While roughly 1/3 of the world has seen progress: better health outcomes, better diets, better work conditions, better education. overall better quality of life, the other two thirds of the world have at best seen marginal improvements, or even degradation of their quality of life. It's not all about what I have seen but more about what others have not seen.
While I'm far from supporting the economic status quo it seems to me that quite a lot more than 1/3 of the world have seen substantial improvements. Now these certainly haven't been equally distributed or in every area of life, but it's hard to argue that life for the typical person in India or China isn't easier than it was 50-60 years ago. The rapid fall in infant mortality across the globe due to better education and access to healthcare, particularly vaccines, is surely indicative.
While roughly 1/3 of the world has seen progress: better health outcomes, better diets, better work conditions, better education. overall better quality of life, the other two thirds of the world have at best seen marginal improvements, or even degradation of their quality of life. It's not all about what I have seen but more about what others have not seen.
While I'm far from supporting the economic status quo it seems to me that quite a lot more than 1/3 of the world have seen substantial improvements. Now these certainly haven't been equally distributed or in every area of life, but it's hard to argue that life for the typical person in India or China isn't easier than it was 50-60 years ago. The rapid fall in infant mortality across the globe due to better education and access to healthcare, particularly vaccines, is surely indicative.
Some of this sounds like the Good being made the enemy of the Perfect.
It's more about the tendency to measure progress in terms of an average rather than in terms of inequality and disparity. In what sense is it "progress" to have more of something if it's increasingly unfairly shared out?
If it's the case that child mortality is bad, is it also the case that child mortality inequality is bad? Is it progress if one measure is decreasing while the other measure is increasing?
I wonder to what extent this conception of progress is favoured by those in the upper percentile.
I am afraid, @KarlLB , that for the Reformed WW II broke the Myth thoroughly as far as morality is concerned. We are capable of more good; we are capable of more evil. Unfortunately humanities response as a whole seems to be that because we can, we should. If your definition of moral progress is swinging wildly between good and evil, then it isn't mine.
I am afraid, @KarlLB , that for the Reformed WW II broke the Myth thoroughly as far as morality is concerned. We are capable of more good; we are capable of more evil. Unfortunately humanities response as a whole seems to be that because we can, we should. If your definition of moral progress is swinging wildly between good and evil, then it isn't mine.
I've already posted a number of ways in which I think we have progressed morally. This sounds to me like requiring perfection to acknowledge any progress. It feels like arguing that measles vaccines don't work because people still get measles.
Some of this sounds like the Good being made the enemy of the Perfect.
It's more about the tendency to measure progress in terms of an average rather than in terms of inequality and disparity. In what sense is it "progress" to have more of something if it's increasingly unfairly shared out?
If it's the case that child mortality is bad, is it also the case that child mortality inequality is bad? Is it progress if one measure is decreasing while the other measure is increasing?
I wonder to what extent this conception of progress is favoured by those in the upper percentile.
If the groups with the worst mortality are also seeing a decrease - albeit not to the same extent - then yes, it absolutely is progress.
I am afraid, @KarlLB , that for the Reformed WW II broke the Myth thoroughly as far as morality is concerned. We are capable of more good; we are capable of more evil. Unfortunately humanities response as a whole seems to be that because we can, we should. If your definition of moral progress is swinging wildly between good and evil, then it isn't mine.
I've already posted a number of ways in which I think we have progressed morally. This sounds to me like requiring perfection to acknowledge any progress. It feels like arguing that measles vaccines don't work because people still get measles.
Ways I think we have got worse:
Owning weapons of mass destruction
Genocide is more frequent
Allowing the market to control our understanding of the value of everything
disparity in the value of a human life. I am shocked at how cheap a child's life is in Gaza to the Israelis Defence Forces.
Individualism at the expense of the communal well-being
Increased difference between the wealth of the rich and the poor
The way debt controls people in Western society or anywhere in the world
The easy access to violent material via the media
I am not denying your list; I am just arguing that there is as much in the other direction as well.
I am afraid, @KarlLB , that for the Reformed WW II broke the Myth thoroughly as far as morality is concerned. We are capable of more good; we are capable of more evil. Unfortunately humanities response as a whole seems to be that because we can, we should. If your definition of moral progress is swinging wildly between good and evil, then it isn't mine.
I've already posted a number of ways in which I think we have progressed morally. This sounds to me like requiring perfection to acknowledge any progress. It feels like arguing that measles vaccines don't work because people still get measles.
Ways I think we have got worse:
Owning weapons of mass destruction
Genocide is more frequent
Allowing the market to control our understanding of the value of everything
disparity in the value of a human life. I am shocked at how cheap a child's life is in Gaza to the Israelis Defence Forces.
Increased difference between the wealth of the rich and the poor
The way debt controls people in Western society or anywhere in the world
The easy access to violent material via the media
I am not denying your list; I am just arguing that there is as much in the other direction as well.
Yet, overall, I'd sooner live now than any other period in history. I can only imagine what my schooling would have been like in the 1940s, my periods of unemployment in the 19th C, or, as I said before, my chances of actually still being alive by my current age in almost any period in the past. As for the LGBTIA+ people I know - some of them would be in prison only a hundred years ago and sent to the gallows a hundred or so before.
To my mind, inequality is bad, but absolute poverty is even worse.
And can you unpack what you mean by "Individualism at the expense of the communal well-being"? - to me, those words imply that non-conformity is bad. They imply I should, for example, pretend to like lager because most people drink it, or hip-hop because most people don't like the classic rock I individually favour, for some kind of community benefit.
I am afraid, @KarlLB , that for the Reformed WW II broke the Myth thoroughly as far as morality is concerned. We are capable of more good; we are capable of more evil. Unfortunately humanities response as a whole seems to be that because we can, we should. If your definition of moral progress is swinging wildly between good and evil, then it isn't mine.
I've already posted a number of ways in which I think we have progressed morally. This sounds to me like requiring perfection to acknowledge any progress. It feels like arguing that measles vaccines don't work because people still get measles.
It seems to me that the comparison is between a myth of progress—which says progress is inevitable, we’ve seen nothing but progress, and all progress yields unadulterated benefit—and a reality of progress, which says much progress has been made, but that it has come with downsides, has often been inequitable, and has brought to the forefront just how immoral people can still be.
I am afraid, @KarlLB , that for the Reformed WW II broke the Myth thoroughly as far as morality is concerned. We are capable of more good; we are capable of more evil. Unfortunately humanities response as a whole seems to be that because we can, we should. If your definition of moral progress is swinging wildly between good and evil, then it isn't mine.
I've already posted a number of ways in which I think we have progressed morally. This sounds to me like requiring perfection to acknowledge any progress. It feels like arguing that measles vaccines don't work because people still get measles.
It seems to me that the comparison is between a myth of progress—which says progress is inevitable, we’ve seen nothing but progress, and all progress yields unadulterated benefit - and a reality of progress, which says much progress has been made, but that it has come with downsides, has often been inequitable, and has brought to the forefront just how immoral people can still be.
Is anyone actually saying "we’ve seen nothing but progress, and all progress yields unadulterated benefit"?
I am afraid, @KarlLB , that for the Reformed WW II broke the Myth thoroughly as far as morality is concerned. We are capable of more good; we are capable of more evil. Unfortunately humanities response as a whole seems to be that because we can, we should. If your definition of moral progress is swinging wildly between good and evil, then it isn't mine.
I've already posted a number of ways in which I think we have progressed morally. This sounds to me like requiring perfection to acknowledge any progress. It feels like arguing that measles vaccines don't work because people still get measles.
It seems to me that the comparison is between a myth of progress—which says progress is inevitable, we’ve seen nothing but progress, and all progress yields unadulterated benefit - and a reality of progress, which says much progress has been made, but that it has come with downsides, has often been inequitable, and has brought to the forefront just how immoral people can still be.
Is anyone actually saying "we’ve seen nothing but progress, and all progress yields unadulterated benefit"?
Because I'm not convinced anyone is.
I’m not saying anyone here is. I’m wondering if that’s part of what’s bound up in the concept of the “myth of progress.”
Nope. I'm saying that in more places in the world than not, notwithstanding some anomalies, on average things are better than they used to be.
Whether things are better today than in the past is a matter of personal perspective, but the myth of progress is that the world will be a better place in 50 years time than it is today, and 100 years later better still, and that things will continue improving. If your measure of progress is the world you would choose to live in, would you not rather live in that brighter, better, future than today?
Nope. I'm saying that in more places in the world than not, notwithstanding some anomalies, on average things are better than they used to be.
Whether things are better today than in the past is a matter of personal perspective, but the myth of progress is that the world will be a better place in 50 years time than it is today, and 100 years later better still, and that things will continue improving. If your measure of progress is the world you would choose to live in, would you not rather live in that brighter, better, future than today?
I said any other period in history. ie. times in the past.
This now feels like you're trying to be clever and catch me out. Don't.
I think we need to be careful to compare apples to apples whenever possible. Something as nebulous as 'better' is tricky at best. These things deserve scope. And perspective, which can only be cast backwards. I think pitting one disease, like measles, against the full spectre of Anthropogenic Climate Change, which we are enduring, but which is also rooted in dire projection is a decidedly unequal contrast.
Nope. I'm saying that in more places in the world than not, notwithstanding some anomalies, on average things are better than they used to be.
Whether things are better today than in the past is a matter of personal perspective, but the myth of progress is that the world will be a better place in 50 years time than it is today, and 100 years later better still, and that things will continue improving. If your measure of progress is the world you would choose to live in, would you not rather live in that brighter, better, future than today?
I said any other period in history. ie. times in the past.
This now feels like you're trying to be clever and catch me out. Don't.
Apologies. I'm not trying to catch you out, but the myth of progress is about the world continually improving into the future, not just how we feel about whether it's steadily improved in the past. Putting it another way, do you think our children will live in a better world than we do, and their children live in a better world than that, and so on?
It's not a new thing to do this - the era I research was extremely devout and extremely capable of atrocity.
One way that worked, and I dont know enough to know if it's a factor here- better informed people might know - is through assumed 'two way' communication in prayer.
So a prayer group prays- a respected member of the group suddenly feels a scripture text come to him or her with great feeling and power - and that text is then taken as God's word and command in the situation eg. the King is the 'man of blood' so he can be tried and if need be executed. No need to look at the rest of the Bible, God has given a direct command to be harkened to.
If you add a literally-taken spiritual warfare framing to that where enemies are seen as Satanic or workers for Antichrist then massacres are easily justified - eg. It's good to smash the heads of Babylon's brats applied to families taken prisoner after a siege.
I dont know if that’s going on here with the preachers being listened to but it's one mechanism for bypass.
The safeguard that’s being neglected here is called “discernment of spirits,” and step one is always, “Does this interpretation contradict the rest of Scripture?”
There is a report that Pete Hegseth's pastor has said he wishes the Texas Democratic Candidate, James Talarico to be crucified because of his beliefs on abortion and LGBTQ rights. Talarico is a Presbyterian seminary student who has stepped away from his studies to run for the Senate.
Talarico is said to have responded:
“Jesus loves. Christian Nationalism kills.
You may pray for my death, Pastor, but I still love you.
I love you more than you could ever hate me.”
There is a report that Pete Hegseth's pastor has said he wishes the Texas Democratic Candidate, James Talarico to be crucified because of his beliefs on abortion and LGBTQ rights. Talarico is a Presbyterian seminary student who has stepped away from his studies to run for the Senate.
Talarico is said to have responded:
“Jesus loves. Christian Nationalism kills.
You may pray for my death, Pastor, but I still love you.
I love you more than you could ever hate me.”
In fairness, the context appears to be that he wants him to be, as he sees it, converted to the "true faith".
“Right. Right. We want him crucified with Christ. I want him to be I think Saul of Tarsus. Talarico of Tarsus. Yes. That’s what I want.” Haymes continued to share, “Yes, we want death and new life.
These people say enough crap stuff without us needing to mispresent them.
Let's focus rather on this bit of - innovative - theology:
He also placed Talarico in the category of “public enemies,” or those you “are not called to love.”
Look at how Talarico responded to the report, though. He seems to have taken it as a death threat.
When someone says you are a public enemy or someone you are called not to love, you are in essence giving your followers permission to take matters into their own hands.
Just look at the quotes the pastor is using "I would like God to kill him." And then he says something like "kill him in Christ" parenthetically. Elsewhere in the podcast, the pastor calls Talarico a "snake," a "demon" and a 'wolf'. The language is theologically loaded. There is a dangerous edge to this rhetoric. It blurs the line between spiritual warfare language and real world harm.
Look at how Talarico responded to the report, though. He seems to have taken it as a death threat.
When someone says you are a public enemy or someone you are called not to love, you are in essence giving your followers permission to take matters into their own hands.
Just look at the quotes the pastor is using "I would like God to kill him." And then he says something like "kill him in Christ" parenthetically. Elsewhere in the podcast, the pastor calls Talarico a "snake," a "demon" and a 'wolf'. The language is theologically loaded. There is a dangerous edge to this rhetoric. It blurs the line between spiritual warfare language and real world harm.
This is all true; the idea was expressed that if he will not convert God should make it so that he die, but the idea that he expressed a wish that Talarico be literally crucified is a misrepresentation. The word only appears in "crucified with Christ", a phrase St Paul used to describe his conversion.
All of which reminds me of the advice I received many years ago from an old minister before a gathering at which I was going to meet an implacable foe of gay and lesbian people holding office in the church: "As a Christian, I know you will love him. But I don't think you will like him". Good working advice that has been very helpful since then.
Our local synod will be meeting in about a month. There will be two resolutions before the synod: one on Climate Justice and one on Christian Nationalism. Since I was the one that authored the one on Christian Nationalism, I post it here. I have actually gotten a great response from the local bishop and many pastors who have reviewed it,
A Resolution Rejecting Christian Nationalism and Affirming the Gospel’s Call to Public Witness Rooted in Christ Alone
Whereas, Scripture teaches that “our citizenship is in heaven” (Philippians 3:20), grounding Christian identity in Christ rather than nation, ethnicity, or political ideology;
Whereas, Lutheran theology affirms the distinction of the two kingdoms, rejecting any fusion of church and state that compromises the Gospel (Augsburg Confession XVI);
Whereas, the ELCA Constitution rejects “ideologies that claim divine sanction for any nation, culture, or political order” (ELCA Confession of Faith 2.02);
Whereas, the ELCA social statement “The Church in Society: A Lutheran Perspective” teaches that the church must resist “the temptation to use the Gospel for political ends” and oppose “any misuse of Christian language or symbols to justify oppression or exclusion”;
Whereas, the ELCA social message “Government and Civic Engagement in the United States” warns against “claims that America is a uniquely Christian nation” and affirms religious liberty for all;
Whereas, the ELCA social statement “For Peace in God’s World” rejects ideologies that elevate national identity above the universal call to love the neighbor;
Whereas, Christian nationalism in the United States promotes the false claim that Christians should hold privileged civic status and often correlates with anti‑democratic attitudes, racialized exclusion, and threats to religious liberty;
Whereas, Christian nationalism distorts Scripture by framing political power as divine mandate and cultural dominance as Christian duty;
Whereas, the Northwest Intermountain Synod is called to equip congregations for faithful public witness, civic engagement, and neighbor‑love in a pluralistic society;
Whereas, silence in the face of theological distortion risks allowing harmful ideologies to masquerade as Christian teaching;
Therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Northwest Intermountain Synod of the ELCA clearly and publicly rejects Christian nationalism as incompatible with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and with Lutheran confessional teaching;
Resolved, that the Synod affirms that Christ alone is Lord of the Church and that no nation, ethnicity, or political ideology may claim divine authority;
Resolved, that the Synod affirms a vision of Christian public life grounded in humility, service, the cross of Christ, and love of neighbor, consistent with “The Church in Society: A Lutheran Perspective”;
Resolved, that the Synod will develop and share resources for congregations, including: • Bible studies on Christian identity and public life (e.g., Psalm 2; Matthew 5–7; John 9) • sermons and liturgical materials • workshops on the two kingdoms, civic engagement, and religious liberty • ecumenical resources addressing nationalism;
Resolved, that the Synod encourages pastors and lay leaders to speak clearly when Christian language, symbols, or Scripture are misused to justify exclusion, violence, or political supremacy;
Resolved, that the Synod commits to partnering with ecumenical and interfaith organizations to defend religious liberty for all people, consistent with ELCA social teaching;
Resolved, that the Synod will equip leaders to engage members influenced by Christian nationalist narratives with pastoral sensitivity, emphasizing listening, curiosity, and grounding identity in baptism rather than ideology;
Resolved, that the Synod Council will report annually on progress, resource development, and congregational engagement related to this resolution.
The safeguard that’s being neglected here is called “discernment of spirits,” and step one is always, “Does this interpretation contradict the rest of Scripture?”
Look at how Talarico responded to the report, though. He seems to have taken it as a death threat.
When someone says you are a public enemy or someone you are called not to love, you are in essence giving your followers permission to take matters into their own hands.
Just look at the quotes the pastor is using "I would like God to kill him." And then he says something like "kill him in Christ" parenthetically. Elsewhere in the podcast, the pastor calls Talarico a "snake," a "demon" and a 'wolf'. The language is theologically loaded. There is a dangerous edge to this rhetoric. It blurs the line between spiritual warfare language and real world harm.
This is all true; the idea was expressed that if he will not convert God should make it so that he die, but the idea that he expressed a wish that Talarico be literally crucified is a misrepresentation. The word only appears in "crucified with Christ", a phrase St Paul used to describe his conversion.
We must not use the ring against Sauron.
My point is that Christian nationalism is very much like the One ring
In The Lord of the Rings, no one wants the Ring to be evil. They want it to do good—to defeat Sauron, protect their people, restore order.
But the Ring doesn’t stay a tool. It reshapes the one who uses it.
Christian nationalist language works the same way: It begins with “protecting Christian values.” It quickly becomes “protecting our group.”
Then “our group” becomes the only legitimate Americans. And finally, dissent becomes betrayal. Fear becomes the lens through which everything is seen. Just as the Ring whispers, "They will take it away from you," Christian nationalism whispers, "They are taking your country, your faith."
Christian nationalist language can function in ways that make political violence—including assassination—more imaginable to some listeners. Language shapes moral imagination. It doesn’t force actions, but it can make some actions feel justified or even righteous to people already inclined toward extremism. When rhetoric shifts from: “They’re wrong,”
to “They are evil,” to “They are enemies of God,” the stakes escalate from political disagreement to cosmic battle. In that frame, some listeners may start to believe: “Stopping them is a divine duty.” “Ordinary rules don’t apply in spiritual warfare.”
Most people reject violence anyway. But a small number—already angry, isolated, or unstable—may hear this as permission.
When people are hearing, "This is a battle for the soul of the nation. If we lose, America is finished. God's people are under attack" They may conclude extraordinary threats requite extraordinary responses. While I cannot say these words cause violence, it lowers the threshold for those already on the edge.
In The Lord of the Rings, no one wants the Ring to be evil. They want it to do good—to defeat Sauron, protect their people, restore order.
Not sure why anyone would “want” the one Ring to be evil, but plenty of characters fully recognize that the Ring is evil. They may wish it could do good, but they know it can’t.
Pete Hegseth's prayer given at a religious service shows just how dangerous Christian Nationalism is.
“Let every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness and our great nation. Give them wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy,” Hegseth prayed.
He continued the prayer, saying “let justice be executed swiftly and without remorse, that evil may be driven back, and wicked souls delivered to the eternal damnation prepared for them.”
Pete Hegseth's prayer given at a religious service shows just how dangerous Christian Nationalism is.
Praying for people to go to hell is some disgusting shit. God desires "that all may be saved" and here's Hegseth demanding God be less merciful, less gracious. An understandable think to ask in a moment of anger or private grief, but in public? As the man responsible for the deaths he's praying for? That's sick, that's bordering on (and this is not a term I use lightly) demonic.
His actions demonstrate all too clearly the dangers of self-righteousness and self-deception. Whether his own or that of credulous listeners remains to be seen.
I’m not sure whether he’s deceived or, possibly, a deliberate deceiver. Whatever, his prayer is just wrong on many, many levels.
The safeguard that’s being neglected here is called “discernment of spirits,” and step one is always, “Does this interpretation contradict the rest of Scripture?”
I don't think Scripture "speaks with one voice" in such a way that you can find a unified "rest of Scripture". We have competing systematic theologies and dogmas with their different assumptions and emphases on how to view scripture.
Pete Hegseth's prayer given at a religious service shows just how dangerous Christian Nationalism is.
“Let every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness and our great nation. Give them wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy,” Hegseth prayed.
He continued the prayer, saying “let justice be executed swiftly and without remorse, that evil may be driven back, and wicked souls delivered to the eternal damnation prepared for them.”
Given that God's mercy and love were at the heart of Jesus life and message, I would describe Hegseth's words as blasphemous and at their core anti-Christian.
Pete Hegseth's prayer given at a religious service shows just how dangerous Christian Nationalism is.
“Let every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness and our great nation. Give them wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy,” Hegseth prayed.
He continued the prayer, saying “let justice be executed swiftly and without remorse, that evil may be driven back, and wicked souls delivered to the eternal damnation prepared for them.”
Given that God's mercy and love were at the heart of Jesus life and message, I would describe Hegseth's words as blasphemous and at their core anti-Christian.
I agree 100%.
These words are the antithesis of the teachings of Jesus. Why don't senior Christian leaders of all denominations stand up and call him out for this vile stuff?
Thing is, if a radical jihadist were to come out with stuff like that there'd be much alarm.
I don’t know much about Hegseth or his religious background but it reminds me of Oliver Cromwell and the 17th century Puritans.
'God gave them as stubble to our swords.'
It's not only very conservative Protestants who spout this sort of shit.
The Russian military are using Orthodox imagery in a stomach-churning way in their recruitment material, pitching the conflict in the Ukraine as a holy war.
Patriarch Kyrill, I'm looking at you...
Various Anglican clergy came out with blood-thirsty sermons and pronouncements during WW1.
The safeguard that’s being neglected here is called “discernment of spirits,” and step one is always, “Does this interpretation contradict the rest of Scripture?”
I don't think Scripture "speaks with one voice" in such a way that you can find a unified "rest of Scripture". We have competing systematic theologies and dogmas with their different assumptions and emphases on how to view scripture.
It is true that the various documents in Scripture taken in isolation express a variety of viewpoints and ideologies. However, a number of them contain hermeneutic principles for interpreting the whole collection. And the hermeneutic principles are in favour of love and reconciliation.
Given that God's mercy and love were at the heart of Jesus life and message, I would describe Hegseth's words as blasphemous and at their core anti-Christian.
I would grant that Pete has his own issues, but my point is that this is an outcome of Christian Nationalism's belief system. Certainly does not match the words of the Sermon on the Mount.
I don’t know much about Hegseth or his religious background but it reminds me of Oliver Cromwell and the 17th century Puritans.
Careful there, @Gamma Gamaliel. I am from Puritan stock. Fact is that my ancestor and his three sons were coming to America because King Charles I wanted off with his head. Deal of it is the ancestor died on the trip. The three sons survived.
Hegseth is a member of a Christian Nationalist cult. 'nuff said.
It wasn't John Winthrop was it? He was probably the most prominent Puritan to emigrate to Massachusetts during the reign of Charles I.
If so, he wouldn't have been in danger of beheading or even execution more generally.
Things were tough for the more full-on Puritans during the reign of Charles I but he wasn't going round executing them.
The worst he'd have faced would have been fines for non-church attendance, if he'd chosen not to attend his parish church and a degree of discrimination.
Not that this would have been pleasant of course, but unless he'd committed some kind of treasonable offence your ancestor wouldn't have been faced with execution.
Persecution of independent non-Anglican Puritans - and there were plenty of Anglican Puritans - tended to fluctuate.
It was quite intense around 1604-05 early in the reign of James I, but had died down, ironically, to some extent by the time the Mayflower sailed in 1620.
There was another clamp-down after Charles I became King in 1625 and Cromwell briefly considered emigrating to the Colonies in the 1630s.
But none of these people faced the prospect of execution simply for being Puritans.
The big splurge against 'non-conforming' Protestants or 'separatists' and 'sectaries' happened after the Restoration of the Monarchy in 1660.
Comments
While I'm far from supporting the economic status quo it seems to me that quite a lot more than 1/3 of the world have seen substantial improvements. Now these certainly haven't been equally distributed or in every area of life, but it's hard to argue that life for the typical person in India or China isn't easier than it was 50-60 years ago. The rapid fall in infant mortality across the globe due to better education and access to healthcare, particularly vaccines, is surely indicative.
Exactly.
If it's the case that child mortality is bad, is it also the case that child mortality inequality is bad? Is it progress if one measure is decreasing while the other measure is increasing?
I wonder to what extent this conception of progress is favoured by those in the upper percentile.
I've already posted a number of ways in which I think we have progressed morally. This sounds to me like requiring perfection to acknowledge any progress. It feels like arguing that measles vaccines don't work because people still get measles.
If the groups with the worst mortality are also seeing a decrease - albeit not to the same extent - then yes, it absolutely is progress.
I think @The_Riv spotted the issue here.
Ways I think we have got worse:
I am not denying your list; I am just arguing that there is as much in the other direction as well.
Yet, overall, I'd sooner live now than any other period in history. I can only imagine what my schooling would have been like in the 1940s, my periods of unemployment in the 19th C, or, as I said before, my chances of actually still being alive by my current age in almost any period in the past. As for the LGBTIA+ people I know - some of them would be in prison only a hundred years ago and sent to the gallows a hundred or so before.
To my mind, inequality is bad, but absolute poverty is even worse.
And can you unpack what you mean by "Individualism at the expense of the communal well-being"? - to me, those words imply that non-conformity is bad. They imply I should, for example, pretend to like lager because most people drink it, or hip-hop because most people don't like the classic rock I individually favour, for some kind of community benefit.
The collapse of agriculture throughout the world. A main reason for the civil war we saw in Syria and pasts of the Sahill in Africa
Believe it or not, the declining birth rates even in the Developed nations. Afterall, we need the support of the next generation.
Polarization--people sorting into ideological tribes.
Declining trust in institutions
Erosion of rights and legal protections
Leaders prioritizing winning over rational decision making
Breakdown in shared reality
Raising bigotry and social hostility
Decreased capacity for compromise
Heightened anxiety
What you are saying @KarlLB is because life is better for me it is morally improving?
Is anyone actually saying "we’ve seen nothing but progress, and all progress yields unadulterated benefit"?
Because I'm not convinced anyone is.
Nope. I'm saying that in more places in the world than not, notwithstanding some anomalies, on average things are better than they used to be.
I said any other period in history. ie. times in the past.
This now feels like you're trying to be clever and catch me out. Don't.
In this case, going for some smity bits from the OT
https://publicwitness.wordandway.org/p/at-pentagon-worship-service-hegseth
It's not a new thing to do this - the era I research was extremely devout and extremely capable of atrocity.
One way that worked, and I dont know enough to know if it's a factor here- better informed people might know - is through assumed 'two way' communication in prayer.
So a prayer group prays- a respected member of the group suddenly feels a scripture text come to him or her with great feeling and power - and that text is then taken as God's word and command in the situation eg. the King is the 'man of blood' so he can be tried and if need be executed. No need to look at the rest of the Bible, God has given a direct command to be harkened to.
If you add a literally-taken spiritual warfare framing to that where enemies are seen as Satanic or workers for Antichrist then massacres are easily justified - eg. It's good to smash the heads of Babylon's brats applied to families taken prisoner after a siege.
I dont know if that’s going on here with the preachers being listened to but it's one mechanism for bypass.
Talarico is said to have responded:
In fairness, the context appears to be that he wants him to be, as he sees it, converted to the "true faith".
These people say enough crap stuff without us needing to mispresent them.
Let's focus rather on this bit of - innovative - theology:
When someone says you are a public enemy or someone you are called not to love, you are in essence giving your followers permission to take matters into their own hands.
Just look at the quotes the pastor is using "I would like God to kill him." And then he says something like "kill him in Christ" parenthetically. Elsewhere in the podcast, the pastor calls Talarico a "snake," a "demon" and a 'wolf'. The language is theologically loaded. There is a dangerous edge to this rhetoric. It blurs the line between spiritual warfare language and real world harm.
This is all true; the idea was expressed that if he will not convert God should make it so that he die, but the idea that he expressed a wish that Talarico be literally crucified is a misrepresentation. The word only appears in "crucified with Christ", a phrase St Paul used to describe his conversion.
We must not use the ring against Sauron.
Exactly!
My point is that Christian nationalism is very much like the One ring
In The Lord of the Rings, no one wants the Ring to be evil. They want it to do good—to defeat Sauron, protect their people, restore order.
But the Ring doesn’t stay a tool. It reshapes the one who uses it.
Christian nationalist language works the same way: It begins with “protecting Christian values.” It quickly becomes “protecting our group.”
Then “our group” becomes the only legitimate Americans. And finally, dissent becomes betrayal. Fear becomes the lens through which everything is seen. Just as the Ring whispers, "They will take it away from you," Christian nationalism whispers, "They are taking your country, your faith."
Christian nationalist language can function in ways that make political violence—including assassination—more imaginable to some listeners. Language shapes moral imagination. It doesn’t force actions, but it can make some actions feel justified or even righteous to people already inclined toward extremism. When rhetoric shifts from: “They’re wrong,”
to “They are evil,” to “They are enemies of God,” the stakes escalate from political disagreement to cosmic battle. In that frame, some listeners may start to believe: “Stopping them is a divine duty.” “Ordinary rules don’t apply in spiritual warfare.”
Most people reject violence anyway. But a small number—already angry, isolated, or unstable—may hear this as permission.
When people are hearing, "This is a battle for the soul of the nation. If we lose, America is finished. God's people are under attack" They may conclude extraordinary threats requite extraordinary responses. While I cannot say these words cause violence, it lowers the threshold for those already on the edge.
Should read:
I think we are saying the same thing @Nick Tamen I mention the language of Christian Nationalism, sounds good, but it becomes bad, even evil.
Report here.
Praying for people to go to hell is some disgusting shit. God desires "that all may be saved" and here's Hegseth demanding God be less merciful, less gracious. An understandable think to ask in a moment of anger or private grief, but in public? As the man responsible for the deaths he's praying for? That's sick, that's bordering on (and this is not a term I use lightly) demonic.
Eta - apparently it's attributed both to Voltaire and Frank Wedekind (no, I'd not heard of him either)
I’m not sure whether he’s deceived or, possibly, a deliberate deceiver. Whatever, his prayer is just wrong on many, many levels.
I don't think Scripture "speaks with one voice" in such a way that you can find a unified "rest of Scripture". We have competing systematic theologies and dogmas with their different assumptions and emphases on how to view scripture.
Given that God's mercy and love were at the heart of Jesus life and message, I would describe Hegseth's words as blasphemous and at their core anti-Christian.
I agree 100%.
These words are the antithesis of the teachings of Jesus. Why don't senior Christian leaders of all denominations stand up and call him out for this vile stuff?
I don’t know much about Hegseth or his religious background but it reminds me of Oliver Cromwell and the 17th century Puritans.
'God gave them as stubble to our swords.'
It's not only very conservative Protestants who spout this sort of shit.
The Russian military are using Orthodox imagery in a stomach-churning way in their recruitment material, pitching the conflict in the Ukraine as a holy war.
Patriarch Kyrill, I'm looking at you...
Various Anglican clergy came out with blood-thirsty sermons and pronouncements during WW1.
I thought we'd got beyond all that.
Yep. Biblical univocality is a myth.
I would grant that Pete has his own issues, but my point is that this is an outcome of Christian Nationalism's belief system. Certainly does not match the words of the Sermon on the Mount.
At least in Cromwell's case it's a retrospective "Divine Providence" kind of thing and part of a consistent world view.
Careful there, @Gamma Gamaliel. I am from Puritan stock. Fact is that my ancestor and his three sons were coming to America because King Charles I wanted off with his head. Deal of it is the ancestor died on the trip. The three sons survived.
Hegseth is a member of a Christian Nationalist cult. 'nuff said.
Unless he was an aristocrat it wouldn't have been 'off with his head.'
If it was treason it would have been hanging, drawing and quartering.
For any other capital offence simply hanging.
If so, he wouldn't have been in danger of beheading or even execution more generally.
Things were tough for the more full-on Puritans during the reign of Charles I but he wasn't going round executing them.
The worst he'd have faced would have been fines for non-church attendance, if he'd chosen not to attend his parish church and a degree of discrimination.
Not that this would have been pleasant of course, but unless he'd committed some kind of treasonable offence your ancestor wouldn't have been faced with execution.
Persecution of independent non-Anglican Puritans - and there were plenty of Anglican Puritans - tended to fluctuate.
It was quite intense around 1604-05 early in the reign of James I, but had died down, ironically, to some extent by the time the Mayflower sailed in 1620.
There was another clamp-down after Charles I became King in 1625 and Cromwell briefly considered emigrating to the Colonies in the 1630s.
But none of these people faced the prospect of execution simply for being Puritans.
The big splurge against 'non-conforming' Protestants or 'separatists' and 'sectaries' happened after the Restoration of the Monarchy in 1660.