There is a direct trajectory of abstraction between these sorts of cartoons and the chad/soy meme, including the white supremacy that is so popular with people who use it unironically.
Is a shining beacon on the hill meant to be like, not religious?
Edit: this commentor realized they were wrong and does not appear to have updated their comment, in case anyone comes across this and falls for this misinformation.
There’s nothing intrinsically religious about the symbolism of light or raising objects representing virtues while lowering vices, the architecture with columns likely representing secular legal and judicial institutions architecture at the time. it was published in 1890 in a publication called the truth seeker, Winthrop’s 1630 speech wasn’t popularized until the 1960s by JFK’s '61 speech.
Mhm, now you’re recognizing the cultural and historical contexts, which is good, but you’re doing it as though it is insulated from religiosity. Yes, they are likely drawing on the neoclassical architecture that the US was and is obsessed with, have you considered why that is and specifically why it is popular in a culturally Christian country? Ever seen the inside of the capitol building’s dome constructed in 1865 (literally called The Apotheosis of Washington?)
Yes, liberals have and continue to act religiously about their ideology, and “objectivity” is a major element in how they legitimised it in response to secularism. Social darwinism, something that has never been scientifically substantiated but none the less has had tremendous influence on “secular” thinkers, emerged in the US for the same reason in the mid- to late-nineteenth century.
The image you posted draws on the imagery it draws on exactly because it is legible to Christians and draws on Christian values.
(Edit: also just really quick, Winthrop’s “City upon a Hill” is itself an example of the application of this imagery, not the creation of it. That Winthrop made this analogy that applies in this image as well as in JFK’s use is once again a good example of how consistently Christian the US is.)
Edit: for those interested, there is a further explanation below both on the connection in historical development between these images as well as how they emblemize a consistent settler-colonial framework. Both commentors who tried to spread misinformation just abandoned the thread when it was clear they were wrong, so they might be useful for people who aren’t clear on this.
That’s nice you can find something it kinda looks similar to but It explicitly rejects Christian values like faith and superstition, it doesn’t draw on Christian values when it’s rejecting the values bible believing Christians hold contrary to investigation and science putting observation and evidence before conclusions instead of after. If you believe in sorcery or foreskin blood magic or people coming back from the dead or other faith based beliefs I don’t think you’re appealing to the same virtues Watson Heston had in mind.
Refer to my other comment for an explanation on why this comparison is drawn. But, because I get the impression that you seem to think you’re an expert on this topic even though there is fundamental knowledge gaps in what you’ve said throughout this thread, could you explain to me the functional, affective difference between what is explicitly and implicitly Christian in these images?
That “secularism” is a reproduction of Christian values is not a new or even challenging argument, it has been a common understanding of this period since the 1950s and especially so after decolonial scholars and post structuralists started writing about it. I’m excited to see how you disagree, I’m sure it is very well-informed.
Wow, I’m not going to lie, I’m surprised I have to explain this particular element of this. So, the thing is, people can say something and mean something different.
I picked social Darwinsism as an example both because it was “secular,” was proliferated through the US largely through Christian proselytization, and happened to legitimise preexisting settler-colonial notions of race and class. When people say it isn’t Christian, they are doing so to salvage those settler values (inextricably linked to Christianity both ideogically and historically), not actually transition away from them. In the same way liberals today will often speak of anti-racism and anti-transphobia, but never about how those movements are fundamentally opposed to a liberal system.
Also, this may be a result of the difference in Christian architecture through much of the US today, but the painting of Washington in the clouds with angels on the inside of a dome is nearly triggering for me in its familiarity as someone who has been subjected to Christian and Catholic churches for much of my life. Even if that wasn’t so, and this was meant to evoke some vague sense of divinity, I’m afraid that would still be religious, and the fact that it is in a neoclassical building further demonstrates the attempted continuity between ancient Roman and Greek imperialism through the evocation of their religious iconography, which is where much of the Christian imagery in Euro-imperialist countries developed from.
You know why JFK used Winthrop? Anxiety over his identity as a Catholic in a majority Protestant country.
If you don’t actually analyze what people say, and only take them at face value, you are going to be taken advantage of very often. Now, before you respond, you worded this comment as though you think youre some authority on the topic (stating your views as fact), so I hope you can at least stop and reconsider how you know what you think in light of this.
I’m sorry, it appears that you’ve confused angels with “Greek Gods”, like Dionysus, Poseidon, Hermes, etc., and their entourage.
Ouch, very embarrassing for you. Clouds and sun are not any more “Christian” than Apollo and Icarus and Mount Olympus.
You may want to research remedial Greek Mythology and look again; the architecture is also classical Greek, about as Christian as the Great Pyramids.
Also, you might want to refresh your internal definition of “apotheosis”, educate yourself so that you don’t humiliate your family any further.
So, in closing, learn about the Greek Mythos and then use that new knowledge to identify the “angels”, and then come back to apologize humbly. Now, go forth and SIN NO MORE.
ok listen i agree with the sentiment but this smacks of ‘behold, i have presented myself as the chad and you as the soyjack, therefore i win!’
There is a direct trajectory of abstraction between these sorts of cartoons and the chad/soy meme, including the white supremacy that is so popular with people who use it unironically.
Is a shining beacon on the hill meant to be like, not religious?
Edit: this commentor realized they were wrong and does not appear to have updated their comment, in case anyone comes across this and falls for this misinformation.
There’s nothing intrinsically religious about the symbolism of light or raising objects representing virtues while lowering vices, the architecture with columns likely representing secular legal and judicial institutions architecture at the time. it was published in 1890 in a publication called the truth seeker, Winthrop’s 1630 speech wasn’t popularized until the 1960s by JFK’s '61 speech.
Mhm, now you’re recognizing the cultural and historical contexts, which is good, but you’re doing it as though it is insulated from religiosity. Yes, they are likely drawing on the neoclassical architecture that the US was and is obsessed with, have you considered why that is and specifically why it is popular in a culturally Christian country? Ever seen the inside of the capitol building’s dome constructed in 1865 (literally called The Apotheosis of Washington?)
Yes, liberals have and continue to act religiously about their ideology, and “objectivity” is a major element in how they legitimised it in response to secularism. Social darwinism, something that has never been scientifically substantiated but none the less has had tremendous influence on “secular” thinkers, emerged in the US for the same reason in the mid- to late-nineteenth century.
The image you posted draws on the imagery it draws on exactly because it is legible to Christians and draws on Christian values.
(Edit: also just really quick, Winthrop’s “City upon a Hill” is itself an example of the application of this imagery, not the creation of it. That Winthrop made this analogy that applies in this image as well as in JFK’s use is once again a good example of how consistently Christian the US is.)
Edit: for those interested, there is a further explanation below both on the connection in historical development between these images as well as how they emblemize a consistent settler-colonial framework. Both commentors who tried to spread misinformation just abandoned the thread when it was clear they were wrong, so they might be useful for people who aren’t clear on this.
That’s nice you can find something it kinda looks similar to but It explicitly rejects Christian values like faith and superstition, it doesn’t draw on Christian values when it’s rejecting the values bible believing Christians hold contrary to investigation and science putting observation and evidence before conclusions instead of after. If you believe in sorcery or foreskin blood magic or people coming back from the dead or other faith based beliefs I don’t think you’re appealing to the same virtues Watson Heston had in mind.
Refer to my other comment for an explanation on why this comparison is drawn. But, because I get the impression that you seem to think you’re an expert on this topic even though there is fundamental knowledge gaps in what you’ve said throughout this thread, could you explain to me the functional, affective difference between what is explicitly and implicitly Christian in these images?
That “secularism” is a reproduction of Christian values is not a new or even challenging argument, it has been a common understanding of this period since the 1950s and especially so after decolonial scholars and post structuralists started writing about it. I’m excited to see how you disagree, I’m sure it is very well-informed.
There’s nothing actually Christian about the image you’ve posted though, it’s kind of a thumb in the eye of Christianity if you take some time to look
Yes, they were “culturally Christian” in a sense, but they also rejected Christianity and were just as much children of the enlightenment
Wow, I’m not going to lie, I’m surprised I have to explain this particular element of this. So, the thing is, people can say something and mean something different.
I picked social Darwinsism as an example both because it was “secular,” was proliferated through the US largely through Christian proselytization, and happened to legitimise preexisting settler-colonial notions of race and class. When people say it isn’t Christian, they are doing so to salvage those settler values (inextricably linked to Christianity both ideogically and historically), not actually transition away from them. In the same way liberals today will often speak of anti-racism and anti-transphobia, but never about how those movements are fundamentally opposed to a liberal system.
Also, this may be a result of the difference in Christian architecture through much of the US today, but the painting of Washington in the clouds with angels on the inside of a dome is nearly triggering for me in its familiarity as someone who has been subjected to Christian and Catholic churches for much of my life. Even if that wasn’t so, and this was meant to evoke some vague sense of divinity, I’m afraid that would still be religious, and the fact that it is in a neoclassical building further demonstrates the attempted continuity between ancient Roman and Greek imperialism through the evocation of their religious iconography, which is where much of the Christian imagery in Euro-imperialist countries developed from.
You know why JFK used Winthrop? Anxiety over his identity as a Catholic in a majority Protestant country.
If you don’t actually analyze what people say, and only take them at face value, you are going to be taken advantage of very often. Now, before you respond, you worded this comment as though you think youre some authority on the topic (stating your views as fact), so I hope you can at least stop and reconsider how you know what you think in light of this.
Edit: oh, also, look up what Apotheosis means.
I’m sorry, it appears that you’ve confused angels with “Greek Gods”, like Dionysus, Poseidon, Hermes, etc., and their entourage.
Ouch, very embarrassing for you. Clouds and sun are not any more “Christian” than Apollo and Icarus and Mount Olympus.
You may want to research remedial Greek Mythology and look again; the architecture is also classical Greek, about as Christian as the Great Pyramids.
Also, you might want to refresh your internal definition of “apotheosis”, educate yourself so that you don’t humiliate your family any further.
So, in closing, learn about the Greek Mythos and then use that new knowledge to identify the “angels”, and then come back to apologize humbly. Now, go forth and SIN NO MORE.