The Need for “Apolitical Space”

Last updated on: June 24, 2023 at 1:17 pm By Gene Veith

When making conversation, we were always told, don’t talk politics or religion. Stick to safe subjects like sports or the weather.

The reason for that is that politics and religion are divisive. Not everyone agrees about them. If the person you are talking to is a friend who already agrees with you, fine. But when making social chit-chat with someone you don’t know, it’s best to talk about non-controversial topics. Liberals and conservatives, Christians and atheists can all enjoy and have common ground with sports. And everybody is subject to the weather (cf. Matthew 5:45).

But today a conversation about sports can get into teams celebrating Pride Month, athletes protesting during the National Anthems, league policy about China, and boycotts from either the left or the right. Conversations about the weather can lead to arguments about climate change and global warming.

The point is, it’s hard to find “safe topics” any more. Virtually everything has become charged with politics and religion.

In a response to billionaire Mark Cuban’s claim that “woke capitalism”– in which corporations take public stands in favor of progressive causes–is “good for business,” Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy had this to say:

“When those businesses wade into social disputes, not only is that often bad for business, just look at what happened to Bud Light, look at what’s happening to Target. . . .But more importantly, it’s bad for our civic culture in our country, because what we need is apolitical spaces that bring people together.”

Exactly! We need “apolitical spaces.” The lack of them is why our nation has become so polarized. There have always been sharp political disagreements in this country. But there have also been apolitical spaces in which Americans, for all of their differences, have found common ground, creating a sense of national unity.

Americans celebrated national holidays and appreciated our history. Everyone was grateful for our constitutional legacy of political and personal freedom, with individual rights and a democratically-elected government. During the Cold War, both Democrats and Republicans opposed communism.

The public schools were mostly apolitical. So were businesses. So were movies, television, and other forms of entertainment. So was the military. So were churches, with Democrats and Republicans worshipping together in the same theologically conservative churches.

Now these are all political minefields. Celebrating the Fourth of July has become an occasion for vehement arguments between those who vilify the founders as slaveholders and those who defend them for building a free society that eventually freed the slaves. American history, for many, is something to be ashamed of. Both the left and the right are criticizing our “liberal” political system, with its freedoms and democracy.

Schools, businesses, the entertainment industry, even the military have seemingly “gone woke” to one degree or another, sparking furious reactions from the other side. Churches now sort themselves out between those that push for progressive causes and those that steadfastly resist them.

The catalyst for this polarization and its spread throughout our institutions seems to be sex–embracing feminism, the LGBTQ+ movement, transgenderism, and support for abortion–which the progressives have tied together with racial civil rights into an intersectional package.

So we might think that sex has become politicized. But how did that happen? To be sure, certain laws affect these things–anti-discrimination laws, same-sex marriage, the overturn of Roe v. Wade, etc.–and those were political. But most of those issues, rightly or wrongly, have been settled.

The issues now seem to be not so much political as attitudinal. What is your attitude towards the LGBTQ+ movement? Companies display their support while some of their customers display their opposition. With no real political issue in question, what we have are moral issues. Those often come down to religious beliefs.

So not only does politics permeate religion, religion, of one kind or another, permeates politics.

Are there any “apolitical spaces” left? How might we bring some of those back? Are there any “areligious spaces”?

In India, for example, the concept of “secularism” by no means repudiates religion, as Western secularism tends to, but seeks to create “areligious spaces,” in the government particularly, so that people of divergent religions can come together into a political unity. That is arguably what the American founders had in mind with the “separation of church and state.” Is that kind of secularism possible or desirable today in the U.S., when secularism has come to mean opposition to religion? How might Luther’s doctrine of the Two Kingdoms help us sort out some of these issues?

Photo: Vivek Ramaswamy by Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

Premium Content

When a Culture Reaches the Stage of “Decadence”

Last updated on: June 10, 2023 at 5:54 pm By Gene Veith

0 Comments

The word “decadence” is a metaphor that derives from “decay,” when something that was once alive decomposes.

“Decadence” as a stage of culture has a long history. The Wikipedia article on the subject gives these contemporary definitions. Historian Jacques Barzun says decadence is when “the forms of art as of life seem exhausted, the stages of development have been run through. Institutions function painfully.”

Columnist Ross Douthat, who has written a book on the subject, says decadence is a state of “economic stagnation, institutional decay and cultural and intellectual exhaustion at a high level of material prosperity and technological development.”

By these standards, contemporary American culture has become decadent. The forms of art are exhausted? Hollywood keeps making the same movies over and over. The same can be said of modern art and literature. Our institutions are indeed functioning painfully. We are indeed intellectually exhausted. And yet we have a lot of material prosperity and technological development.

I came across another definition in a book review in “Quillette,” in which Robert Zubrin concludes, “If you think that the world has had quite enough of freedom, progress, science, and reason, this is the book for you.” In the course of that takedown, he says this:

“The French historian Fernand Braudel remarks in Out of Italy that “decadence” is what occurs in a civilization when it rejects the ideas and ideals responsible for its origin and growth.”

This formulation has the virtue of being specific. And I think it holds up.

The Roman Republic was famous for its virtue, its rule of law, and the rights of its citizens. This degenerated into the decadence of the Roman Empire, notorious for its sexual depravity, its cruelty, and its absolutism.

The Victorians were famous for their propriety and their sense of duty. The later 19th century bohemians who called themselves “the Decadents” were known for their licentiousness and irresponsibility.

The United States of America is currently in the midst of a wholesale reaction against its founding and its founding principles. Elements of both the left and the right are criticizing “liberal democracy.” Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and other civil liberties are receiving little respect. Free market economics, personal liberty, limited government, individualism, and other foundational values of American culture are being repudiated from all sides.

Instead, we are getting. . .the opposite of all of these.

American culture is decomposing.

We have become decadent.

Illustration: “The Romans in Their Decadence” By Thomas Couture (1847) – Rama, CC BY-SA 2.0 fr, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=41447559

Premium Content

A Cranach Miscellany

Last updated on: March 4, 2023 at 1:46 pm By Gene Veith

0 Comments

So much to blog about! So little time! So much of interest, yet I don’t always have much to say about them!

So I want to experiment with a new feature on this blog: short bits of information, oddities, and observations. A “miscellany,” which means “a miscellaneous collection or group of various or somewhat unrelated items.”

I might do this weekly, I might do it occasionally, or I might never do it again, depending on how you like it. Here goes:

New Zealand and Maori Science. New Zealand schools must now teach Maori “ways of knowing,” grounded in myth and tribal lore, alongside courses in modern science. Militant atheist Richard Dawkins is raising the alarm about this, calling Maori beliefs a form of “creationism” (the worst critique he can imagine). He has a point, though, that animistic worldviews are not on a par with the scientific method. But this is what happens when we adopt the postmodernist assumptions that there is no objective truth and that knowledge is determined by culture. Throw in critical theory’s concerns about “white supremacy” and “colonialism,” and the science we take for granted and depend on cannot survive. (HT: Bob Foote)

Florida Registering Bloggers? A Republican state legislator in Florida has introduced a law that would require any bloggers who discuss Gov. Ron DeSantis or other state officials to register with the state and file financial reports on any income generated by the posts. Failure to do so could incur a $2500 fine. Newspapers and professional journalists would be exempt.

This would really cramp my style, especially if DeSantis runs for president! I wouldn’t think I would fall under Florida jurisdiction, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Oklahoma would extradite me.

This law, on the face of it, would be unconstitutional, especially since it targets the speech of private citizens. And I wonder if it isn’t a serious proposal, but rather an “if this, then why not that” ploy, as in schools responding to Christians’ efforts to ban controversial books by also banning the Bible. My impression is that the bill had something to do with a proposal to make lobbyists register. If they have to, why not bloggers?

I haven’t seen anything to suggest that DeSantis himself is actually in favor of this bill. If he is, it would suggest an affinity with “illiberal conservatives”–that is, conservatives opposed to liberty–that would be concerning. But I don’t think this is the case.

Cancelling the Very Mention of the First Talkie? The “Carousel of Progress” ride at Disneyland is being interrogated for its political correctness. The educational ride through the development of American technology at Tomorrowland depicts a character from the 1920’s saying how excited he is to see The Jazz Singer, which is the first motion picture with sound. A fan points out that the movie stars Al Jolson and that Jolson appears in blackface. The Guest was “shocked” that the ride mentioned the historically important movie and called for the reference to be removed.

This issue was raised in a Reddit thread and most commenters disagreed with it, and there is no indication that Disney is planning to delete mention of the movie. Except that the complaint was published on Disney’s website Inside the Magic, at the end of which it solicits fans’ reactions. So it looks like the company is testing the waters to see how offended their customers might be.

So far cancel culture forbids saying or depicting anything offensive. The Disney ride doesn’t say or depict anything offensive. But forbidding the very mention of a work because it includes something offensive would be a new frontier in cancel culture.

Canceling the Black Professor for His “Triggering” Critiques of Racism. As Nathanael Blake says about the incident, “it would take a heart of stone not to laugh.”

Illustrations: Lucas Cranach’s seal. See this for its heraldic meaning.

Premium Content

DISCUSS: Talking Sports

Last updated on: September 11, 2022 at 8:12 pm By Gene Veith

0 Comments

College and NFL football have started up again! Baseball is headed to the wire and to the playoffs! And there are lots of controversies, proposed changes, and dramas to talk about! So this weekend let’s talk sports.

The college season looks to be interesting. Last weekend three of the top 10 teams were defeated. Mighty Notre Dame, ranked #8, was defeated by Marshall, best known for losing most of their football team in a tragic airplane crash in 1970, the subject of the 2006 movie We Are Marshall. Texas A&M (enrollment 73,000), ranked #6, was beaten by Appalachian State (enrollment 18,000).

This to me shows the wisdom of the planned 12-team playoff, which will give teams from unheralded conferences, such as the Sun Belt conference where both Marshall and Appalachian State, a shot at the national championship.

Also last weekend, Alabama, ranked #1 as they nearly always are, came within 10 seconds of losing to unranked Texas. Which tells me that the Texas Longhorns and the Oklahoma Sooners may do well in the SEC when they switch over there in the near future.

Start whatever threads you want to discuss–including predictions, criticisms, and laments–but I’m curious what you think about Major League Baseball’s plan to change the rules next year by imposing a pitch timer (no more than 15 seconds between pitches,20 with a runner on base) and to outlaw infield shifts (the strategy of shifting defenders to one side for batters that always hit in that direction).

I abominate that! The whole point of baseball is that there is no clock, no time pressure, which is what makes it so relaxing. And taking away a defensive strategy–which sometimes doesn’t work and is thus a big risk, adding suspense to the game–in order to generate more offense? What’s sporting about that? As for all of these efforts to speed up the game, I’m against them all. When I go to a game, I want to get my money’s worth, so I want it to last as long as possible.

Your turn. . .

Premium Content

Teacher Education Programs Don’t Teach How to Teach

Last updated on: August 28, 2022 at 9:00 pm By Gene Veith

0 Comments

In order to get a teaching certificate, would-be teachers in the public or most private systems must take a series of required courses from the Department of Education in their colleges or universities. Those courses, in turn, are, for the most part, prescribed by the state Department of Public Instruction.

Daniel Buck tells of his experience with Departments of Education while pursuing a Master’s Degree in that subject at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He then tells about a study of teacher-training programs in all of the public universities of the Badger state.

He found that all of the 14 teacher training programs in the state require courses in race theory, gender studies, LGBTQ issues, and Marxist-infused “critical pedagogy.” There are also what he calls “kitschy activities” such as watching movies, making expressive arts and crafts, and sharing personal feelings. But there are hardly any courses in how to teach.

His article, Education Schools Have Long Been Mediocre. Now They’re Woke Too, is published in the Wall Street Journal, which is behind a paywall, but here is the opening:

I studied for a master’s degree in education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 2015. My program was batty. We made Black Lives Matter friendship bracelets. We passed around a popsicle stick to designate whose turn it was to talk while professors compelled us to discuss our life’s traumas. We read poems through the “lenses” of Marxism and critical race theory in preparation for our students doing the same. Our final projects were acrostic poems or ironic rap videos.

At the time, I figured my experience was unique. Surely, I thought, other teacher-prep programs focused on human cognition, behavioral management, child psychology and other educational practicalities. Alas, my program was mild compared with what current graduates must suffer.

The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty has reviewed the required coursework for 14 programs for teachers-to-be in the Badger State. These programs produce about 80% of all teaching graduates in the state each year. What they found was shocking. Worldview building and ideological manipulation take precedence over teacher preparation.

On the syllabi, noticeably lacking are academic literature or manuals of classroom instruction. Instead, Hollywood movies like “Freedom Writers,” popular books like Jonathan Kozol’s “Letters to a Young Teacher,” and propaganda like “Anti-Racist Baby” abound. In place of academic essays, graduate students write personal poems or collect photographs. These kitschy activities infantilize what ought to be a rigorous pursuit of professional competency.

Buck cites another study that found that only 22% of schools of education teach the “science of reading”–that is, teaching reading by phonics, as we blogged about.

The report he references, a study of the syllabi of all required education in the state’s public universities, is entitled From the Top: The Impact of College-Level Indoctrination on K-12 Education. These turn out 80% of the state’s teachers. Who, apparently, are getting little help in preparing for what they are going to have to do in actual classrooms. Some figure it out for themselves and perform well. But nearly 10% quit after only one year, and nearly 50% quit within five years.

Comments Buck,

Students are the obvious losers. But teachers suffer, too. It’s almost a rite of passage that every teacher must go through hell his first year. Partly this is a function of getting used to the job, but it’s also a reflection of how ill-prepared they are by their training to stand in front of a classroom full of students.

To be sure, there are lots of good teachers out there, despite how they may have been trained, teachers who do not indoctrinate or corrupt their students, but rather teach them the knowledge and skills that they need to know. They deserve our honor and support. I have come to appreciate greatly the teachers I have come to know in our classical schools. And some colleges and universities–I think of Hillsdale, Patrick Henry College, and other Christian colleges–have teacher training programs that do what they are supposed to do. But there is a reason why we have a crisis in education today, and it starts in the universities.

HT: Jackie Veith

Photo via pxhere, CC0, public domain

Premium Content

The Significance of the Fireplace

Last updated on: August 15, 2022 at 3:49 pm By Gene Veith

0 Comments

We learned that our chimney needs repairs before we can use our fireplace this winter, forcing us to consider whether or not we really need one. Whereupon I came across this essay by Paul Kingsnorth, the radical environmentalist novelist turned Orthodox Christian and culture critic, whom we have blogged about.

He and his family currently pursue a simple lifestyle in rural Ireland. He complains that the Irish government has launched a crusade against fireplaces, on the grounds that burning wood puts too much carbon into the air and thus contributes to global warming (never mind that automobiles, industries, and even the infrastructure for the internet contribute far more).

This leads him to making the point that the Latin word for fireplace–or hearth–is “focus,” which is where we get our English word “focus.” The point is that the fireplace–or hearth– was the “focus” of the home. Our ancestors sat around the fireplace, looking into the fire. The hearth provided warmth and thus protection from the cold outside. It also provided food, which was cooked on the fire. While focusing on the fire, families would also converse, tell stories, and sing. We still get a trace of that when we go camping and sit around the fire, singing “campfire songs” and telling ghost stories. It also gave light in the darkness.

Today, Kingsnorth argues, our homes lack “focus.” So do most people. We lack a “center.” Here is what he says about it, from his essay The West Is Homeless:

In his short essay “Fireside Wisdom”, the uncategorisable John Michell suggested that the “displacement of the hearth or fireplace” from the home was one of the many reasons for the craziness of the modern world which his life had been spent playfully exploring. The fireplace at the centre of the home, he wrote, was both an ancient practicality and a device of “cosmological significance” across cultures and time: “Conversation is directed into the fire while dreams and images are drawn out of it.”

In the past, the act of sitting staring into the smoky fire with family or neighbours was the genesis of the folk tale and folk song which tied the culture together. Now we stare at digital fires hemmed into boxes manufactured by distant corporations who also tell us our stories. No song we can dream up around a real fireplace can compete with what these boxed fires can sell us. “Thus,” wrote Michell, “the traditional cosmology is no longer represented by its domestic symbols, and a new, secular, restless, uncentred world-view has taken its place.”

Focus, Michell explained, is “the Latin name for the central fireplace. The fire not only warms but, as a symbol, illuminates the corresponding images of a centre to each of our own beings and of a world-centre which is divine, eternal and unchanging.” Lose your fires, and you literally lose your focus as a culture. In this context, a government spokesman telling his population, as one minister here recently did, that they should “get over” their “nostalgic” attachment to the hearth fire and install ground source heat pumps instead is more than just a nod to efficiency. It is an assault on what remains of the home and its meaning. It is an attack on the cultural — even the divine — centre.

Today, of course, our living rooms do have a “focus,” which all of the chairs are turned to and which everyone stares at: the video screen. Then again, in many families, each member has his or her own screen, a TV in everyone’s bedroom or a personal computer screen on everyone’s lap. Thus, they have their own personal “focus.” Though sometimes families still gather around the communal flat screen TV in the living room for sporting events, movies, or other communal programming. That can still be valuable, but it isn’t the same as the ancient “focus.”

What will be the difference between the focus being the fire that gives warmth and nourishment to the family and the electronic screen? I like the way Kingsnorth describes them, as fire boxes of a different kind: “digital fires hemmed into boxes manufactured by distant corporations who also tell us our stories.”

To be sure, the “hearth” is technologically obsolete. We have all-electric kitchens to cook our food, central heating to keep us warm, electric lights to banish the darkness, video screens to tell us stories and let us watch other people singing, and computer screens to convey what information and wisdom we have.

Conversely, you don’t have to have a fireplace to “center” your home and your life, not if you have God. And, no, Kingsnorth’s essay wasn’t a factor in our decision to fix our chimney.

But he goes on to make an even bigger point, about the disintegration not just of the family but of the “home.” We’ll get into that topic tomorrow.

Image by s-wloczyk2 from Pixabay

Premium Content