How can you tell whether an issue under discussion is a case of civil rights or a culture war argument? In our current discourse, it seems that these two things are being conflated, and that one side sees an issue as infringing on their rights, while the other side sees those rights as either privileges or as invalid rights. Let’s take a closer look.
Start with the legal question. Is someone being denied a right, a protection or equal treatment under the law on the basis of who they are? If so, it’s probably a civil rights issue, not a culture war issue. Here are some examples:
- A Black person is denied a promotion because of race.
- A woman is denied a job opportunity solely because she is a woman.
- A gay couple is denied a government benefit available to married heterosexual couples.
“I don’t like how society is changing” is not a civil rights violation. Neither is “I don’t want to see [group of people]” nor “I don’t want my kids to be aware that gay people exist.” Even if someone is a bigot, they may support basic civil rights for the people they find distasteful.
Culture wars are about what constitutes a “good” society, about competing visions for the country. That includes things like:
- What should children be taught in public schools?
- What language is spoken in public and supported by government programs?
- What family structures are encouraged and privileged?
- What should be shown in movies and on television?
- What religious or moral values should be prominent?
- How should historical figures be remembered or celebrated?
- What behaviors should be celebrated or recognized, and which should be discouraged?
These are not civil-rights questions, but are about differing cultural visions for society. This can stray into a civil-rights issue if it includes barring some individuals from equal treatment on the basis of a protected characteristic such as sex, religion, race or sexual orientation.
What is being demanded? This is where the rubber meets the road.
- Civil-rights argument: individuals want the same legal opportunity given to everyone else.
- Culture-war argument: a group or person wants a specific version of society to be affirmed or accommodated.
The second argument is about social norms and cultural recognition.
An issue can contain both culture war and civil-rights implications. They often do, in fact. Consider same-sex marriage.
- Civil-rights argument: if gay marriage is legal, then gay couples should receive the same legal status and government benefits as heterosexual couples. Refusing service to them on the basis of their legally protected status is barring access to public goods on the basis of discrimination.
- Culture wars argument: Society should regard same-sex relationships as equally legitimate expressions of love and family, e.g. “Love is love.” That’s a cultural claim.
It’s possible to accept the first and be uncomfortable with the second, as many GOP legislators did when they affirmed gay marriage.
Is the goal equal treatment or compelled agreement? This is a helpful distinction if you are talking with someone who holds a different view of what constitutes an ideal society, but who is willing to allow people equal civil rights. For example, someone might say they dislike Pride parades, but would agree that gay couples should marry each other legally and not be forced into heterosexual marriages or singlehood. This is an important distinction that exists whenever civil rights are expanded. It takes some people a while to envision how a “good” society includes those people (whether it’s people of color, different sexual orientation or expression, minority religions, or working women).
“Culture wars” are sometimes used to mask discriminatory aims.The easiest place to find this is if we look at what happened during the Jim Crow south years. Segregation was defended as religious freedom–necessary to prevent miscegenation (including by the LDS church), a way to preserve “white” culture and tradition, a states’ rights issue, and a way to allow social change more time.
But it was actually a screen for denying Black Americans equal access to public accommodations, education, housing, job opportunities, and the vote.
A four-question test. To determine if this is a civil-rights issue or a culture war issue, consider:
- Is there unequal legal treatment? Are similarly qualified and situated people receiving different legal treatment or access to opportunities?
- Is the difference in treatment based on an intrinsic or protected characteristic? While some things are quite clearly intrinsic characteristics (e.g. biological sex, race) others are debated (e.g. sexual orientation, gender expression and or trans, religion). Some of those that are debated are still protected legally, and others are being attacked by current policy proposals. Additionally, someone can be discriminated against illegally, but a defense of the discrimination can claim it was on the basis of something else (e.g. qualifications).
- Is the government or a public institution controlling access to a fundamental public opportunity? This includes things like voting, employment opportunities, public education, housing access, public accommodation, marriage and legal protection.
- Is the dispute primarily about social norms and recognition? This includes things like symbols, language, representation, morality, education, social approval, and competing conceptions of the family or identity. If it’s these, it’s more likely a culture-war question.
It goes a little deeper, if you think about it. Civil rights are about living in a pluralistic society. Culture war politics ask for more: a public recognition of what one person or group thinks is good, normal, appropriate or true. This is one reason that conservative churches (as opposed to social justice churches) are particularly prone to culture war rhetoric in sermons, public statements, and political causes they support (e.g. opposing gay marriage). But of course, that’s true whichever side is talking. One might say “I can accept gay rights, but why do they have to be in your face about it?” Another might say “I can accept that religious people exist, but why do they never shut up about it?”
When you hear someone say “I’m not political” or claim ignorance about a civil rights or culture war issue, they might just mean “I’m uncomfortable telling people about my culture war position, but I accept on a basic level that people have civil rights.”
The anti-trans debate sits squarely between these two points. One side says that trans people are who they say they are, that gender identity resides in the brain (not the genitals), and that it is therefore an inherent characteristic to be trans. Some on the other side claims it’s a mental delusion that should not be accommodated, and there is an underlying fear that children who are exposed to the freedom to “choose” their gender will become trans or that trans people are a direct threat to others. There are three different sets of questions at play (at least):
- Equal citizenship. Do trans people deserve the same basic rights and protection from discrimination?
- Policy questions. How should institutions deal with sex and gender in specific contexts?
- Cultural recognition. What should society at large believe and say about gender?
In a pluralistic society, we can hopefully agree on #1, come to some compromise on #2, but #3 is where things often fall apart. Perhaps my favorite example of #3 is when GOP representative Keith Self (TX) deliberately misgendered Dem representative (DE) Sarah McBride, following which she referred to Rep. Self as “Madame Chair” when answering his questions. He didn’t like it any more than she did (he found it so unsettling that he left the session), but everyone’s civil rights were upheld.
- Where do you put the church in the civil rights / culture wars spectrum? Do you hear church leaders or members upholding civil rights or opposing them? Do you see them masking civil rights attacks under cover of culture war talking points?
- Do you see the anti-DEI backlash in governmental agencies as a civil rights issue or a culture war issue?
- Have you met people who are on one side in a civil rights argument but the other side in the culture war version of the same thing?
- Are there things that are not inherent traits (like religion) that you think should also be protected from discrimination, such as political voting history or affiliation?
- Are there other inherent traits that you think should be protected from discrimination (e.g. size, height)?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
First of all, where in this discussion do you put religious views? Because many of the people behind the culture wars are doing it in the name of religious freedom. They honestly think that a county clerk refusing to marry a gay couple should not be forced to do something they do not believe in.
So, for Hawk and others here, do you think refusing to marrying a gay or lesbian couple should be a protected religious freedom, or do you think they are just hiding behind religion to justify their bigotry? Because the religious people seem to think it is a religious freedom issue. And do one person’s civil rights overrule another person’s religious freedom?
Me, I think they have no business being in the business of marrying people if they are unwilling to marry specific people. Maybe when the law first changed, they could have been allowed to keep their jobs by having someone else available who was willing. But now, if they are just looking for a job, someone refusing to marry one kind of couple is unqualified to do the job. If they accept the job and then refuse to perform their job, they need to be fired or charged with civil rights violation.
Same with writing something on a wedding cake. Oh, you don’t want to do it? Then get someone else in your store who is willing and shut you mouth about what you think. Bridal pictures for two brides? If you are a “wedding photographer” then you take pictures of weddings. If you can’t do that withoutnit picking about what kind of wedding, then you are NOT a wedding photographer. So, find yourself a different job because you refuse to do the one you are advertising for.
Maybe I come too close to the idea that if you do not believe gay or lesbian marriage is approved by God, then you do not have to enter such a marriage. Nobody is going to force you into a marriage against your religion. But what other people do is none of your business so, God would have no problem with you pronouncing the marriage. Sort of like a returned missionary I knew who was a bar tender. He didn’t drink for religious reasons, but if his job was to serve such drinks to those who wanted them, then God didn’t have a problem with it.
The conservative members I interact with seem so in love with culture war talking points that they can hardly be bothered to see things through a civil rights lens. I once asked a conservative person going off about trans people in women’s sports what rights he though trans people should have. For a second or two he seemed a little bewildered as if he had never thought about the question at all. Them he went back to the soapbox of how gender is biologically determined. The MAGA crowd is the same. Too in love with the dopamine rush from their talking points that they are incapable of answering larger questions of the rights of immigrants and LGBTQs. Once you actually think of the larger questions, you then become liberal, and that’s a dangerous path to walk down. It’s like looking at scary anti-Mormon literature.
Inasmuch as racism is largely subconscious, we need DEI to help keep whites from lapsing back into discriminatory ways. This is a culture war fixation that will have civil rights ramifications if it keeps getting rolled back the way it has been.
I do not think that political affiliation should be protected from discrimination (except in Washington DC, which makes sense). I strongly object to conservatives treating conservatism almost as if it is a race or ethnicity. Political affiliation can change.
Conservatives are in favor of [civil] /[State’s] rights unless its a right with which they disagree.
Good questions! I think for many of us, the church is right at the crossroads of civil rights and culture wars.
We all know how the culture wars have made their way into our meetings and our identity. For some of us, these discussions have caused us to pause and reconsider how we feel about the church, because, for us, things like civil rights and social justice for all seem more in line with the gospel than the proclamations of MAGA adherents.
I think the sad thing about what we hear at church is that it’s virtually always culture wars stuff vs. civil rights. Sometimes it comes from the pulpit, but it definitely comes in classes and in the hallways.
As for DEI, it’s culture wars denying or even acknowledging civil rights. It doesn’t matter if it’s state or federal legislators, governors, or presidents talking or with their policies; the bottom line is they don’t want an honest discussion about what was, even if it’s to make today better. Ignoring slavery or the Mountain Meadows Massacre is basically the same thing and equally putting your head into the sand.
As for people being on one side in a civil rights argument but the other side in the culture war version of the same thing, it means they are in denial on one thing or another, or maybe they are going through that transition where they start asking the hard questions and being able to face up to the answers. Being apologetic is just another form of gaslighting, and both are well done in the church.
Finally, you bring up a good question about voting. At least voting is still private in our country and is considered a basic right. In the church, voting is public. We sustain someone publicly. Do any of us want to face the consequences of voting differently than our brothers and sisters in the ward? If we do feel different, don’t we just not raise our hand so as to be less conspicuous but still not show support? If people sustained in church had a secret ballot in the process, would there be more dissension and less agreement? What if you had to show your temple recommend before you could raise your hand? Maybe that’s why Sen. Lee’s Save America Act is so egregious, with Republicans raising their hands to support it, looking at the Democrats who don’t while a President is watching, taking notes, and giving out consequences for not agreeing with him.
I think the comments here actually get at why I wanted to make a distinction between civil rights and culture wars.
Religious freedom is probably the clearest example, because it sits right in the middle of the two.
Re: the county clerk, baker, or photographer, I see two questions, and I don’t think the one answers the other necessarily:
– Does a gay couple have the same right to marry and receive ordinary public services as anyone else?
– Does the person providing those services have a legitimate religious-liberty claim not to participate in something they believe is wrong?
I also don’t think we should assume that someone invoking religion is necessarily “hiding behind religion” to justify bigotry. Sometimes that may be true. But if we actually believe in religious freedom, shouldn’t we take someone’s religious objection seriously even when we think the belief behind it is wrong?
At the same time, religious freedom can’t just become a magic phrase that overrides everyone else’s rights. This isn’t like yelling “time out!” on the playground, and you can just do whatever you want without consequences. If you take a government job or open a business to the public, there are legitimate questions about what obligations come with that choice.
That’s why I think it helps to step back and ask what kind of argument we’re actually having:
– Civil rights: Are you being denied equal treatment, protection, or opportunity because of who you are?
– Culture war: What should society teach, celebrate, recognize, encourage, or consider morally good?
Those things can overlap, but they aren’t the same thing.
The restored gospel (to me) makes this distinction particularly important. I believe every person is a child of God, that agency is central to God’s plan, and that we’re commanded to love our neighbors. I also believe truth and morality are real. So I don’t think we have to choose between strong moral convictions and defending someone’s civil rights.
I can believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God while believing gay couples should have equal civil rights. Same with the belief that God created humanity male and female while still thinking there are legitimate policy questions about how sex and gender should be handled in particular situations. I can believe something is morally wrong without believing the government should force everyone else to believe what I believe.
And I think this applies to DEI, immigration, transgender issues, abortion, and pretty much every other culture-war issue. Before deciding which side we’re on, I think our best questions are:
– What right is actually being denied?
– What is the government requiring?
– How much of this is really an argument about what kind of society we want?
I also want a society that encourages what is healthy and good (which is a loaded phrase, because who gets to define “healthy” and “good”?).
More importantly, I want to belong to a community that practices tolerance in the older sense of the word: not pretending that every belief or behavior is equally good (this being an incredibly personal judgement), but allowing people to live differently, even in ways we think are wrong, without requiring that difference to become the norm for everyone else.
I think a healthy pluralistic society should be able to say both “you have the same rights as I do” and “I don’t have to believe that everything you do is goo” without either statement being understood as hatred.
Great OP. I saw an interesting example of this tension between “civil rights” and “culture wars” in Gospel Doctrine a couple of weeks ago. We were discussing the book of Ezra, where Cyrus, king of Persia, does the unthinkable: he not only allows the Israelites to return and rebuild their temple under Persian rule, but actively encourages them to do so.
Then we came to Ezra 4.
The people described as the “enemies of Judah and Benjamin” approach Zerubbabel and offer to help rebuild the temple. They claim to worship the same God and ask to participate in the project. Zerubbabel and the other leaders reject them outright:
“You may have no part in this work. We alone will build the Temple for the Lord…”
The discussion went in two directions.
First, the teacher explained why Israel rejected the Samaritans’ offer. Israel had previously blurred cultural and religious boundaries, and assimilation had contributed to the loss of their identity and way of life. The Samaritans were viewed as religiously and culturally impure. Based on past experience, separation seemed like the safest course of action. Then the story shifts. The rejected Samaritans become a thorn in Israel’s side, discouraging the people, frustrating their efforts, and hindering the construction of the temple.
At that point, the teacher asked when we have seen people similarly “hinder” the growth or building of the Church.
Almost immediately, someone brought up the conflict surrounding the Fairview temple, citing the mayor, city council, and local citizens as examples of people obstructing the building of the temple. Suddenly, the framework shifted to civil rights—specifically religious liberty—and the blame was placed entirely outside the Church.
What struck me was what wasn’t discussed.
In Ezra 4, there was no reflection on whether Israel itself played a role in initiating the conflict. The Samaritans first offered to participate. Israel rejected them because it feared that association and cooperation might threaten its cultural and religious identity. In other words, Israel was also engaged in a kind of culture war, drawing boundaries and excluding those it perceived as a threat to its way of life.
That doesn’t justify what followed. But neither does it allow us to tell the story as though Israel was simply an innocent victim of hostility that appeared out of nowhere.
The same dynamic seems present in the Fairview discussion. The persecution narrative frames the Church almost exclusively as the victim of religious-liberty violations, while leaving little room to examine whether the Church itself has contributed to the conflict or the resulting resistance.
Perhaps that is the real tension between civil rights and culture wars: we are often very good at recognizing persecution when we are the ones being opposed, but much less willing to examine how our own attempts to preserve identity, authority, or cultural boundaries may contribute to the conflict in the first place.
I cannot even imagine the amount of good will the church has lost with the Fairview debacle. They may turn out to have gotten their way and they may be sure they are right, but surely the height of a steeple is not more important than projecting the image the church is always trying to show to the world. The picture that remains is that of a rich bully getting its way. Who wants to be part of a church that behaves in such a thoughtless way?
‘Religious” exemptions for childhood vaccines.
New greeting: “Sorry to hear your kid has polio. BTW, when did you become a chemist?”
They honestly think that a county clerk refusing to marry a gay couple should not be forced to do something they do not believe in.
Since at least one other comment has picked up on this theme, I thought it worth pointing out that “They” does not include Dallin Oaks. In his speech at the University of Virginia in 2021, he made it very clear that religious freedom does not extend to excusing government employees from doing their jobs.
lastlemming: Yes, I always think of that fact, that Oaks was firmly against the county clerk who was essentially obstructing civil rights and refusing to perform her job. I’m completely with Anna that if you object to the death penalty, don’t accept a job as executioner. If you object to gay marriage, you can’t hold the job responsible to sign the marriage documents. If you object to war, you shouldn’t be a soldier. These objections are not all equal in my mind, but they could potentially made on religious grounds.
What doesn’t make sense to me is the extension of “religious freedom” to every individual in every situation in which they define what their beliefs are. People believe all kinds of ridiculous things–conspiracy theories, misinformation, superstitions. Putting the onus for what is a religious objection on the individual’s beliefs rather than a recognized religion’s dogmas effectively makes each person his or her own religion and validates anything you can think up. So, if you are a Catholic claiming a religious objection to hiring women, but Catholicism doesn’t preach that, is it a “valid” religious objection or what? Today’s GOP would say it is, but the Pope would disagree, right? This is more of a trapdoor than a slippery slope.
Another thing that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me is small business owners claiming their business is a “ministry” (e.g. “Kids Cuts for Christ” or “Christian Brothers Car Repair”). The naming is not illegal. Claiming they are based on Christian values is not illegal. It’s when they want to be able to discriminate against others based on those values, yet they want to be able to operate their business in the public sphere. I mean, there are already basically a billion and one exemptions from EEOC laws for small businesses based on their size, but that’s not enough for some of these militant Christians who want to make a point. From where I’m sitting, they aren’t winning converts with their performative Christianity, and I’m personally a little suspicious of a business that claims Christian values. Can you fix the car competently? Do you only want Evangelical customers? Are you using this signage to cover up incompetence or bad hiring practices? What exactly are your intentions here?
I’m going to go waaaay back to when the culture war didn’t have much impact on civil rights. Remember cancel culture on Twitter? Someone would say something bigoted and everyone would dogpile and cancel them. Very traumatic. Did not have any impact on civil rights at all. Sure, you have free speech. And everyone else has free speech to cancel you for what you said. The government wasn’t Twitter and so getting canceled was not a civil rights thing.
Bigots got very upset about this and turned the culture war into an attack on civil rights. No one who got canceled on Twitter lost their rights to medical care. But now abortion is banned in conservative states and trans healthcare is getting attacked. Bigots got canceled for being racist, and now the government is sending out stormtroopers with electric shock gloves to hurt people of color.
The culture war got a few people fired when their company didn’t want to be associated with a racist or a misogynist, but it wasn’t the government telling a company to fire someone. An employer has freedom of association and can fire a bigot. That’s a culture war thing.
This post is a good distinction between culture war and civil rights.
“Where do you put the church in the civil rights / culture wars spectrum? Do you hear church leaders or members upholding civil rights or opposing them? Do you see them masking civil rights attacks under cover of culture war talking points?”
The Church has always been on the conservative side of the culture war; now that conservatives run the country, the culture warriors can attack civil rights. It would be nice if the Church would say they support the rights of trans people to live their life as they see fit, even as they have a religious disagreement about transgender ideology, but of course they aren’t going to say that and they caved to the culture war fear mongering about bathrooms. The Church is also openly opposed to abortion and Neil Anderson gave a Gen Conf talk telling people to vote for pro-life politicians. Yep, that attack on civil rights has come to pass.
I have noticed a decrease in the culture wars rhetoric at church outside of the long established church teachings and policies being occasionally mentioned. I may also be biased by some of the surrounding churches having their pastors on TV/radio/internet jumping in with both feet into the depths of the culture wars. As noted above, President Oaks is very much for civil rights being universal and all government employees need to adhere to the full implementation of these legal and constitutional rights. I recall him saying similar things in the 80s or 90s when he was much junior and he could have had more senior apostles who disagreed with some of what he said.
I have heard from local members that the church is seen as sympathetic by many in the Dallas area about the Fairview temple, especially civic leaders from other cities. That temple will be the closest to members in parts of 4 states and serve ~20-30,000 members as their temple. A megachurch with that many members would not be getting that level of opposition to building a new large building.
Perpetual Victimhood, Pepetual Outrage, Perpetual Demand for Recompense……Endless Indignation. What a insane way to live; What Hell on Earth.
grizzerbear55: Sounds like MAGA and White Christian Nationalism. Perfect description.