I see arguments of this form from Christian Nationalists a lot:
1. If we were Christian, we would ban {a bunch of things like feminism}.
2. We really want to ban those things since they're bad.
3. Therefore, we should force Christianity on folks.
This is an affirming the consequent fallacy.
Further, we don't need to force this religion to ban bad things. Christianity, as history has shown, also brings its own bad things.
You're arguing against straw men claims that CN's never make.
Christian nationalism is not a theocracy, nor does it advocate for one. It advocates for basing law on a Christian moral framework because laws are simply moral "ought" claims, not just "I want because .. feels".
We supposedly already have that, since the legal system is based on the Byzantine Justinian Code, but that's being dismantled at record pace as you're seeing in real time.
As the 20th century experiments in communism and the current day West clearly demonstrates, moral frameworks cannot be derived from secularism.
That’s different than forcing belief or church attendance which is absurd.
The biggest single indictment of this is the fact that under secular morality, literally no Western society is able to reproduce itself.
The other part that is often missed is that this is largely Orthodox Christian in origin.
Protestanism has failed. Catholicism is failing before our very eyes. Both are considered heresies from the Ortho perspective, and this 1000-year argument is now at the "I told you so" stage.
Orthodoxy is based in Byzantium Empire, & since it's fall, has thrived on a decentralized model of church nationalism - Greek, Russian, Syriac etc.. that shares power with the state.
Not a theocracy.
"moral frameworks cannot be derived from secularism."
Say it again!
You 'can't run a society off of subjective morality. There must be some objective standard or we're wasting our time.
@basedbagel @UncleIroh How is Christian ethics not subjective? Unless you already believe the metaphysics, it's just as made up and subjective as any secular ethics.
I suppose if you don't believe in any higher power and that we randomly ended up here for no reason then yeah it would seem subjective to you.
However don't you find it interesting that the west's moral decay directly correlates to when they moved away from Christian values?
@basedbagel @UncleIroh No, it doesn't. Nietzche predicted EVERYTHING, and identified Christianity as the CAUSE. Further, the social gospel movement FOUNDED progressivism. This whole situation is the fault of Christian values!
Classic.
Nietzsche was a real-life loser who rage-quit normal life after he was cucked by his friend over the woman he simped for. He then later contracted syphilis via his degenerate addiction to homosexual prostitutes, as 2 biographies lay out.
Don't get me wrong, he was a genius thinker, but the exact opposite of what he preached in real life.
I won't be basing any moral framework off him.
Your conclusion is based purely off Western heresies.
@UncleIroh @basedbagel OK, I don't care. This is ad hominem garbage. The man predicted everything. He's the only man in history I'd call a legitimate prophet. And he identified the common theme as Christian slave morality. That's the cause. That whole religion needs to be jettisoned. Buddhism is literally and outright superior, if only for not relying on a bunch of metaphysical nonsense to have any weight.
Not adhom, these are wholly relevant facts that anyone seeking a moral foundation needs to consider seriously.
@UncleIroh @basedbagel It's LITERALLY an ad hominem. "Nietzsche was a bad person so his predictions aren't relevant."
Yes, they are relevant. Christianity's slave morality is the foundation of modern progressivism. I'm not advocating for Nietzsche's solutions, I'm only saying his identification of the problem is absolutely correct. If it's not, then explain how he predicted the entire modern Western world's situation?
@UncleIroh @basedbagel What? You clearly don't understand what an ad hominem is. It doesn't matter if the ad hominem is true; the kind of person Nietzsche was is irrelevant to his being right.
I'm only talking about his descriptive side anyways. That's all that's even necessary for this conversation: Christian slave morality is the foundation of all the problems we have. That slave morality is used to justify all the victimhood and need to tax "the privileged."
@philosophy @basedbagel
> LITERALLY an ad hominem.
No, if something being said is true, then it's not technically an ad hominem fallacy, even if it's negative.
In this case, not only are they true, they are centrally relevant to the argument you make.
Descriptively he gets a lot right. Prescriptively he is entirely wrong, as the modern day meaning crisis & suicide rates demonstrate.
Dostoyevksy, on Orthodox Christian, got far more right.