A lot of past decade news sound like onion satire. Both in europe and the us. We have to be careful which way we steer things as a lot of things appear to take a very very non democratic non western direction.
What does this mean and how is it relevant to the article or the parent comment? A lot of the recent rollback of rights are very much "western" in nature. The overturn of roe v. wade, for example, is a long standing project of various Christian groups. Nor is "the west" immune to dictatorship - you only have to go back to WWII for proof of that.
With the US thrust into the de-facto "centre of the Anglo-sphere" (note: I am not American, as astute readers might deduce from preceding spelling), many terms are in need of an overhaul.
It's particularly amusing how news of the "West" comes from the East and the "East" is accessed by flying West.
Words are hard (and currently under a lot of scrutiny). Has anyone tried turning the language off and on again?
At the end of the day, English is less a language in the sense of other languages and more a pluggable framework an empire developed for adopting the vocabulary of other peoples and stuffing them into a loose sort of syntax together.
Words like this always end up being wrong if they're used long enough, but are still useful and everyone gets what you mean, so they're fine, since that's the whole point. See also: "3rd world".
It's a euro-centric term. The West of Europe has a historical bias towards freedom of expression, democracy, religious freedom (arguable) etc, and that got extended to include America when it got big enough to join the party.
The East of Europe, by comparison, tended to authoritarianism, and that extended to include China when it got big enough to join the party.
Of course, it depends on where you draw the line on East vs West - Germany could be either, or both, and historically has been all flavours of political spectrum.
As others have said, it makes no sense from an American viewpoint because geography.
The christian evangelic movement is very authoritarian, which makes them Eastern. Christianity (or professed christianity) doesn't automatically make them Western.
>the west of Europe has a historical bias towards freedom of expression etc
what?? since when ... ? Spain (franco, Spanish Inquisition)? France (Robespierre, Napoleon)? Germany? Italy(Mousolini)? ...
most countries are now leaning towards freedom od expression, yet freedom of sppech is much more restricted compared to the US (and other countries) for example ...
the term western does not make sense at all in this context.
I sounds to me similar to "Judeo Christian values" something made up to exclude people.
The French Revolution was decidedly atheist and leftwing. Most French thinkers of the time looked down on the American revolution and it's Christian values. The French revolution is more closely related to Marxism than what people generally refer to when they talk about Western roots.
Similarly, Germany's Nazi party was highly anti-religious and anti Western values. Hitler said that, after the Jews, the Christians would be next on the chopping block. The Nazi party explicitly sought out to destroy the Christian values of universal human dignity and the responsibility to care for the poor and needy.
The fascist movement similarly rejected Christian Western roots. Giovanni Gentile, father of fascism, was decidedly atheist. His influence, H.W.F Hegel, was also a strong influence of Karl Marx.
I don't know much about the history of the Spanish inquisition, but most of the examples you gave were of people in the west who were actively rejecting Western tradition. Not coincidentally, they all came up with something far worse and far more evil. When you achieve a local maximum as great as we have, it's virtually impossible to make any revolutionary change that is not catastrophic.
In regard to Nazis, most Nazis were Christian and the church was integrated in the state. I assume Hitler didn't like the catholic church much, yet he would have never been able to act against Christians as he did against Jews. Hitler declared himself "Not a Catholic, but a German Christian." (Also seeing that most of his officers and people working with him were christian, it's highly questionable).
Compared to Mussolini (and Genitle), Hitler saw atheists as "stupid and animal like" ...
"The fascist movement similarly rejected Christian Western roots" Seeing that Hitler read and focused a lot on old German occultism, hypnotism, and astrology, you could say he was going back to the roots.
> to destroy the Christian values of universal human dignity and the responsibility to care for the poor and needy.
Universal Human Dignity is not a particular Christian value or Christian in nature. It seems much more grounded in the French Revolution (anarchists, socialists, feminists, and communists). I also don't see much of universal human dignity in the history of the West (whatever is included in it). Inquisition, Crusades, World War I ? ;)
"the responsibility to care for the poor and needy" The Nazi party came to power because of too many poor and needy ...
Can you define "Western tradition"? What is part of it and what is not? I have a hard time understanding this concept. If I check Wikipedia on this, it seems Australia and Russia are part of Western Culture ... The concept is fuzzy and confusing.
"When you achieve a local maximum as great as we have ..."
I have trouble with wording like that and the exceptionalism that it implies.
If Human rights are universal, we should not try to take possession of them based on our view on history. I was not part of any of the struggles of the people before me and cannot be proud of the fact that I was luckily born on a specific GPS coordinate that makes me German (part of the "West").
"Hitler hated Judaism. But he loathed Christianity, too. Hitler’s mother was a devout Catholic. His father considered religion a scam."
Also: “In Hitler’s eyes Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves,” wrote Alan Bullock “Hitler, A Study in Tyranny,” a seminal biography. “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle of the fittest.”
Also: "By 1942, Hitler vowed, according to Bullock, to “root out and destroy the influence of the Christian Churches,” describing them as “the evil that is gnawing our vitals.”"
Hitler may have made public statements about being Christian, but those were probably more along the lines of him putting on a show to convince his fellow countrymen to follow him. He was as anti-Christian as they come, as was his Nazi movement.
We will also have to disagree about the roots of universal human dignity. Here are some readings I might suggest:
When I refer to "Western tradition", I am referring to the Judeo-Christian tradition which singularly gave rise to, among other things, the scientific revolution, the enlightenment, and the constitution of the United States, which itself is heavily based on English law.
You should have no trouble with the exceptionalism implied by my statement. We live in the most prosperous and privileged time in recorded human history, and, it's not even a remotely close contest compared to any other time period! It's sad there are so many intent on tearing it down, thinking they'll build something better on top of the ruins, all while failing to truly understand and appreciate what we have and how we got here.
I don't contest that we live in a prosperous, privileged time. I contest that this is due to "Judeo-Christian tradition" postulated by Christian authors :)
if you regard universal human rights and dignity as universal (can be accepted, applied and understood by everybody not regarding their culture, heritage or religion ), do you understand that focusing on one particular root might be divisive ... ;)
What has divisiveness to do with any of it? Is it divisive against other plants to claim that apples only come from apple trees? Universal human dignity can be accepted, applied, and understood by everyone. But so can belief in God. In fact, the Christian religion has already spread through virtually every culture already.
By the way, one of the books I listed was by an atheist historian, Tom Holland, who was as surprised at his findings as you might expect, so that severely undercuts your insinuation that these ideas are a fictional manifestation of bias.
I believe God is real, and that we as humans are individually known and cared for by Him. This is the foundation for universal human rights, and even some atheists worry about what will happen to these values if faith in God wanes.
I am raised catholic and go to church regularly. Universal human rights do not come from Christianity alone. If you take the tree example, let's make a mix of citrus, lemon, and orange. If you say it's just orange that's hiding the truth and makes citrus and lemon people understandable angry :) if you then say it's lemon-orange tradition, the citrus people get angry and the lemon people might feel alienated. Just saying.
I recommend Nathan the Wise from Lessing for a read.
Holland was raised in the Christian church by his devout Anglican mother ...
wikipedia
Citation from Holland :
"I am not Greek or Roman at all, but thoroughly and proudly Christian"
So he does not believe in God, yet he defines himself as Christian :)
I said Christian author, no contradiction there.
I also recommend Superior from Angela Saini as a read.
You don't need God to believe in Universal Human Rights and Ethics. Seeing the recent abuse scandals, in the catholic church I find organized religion is a bigger problem ...
We disagree fundamentally. Still I appreciate that you take the time to reply.
Something, I really like about hackernews :)
Re: You don't need God to believe in Universal Human Rights and Ethics.
That's certainly true, at least for now, and Holland himself states: "Much of intellectual culture in the west over the past 150 years has been an attempt by various people who no longer believe in the Christian God to find a justification for the beliefs that derive from Christianity." He refers in particular to secular humanism as an attempt to do just that. I just don't think that will end well.
I also think you did a good job alluding to why this discussion matters when you said," in the catholic church I find organized religion is a bigger problem." I believe that participation in organized Christian religion is important to the continuity of our civilization, and that Christian organizations have done far more good than harm on the net balance. Also, evil things happen in every institution: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/forgotten-study-abuse-in-s.... Institutions can and do tilt towards corruption, and therefore need continual cleansing and renewal.
There has been an assault on Christianity, both against the general religion and the relevant physical organizations, for a long time, by the intellectual class. A lot of the negativity people feel towards these organizations today is manufactured by university professors, the news media, entertainment industry, and so on. I think believers should fight back. Not only do we have the truth on our side, but a rich history of good things accomplished through our religion and religious organizations.
Fascinating discussion. I'd just like to chip in that in Europe, this is a very outlandish position to take. Christianity is not a central part of our civilisation in Europe, or in fact any organised religion at all.
Even in the UK, which has a state religion, the idea of making a political decision based on a religious belief would be rejected by the electorate.
So the contention that "we need christianity for our civilisation to survive" is overblown at least.
Who is this intellectual class, that makes this organized assault? Can you name figureheads and their organizations?
" Not only do we have the truth on our side, ..." That sounds very extremist to me. I have my beliefs yet would never claim that the objective truth is on my side. In my opinion, it's also counter a scientific mindset and worldview.
It's interesting how much you know about the internal intentions of a human without knowing his language and I guess without ever have read a speech or book by him.
I studied the 3rd Reich ever year in high school, I read Hitlers speeches and am familiar with also my personal family history. I could talk with a lot of eye witnesses even people who met Hitler. I can tell you that this is conjecture.
Oh I feared you use Judeo-Christian ... there is no Judeo-Christian tradition in Europe. Jews were outcast and regarded as second class citizens or as none at all ... (here also Hitler is more continuing a tradition than breaking it, building on antisemitic sentiments to execute the Holocaust). It's a term that was coined in the US and mostly established during the 2nd world war.
In Germany, we usually refer to the Abrahamic religions and traditions and beliefs. Again, same as with "Western" it's interesting what you are excluding with using that term of Judeo-Christian (also it's very contested under Jewish friends of mine ... they find it offensive).
History and progress is complex. If somebody claims sth. gave "singularly ... rise to" ... "among other things, the scientific revolution, the enlightenment, and the constitution of the United States." I'm highly skeptical, especially if only "Western."
Just because you don't like a term doesn't mean the term isn't describing something real. And, just because a term was invented to describe something in the past, doesn't mean the term isn't describing something real. And, finally, every term both includes and excludes, else it has no meaning!
Your linked encyclopedia article looks very biased and misinformed. For one, Wikipedia states the term has been used since the 1800s. I also personally don't think "Judeo-Christian" excludes Muslims, who, to my knowledge, inherit this tradition by believing in parts of both the Old and New Testaments: From https://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Portal:_Islam_and_the_Judeo-C...
"The Qur'an makes constant reference to the stories of the Judeao-Christian tradition. The references are familiar and sometimes in passing, and assume a great deal of familiarity on the part of the listeners. The audienceof the Qur'an was clearly one well-acquainted with the stories themselves and the Qur'an itself says that it is a "reminder" (73:19) of the message which has come before. The stories referenced are not only from the Bible, but come from a wide variety of literary traditions within ancient near east Christianity and Judaism such as the Alexander Romances, saints lives, and the Talmud."
Historians disagree about everything, and everything is up for conjecture because the man isn't alive today, and we can't read his mind. That said, here is some more evidence:
Martin Bormann, one of Hitler’s closest and most influential aides, declared that National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable, and Hitler himself said that Christianity was a religion of fools and “old women.”
Hitler declared that “The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity…. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.”
According to Baldur von Schirach, the Nazi leader of the German youth corps that would later be known as the Hitler Youth, “the destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognized as a purpose of the National Socialist movement” from the beginning, though “considerations of expedience made it impossible” for the movement to adopt this radical stance officially until it had consolidated power.
Really, this is just common sense. Hitler was many things, but a clumsy politician was not one of them. He knew that until he had “consolidated power,” he would have to erect a façade for a Christian people and the Church; this is probably why virtually all his pro-Christian statements were rendered publicly and before he had closed his iron fist around the German neck.
Christianity, Judaism and Islam make constant references to each other, as they are the Abrahamic religions. They share similar value systems, prophets and texts. Read Natan the Wise for a nice fable about that ;)
I thought you used the term Judeo-Christian tradition focusing on values (e.g. ethics). The 1800s meaning does not really make sense as it refers to Jewish converts to Christianity not to shared values. The shared value idea is from the America's in the 1940s not from Europe. It was never used in Europe like that before the time around the second world war, as Jews (and Muslims) were seen as foreign elements and discriminated against for most of the European History.
From your wikipedia article:
"Historian K. Healan Gaston has stated that the term emerged as a descriptor of the United States in the 1930s, when the US sought to forge a unified cultural identity in an attempt to distinguish itself from the fascism and communism in Europe."
If you don't think that the term "Judeo-Christian Ethics or Values" excludes Islam, maybe we can term it "Judeo-Muslim Ethics" ... Christianity is in the middle, should be ok for you to use the new term ;) It's shorter and everybody knows that Christianity has to be included in it.
My point why not use the older, correct term "Abrahamic"? I think people should be precise with their language.
There are people that argue that Islam has a different value system and does not fit in with the other two religions. Yet, those are usually extreme right wing.
Angela Saini takes their view point pretty well apart.
Being christian and having religious Jewish and Muslim friends in Europe, I feel we share more than most Evangelicals I met in the U.S. (I just say intelligent design ... ). None of my European friends has any trouble with Evolution (and trusting in Science ... because it works ;)
1) I think the most important piece is the Christian part.
2) Judeo- at least recognizes the heritage of Judaism Christianity owes much to.
3) I am not convinced that the Islamic religion has uniquely contributed anything of significant value morally or religiously beyond religions that came before it, namely, Judaism and Christianity. Inheriting good values is far different than contributing your own values to society. I haven't read Saina's book or studied the history of Islam much, though, to be honest, so I could be certainly missing something.
2) do you consider how Jewish people feel, who were prosecuted, discriminated and killed by Christians, when you refer to Judeo-Christian traditional values? The early massacres in Europe on Jewish people were mostly done by Christians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism
As I said, my Jewish friends get quite rattled and angry if somebody uses the term.
3) For one: religious tolerance: when other religions fought religious wars, Islamic countries were the first who tolerated other Abrahamic religions.
Also the impact of Islam and Muslims on philosophy is enormous. For example, we would have lost most of Ancient Greek texts without the Caliphate ... the Caliphate saved them and developed them when Christian countries were thinking about holy war :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_world_contributions_to...
Interestingly, they also forced Jews to convert ... this seems where the first citings of your used word "Judeo-Christian" comes from (the Inquisition lasted until the 1800s). Can you understand that Jewish people might not be found of you using it, now.
Oh and when Christians still used bloodletting to remove "evil spirits", Islamic countries had actual medicine.
Yet, you are probably right, they didn't contribute anything. The only contributions that count are the contributions of our tribe and what other Christian authors say about them.
A small counter, since this conversation is over, but I said "religious" contributions. Almost all the contributions you listed were non-religious in nature. I am well aware that, at one point, Muslim nations were far more advanced than Christian nations, and that we owe much to them in the realms of math, science, and the preservation of history. It's also nice to hear that they practiced religious tolerance better than Christians, too, at least at one point in history.
And also:
1) Because I have evidence of the influence of Christianity on the entire world, but no such evidence for the faith if Islam. I am not saying that evidence doesn't exist, but you yourself certainly failed to provide any.
> The West of Europe has a historical bias towards freedom of expression, democracy, religious freedom (arguable) etc, and that got extended to include America when it got big enough to join the party
You're going to have to be more precise with the epoch you think that happened, but it doesn't sound true. Whenever you consider the US "got big enough to join the party" (the absolute latest I would accept is WWI), democracy was a rare thing. Name one "Western" country that was democratic, really, for more than 40 years during WWI. The closest you can get to are a few constitutional monarchies with at least lots of de jure, usually also de facto monarch power, Switzerland and San Marino.
Name one "Western" country that was democratic, really, for more than 40 years during WWI
That "really" gives you a lot of wiggle room to move the goalposts, since before WWI women generally weren't allowed to vote, and in many countries voting was mainly limited to the aristocracy (or other criteria). So there were no "real" late-20th century democracies anywhere in the 19th century.
The closest you can get to are a few constitutional monarchies
See, you're moving the goalposts already. Why would constitutional monarchies not qualify as "real"?
So, taking the same wiggle room you have allowed yourself, there's the United Kingdom (1689), Sweden (1809), Spain (1812), Norway (1814), The Netherlands (1815), Belgium (1831), Switzerland (1848), and Portugal (1852).
> See, you're moving the goalposts already. Why would constitutional monarchies not qualify as "real"?
My next sentence explains why:
> monarchies with at least lots of de jure, usually also de facto monarch power
Having an unelected head of state with lots of power isn't a "real" democracy, in my book. Places where the monarch could appoint a government and dissolve parliament at will, directly own colonies for personal exploitation, etc. were hardly "really" democratic, which excludes more than half your list (Spain depending on time of year, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands,, UK, and I can't be bothered to look but fairly sure also Norway, Sweden, Denmark).
I already mentioned Switzerland, which wasn't a monarchy (at the federal level), but yes, was democratic. There's also San Marino.
My dude, as recently as 1921, England was imprisoning people for blasphemy[1], and the law was on the books until 2008. Throughout the history of Christendom, the usual punishment for blasphemy was death by hanging or stoning, and such hangings were common up until the turn of the 18th century[2]. "The West" is nothing special when it comes to freedom of speech.
There are places where death sentences for blasphemy are enforced today. This doesn't happen anywhere in the west.
While not all of the western world is as liberal about speech as the US is, when you consider both political and religious speech, the western world is squarely more progressive than other regions of the world.
Today? Yeah, it is. But the previous claim was that freedom of speech was some kind of essential, enduring feature of "the west". But Europe's (and its colonies') history in that regard is actually a patchwork of freedom and oppression — but mostly oppression, much like the rest of the world. Europe's trend over the past couple of hundred years has been good regarding political and religious speech, but I wouldn't base any sweeping conclusions about long-term cultural differences on that.
"Non-western" was originally used by right-wingers complaining about tolerance of Muslims, but given that a lot of people really far out on the right actually want to tear down Western institutions, it seems more like them making a smug grin[0] and saying "You like theocracy, don't you Mr. Liberal?" nowadays.
