographic, the vast, vast majority of people don't care about religion. Mass attendance is probably in the single digits. Converting to another religion would be seen as odd because it would imply a greater commitment to religion than a lot of people have. For most people, you're raised nominally Catholic and maybe go to Mass at Christmas with your elderly mother. You might also get married in a Catholic church - that's about it, honestly.

And that illustrates the point afleitch, politicus and Nathan are making - if you'll excuse the vanity of using myself as an example, I don't believe in Jesus and so on but I'm not going to pretend that my cultural context isn't highly influenced by Catholicism. I mean... I live in Ireland. We just had a national apoplectic fit over abortion legislation that should have been passed in the 1950s. That's one of the malign influences of Catholic cultural permeation, but then it's not like I'm claiming that Catholic identity is necessarily a good thing... I think you see my point.


In summary, the Catholic Church is the one true faith and all Protestants, Jews and Moslems will burn in hell for eternity.

So then the question becomes, why don't people raised Catholic in Minnesota who abandon the church usually do that or feel that way? Still claiming to be Catholic on any level if you quit the church here would be pretty odd. You become whatever you converted to if you did, or if not "none". Catholic identity is very far from immutable here.

Obviously something different separates the two places...but I think it's hard to argue that the situation in Ireland is inherently superior and not having this identity be a choice is the preferable way (as you flat out once said in IRC) at least from a progressive standpoint.

[patrick1]

It is stunning how you still cannot get this very basic concept. We are all shaped by the environment in which we are raised. Whether that be a Catholic upbringing and culture or as a North Dakotan. These things vary depending on geography and the dominant culture. Take a Jewish person raised in Memphis or in New York. You can choose to accept those cultural mores, actively reject them wholesale or in most cases somewhere in between. However, the environment where you grow up still leaves a mark.

I went to Catholic school growing up. Many of my classmates don't believe in any of it and I am not very devout myself. However, we still have those shared experiences and upbringing. Take yourself. There are obviously things that make Minnesota or North Dakota unique from the rest of the country. You didnt ask to be brought up in the arctic. I'm sure you have shared experiences of living in Hoth made a difference.   If your parents were on a res. in Oklahoma instead, you would have been a very different person than you are now.

[Mr. Morden]

I went to Catholic school growing up. Many of my classmates don't believe in any of it and I am not very devout myself. However, we still have those shared experiences and upbringing. Take yourself. There are obviously things that make Minnesota or North Dakota unique from the rest of the country. You didnt ask to be brought up in the arctic. I'm sure you have shared experiences of living in Hoth made a difference.   If your parents were on a res. in Oklahoma instead, you would have been a very different person than you are now.

Sheesh, you guys are talking past each other.  I don't think BRTD would dispute what you've said here.  What he's said is that 1) Yes, of course you're influenced by the shared experiences you have with those you're growing up with, no matter what you do later in life, 2) There are nonetheless people who, when they grow up, end up changing religion to something else, and stop self-identifying with their childhood religion.  That doesn't mean that their childhood religion no longer has any residual influence on their lives.  But if you ask them what religion they are, they'll give you their new religion, or atheist/agnostic if they're non-believers, 3) While the people who end up doing this are a tiny minority in the world at large, it's very common in Minnesota, or at least among the pool of people who BRTD has encountered in his life, 4) BRTD thinks that approaching religion this way, as an identity that's tied to your actual beliefs and not the community you were born into, is a better way of approaching religion than the alternative, even though he concedes that most people in the world don't view it that way.

At least, that's my reading of his argument.  Do I have that right?  Which, if any, of those premises do you disagree with?

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Well I'd also throw in: 5) This is a far more progressive outlook than simply saying that someone should be slapped with this label for life (something oakvale and belgian have said in IRC before is superior in a Libertas-style with giving no reasoning as to why.) and 6) This is not at all uncommon or even the minority in the US, where 53% of people have changed religious affiliation at some point per the last Pew survey and a full third of people raised Catholic don't identify as such anymore (not don't go to Mass or practice, simply don't identify as Catholic at all.) That's hardly an insignificant number.

BTW there aren't any Reservations in Oklahoma (actually the whole state could be considered a Reservation in one sense, or at least was at one point.)

[Beet]

Eh, the problem is that the people who grow up and end up changing from what they were raised with usually do so because of environmental factors that again loop back to how they were raised. It generally requires an open atmosphere that is socially welcoming to change, where a person can change without massive costs such as loss of family, friends, community, career, domicile, position in society, etc. or the sinking of massive life costs.

For instance, people who were raised in religiously liberal households are more likely to convert to a new religion, whereas those raised religiously strict are more likely to convert to a different version of their previous religion which still allows them to keep their background relevant. So, for instance, Rodney Stark finds evidence that the highest rates of early adoption of Christianity in the 1st century CE was from Hellenized Jews. Christianity was perfect for them because it allowed them to still retain their Jewish identity while at the same time integrating into the Hellenic world. Similarly, when there is inter-faith marriage, the person with the lesser attachment to faith tends to convert to the religion of the more devout partner. The costs for that person from conversion are lower than vice versa.

So bottom line, it is not just a matter of who can escape their upbringing but the extent to which they do, and the costs of doing so.

[DC Al Fine]

Eh, the problem is that the people who grow up and end up changing from what they were raised with usually do so because of environmental factors that again loop back to how they were raised. It generally requires an open atmosphere that is socially welcoming to change, where a person can change without massive costs such as loss of family, friends, community, career, domicile, position in society, etc. or the sinking of massive life costs.

For instance, people who were raised in religiously liberal households are more likely to convert to a new religion, whereas those raised religiously strict are more likely to convert to a different version of their previous religion which still allows them to keep their background relevant. So, for instance, Rodney Stark finds evidence that the highest rates of early adoption of Christianity in the 1st century CE was from Hellenized Jews. Christianity was perfect for them because it allowed them to still retain their Jewish identity while at the same time integrating into the Hellenic world. Similarly, when there is inter-faith marriage, the person with the lesser attachment to faith tends to convert to the religion of the more devout partner. The costs for that person from conversion are lower than vice versa.

So bottom line, it is not just a matter of who can escape their upbringing but the extent to which they do, and the costs of doing so.

Could you please provide a link? I'd like to check that out.

[Beet]

Eh, the problem is that the people who grow up and end up changing from what they were raised with usually do so because of environmental factors that again loop back to how they were raised. It generally requires an open atmosphere that is socially welcoming to change, where a person can change without massive costs such as loss of family, friends, community, career, domicile, position in society, etc. or the sinking of massive life costs.

For instance, people who were raised in religiously liberal households are more likely to convert to a new religion, whereas those raised religiously strict are more likely to convert to a different version of their previous religion which still allows them to keep their background relevant. So, for instance, Rodney Stark finds evidence that the highest rates of early adoption of Christianity in the 1st century CE was from Hellenized Jews. Christianity was perfect for them because it allowed them to still retain their Jewish identity while at the same time integrating into the Hellenic world. Similarly, when there is inter-faith marriage, the person with the lesser attachment to faith tends to convert to the religion of the more devout partner. The costs for that person from conversion are lower than vice versa.

So bottom line, it is not just a matter of who can escape their upbringing but the extent to which they do, and the costs of doing so.

Could you please provide a link? I'd like to check that out.

It's in his books, Rise of Christianity and Triumph of Christianity. You can find some summaries of his claims by searching online. Jack T. Sanders has modified some of his findings, but Stark repeated them in his latest book from 2011.

[patrick1]

I went to Catholic school growing up. Many of my classmates don't believe in any of it and I am not very devout myself. However, we still have those shared experiences and upbringing. Take yourself. There are obviously things that make Minnesota or North Dakota unique from the rest of the country. You didnt ask to be brought up in the arctic. I'm sure you have shared experiences of living in Hoth made a difference.   If your parents were on a res. in Oklahoma instead, you would have been a very different person than you are now.

Sheesh, you guys are talking past each other.  I don't think BRTD would dispute what you've said here.  What he's said is that 1) Yes, of course you're influenced by the shared experiences you have with those you're growing up with, no matter what you do later in life, 2) There are nonetheless people who, when they grow up, end up changing religion to something else, and stop self-identifying with their childhood religion.  That doesn't mean that their childhood religion no longer has any residual influence on their lives.  But if you ask them what religion they are, they'll give you their new religion, or atheist/agnostic if they're non-believers, 3) While the people who end up doing this are a tiny minority in the world at large, it's very common in Minnesota, or at least among the pool of people who BRTD has encountered in his life, 4) BRTD thinks that approaching religion this way, as an identity that's tied to your actual beliefs and not the community you were born into, is a better way of approaching religion than the alternative, even though he concedes that most people in the world don't view it that way.

At least, that's my reading of his argument.  Do I have that right?  Which, if any, of those premises do you disagree with?

Morden, I appreciate the summary but BRTD has been harping on this topic for years now. I've been over this before and my intention really isnt to argue points and win a debate. Your summary is far more nuanced than BRTD actually is. My point in popping in to BRTD topics is to try to introduce this nuance or other perspectives.  I happen to like BRTD, but he gets these obsessions and frequently has a hard time understanding why someone might think differently than him. This very thread is an perfect example. Assad is bad. Alawites support Assad. Alawites are HP's

To answer your question I personally don't really agree of disagree. People can identify how they wish and that is just okay by me.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Here are the two main things I think one should consider:

1-Though it's not exactly successful at attracting people outside of a certain demographic (see my post about the Republican voting base being less white than most people at a show), the whole indie/hardcore scene subculture puts a lot of emphasis on shedding any past identities and ethnic affiliations and not having any division in the scene. I should see if I can find any liner notes from You And I, The Assistant or Wrong Day to Quit on this...or that band that wrote a song explanation "Next time you get a form, don't check the f**king box! Simply identifying with a race is racist." Essentially one should not identify with any type of ethnic category or ethnoreligious affiliation, because that's a form of division. Why are there basically no Catholics in the scene or even in Christian hardcore? It's the same idea.

2-The fact that the whole emergent and other non-denominational movements DOESN'T have any ethnic connections or attachments and that one is no more likely to belong to it based on race is a big part of the appeal, especially to me. It's about Jesus, not about your culture or where your ancestors came from. There's a whole attitude of "Leave that behind. It's all about Jesus and nothing more.

I fail to see how either of these are not progressive attitudes. And they're also the result of many of a generation of people being bred and brought up in ways that lead to them to not care about their ethnic heritage or culture they were brought up in. And you know what? That's awesome.