Whether Reactionary or “progressive” both sjws and prohibitionists are irritating busybodies who feel they have the right to tell other people what to do (and indeed what to say and think). A plague on them all.
You may never need helping to your feet from the swill of your own vomit, or a bulwark from the destabilising influence poor decision making but others of your fellow citizens are more vulnerable. It is such as your pejorative vernacular that makes me hesitant to reach out as a helpmate.
Peter LR
3 years ago
Indeed: I’ll clink my glass of J2O to that too!
Thanks for some rehabilitation of the reputation of evangelical Christians who do suffer some profound misrepresentation. To the campaigns you highlight could also be added prison reform, the creation of schools and hospitals; and in our time foodbanks and drug rehabilitation work.
The writer did get in his gratuitous barb at “You can picture these people with fine precision: the ideological ancestors of Pat Robertson and every other Christian fundamentalist crank”.
Those people usually did huge good, kept the community healthy and joined up. That this knee jerk attitude exists is mere prejudice, I rather doubt the writer has spent time in the places, and with the people, he is denigrating. I suppose you can say things about that group that would get you canceled if you said such biased things about another. It is always ‘Open Season’ on them.
But then to be fair, the writer did an excellent job of making his excellent point, that Christians have been involved in almost all historical social justice causes, which is why freedoms and social good policies pretty much only came from Western society. And that drug/alcohol harm is the most destructive in the underclasses, where it can be a great evil.
The writer did get in his gratuitous barb at “You can picture these people with fine precision: the ideological ancestors of Pat Robertson and every other Christian fundamentalist crank”.
Those people usually did huge good, kept the community healthy and joined up. That this knee j** k attitude exists is mere prej *dice, I rather doubt the writer has spent time in the places, and with the people, he is denigrating. I suppose you can say things about that group that would get you canceled if you said such bia*ed things about another. It is always ‘Open Season’ on them.
But then to be fair, the writer did an excellent job of making his excellent point, that Christians have been involved in almost all historical social justice causes, which is why freedoms and social good policies pretty much only came from Western society. And that drug/alcohol harm is the most destructive in the undercla* ses, where it can be a great evil.
My post got sent for moderation, so I am trying to put in some * to see if it then gets through. (Actually the J**k was I think the problem, their algorithm is kind of flighty)
I need a good definition of “evangelical.” Does the meaning of the word change? Does it have a special meaning church history? Does it have the same meaning generally as it does in this article?
I believe it means Protestants outside of more mainstream churches, giving a more prominent role than the mainstream (although I’m sure plenty would object to this characterisation) to charismatic preaching and the inerrance of Biblical text (‘fundamentalist’) rather than ritual and solemnity. E.g. Baptists and Pentecostals as opposed to high church Anglicans/Episcopalians in the US. Not sure whether all those movements originally considered ‘dissenting’ in the olden days (Quakers/Methodists/Presbyterians/Unitarians etc.) and their descendants would be considered Evangelical, I’m no expert and these days ‘Evangelical’ is usually shorthand for ‘right-wing and socially conservative.’ Many such churches and their members are, but historically they were at the forefront of social reform movements that we now consider progressive (e.g. abolition on both sides of the Atlantic, temperance/prohibition, the Labour party “owing as much to Methodism as to Marxism,” the Sally Army today). I suppose the conservatives among them would argue it’s society that changed, not them!
You may find that contemporary language [vis a vis words] can mean whatever you want it to mean, whenever you say it and can change it according to your prevailing mood and audience. It doesn’t appear to matter if the hearer has a different interpretation – that’s his/her/it/z/their problem. The dictionary is a dinosaur. Whatever that means.
Indeed. Some of the comments remind me about a very famous and wealthy chap who spent his comfortable life railing against such as Mr Boosh’s ‘irritating busybodies’, only to be compassionately cared for by them at the end of his life.
Mark Preston
3 years ago
I don’t see why one group of individuals think it’s OK to try to tell another group of individuals how to live their lives. Let drinkers drink provided they don’t annoy/harm anyone else.
I write this as an alcoholic who hasn’t had a drink in over 8 years.
I’ve seen the same damage (alcoholic father in law) so have sympathy, but would argue that one person’s lack of self control doesn’t justify punishing anybody else.
Mark, the issue is you are one of the modern kind, you forget society used to have ‘Community’, one where individual rights to be antisocial were superseded by what is best for all. Hogarth did the great ‘Gin Lane’ painting to show the depths of destruction your sort of attitude of anything goes wrecks on society which has not the restraint of convention. The inner city ghettos have been made hellish by substance abuse, Crack Cocaine and heroin the ones we all know, Alcohol also.
I lived in the Far North and many communities there have up to 50% babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome.
Again, as I always do in this discussion, say read about the Opium Trade in China, was it OK? Did the right to trade opium exist because as you say ““ Let drinkers drink provided they don’t annoy/harm anyone else.”?” and it was the right of the individual Chinese to decide for themselves?
Modern society has become utterly degenerate, and it is because of your attitude of anything goes if it only destroys you and not others, But this is false, if you allow individuals to destroy themselves it does impact everyone in the greater picture. The problem is degrees. Some social control is vital, and we differ very much at which level that should be at. Personally I see the destruction of marriage as the greatest harm of any in society by a huge margin, and it is from your self based morality that has happened, Porn and sexual freedom being the main tool, welfare being another.
That’s the key though isn’t it. Particularly where alcoholism has gone hand in hand with poverty, it’s caused a lot of people a lot of harm. Strict prohibitionism may be overkill, but you can see how the view develops that all booze is evil.
Thankfully we’ve learned that banning it has unintended consequences, but there’s still a case to be made that more support is needed in our communities.
Congrats on your achievement there!
I have a heart condition. If you hit me it’s murder.
Tony Taylor
3 years ago
The world would be a better place if there was less alcohol, but nor do I agree with prohibition. We just need to be collectively more sensible about the syrup.
Prohibition exists with alcohol, in age, hours, tax, where it can be consumed, and so on. The thing is what degree is acceptable. I pretty much think it is about right as it is, but am against legalizing of drugs as I know them and they are no good.
Well said. Alchol and other drugs should be tackled as a personal and community health issue…rather than a draconian legal issue. How’s Nixon’s “War on Drugs” going…yet another defeat for the USA as far as I can see
Pete Kreff
3 years ago
A very interesting article, exploring an issue I didn’t know anything about. Thank you.
I only have two points to make.
1) In a letter he wrote in 1830, he states his principles clearly: that because “all men are born equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” it means:
Unfortunately, Garrison’s quoted passage that comes next is a complete non sequitur, in my mind.
2) “If we could but make the world sober, we would have no slavery”.
The admirable Frederick Douglass’s words are also patently untrue, as the Islamic world clearly shows.
Tony Nunn
3 years ago
The issue I have with prohibitionists is that they focus entirely on the harm done by the abuse of alcohol by a minority of drinkers while completely ignoring its aesthetic appeal to the majority. Most of us don’t drink for the purpose of intoxication but for the pleasure afforded our taste buds by moderate consumption. Anyone who spends a considerable amount of money on, say, a bottle of vintage port or a 40-year-old single malt is not doing so to get drunk; if that were the intention, a tenner’s worth of supermarket cider would suffice.
Also, as an Anglican for whom the progression from church to pub is second nature, I am not convinced by the Evangelical tendency to regard temperance as a Christian virtue. If our Lord had intended us not to drink, He surely would not have chosen for His first miracle to turn more than 100 gallons of water into wine. Cheers!
Temperance as a Christian virtue simply means not overdoing things and falling into the vice of gluttony that can then connect to anger, lust, sloth, adultery, envy, covetousness and pride. These are the causes of social evils. I’m not a Prohibitionist either but our society has a hypocritical attitude towards alcohol. It knows its evils but encourages its excessive consumption and then complains about the effect. I would venture that far too many people drink too much and it is a minority who just ‘enjoy’ a drink. The sale of alcohol has become far too important for our economy as the lockdown has shown. Thank you, Unherd, for a most interesting article.
You are right Margaret. Jesus said, ‘don’t be drunk with wine,’ not ‘don’t drink wine.’
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Ideas so good that they have to be mandatory. What could possibly be more progressive. But it’s a bit of stretch to equate either abolitionists or prohibitionists to today’s wokerati who are intent on fixing problems that have largely been solved.
ralph bell
3 years ago
Thanks for such a timely and informative article to balance the thirst for social drinking. Personally I will be smiling with a pint in hand.
I too will be smiling with a pint in hand, but not until Friday or Saturday. Moderate drinking is far more pleasurable than drunkenness.
Angus J
3 years ago
“…we project contemporary assumptions to the past.”
A very common failing, which I refer to as ‘retrospective anachronistic presupposition’. It happens a lot when reading ancient documents such as the Bible.
I’m suitably impressed. Do you read ancient documents such as the Bible a lot? For work or leisure?
Starry Gordon
3 years ago
Lenin and company were pretty much required to wage war by their opponents, competitors, and sometimes even their supposed allies, at least if they wanted to keep breathing. There was not a lot of room in the Russian Empire of 1917-1924 for liberal reformers. And if you want to win a serious war, you probably have to kill a lot of people — ‘mass-murdering’ — and exert authoritarian leadership — ‘tyrant’. I’m severely tempted to engage in some whataboutism here, but I’ll hold off as long as I can.
Drahcir Nevarc
3 years ago
Temperance to me denotes moderation rather than abstinence. I regard my standard weekly ten unit consumption as temperate.
Simric Yarrow
3 years ago
It was pretty interesting here in South Africa to be thrown repeatedly into a state of prohibition last year. The black market obviously flourished, and in general it seems that a more standard approach has now prevailed with greater limits on opening hours rather than blanket bans. The rebel in me obviously sought out the local shebeens occasionally that sprang up (I actually drink very little normally so ended up drinking more than usual just for the thrill of it). But the social reformer in me also noted the apparently big drop in figures of weekend admissions to our A&Es. I can see the desire to clamp down but it’s obviously not the right approach long term as plenty have realised before now…
Michael Whittock
3 years ago
The drive toward temperance is often inspired by religious revival. For instance the Welsh Revival of 1904-05 reduced convictions for drunkenness by 50%. The preaching of repentance, the assurance of God’s forgiveness through faith in Christ, and the reception of the joy and inner resources given by the Holy Spirit led many to break with alcohol abuse.
Prohibition was not an issue in Jesus’ time. So it’s not surprising that He is recorded as attending social events where wine will certainly have flowed.(Matthew 9.9-13). He also performed the miracle of changing water into wine.(John2.1-11).
There is little in the New Testament about alcohol as such. But there is some teaching on the literal meaning of temperance which is moderation,restraint and self-control. For instance self-control is listed as one of the signs that God is at work in a person’s life who is filled with His Holy Spirit.( Galatians 5.22-23).
Cheers.
Last edited 3 years ago by Michael Whittock
Tom Watson
3 years ago
“Can prohibition ever be progressive?” Yes. Obviously. It was explicitly conceived of as a progressive measure – what could be more progressive than attempting to reduce vice, unemployment, crime, poor health, poverty and spousal/child abuse by force of legislation against the drug that’s at the root of a huge proportion of them? Hence the prominent role played in it by the early women’s rights movement, evangelical churches and so on.
Unfortunately, just because something’s ‘progressive’ doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
It’s still a good idea – the fact that each human being reckons their rights trump the greater good and if a few miscreants can’t control themselves, tough – means that alcohol’s minions are grinning from ear to ear.
Whether Reactionary or “progressive” both sjws and prohibitionists are irritating busybodies who feel they have the right to tell other people what to do (and indeed what to say and think). A plague on them all.
Good Point, same as they said about the opium trade to China, ‘If the Da* mn Ch** ks do not want to buy the stuff, then they do not have to’.
Exactly, they were the wokescolds of their day and all too familiar.
You may never need helping to your feet from the swill of your own vomit, or a bulwark from the destabilising influence poor decision making but others of your fellow citizens are more vulnerable. It is such as your pejorative vernacular that makes me hesitant to reach out as a helpmate.
Indeed: I’ll clink my glass of J2O to that too!
Thanks for some rehabilitation of the reputation of evangelical Christians who do suffer some profound misrepresentation. To the campaigns you highlight could also be added prison reform, the creation of schools and hospitals; and in our time foodbanks and drug rehabilitation work.
The writer did get in his gratuitous barb at “You can picture these people with fine precision: the ideological ancestors of Pat Robertson and every other Christian fundamentalist crank”.
Those people usually did huge good, kept the community healthy and joined up. That this knee jerk attitude exists is mere prejudice, I rather doubt the writer has spent time in the places, and with the people, he is denigrating. I suppose you can say things about that group that would get you canceled if you said such biased things about another. It is always ‘Open Season’ on them.
But then to be fair, the writer did an excellent job of making his excellent point, that Christians have been involved in almost all historical social justice causes, which is why freedoms and social good policies pretty much only came from Western society. And that drug/alcohol harm is the most destructive in the underclasses, where it can be a great evil.
The writer did get in his gratuitous barb at “You can picture these people with fine precision: the ideological ancestors of Pat Robertson and every other Christian fundamentalist crank”.
Those people usually did huge good, kept the community healthy and joined up. That this knee j** k attitude exists is mere prej *dice, I rather doubt the writer has spent time in the places, and with the people, he is denigrating. I suppose you can say things about that group that would get you canceled if you said such bia*ed things about another. It is always ‘Open Season’ on them.
But then to be fair, the writer did an excellent job of making his excellent point, that Christians have been involved in almost all historical social justice causes, which is why freedoms and social good policies pretty much only came from Western society. And that drug/alcohol harm is the most destructive in the undercla* ses, where it can be a great evil.
My post got sent for moderation, so I am trying to put in some * to see if it then gets through. (Actually the J**k was I think the problem, their algorithm is kind of flighty)
I need a good definition of “evangelical.” Does the meaning of the word change? Does it have a special meaning church history? Does it have the same meaning generally as it does in this article?
In popular parlance these days it seems to refer to right-wing Fundamentalists (but even they are quite a mixed bag).
I believe it means Protestants outside of more mainstream churches, giving a more prominent role than the mainstream (although I’m sure plenty would object to this characterisation) to charismatic preaching and the inerrance of Biblical text (‘fundamentalist’) rather than ritual and solemnity. E.g. Baptists and Pentecostals as opposed to high church Anglicans/Episcopalians in the US. Not sure whether all those movements originally considered ‘dissenting’ in the olden days (Quakers/Methodists/Presbyterians/Unitarians etc.) and their descendants would be considered Evangelical, I’m no expert and these days ‘Evangelical’ is usually shorthand for ‘right-wing and socially conservative.’ Many such churches and their members are, but historically they were at the forefront of social reform movements that we now consider progressive (e.g. abolition on both sides of the Atlantic, temperance/prohibition, the Labour party “owing as much to Methodism as to Marxism,” the Sally Army today). I suppose the conservatives among them would argue it’s society that changed, not them!
You may find that contemporary language [vis a vis words] can mean whatever you want it to mean, whenever you say it and can change it according to your prevailing mood and audience. It doesn’t appear to matter if the hearer has a different interpretation – that’s his/her/it/z/their problem. The dictionary is a dinosaur. Whatever that means.
Indeed. Some of the comments remind me about a very famous and wealthy chap who spent his comfortable life railing against such as Mr Boosh’s ‘irritating busybodies’, only to be compassionately cared for by them at the end of his life.
I don’t see why one group of individuals think it’s OK to try to tell another group of individuals how to live their lives. Let drinkers drink provided they don’t annoy/harm anyone else.
I write this as an alcoholic who hasn’t had a drink in over 8 years.
It’s because of the knock-on effect on other people. My father was an alcoholic and I’ve seen the damage done in my family and others.
I’ve seen the same damage (alcoholic father in law) so have sympathy, but would argue that one person’s lack of self control doesn’t justify punishing anybody else.
Did you not read the bit where I said “ Let drinkers drink provided they don’t annoy/harm anyone else.”? Or did you not understand it?
Actually, I missed that.
Mark, the issue is you are one of the modern kind, you forget society used to have ‘Community’, one where individual rights to be antisocial were superseded by what is best for all. Hogarth did the great ‘Gin Lane’ painting to show the depths of destruction your sort of attitude of anything goes wrecks on society which has not the restraint of convention. The inner city ghettos have been made hellish by substance abuse, Crack Cocaine and heroin the ones we all know, Alcohol also.
I lived in the Far North and many communities there have up to 50% babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome.
Again, as I always do in this discussion, say read about the Opium Trade in China, was it OK? Did the right to trade opium exist because as you say ““ Let drinkers drink provided they don’t annoy/harm anyone else.”?” and it was the right of the individual Chinese to decide for themselves?
Modern society has become utterly degenerate, and it is because of your attitude of anything goes if it only destroys you and not others, But this is false, if you allow individuals to destroy themselves it does impact everyone in the greater picture. The problem is degrees. Some social control is vital, and we differ very much at which level that should be at. Personally I see the destruction of marriage as the greatest harm of any in society by a huge margin, and it is from your self based morality that has happened, Porn and sexual freedom being the main tool, welfare being another.
Exceedingly well said.
That’s the key though isn’t it. Particularly where alcoholism has gone hand in hand with poverty, it’s caused a lot of people a lot of harm. Strict prohibitionism may be overkill, but you can see how the view develops that all booze is evil.
Thankfully we’ve learned that banning it has unintended consequences, but there’s still a case to be made that more support is needed in our communities.
Congrats on your achievement there!
The trouble is that heavy drinkers often do annoy/harm other people.
Are you looking at me when you say that? I said… ARE YOU LOOKING AT ME?
I have a heart condition. If you hit me it’s murder.
The world would be a better place if there was less alcohol, but nor do I agree with prohibition. We just need to be collectively more sensible about the syrup.
Prohibition exists with alcohol, in age, hours, tax, where it can be consumed, and so on. The thing is what degree is acceptable. I pretty much think it is about right as it is, but am against legalizing of drugs as I know them and they are no good.
Well said. Alchol and other drugs should be tackled as a personal and community health issue…rather than a draconian legal issue. How’s Nixon’s “War on Drugs” going…yet another defeat for the USA as far as I can see
A very interesting article, exploring an issue I didn’t know anything about. Thank you.
I only have two points to make.
Unfortunately, Garrison’s quoted passage that comes next is a complete non sequitur, in my mind.
The admirable Frederick Douglass’s words are also patently untrue, as the Islamic world clearly shows.
The issue I have with prohibitionists is that they focus entirely on the harm done by the abuse of alcohol by a minority of drinkers while completely ignoring its aesthetic appeal to the majority. Most of us don’t drink for the purpose of intoxication but for the pleasure afforded our taste buds by moderate consumption. Anyone who spends a considerable amount of money on, say, a bottle of vintage port or a 40-year-old single malt is not doing so to get drunk; if that were the intention, a tenner’s worth of supermarket cider would suffice.
Also, as an Anglican for whom the progression from church to pub is second nature, I am not convinced by the Evangelical tendency to regard temperance as a Christian virtue. If our Lord had intended us not to drink, He surely would not have chosen for His first miracle to turn more than 100 gallons of water into wine. Cheers!
Temperance as a Christian virtue simply means not overdoing things and falling into the vice of gluttony that can then connect to anger, lust, sloth, adultery, envy, covetousness and pride. These are the causes of social evils. I’m not a Prohibitionist either but our society has a hypocritical attitude towards alcohol. It knows its evils but encourages its excessive consumption and then complains about the effect. I would venture that far too many people drink too much and it is a minority who just ‘enjoy’ a drink. The sale of alcohol has become far too important for our economy as the lockdown has shown. Thank you, Unherd, for a most interesting article.
You are right Margaret. Jesus said, ‘don’t be drunk with wine,’ not ‘don’t drink wine.’
Ideas so good that they have to be mandatory. What could possibly be more progressive. But it’s a bit of stretch to equate either abolitionists or prohibitionists to today’s wokerati who are intent on fixing problems that have largely been solved.
Thanks for such a timely and informative article to balance the thirst for social drinking. Personally I will be smiling with a pint in hand.
I too will be smiling with a pint in hand, but not until Friday or Saturday. Moderate drinking is far more pleasurable than drunkenness.
“…we project contemporary assumptions to the past.”
A very common failing, which I refer to as ‘retrospective anachronistic presupposition’. It happens a lot when reading ancient documents such as the Bible.
I’m suitably impressed. Do you read ancient documents such as the Bible a lot? For work or leisure?
Lenin and company were pretty much required to wage war by their opponents, competitors, and sometimes even their supposed allies, at least if they wanted to keep breathing. There was not a lot of room in the Russian Empire of 1917-1924 for liberal reformers. And if you want to win a serious war, you probably have to kill a lot of people — ‘mass-murdering’ — and exert authoritarian leadership — ‘tyrant’. I’m severely tempted to engage in some whataboutism here, but I’ll hold off as long as I can.
Temperance to me denotes moderation rather than abstinence. I regard my standard weekly ten unit consumption as temperate.
It was pretty interesting here in South Africa to be thrown repeatedly into a state of prohibition last year. The black market obviously flourished, and in general it seems that a more standard approach has now prevailed with greater limits on opening hours rather than blanket bans. The rebel in me obviously sought out the local shebeens occasionally that sprang up (I actually drink very little normally so ended up drinking more than usual just for the thrill of it). But the social reformer in me also noted the apparently big drop in figures of weekend admissions to our A&Es. I can see the desire to clamp down but it’s obviously not the right approach long term as plenty have realised before now…
The drive toward temperance is often inspired by religious revival. For instance the Welsh Revival of 1904-05 reduced convictions for drunkenness by 50%. The preaching of repentance, the assurance of God’s forgiveness through faith in Christ, and the reception of the joy and inner resources given by the Holy Spirit led many to break with alcohol abuse.
Prohibition was not an issue in Jesus’ time. So it’s not surprising that He is recorded as attending social events where wine will certainly have flowed.(Matthew 9.9-13). He also performed the miracle of changing water into wine.(John2.1-11).
There is little in the New Testament about alcohol as such. But there is some teaching on the literal meaning of temperance which is moderation,restraint and self-control. For instance self-control is listed as one of the signs that God is at work in a person’s life who is filled with His Holy Spirit.( Galatians 5.22-23).
Cheers.
“Can prohibition ever be progressive?” Yes. Obviously. It was explicitly conceived of as a progressive measure – what could be more progressive than attempting to reduce vice, unemployment, crime, poor health, poverty and spousal/child abuse by force of legislation against the drug that’s at the root of a huge proportion of them? Hence the prominent role played in it by the early women’s rights movement, evangelical churches and so on.
Unfortunately, just because something’s ‘progressive’ doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
It’s still a good idea – the fact that each human being reckons their rights trump the greater good and if a few miscreants can’t control themselves, tough – means that alcohol’s minions are grinning from ear to ear.