Anglo Femlightenment

Why is Feminism the worst in Anglo societies?

Readership: All
Author’s Note: This post expounds on a comment I left under The Christian Conundrum (2021 March 1). Thanks goes to Jack, who suggested this topic and contributed to the content.

Introduction

Men who have traveled and lived extensively in non-Anglo countries can easily tell that something is particularly rotten about white Anglo culture when it comes to women.

Compared to the U.S. and the U.K., the European continent is just as “feminist”, but the way that this plays out on the ground, and the way it looks in the culture, is much less extreme. Take for example Scandinavia, which ironically, people in the United States tend to think is extreme in its feminism compared to the Anglo world, and yet, this Nordic tribe has neither tax-on-income-based child support, nor chivalry.

In the period after 1700 something changed in Anglo culture that really elevated the status/esteem of women far above what exists even in other European cultures, and these developments have spread across the oceans to infect all other nations once colonized by Britain.

I believe the thing that changed after 1700 was the specific way that the Enlightenment played out in Anglo cultures as compared with other European countries. In general, the Enlightenment shifted social consciousness away from national identity, faith, community, and family and towards a range of “individual”-based ideals such as liberty, progress, toleration, the sovereignty of reason and the evidence of the senses as the primary sources of knowledge. Yet in Anglo countries, the “bite” of their individual strain of the Enlightenment has been substantially stronger.

So why do we see feminism in Anglo countries being so much more virulent than it is in continental European countries and elsewhere?

What is it that caused this divergence between the Anglo countries, on the one hand, and the Continental ones, on the other? Here, we’ll examine a few defining characteristics of English culture that have factored into the equation.

King Henry VIII (1491-1547) broke with Catholicism and formed the Church of England in order to secure a divorce from his wife Catherine, that he might marry Anne Boleyn (pictured). Later, he banished Catherine and had Anne executed. He was married a total of six times.

The Rule of Law and Order

One thing that is unique about Anglo culture is its ethical foundation on the English Common Law. Anglo culture interprets individual morality through one’s adherence to the law, such that if a person is law abiding, then he is considered to be a good person, whereas, those who don’t follow the law are seen as bad people. This is so extreme that people who grew up in an English speaking culture can’t even imagine any social structure that is based on anything else (like honor, power, authority structure, or tribal loyalties).

On the surface, this mirrors the Biblical concept of law, except that the Covenant Law of the Old Testament is based on the nature of God, not reason and the various human concepts of justice which came to the forefront during the Enlightenment.

Continental countries also had the rule of law … but it was a different approach to the development of legal principles and their understanding.  Continental law — which after the French Revolution (1789-1799) came to be known as “Civil Law” after many countries adapted civil law codes based on the “Code Napoleon”, which was, itself, a codification of the existing Roman legal principles, with significant modifications to remove aristocratic privileges — is largely based on the principles articulated by Roman law, as modified over time legislatively, and therefore it views legal questions often from very different perspectives than those taken by the common law that developed in England.

The Civil Law system is a systematic philosophical approach to the law — the rules are drawn up in the abstract based on a total system and codified into the civil code (and the other main “codes” that cover the various areas of the law in the civil law countries). The common law system, by contrast, is a system in which the legal rules were drawn up on an ad hoc basis over the course of centuries based on rulings of judges in specific disputes, and the principle of “judicial precedent” (which is much weaker in civil law countries).

Europe Map

Broadly speaking, Continental/Civil Law is more a codified, statutory regime based on status, standing, procedure, category and formalism, whereas the “common law” that developed in England was more based on an ad hoc, judge-determined regime that emphasized property owners, the delineation of rights and duties based on property ownership and familial and economic relationships, and legal rules developed over the course of time by judges sitting in judgment of specific disputes.

The impact of this different legal system — which all of the Anglo countries inherited from the United Kingdom — is that binding precedential legal rules can be made judicially, without the involvement of the legislature. In fact, this was the norm in the Common Law, such that unless a statute “trumped” a specific matter, courts followed judicial precedent in resolving legal disputes — and even in cases where a statute applied, the interpretation of that statute was in the purview of the court, which has a broad authority to do so as it wished, subject, again, to any binding judicial precedents of other, “higher”, courts in interpreting the same or similar statutes. In the civil law system, there is very little “court made law” — the courts interpret the laws that are in the civil and other legal codes, and in cases where it is difficult to apply the codes to the dispute in question, the court refers to commentaries from learned law professors for guidance, as well as legislative history — other legal rulings are reviewed as well, but they are not precedential and therefore not binding.

This difference means, in effect, that it was significantly easier to change legal rules in Anglo countries than in the Continental/Civil ones, because the judges could do it themselves — and they did, as we know. It is easier to find an activist judge (or a few of them) to make up a new legal rule (such as the right to abortion) than it is to convince a majority of a legislature to do it. As a result, activists in the Anglo countries were able to get much farther using the Anglo legal systems (ironically, especially *outside* the UK, because since the time of the founding of the Anglo colonies, the UK’s own legal system has trended strongly in a statutory direction, with parliament’s laws and statutory instruments playing a larger role, in relative terms, than in places like the United States).

King Charles II (1630-1685) acknowledged at least twelve illegitimate children by various mistresses.

Philosophical Traditions

While it is impossible to adequately compare and contrast Anglo and Continental philosophical tendencies in a couple of paragraphs, the following discussion is intended merely as a general framework — it overgeneralizes and is therefore subject to criticism on that basis. It also must be said at the outset that there are various ways of characterizing the relationship between the ideas in question — the following brief framework does not attempt to address any of those variances, and therefore remains subject to that criticism as well.

Subject to those caveats, in general, the Anglo countries and Continental ones developed different philosophical traditions as well — “analytical” in England, and “continental” elsewhere in Europe, with people like Hobbes and Locke in particular, thinking and writing things based on issues pertaining to individual rights — especially property rights — that nobody else in Europe was focused on to the same extent … and that nobody else in Europe liked, because continental European thinking was, certainly at the time of Locke, not nearly as open to the idea of all property owners having essentially equal rights, and specifically Locke’s view that the right to property was not a matter of social contract or agreement but one which arose by right of nature and which inheres in the property owner as a matter of right, not social contract.

From the Anglo framework eventually came John Stuart Mill and the beginnings of “liberal” thought based on rights, and feminism came right along with it — Mill was really the first to articulate a feminist programme of women’s liberation as such, but the ideas that underlie feminism have their basis in the ideas of people like Locke.

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), English philosopher.

In comparison, Continental philosophy had a very different idea of fundamental natural equality, a la Rousseau who introduced the famous “tabula rasa”, whereby natural humanity is regarded as more or less virtuous and equal, and only social conflict and bad relations create problems among naturally noble human beings. From this foundation, the path then merged with German philosophical trends from Feuerbach, to Hegel, to Marx, who was also a feminist but for very different reasons than Mill.  Mill’s ideas were based on rights and freedom — the idea that women and men should be free to participate equally in pursuing their rights and freedoms, and were more or less interchangeable, because his philosophy viewed humans essentially as bundles of rights which activated such rights to pursue freedoms and thereby enable their own flourishing.  The Rousseau to Marx line differs from this in that it views humans as egalitarian and equal in an essential sense, but concerning the matters in which most Anglo thinkers tended to see as naturally-inherent individual rights, Rousseau’s branch did not consider rights to be inherent to the human person by nature, but were rather a matter of social contract, and therefore were subject to the agreement of the society as a whole, and also therefore subject to modification and change by that same organ.

The impacts of these differences on the development of feminism were significant.

On the one hand the emphasis on naturally-inhering individual rights, which are not a matter of social contract or negotiation, positioned feminism in a very different vein in Anglo countries — essentially, it made feminism into a matter of vindicating what were described as a woman’s natural rights, which were being unjustly withheld. In Continental countries, the matter of feminism was less a matter of individual rights, but more a matter of the larger society deciding about what roles men and women should be empowered to pursue. As such, the argumentation was therefore less based on individual rights (and seeing the consequences as essentially irrelevant to the discussion), but rather based on a more holistic approach to changes, consequences, and systemic alterations to accommodate the rise of women in various ways.

This is why, for example, the United States ended up with one of the most extremely permissive abortion regimes in the Western world at a time when it was still, by far, the most religious Western country, and also the country that had the largest percentage of its population being opposed to abortion. The reason is that individual rights are viewed as sacrosanct and inviolable (other than for paramount, pressing reasons), and therefore once abortion was construed as an individual *right*, there could be no compromise on the issue — it was always going to skew very heavily in favor of abortion, because Anglo countries are based on a philosophical tradition that is itself based on individual rights. In Continental countries, by contrast, abortion was legalized by statute virtually everywhere (but not everywhere at once), but with restrictions in almost every country that would be considered illegal in the United States — because the European countries see abortion as a matter of the social contract, and therefore as a matter of balancing interests by the society as a whole, and not as a matter of individual rights which are essentially not up for negotiation.

Princess Margaret was outgoing, vivacious, charismatic, and she had an 18-inch waist and vivid blue eyes. She was forced to postpone her wedding, and then later broke her engagement, leading her to become Alpha widowed. Although she later married another man, she was reputed to have had affairs with a large number of men during her lifetime, including Mick Jagger, Peter Sellers, and David Niven. The reason she broke off her first engagement was because her fiancée was divorced, but then she herself became divorced later in life.

The Influence of Religion

Stapled onto this was the fact that England was virtually 100% Protestant and the Continent was divided but mostly Catholic — Protestantism on the continent was dominant only in Switzerland, Holland, Scandinavia and Northern Germany, while the rest (all of Southern Europe, a good third of Germany, virtually all of France, all of Austria and the portion of Eastern and Southeastern Europe that was not Eastern Orthodox) remained Catholic until well after the French Revolution.  As between Protestants and Catholics of that era, Catholics were more thoroughly accepting of the subordination of women, I think.

This is counterintuitive to the present crop of libertarian(ish) American Protestants who tend to see Catholics as worshipping Mary and thereby elevating women as a result of that devotional emphasis, but in reality, the Catholic countries (apart from post-Revolutionary France, which has been an anti-religious state since the 1790s) all subordinated women in family life, and socially to a substantial degree until recent history, generally more thoroughly than the Protestant ones did, perhaps because of the Marian cult itself, which provided a very limited and restricted view of female virtue as the exemplar which was always in one’s face as a Catholic, coupled with the presence of large numbers of celibate nuns present everywhere Catholics lived until the 1970s. 

This, taken together with the prominent importance of all-male priesthood, which had the sole right and ability to celebrate the liturgy and to remit sins, created overwhelmingly subordinate role models for women, and gave men unique power that was not had in Protestant societies without sacramental priesthood, liturgies, or confession, even though the office of preaching was everywhere limited to men.  The Protestant idea of the “priesthood of all believers” likely served as another support for the elevated role of women, and even among the continental countries today, the ones that have a Protestant background generally have more characteristically “liberated” women than the Catholic ones do — as in Scandinavia and Holland.

Prince Harry and King Edward VIII both renounced their royal titles in order to marry divorcees, Meghan Markle and Wallis Simpson, respectively.

Love Knows No Rules

The British firm adherence to law, statesmanship, pomp, and decorum runs against human nature with respect to love and intersexual attraction.

This may explain why the British monarchy has always been rife with affairs, divorces, out-of-wedlock births, and in general, frustrations surrounding love and marriage. English kings disregarding their wives, and powerful queens disrespecting their husbands has been a recurring theme in English history ever since Henry VIII. This essay contains several photographs of British monarchs who either abused or suffered through their intersexual relationships under this regime. It might be argued that this is common among the upper class, but the British ruling families suffer from this malady to a much greater degree. This could be interpreted as a representation of the culture as a whole.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.

Epilogue

All of these things contributed to the rise of the “women are the superior sex” culture that began to lift its head in the Victorian era Anglo world.  This really had no (and to this day does not have any) equivalent on the Continent — women were protected there, as they were everywhere, but the Anglos really, really pedestalized them.  And I think this likely has the varied roots above that made Anglo places different:  different legal system that allowed women’s rights to be added to over time by courts (rather than schemes produced by legislatures), different philosophical concepts which emphasized inherent natural rights for all humans (rather than rights being based on a social, contract and therefore negotiated with all of society), and the fact that the Anglo world was culturally basically entirely Protestant.

Of course, today we are moving well beyond these precedents into a kind of terra incognita. The Anglo world itself is convulsing in the throes of a comprehensive revolution of its entire way of thinking that very well may result in overturning the entire “Anglo system” described above, and its replacement with something new, and more radical. However, at this time, it’s useful to think about some of these differences when trying to understand just why things seem so much more off-kilter in these areas in the U.S. and the rest of the Anglo world than they do elsewhere on Earth, even in other Western societies.

Related

This entry was posted in Cathodoxy, Collective Strength, Convergence, Cultural Differences, Culture Wars, Divorce, Enduring Suffering, Female Power, Feminism, Freedom, Personal Liberty, Headship and Patriarchy, Influence, Introspection, Leadership, Legalism, Male Power, Models of Failure, Organization and Structure, Philosophy, Politics, Protestantism, Self-Concept. Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to Anglo Femlightenment

  1. cameron232 says:

    “…but in reality, the Catholic countries (apart from post-Revolutionary France, which has been an anti-religious state since the 1790s) all subordinated women in family life, and socially to a substantial degree until recent history, generally more thoroughly than the Protestant ones did, perhaps because of the Marian cult itself, which provided a very limited and restricted view of female virtue…”

    On the other hand, the duties of a wife are thus summed up by the Prince of the Apostles:

    “Let wives be subject to their husbands. that if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word by the conversation of the wives, considering your chaste conversation with fear. Let not their adorning be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel: but the hidden man of the heart in the incorruptibility of a quiet and meek spirit, which is rich in the sight of God. For after this manner heretofore the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.”

    And this from the Catechism of the Council of Trent: The Sacrament of Matrimony.

    “To train their children in the practice of virtue and to pay particular attention to their domestic concerns should also be especial objects of their attention. The wife should love to remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out; and she should never presume to leave home without her husband’s consent.

    Again, and in this the conjugal union chiefly consists, let wives never forget that next to God they are to love their husbands, to esteem them above all others, yielding to them in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety, a willing and ready obedience.”

    This has never been rescinded.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Scott says:

      Orthodoxy has similar, albeit less top-heavy with imprimatur statements in their cathecisms. If you confront priests about these writings they say “well those cathecisms are just guidelines to help every day Christians with their spritual walk.” Or something.

      Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @Scott

        I got into it with a Catholic couple online (one with a family almost as big as mine) when I said people shouldn’t send their daughters to state universities because they’re glorified brothels. This seriously triggered the wife (and a white knight lurker on the website). It was terrible that I said that because she would have never met her husband if she had been forced to stay in her abusive home (or some sh!t like that).

        I quoted the catechism. They said we’re not under that catechism anymore. I said, fine, but that was never rescinded and at a minimum, my quoting of the teaching of the greatest catechism in Church history shouldn’t be offensive.

        The white knight husband came on and tried to cobble together some sort of argument about how economies both in biblical times and in the 16th century were different from today, that the radical economic changes since then neutralized those teachings (my summary of his words). Peter, Paul and Trent were simply writing in the context of ancient and medieval economic conditions.

        Of note: their website has pictures – the wife had her hair dyed magenta and the oldest daughter in the family pictures was posing in such a way to look like a young hottie. Tradcon Catholic conservatives.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Sharkly says:

        I would assume that most denominations of Christendom that have old catechisms or doctrinal creeds, would have ones that reflect traditional Biblical gender roles. Whereas groups that have felt the need to “revamp” their undergirding doctrinal statements to appease the Boomer Hippie’s and their Feminist sexual revolution, have generally watered down their past patriarchy significantly to appease Feminists.

        Liked by 2 people

    • info says:

      Even so the Protestants also likewise have the same scriptures about the subordination of women. But it looks like it’s implementation is more wanting for now.

      Until God changes the Anglosphere.

      Like

  2. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    NOVA
    Most people don’t know that the magna carta was what realy set all this off in 1215(Not 1517 or 1776!)!A.D.When england was still a catholic(Nearly ”entirely non-protestant!” country)!P.S.You did’nt think I was’nt going to bring ths up about how the uber-rich wanted special rights,which then trickled down to the ”common man”?This is’nt what happened with the ”new&improved” magna carta,known as the U.S.constitution in 1820A.D.When non-land owning(Rich!) men were allowed to vote too,then non-military ”participants”(Even though every able-bodied(Non-rich) man between ages 18&30 still had to until the late ’60’s)people(Mainly women,for all the law-loving dads!)I don’t remember DAL’s father being worried about him signing up for the draft in colorado,when he turned 18?My memory is’nt reliable?Also you know RMXPUAACTIVE did a post similar to this where he blamed the lack of mary-worship to”anglo” countries being to big on feminazism &advocatus diablos has said of course,racism,which leads into dads worshipping their daughters.See how long my comments still can get?Next time bring up all the facts that lead into the enlightenment so a ”voice crying in the wilderness” won’t have to!You wanted to see the ”thought experiment” version(You like him best,right?) of myself again maybe?Why did’nt you mention the old ”catholic” cathar women of the 12th&13th centuries in france,also?You were’nt trying to get me to come out of the saloon in dodge-city?

    Liked by 4 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      Indeed, Magna Carta is important in setting the Anglo mindset apart in a way that was different from the Continent, and there are many other factors as well. I would add to them the overarching influence of the schism of the entire Western Church ~1000 years ago as kicking the whole chain of events off, but in a blog article you have to cut things off somewhere. As Jack noted when he saw the draft of this post, it really only scratches the surface — it’s an overview, and many other things are lefty out that are important to understanding the full picture.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Jack says:

        Yes, a few volumes of history are needed to cover this topic properly. It’s hard to boil it down into something easily digestible. Last year, I traced a rough outline of some historical milestones, but the only thing I accomplished was proving that I’m a greenhorn in history.
        https://sigmaframe.wordpress.com/2020/11/06/hitting-bottom-is-necessary/
        NovaSeeker’s post above glosses over the history, however, it hones in on a specific, unique angle, which addresses the questions (1) why Feminism has become a maverick social philosophy in Anglo culture, as compared with other cultures (Locke, Hobbes, Mill, et al.), (2) why Anglos are so self-assured in their folly (i.e. individualism and individual rights), and (3) why no one seems to recognize the risks of letting the P-cat out of the bag (renegade judges and legal precedence).

        Going into too much historical detail would only distract from this emphasis. I think the post has a nice balance as it stands.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Sharkly says:

      Another interesting question might be why Christian countries often pedestalize women and their “rights” above many countries where other religions reign.
      In pagan cultures, descent in to matriarchy is generally accompanied by immediate descent into primitivity. Whereas strongly male dominated societies are often ascendant and generally conquer nearby matriarchal ones, but then eventually become effeminized by their own unrivaled success.
      I believe there is a strong satanic desire to bring down Christianity with Feminism. The prophet Daniel foretold our “time of (feminine) trouble”, or a female rival – adversary.(צָרָ֔ה – tsarah – Strong’s 6869)(in Daniel 12:1)(which may be connected to the Great Whore of Revelation)
      Whereas there would not be as much priority for Satan to pollute false religions with Feminism, as Satan would want to pollute true Christianity first and foremost.
      I believe the seeds of satanic Feminism/goddess-adoration were sown by Satan into the Church of Rome, bearing fruit already circa late fourth century AD and on. And now all our legacy Christian churches are, by origin, daughters of that Mother of Harlots.

      John 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

      We don’t worship God in a church of some denomination, we worship the masculine Father God and His masculine Son continually by joining into their united Spirit, praying without ceasing. And we worship the eternal Father by obeying the Truth of His holy Word, not by the fallible doctrines and traditions of men, and most certainly not by silly doctrines of women. God’s word is enough.

      2 Timothy 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

      Liked by 4 people

  3. Lexet Blog says:

    European nations have outpaced American feminism.

    They had women rulers before the anglos.

    Brothel culture in the old west was influenced by French trained madames.

    Europe was chock full of communist groups led by women in the 60s-80s. They were far more radical than similar groups in America.
    The bikini originated in France, and they were the first to legalize nudity, and were the first Europeans to actually outlaw modest swimwear.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. SFC Ton says:

    Got to call B.S. about cathloics holding the line with women

    Cathloic nations gave chicks the vote before America and cathloics were a hugely important voting block for the progressive movement, including the various feminists fronts

    Liked by 7 people

    • Elspeth says:

      I agree. Orthodoxy vs. Orthopraxy is relevant here.

      The Protestant obsession with the heart intent at the expense of doctrine is often rightly mocked.

      But I run across so many “devout Catholics” whose practice (most obviously when it comes to sexuality and marital authority) out of step with doctrine. Heck the pope doesn’t even hold to it.

      So… Ton is right.

      Liked by 5 people

      • cameron232 says:

        The OP seemed to be arguing about how Catholics were not how they are. The point I think was Catholics historically seemed less susceptible to feminism despite (or because of?) the Mary devotion or at least they tended to hold out longer than the Northern European (and colonial) Protestant countries. He mentioned the 1970s – Vatican II has been accused of Protestantizing the Church.

        Liked by 1 person

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        ELSPETH
        You know what I ran across yesterday while doing research after finding out about a certain film from the mid’80’s?The warrior women of the west africa kingdom of dahomey from 1600-1904!I want to hear again how women being violent was not known among anybody until the late 20th century!France took this country over,so how was it unknown?Also why does nobody,except for promale/anti-feminist tech in ’12&’13 know about the u.s.states that allow women to go upper torso bare?I was called ”the stripper”(They could’nt handle my ”romance” novel cover’s looks,perhaps?) for not wearing a shirt,while at physical rehab in my bed under the sheets,so know you know why ,I lolzlolz at driscoll,wilson&gregoire talking about women being tricked into reading 50 shades of pornography,right?

        Like

      • info says:

        @cameroon232

        Maybe Marian veneration restricting simping to one holy saint like a form of containment. So it slows down the effects of feminism but doesn’t completely prevent it.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        @info,

        As suggested in the OP I think, devotion to Mary is devotion to a woman who is a perpetual virgin and submitted fully to God. A feminine woman of modesty and chastity. Not Xena Warrior Princess.

        I don’t think traditional Catholic devotion to Mary is anything like modern male simping. Simps certainly don’t express their admiration for female virginity (whether or not you believe Mary was a perpetual virgin is irrelevant) and submission to God.

        Like

      • info says:

        @cameroon232
        Simping for women originally came by making women as earthly counter-parts to Mary:
        https://gynocentrism.com/2018/03/07/the-virgin-mary-chivalry-gynocentrism-feminism-1897/

        Due to Arab influence and Marian cult interacting.

        Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      Pre-1970s America it was Catholics who pushed back hardest against left-feminist morality e.g. birth control, judgment-free slut sex and, maybe most importantly, abortion (women being able to negate bad hypergamous choices).

      Liked by 1 person

      • SFC Ton says:

        Again gotta call bs because they voted for progressive canadaties by large margins and for generations

        Deeds not words

        Liked by 3 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        JFK was a wonderful holy man

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        It seems that readers have widely different impressions of Catholicism, concerning how “converged” it is.

        Like

      • SFC Ton says:

        Ain’t nothing new boss

        The other side wants to base their argument on the millions of catholic words on the subject

        I look at real world results like voting block trends, which nations legalized gay marriage or gave women the vote 1st etc etc

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        American Catholics are like American Protestants they’re just one group/denomination/Church not a bunch since the Church can’t be divided. So, within American Catholicism you have individuals who are uber liberal, moderate and very conservative (Latin Mass traditionalists, some Eastern Rite, Ordinariate etc.). Since Catholics as a group are just like other Americans (we did a great job assimilating them) a large number of them are liberals or at best neo-conservatives (those that follow in left-liberalism’s shadow).

        @Ton, lots of American Catholics voted for pro-worker, pro-union politicians but their tendency was to be socially conservative wrt to sexual morality, marriage, abortion, etc. Oh, and no women priests. Women best serve the Church as wives or nuns. Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive. We’re talking about sexual ethics and attitudes towards sex roles here. The WASP, God bless him, wins for Progressivism on that.

        FWIW, I’m quite attached to old, founding stock America (which is fully three fourths of my ancestry). But there’s a pretty old liberal/leftist streak in Protestantism e.g. women ministers in the early 19th Century. The Catholic Church still doesn’t have women priests.

        Episcopals, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc. have voted for Progressive politicians for generations too.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        American Catholics are like American Protestants they’re just one group/denomination/Church not a bunch since the Church can’t be divided.

        Right.

        American Orthodox are somewhat similar, but there are differences across the various jurisdictions, with the Greeks being most similar (in this way) to the Catholics (i.e., mixed politically), the Arab part of the Antiochian Patriarchate here being also a bit mixed but more conservative generally (the “white” part of that Patriarchate here is very traditional and often politically conservative), and the Slav churches tending to be more conservative overall.

        Catholicism can be hard for Protestants to interpret, because they look at “church” differently — in a very fundamentally different way. Schisms are not common in the Church (cap C), whereas things that would constitute schism for the Church are an every day matter in Protestantism. So Protestants tend to look at the results of separations within Protestant groups as being delimiting of the boundaries of “church” (so discount or “don’t care much” about what the people on the other side of the “split” think or believe or do), but when they look at Catholicism and see one structural church, they tend to lump everyone together in a way that they don’t do in their own churches, not taking into account that all of those Catholics are corralled together into the one Church, because it is the only Catholic Church there is — that is, schisms are uncommon.

        So a Protestant will look at some unfaithful Catholic like Andrew Sullivan who is a practicing gay married guy who still goes to communion and say “see, the Catholics are librulz!”, when what is happening there is a part of a larger picture, and is also “against the rules” so to speak (shame on the priests coddling him and those like him!). But at the same time a typical conservative Protestant — say someone who is a member of ACNA — will sneer at the idea that the beliefs and practices of the ECUSA would be attributed to them in some way, because they “separated from them”. That is, because the act of separation is very common in Protestantism, if one does not avail oneself of it either personally or corporately in order to ensconce oneself in a community that perfectly embodies and reflects one’s own personal beliefs and vice versa, one gets the beliefs that are professed by one’s community — including all parts thereof — to oneself, precisely because you have “chosen to affiliate with that denomination”.

        For Catholics, there isn’t such a choice to be had while remaining Catholic. Catholics can’t just found a new church like Protestants can and every day do. They can either find a corner of Catholicism that feels more consonant with their own beliefs and praxis (whether that is the Eastern Rite churches, or the Latin Mass parishes) or they can leave for Orthodoxy (which is still an act of schism in the eyes of the Catholic Church and which noone undertakes lightly) or they can leave for Protestantism (same thing except viewed even more severely). For most Catholics, those aren’t real choices in the way that for Protestants a “change in church” is — the equivalent for Catholics is switching parishes. It isn’t leaving the Catholic Church.

        This is why it is misleading and inapposite to lump Catholics together the way Protestants do — Catholics aren’t making an affiliation choice based on the kind of doctrinal purity test that most Protestants use. So imputing the beliefs of everyone who happens to be Catholic to each and every Catholic makes no sense, while it can make sense in Protestantism, where everyone kind of finds their right denominational niche, and therefore it stands to reason that you should be called to account for the beliefs articulated by each and every single member of the church that you specifically choose to be affiliated with.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        @Nova, “That is, because the act of separation is very common in Protestantism”

        Tell me about it! We began as continuing Anglicans. They separated from ECUSA in the 60’s and 70’s over women’s ordination and immediately began to separate from each other, each claiming they were the original jurisdiction. They are tiny groups (of mostly old people-their congregations are dying) who exist in reaction to Episcopal leftism but they still can’t get it together and unite.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Ton my friend,

        Is that to me? I think Lutheran Denmark started marrying fags first. I showed the women-voting map – it’s a Prot thing.

        I’m completely sympathetic to you as a Southern Protestant man. You are America – the American prototype – so this is nothing against ‘merican Protestants. Your ancestors should probably not have let my German-Catholic ancestors into the country.

        But I think Nova is right.

        Liked by 1 person

      • anonymous_ng says:

        I can never understand why I can’t reply to a reply.

        @Novaseeker, The Antiochians are known to be the most convert friendly of the Orthodox sects, so, we might be more liberal than most.

        I know that at our Antiochian parish, there are more than a few people who would not be considered terribly conservative.

        I have a few questions for you about your Orthodox parish if you don’t mind a conversation in private email.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        That would be fine, anon_ng. Jack can send you my email through the back channel.

        I know if a politically mixed, rather famous, non-ethnic AA parish about an hour from here which reflects a combination that is ritually/doctrinally conservative while having people who seem to embrace a kind of eclectic mix of politics. The large mostly ethnically Arab AA parish that is closer has politics that are more similar to a GOA parish, but slides more conservative, as Arabs tend to do as compared with Greeks, at least the Christian ones.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. feeriker says:

    @ cameron (2021-04-12 at 10:30 pm) and Sharkly Sharkly (2021-04-13 at 12:46 am):

    Most of those who call themselves “Christians” today are, as we here know, churchians who are practicing what is in effect a completely new religion, a bastardization of Christianity that retains a few of its essential doctrines, but that foresakes and abandons anything that truly conflicts with the ways of the World. The simply don’t have the strength of character to honestly admit that they’re throwing most of the Scriptures away because they’re “not relevant to the current age.” (An imperfect analogy would be Mormonism at the time of its founding in the early 19th Century. It wasn’t actually called “Mormonism” or “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” in its earliest foundational period. It was Joseph Smith claiming, much as Martin Luther did in the 16th Century, that he was “reforming a faith that had become corrupted.” Only later, in the case of Mormonism, did it emerge as a completely different religion after its departures from Scripture became too radically obvious to ignore.)

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Elspeth says:

    On the surface, this mirrors the Biblical concept of law, except that the Covenant Law of the Old Testament is based on the nature of God, not reason and the various human concepts of justice which came to the forefront during the Enlightenment.

    I would argue -quite forcefully- that representative government, the “Rule of Law” and the acknowledgment of private property are indeed Biblical principles. I also agree that they are based on the nature of God rather than man. The elephant in the American governmental room, which is being ignored, is the principle of self-government based on what God has revealed to us about the nature of God AND the nature of mankind. For those who don’t like the idea of the nature of man as revealed by God, even the concept of Natural Law will suffice for the purpose of this discussion.

    This -even to me!- sounds like a severe oversimplification of Nova’s well composed piece, but as we read through the comments, people continue to come up with earlier ans earlier examples of structures and documents which prize the individual, all the way back to the Magna Carta (1215).

    I thought of Judges 21:25; In the absence of a ruler in Israel, “every man did what was right in his own eyes.” God’s people “played the harlot” with pagan goddesses such as Ashera, who immediately springs to mind.

    There is, i believe, bound up in the heart of men (see Adam) an instinctive tendency to please women, cater to women, protect women, and follow women. It reveals itself in myriad ways.

    I think it’s worse here because American women have always been more free than other women around the globe, and American jurisprudence (with its overemphasis on personal freedom), made it that much easier for women to screech and howl and get their way.

    Liked by 5 people

    • ray says:

      ‘There is, i believe, bound up in the heart of men (see Adam) an instinctive tendency to please women, cater to women, protect women, and follow women. It reveals itself in myriad ways.’

      First way it revealed itself was at outset, first woman and man. Modern people don’t know — or don’t want to know — what Original Sin is. Not some goofy Catholic Doctrine version, but its true substance.

      Original Sin is what you’ve just written above. God summarized it as ‘listening to the voice of the woman’. Instead of, as replacement for, listening to God’s voice. God saw that the man preferred to obey the woman, rather than Him. So title to the planet passed from men to satan, to the authority that advised and partnered with the woman. God is just.

      This authority currently is expressed across the West, and in America especially, via the female-rival, or female-vexation, mentioned in Daniel 12:1 as trouble, the tsah-rah. This is both an actual and specific spiritual entity, and a collective exertion of will to power. The prophet Zechariah was allowed a glimpse of this being (Zech. 5:8). Such a lucky guy!

      The female wanted, and wants still, to usurp the God-established position of the man, and thus to overthrow God and heaven itself. This is how original sin is expressed in her.
      Because the planetary deed no longer is held by the man (men), boys and men are increasingly piggy-in-the-middle between the satanic principalities/hierarchy, and the collective empowered feminine.

      This is feminism and it has conquered. The beast rises and a woman rides, or controls it. Now you know who.

      Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        The goofy Catholic doctrine version of original sin:

        “Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.”

        Authors usually mean the latter definition when they write “original sin.”

        Liked by 1 person

    • Joe2 says:

      …and American jurisprudence (with its overemphasis on personal freedom), made it that much easier for women to screech and howl and get their way.

      It’s also easier for women to get their way since about 37% of lawyers in the US are women and will get only easier with over 50% of law students being women.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        Yes, Joe2, but the major share of legislation that turned things upside down? All that happened when men held all the reigns: legislatively, judicially, and when almost ALL lawyers were men.

        There really is, tempting as it may be, no way around the fact that men in power handed the power over to women.

        Liked by 3 people

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        Elspeth,what your saying is men I.E.Rich men,who did’nt have natural charisma,looks &charm like SAM&I had to do all the chivalry,even with their grandfathers’ money,right?P.S.Tempting,here means begging,right also?Like DETI said this is getting too deep&beyond superficial!?

        Liked by 1 person

  7. Lance says:

    Common Law actually came out of the church. The government wasn’t implementing justice, so the church did based on God’s law. So it’s not just how judges have ruled, but has a biblical foundation that was the basis of their rulings.

    Like

  8. thedeti says:

    Oh my God this is deep.

    The only observation I can really offer is that individual rights being paramount is causing all of the West’s institutions to tie themselves in knots in their efforts to protect individuals, or at least not trample on someone else. The problem is that when you’re an institution, you cannot please everyone, despite individuals’ and interest groups’ demands that you do exactly that.

    It is always a matter of power. Always has been and always will be. Who has power, who wields it, who is in the group in power and who is in the group out of power. Individual rights gives us some sort of illusory power. What individual primacy is doing, though, is only giving way to a different form of tyranny. Now is the tyranny of aggrieved minorities, banding together to gang up on a white Christian majority they believe has committed wrongs both real and perceived. Those who have power always end up abusing it.

    Choose your despot – individual rights, or feudalism/serfdom, or state totalitarianism dressed up as a weird blend of socialist capitalism or capitalist socialism.

    I don’t really know what I’m trying to say here, other than this was inevitable when the balance tipped to individual rights over duty to a larger body politic consisting of family, extended family, church, community, state, and nation.

    Liked by 7 people

    • Scott says:

      It is the catalyst for my “peak subjectivity” hypothesis.

      Liked by 3 people

    • SFC Ton says:

      Choose your despot – individual rights, or feudalism/serfdom, or state totalitarianism dressed up as a weird blend of socialist capitalism or capitalist socialism.
      ……

      They all end up at the same destination so you’re down to choosing the slowest route ( or fastest if that your thing)

      Liked by 5 people

  9. Elspeth says:

    O/T (or maybe not quite) @ Lexet:

    File this one under “strange bedfellows”. Rod Dreher (Orthodox) is the featured guest this week on Tom Ascol’s (Reformed Baptist) podcast, The Sword and The Trowel.

    I found that quite interesting!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Novaseeker says:

      Derher is interesting in that he is an Orthodox that draws a LOT of hate from other Orthodox. This comes from people who are politically left, in part. But even apart from these, there is a tendency among many Orthodox, especially cradle/ethnic Orthodox, to kind of like the position that they have of being aloof to the cultural warfare and “off the radar screen”, so to speak. Rob Derher irks them in that he isn’t interested in being ofgf the radar screen, obviously, because in his prior life he was a culture war Catholic.

      I have read some of the things he has posted over the years — not too much of it, but a bit here and there. A couple of odd things about him are the following.

      First, he says that he lost his Catholic faith as a result of the clerical scandals and cover up relating to the child gay sex abuse. I suppose that happened to a number of people, but he has never really explained what explicitly happened in terms of what specifically he lost faith in. If it was the idea that there is a hierarchy which has authority, then Orthodoxy was an odd choice for him, because we have that, too. If it was the idea that the Church is infallible in the way that Catholics teach it to be, it would be easy enough for him to come out and say it — I am not sure why he wouldn’t do that. And if it was in more things than just the hierarchy/structure/church issues, then why not say what those are? He has never really discussed it, other than to say it was a crisis of faith — and this is remarkable for someone who has opened himself as much as he has done in some of his books (I have not read them myself, but from what I have seen of them — summaries and reviews and so on — they appear to be deeply personal in a couple of cases of the older ones he wrote a few years ago rather than his more political recent ones).

      Second, he refuses to analyze Orthodoxy in the same way that he did Catholicism. To his credit, he is up-front about this, and says that he intentionally avoids digging into Orthodoxy, in terms of the hierarchy and the “official Church”, as he did as a Catholic, because he says he knows that this could lead to a crisis of faith given his issues with authority in the wake of his departure from Catholicism. Fair enough, but the result of his approach is that he continues to do deep dives on Catholic hierarchical minutiae (in which he is well-versed due to is history) while retaining a rigidly studied ignorance of anything that is actually taking place in the Orthodox Church outside his parish. It’s … really odd. It strikes me as problematic for someone with a mind like his, which is always going at 600 mph trying to understand things. Cordoning something off like that, when it is involving your own faith, and then proceeding to continue to criticize the same aspects of other faiths — including your own former Catholic one — on the basis of the things you have cordoned off and refuse to analyze in your own … well, that’s just … wrong, in my opinion. Wrong. I understand well why so many Catholics are so frustrated with Rob Dehrer, really.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        I read Dreher semi-regularly and I agree that he is a study in contradictions. His inability -in many cases- to settle his emotional self can come across a little effeminate for my tastes, but he’s a good source of updates for some cultural trends.

        The focus of the podcast was his book Live Not by Lies which I have read. It’s a very good book. It was a good podcast discussion about leftism’s ascent into the church via a focus on “therapeutic” ministry rather than truth.

        Liked by 2 people

  10. Pingback: Cultural Influences | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s