Page 18 | Rising Christian nationalism: a threat to us all

persephonia · 05/10/2025 01:00

TempestTost · 05/10/2025 00:36

I don't know that it's really hypocrisy. There are an awful lot of things we recognise as bad, that we allow or put up with for pragmatic reasons.

Neither Augustine nor Aquinas really thought that prostitution was good or ok, they thought it was a sin and no one should be involved in it.

But it's always a differernt question to say, should we try and actually prevent this activity, make it illegal or give serious social consequences to people who partake.

This is the kind of argument you see people making around harm reduction approaches with drugs for example, right up to state provided safe supply. Which does perhaps prevent some deaths, and does perhaps reduce the hold of gangsters on the market, but it also tends to sacrifice many of the addicts themselves and often their families and neighbourhoods. Is that a fair trade off, after all, many might not have managed to get off drugs anyway - it's hard to say. But it is an example of allowing something seriously damaging to individuals and societies in order to balance out harms that could be caused by cracking down.

Romans like Augustine and medieval like Aquinas tended to be a lot more pragmatic than a lot of people understand, for some reason they seem to hold them up to a standard of idealism we often don't hold ourselves to.

Oh he was a man of his time. I agree excessively venerating him or demonising him would be wrong.
The problem is, when you have people like Mary Harrington pointing to those moral frameworks/the times when attitudes towards sex were more restrictive as being better for women. It's the idealisation thats the problem. Because then you do have to point out that actually, in those more patriarchal (for want of a better word) systems women weren't more protected. Or rather not all women were.

Abhannmor · 05/10/2025 08:39

Back when I was a smoker I half hoped the government would just ban tobacco outright.But most people would have thought that too Draconian

JennyShaw · 05/10/2025 17:29

TempestTost · 05/10/2025 00:36

I don't know that it's really hypocrisy. There are an awful lot of things we recognise as bad, that we allow or put up with for pragmatic reasons.

Neither Augustine nor Aquinas really thought that prostitution was good or ok, they thought it was a sin and no one should be involved in it.

But it's always a differernt question to say, should we try and actually prevent this activity, make it illegal or give serious social consequences to people who partake.

This is the kind of argument you see people making around harm reduction approaches with drugs for example, right up to state provided safe supply. Which does perhaps prevent some deaths, and does perhaps reduce the hold of gangsters on the market, but it also tends to sacrifice many of the addicts themselves and often their families and neighbourhoods. Is that a fair trade off, after all, many might not have managed to get off drugs anyway - it's hard to say. But it is an example of allowing something seriously damaging to individuals and societies in order to balance out harms that could be caused by cracking down.

Romans like Augustine and medieval like Aquinas tended to be a lot more pragmatic than a lot of people understand, for some reason they seem to hold them up to a standard of idealism we often don't hold ourselves to.

One thing you have to take into account is that earlier this year there was a review of the 2017 law change in Ireland. In 2017 the Nordic Model came to Ireland where men are punished for paying for sex. The review said that the amount of prostitution in Ireland has not decreased since 2017. Trying to stop prostitution doesn't work.

The Sisters of Our Lady of Charity together with another order of nuns founded Ruhama. I mentioned the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity in a previous post. They ran Magdalene Laundries, a mass grave was found at one of them, they refuse to compensate former inmates even though they have lots of money.

Ruhama campaigned for the 2017 law change. Now that we all know the Nordic Model hasn't worked in Ireland, what do you think are the chances that it will be repealed? Do you think they would say "We thought it would work but we were wrong, women have suffered so let's repeal it"? Not a chance. That's because it's not about women's welfare, like they said it was.

There are just as many prostitutes in Ireland as in 2017 but their lives are more difficult. Violence has increased. Ruhama insist that prostitution can't be underground. They say that if it's easily available then it can't be underground. But drugs are easily available, and they are underground. If there's just as much prostitution but it's illegal, that means it's underground.

I don't expect nuns to understand that. I don't expect orders of nuns who ran Magdalene laundries to care. Why anyone thought it was a good idea to consult them is beyond me. Then when you add that they manipulated statistics in their eagerness to get the Nordic Model adopted it is despicable.

PrincessSophieFrederike · 05/10/2025 23:33

TempestTost · 05/10/2025 00:36

I don't know that it's really hypocrisy. There are an awful lot of things we recognise as bad, that we allow or put up with for pragmatic reasons.

Neither Augustine nor Aquinas really thought that prostitution was good or ok, they thought it was a sin and no one should be involved in it.

But it's always a differernt question to say, should we try and actually prevent this activity, make it illegal or give serious social consequences to people who partake.

This is the kind of argument you see people making around harm reduction approaches with drugs for example, right up to state provided safe supply. Which does perhaps prevent some deaths, and does perhaps reduce the hold of gangsters on the market, but it also tends to sacrifice many of the addicts themselves and often their families and neighbourhoods. Is that a fair trade off, after all, many might not have managed to get off drugs anyway - it's hard to say. But it is an example of allowing something seriously damaging to individuals and societies in order to balance out harms that could be caused by cracking down.

Romans like Augustine and medieval like Aquinas tended to be a lot more pragmatic than a lot of people understand, for some reason they seem to hold them up to a standard of idealism we often don't hold ourselves to.

I see what you mean. I've been reading about different drug strategies recently- it seems like the Portuguese drug strategy worked better than decriminalisation in some US states (eg. The fentanyl crisis in San Francisco) bc it focused on treatment rather than just decriminalisation & safe injection. Also Portugal has a much more socially conservative & collective-focused mindset than San Francisco, or indeed the US in general. Drugs remained stigmatised, they weren't trying

So I see what you mean re that kind of drug program, it depends how it's implemented...

I agree somewhat about Aquinas & Augustine. But the drug comparison seems less similar. Many decrim advocates make similar arguments that banning would drive vulnerable people underground.

But Augustine & Aquinas weren't talking about the effect on the women.

They were mainly concerned (at least judging by these statements, maybe they said more?- I'll have to check) with the effect on society if male lust no longer had an outlet.

Unlike drug decriminalisation advocates, they don't seem to have had 'getting prostitutes into a better way of life' as their main concern re prostitution.
I know a lot of religious men (and women) have, but Aquinas & Augustine's position that prostitution is a necessary evil to control male lust seems to presuppose a need for a supply of prostitutes.
That's my main bone of contention with their view on it (if I've understood it correctly).

persephonia · 05/10/2025 23:53

"Prostitution in the towns is like the cesspool in the palace: take away the cesspool and the palace will become an unclean and evil-smelling place"

Some women get to be cesspools. It's hardly destigmitising or done for the consideration of women. It's more because male lust is such that without prostitutes they will turn to masturbation or sodomy both of which are considered worse sins by Aquinus.

Thats different to arguments about harm reduction re drugs. Or rather its similar if you consider the group whose harm is being mitigated is the users and general society.

TempestTost · 06/10/2025 00:22

persephonia · 05/10/2025 01:00

Oh he was a man of his time. I agree excessively venerating him or demonising him would be wrong.
The problem is, when you have people like Mary Harrington pointing to those moral frameworks/the times when attitudes towards sex were more restrictive as being better for women. It's the idealisation thats the problem. Because then you do have to point out that actually, in those more patriarchal (for want of a better word) systems women weren't more protected. Or rather not all women were.

Show quote history

I've never felt that Harrington does that. She's quite clear imo that all social policies and norms have trade offs, advantages they give and also negatives. Which includes modern ones as well.

I think she emphasises that older approaches have differernt trade offs and also real advantages in many cases because so many people now don't seem to understand that about social policy. It's totally alien to most political progressives who see changes in policy over the years in terms of absolute moral progress. And they see older ideas as simply morally retrograde. All of which makes their ability to analyse current policy every shallow and often really missing the downsides of those policies.

TempestTost · 06/10/2025 00:35

PrincessSophieFrederike · 05/10/2025 23:33

I see what you mean. I've been reading about different drug strategies recently- it seems like the Portuguese drug strategy worked better than decriminalisation in some US states (eg. The fentanyl crisis in San Francisco) bc it focused on treatment rather than just decriminalisation & safe injection. Also Portugal has a much more socially conservative & collective-focused mindset than San Francisco, or indeed the US in general. Drugs remained stigmatised, they weren't trying

So I see what you mean re that kind of drug program, it depends how it's implemented...

I agree somewhat about Aquinas & Augustine. But the drug comparison seems less similar. Many decrim advocates make similar arguments that banning would drive vulnerable people underground.

But Augustine & Aquinas weren't talking about the effect on the women.

They were mainly concerned (at least judging by these statements, maybe they said more?- I'll have to check) with the effect on society if male lust no longer had an outlet.

Unlike drug decriminalisation advocates, they don't seem to have had 'getting prostitutes into a better way of life' as their main concern re prostitution.
I know a lot of religious men (and women) have, but Aquinas & Augustine's position that prostitution is a necessary evil to control male lust seems to presuppose a need for a supply of prostitutes.
That's my main bone of contention with their view on it (if I've understood it correctly).

Show quote history

I think we would need to understand what they say as the likely social consequences overall, if some kind of sexual outlet wasn't available.

It seems to me that they felt that there would ultimately be about the same amount of bad sexual behaviour, but that it would be less controlled. There is some sense to that, in the sense that the morality of the time already told men that sex outside of marriage was a sin and that sex with prostitutes was a sin. Those who did it anyway clearly chose not to listen to that. (Maybe not so much for pagan Romans in Augustine's times which also complicates the picture.)

I suppose the other issue is, the kinds of controls authorities had to deal with lawbreaking were a lot differernt than they are now. It's difficult from our perspective to see what the practical outcomes of legally banning prostitution might have been.

PrincessSophieFrederike · 06/10/2025 00:59

persephonia · 05/10/2025 23:53

"Prostitution in the towns is like the cesspool in the palace: take away the cesspool and the palace will become an unclean and evil-smelling place"

Some women get to be cesspools. It's hardly destigmitising or done for the consideration of women. It's more because male lust is such that without prostitutes they will turn to masturbation or sodomy both of which are considered worse sins by Aquinus.

Thats different to arguments about harm reduction re drugs. Or rather its similar if you consider the group whose harm is being mitigated is the users and general society.

Yes, exactly, that's the serious issue I have with their views on it.

I suppose also they might have meant that without prostitution, rape would increase- and thus innocent women might be harmed.

Ofc prostitutes in those days often had little choice due to poverty and/or were essentially slaves of the brothel owner/pimp- it's hard to argue that many were willing if they were slaves/indentured to a pimp etc

But would Aquinas & Augustine have seen prostitutes as mainly selling sex due to immorality, not poverty or enslavement?

Would they have seen prostitutes as bad by default, rather than the victims of poverty & enslavement that they often were ( and still are now)?

I will read into this further.

PrincessSophieFrederike · 06/10/2025 01:02

TempestTost · 06/10/2025 00:22

I've never felt that Harrington does that. She's quite clear imo that all social policies and norms have trade offs, advantages they give and also negatives. Which includes modern ones as well.

I think she emphasises that older approaches have differernt trade offs and also real advantages in many cases because so many people now don't seem to understand that about social policy. It's totally alien to most political progressives who see changes in policy over the years in terms of absolute moral progress. And they see older ideas as simply morally retrograde. All of which makes their ability to analyse current policy every shallow and often really missing the downsides of those policies.

Show quote history

I agree to some extent. Otoh one of my main issues with her is her reliance on Karl Polanyi for medieval history details- I'm not convinced he's quite as reliable as she appears to think he is.

She doesn't herself have any historical training- not that that means she can't opine, but I wonder how much knowledge she actually has of the periods she references to support her arguments.

The same could be said for many other pundits, of course.

persephonia · 06/10/2025 01:17

PrincessSophieFrederike · 06/10/2025 00:59

Yes, exactly, that's the serious issue I have with their views on it.

I suppose also they might have meant that without prostitution, rape would increase- and thus innocent women might be harmed.

Ofc prostitutes in those days often had little choice due to poverty and/or were essentially slaves of the brothel owner/pimp- it's hard to argue that many were willing if they were slaves/indentured to a pimp etc

But would Aquinas & Augustine have seen prostitutes as mainly selling sex due to immorality, not poverty or enslavement?

Would they have seen prostitutes as bad by default, rather than the victims of poverty & enslavement that they often were ( and still are now)?

I will read into this further.

Show quote history

Please do and report back. It's ages since I was at uni, and I'm not an expert. But... My guess is Aquinus probably wasn't thinking about the women at all. I don't mean he didn't think women were human. They did think of women as human. But he was thinking from a male perspective, about men's moral.dillemas.and about men's spiritual and physical health.** So I don't think there is any maliciousness towards the prostitutes. I just don't think what it was like for them was considered. There's nothing wrong with pragmatism, but it's limited by his own perception of who matters/doesn't matter. That's also one of the limits to pure utilitarianism. Whose life/happiness/wellbeing matters more is always affected by bias in the real world even if on thought experiments you can create a perfectly controlled environment.

Augustine had a weird thing going on where he's highly complimentary of his mother and her role in his own spiritual development. He talks about women's roles and their well-being on a way that feels quite progressive for the time. But when he converted to Christianity his live in girlfriend of more than a decade was sent away. Without their child who he raised with his family. Not evil. He didn't abandon his child. But the mother was just sent away with no choice when he decided to stop "sinning". We don't know what happened to her after she was sent back to her home country. We don't even know her name because he doesn't think to mention it in his Confessions. Compartmentalised.

They were both really skilled thinkers, and very concerned with interpreting the Bible/religious thinking in the best possible way..They were just really blinkered by being who they are. I think Aquinus shows what philosophy can do but also it's limits. Even if you think you have a really good grasp on the issues or a perfect moral code you likely have massive blind spots. Aquinus included.

** Like the commandment that says "thou shalt not cover another man's wife"..sort of implies it's fine to cover another woman's husband. But probably God didn't mean that.. otherwise it's quite the loophole.

TempestTost · 06/10/2025 01:42

Aquinas was famously not very interested in sex. His bugbear was overeating if I recall correctly.

It's interesting about Augustine and the mother of his son, he adored his son and always spoke highly of his mother, and they lived together for many years, although there was only the one child. His own mother, Monica, I believe had encouraged him to marry her at one time. After she went back to Carthage she went into a monastery.

I've tended to think there may have been some reason they never married, which he didn't write for public consumption in the same way he didn't reveal her name. What that could be I don't know. But if so, once he became a Christian he may have felt that he couldn't carry on living with her without marriage. That might also explain why he was fairly lukewarm at the idea of marrying someone else at that point, which he considered and rejected for reasons that always seemed a bit improbable to me.

persephonia · 06/10/2025 01:54

I thought his mother wanted him to marry but to marry someone more suitable. And then when he did break up with his longtime girlfriend, he announced he wasn't marrying at all.
The reasons that seemed improbable were, I think, his views on sex versus chastity. But we already argued about that a bit and I think we just have different interpretations of what Augustine meant. I don't think his objection to sexual incontinence was purely pragmatic (the dangers and social damage of sexual incontinence). And yes, they clearly had a very long and seemingly happy relationship..that's why it's so jarring that she was effectively jetissoned when he converted to Christianity. She lost not only her whole life but also her child when that happened. And you don't get the impression she had much choice. They were different times though, it's wrong to judge by today's standards.
It's the personal details that make him seem very human - the cherished son (I think his name meant gift from god), the familial relationships. But also the ability to compartmentalise.

Unrulyscrumptious · 06/10/2025 17:32

RapidOnsetGenderCritic · 03/10/2025 07:59

I did hesitate. I understand that my perspective is neither a female nor a feminist one, but I am surprised you seem to see it as "especially regressive". My previous post was mainly to make the point that is, I think, inherent in most western abortion law, that a zygote/foetus's value is usually in practice not seen as zero (no value) or one (the same value as a live baby). It is usually seen as something in between, with very little value in the first few days after conception (however that is defined) and increased value the more developed it becomes.

That concept does not depend on a perfect understanding or definition of conception. As previously mentioned, quickening and viability may be relevant. They certainly inform the mother's emotional attachment to the developing child. I have no doubt that late miscarriages and stillbirths are typically much more distressing than early miscarriages, which I am told may not always be noticed if very early. That distress partly reflects the mother's relationship with the child she is carrying.

My thoughts on this are as a father. My DW had a far closer pre-birth relationship with our children than I did. It was at birth (or maybe just before) that they became real to me; for my DW they were very real to her much earlier. Not at conception, which as you rightly say was not possible to pinpoint, though we had a pretty good idea.

When abortion law is formulated, it is practicality that matters more than precise definition of conception. I still maintain that this has parallels in death, for example with resuscitation of people whose heart and breathing have stopped, and with life support decisions. We have developed working definitions to help with ethical dilemmas. It is not generally seen as murder to fail to attempt to resuscitate someone who is not breathing and has no detectable pulse, but hospitals have protocols to manage their responsibilities and many people observe with horror "do not resuscitate" notices imposed on a patient.

The idea that for the purposes of abortion law we need a precise date of conception renders abortion law impossible. Only access to abortion at any stage of pregnancy for any reason would be possible, as no limit could be imposed by law.

Show quote history

but for the little it's worth, my current view is that the foetus gains human value continuously from conception to birth, or perhaps from conception to viability (as a premature birth results in a baby just as valuable as a full term one). I therefore have very little problem with the "morning after pill" and considerable problem with a late-term abortion (though it may be justifiable under some circumstances). Though I would much prefer there to be fewer abortions through avoiding unwanted pregnancies, I accept that the law is the law. If an abortion is to occur, the earlier the better.

I used the word regressive because a, I think generally any man who claims to support women's rights and yet chips in their own moral judgement of a women's decision should be aware that's regressive and b, because you're throwing out really old school anti-choice misunderstanding of how pregnancy even occurs such as throwing the MAP into discussion on abortion, something that prevents fertilisation occuring and saying "you have very little problem with it" as though women need men's approval to take it or that you think the morning after pill is ending a pregnancy. Likewise bringing up your considerable issue with late term abortion, something that hardly ever happens and when it does it's in absolutely dire situations that again don't need anyone's judgement.

TLDR- I used the word regressive because a progressive man who understands women's rights would educate themselves more thoroughly before throwing out an opinion which abortions they personally support or don't support.

RapidOnsetGenderCritic · 06/10/2025 19:41

Unrulyscrumptious · 06/10/2025 17:32

but for the little it's worth, my current view is that the foetus gains human value continuously from conception to birth, or perhaps from conception to viability (as a premature birth results in a baby just as valuable as a full term one). I therefore have very little problem with the "morning after pill" and considerable problem with a late-term abortion (though it may be justifiable under some circumstances). Though I would much prefer there to be fewer abortions through avoiding unwanted pregnancies, I accept that the law is the law. If an abortion is to occur, the earlier the better.

I used the word regressive because a, I think generally any man who claims to support women's rights and yet chips in their own moral judgement of a women's decision should be aware that's regressive and b, because you're throwing out really old school anti-choice misunderstanding of how pregnancy even occurs such as throwing the MAP into discussion on abortion, something that prevents fertilisation occuring and saying "you have very little problem with it" as though women need men's approval to take it or that you think the morning after pill is ending a pregnancy. Likewise bringing up your considerable issue with late term abortion, something that hardly ever happens and when it does it's in absolutely dire situations that again don't need anyone's judgement.

TLDR- I used the word regressive because a progressive man who understands women's rights would educate themselves more thoroughly before throwing out an opinion which abortions they personally support or don't support.

Show quote history

Your post is full of assumptions. I have never made any claim to be perfect or to have a perfect understanding of the ethics of abortion. I have said what I have said on this subject with some trepidation (justified it seems) because I find both the standard opposing positions (summarised somewhat unfairly as "abortion is murder" and "a foetus is not human") unsatisfactory, and look for a pragmatic harm-minimisation strategy. That there is disagreement about what that looks like is hardly surprising.

I mentioned that I am male, partly because several people on this board are well aware of that fact, and partly because I am aware that I do not have the perspective I would have if I was a woman. I reject however the idea that abortion is only an ethical issue of relevance to women.