The Washington Post is in a bit of trouble for disparaging Lynchburg, although really it’s for disparaging religions conservatism. A freelancer promoting Lynchburg wrote of her low expectations, writing that “its reputation as home of conservative Christian-oriented Liberty University and the late Jerry Falwell hardly bodes well for style, culture and night life.” The ombudsman thought this was unfair.
But, on a few minutes’ reflection, I think that the original statement may have been correct. Religious conservatives of all religions oppose the sorts of things traditionally associated with the sort of fun sought by the reviewer: dancing, alcohol, dating (even the mixing of sexes at all), art, ostentation in all of its forms, etc. Whether I’m thinking about conservative Christianity (whether Falwell or Amish), conservatism Islam (whether Taliban or good ol’-fashioned conservative Muslims), or conservative Judiasm (I’m thinking orthodox), all of the Abrahamic faiths are certainly known for being dour on the conservative end of their spectrums. (I don’t know enough about Hinduism or Buddhism to consider those.) Ignoring the specification of Lynchburg, it seems to me that, as a rule, religiously conservative regions aren’t liable to have much in the way of style, culture (in the arts sense), or night life.
I write about this here because I’m curious whether anybody can correct me. Are there any exceptions to this presumed rule?
You would probably consider me one of those boring conservatives, so I should take exception to your stereotyping. Based one your line of questioning, I’d suggest that “Christian Conservatives” might only be as close-minded as their “Liberal” friends.
Knowing that you’ve spent some time in the ‘Burg, I’m guessing that your question is rhetorical. I thought that it was funny that a fellow C-ville resident was noted as finding the article somewhat offensive, particularly in light of the section that was highlighted!
There certainly isn’t a huge place for late-night debauchery in conservative brands of Eastern religions, either; while the religions themselves might promote more tolerance for drunken 2am dance shenanigans in other people, I can’t think of one that would permit its own practitioners to do so on any regular basis.
Apart from conservative Dionysianism, of course. Which dictates that if -all- you’re doing is drinking and dancing, then you haven’t done enough mindless fornicating or goat-slaughtering.
My experience has been almost the opposite — in Ramallah or in Nazareth, the place came alive at night. In fact, there was almost a cultural effect where the “night life” involved a great deal of conversation, but not exactly the sort of nightlife one might expect in places such as London or Amsterdam. Ask any pub owner in Ireland what the nightlife is like…
I’d argue the converse. There is a difference between heading over to the pub to get a pint (or three) with friends, and getting drunk followed by the ritual Denny’s trip at 3am.
Subdued? Perhaps. My anecdotal experiences have only noted a difference, not a void.
I’d say that the Vatican has some of the most beautiful art in the world. Actually, for large portions of history, the Catholic Church was the leading force behind Western art. It’s obviously changed some since then, but I agree with some of the above commenters that the idea of religious conservatives not caring about art/culture/etc. is just a stereotype.
They might not like some of the art that is produced now (including denigrating it as not true “art”), but other current art is heralded. So maybe it’s just a matter of opinion.
I don’t think conservative religion is necessarily opposed to art, dating, culture or even dancing (although I’ll leave out the question of alcohol for now). It’s just that the kinds of art and culture favored by the WP writer aren’t the kind that are necessarily pursued or promoted in a religious setting.
There’s plenty of art and culture going on in religous communities. Unfortunately, just as with secular art and culture, it follow Sturgeon’s Law: “Ninety percent of everything is crap.”
Interesting! That’s the sort of first-hand information that I’d hoped for here.
Well, that’s a good argument that the conservative arts of the 1600s were pretty rockin’. :)
Fair point, Jon. :) I’d love to see examples of that art, though. In my (very limited) artistic experience, art comes of honest expression, frank displays of perspectives different from one’s own, and the freedom to express those ideas in the face of popular discomfort or even distaste. So I guess what I’m looking for is great contemporary art (to the extent to which you and I can determine such a thing) that’s emerged from a conservative religious culture.